Thursday, 21 April 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Federal Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients, and call upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron (from 210 citizens), Dr Harry Edwards (from 14 citizens), Mr Halverson (from 23 citizens), Mr Moore (from eight citizens) and Mrs Sullivan (from 392 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectively showeth- That there is a general dissatisfaction in the community at the levels of road funding made available by the Federal Government. While noting the commitment of the Government to maintain a high standard of roads in Australia, we are specifically concerned at the real cutbacks for road funding in the Local Government area. We especially note that roadworks are a labour intensive industry and cutbacks will create unemployment and hardship in rural areas. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, give due consideration to increasing the amount of funds available to Local Government authorities for roadworks. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Brumby (from 109 citizens), Mr Cleeland (from 850 citizens), Mr Cunningham (from 1,344 citizens), Mr McArthur (from 57 citizens) and Mr Mildren (from 706 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X-rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X-rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and its availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from eight citizens), Mr Hand (from 14 citizens) and Mr Shack (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled- The humble Petition of the undersigned Electors showeth: That any proposed redistribution of funds for Nursing and Personal Care staff costs in Nursing Homes will detrimentally affect the quality of care given in Nursing Homes in South Australia and the quality of life of the residents in those Nursing Homes. The Outcome Standards for Nursing Homes, so recently established, will not be achieved and elderly people will not receive the standard of care or quality of life that they need. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will raise the funding level for Nursing and Personal Care staff hours for all States to enable at least the number of hours of care for Nursing Home residents in South Australia to be achieved by all States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Blewett (from 38 citizens), Mr Pratt (from 78 citizens) and Mr Scott (from 82 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australian families are highly dependent upon telephone communications. 2. The Australian community needs an extensive and reasonably priced telephone system. 3. For many Australians, especially the aged and infirm, the telephone provides a ready means of communication especially at times of illness. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the aged, infirm, and other fixed-income groups that are dependent on telephone communication are in no way disadvantaged by any changes to the system of charging for local telephone calls. by Mr Chynoweth (from 28 citizens), Mr Cross (from 17 citizens) and Mr Humphreys (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from three citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Australia shows: that the introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage the sick, elderly and disabled people as well as counselling and community services, particularly Lifeline. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will reject the present proposal by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls as being an unfair cost burden on private individuals. by Mr Braithwaite (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Time-charging for the business sector is also unfair and unreasonable as any charge increase to business will be borne by consumers in the end. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent both Australian people and Australian business from being seriously disadvantaged by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Chynoweth (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Gymea Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels, cash Pension cheques and transact banking. Many of us are Pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Office is 2.3 KMs away with no convenient transport. We maintain that the purpose of the Post Office should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: there is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the readily availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. by Dr Harry Edwards (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Albury-Wodonga and surrounding regions respectfully showeth that: There is widespread concern that current proposals being considered by the government to restructure the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will drastically reduce already-curtailed services to inland Australia. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives/Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Restore the full range of A.B.C. services so as to not further disadvantage non-metropolitan Australians; and ensure that no commercial sponsorship is introduced or any form of advertising material; and maintain an adequately-funded truly independent A.B.C. broadcasting service. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the urgent need, in this Bicentennial year, to acknowledge that Australia was occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for thousands of years before British Settlement in 1788, and to acknowledge the importance of their culture and heritage. Your petitioners therefore request that our federal parliamentarians pass unanimously a resolution in the presence of the Queen on May 9, at the opening of the new Parliament House stating: The Queen, and the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia acknowledge that: Australia was occupied by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders who had settled for thousands of years, before British settlement at Sydney Cove on January 26 1788. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were denied legal recognition of their land rights upon acquisition of their traditional lands by the British Crown. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were denied full citizenship rights of the Commonwealth of Australia prior to May 27 1967. And affirm: The importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage. The entitlement of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to self-management and self-determination subject to the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. And consider it desirable that the Commonwealth negotiate the terms of a compact with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens providing recognition of their special place in the Commonwealth of Australia. by Mr Hand (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors in the Division of Griffith draw to the attention of the House the increase in noise pollution and the subsequent effect on the quality of life of residents in certain southern suburbs of Brisbane, caused by the opening of the new Brisbane domestic airport. Your petitioners therefore request the House to take steps to minimise noise levels and alter aircraft flight paths to enable a return to the lifestyle previously enjoyed by the affected residents. by Mr Humphreys (from 1,726 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We are opposed to the proposed restructuring of the A.B.C. We believe that the A.B.C. is one of the most important public services in Australia and a mainstay of democracy. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the A.B.C. is permitted to continue to offer ``comprehensive'' broadcasting services under its present charter. by Mr Kerr (from 30 citizens). The the Honourable the Speaker and members, House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House the proposed closure of Scullin Primary School. We consider it totally unacceptable that the community should be deprived of its traditional-style, viable, neighbourhood school. The building is at ground level and educationally suitable. To attend alternative schools would impose lengthy, unsafe journeys on many young children. The open space surrounding the school is constantly used for organised sport and as a play area. The closure of such a suburban focal-point would adversely affect our community. We therefore request that the House persuade the Minister to abandon the proposal to close Scullin Primary School. by Mr Langmore (from 1,846 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The sale of violent videos, books glorifying violence, and toys of violence encourages violence in the community, and has a deleterious effect on the more vulnerable members of the community who are easily influenced. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ban the sale of violent videos, books and toys of violence, in an effort to put an end to the increasing number of violent crimes committed in this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the House to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Milton (from 60 citizens) and Mr Scott (from six citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia draws to the attention of the House their conviction that citizens in a democratic society should be able to have a direct say in the laws they are to live under. The Citizen Initiated Referendum, as introduced in Switzerland over 100 years ago and some other countries since, enables a small percentage of voters, by signing a petition, to compel the government to hold a referendum on a law just made by parliament or already in force. If the vote goes against the law, it is automatically repealed. This system has proved outstanding in all the states and countries where it has been adopted. Your petitioners therefore ask: 1. That as our elected representative you introduce and pass the legislation necessary for putting to the people a proposed alteration to the Constitution to secure the adoption of the system of the Citizen Initiated Referendum in the Commonwealth of Australia, and 2. That the House note that your petitioners will be petitioning the Legislatures of the several states in like manner. And your humble petitioners will most earnestly pray. by Mr Prosser (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Borough of Wonthaggi respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to terminate an existing agreement with Latrobe Health Insurance for the provision of facilities for the receipt and limited processing of Medicare claims will: Deny ready access to cash reimbursements of Medicare Claims; Deprive citizens of a personalized reliable claims payment service; Reduce job opportunities in the area; Not effect the savings to Government as stated within the Budget papers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House will reconsider their previous decision to discontinue Medicare Agency arrangements. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith (from 521 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: The irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House: 1. Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia shows: 1. We object to the proposal by Telecom to introduce time charges for local telephone calls, as we feel this would disadvantage the elderly and people who are unable to leave their homes. 2. The telephone is often the only contact relations can have to check on the safety and well-being of those they care for. 3. The inordinate time span which elapses between connection to a business premise and speaking, as the caller holds the line or is transferred between departments, would also disadvantage subscribers who can ill afford it. 4. We feel that the charges Telecom makes at the moment are quite adequate. Your petitioners therefore request immediate intervention by the House to ensure that the Telecom plan for timed local calls is abandoned. by Mr Shack (from 28 citizens). To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card represents a grave threat to the personal privacy and civil liberties of every Australian. 2. Therefore your petitioners request to a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Shipton (from 440 citizens). To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: There is too much crime and violence on television and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: Urge television stations to improve the standard of show, news and current affairs programs by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Sullivan (from 143 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) Bill 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will Refer the above mentioned Bill to the appropriate Parliamentary committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from five citizens). Petitions received. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There being no business relating to committee or delegation reports, in accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, private members' business will be called on. Bill presented by Mr Tuckey. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.06) —During this week the Government's own Director of Public Prosecutions provided a legal opinion which was tabled in this place which, in summary, has raised grave doubts about the effectiveness of the confidentiality provisions of the Health Insurance Commission Bill. This was notwithstanding the assurances expressed in 1973 by the then Minister for Social Security, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), in which he said: One further point which I would like to mention, although it does not specifically relate to provisions contained in the Bill, concerns the confidentiality of personal medical records and other information which will be required. He went on to say: Further to this, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the special committee which has been appointed by the Attorney-General to examine what measures will be needed to guarantee the individual's right of privacy under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In other words, notwithstanding that, the Director of Public Prosecutions has come up with a contrary view as to the extent to which people's privacy is guaranteed under that legislation. Furthermore, notwithstanding the view of other learned counsel, as was said by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) here the other day, that the law is adequate and that the actions of certain Ministers and their staff and others should be subject to prosecution, Mr Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has told the Government, and consequently this Parliament, that there is a major loophole in the law protecting people's privacy. Privacy is something that even the Attorney-General was very specific upon in Western Australia during the ID card debate. It was the Attorney-General who said that above all else privacy was paramount and it must be protected in any legislation. We had the Government at that time telling us that we had absolutely nothing to worry about with the ID card legislation; the law would protect us. When we turn to the law, which is very clear to the layman, the experts come in and we find that a Minister and other people who participated are not guilty-in the view, that is, of the Director of Public Prosecutions-irrespective of the fact that information relating to certain procedures, to certain specialities and of course to certain charges that were levied, was provided from the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) via the Minister's office, to a member of parliament who then provided it to the Press. It is not the level of information that is significant in this. It is the fact that any information could have come from the Health Insurance Commission in the same way. Let me briefly tell the House what Mr Temby has told us. He has said that provided a Minister says to one of his own staffers, `I want you to give backbencher Smith some information he requires and I want you to get it from the Health Insurance Commission, but when you do so, make sure you do not give him anything that is not legal', if the Minister then wanders off and the staffer takes up the job and contacts an officer in the Health Insurance Commission asking for confidential information, the HIC can give it to him because that officer is doing it in the course of his duties. The HIC is properly providing information to the Minister's office. It is not in trouble. Once the information gets into the hands of the staffer, according to Mr Temby, the staffer is not constrained by the Act because he is not an officer. So there is no obligation on him to tell the HIC what he wants to do with the information. All he has to do is get it and then he can give it to anyone. If that is correct, and the Director of Public Prosecutions is correct, the law is an ass because we have a law and we have people such as the Minister saying-in his second reading speech-that the Government has to guarantee the privacy of people. Yet by this simple mechanism a Minister can arrange for the most confidential information contained in the Health Insurance Commission, to be passed out through the Minister's office. I remind honourable members that it is not put into the Commission voluntarily by people but compulsorily in the processes of the operation of that Commission. We in the Opposition do not necessarily agree with the opinion of Mr Temby but we think this circumstance has to be put beyond doubt, and the purpose of my amendment is to put it beyond doubt. It puts an obligation on the Minister and his officers to comply with the fundamental rules that are laid down in section 130 of the original Health Insurance Commission Act. I call upon this House, if it has any respect at all for confidentiality and the promises of a previous government, to support us immediately and have this matter resolved and put beyond doubt-although we think there is sufficient protection, as the Attorney-General obviously does, in the original Act. I presume that puts him in conflict with his own Director of Public Prosecutions. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired Bill read a first time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! In accordance with sessional order 104a, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.12) —I move: That this House- (1) views with concern the emergence of the extremist new right in Australia and the increased influence of these forces on Australian institutions and society; (2) believes that this development poses a threat to the well-being of the Australian community; and (3) calls on concerned Australians to unite and participate in the democratic processes in order to preserve the Australian way of life. I thank the House for the opportunity to move the motion appearing in my name and relating to the New Right. I am very pleased to be able to raise these important issues in the House today. I am even more delighted by the fact that I am being supported in this debate by two of my Queensland colleagues, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca) and the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice), people who are in this Parliament and able to defend the interests of Queenslanders because they were able to triumph over the forces of the New Right, to which I will refer in my contribution today. I should like to begin by placing on record my deep appreciation to the Parliament for the reforms that have taken place in the Sessional Orders which allow, I believe for the first time, the back bench members to set some agenda items for debate in the Parliament and to raise issues that perhaps otherwise would not see the light of day in normal debate. My own view is that the greater the contribution back bench members can make to the Parliament and the less constrained they are by the Executive front bench on both sides of the House, the better it will be for the Parliament and for the institution of democracy. Having said that, I wish to set the scene for the remarks I am going to make today. I want to make it clear from the outset that what I am going to be talking about will not be in the form of some ideological tirade. It will not be an attack on conservatism because I believe there is a genuine school of conservative thought that has been present in this country for a very long time. It is one that acknowledges past traditions and wishes to preserve what those views see as valuable. I acknowledge the validity and the legitimacy of those views in the Australian context. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the Opposition speakers in this debate, probably reflect that genuine school of conservative thought. Thus my comments are not really directed at them because, if you like, they are the human face of conservative politics; they are kindly people who I believe have real conviction about their conservative values. They do not represent the extremist forces, the ugly forces of greed and self-interest that I believe have taken a significant hold on many of the institutions in this country, the most important of which, of course, is the once liberal party. I believe that that institution is, regrettably, a liberal party no longer, as I shall make clear in my remarks today. I believe that the attitudes and views of the New Right are un-Australian; they are alien to the past traditions of the Liberal Party and the old Country Party. I say `the old Country Party' because there is no longer a country party that represents the interests of rural Australia. We now see a party which has deserted its base and which has now become much more interested in big business and in vested interests. Of course, as a result of that abandonment by the old Country Party of its traditional base, the country people of Australia are turning to alternatives. We see that disintegration of the National Party of Australia occurring in Queensland today. There are many people in the National Party like the honourable member for Cowper who want their party back. They do not want it to be dictated to and controlled by New Right forces such as Senator John Stone. I do not want the people of Australia or honourable members to take my views as necessarily the prevailing views on this issue; I will back up my comments with very clear evidence of how traditional liberals reject the New Right philosophy. Mr Malcolm Fraser, speaking after the last Federal election, went on the public record as saying that the New Right was motivated by narrow ideology, wealth and selfishness. He warned that the New Right must not be allowed to gain control of the Liberal Party and said that many of the philosophies expounded by the New Right would have received the strongest possible condemnation by the founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies. Mr Fraser went on to say that in a number of ways Australia is becoming an unbalanced nation where self-interest and financial power govern all. It is not only Malcolm Fraser who deplores the increased influence of the New Right in the Liberal Party. I venture to say that people such as Doug Anthony deplore it. The late Sir John McEwen would turn in his grave if he knew what Senator Stone was doing to the once proud Country Party. It is a tragedy for rural Australians. I will comment further in that regard later. It is not only Malcolm Fraser and I who are concerned about the New Right; the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) has repeatedly gone on the public record expressing his concern. His famous statement about the New Right was very frank. To use his words, he said that the New Right was ripping the guts out of the Liberal Party. I refer now to the question of where the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) stands on the New Right. What does he say in response to these attacks on the New Right by Malcolm Fraser, his former leader, and the genuine liberals in the Liberal Party? Time and time again he has gone on the public record as not only refusing to distance himself from the New Right-- Mr Sciacca —He supports them. Mr TICKNER —Yes, as the honourable member for Bowman says-but also embracing its ideology. The Leader of the Opposition supports them. Honourable members do not have to take my word for it. They only need look at the public record because it shows time and again the Leader of the Opposition walking side by side with the New Right. When the Leader of the Opposition was interviewed on the Willesee program, Ray Martin put to him the obvious question that we ask, `Mr Howard, so you don't think the so-called New Right is extremist?'. The Leader of the Opposition said, `No, not at all'. On a whole range of issues, the Leader of the Opposition has embraced the New Right and its leaders. I make the point that although at this stage the New Right has limited parliamentary representation, it does not necessarily need seats in parliament to have a profound impact on the conservative parties because it can shape the agenda of those parties outside parliament. It is a tragedy that the intellectual force in the conservative parties does not sit on the green benches of the House of Representatives but is involved with the extreme New Right outside parliament. Although these people have a profound influence on the Opposition without a lot of parliamentary seats, they want the seats as well. Many members of the Opposition, both in the National Party and the Liberal Party, are very worried about the next round of pre-selections because they know that there will be a cleansing of the small `l' Liberal forces from the Liberal Party. This trend is developing in the State of Victoria, but there is no doubt that it will spread Australia wide. The New Right has raised three central issues and they have permeated the policies of the conservative parties. The first issue is industrial relations; the second is taxation; and the third is the philosophy of the conservatives on the role, size and function of government. In the limited time available to me, I will discuss each of those aspects. First, in relation to industrial relations, I make reference to this Government's record. It has brought about a record low level of industrial disputation in this country and surely no-one would quarrel with that. That will assist our national productivity and exports, and it will continue to put this Government and this country on the road to economic recovery. What of the New Right and the Opposition? It used to be the case that people on the left of the political spectrum were accused of advocating class welfare. In the Australian context, such views were, quite properly, relegated to a peripheral irrelevancy on the political landscape but we now find that, in fact, it is the Opposition which advocates class welfare. It is seeking to promote divisions, confrontation and massive industrial disputation in order to pursue its New Right ideology. I do not want people to accept just my views. The comments of people with longstanding involvement in industrial relations on the conservative side of politics and those who are independents bear out my remarks. The honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), a Liberal member, is on the record as warning that the industrial relations policy of the H. R. Nicholls Society, the leading arm of the New Right, would, in his words, `risks returning Australia to the inhumane exploitation of the past'. He says that no true Liberal who has compassion for other human beings can have a bar of the New Right. Honourable members need not take my word as being true unless it is backed up. Let me refer honourable members to what Senator Harradine had to say about this ideology. In the Senate on 17 September 1986, he said: It is interesting to observe that when I first came into the trade union movement as an official-it is too long ago to remember now, but it was probably 25 years ago-it was the extreme Left and the communist elements of the trade union movement that were seeking to smash the arbitration system. That is the same New Right that the Leader of the Opposition embraces and walks side by side with in his political philosophy. There are, of course, other important areas where the New Right has had an influence-and I have mentioned taxation and the role and size of government functions. In the limited time available to me today it is not possible to chronicle every single area where the New Right has captured the agenda and policies of the Opposition parties, but I refer to a number of them. First, I refer to the Opposition's total commitment to the ideology of deregulation-that is, total government abdication of its regulatory role in a number of areas. We in the Government have an entirely different view. We do not have that hangup about deregulation. We say that we should look at each particular case and see whether regulation assists the public interest. If it does not, it should be repealed. If there is a deficiency in government regulation there should be reform. We do not have the view that government should abdicate its responsibility for protecting the public interest. I will make a point now that I will also make later on in another debate in this Parliament. I challenge the honourable member for Cowper to defend the ideology of deregulation. Coming from a rural seat, he knows that the rural people of Australia-that is, people in the country towns-will not wear deregulation. Deregulation would mean the end of government involvement in primary production, which has existed virtually since this Commonwealth of Australia was formed, and this would mean ruination for rural Australia. Will the honourable member for Cowper defend deregulation and government application of public interest protection in relation to apples, wine and brandy, barley, canned fruits, cotton, the dairy industry, dried fruits, eggs, fish, game and poultry, grain, grapes, honey, oilseeds, the pig industry, poultry, wheat, wool and so on? In all those areas there is either some compulsory scheme for acquisition or a substantial scheme for government research and involvement in the industry which is, of course, broadly supported by rural Australia. Any move to take that away would be bitterly resisted. So where is the intellectual honesty? Let me hear the honourable member for Cowper support deregulation of all those industries. He will not because he is a true country member and he will not have a bar of the extremist ideology of the New Right. My time to speak on areas of taxation and government involvement is running out. I do not have the opportunity to put before this House the detailed information that I spoke of a couple of days ago in relation to the Appropriation Bills. On that occasion I reminded the House of what the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), did when he embraced the proposals of the Business Council of Australia to cut spending. Honourable members will remember that only last Sunday the Business Council of Australia put out an extensive program that would slash the living standards and quality of life of Australians. On the same day and at the same hour as the Business Council put forward its proposal for cuts the shadow Treasurer already had a copy of that Business Council of Australia document. He embraced the cuts proposed in it and called for even more draconian cuts in the living standards of Australians. That is the extent to which the Opposition has become a captive of the New Right. I hope that the honourable member for Cowper and the honourable member for Wakefield will reject the New Right ideology. My time has almost run out. Let me conclude with this one note: I am not a person who believes simply in triennial ballot box democracy. I do not believe that if we are going to really change the face of this country and improve our quality of life as Australians that we can leave it to the politicians. I say that people in their everyday life right across this country have to be active participants in our Australian democracy. If we are apathetic, if we just simply leave it to the institutions, we are going to find that our country will lose the values that have been regarded as Australian, the fair dinkum values of caring, of compassion and all of the other things that I believe are central to the Australian quality of life. I call on Australians to reject the New Right and support Australian values. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Sciacca —I second the motion. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.31) —I must say that I was surprised to hear some of the statements that were made by my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). I have no hesitation in saying that I not only like him personally but I respect him. But it is a sad fact of life that, in spite of the principles that he espouses and his desire to do the right thing by the Australian community, unfortunately he is misguided. Regrettably he has grown up on the wrong side of politics. But I acknowledge fully the sincerity with which he puts forward his particular case. I am very perturbed-and I did not expect this from the honourable member; he probably does not realise it, but he will now-that effectively what the honourable member is doing is trying to introduce some sort of censorship. He is saying, `We do not want to hear from the New Right'. In fact, his motion, in part, states: That this House- (1) views with concern the emergence of the extremist new right in Australia and the increased influence of these forces on Australian institutions and society; Why do the honourable member for Hughes and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) want to muzzle opposition? Why do they want to stifle debate? I think it is fair to say that since Federation and the emergence of the Labor Party, people with radical left wing views have been able to put their case as they see it. They have been able to influence debate in this country. I do not agree with most, if not all, of the things which they are proposing. But I would defend with my life their right to put their case. The honourable member for Hughes has come into this place this morning and in effect said, `We want to muzzle opposition; we want to stifle debate'. I am disappointed that my friend, the honourable member for Hughes, has, by import, done this. I believe that the so-called New Right-and I must say that I am not terribly concerned about the New Right-should have available to it an avenue for debate. It is putting a point of view which is not necessarily my point of view, just as the left wing viewpoint is not my point of view. I must say again that the New Right has a legitimate right to speak in Australian society, just as does any other group which is not involved in transgressing the boundaries of democracy in this country. I think the admission of the honourable member that the New Right is increasingly influencing society and institutions in Australia shows that the Hawke Labor Government is concerned by the return to dominance in this country of right wing conservative forces. This is just not an idle claim. We just have to look at what has happened in recent weeks at the by-elections in the electorates of Adelaide and Port Adelaide, the New South Wales election, the Brisbane City Council, the Groom by-election and even Barambah. With the exception of Port Adelaide-and, by crikey, the Labor vote was down a long way and the Government very nearly lost that seat-Labor lost. What we are seeing here today is perhaps the emergence of a thrust by the Labor Party and the Labor Government to endeavour to muzzle debate and to stop the emergence of views with which they disagree. The ALP is licking its wounds in New South Wales. I believe that those wounds will be mortal and that it will be condemned to an eternity in opposition. On 19 March, the Unsworth machine was the first of what will become a succession of Labor governments to fall in the next couple of years. To label the New Right `extremist', whilst it is an attempt at fearmongering, can be applied equally to the left wing elements of the ALP, but I refuse to do that. I believe that the left wing of the ALP has the right, as has every other organisation in Australia, to speak, to be heard, and to be heard quite freely without an attempt being made to shut it up. That the emergence of the New Right poses a threat to the well-being of the Australian community is an absolutely laughable notion. It does nothing of the kind. We live in a democracy where freedom of political views and freedom of association are cherished by every Australian, except when it comes to unionism. One is free to join a union but, in most cases, one is not free not to join a union. Surely it is not the New Right but the Government of this country which poses a threat to our well-being. I am not concerned about the New Right; I am concerned about the new poor created by Labor. Twenty years ago elderly Australians were our poor. Today there is a new group. The person having most trouble making ends meet today is the young Australian with a family and a total family income of between $10,000 and $25,000 a year. More than 80 per cent of such people worry about whether they will be able to meet their household bills. There are times when there is no money for clothing, medical care or food. The new poor are young Australian families. If the honourable member for Hughes is fair dinkum-he used the words `fair dinkum' in his contribution-he will be more concerned about the new poor than about the New Right. Australia's current account deficit poses a threat to our well-being. It poses much more of a threat than the New Right does. Let us consider the Government's statements. A month ago they were full of doom and gloom in terms of the economy. After a few electoral losses-we all know about them so I will not repeat them-only last Monday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went on about the economic miracle. Suddenly the gloom and doom had disappeared and, because of the electoral losses, we were in the middle of an economic miracle. Yesterday it was announced that the current account deficit for March was $1.185 billion. So the Treasurer (Mr Keating) wiped out any hope of tax cuts, which he had been touting and promoting for quite some time. So we are back to doom and gloom. One of the problems for this country is that the Hawke-Keating Labor Government Administration is practising yoyo economics: today we are fine, we are on a psychological high, and tomorrow we are down in the dumps again. There is great inconsistency in the Government's approach to the economic management of this country. I am more concerned about that than I am about the New Right. Our foreign debt has trebled in just five years. Senator Button, a Labor Minister, said on the Michael Schildberger program on 11 February this year: We were in very grave danger that the IMF would come in here and say: `This economy is not working, you've got to cut pensions by 25 per cent, you've got to cut wages by 30 per cent.' That is the threshold which we have been on. As with the honourable member for Hughes, Senator Button is a man whose honesty and sincerity I respect. Senator Button said that we were on the threshold of pensions being cut by 25 per cent and wages by 30 per cent. It was not me or the New Right saying that; it was a Labor Minister. Yet the time of this country and this Parliament has been occupied this morning by debating the alleged extremist position of the New Right. Thousands of young Australians are locked out of tertiary education. I am more concerned about that than I am about the New Right. Hundreds of thousands more are out of work. That concerns me more than does the situation with the New Right. I must respond to the assertion made by the honourable member for Hughes that the National Party does not represent regional Australia. I can say without hesitation or fear of correct contradiction that the National Party is dedicated to the care of the people of regional Australia. The honourable member for Hughes was saying that the Liberal Party-and by inference, I suppose that he means the coalition-has its agenda shaped outside the Parliament. How can he, a left wing member of the Labor Party, stand up in this place and accuse the coalition of having its agenda shaped outside the Parliament? We all know what influence the unions have on the Labor Party. We all know how they control the agenda of the Labor Party. Mr Andrew —How democratic are they? Mr NEHL —They are not democratic at all; we know that. I reject totally the suggestion that the New Right is shaping the agenda of the coalition conservative parties in this Parliament. The time for this debate is limited, but I have to ask: what is wrong with the New Right or anybody else speaking out against compulsory unionism? What is wrong with the New Right speaking out in favour of reform of the industrial arbitration system? I conclude my remarks by calling on all Australians to continue to participate in the democratic process by voting out all the other Labor governments in the next two years. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(10.42) —Sincere though the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) is, he has entirely missed the point. The motion before the House is not about muzzling anybody. It is simply a warning to the Australian public to be very careful of the antics of the New Right. The honourable member's commitment to defending the New Right is obvious from the fact that he devoted at least half of his speech waffling on about something that was irrelevant to the motion. I rise to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). Coming from Queensland, I can speak with some experience of the effects of the New Right's policies. In Queensland we suffer from the effects of government policies inspired by a New Right regime. What we see in Queensland amounts to an experiment of the application of a mild form of New Right philosophy. I say that it is a mild form not because the effects are not destructive and divisive, but because even in Queensland we have not reached the stage at which some honourable members opposite who are friends of the New Right would like to see us. Just what is the New Right? Its members can be distinguished from some traditional moral conservatives because they do not follow a consistent moral line and prefer to concentrate more on economic and industrial objectives. The term `New Right' is somewhat deceptive. The use of the word `new' should imply that whatever one is talking about has not been tried before. This is not the case with the New Right. Its extreme views, which include the crushing of the trade union movement-that has been acknowledged here today-have been around for a long time. Despite the rhetoric which the New Right uses, its views are simply a cynical attempt to introduce nineteenth century ideas about social relationships and an intolerance of disadvantaged and minority groups. Its views are far from new. It would have us turn the clock back two centuries and reverse the progress that has been made in protecting the underprivileged from the worst abuses of the capitalist system. The real concern, as expressed by this motion, is the unfortunate emergence in Australia of these views once again. We are continually told by the New Right leaders, such as Andrew Hay and Charles Copeman, that they alone know what the people of Australia want and need. It would be easy simply to dismiss them and to dismiss their warped view of the world as irrelevant drivel. Drivel it is, but it is not irrelevant, because anything which threatens our society in the way that the New Right has the potential to do, cannot be ignored. Mr Courtice —It is dangerous. Mr SCIACCA —Exactly; it is very dangerous. The dismissal of the New Right as merely right wing fringe lunatics is indeed tempting, but it is a temptation which we must avoid. The debate on this motion provides an opportunity for the Parliament to discuss the dangers of the New Right philosophy as it applies to the community. The political philosophy of the New Right in Australia is based on a belief that laissez-faire capitalism is the ideal way to organise society. Reduced to its most basic, its argument is that what is good for business is good for the nation. What Australians have to understand is that this philosophy is one heavily laden with ideology-that is, it is pure propaganda. There is nothing scientific about its approach. Despite what it would have us believe, it has never been shown that this philosophy is a solution to any of the problems of the world economy or, for that matter, of any country. In fact, where experimentation with its extremist principles has occurred, such as in Queensland, it has been an overwhelming failure. The very fact that the so-called New Right has chosen this point in Australia's history to become active is a product in part of overseas influences such as the Thatcher and Reagan governments. But it is also evidence of the effective role that Australia's Labor Government is playing in making this country a better and fairer place for all Australians to live. The New Right's emergence is in direct response to the Hawke Government. The New Right feels the need to counter our achievements with its right wing propaganda and to disguise its views as some kind of law of nature. Despite constant challenges to his authority, the super dry free marketeer, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is himself evidence of the inroads which the New Right has made into our Australian institutions. It is to its credit, I suppose, that the New Right has been able to get into the position of Leader of the Opposition a man with the views of John Howard. It would no doubt be very pleased as well with its efforts in New South Wales. If any people present or listening today have any doubts about the credentials of the Leader of the Opposition as a lieutenant in the New Right army, I would remind them of continual utterances, some of which have been included in Press reports, of his desire to completely crush the union movement. Mr Nehl —That's not true. Mr SCIACCA —I ask the honourable member who is interjecting whether he has heard this quote before: Ultimately you have to create a situation where there is a decline in union membership. You have to break the stranglehold of the Arbitration Commission on wage fixing and provide opportunities for opting out so as to create a climate where people would go around the unions. Sounds familiar? Echoes of Copeman? I describe the Leader of the Opposition as only a lieutenant because he is not really the one calling the shots. Despite this, he and his New Right mates are quite proud of their achievement of banishing to the back benches anyone in the Parliamentary Liberal Party who has any compassion at all. Any Opposition members who have shown the slightest dampness in their views have been put so far down the back that they need binoculars to see their Leader, let alone the Government benches. The motion refers to concern about the increased influence of the New Right on Australian institutions. Perhaps the place where they are having the greatest influence is the greatest institution in this country-this Parliament. More and more the Liberal Party exists to echo the views of the extra-parliamentary forces which are the New Right. The New Right members are not traditional conservatives who would only try to maintain entrenched power and wealth, but radical reactionaries. They assert that the out of date and romantic notion of the invisible hand of the marketplace will allocate the wealth of our society. The not so well off of our country know that without the Government maintaining a welfare system, the only trickle-down they will experience is the drops of water for their unpatched roofs. The propaganda of the New Right unashamedly does not seek to convince those less fortunate in our society. It recognises that it has no chance of convincing these people of the merits of an argument that amounts to `Leave it to us; we'll look after you'. This sounds familiar. No, its arguments are targeted to appeal to the selfish side of people. It has two separate standards: one for the rich and one for the poor. Its desire is also to have society itself based on a clear division between the classes, but the dangerous thing is that one would never guess that from its rhetoric. The other side of the New Right's attack, beside the welfare system, is the trade union movement. Again, its rhetoric would suggest that it has the best interests of the working person at heart. Catchcries like `freedom of choice' and `flexibility' all have positive connotations, but the realities of the effects of such policies as deregulating the labor market are quite different. In Queensland the concept of flexibility in the labour market National Party style is being attempted in the form of voluntary work contracts. I understand that the first of these to be submitted has been knocked back by the courts. Under such a system nothing will stop the less scrupulous employers from undercutting those who are responsible and sending the job market into a spiral of ever-worsening wages and conditions. I spoke earlier of the New Right experiment which is occurring in Queensland. Nothing has changed in this regard since the former Premier was forced, kicking and screaming, from the spotlight in Queensland. The same policies prevail and the same policy failures are being recorded. Queensland is honoured by being the leader among the States in many economic indicators. We have the highest level of unemployment, the highest inflation rate and the worst industrial relations record of any State. Another disturbing aspect of the New Right's activities in the community is the role which it is playing in the immigration debate. The views of Professor Blainey are well known in the community. His standing as a professor of history in one of our country's academic institutions lends to his arguments a legitimacy which any academic assessment would reveal they do not deserve. His attachment to this institution has given racism an academic base, in the same way that the New Right seeks to legitimise its views on economics and industrial relations by giving them an academic base. Senator John Stone's antics have been known very well, as we all know. He talks about not bringing people into the country unless they can speak English. The New Right knows that its true mission is unpalatable, so it disguises it in rhetoric and seeks to give the rhetoric an air of respectability by attaching it to academia through its think-tanks. After all, who can doubt a scientific fact? Its aim has been assisted willingly by the Opposition parties in this place, as I am sure the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) is going to do shortly. I conclude by restating the plea made in the final part of the motion being debated. The plea is for all Australians to unite in the democratic process to rid Australian society of this smear which represents what we have all struggled for so long to leave behind us. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.51) —I welcome the opportunity to join the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) in debating with the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) what has been the thrust of his motion, which suggests that there has been an emergence in Australia of extreme right wing elements that we all ought to fear. There is a great deal of common ground across this Parliament. We, as members of the Liberal and National parties, and those in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) would equally be concerned about the emergence of extreme right wing organisations. On this side of the Parliament, I have no truck with extreme right wing organisations just as I suggest that no member of the Australian Labor Party has any truck with Communist Party affiliations. Any minority group emerging in our nation and undermining our democracy will be challenged by people in this Parliament, whether that minority group springs from the right or from the left or whether that minority group even be the Australian Democrats exercising more power than it has been given legitimately by the electorate. That will be tackled. It is grossly wrong and offensive and it reflects poorly on the honourable member for Hughes that he should come in here and have the barefaced audacity to suggest that members on this side of the Parliament have some sort of affiliation with extreme right wing groups. It is as offensive to me that he should suggest that as it would be for him if I were to say that the honourable member for Hughes was a member of the Communist Party. I would not and do not make that allegation. Likewise, he should not suggest that we on this side of the Parliament have any sympathy with extreme right wing organisations. Mrs Harvey —Some of you do. Mr ANDREW —Let me say in response to the honourable member for Hawker, who suggests that some of us do, that there are extreme right wing organisations in this nation and they get no encouragement at all from this side of the Parliament. I cannot understand how it is that the honourable member for Hughes singles out the New Right for criticism. If I were worried about extreme right wing organisations in this nation I would be singling out, for example, the League of Rights for criticism. I publicly denounce today what it stands for and I do so supported by the 63 other people who sit on this side of the House. Mr Sciacca —And over here too. Mr ANDREW —Of course. All right; 148 if the honourable member wishes. In my electorate when extreme right wing groups emerge I tend to deflect those people into areas such as the Institute of Public Affairs. I say, `Why do you not pick up their information? Why do you not affiliate with them and get a sense of what real right wing sentiment is about, instead of chasing the right wing nonsense peddled by extreme groups?'. To suggest that this side of the Parliament is allied in some way with extreme right wing organisations is as offensive to me as it would be to the honourable member if I were to suggest that the Communist Party was successfully infiltrating the ALP. The honourable member for Hughes, in the latter part of his motion, calls on all concerned Australians to unite and participate in the democratic processes in order to preserve the Australian way of life. Around this Parliament we will say, `Hear, hear!', because the Australian way of life, in our bicentennial year, reflects a healthy scorn for authority and a healthy pride in individualism, and that is what the people on this side of the Parliament stands for. The honourable member for Bowman said that we want to turn the clock back two centuries. Let us turn the clock back two centuries. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would not mind if you turned it back 10 minutes to give me a little extra time. Let us turn the clock back two centuries. In 1788 the average life expectancy for men in Europe was 24.3 years. In 1988 in Australia it is 72.6 years. Mr Sciacca —What is the relevance? Mr ANDREW —The relevance is that 200 years ago, the two centuries he wants to turn the clock back, capitalism-as he calls it-was unknown. It was born then. What was the difference? The change was that suddenly what individuals did was important. The capacity for the market to reflect what was needed and people to be rewarded for what they did came into being as a result of that philosophy. The honourable member for Bowman nominated the time span of two centuries. Two centuries ago a philosophical change occurred and as a result we have enjoyed two centuries of more economic progress, more freedom, more individual rights than has ever been known. On this side of the Parliament we stand for that measure of individual freedom and we are offended by the way in which the honourable member for Bowman would impose some sort of a corporate government state on individual Australians. We recognise the sovereignty of the individual. That is what we stand for and that is what right of centre people stand for. The honourable member had the audacity in this debate to denigrate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and to suggest quite frankly that we would crush the union movement. I happen to be a member of a union-the National Farmers Federation, the United Farmers and Stock Owners of South Australia and the Murray Citrus Growers Association-and I am in it voluntarily. That is what we stand for-voluntary unionism, not compulsory unionism. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.58) —I move: That this House supports action to increase employment for all Australians, particularly through- (1) developing training programs to assist young people, the disadvantaged and those affected by technological and structural change; and (2) providing financial support for the development of innovative training schemes designed to assist the Australian work force to become a highly-skilled part of an internationally competitive economy. The Labor Government can point with considerable pride to the generation of over one million new jobs-actually 1,011,000 new jobs-with unemployment falling to 7.4 per cent and a substantial increase in labour force participation, particularly by women. In fact, if the labour force participation had not grown-that is, more people wanting to work-unemployment would be down to 5 per cent. It is in terms of the direct and real benefits to the economy and to ordinary people that we can measure a government's performance, not by the column inches of rhetoric in government reports. Here, the Hawke Government gets top marks. It is easy to concentrate on the 92 per cent employed and overlook the 7.4 per cent unemployed. There is a real danger that we have become inured to high rates of unemployment and that unemployment of the order of 7 to 12 per cent is somehow acceptable. Of particular concern are the long term unemployed. Many of those people are the victims of structural adjustment of our economy. Armed with inflexible basic skills or, indeed, with a total lack of skills, this group has no defence against change. As with comparable countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, long term unemployment rose gradually in Australia after the downturn of the mid 1970's, jumped sharply after the 1982 recession and has subsequently remained relatively intractable despite substantial employment growth. At the end of last year some 166,000 people, or 28 per cent of all unemployed, as surveyed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, had been out of work for 12 months or more. That is more than one out of four. I am particularly concerned about those in what we call the `prime age employable group', those between 21 and 44, because it is this age group that usually has families with dependent children. So they should be of particular concern. The incidence of long term unemployment is unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future in the context of little projected improvement in overall unemployment. The continued existence of significant levels of long term unemployment imposes substantial economic, personal and social costs on the community. Economic costs include potential labour supply constraints on economic expansion, skill mismatches in the context of rapid structural change, loss of output, wages and taxation receipts and increased outlays on income support to the unemployed. The Government must maintain its commitment to improving education, training and employment opportunities for the long term unemployed and other groups identified as disadvantaged in the labour market. These include Aboriginal people, migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds, disabled people, sole parents, women seeking to enter or re-enter the labour force and those I mentioned earlier without marketable skills who were displaced from employment through structural and technological change. There is a strong and well demonstrated relationship between low socioeconomic status, lack of skills and high levels of unemployment and other forms of social disadvantage. Considering educational attainment alone, the rate of unemployment among persons lacking formal post-school qualifications stood at nearly 12 per cent at the beginning of last year, compared with 5.3 per cent for those who held such qualifications and only 3 per cent for those who are graduates in higher education. This gap widens further with additional allowances made for differences in socioeconomic backgrounds. Without appropriate government intervention, people lacking vocational training and qualifications are likely to become even more disadvantaged over time in a labour market which increasingly values skills and relevant employment experience. A society which does not respond to the needs of its disadvantaged groups will incur the heavy socioeconomic costs of underdeveloped and underutilised human resources. I must say that the Government has achieved much in these areas. Over its first four years, for example, more than a million placements were made under Commonwealth labour force programs such as the community employment program (CEP). These were directed primarily towards the unemployed or otherwise disadvantaged. The national policy on languages will provide increased resources for English language training for migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds. But still more needs to be done, in particular to improve the access of these groups to mainstream opportunities for education, training and skills development. The collapse in our terms of trade, where we lost some $11 billion of income for this country, has starkly exposed the central vulnerability of our economy. The fluctuating Australian dollar and the plunge in prices for our commodities has really exposed for all to see the fragility of our economy. Yesterday, we heard the current account figures for the month of March. They showed that we had the highest level of imports ever recorded and that with a continuation of the slowdown in export growth contributed to the poor current account figure which was a $383m increase over February, the month before, and the largest deficit in five months. The problems of both imports and exports have been apparent, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) pointed out, for several months but have been masked by the recent strong commodity prices increase and a stronger Australian dollar. So let us not be fooled by short term changes; it is going to be a long haul. But the answer surely has to be in import replacement and building up our exports. To build up those exports with proper prices we need to have more value-added production in this country. Just a reminder is the fact that only 5 per cent of the wool produced is processed to the final stage. We are a cotton grower, yet only 10 per cent of our cotton crop is processed here. They are just two examples of how we need to bring about structural change, increase our production in secondary industries to increase our value-added level and protect ourselves from our current deficits problems. The collapse has exposed us to the lack of economic preparation which we had undertaken to enable our economy to become more competitive, although that preparation could have underpinned our future in a more competitive and certainly much more unforgiving world. We were content with the easy income that flowed for many years from our natural endowments. Other countries, however, were getting on with the job. They were meeting competition head on and doing that through diversification. The rest of the world is changing. It is racing ahead of us. Not even our high tariffs will protect us. The Government is moving towards lower tariffs and we will continue to have lower tariffs right across a range of our industries. But in the process of reducing tariffs we have to have a response from industry to cope with the changes which necessarily accompany a lowering of protection. As the economy has been increasingly exposed to international forces the response from industry has been much slower than we might have hoped for. We have probably the most efficient farmers in the world and we have top agricultural scientists. Our miners have an excellent reputation throughout the world. Our engineers can stand with any of their peers throughout the globe. These people are all in our traditional commodity production areas. But we have now realised that in relation to skills, we are not producing the kinds of skills needed by the newer industries. One reason is that industry has been rather slow to tell us exactly what skills we need. The range of skills that Australia has come to rely on is relatively narrow by world standards. When a shortage showed up there was always the easy, comforting resort to immigration or, alternatively, to hire or steal skilled workers from amongst our competitors. But our task ahead is not simply a matter for government. It is not just a matter of government spending too little on education, for if we look at our expenditure on education and training by governments, State and Federal, we compare very favourably with other countries. If we look at the last 20 years, just as one example, we see that the amount spent by governments on each child in the school system has increased four-fold in real terms. This Government has contributed to that increase and increased opportunities in education. In the immediate post-compulsory years this has been the most fundamental component of the Government's strategy. A few of the achievements of the Government in this area are that retention rates to year 12 in schools have increased from just over 40 per cent five years ago to over 53 or 54 per cent now; after a slow start the Australian traineeship system has grown to over 12,000 trainees with further strong growth expected this year. Over 70 per cent of these trainees are girls. This system provides a new structured combination of work and training and, in time, will provide a major entry point to the work force for many young people. The apprenticeship system continues to provide a similar entry point to the work force for many young people with an increase in intake of some 36 per cent-that is more than one-third-between 1983-84 and three years later. Nonetheless, the apprenticeship system requires reform, for example, through changes flowing from the metals award and through competency rather than simply time-based certification. In higher education the Government has created an additional 54,200 places since it came to office in 1983. However, with current levels of unmet demand, continued growth in places is essential. It is recognised by the Government's higher education Green Paper with a commitment to a major increase in graduate output by the next millennium, the year 2001. We need to examine whether we have been spending our education dollars in training and education appropriately for the future. Do we need to alter the mix between training, education and employment? It is something we really have to examine carefully. The Government, quite properly, has changed the focus of its labour market programs in this direction away from employment creation to training and skill acquisition. It has placed greater emphasis on skill training programs, the Australian traineeship system and the adult training program while phasing out the community employment program. That is not to belittle the contribution of the CEP program in my electorate. Training programs were estimated to increase by 39.7 per cent, from $193m to $270m, under the current Budget, while job creation and employment program expenditure fell by 32 per cent. The task ahead is not one for government alone; it requires input and initiative from the unions and employer bodies. I recall the mission to Western Europe by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) in 1986 that raised the role of skill development and training as central to our economic policies and the process of structural adjustment. The report of the mission, Australia Reconstructed, which I recommend every honourable member on both sides of the House should read and digest, argues that full employment should be our central objective and that, in particular, all young people should have access to education, training or productive employment. Australia Reconstructed had a particularly significant impact on the thinking of the trade union movement on the issues of skill formation and training, to the point where it was observed at the conference of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development attended by the ACTU members that, in many instances, the trade union movement in this country was leading the debate. I can cite just one example. The proposals for a new award for the metals industry involving the development of a new career path structure that defines levels of skill and involves multiskilling and a large reduction in job classification not only is a radical proposal in Australia but also created a great deal of interest at the conference. The Federal Government has responded, has recognised the contribution of the trade union movement, and has contributed to the extent of $400,000 a year over the next three years. The level and rate of unemployment and its severity in particular groups and regions remains unacceptably high. A job is the surest way out of poverty. Restructuring of the Australian economy has also starkly illustrated the need for a more highly skilled and adaptable work force. This requires major changes to our education and training systems. If attention is not given immediately to such issues, Australia will incur far greater social and economic costs than those already experienced. The Government's approach to date has been carefully targeted. In the years to come, we must build on that base. I see the immediate priorities as including a continued emphasis on job creation as part of an overall commitment to achieving full employment; further improvements to access and quality of education and training to increase the skills of young people and the long-term unemployed, as highlighted in the Government document Skills for Australia; and the removal of barriers to work force commitment that certain groups face, such as access to affordable and suitable child care. Social and economic justice will be achieved only through a strong and growing economy, providing lasting opportunities in the work force undergoing structural change, and the strength to underpin the assistance and support necessary to help those who are not able to secure employment or those who are dependent on social security. The Government has made a good start and it needs full community support so that it can carry through the task. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the motion seconded? Ms Crawford —I second the motion. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(11.14) —It is not surprising that in the motion moved by the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) he preferred to talk about employment rather than unemployment. Like his colleagues on the other side of the House, he fears the word `unemployment' because it strikes a raw nerve. When he comes to this place he escapes the harsh fact that under a Labor government unemployment in his own electorate-his own backyard-has worsened. So let us take off the rose-coloured glasses and be honest about this. If the honourable member does not know, I can tell him that the latest census statistics for Streeton show that between 1981 and 1986 the youth unemployment rate increased from 10.3 per cent to 10.6 per cent. That was after three years of Labor, and after four Labor Budgets. It is no use trying to blame a rise in the participation rate. In fact, youth participation had gone down from 70 per cent to 68 per cent. This motion is not about providing practical assistance for the thousands of jobless who have to live in the real world; it is a collection of nice words designed to gloss over the Government's failure to adopt sensible long term labour market policies. Before we are lulled by the rhetoric of the honourable member for Streeton, let us bare that record for scrutiny. On numerous occasions we have heard the Government boast that its labour market programs are targeted at the long term unemployed. If these schemes worked, we would have expected a reduction in the average duration of unemployment as a result. In fact, under Labor there has been a massive increase in the average duration of unemployment: in February 1983, the average was 30 weeks and five days; in February this year, it was 43 weeks and three days. For the benefit of honourable members on the other side, that is an increase of 41.4 per cent, or 12 weeks and five days. When this Government took office in 1983 its big push was job creation programs. What an elusive pimpernel that was. The flagship, the now defunct community employment program (CEP), cost $994.3m over four years. It was the most expensive employment program ever implemented by this Government. At its peak in 1984 expenditure on CEP was 3 1/2 times greater than for trade training. What did we get for the money? Well, the Government had its name up in lights for four years, but it did not work. At around $11,000 for every six-month placement it was not cost effective. The retention rate was only 7 per cent; the other 93 per cent went back on the dole. CEP was introduced in a blaze of glory in 1983. By 1986 it was running out of steam, but the Government tried to keep it on track by extending it to 1989. In 1987 it was canned-a $994m monument to the Government's failure to come to grips with the unemployment problem. Suddenly, the emphasis switched from job creation to training schemes. Expenditure on specific job creation schemes has decreased by 59 per cent while the Government is spending 67 per cent more on training programs. Now the honourable member for Streeton is trying to tell us that things will be better. I can tell him that the outlook is no brighter. The Government's most publicised traineeship scheme for young Australians, the so-called Priority One scheme, promoted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), has been an abject failure. No doubt inspired by the Prime Minister's imposing presence in the thick of publicity, the original estimate that the scheme would generate 75,000 traineeships appears to have been grossly exaggerated. On 8 October 1987 during an Estimates committee hearing, the Secretary to the Department of Employment, Education and Training was asked whether that target would be met. His answer was a clear `No'. The performance of the scheme can be illustrated by an example from my own electorate. At the beginning of this year, a total of only 56 young people had been taken on during the life of the scheme; 45 of these were taken on by a single State Government department. In fact, only six of the traineeships have been in the private sector. If the honourable member for Streeton is expecting an endorsement of this pitiful performance, clearly he will not get it. Even the Federal Department of Finance has acknowledged the failure of the Government's present policy. In its submission to the inquiry into work force entry and re-entry by social security pensioners, dated 17 March 1988, it states in relation to labour markets: . . . Programs are unlikely to have contributed more than a small fraction of the overall growth in employment in recent years. Economic analysts in recent times have not predicted any substantial reduction in unemployment. Indeed, the consensus indicates that a slight increase is more likely. Only two months ago, the Secretary to the Federal Treasury, Mr Bernie Fraser, gave a gloomy unemployment forecast to the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia. Even more recently, last month, the Economic Planning Advisory Council stressed the link between real wages and unemployment. That was an endorsement of the coalition's view that the Government must act on wages policy if it is serious about reducing unemployment. The honourable member for Streeton can move any number of motions, but they will not alter the facts. The best overall policy must attempt to balance competing goals of concentrating Government assistance on those most in need and the need to encourage self-reliance. In the end, the greatest contribution that the Government can make is to create an environment for growth in the labour market. This would mean higher aggregate levels of production and improvement of competitiveness of labour in relation to other inputs of production. We must acknowledge that the productivity of young people will be low because they are either entering the work force for the first time or they have been out of work for a long time. Although the Government seems to think so, a huge increase in public expenditure is not the answer. In the long term, a training wage would have the best chance of achieving an increase in the number of jobs for young people. The motion of the honourable member for Streeton would have been more valuable to the youth of this country if it recognised the correlation between youth wages and high youth unemployment. Instead, the Government pays lip service to the issue by offering employers token subsidies to take on young people under the Australian traineeship scheme. Australia's present industrial relations system has allowed the issue of youth wages to worsen into a festering sore on the labour market. The two tier wage system has compressed wage relativities between unskilled and skilled employees. First time job seekers who have limited skills and experience are effectively further priced out of the market. These are fundamental issues that the Government must address to improve the employment opportunities for Australians. The future is not in the cottonwool training schemes of the honourable member for Streeton. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(11.22) —It is interesting that the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) should discuss training programs and the role of industry in them. I find it all the more interesting because an example in my electorate illustrates the attitude of the honourable member and his cohorts to training. This motion addresses the Government's training and industry initiatives. A very innovative program, which is classified under the information technology area, is in place. The Government has attempted to marry big business with its initiatives to provide training and skills, not only for people on the ground but for small businesses and industry development, and to create a real economic base. The establishment of such a centre in my own electorate was seen to be of top priority. Unfortunately, more than 9,500 people are registered at the Woodridge office of the Commonwealth Employment Service. The area has special needs, which have been acknowledged by the Government. However, the Logan City Council, which has many representatives who follow the philosophy of members opposite, decided in its wisdom not to take $300,000 for jobs and small business development in the area. It is absolutely astonishing, given that a further $150,000 was to have come from business sponsorship. The council knocked back a project of over $600,000 which would have meant a large number of jobs and the establishment of a real and meaningful employment program. For too long residents of Queensland have heard about the uncaring Federal Government. That is rubbish; it is a nonsense. The Federal Government is attempting to establish such a centre in my own electorate. Hence, I find it reprehensible for members of the Opposition to suggest that they are interested in training programs. That is nonsense, because they have spurned a project that would have had a wide-ranging effect on the local community. I am delighted to be part of a government which has innovative and creative training programs. However, it is exceedingly difficult to deal with those members of the Opposition who have entrenched themselves in local councils. I simply ask who these councillors represent when it is obvious that they do not represent individuals or small business. One wonders. I am also delighted to be able to talk about a number of other Government training programs. One of those is job search. Unfortunately, too many of our youth, particularly in Queensland, are leaving school at year 10. The skills that they have acquired at school are not adequate to enable them to enter the labour market in 1988 Australia. So, the Government has developed a program that attempts to give these people the necessary skills to secure jobs and improve job opportunities. Only recently I was involved in a program with 12 young people, 11 of whom had a job by the end of the course. In anybody's terms, that must be a successful program. Programs such as that, all around Australia, are giving young people hope of being able to participate in the one million jobs that the Government has created in its five years in office. It is also important to look at the community youth support scheme (CYSS). I know that the Opposition despises that scheme, and views it as an alternative program. Mr Donald Cameron —I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was the Liberal Party that introduced and established the CYSS program when in government. The honourable member is talking a lot of rot. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! There is no point of order. Ms CRAWFORD —Many members of the Opposition see CYSS training programs as providing opportunities for people they would rather not help. So, I am delighted that the kind of training programs that are run in my electorate have been exceedingly successful in providing jobs and job opportunities for young people. Only last week I attended the graduation of students from a bar and food course, to find that eight of the nine young people had jobs to go to on the following Monday. Those sorts of programs indicate the kind of commitment that the Government has to innovative, creative and very meaningful training programs. The Government is committed to seeking ways in which training programs can be meaningful to the people they help. Such programs also respond to the needs of industry. It is the inability of industry to come to terms with training programs and to provide a basis for skills that has led to Australia's problem with an unskilled work force. Industry's failure to acknowledge that it needs to be involved in education and skills training has led to a reduction in skills. I was delighted when industry and big business became involved, particularly in the information and technology industry training program. I do not hear them suggesting that youth wages should be cut as a means of getting young people back into the work force. Such a suggestion is anathema to me. People should be paid a just and real wage for their skills. Cutting wages will not put more people back into the work force. The Government does not countenance such a program. The Government is interested in skills training so that our young people and those who have been out of the work force for a considerable time can get work, so the Government has targeted groups of people within the community. Particular emphasis has been placed on women who have raised families and find themselves wishing to re-enter the work force. Other people who have been victims of restructuring within industry can also be assisted. They need special retraining and redevelopment programs. So it is that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) has given consideration to technical and further education and an expansion of courses available in TAFE colleges. Unfortunately, my State of Queensland once again has failed to respond to that. In other States TAFE institutions have taken up more than 90 per cent of the courses currently provided by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Because of the Queensland Government's inflexibility and political stance, Queensland TAFE institutions have picked up only about 10 to 15 per cent of those courses, thus denying a wide range of people access to meaningful courses within the TAFE system. However, the Government will continue to pursue the expansion of places in higher education, skills and training through a very wide range of programs. It will speak with industry and the unions, particularly with reference to the Australian Council of Trade Unions document Australia Reconstructed, which considers skills and the kinds of programs which we must all work together to achieve. This Government is about working with industry and unions to create a better Australia; to create programs whereby the skills of both young and old Australians can be used for the betterment of life for all people in our community. Training and skills development is essential if Australia is to move properly into the twenty-first century. I commend this motion and stress that this Government is about innovative training programs and using the skills of all Australians for the betterment of our country. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(11.31) —I rise to speak on this motion because basically I agree with it. We should be doing something about training those people who are perhaps unskilled or, if people have lost their jobs in the skill that they have at present, we must retrain them for other jobs because in this country we have a real problem with unemployment, particularly among young people. I have listened to the previous speakers, particularly those on the Government side, and I think we should remember some of the schemes that have been brought in. Honourable members will remember the regional employment development scheme-the RED scheme-of the Whitlam years which produced some good results in some areas but which was, on the whole, a failure. We had the community employment programs which also provided work, but at a tremendous cost. Of course, young people will remember the Priority One: Young Australia scheme of this Government which, while it produced a lot of beautiful brochures-and I am sure it employed quite meaningfully the people who were producing the brochures and those in the Public Service who were meant to bring the scheme into effect-really had no effect on lowering the number of unemployed people. Not only did this Government bring in the Priority One scheme which was a failure, but it also reduced access to higher education. I believe that 20,000 young people who qualified were unable to get into tertiary education a year ago. The Government has also failed to expand the technical and further education (TAFE) system. I remember the bad old days in TAFE when I was a technical college student. Getting a stick of solder from the store was like breaking into Fort Knox to get a bar of gold. Under Mr Fraser's Government the TAFE system was looked after but we are now falling back to the bad old days. Unless something meaningful is done very soon about the TAFE system we will be back in those bad old days. We have a problem with our Austudy scheme. There would not be a member in this House who has not had a phone call from concerned parents worried about the payment of the Austudy money because their children were living in poverty and urging that something be done very quickly. And, of course, we have the union problem. I have heard honourable members opposite say that the Opposition wants young people to live in poverty. I was once an apprentice and I remember that in my first couple of years most of my jobs finished up under the bench. The same happened to many other apprentices. As with unskilled workers, it is very costly to keep apprentices. It takes a while to gain from those people. We must remember that employers are not in business as charity organisations but are there to make a profit for themselves and to make sure that this country remains viable. I urge the trade union movement and honourable members opposite to think very seriously about the youth wage. We do not want to see young people living in poverty, but it is far better to be employed than unemployed. One of the schemes which are presently available is the community youth support scheme (CYSS), which has been mentioned. It was founded by the coalition and I believe that it has done a good job. There was a period in Mr Fraser's time when some of the community youth support schemes were used as propaganda outlets for the Australian Labor Party. Nevertheless, they have certainly improved since then. I can show the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford) some of the paperwork that came out of those schemes. But now in my electorate there are some very good community youth support schemes under very capable management. The schemes in Leeton, Griffith, Hay, West Wyalong and Broken Hill are all doing a good job. The Government now wants to join other programs with CYSS. One of these is the community volunteer program. What a nonsense that was! The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) came in here, thumped the desk and said, `We are going to make people work for the dole'. Of course, we know what happened then. Simon said, `You cannot do that, Prime Minister'. That happened overnight; it must have been a quick phone call. The next day the Prime Minister came back and said, `No. We do not really mean that. We mean that if people want to work they can work'. Many young people in my electorate who are unemployed work voluntarily mowing lawns, caring for the elderly in their communities and doing a number of other jobs. They do not need a program to do that. That program was a nonsense-a non-event-yet it will join with CYSS. The community training program is another ineffective system. Nevertheless, CYSS is there and these programs are joining it. I have an open mind about it. Some people in my community youth support schemes are for it and some are against it; nevertheless it looks as if the amalgamation will take place. One of the beauties of CYSS was that it showed unemployed people that the community did care about them. It was an opportunity for other people of standing in the community to put their arms around those peoples' shoulders and say, `We do care about you. Although you are unemployed we are going to try to do something for you'. Among the other schemes we have at present is the job start scheme, which is a training subsidy for the long term unemployed which lasts for six months. From what I can gather, there is a great deal of pressure on that scheme. It is being monitored very closely because, as we know, the Federal Government is running short of funds. It is now concentrating its efforts on the disadvantaged. I do not argue with that. I think that this job start scheme is good. It should be closely looked after and the Government should try to find money from some of its other weird and wonderful schemes to put into that scheme. An adult youth training program is run with the cooperation of TAFE institutions and industry. Whenever TAFE is involved we usually find a quality product; so it must be a very good scheme. It specifically trains skills and, in my electorate, these are mainly agricultural skills such as pruning, tractor maintenance and chemical handling. With the cooperation of various rural organisations, many people who go through that course find employment. The specialist retail and computer courses for young and old have an 80 per cent placement in my electorate; that is good. I am pleased to say that traineeships have the cooperation of the trade union movement. For people who are going to a technical college and are having work experience, it is a very good course. The job search course was mentioned by the honourable member for Forde, and I agree that it is a very good course. Although many young people have been reluctant to join the course for various reasons, we find that by saying to them, `Okay, you have an opportunity to do the course. If you don't do it you will have your social security benefits taken from you' we are persuading them to join. As the honourable member for Forde has said, many of those doing the course are finding jobs. That is a very pleasing situation. I say to those young people who are having difficulty in finding a job: There seems to be a myth-I call it a myth-in the papers that because you are unemployed you will find yourself committing petty crime and carrying out unsociable acts that we all abhor. I tell those young people not to take any notice of the Press. I believe that most young people in Australia are good solid citizens. It is not their fault that they are unemployed. There is no reason why they should be considered petty criminals or be involved in petty crime. It is all a matter of self-discipline and without self-discipline they will not find a job. Again I say to them, `Don't take any notice of those people who tell you that you are going to get into strife because you have not got a job. I don't believe that you will. You are young Australians and young Australians, as far as I am concerned, are basically good. Eventually you will find a job, provided the economic circumstances provided by this Government are good enough for you'. There is one area that I would like to speak on if I have the time, and that is the scheme for the recruitment of applicants with disabilities to the Australian Public Service. I received a 22-page paper on this telling me how young people can get a job if they have disabilities. But I have a young man in my electorate who is having great difficulty. He is a diabetic and has a slight sight impairment. He has been unemployed for 2 1/2 years, and has been ringing the relevant department constantly, trying to get a job. The department has a special placements officer. Apparently that position has changed eight times since he has been ringing. On one occasion the department did not have an officer in this position but now, of course, it again has one. This person is still finding it very difficult to get a job. If the Government is very serious about that program, I suggest that it do something about it. Of course, the main reason there is unemployment in Australia-and members on the other side did not touch on it-is our economic situation. We see today that our deficit is the biggest since last October and our balance of payments figures are as bad as we could expect. An article in today's Australian Financial Review states: This harsh reality thus has vital implications for the new wage deal being stitched up between the ACTU, the Hawke Government and, to a lesser degree, employers. Irrespective of all the talk about wage moderation, our unit labour costs will still increase at double the rate of our major trading partners over calendar 1988. To be quite frank, one of our problems is investment in Australian manufacture. I ask honourable members opposite quite seriously: if they were businessmen and they knew that their wage rates were going to increase to levels which were double those of the people they were going to try to compete against over the next year and they also knew that the Government was holding up the dollar in an artificial manner, would they invest in production and manufacturing in Australia? I find it very difficult to believe that they would. The ball is in the Government's court. It is all right to have all of these fancy training schemes which are quite acceptable and quite necessary. The Government has to do something about the economy. It has to play fair dinkum and tell the Australian people what the position is. It is no good saying one week that we are a banana republic, the next week telling us that we are in the land of milk and honey and the next week telling us again that we are a banana republic. We want to know where we stand. Can the government give us some direction so that the people we are talking about today will have some meaningful employment? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(11.43) —I move: That this House- (1) expresses deep concern at the effects of aircraft noise upon several suburbs of the City of Brisbane following the opening of the new Brisbane Airport; and (2) calls upon the Government and the Department of Transport and Communications to take corrective measures immediately. I believe that the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) will second this motion. As honourable members will be aware, I was first elected to this place in 1966. On 29 occasions between the late 1960s and the late 1970s I made speeches about the need to do something about the noise being created by aircraft using Brisbane Airport. I made 29 separate speeches on the subject during that period. I would never have believed that at the end of the 1980s I would have had to stand in this place and complain on behalf of the people whom I am privileged to represent about the absolute chaos that has been created by the flight paths designed for Brisbane's brand spanking new half a billion dollar airport. If anyone had told me that this would be the case, I would have said, `No way'. I say that despite the fact that in the early 1970s and before that I actually advocated that the Brisbane Airport be situated between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. I had been to the United States of America and visited some 35 airports. It seemed that a trend had commenced in that country to shift airports well out of town. But nobody took any notice of what I had to say. Indeed, selfish interests in Brisbane had the view that they did not want to drive down to an airport situated between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. I remember that the then spokesman of the Brisbane Chamber of Commerce roundly denounced my proposal. I remember my response to this man who lived in Kenmore, one of the glossy suburbs of Brisbane. My reaction was that the only noise that the people of Kenmore had to suffer was the sound of the Courier-Mail falling on their velvet lawns early in the morning. This happened a long time ago. Today there is chaos in respect of the flight paths around Brisbane Airport. Over the years we have seen political parties, governments and individuals mad grabbing for the credit of the new airport in Brisbane, saying that they were responsible for getting this great enterprise under way. A silence has suddenly settled on this achievement. Everybody wants to go quiet now that they realise the chaos that is being caused. They want to have nothing to do with it. They are saying, `Don't look at me'. Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that you are to follow me in this debate. Are you on the list to speak? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Certainly. The honourable member will understand that I am currently engaged in my Chair responsibilities. Mr DONALD CAMERON —All I am trying to do is to confirm that the Government side has two Labor speakers from the northern side of Brisbane and that not one Labor speaker from the south side of the river wants to speak up about the Brisbane Airport. Indeed, if you are speaking you will have the opportunity to deny the story that is fast circulating through the south side of Brisbane-Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to disadvantage you-that in fact you had a lot to do with designing the routes associated with the new airport and that in fact you even went up in an aeroplane to have a look at the areas to make sure that the suburbs of your electorate were spared. You will be aware that that story is rife in Brisbane. If it is rot, please either deny it or accept the wrath of the people from the south side of Brisbane. Local government elections right across Queensland, including the Brisbane City Council election, were held on 19 March. Without any fanfare, without hardly anybody knowing, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) slunk into and out of Brisbane on that day. Mr Jull —He was there for half an hour. Mr DONALD CAMERON —As the honourable member for Fadden reminds me, he was there for half an hour. He pulled off a bit of cloth from a plaque and said, `I hereby open the airport'. Maybe thinking people should have been suspicious as to why a government would have opened the airport with such little fanfare. I believe that the Government knew full well what the new flight plans, which I have in front of me, were going to do to the community on the south side of Brisbane. Again, the Government has adopted the tactic of playing this matter down. That is what it has all been about-playing it down. The first inkling that I had of the devastation that is being caused to the southern suburbs of Brisbane was on Tuesday, 22 March, the third day after our great new airport had been put into operation. Indeed, I was so concerned that I rang the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), who thankfully took my call. He explained to me-I cannot quite understand or follow the way in which the Labor Government runs its Ministry these days-that the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris), the second Minister in this area, was in charge of the Brisbane Airport. I rang the Minister for Transport and Communications Support and, to give him his due, he said, `Thank you, Don, for letting me know what is going on up there'. But this matter has gone on and on. There has not been one issue in the 22 years that I have been in this place that has caused so many people to ring day after day complaining that their lives have suddenly been ruined and their lifestyles turned about. I say to the Government that it has to meet a lot of responsibilities forthwith. For the life of me, I cannot see why so many aeroplanes have to be sent off over the Brisbane River, across the Federal electorate of Griffith-the suburbs of Cannon Hill and the like-or across the suburbs of Camp Hill, Carindale, Carina Heights, Mansfield-- Mr Jull —Upper Mount Gravatt. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Upper Mount Gravatt. Mr Jull —Macgregor. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Fadden is helping me. I know my own electorate. I also refer to Mount Gravatt East. I am sure that there are other suburbs, particularly in the electorate of Griffith, but the people in Griffith have their own member to present their problems. I am absolutely astounded at the cavalier way in which people sat down behind closed doors and slammed a new lifestyle upon so many. On the first day that it happened, people said that they did not believe it. The honourable member for Fadden lives in Mount Gravatt East and can speak from more first-hand experience. My people did not believe it. I did not believe it either and, what is more, I do not believe that it needs to continue. Changes can be made. I believe that the big planes that have been taking off halfway up the strip were instructed to go to the end of the strip to ensure their lift-off spot was another kilometre further back: so they will be that much higher up. I was told that that would be done two weeks ago, but it has not occurred. I do not understand the procrastination that has beset officialdom. Does it say, `If we delay everything, the problem might go away and the people affected will get used to it'? I ask the Minister whether that is the prevailing attitude-that, if the matter is ignored, after some months, people will forget about it? Mr Duffy —Whom are you talking to? Mr DONALD CAMERON —The Minister for Trade Negotiations happens to be at the table. That is his bad luck. I do not expect a reply from him. However, I believe that that is the attitude and it is not good enough. I have asked a lot of questions and I have been told that one of the problems which prevents aeroplanes, once they lift off the ground, immediately swinging out along the Brisbane River and into Moreton Bay is that of landing traffic; aeroplanes are coming in to land. I make this plea: for heavens sake, come up with a form of operation which pushes those incoming planes further out, even to the other side of Moreton and Stradbroke islands, so that as many planes as possible can head out into the centre of Moreton Bay, gain height and cross the coastline further south. I notice that the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) is still in the chamber. I say to her that if there is a problem in Pinkenba, which I believe has a population of only 100 or so-I am not one who says that a problem should be taken out of my electorate and pushed into somebody else's electorate-perhaps the Government has to look at resuming those properties so that the suburb of Pinkenba can be used as a buffer zone, an area over which aeroplanes can pass, so that the thousands and thousands of people on Brisbane's south side can be spared from what they are enduring at present. I ask that that be borne in mind by the Government. I wish to read a small section of a letter dated 4 April by a lady who lives at Camp Hill to the Minister for Transport and Communications. The letter, which expresses the situation so well, states: During the past ten years . . . aircraft noise over this locality has increased and living conditions have been disastrously impaired. However, what has recently been imposed upon us by ``re-development'' of the Brisbane Airport is adding intolerable insult to existing injury. I vehemently protest to you at what has been intentionally done in the most bloody minded manner and I ask that you give speedy and effective relief to our plight of utter misery. I mean by ``intolerable'' that a face to face conversation in the house or grounds is frequently completely obliterated by passing aircraft; that music or radio playing is blotted out-disruptions are occurring (at times) three or four times within fifteen minutes and it is becoming useless to try to hear a radio programme with any continuity; that the structures of my house are shaking and reverberating; that I am now being frequently woken from sleep between 11.30 p.m. and 2 a.m. by loud and prolonged jet noise. I suggest that if anybody went up and down a street on a motorbike and created the same intensity of noise that those aeroplanes are creating, the person would get life for disturbing the peace. It must be wonderful now for the honourable member for Lilley to have no planes going over her electorate. The lives of the people of Hamilton, Ascot and Hendra have changed for the better. I always had great sympathy for those who were affected by aircraft noise, but the people who have bought houses in the honourable member's electorate in the last 23 or 24 years knew what they were buying. They knew what they were buying when they went to live in those areas. The people I represent and the people the honourable member for Griffith represents were living there, believing they were in a quiet suburb, and suddenly this was thrust upon them. Whilst I recognise that in a developed society and with the advent of jet aeroplanes there will always be some problems in this day and age, I do not believe that anyone has the right to simply sit down behind a desk and redesign flight paths that so dramatically impinge on the rights of the people who have been affected in this way. Honourable members might say that I am getting a bit uptight about this subject, but I have been wound up by the pleas of the people who have contacted my office and written to me. I ask the Minister to believe me when I say that some people actually cried. As I said in the 1960s, houses under aeroplane flight paths do shake and reverberate when aeroplanes pass over. What did the Department of Transport and Communications do? I am not about to assail the Department but it has sent people out with measuring devices to measure the noise. Please believe me when I say that they do not need measuring devices to establish the lifestyle changes to which these people have been subjected. I notice that the time allocated to me in this debate has almost expired. I conclude by asking people who have an attitude of `wait and see what we might be able to do' to abandon that attitude. If changes can be brought about instantly, for heavens sake do so. Our new airport is magic in many ways. It is a door to tourism and so much more for the people of Queensland. But the Government is putting it in jeopardy by being non-responsive. If it can get its act into gear and bring about the changes which I believe can be made, life will be much improved for so many. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Jull —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(12.00) —I would like to set at rest the mind of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) and maybe educate him in some of the ways he can represent his area. I know precisely what it is like when constituents suffer from noise problems. Although this chamber is a very good forum in which to express those concerns, the honourable member also has to get out and speak to people in the departments. He too can have the success he attributes to me in helping areas that for many years were affected by noise. There are a couple of points I would like to take up in the name of fairness. The honourable member commented about the lack of speakers from electorates on the south side of the airport. I point out that this is time set aside for backbenchers. The honourable member for Griffith, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), cannot take part in this debate, but he was the first person to whom I turned in 1980 when I became the member for Lilley. To take up another point, the people from the south side have not just discovered the bad effects of noise; they suffered from noise problems for years while the old airport was operating. I well remember the efforts of the honourable member for Griffith with the Joint Committee on Public Works under the then Fraser Government. I remember the fiery eloquence of the State member for Lytton, Tom Burns. He was at least as fiery and certainly as eloquent as the honourable member for Moreton on those matters. The big difference between then and now-and I know this well-is that when I was elected in 1980 under the Fraser Government, there was nowhere for residents who were excessively affected by aircraft noise to turn. There was no formal committee, as there is now, where they could register their complaints and have them rectified. All of this has happened since the Hawke Government came to power. I suggest that the honourable member's frustration rests with the fact that for so many years we were not in power. I am not saying that there are no problems now; there certainly are. What I am saying is that these problems are being attended to. It would be ludicrous to suggest that the situation has worsened, and I am sure the honourable member for Moreton is not suggesting that. I hope he would acknowledge, if he wants the facts behind him, that the problem has improved somewhat since this Government came to power. Regarding the Pinkenba residents, it is quite silly to set one lot of residents against another. I share the concern of the honourable member for the pockets of noise that have now cropped up. The problem in Pinkenba, which is in my area, is being looked at and is in the process of being rectified. I hope the honourable member is not saying that we should resume the homes of those 120 residents from the working class area of Pinkenba and put them out, and that if the flight path goes a little beyond Pinkenba before it turns then in some magic way the problems of the people on the south side will be rectified. That really is not intelligent. The honourable member for Griffith, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca), the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns), the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) and I have been speaking to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) and to the bureaucrats. I think the honourable member for Moreton should also speak to the Minister. He is very helpful; he cuts across party political lines, and I can assure the honourable member and his residents that we are not brushing aside their concerns and that they are being looked at. I understand the frustrations of the people who are suffering from aircraft noise and not having their complaints attended to. Certainly the people in the Hamilton, Ascot, Nundah and Sandgate areas, whatever they vote, know that I have been looking at this issue around the old terminal for many years. Of course I will continue to do that, wherever people live, now that we have our marvellous new domestic terminal in Brisbane, which is a far cry from the old tin shed we had to endure in the capital of the sunshine State. Members on this side of the House, including the Minister, join the honourable member for Moreton in his concern for the people who are living in the environs of airports and who suffer from excessive noise. We believe that when facilities are planned to service people who wish to fly, the requirements of people on the ground must also be considered. In the context of Brisbane Airport, I wish to assure residents that the days are past when the complaints of people affected by noise went unheard and unacted on. In fact, the Hawke Government is the first government to take positive steps to formalise avenues for the people's voice, to ensure that it is heard by government authorities. Recently, for the first time in Australia's aviation history, it set up the Brisbane Airport Consultative Committee. The honourable member for Griffith and I, representing electorates closest to the Brisbane Airport, are ad hoc members of the Committee. There are also central office departmental officers, representatives from the Australian Customs Service, the Co-ordinator General's office in the Premiers Department, the Brisbane City Council, business representatives and, most importantly, representatives of residents who are noise affected. Here I refer to Mr Brian Hutchison, who is a permanent member of that Committee. I should like to outline the measures taken because the truth of the matter is that when I became the member for Lilley in 1980 the Fraser Government was a passive government in the area of noise abatement. Hundreds of residents living in the immediate environs of the old Brisbane Airport suffered noise in silence or made their isolated pleas for action to closed ears. Before going further, it is important that I reassure residents and honourable members opposite that pockets of noise are being investigated. Overall, I have received a positive response regarding the relief of noise. For many years thousands of people have been suffering from noise, and I know many of these people, but the overall feedback is that the problem has been alleviated. There are two problem areas: the Cannon Hill area on the south side and the Pinkenba area. I have referred this matter to Tony Powell-an excellent person in the aviation group of the Department of Transport and Communications in Brisbane-who has been looking at both problems. In Pinkenba the problem is that after take-off planes are required to reach a height of 800 feet before they make a turn. It is that turn that is creating the noise over Pinkenba. In fact, the flight path on the map shows that the planes are not supposed to be going over Pinkenba but either the pilots are turning too soon or they are getting to 800 feet too soon. It is a matter of changing that regulation and it possibly would mean adjustment to flight paths to ensure that planes overshoot the settled area before they turn. There is no need to punish the people in Pinkenba by taking them out of their homes, as has been suggested. The residents of Cannon Hill should record the times of the noise problems and give these to Tony Powell in the aviation group. People on the ground have every right to have their noise problems attended to when authorities and governments are planning flying facilities for people who want to use air space. Noise abatement measures did not really take off until the Hawke Government came to power, despite that environmental impact study which was a prerequisite to the original plan to develop the Brisbane Airport. It was under the leadership of the then Minister for Aviation, the present Minister for Transport and Communications Support, that steps were finally taken to eradicate the disturbing noises of revving engines, for instance, during the ground running exercises. That was about three years back. The Department brought in new regulations which decreed that engines should be run only at certain hours and for certain times. At the same time restrictions were placed on the training sorties carried out over Brisbane suburbs, flight routes being altered to minimise the noise following an influx of calls from Wavell Heights, Hendra and other areas. I wish to stop now to give the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) and honourable members opposite the opportunity to put forward their viewpoint, but I stress that this is an area in which members on both sides should be joining with the Minister and acknowledging that at last there are mechanisms in place by which people can voice their problems. To try to make political gain by dividing people up according to whether they are in a top income level or a lower income level, or whether they are from Pinkenba or whether they are from Cannon Hill, is really negative. What we need to do is to get together and make use of those mechanisms that are in place so that we are able to achieve for these people in those small pockets the sort of silence that has been achieved for the majority of residents in Brisbane. Mr JULL(Fadden)(12.11) —I rise to join in this debate and to second the motion that has been put forward by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). I think I should declare my public interest in the matter. My home is under the new flight path and I think I can probably talk from first-hand experience of exactly what is happening on the south side of Brisbane. I do that, not in any vested self-interest way, but rather on behalf of those many hundreds of people who have been contacting my office over the last few weeks to complain about the incredible noise that is emanating to the south side of Brisbane by virtue of the opening of the new Brisbane Airport. I want to ask the House: why have we got the noise? Why have we got a new flight path? Why are not the flight paths the same as were set out in that very environmental impact study that the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) just mentioned? It is all very well for the honourable member for Lilley to come in here and make pious statements about the consultation process. What she did not realise was that yesterday afternoon a group of members from both sides of the House went and saw the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) and had discussions with the authorities concerned with the Federal Airports Corporation. I asked why the flight paths are different from those that were originally put together in the designs. Do you know what the answer was, Mr Deputy Speaker? It was: `We don't know. It was before our time'. I took objection to the honourable member for Lilley coming in here and saying that we should have gone out and educated the people about aircraft noise. In fact, I went round my electorate at the time of the-- Mrs Darling —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I would like to give notice that I shall seek to make a personal explanation, because I have just been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —That is not a point of order. Mr JULL —I want to raise that particular point about going to the electorate because I must say, as I have always said, that the new Brisbane International Airport was a Liberal initiative. It was first brought up in the late 1960s. It was knocked on the head by the Whitlam Government. It was brought back by the Fraser Government, against some very real objections from the other side. Honourable members should go back through the Press clippings of the time. The honourable member for Lilley had a field day on the new airport. She made all sorts of statements about the dire consequences of what was going to happen. The honourable member for Lilley was up there saying that you cannot have a curfew-free airport. Now we have the complete reverse. Mrs Darling —Yes. Mr JULL —She has done very well out of her electorate, and good on her. I acknowledge some of the work that she has done in the area of noise pollution, especially in terms of the aircraft noises that are happening in Brisbane. The facts are that in those original Department of Transport documents the southerly flight paths in Brisbane were all centred on the Redland Bay beacon; after take-off into the south, there was a dogleg that went over Cannon Hill. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) may correct me if I am wrong, but at that stage there were 49 homes that the Commonwealth was prepared to pay compensation for, to enable people to relocate. The question we have to ask is: has that happened? Has the Commonwealth Government now allowed for that relocation to take place? The flight path then went over the Leslie Harrison Dam and then did a dogleg back on the normal route to Sydney. Suddenly the new plans appear. Mr Donald Cameron —Bingo! Mr JULL —Bingo. We have got the take-off into the south, as the honourable member for Lilley said quite correctly, up to 800 feet. We do the dogleg over Cannon Hill. We then come right over the top of those old established suburbs of Brisbane like Camp Hill-not as the Minister for Transport and Communications Support was saying yesterday, quite wrongly, all new suburbs; they are old established suburbs of Brisbane-and the noise is causing absolute havoc. I ask: Why were those flight paths changed? I would join with the honourable member for Moreton, and I hope with the honourable member for Lilley, and make it perfectly clear to the Minister and to the Department that it is all very well to sit there and say, `We are going to take studies on the aircraft noise'. How long are these studies going to take-two months, six months, 12 months? We know what these Commonwealth studies are like. Are the people of the southern side of Brisbane going to have to put up with this noise for another 12 months? I must commend the Minister for Transport and Communications Support inasmuch as he certainly gave those officers of his Department notice yesterday that he wants some action pretty quickly, but we have got to make sure that he follows it through. I can see that there is absolutely no reason why we cannot get some action on those realigned flight paths right now. The other matter that was raised, I think by the honourable member for Moreton and maybe by the honourable member for Lilley, was the actual point of take-off of the aircraft. The group of members who called on the Minister yesterday afternoon were told that there was a directive that aircraft taking off into the south had to go to the farthest extremity of the new Brisbane runway for their take-off. I made the comment, `Well, when I came down to Canberra last Sunday night we took off halfway down the strip'. The particular officer from the Department said, `Well, that was interesting. I came down on Tuesday morning, and so did we'. He told us that that directive had been in place for a couple of weeks, but nobody was taking any notice of it. What is the problem? Is the problem the Department? Is the problem the air traffic controllers? Is the problem the airline pilots? Is the problem the airline companies? Who knows? Why are those operating procedures being defied? Why are not people going down to the farthest extremity of the strip and taking off from there. It does give them more height. It gives them several hundred feet by the time they get to Cannon Hill and make that turn. But obviously nobody is taking any notice of the directive. We have been given the aspect of the freak weather conditions that have been going on in Brisbane in recent weeks. It is true that it has been a time of great turmoil in the weather patterns. But in the number of times I have had to come to Canberra in recent months since the airport opened I have not taken off into the north once. What are the procedures there? It is interesting that every time that one comes into Brisbane Airport one seems to land from the north, but one takes off to the south. I might be wrong, and there might be a perfectly logical explanation, but I do not believe that a south-easterly or a south-westerly wind has blown every day that I have had to use that airport. Mr Hand —Have you got a pilots licence? Mr JULL —I could never afford to get one, but I would love to have a pilots licence. Mr Hand —How can you criticise the pilots in that industry when you do not know anything about it? You do not know what you are talking about. Mr JULL —I remind the Minister that I am asking the questions because of precisely what officers of his Government and his Minister for Transport and Communications Support told a group of us yesterday. If the Minister wants to carry on like a half shut penknife and make a fool of his Minister for Transport and Communications Support, that is well and good, but he is diverting the real argument of this proposition. The people of the south side of Brisbane are suffering and I am trying to be constructive; I am asking, are they to be disadvantaged because the directives of the Government and of the Department of Aviation or the Federal Airports Corporation are not being carried out by the airline operators? If that is the point, we have to see straight away that the directives given by the Department are carried out by the airline operators. That would give us some relief. We have to make sure that those flight paths are changed. As I said, the original concept of the new Brisbane International Airport in all the original environmental impact studies made sure that that southerly take-off route missed those major areas of population. Last Friday I was at school, not in my electorate but near my electorate, speaking to the Year 7 children on the operation of this particular place. I do not know which Minister was in town but I assume one of the Ministers was, because I saw the BAC 111 at Brisbane Airport when I arrived. We were halfway through that particular lesson and the BAC 111-which is not one of the quieter aircraft; it is now a military aircraft, so one cannot do much about it-took off straight over the school. Mr Downer —Did you tell them the Prime Minister was on board? Mr JULL —I think I did tell them that the Prime Minister was on board, but I was mistaken; I think it was another Minister. The Prime Minister was somewhere else at that stage. When this aircraft took off the windows of that school rattled, the blackboard shook and it was virtually impossible for a period of maybe a minute to make any conversation whatsoever in that class. But the point is that there are schools in that electorate, such as the Cannon Hill State School which is not a new development-it has been there for more than 100 years. The children at the Cannon Hill State School are copping this noise all day every day. Schools throughout that area are suffering because of the aircraft noise. My one appeal to this place is to make sure that we have a bipartisan approach to the problems facing Brisbane International Airport and that we give the best support we can to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support to make sure that the directives he gives to departmental officers to get their act together and to get those flight paths changed happen now. The question is: why have not the orders really been obeyed in the past? We have to make sure that we have a bit of strength of direction from the Government so these things happen, because it is absolutely unnecessary that there should be any major suffering on the south side of Brisbane because of the noise from the new Brisbane International Airport. The sooner the Government gives that directive, the sooner the officers bring that into operation and the sooner we get the flight paths changed and the operation procedures as directed by the Federal Airports Corporation under way, the sooner those poor folk on the south side of Brisbane may finally have a bit of rest and quiet, the rest and quiet they should never have been deprived of if the original plans for Brisbane International Airport had been undertaken in the first order. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(12.22) —I was also at a meeting yesterday with honourable members who have spoken in this debate-the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) and the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), who cannot speak in this debate because he is a Minister. We are all very concerned about this problem of noise. The electorate of Petrie is not greatly affected but, living as I do in Northgate, I am closer to Brisbane Airport than are most of my constituents. I would like to act as an honest broker in this process. We have drifted at times into a trade of misery between the northern suburbs and the southern suburbs. There are real reasons for the constraints in finding solutions. It amazes me that technical experts suddenly pop up from the green seats. They are all airline pilots and noise abatement experts. They know how to align runways. But there are real limits to solutions. We all understand that. The Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris) has promised that he will do his best within what are technical-not simply economic-limits. Let me take honourable members through some of those limits. The first thing we must acknowledge is that Brisbane has the first major airport to be built in this country for 17 years. It is a massive project and is bound to have some impact. There are something like 120,000 different aeroplane departures and arrivals per year, carrying around seven million passengers. This is big; this is an enormous airport; it is the size of Tullamarine Airport in Melbourne. It is impossible, and it was never promised, that there would be no noise. Airports and large aircraft create noise. As I understand it, the noisiest aircraft are the DC9s and the 727s. These are creating much of the problem. The DC9s and the 727s are to be phased out. The DC9s will be phased out in 1990 and the 727s owned by Ansett Airlines of Australia will be phased out in the next year. Unfortunately, the 727s owned by Australian Airlines will be phased out over a longer period. But the point I am making is that there are real technical problems. Runway 19, the runway that all the debate is about, was set back in the 1960s. There was no other direction or place that it could have been put if we wanted a large Brisbane Airport based out of Eagle Farm. The choice was not whether we would not have an airport in Brisbane, but the size of the new runway at Eagle Farm. That decision having been made in the 1960s imposed real limitations as to how planes could take off from and arrive at that point. As to the configuration of the flight paths, again, not a great deal of movement or variation can be made. We are not talking about a single aircraft taking off with perhaps a very small payload and not many passengers which would have great manoeuvrability. We are talking about a sausage machine of aeroplanes moving into and out of Brisbane Airport every couple of minutes. The most critical feature is safety. We cannot allow planes to move around in all sorts of patterns to suit the interests of particular areas. We must have a regular, concise, well-timed pattern to ensure that there is absolute safety of movement of aircraft carrying people into and out of Brisbane Airport. Because of the extremely unusual weather conditions in the last month in Brisbane, far more planes have been taking off to the south, into the prevailing southerly winds, than would normally be the case. I understand that normally 60 per cent of flights take off in a more northerly direction towards Moreton Bay. Because of that there will be very little noise problem. But honourable members should appreciate that in Brisbane in the last month, in late March and April to this point, a new rainfall record has been set. The previous record was 110 years old. We have had an incredibly unusual weather pattern. The prevailing winds that brought that rain predominantly were from the south and have forced aircraft departures to be in a southerly direction. We cannot change that. I put it to honourable members again: the direction of the new runway was set 20 years ago; the prevailing wind patterns, that are so unusual, have forced many more take-offs to the south than otherwise would be the case. The main aircraft at fault are DC9s and 727s, most of which will be out of commission within a year. So the real technical limits imposed on us have no thoroughgoing solution. There was never a promise that all airport noise would disappear. But I am assured that there is far less noise emanating from the new runway than there ever was from the old runway. So few people now are being affected than was the case. Unfortunately, there are new people who, for the first time, are being affected at relatively low levels. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being almost 12.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 104a. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mrs DARLING —The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) incorrectly believed-- Mr Beale —I take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is making a personal explanation. She has sought leave from the Chair. Mr Beale —And I have a point of order that the appropriate time for a personal explanation is after ministerial statements. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, that is not correct. The time for personal explanations is at the discretion of the Chair, usually at the completion of the debate that is the subject of the personal explanation. I call the honourable member for Lilley. Mrs DARLING —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the honourable member for Fadden misunderstood me. He said that earlier in my contribution I had said that I wished to educate the people in noise affected areas. I did not say that, nor would I ever say such a silly thing. I said that I wished to educate the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) in ways to represent and get action for people in noise affected areas. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr SMITH(Bass)(12.30) —This grievance debate gives honourable members an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes about matters that they believe are of national or local significance. This is only the second time that I have had the opportunity to speak in the grievance debate in the four years I have been in this place and I wish to refer to science, an area that is best described as being almost non-sexist on the political scene but one which we would all appreciate is extremely important. The subject of my grievance is illustrated by a letter that appeared in the Australian newspaper only yesterday under the heading `Research Future ``Bleak'' ' by the Honorary Professor, Department of Chemistry, at La Trobe University, Professor Matheson. He pointed out that the research future is bleak, and when I cite figures honourable members will understand what I am talking about. The Federal Government says that it is emphasising innovation, technology, quality and skills. It says that it is trying to increase the number of science candidates in universities. The question to ask is: Where will these candidates come from and, if successful in their studies, where will they go? The fact is that there has never before been so much disquiet in the scientific community in Australia. What is happening? The Government has failed to give a lead. It is failing to actively encourage and support the development of a lively science culture in which scientific creativity is valued, nurtured and allowed freedom of expression. Economics has become the god before which we all now kneel. What is the evidence? The Government has failed to provide the financial commitment necessary to support the major Commonwealth scientific bodies. The consequence of this is a massive brain drain, especially from the Australian Nuclear Science Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The low priority given to science is illustrated by the axing of the 15-year-old Department of Science. We no longer have a Department of Science: we have a Minister for Science in name only, and that is more a consequence of sentiment for some of the good work that the Minister for Customs, Science and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) did in earlier years. A further and frequently expressed criticism of the Government is that it is putting emphasis on short-term, high-tech, applied, and `relevant' research at the expense of research in traditional areas, such as rural research, and basic research. We must not forget that age old cliche that Australia's wealth came from the back of a sheep. We should be adding value to our primary resources and, when one considers the number of exports and their value, one can see where the value really is. We do not want to move away from the opportunity of developing scientific means to add value to some of those basic raw materials. There is an assumption by the Government that it can pick winners in research. That is a huge gamble in itself. It has led to the intervention by bureaucracy in the direction of research funding. The Minister said in an address last year at Melbourne University that the relations between science and government were improving and that: Australian science could be poised on the brink of the most important and most productive period in its history. Nothing could be further from the truth. By September last year the Minister was saying that the Government's focus was too narrow, concentrating on the immediate, the financial and the obvious. How right he is. I refer now to each of these points. With only a little over one per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on research and development, Australia spends little in comparison with other developed countries. In 1983, in US dollar terms per capita, Australia spent $102, Sweden spent $273 and Norway spent $206. Both Sweden and Norway are comparable with Australia in terms of educational levels. We are a long way behind. Approximately one half of this amount is spent directly by Government on its own research work, one quarter is spent by business and one quarter by higher education institutions. The Government's 150 per cent tax concession to stimulate much needed industry research and development is not being matched by funding in areas where the Federal Government is responsible. Areas to suffer the Keating razor in the last Budget were the CSIRO, space projects, energy research and development, defence science and technology and the Australian Science and Technology Council. Other areas were barely maintained. This financial year overall Budget outlays categorised as scientific research increased by a nominal 0.8 per cent compared with an overall increase in Commonwealth outlays of 4.3 per cent. This amounts to a substantial reduction in resources for science and increases the cost of being internationally competitive. When one looks at a longer term line, one sees that the situation is even worse. The dismantling of the Department of Science has caused concern among Australia's scientific community. To most it indicates a loss of Government recognition of the importance of science to the community as a whole. They see no focus for scientific effort. The functions of the Department of Science have been taken over by four super-Ministries. The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce is now responsible for such things as science policy, patents, space projects, the Commission for the Future, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Australian Marine Science and Technologies Advisory Committee and, of course, the CSIRO. The Department of Administrative Services, of all things, is responsible for the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories and the Ionospheric Prediction Service. The new Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has taken over responsibility for the Antarctic Division. We know about the problems that, unfortunately, exist there at present. That Department is also responsible for the building that is being constructed across the road-the national science and technology centre. The new Department of Employment, Education and Training is responsible for the former Grants and Fellowships Branch. It is likely to have a low priority among more pressing issues of unemployment and training. The upshot is that science policy and science funding have been separated. Who, in Government, is going to defend the long-term investment needed in fundamental science? Among scientists the Government's desire to make science work for industry is of great concern. Many fear that fundamental research will be squeezed too hard, that the intellectual environment in which they work will be destroyed. They point out that a neglect of fundamental research is counter-productive. Curiosity and the freedom to indulge in fundamental research has been the cause of vast global improvements in the human condition. Penicillin, which I think I need at present, radio and the bionic ear are but a few examples. The popular applied topics of today-biotechnology, micro-electronics and lasers-are the result of yesterday's fundamental research. Great scientific advances often come from areas of research which at the time seem obtuse or esoteric. Professor Penington, Professor of Medicine and Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University, has pointed out: Fundamental research is an investment in the national intellect. If we put all our basic research `eggs' in just a few baskets, we could find in five years time that we have chosen the wrong baskets and then not have the people, the knowledge, or the international contacts which would allow us to catch up. Professor Cole, Professor of Physics at La Trobe University, echoed the same sentiments, as follows: If anything, Australia should be doing more rather than less fundamental research. To cut funding on fundamental research runs the risk of creating a headless chicken of science and technology . . . and to lose touch with advanced communities of the world. The Government's emphasis on high-technology research is questioned by many scientists. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in the United Kingdom has warned: . . . there is a tendency for research to be distorted towards glamorous high-tech projects which attract outside funding . . . at the expense of work likely to lead to the greater benefit for the greater number of people. There is a school of thought that believes Australia should concentrate on areas of comparative advantage, as I said previously, for example in agriculture and minerals rather than try to compete with advanced nations with the same hit list of new technologies. Certainly we cannot afford to neglect the often fragile environment on which our productive rural industries are based. The question remains to be answered: Can a government `pick the winners' in research? Senator Button and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) have unprecedented power to control the nature and direction of research. Should this power be centralised in the Canberra bureaucracy-that is the basic question. Top industry, business, academic and government leaders do not believe so. At a conference organised by the new Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce last year to select new technologies for the future, not one of the 200 top industry, business, academic and government delegates was prepared to select a specific technology. The majority believe this to be the role of the market place-not the Government. The Government's role, we believe, is in improving basic infrastructure problems such as poor education, lack of skills and the lack of money for basic research. Science will not flourish in a culture that is indifferent to its activities. After all it depends on society for financial support and new recruits. Surveys show that, although many Australians are fairly well disposed towards science and technology, a large percentage admit they are poorly informed. They have a poor understanding of how it affects their lives. Australian leaders, too, have a low level of knowledge of science and technology. Business executives regard investment in research and development as a reluctant tactical necessity. An injection of interest in and support of science by government is vital if we are to fashion an environment in which scientific creativity is valued, nourished and allowed freedom of expression. The review by the Government of maths and science teaching in schools is well overdue as evidenced by the massive shortage of mathematicians and scientists in the work force, in education and in research. There are signs of a renaissance in Australian industry. This needs to be matched by a renaissance of science in Australia, a science culture that could help revitalise our schools, research institutions, and industries. Mr McGuinness, in the Australian Financial Review only last week, said: Science and technology are the essence of Australia's efforts to restore its economic position in the world and retain its relative living standards. Yet Australia's record of research and development is not good. I believe that the question he poses-what do we do about science?-is one that each and every one of us in this place ought to consider far more carefully to ensure that we can get the benefits from Australian science so that the whole community will go forward. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(12.40) —Today I raise a matter that has troubled me for some time: recipients of lump sum compensation and their extreme vulnerability in the present system. I am sure that the problem has been brought to the attention of other honourable members, but it seems that there is a particular problem in Western Australia. The advice people get prior to receiving a compensation pay out comes from a variety of sources, the main source being the solicitor who is handling the compensation case. Naturally, once the case is finalised and the pay out is due, the injured worker, who is often a person with little knowledge of finance, investment or law, asks the solicitor what he should do with the money. Unfortunately, not all solicitors acknowledge that they do not possess expertise in every aspect of the law and some provide such a confident and categoric answer to the question that it leads the client to the conclusion that the solicitor knows what he is talking about. With absolute certainty the solicitor advises the client to use the lump sum to pay off his house mortgage and all other outstanding debts and then apply for sickness benefit or an invalid pension from the Department of Social Security. The unsuspecting client takes the advice as gospel and usually follows it to the letter, only to find on application to the Department of Social Security that at least part of that lump sum was granted as compensation in respect of loss of earnings and, as such, renders him or her ineligible for government assistance for a certain period, that time being equivalent to the amount paid expressed in the normal weekly earnings of that employee. Imagine the shock. What does the person live on in the meantime? How does he feed his family, buy clothes, pay the electricity bill or keep the telephone on? Generally speaking, this issue affects male workers more than female workers. It is difficult to explain the puzzlement and extreme distress of people to whom this occurs. They do not know what to do and they do not know how they got into the predicament. All they did was trust their solicitor. Some doctors also are guilty of this practice, which can result in patients being subjected to an incredible amount of additional and unnecessary worry and stress as a direct consequence of incorrect advice. What the solicitor or the doctor did not know and, presumably, did not try to find out, was that the social security legislation was changed some time ago to ensure that compensation in respect of lost earnings was taken into account when an application for sickness benefit or invalid pension was made. Furthermore, any benefit paid to the compensation recipient and his or her spouse since the date of incapacity or the date that periodic compensation payments ceased is recoverable by the Social Security Department once the lump sum compensation is received. Should the solicitor have known about this change? I maintain that, if he provided such an authoritative answer to a person in such a vulnerable position, he should have known. Many distressed constituents have come to me because the Department could not provide them with the benefit to which they believed they were justly entitled. One constituent had used his $33,000 lump sum pay out to pay off his debts and house mortgage, thinking he would be eligible for an invalid pension. Unfortunately, he could not apply for any benefits for six months. More recently, a person who received $37,000 and used the money to pay off his debts is now totally dependent on the support and generosity of his children and will not be eligible to receive a pension until March next year. On some occasions I have been able to assist these people by securing a reordering of their commitments if they were not too far down the track of paying off their mortgages, thus giving them enough money to sustain their families and themselves pending eligibility for social security assistance. More often, though, it is a matter of endeavouring to extract details of settlement from the solicitor who gave the wrong advice; that is, how much, if any, of the lump sum was granted as compensation for pain and suffering and how much was granted for loss of earnings. I use the word `extract' in the sense that some solicitors do not seem to recognise that their client has the right to know the details of the settlement components and they refuse, or are very reluctant, to divulge this information, even when it is obvious that the lack of knowledge is seriously detrimental to their client's welfare. Once this figure is obtained, it is sometimes possible to recalculate the working period it represents and, therefore, more accurately determine the length of time which has to pass before the benefit eligibility is reached. Too often, however, there is nothing at all that can be done for people who find themselves in this predicament. I always find that very hard to manage, because there ought to be something that can be done, even if it is only redress of that client by the solicitor concerned. I was sufficiently concerned about this practice to write to the secretary of the Barristers Board in Perth on 4 November last year, to draw attention to the problem and to seek advice on the avenues of redress available to constituents where it was obvious that the advice provided to them by their solicitor had been wrong and detrimental to their welfare. A reply was received from the Barristers Board on 27 November, thanking me for drawing these matters to the Board's attention and suggesting that the Department of Social Security should provide a clear statement of the present position for inclusion in the Law Society's monthly journal, Brief. Regarding opportunities for redress, the secretary was less forthcoming but equally polite, in these terms: It is possible in some circumstances that the client may be able to establish negligence, but without a legal adviser making a detailed examination of the circumstances, it is not possible for this Board to give any clear answer to that query. Much as I expected, you need a good lawyer. Upon receipt of the response from the Barristers Board, I contacted the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) enclosing a copy of the letter from the Barristers Board and requesting the Department to arrange for a statement to be included in the Law Society's journal. Early last month, the Department wrote to the editor of Brief in Perth detailing the information required. The Department wrote that compensation payments can affect certain social security payments in the following ways: Periodical payments are directly deducted dollar for dollar from the social security payment rate; social security payments made in relevant periods can be recovered from lump sum settlements; and lump sum settlements may also preclude social security payment for a period into the future. The advice from the Department also drew barristers' and solicitors' attention to the fact that there is now a new 50 per cent rule applying to lump sum compensation. Under this rule, 50 per cent-and only 50 per cent-of any lump sum settlement made after the date of the announcement will be deemed to be for economic loss for the purposes of recovery and preclusion under the Social Security Act. I am very hopeful-and I know that honourable members of this House will join with me in that hope-that now that the legal profession in Western Australia has been acquainted with the Social Security Department's requirements, there will be fewer instances of incorrect advice being provided to clients in receipt of lump sum compensation payments. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(12.49) —I would like to take this opportunity to remind honourable members opposite that outside the sequestered environment of this Parliament House there is a real world with real people, many of whom are suffering because of the inflexible and unsympathetic Government policies administered by a seemingly aloof and indifferent bureaucracy. The former United States President, the late Theodore Roosevelt, very adequately summed up the primary responsibility and most important obligation of those who are entrusted with the duty of governing a nation and his words are worth repeating here today: `The object of government is the welfare of the people'. This Government has demonstrated a blatant and callous disregard for the welfare of many Australian people, particularly those who are least able to care for or provide adequately for themselves. There is ample and irrefutable evidence of its uncaring, autocratic and arrogant attitude towards those citizens, both collectively and individually, who depend on it most for assistance and protection. In its latest onslaught against some of the more vulnerable members of our community, this Government has selected the frail aged as its target. In July this year the Government intends to introduce new flat rate subsidies for nursing homes. These proposed care aggregate module funding arrangements will effectively reduce both the quality and quantity of care available to nursing home patients. Because of this mean and misguided policy, elderly people who are sick and unable to look after themselves may be deprived of the care they need and deserve and are entitled to receive. The Government has turned a deaf ear to the pleas of those involved in, and/or concerned about, aged care and who are extremely worried about the consequences of this unjustified cutback. Representations from voluntary charitable and private groups and organisations have been ignored or summarily dismissed. Requests from the Liberal and National parties to trial-run the new funding arrangements in a government-owned and operated nursing home prior to their implementation Australia-wide have been similarly disregarded and this Government claims that it cares about the welfare of Australians. Quite obviously it does not care very much about old people and it does not care very much about others who genuinely lack the ability or the resources adequately to care for themselves. Out there in the real world there are many people who may have the will, but not necessarily the ways and means, to provide for their own basic needs and requirements. They are prepared to make the necessary effort on their own behalf but they do need some assistance. Do they get any help or encouragement from this Government? No. I am not referring here to those who are seeking government assistance with the provision of unnecessary or extravagant extras, but to those who are genuinely disadvantaged when it comes to the essentials of daily living which are fundamental to personal welfare and well-being and which have a direct influence on one's capacity to become, and remain, an involved useful and contributing member of the community. Things that most of us take for granted like getting out of bed in the morning, having a shower, getting dressed, eating a meal, going to work, and the ordinary everyday tasks and activities that most of us, fortunately, can do for ourselves, are sometimes beyond the capacity of others. Can they turn to a compassionate government for assistance? Apparently not, unless their individual needs and circumstances fit in with the often inflexible, unreasonable and unrealistic departmental guidelines or the so-called eligibility criteria. I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of this House the appalling attitude this Government has demonstrated in regard to one of my constituents. Some people when confronted by a challenge of seemingly immense proportions decide it will be better and easier to run away from it-to opt out. Others decide to tackle the difficulty head on, to attempt to solve the problem through their own initiative and endeavour. They battle on, determined to succeed against sometimes apparently insurmountable odds. They deserve our admiration, our respect, our encouragement and our assistance and support. One such person is Adrian Murphy. Some 25 years ago, as the result of a tragic accident, Adrian became a quadriplegic. At the time, he was 17. He spent two years as a patient at the Austin Hospital, a hospital renowned locally and internationally for its treatment and care of those with severe spinal injuries. Then followed several years in geriatric nursing homes. In January 1977 he became a resident of the then newly opened Yarra-me, a quadriplegic centre in North Croydon. He remained there for four years. Whilst at Yarra-me he had the good fortune, and he certainly deserved some, to renew his acquaintance with a nurse who had cared for him at one of the nursing homes where he had previously been a patient. He and Maryke decided to get married. They now live in their own home in Ringwood. Despite his severe physical disabilities, Adrian Murphy has always been determined to make the best of a difficult and challenging situation. During the time he spent in various institutions he involved himself in public speaking, addressing community groups, service clubs and schools. He was employed on a voluntary basis at primary schools in Croydon and North Croydon, assisting with the remedial program for slow learners. He aimed, through his speaking engagements and his work with children, to develop an increased community awareness and understanding of the needs of people with severe disabilities. Since 1985 Adrian has been in paid employment, at first as a community awareness worker with the disability attendant study group, Northcote, and for the past three years with the Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Association of Victoria. During this time he developed that organisation's first attendant care program and applied for funding under the provisions of the community employment program to enable himself and other severely disabled persons to obtain attendant care. Through his first-hand knowledge and experience of the issues concerning attendant care he has been instrumental in developing the Quadriplegic and Paraplegic Association's attendant care program under the national attendant care scheme. Adrian is rightfully proud that the organisation which employs him was the first approved service provider in Victoria to move severely disabled people out of institutions and back into the community. After community employment program funding, which covered the costs of Adrian's personal attendant care program, ran out he applied for assistance under the national attendant care scheme which is administered by the Department of Community Services and Health. Unbelievably, his application has been rejected on the grounds that he does not meet the basic eligibility criteria because he does not reside in a nursing home. In a letter dated 23 October 1987 to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) Adrian wrote: An attendant care person has enabled me to live with dignity, be gainfully employed, pay taxes, enjoy a reasonable standard of living and I have been able to live a fulfilling life while making a worthwhile contribution to society. My ultimate goal is to remain employed, to live with the person I love and to assist those people less fortunate than myself. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is intolerable that a usefully employed, contributing member of our community has been disadvantaged because he has largely, as a result of his own initiative, efforts and persistence, removed himself from institutional care. How has the Government rewarded his endeavours? With no real option but to return to the institution he fought so hard to leave because he fails to meet the basic eligibility criteria. Once he is back inside, the criteria will have been met. This is an example of the bureaucratic discrimination bordering on the absurd. It is a heartless, inefficient and ultimately ineffective program that does not allow for the circumstances of my constituent and others in a similar predicament. It is just another example of the thoughtless and uncaring attitude of a Government which has little real concern for the welfare of the people. On behalf of Adrian Murphy and others like him, I implore the Minister to throw his diabolical eligibility criteria out of the window and whilst he is at it, he may as well give his care aggregate module program the heave-ho as well. Then, and and only then, will this Government show it is prepared to acknowledge its responsibility and its obligation to provide adequately for those who cannot provide for themselves. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(12.59) —Mr Deputy Speaker, today I would like to draw to the attention of the House the plight of the township of Childers in my electorate and the struggle to gain a decent irrigation system for the farmers. The Isis district is predominantly a sugar cane growing area and the Isis irrigation scheme represents the major component of the Bundaberg irrigation scheme yet to be completed. Mr Sciacca —Beautiful area. Mr COURTICE —It certainly is, as the honourable member for Bowman says. In 1970 the Federal Government entered into an agreement with the Queensland Government. The Commonwealth was to provide $12.8m for the Fred Haigh Dam, formerly known as the Conduran Dam, the Gin Gin channel and associated pump works. The State Government was to provide $8.3m for barrages and reticulation works. In 1974 the Federal Government had to step in and provide a further $4.4m for the work which was supposed to have been carried out by the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Since 1977 the Federal Government has provided funds under the national water resources program and the federal water resources assistance program for the original reticulation works which were to be provided by the State Government. In fact, the State Government had not cooperated to honour its side of the agreement. Over the period to 1980-81 the Federal Government provided $7.45m to Queensland for the construction of reticulation works. In 1980 the Fraser Government gave a commitment to reimburse Queensland $4m annually over eight years from financial year 1981-82. The agreement provided that the State would expend $10m annually on a reimbursement basis with the Federal Government paying $4m annually and Queensland $6m. It is interesting to look at the State Government's reaction to this agreement. On 29 October 1980 at a campaign election luncheon in Bundaberg Bjelke-Petersen announced that the Queensland Government would maintain the average annual commitment of $5.6m it had made to the project over the previous five years. Bjelke-Petersen was quoted as saying: `We will continue to play our part to see the scheme through. We will more than match the Commonwealth Government's contribution. This is a massive project, absolutely vital for the stability of the sugar industry in the area.' However, the Bjelke-Petersen Government almost immediately walked away from its constitutional responsibility to provide a water supply for the people in Isis. It failed to provide anything like the funds needed to finance the project above the inflation rate. Mr Hand —He withdrew the funds and denied it. Mr COURTICE —He certainly did. One of the National Party Ministers, Mr Tomkins, conceded this when he was quoted as follows in the Bundaberg News Mail: `The fault lay with Mr Fraser and Sir Joh'. Mr Tomkins said, `The whole problem is that it was at that level'. Referring to Fraser and Bjelke-Petersen Mr Tomkins said, `They make these big statements and do nothing about it'. I recently had a meeting with the Isis canegrowers executive, which is understandably upset that the State Government has ratted on it in this way. The State Water Resources Minister, Mr Neal, inspected the scheme, looked at the drought conditions in the Isis and then went away and gave the project a No. 2 priority; a No. 2 priority, Mr Deputy Speaker, at a time when the Isis mill this year will crush for only seven weeks. In fact, some of the cane could be harvested with lawnmowers. It is an absolute disgrace and the State Government can still give it only a No. 2 priority. In an attempt to deflect criticism away from the State Government which has sold out the Isis, the National Party has tried to bring a couple of luminaries up to the district. Senator Boswell, if you could call him a luminary, came through. Then they sent the Leader of the National Party up. Mr Hand —Which one? Mr COURTICE —I am not sure, because they do not even know who is the Leader of the National Party at the moment. The Leader came through and criticised the funding arrangements. This was in spite of the fact that the agreement he was criticising was a deal signed in 1980 between the Fraser Government, of which the leader of the National Party was a Minister, and the Queensland National Party, which I understand he no longer trusts. At least he has that much in common with the people of Isis; they do not trust the Queensland National Party either. In turn they do not trust each other. It has been left to the Federal Government to try to straighten out this agreement. The new Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, has given an assurance that the $4m promised as a part of the eight-year agreement will be honoured. It is now up to the Queensland Government to provide the extra funds to finish the scheme over the 12 months time still to elapse. Senator Cook has also agreed to review the present agreement between the Federal and State governments. This review will help to establish the priorities the Queensland Government has in providing funds for the Isis scheme. It needs to give the people of the Isis district a clear signal that it will finish the project. After 17 years there is still no water running to 95 per cent of the farms in Isis. By contrast, the Federal Government's attitude to funding the water resources projects throughout Queensland is beyond doubt. Since the Hawke Government was elected Federal Government contributions towards water resource projects in Queensland as a percentage of total Commonwealth funding have climbed from 40.5 per cent in 1983-84 to 59.5 per cent in 1987-88. I suspect that funds which could have been used in Isis have been used to develop other water projects throughout Queensland. It is a type of National Party cargo cult mentality. Quite simply, the National Party runs around the rural areas at election time promising dams, weirs, barrages and reticulation works and as a result the State Government's attention is never focused on the completion of any one project. An example of this fascination with dubious projects, I guess, is the Bradfield scheme. The scheme gets dusted off every time the National Party feels that it needs to boost its support in rural areas. The Bradfield scheme proposed to divert North Queensland rivers over the Great Dividing Range and the Queensland National Party likens it to the Snowy Mountains scheme. There is, however, one fundamental difference: the Snowy Mountains scheme generates electricity from falling water; the Bradfield scheme has to defy the laws of gravity and lift water 1,000 feet in the air. Mr Simmons —Don't you worry about that. Mr COURTICE —That is certainly right. Is it any wonder that the former Queensland Premier then believed that he could make cars run on water? The unfortunate truth is that even if the Queensland Government could make cars run on water, the people in Isis still would not be able to obtain enough water to take advantage of that situation. I would like to call on the Queensland Premier, Mr Ahern, to visit the Isis scheme when he comes to Bundaberg next. The Isis and Bundaberg canegrowers executive would be happy to show him around. Mr Hand —He is not game to leave Brisbane. Mr COURTICE —The biggest problem, as the Minister says, is that he has been taken up totally with the Fitzgerald Inquiry. I have never seen a cat set among so many pigeons in all my life. It is certainly essential that he does not get hoodwinked into financing some new scheme before the Isis scheme is finished. I am asking the Ahern Government only to honour a promise that the National Party made to the people back in 1980. If it was behaving responsibly the National Party would have made that promise only after it had carefully consulted and costed its commitments and it has not done that. We have the most incompetent State government in Australia's political history. It is therefore only fair that the National Party now honour the eight-year agreement it made in 1980 and provide sufficient funds to finish the scheme. To date the State Government has not cooperated on any agreement it entered into on this scheme and it can restore its tattered image only if it makes a clear statement now and funds the scheme. The farmers, the mill workers, the small business people of Isis deserve better and I stress, very strongly, that the Premier should forget his own problems, forget the disunity within his party and get on with governing Queensland. All we have heard since he came into power is talk of a government of excellence. What we have had is a government of incompetence and, as some previous speakers said this morning, the greatest concern it seems to have is the overthrow of its own party by the League of Rights. I suggest that if it wants to stay in government it should put that aside and get on with governing and providing water for the people of Isis. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(1.08) —First, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to extend my sympathy to the people of Hinkler. I express my sympathy because I have never heard so much garbage within 10 minutes as we have heard. In dealing with the subject, obviously, the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) has not got the remotest idea of what he is talking about because he would never have brought up the reduction of funds for water conservation and matters associated with water reticulation, as our Government had approved $500m over a period of 10 years. These people abolished that completely. He talks about the Bradfield scheme. Now here is a man passing judgment on Dr Bradfield. One of his minor achievements, of course, was the designing of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and one or two other things. However, I am not going to fall into the trap of absorbing my 10 minutes in dealing with a man who is a very, very poor substitute for Brian Conquest. I am sure that position will be rectified very promptly, so the people of Hinkler can rest assured that they will have a restored representation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a gentle soul, as you know; a gentle person who never speaks unkindly of anyone, but one could not let that absolute nonsense go by unobserved. I would like to dwell on people a little over the next 10 minutes and perhaps the subjects of compassion and recognition. The first subject I would like to bring up at this moment I think is very timely, because the Government, and I commend it, has established the Committee for Community Affairs, whose main objective is at long last to unearth and expose the great difficulties of the Vietnam veterans. I am pleased to see in the House the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who I know has a very deep concern in this matter. I suppose, in a way, I suffer from a sense of guilt. Not that in any way could I have altered the situation, but may I present to the House a word picture of what actually occurred the day that the great numbers of our Vietnam soldiers who had been fighting in that terrible war returned to Australia. I had the honour at the time to be Minister for the Army and I well remember going out to Sydney Heads. I always had in my mind the Ministers who stood on the wharf and welcomed the troops with their little hands-`Welcome home, boys, you have done a good job'. I just could not cop that. I organised to go out on a barge to Sydney Heads at about 4 o'clock in the morning. Mr Hand —That is how you did your neck in. Mr KATTER —Possibly. Some say they tried to break my heart in Queensland, but they only finished up breaking my neck. So it goes. Getting back to this particular subject, I remember well going out to the Heads and going aboard the Sydney. I just forget the numbers, but some hundreds of our Vietnam people were returning from overseas. On that particular occasion two things were quite remarkable. First of all, those fellows were not parade ground soldiers. Oh, my goodness, anyone who would suggest that people who fought in Vietnam were parade ground soldiers would know very little of the whole situation. I cannot brag about any service there or anything of that nature but I was the Minister when the thing concluded. The other thing I observed I think is very notable, Mr Deputy Speaker. They built a dais and I welcomed them home. I told how much their service was appreciated, all politics aside. I could not find one person there who had any regrets. It was remarkable that here was a group of fellows proud of what they had done; not proud of being involved in what was a dirty and ugly war, but proud of the fact that they had represented their country and according to the decisions of the government of the day they had gone over to do something for their nation. What happened then moves me almost too emotionally because I was so much part of that scene. In between that time when they landed and now, if you like, or perhaps the great march in Sydney when the whole history began to change, those men had to go around almost ashamed of what they had been involved in. Yesterday the Community Affairs Committee heard the experiences of one particular soldier and I am sure there would not be a person in this House, whatever his politics, who would not have been deeply moved by his experience. He was even ashamed almost to go to his family home. So I make this very desperate appeal that we have only started to recognise these people. The thing we have to absolutely watch is that we do not present them as someone odd. I am terribly pleased to see the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) come into the chamber, because she is so much involved in this scene. I am talking about the Vietnam returnees and how we have now started, with the creation of the Community Affairs Committee-and I commend the Government for it-with the main objective as I see it, at any rate, of setting up counselling services to indicate to these fellows that they are really appreciated and what they did was magnificent, all politics aside. I want to get on to another subject, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to pay tribute, if I may, to a few Australians who in a very special way have made a great contribution to this country. They are men who have not sought to be recognised. They have not sought to hit the limelight, but one inevitably does and he is well known to you. I refer to Sir Asher Joel. Looking through great Australians I think the great test about all this is people who have started off from the ranks. It is all very well to come from a privileged beginning, to start off with a platinum spoon in your mouth, but I think the great achievements are of those who have had to make their way against all sorts of adversity. As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Asher Joel is such a man. He came from very humble beginnings and he has made an enormous contribution to this nation in many ways. He has been recognised for it, admittedly, and it is a recognition that is very much deserved because there are so many knighthoods around this country that one really wonders whether anyone who grants those knighthoods knows what it is all about. I am not pointing at anyone, but let me say that there are probably more granted to people whose great achievement was to get themselves in the top-ranking billionaires and millionaires of this nation. That to me is not an achievement. So I mention Sir Asher Joel. Let us look at his achievements. I think Lyndon B. Johnson started it all; then the Pope; the Queen's visit; and the opening of the Opera House. Remember that Asher Joel gave most of his services gratis, and the wear and tear on him and his family were absolutely enormous. I want to talk about a fellow named Dr Harvey-Sutton, who is not well known to honourable members here, but he is well known to Ted Lindsay and he is well known to all of us who live in the northern part of this nation. There is a man who, because of the status his father, Professor Harvey-Sutton, in Sydney, could have easily gone into the social circles of Sydney and set himself up as a specialist. But he came out and devoted an entire lifetime to people in the bush, and he is still there. I think he is known to my very good fried who is now in the House, Ram Chandra. Dr David Harvey-Sutton is a man who has given his life, his fortune-everything-to the people of this nation and, more particularly, the people in my disadvantaged areas of Australia. Finally, I come to a great man named Ram Chandra. I am happy to see him sitting in this House with his son Albert and his grandson, Eddie. Honourable members will see him walk out of the House a cripple. Why? Because he has devoted his life to finding an antivenin for the taipan and other venomous snakes which occupy this nation, regrettably. I do not know that we can do much about it. Saint Patrick is not available, so we have Ram Chandra. This man has made an enormous contribution to this country. Soon, I hope, we will see a mini-series or a film, depicting his life in story form and I am sure it will be something that we will all remember. One can do no more than give his health, give his life, give the lives of his family, as is happening now; no more than Ram Chandra has done. It is with a great deal of pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I see him sitting in the House, and it is with a great deal of pleasure-I am sure the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) if he were free, would like to be here with me-that I pay tribute to one of his most famous and one of his most compassionate constituents. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(1.18) —I am disappointed with the decision to take the town of Gulgong from the $10 note and replace it with a so-called bicentennial commemorative plastic note. As we all know, 1988 is a tremendously important historic year. One of the best things about the bicentennial celebrations is that most of the motivation has come from the people themselves. Hundreds of bicentennial community committees around the country have organised themselves over the past five years or more and have consulted with many individuals and groups to determine how they will remember the 200th anniversary of European settlement. One such community is that of Gulgong, a small town of around 2,000 people in the north-western section of my electorate of Calare. When it comes to remembering important events in our past, the town of Gulgong has more to celebrate than most. The people there can look back to the times when Gulgong was a large and bustling goldmining centre of 20,000, when hotels and shops lined the busy streets, and imagine what life must have been like for the pioneers of the area, in their tents and wattle and daub huts. The Gulgong community and the people of the entire Mudgee Shire, of which it is a part, hold in such high regard the historical significance of Gulgong that the major bicentennial project for the area is the construction of a goldmining museum. The museum will be built in the middle of the town at a place called Red Hill where gold was first discovered in the area. The cost of establishing the museum will be some $140,000, $40,000 of which will come from the local community. As all this demonstrates, the history of this town is just as important a part of our heritage and the essential elements that make up the Australian character as the landing on 26 January 1788 of the First Fleet. Even better than the landing, the people of Australia have a photographic record of life in the Gulgong goldfields and those fields in nearby Hill End. The collection of photographs-the Holtermann collection-is probably the most complete record of life on the goldfields in the 1870s and an invaluable lesson to all Australians about the tough times and the tough men and women who founded the western regions of New South Wales. It is basically a collage of some of the Holtermann photographs which comprise the $10 note. Some of the buildings depicted on the $10 note are still in Gulgong, preserved as closely as possible to what they were in the 1870s. In addition, most of the buildings in the central business area are from the same era. One of the buildings on the $10 note is the Times Bakery, shown on the extreme top right-hand corner of the note. The ovens from that bakery can still be visited in Main Street, Gulgong. Another building which appears on the $10 note is the Gulgong Dispensary and it is still as it was in the 1870s. The Gulgong Pioneer Museum, another architecturally important building, is widely recognised as one of the best folk museums in the entire country. It is not surprising that the town of Gulgong is listed on the National Estate Register as a conservation area. A trip to Gulgong is like an important lesson in history. There would not be a person who has visited the town and has taken the time to look through the museum who has not come away with a better appreciation of life in the goldfields and earlier. I therefore believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is absolute lunacy to take this historic depiction off the $10 note simply for the novelty of a plastic note; a plastic note, I would add, which has been fraught with problems and controversy. There have been production disputes which have put back the scheduled release of the notes and there is continuing criticism, I believe, of the holographic picture of Captain Cook as a security device, whereas the current $10 note on the same side as the Gulgong collage displays a picture of Henry Lawson, perhaps our finest early poet, bush ballad writer and story teller. Henry Lawson's life and works are vitally connected with the town of Gulgong and I feel it is important to point out that, unlike most of the people shown on our currency, such as Caroline Chisholm, Joseph Banks, Francis Greenway and John Macarthur, at least Henry Lawson was a native-born Aussie. In fact, Lawson was born in Grenfell but moved to Gulgong with his parents at the age of six months. He spent the next formative 12 years of his life in the Gulgong goldfields. His experiences during that period of his life, and the people he knew, form the basis of many of his works. Gulgong is now the home of the Henry Lawson Society of New South Wales which administers prestigious art and literary awards in his memory. In Gulgong, also, is the Henry Lawson Centre which contains many of his writings for visitors to read, memorabilia from his lifetime, photographs and art works depicting scenes from his writings and enlargements of the Holtermann photographs which appear on the $10 note. If ever there was an Australian who captured on paper the feeling of our pioneering past and recorded for us a past that was at times comic, and at other times tragic, he is Henry Lawson. And if there is someone worthy of being honoured with a picture on our currency, I believe it is Henry Lawson. In our bicentennial year people like the early goldminers and great men like Henry Lawson are deserving of a place in our celebration. They were all part of making this country what it is. It is for this reason that I, and certainly the people of Gulgong, deplore the removal of Gulgong from the $10 note. It is important to realise what being on the $10 note means to the people of Gulgong, both from the standpoint of their pride in their heritage and the impact that the removal from the $10 note will have on the livelihood of the town. Gulgong has built quite an impressive tourist industry on the basis of its historical importance. However, the fact that it is on the $10 note has also been used as a great promotional advantage to the town. They have the $10 Note Hotel; a $10 Note Town tea towels, scarves, purses and souvenirs of all descriptions; in fact quite an investment in Gulgong's actually being on the $10 note. So to remove Gulgong without any consultation and apparently without much consideration for the consequences of such a move is quite horrifying. I understand that, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, during the last financial year the Mudgee Shire earned some $15m through tourism. Three million dollars to $4m of that revenue is attributed to Gulgong. In the small town of Gulgong, which has a population as I said of only 2,000, 40 to 45 people are employed directly in the tourist industry. Gulgong, which is not on a highway, boasts some 60 motel beds, something virtually unheard of for a town its size in such a geographic situation. The town of Gulgong has been on the $10 note for 22 years now and during that time the people of that town have worked very hard indeed to establish its reputation as a tourist destination. The impetus to their efforts will be lost, I believe, because of this action. Surely we have enough other things to remember the Bicentenary by without messing about with the future of the town on the $10 note. In the area of currency alone there is to be a special bicentennial 50c coin depicting one of the ships of the First Fleet; a bicentennial $1 coin showing an Aboriginal design of a kangaroo; and a bicentennial $2 coin showing an Aboriginal man and the Southern Cross. The new plastic note has been an expensive and time-consuming experiment costing $20m to develop, over 20 years. The idea of a plastic note is commendable in that it is supposed to be more durable and will save millions in minting costs. But why ignore the historically significant design already on the $10 note? People are always complaining that Australia lacks a real identity. It is the old cultural cringe that we have very little to call our own. With Gulgong we have a recognised historical location. With the old $10 note we have a visual celebration of the lifestyle and the struggles of the 1870s and what do we do? We throw it away with both hands. Many people recognise not only the historical importance of Gulgong but also its current nostalgic appeal because of the very sensitive way the local people have preserved their heritage. For example, a picture of Gulgong appeared on the cover of the 1987 telephone directory for the 063 district and the photographer involved, Mr Ben Chandler of Telecom, in fact received one of the great coveted awards, the Hasselblad Award in the commercial, industrial, advertising and public relations category. Another person who appreciates the charm of Gulgong is the Australian singer/songwriter John Williamson. He is renowned for his humorous and sensitive Australian ballads and he chose a photograph of the Gulgong Saints and Sinners Cafe for his latest album cover. I understand he has already sold some 35,000 copies. A further example of the great esteem of the people of Gulgong for their historical environment is the current effort to get telephone booths for the town that are more in keeping with its character. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(1.28) —I might comment that the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) uttered the word `Gulgong' more often than most politicians say `ah' when they are making a speech. I would suggest to him that what is happening in his electorate is an indication and proof of this Hawke Government losing touch with the people. They are taking towns off the $10 bill. Now I turn to another subject, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Australian Labor Party goes on and on and on about the subject of a consumption tax. Of course we all recall that at the time of the Tax Summit it was an option being proposed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who it seems, for political expediency reasons, has gone so much against it these days. But we have been reading more and more in the papers of late of an awakening in the community that the Labor Party's spread of sales tax is such that we have virtually a consumption tax in place already. It has been applying sales tax here and there, and I stand today to make comments and to make a plea to the Labor Party to recognise what it is doing in terms of health foods. I refer specifically to a product called So Good, which is a milk-type product made from soya beans for people who suffer in terms of health. So Good is a product prescribed often by doctors for people with lactose intolerance and cow's milk allergies, for people who are asthmatics, for infants and children who frequently suffer from these allergies and for people who require cholesterol-free diets, particularly those who suffer from heart conditions. The Federal Government at the moment, as a result of its legislation to spread far and wide the ramifications and the implications of its sales tax measures, is applying to this product, which has to be used by people for health reasons, a sales tax component of some 20 per cent. People who are well, fit and strong and do not need an alternative to milk at the present time would not be paying anything in the way of sales tax on milk. But people who are sick or have some health deficiency and have to use this product are being made to pay a 20 per cent sales tax. Mr Fitzgibbon —Was it put on by the National Party? Mr DONALD CAMERON —It is the Hawke Labor Government. This is what one could call another episode of losing touch. This particular soya bean milk is drunk by people who have to drink it, and I have had a number of them from my electorate contact me to draw this tax imposition to my attention. I undertook to raise it in this place and I have done that. I make the comparison that the Labor Government has even applied a 10 per cent sales tax to fruit juice, for instance. Honourable members opposite do go on a lot about no consumption tax but there is not much they have not taxed already; babies' booties and babies' bottles are probably next. The Labor Government has already effectively applied sales tax to so many areas. Why does it have a 10 per cent application to fruit juice, which in light of its own views, is inconsistent and almost hypocritical in the way that it condemns consumption tax, but applies a 20 per cent sales tax on something that has to be consumed only for health reasons? Mr Fitzgibbon —Who imposed it? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Your Party, and the Australian Taxation Office as a result of your legislation. Now do not stand here and suggest that this would be an unintended consequence because it is a consequence. When the Government brings in legislation, it should more closely examine it before it rams it through this place with its numbers. Another matter I wish to raise, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a complaint which I am surprised has not been previously raised. It is another example of the Government losing touch. I am saying that the Hawke Federal Government needs to be chastised for affecting the human side of unemployment by radically altering the contents of the Commonwealth Employment Service's (CES) quarterly booklet, which is entitled `Statistics'. Now being omitted from the booklet are the age characteristics of people looking for work; the big cover-up is under way. The CES data is exceptionally important because it represents the only information which describes unemployment trends according to age ranges at a local level. I see the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) sitting in the chamber. Until this sleight of hand the honourable member and all members of the Labor Party sitting there could turn to this booklet and examine where, for instance, the youth are unemployed, in which particular districts in an electorate and which suburbs in the major cities. One could establish where people over 50 years of age were disproportionately out of work, and of course, Opposition members often made use of these figures, in Press releases and the like, because the Labor Government has spent the last three or four years crying about only the jobs it has created and never referring to the plight of those who are out of work. Their plight does not exist in its vocabulary. Honourable member opposite talk only about jobs created, but members on this side of the House were able to use those figures properly to point to the fact that there were great numbers of people unemployed in their local electorates. So what has the Government done? It has wiped this as a system, and has said that the only provider of this kind of information will be the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The difference is that the Bureau of Statistics does not localise unemployment figures in terms of where the people live. For instance, now the city of Brisbane will include all those surrounding areas. There will be Logan City. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) has come into the chamber. Caboolture is not in his electorate now, but as far up as Caboolture will be taken in the Greater Brisbane statistical area and then all this will be broken into four. It is making it impossible for people to be able to understand the localisation of the problems of unemployment in terms of the age breakup. I would suggest that the new system is definitely less intimate and ultimately less caring. The CES data was actually letting the cat out of the bag, but the Hawke Government has pushed the cat back into the bag. The Government ceased to publish the information because it has limitations; it fixed that problem altogether and very nicely it got rid of the information altogether. In my concluding comments I would simply like to observe that there are still 600,000 Australians out of work and there have been more people out of work during the time of the Labor Administration than there were under the Fraser Government. Youth unemployment continues to be a national disgrace and I personally believe that unemployment is one of the greatest curses that this nation has suffered in the last eight or nine years, which takes in the previous Government's Administration. I make the plea that instead of just accepting figures, instead of just trying to camouflage the realities, we all renew our determination to eradicate the deficiencies. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(1.37) —I know that it would be rather unusual in a grievance debate to start by congratulating somebody, but I would like to congratulate a Mr Gareth Powell of the Sydney Morning Herald for an excellent supplement that was put together and published on Wednesday, 20 April, concerning Wollongong and the Illawarra. His supplement clearly demonstrates that enormous gains have been made in a very depressed area of Australia, an area that, unfortunately, has suffered grievously as a result of policies before 1983 and which, in fact, suffered because of downturns in the steel and coal industries in our area. But what does upset me greatly, in fact galls me no end, is the fact that during the course of the preparation of this particular supplement, an interview was carried out with the Lord Mayor of the City of Wollongong, one Alderman Frank Arkell. Alderman Arkell is also the Independent member for the seat of Wollongong in the State Parliament of New South Wales. I say I am galled simply because what is repeated in this article is the claim often made by Alderman Arkell that he, and he alone, has been responsible for the economic resurgence in Wollongong and the Illawarra and that he, and he alone, has been responsible for creating 10,000 new jobs. Quite frankly, we who represent that area in the Federal and State parliaments find it absolutely appalling. Taking a realistic approach, looking at the facts that are presented, indeed it is apparent in the article that appears beside the one on Arkell, that the claims that he has made and continues to make are absolute rubbish. Mr Tuckey —You mean that you did it all. Mr MARTIN —In response to my friend the honourable member for O'Connor, I would certainly not claim to have done it all, but I would certainly claim to have made a reasonable approach on behalf of the Government, along with my colleagues both in the Federal sphere and in the former New South Wales Government under Barrie Unsworth. I would make the claim that yes, we have been successful in attracting a number of developments to our area and, indeed, in affecting the creation of a number of jobs in Wollongong. But what concerns me is that running through the list of things that have been created, and the opportunities that have existed in Wollongong over the last few years, it is clear that somebody like the Lord Mayor of Wollongong can play only a very insignificant part in attracting that development to the area. I would like to just go through some of those, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, let us talk about the question of the expansion in the private sector in Illawarra. Under that heading we have seen the development of a grain handling facility paid for, and being developed by, the Federal and State governments, and it was because of the concern of the Federal and State governments-the Labor Government before it lost office in New South Wales-that that particular facility was developed. We have also the development of State and Federal office blocks in the area creating a great deal of employment within the construction industry. That, of course, has been mirrored within Wollongong with the construction of a great number of office blocks, because the climate of investment that has been created by the Federal Government is such that people are now prepared to put their money into a city like Wollongong. It is not because of Frank Arkell; it is because the macro-economic situation that has been created is now appealing to investors to put money into a city like Wollongong. We see, also, the development of technical and further education facilities. We have got a food and tourism school that has been developed at the technical and further education college in my electorate at North Wollongong and has been fully funded by the Federal Government and, indeed, by the Unsworth Labor Government before it lost office. Not one dollar had come from Wollongong City Council, not one dollar from Frank Arkell and, indeed, it was not even in his electorate. Yet, of course, he is claiming credit for that. We have also the development within the university. In this same supplement there is a magnificent advertisement from the University of Wollongong about the employment opportunities and the business opportunities that can be created using the expertise of people at the University of Wollongong. Arkell is saying that all those academics in the fields of economics and sociology and whatever else one might like to talk about, who have done a number of reports which have led to industries being attracted to Wollongong, have responded to his work. Patently, it is just nonsense. Other major public works that are occurring at the present time are the Ualdon-Dumbarton rail link; all the money going into that is from either the Federal Government or the State Government, not from Frank Arkell. As I have argued in this place previously, he is an Independent and as an Independent in the State House he has no power. Who wants to know him? Certainly the Australian Labor Party did not want to know him when he was there and I will tell you what-Greiner does not want to know him in New South Wales because he has got a majority as well. He has got a majority in his own right and he does not want to know all these Independents. Let us see what Frankie Boy can attract down to Wollongong over the next four years under the Liberals. In Wollongong, because of strong representation from people such as my friends and colleagues Stewart West, Collin Hollis and Robert Tickner-- Mrs Kelly —And yourself. Mr MARTIN —And naturally myself, here in this place-we have seen the caring attitude being displayed to a very depressed area and we have seen that with the Government putting money where its mouth is. When one takes into consideration, also, the efforts that have been made on behalf of the people of the Illawarra before the Labor Government lost power in the last State election, the efforts of people such as Laurie Kelly, Ian McManus, Bob Harrison and I am sure, in the future, the efforts of people such as Terry Rumble and, indeed, Colin Markham, we are going to see the benefit of Labor representation in the Illawarra come to the fore. Quite frankly, I just get sick of the media pushing the fact that Arkell, Mr Wonderful, is this great salesman for Wollongong. Look, what he does is use the Council offices. He has a highly developed little team around him and he says, `Bring some people to my office at Parliament House. I will take them out to lunch and we will see if we can talk them into coming to Wollongong'. But the incentives, the macroclimate in terms of economics that has been developed and, indeed, other money and priming finance that have been put into the area, have come because of the Federal Government and the former Labor Government in New South Wales, not because of Arkell. What about the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP)? If he is such a great statesman, if he is such a terrific bloke who can encourage people and create 10,000 jobs, how come BHP's employment is going to decrease from 23,000 in 1981 to 10,000 next year? What has he done about it? It is because of the steel industry plan that we have got a viable steel industry now, not because of Frank Arkell. In hearing him constantly praised, I cannot understand why honourable members on the other side are saying that an Independent is such a terrific bloke. He was around when you blokes were over on this side of the House back in the early 1980s and I guarantee that you would not have thought he had done much on behalf of Wollongong, either. So, quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude in this grievance debate by saying I am aggrieved. I am deeply aggrieved on behalf of the representatives in the Federal Parliament and, indeed, my State colleagues and the people of Wollongong who are constantly bombarded by this absolute nonsense that the Independent Lord Mayor of Wollongong created 10,000 jobs in the last five years and has set himself a similar target-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —Madam Speaker, on the weekend preceding the opening of the new Parliament House-that is, Saturday and Sunday, 7 and 8 May-there is to be a great national gathering in Canberra. On this Saturday and Sunday many thousands, and I repeat, many thousands of Christians of all denominations and Christian organisations and from all corners of Australia will gather in the vicinity of the new Parliament House for an historic act of prayer, reflection and celebration. This expression of Christian concern for the future of this nation has been organised, in cooperation with traffic control and other authorities, by a number of Christian organisations and dedicated laymen under a Patrons Committee including the President of this Parliament's Christian Fellowship, the Anglican and Catholic Bishops of Canberra, leaders of the Assemblies of God, the Baptist and Uniting churches and former Aboriginal Senator Neville Bonner. The program, beginning on Saturday, 7 May at midday, includes a march from three assembly points to the new Parliament House, a pageant of Australian history as a reflection on the question asked in the first Christian sermon on Australian soil, `What shall we render to the Lord for all his benefits towards us?' from Psalm 116, and in the evening a torchlight procession and a night of prayer to the sovereign God for Australia and the nation's destiny. The climax of the gathering will be an open-air church service at 7 a.m. on the Sunday morning in the space between the old and the new Parliament Houses. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —Madam Speaker, Australians generally are a peaceable people, neither hawks nor doves. They generally do not have an ideological axe to grind. For most Australians their interest in defence is the general concern that Australia has whatever it takes to protect itself and its allies from any aggressor. The Hawke Government, ever faithful to its constitutional responsibilities, has sworn to provide Australians with whatever it takes to protect our homeland and its people from any aggressor and to do our duty loyally and honourably as a trustworthy ally of the United States of America in the defence of liberty. Not all Australians share these sentiments to the full. The Business Council of Australia in a Press release issued on 17 April 1988 suggests that $300m should be taken away from this year's defence Budget. The Liberal and National parties have endorsed unequivocally this treacherous call for no real increase in expenditure on defence equipment to defend Australia. Even Defence Force families would suffer by the callous call to limit government funding to the Defence Housing Authority, but we on this side of the House, members of the Hawke Government, pledge to the Australian people that we shall continue our work of building the Australian Defence Force to guarantee that it is capable of protecting every inch of soil on this continent and every man, woman and child who live within its shores. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the fact that I have received a petition containing 730 signatures, which says as follows: We, the undersigned citizens respectively showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government sufficient to enable the public identification of doctors and their patients and call upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. Is it not amazing that these people in the Government would laugh at those who express a concern for their confidentiality? We now have a government that has completely put aside confidentiality. Last year during the identification card debate Government supporters were on about it all the time. They said, `The law will protect you'. This year we find Minister after Minister going into the confidential records of people and using the information against them for political reasons. It is a shame and these people are quite right to protest their concern. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker) —I wish to comment on a statement made in the Australia/Israel Review of 29 March which misrepresents the spirit of a speech made by me in this House on 17 March. In my speech, which was in response to the report of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) on his trip to the Middle East, I was critical of the location of the Israeli Parliament in Jerusalem and of the establishment of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. My criticisms were based on personal observations made during the three and a half years I spent in that region. I do not resile from those views. I do, however, object to the fact that the editors of the review chose to quote selectively from my speech. They did not print what I said at the end, and I quote: The policy of this Government and one which I personally endorse is one of even-handed but consistent effort to contribute to the achievement of a just peace which upholds the sovereignty of the state of Israel, self-determination for the Palestinians and the maintenance of security, freedom and human rights for all people of the region. The review also quoted selectively from the speech of Liberal Senator Robert Hill. It did not quote the part where Senator Hill said: There must be an acknowledgment of the Palestinians' right of self-determination and to a homeland. It is hard to imagine that such a homeland would not encompass the West Bank and Gaza. It would seem therefore that here is a considerable degree of consensus on this issue on both sides of the Parliament. So why I should be the one depicted as arrogant and anti-Israel puzzles me. It also saddens me that by such actions the Australia/Israel Review should run the risk of alienating moderate members of this Government. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I would like to draw to the attention of all honourable members a very interesting publication put out by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet entitled `Life has never been easy, the report of a survey of women in rural Australia'. I would just like to draw the attention of all honourable members in the time available to me to some of the findings of that survey. Much to the surprise, I am sure, of many people in Canberra, one of the first things that came as a priority was a question of transport. Transport and communications are, as the report says, `central to the quality of life in rural Australia'. But even more interesting, in response to a question where women were asked to indicate their personal preferences for government spending in rural areas, a staggering 69 per cent of respondents believed that roads should be a priority. Forty-five per cent stated that more public transport was necessary. All honourable members ought to know that members of the Opposition, particularly those who have been representing country seats, have been constantly reminding the Government of the need to raise the priority of spending for roads, particularly in country areas. All honourable members who take the time to get out there and have a look will see sealed roads already being ripped up and turned back into gravel because there is no longer funding available to maintain them in the state they should be in. Is there little surprise then that in a survey such as this, country women have pinpointed the No. 1 priority area that faces them, namely, the sad state of roads in the country? Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter) —In the period allowed me, I remind this nation that on Monday we remember and pay tribute to those men and women who fought to preserve the freedoms we hold so dear. Monday's Anzac Day in our bicentennial year, hopefully, will have extra special meaning for all of us who are beneficiaries of sacrifices made by magnificent men and women in periods of war. It is my fervent wish that huge crowds attend Anzac services on Monday to say thank you to our nation's protectors, past and present. I hope that veterans throughout my electorate of Hunter and throughout the nation have the happiest of days on Monday. Anzac Day is not a day for the glorification of war. Rather, it is a day to remember and to honour those who fought and died for our country. There are no good wars, all wars are a horror. In this bicentennial year let us make this Anzac Day a prayer for peace. Our dead warriors fought for peace. On Monday we have the opportunity to honour them and support their efforts to end the horror of war. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —I rise to reinforce the remarks already made by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) when he expressed the concern felt on this side of the House about the breakdown of Australia's total infrastructure system, particularly the breakdown in the money allocated to road expenditure. I draw to the House's attention an article in today's Australian where the National Roads and Motorists Association and the automobile associations of Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia are all concerned about the failure of this Government to allocate sufficient resources to road construction. I reinforce what the honourable member for Wannon has said-in rural electorates the breakdown in roads is disastrous. Those very roads which are expected to carry the produce we need for our economic recovery are, in fact, not being maintained. The Government's record has been a record of spending $12.5 billion; allocating only $12.5 billion dollars to road reconstruction frozen over the past three years. This has represented a decrease in real terms of somewhere between 25 and 40 per cent in road expenditure, and that is precisely what we are seeing in the current breakdown in our road services. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler) —For several weeks now the people of Gladstone have been waiting for the Queensland Government to announce a full package for the letting of contracts to bring a natural gas pipeline to the city of Gladstone. In recent days tenders have been called for the supplying of pipes for the project. This is good news and a positive step in bringing the gas to Gladstone. The Mines and Energy Minister, Mr Tenni, now needs to provide us with a commencement date for the construction of the pipeline. This is vitally important because it will be an important signal to the business community so that it can gear up arrangements for future investments in Gladstone. Last week, the financial section of the Courier-Mail indicated that a major investment opportunity for Gladstone had been deferred until a gas pipeline contract had been finalised. It is acknowledged by a lot of people in Gladstone that once there is a renewed round of investments a significant number of smaller operations will be attracted to the area. At stake, therefore, are increased job opportunities and improved living standards for the families in the Gladstone community. The Ahern Cabinet has gained a perception in the community of being unable to make a decision. It is split and floundering under the weight of the attacks on it by the former Queensland Premier. The Queensland Government should not allow its fascination with devastating by-election losses and the splits in senior levels of its party to distract it from the main game of announcing a commencement date for the gas pipeline. I call on Mr Tenni to stick with the task and work towards announcing the commencement date for the project which will be a significant economic boost to the cities within central Queensland. Mr BURR(Lyons) —Madam Speaker, I am disgusted at the way in which this Government is prepared to abuse and manipulate the processes of government in order to give comfort and favour to its mates in big business. The most recent example that we have seen of that happened this very week when the Government was prepared to change the audience reach for television in order to justify a position which the Qintex group has taken up in blatant contravention of the law. In this case Mr Christopher Skase blatantly abused the law and then came to the Government and said, `Now change the law to legitimise my position'. Because the Government is in bed with big business moguls in this country, this Government and those supporters of the Australian Labor Party are prepared to change the law and manipulate the processes of Government just to satisfy their mates in big business. It is a disgrace to this country. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman) —I want to take the short time available to me to rectify some misconceptions that have been peddled by some of our friends opposite and also by some sections of the media with respect to the recent Barambah by-election in Queensland. It was the safest National Party seat in that State until last Saturday when the Nationals sustained a record swing against them of some 36 per cent. It is true that the Australian Labor Party also sustained a swing against the Party of some 6 per cent of primary votes. However, the indisputable fact is that the candidate up there, the Daniel in the lions' den, John Lang, from the Labor Party, did an absolutely marvellous job and did it with a great deal of dignity. As was expected, the Liberals, displaying their usual level of spinelessness akin to a Queensland box jellyfish, did not even bother standing a candidate; they did not have the guts. As it turns out, the opportunity will never be theirs as they have missed the bus. It will never be theirs because, hidden in the results of last Saturday in Barambah, is not only a massive defeat for the Nationals, but also an encouraging message for Labor in Queensland under its new Leader, Wayne Goss. Madam Speaker, I am informed by senior scrutineers that a stack of the preferences from the two independent candidates went to the Labor Party and in real terms, if notionally distributed, there was a swing to the Labor Party. The position quite simply is that the Nationals have now lost their jewel in the crown, Joh Bjelke-Petersen's old seat is lost and the Labor Party did extremely well. Neither the Liberals nor the National Party can take any solace out of that whatsoever. I congratulate John Lang and his family. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —In the time available I would just like to say that that is absolute balderdash. Labor lost 8 per cent in Groom; it lost 6 per cent in Barambah and most of you guys sitting over there are going to lose your seats come the next election. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley) —In the short time I have available, let me say happy birthday to the 30 Labor Party members and senators who were elected and were sworn in five years ago today. They are the backbone of the Hawke Government and will be here for another 10 years, not just five years. Good on you, Bob. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a, the time allotted for members' statements has concluded. Madam SPEAKER —I have received the return to the writ which I issued on 4 March 1988 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Groom in the State of Queensland to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. Daniel Thomas McVeigh. By the endorsement on the writ it is certified that William Leonard Taylor has been elected. New Member Sworn Mr William Leonard Taylor made and subscribed the oath of allegiance as member for the division of Groom. Mr REITH —I refer the Attorney-General to the War Crimes Amendment Bill and to his second reading speech in which he said: No distinction is drawn . . . between members of the allied or axis forces, or between persons of different races or origin. Consistent with the Government's even-handed policy, the Bill applies to any person who commits a war crime as defined. I also refer the Attorney-General to the statements of Mr Bob Greenwood, QC, to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to the effect that allegations of war crimes against Australian service personnel during World War II would be investigated. I ask: Is it the Government's intention that Australian ex-servicemen and women could be liable to prosecution under the war crimes legislation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —On the facts, no. No Australian is deemed ever to have been guilty of a war crime. No accusations have been made. Opposition members-What if they were? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The issue is related to people in Australia who, obviously, were not in Australia at the time, allegedly having committed a crime elsewhere. The implication of the honourable member's question is that an Australian serviceman might be here now but could have committed a crime elsewhere. But there has never been any allegation made to that matter. I make the point that in regard to the definition of war crimes one is basically dealing with issues that are well known, for example, in Europe, where there were a lot of difficulties, particularly in relation to concentration camps and matters of that nature. Of course, the honourable member is also aware that following the end of the Second World War Australians had their own trials. The honourable member would be aware of that. What he obviously is trying to suggest now is that there might be some accident-let me put it that way-whereby an Australian could now be accused of having committed a war crime. Mr Howard —Is that the intention? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The intention is very clear. As I say, there are no such allegations. I am trying to read into this the position. For example, if somebody comes up with strong evidence that an Australian committed a war crime, obviously the Act would be able to be brought into play. To that extent, that is normal, is it not? I do not think any Australian wants to hide the fact that there might be a war criminal in Australia. Mr Howard —So you would investigate it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Naturally; it would have to be investigated, bearing in mind that we had passed a law here which it was not intended should discriminate on the facts. The inference from the honourable member's question seems to be that we are referring only to people accused of war crimes who were not in Australia at the time of the cessation of hostilities. The honourable member has a problem with his logic in this sense. The honourable member is implying that the law is formulated on the basis that, if there are war criminals here, it would draw a distinction between what they might have been doing during the war and whether they were an enemy or part of our own forces. The legislation does not do that. The point of the Bill is that if there are war criminals about whom accusations can be made, they can be tried in Australia in accordance with evidence that would be the same as would apply to any normal criminal trial in Australia. I add that this is the first time that any nation in the world has developed a system whereby a war trial can take place in accordance with the principles of the law appertaining to the country in which the person is presently residing. In other words, we would be using Australian law. We would be using committal proceedings and a jury system. That is the fairest sort of trial of the lot. We would not be using a deportation system and sending somebody back to another system where justice may at times be somewhat suspect. Mr PRICE —I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. Will the Minister tell the House how the start of the Government's new child support scheme will assist a typical sole parent with two children? Will the Minister also explain in wider terms how and when this new scheme will operate? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for Chifley for his question. Mr Tuckey —Here comes another statement. It is six minutes past two. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will not interject. Mr HOWE —The new child support scheme will begin from 1 June this year. This scheme, which has been developed with the support of all political parties in the Parliament, represents a radical response to a quite serious and growing problem that developed in the late 1970s and the early 1980s when there was such a large increase in the number of sole parents with dependent children dependent on supporting parent benefit and other pensions. Perhaps one of the principal documents that was important in the development of the scheme was a document produced by the Institute of Family Studies on the economic and social consequences of marriage breakdown. That document showed that on balance, on the basis of the survey carried out by the Institute, non-custodial parents tended to be something like $100 a week better off after marriage separation, whereas supporting parents with responsibility for children tended, on balance, to be about $80 a week worse off. As the House is well aware, only 30 per cent of sole parents in Australia are actually receiving regular maintenance. Therefore, a situation of massive inequity has developed. That situation developed over a period. It was not addressed by the previous Government but it has been systematically addressed by this Government. Flowing from the scheme we expect to see an increase in the level of orders for maintenance and an increase in the numbers with orders. We expect to provide, for the first time in Australia, effective enforcement of maintenance orders. Of course, there will be much better coordination in the social security and maintenance systems. We would expect that in the first stage all new supporting parents coming into the scheme would be $30 to $40 a week better off as the result of the introduction of the scheme. Of course, if the Government moves to stage 2 it will be possible to substantially improve on those figures. In terms of the Government's concerns in this area, the first concern I emphasise is that of equity. What has occurred has been highly inequitable and the Government has sought to address it well in advance of the United States of America which has considered schemes of this kind. Secondly, this forms an extremely important part of the Government's assault on child poverty. Half of the children who are poor in Australia are in sole parent families. When the Government made its commitment on child poverty it made it in the knowledge that the crucial element that needed to be dealt with was the question of lack of income-that is equity in terms of distribution of income after marriage separation. Let me emphasise that the order of additional money is extremely significant. Notwithstanding the result of the operation of a separate income test, the Government is addressing and reducing expenditure in this important area. Again, what this Government has come up with is a response to a growing problem. It is a response which is fiscally responsible, equitable in terms of an area where there has been massive inequity, and which deals with the problem of child poverty which grew so massively under the previous Government. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to his comment at a Press conference yesterday when he denied that monetary policy would be tightened to dampen demand. I also refer him to the sharp increase in cash rates of interest this week, which is usually a fairly reliable indicator of the tightening of monetary policy. Indeed, I understand that the unofficial cash rates quoted today have allegedly risen to between 12.5 per cent and 13.5 per cent. Does the Treasurer support the apparent attempt of the Reserve Bank of Australia to tighten monetary policy? Mr KEATING —I also said at that Press conference yesterday that there was inevitably some tightening in monetary policy in the tax run down period. This is a time of the year when very large financing transactions have to be accommodated. Obviously there is now, was last year and the year before and will be next year some increase in interest rates. How the market reacts to that and the implications of that for demand and exchange rates are basically up to the market. Mr BILNEY —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade advise the House of the Government's reaction to the Israeli Government's decision to deport two groups of Palestinians from the occupied territories to Lebanon? Mr HAYDEN —The Government condemns the recent decision of the Israeli Government to deport eight Palestinians from the occupied territories to Lebanon. The decision follows the deportation of eight other Palestinians earlier in the month. The action is in violation of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits the deportation of civilians from territories under military occupation. It is in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions 607 and 608 of January 1988. These resolutions called on Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinians from the occupied territories. Israel's action is also a violation of Lebanese sovereignty. The Government believes that the decision will make more difficult an already tense situation in the occupied territories and we feel it will inevitably lead to more violence. Mr DOWNER —I refer the Treasurer to the recent improvement in the terms of trade which should contribute to a healthier balance of payments situation. Given that the State Bank of Victoria's commodity index has risen by 33 per cent in the 12 months to April, does the Treasurer agree that the terms of trade will improve by about 6 per cent to 7 per cent this financial year? If that is the case, is Australia's underlying balance of payments situation therefore deteriorating? Mr KEATING —Economics is all about leads and lags. I would have thought that even the honourable gentleman would understand that. It is true that the terms of trade have somewhat improved since last year. That having been said, I point out that we are still living with the lowest terms of trade in memory. The terms of trade were at their bottom in 1986 and the last time they were so low was after the Second World War and in the middle of the Depression. The fact that we have moved those terms of trade somewhat off the bottom is not much of a commentary about the terms of trade as they used to be when the Opposition was in office. We, as a government and as a country, are still struggling with that problem. For 40 years the coalition had on it the dead hand of the Country Party and Sir John McEwen, who believed that Australia did not need to be competitive and did not need to have a competitive exchange rate or a competitive wage structure. The coalition never had a decent fiscal policy. Honourable members opposite could not even spell monetary policy, much less understand it. Australia was simply a small closed economy selling a little bit of wheat and wool. Mr Downer —That is not an answer to the question. Mr KEATING —No, the honourable member does not like the answer but it is the answer I give to people like him. The result was that by 1983 the Australian economy was so grossly uncompetitive that from 1978 onwards we were deluged with a wave of imports which smashed our secondary industries, wiped out our manufacturing sector, destroyed our service industries and massacred what there was of tourism. The result was that we had a massive current account imbalance already strongly growing. This Government has changed the structure of the Australian economy to make it internationally competitive and to make the whole traded goods sector more profitable so that the investment will be drawn to it to replace imports and lift exports. That is now happening. But one does not change 30 years of policy neglect, wrong-headed policy and its impact in five years. The plant and equipment to replace imports and lift exports and thus repair the current account are still going into place. In the balance of payments figures which were released yesterday we saw that 60 per cent of the increase in imports was for machinery and transport equipment. In other words, a large part of the imports are producer goods which will underpin a larger import competing and exporting performance. What happens is that this comes through with a lag. The question implies that because the terms of trade have moved up therefore the net export position ought to be moving as fast. In other words, we ought to have an accelerated process of investment in plant and equipment. The Government has had that acceleration going since about 1985. The honourable member suggests that because of a sharp lift in the terms of trade we should have a commensurately sharp lift in investment, export and import competing products. It just does not happen that way. Economics is all about lags and leads. The fact is that the equipment is going into place and therefore the net export performance will be there. As I said on the same subject a couple of weeks ago, every million dollars of plant that goes into this economy is another nail in the Opposition's political coffin. The Opposition knows what this means. In the end all of that import replacement with export product which will repair the current account will be punched out. Honourable members opposite know that the prize will go to the party which repairs the current account-and it is not the coalition. Mr COURTICE —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Is the Minister aware of the importance attached locally to improvements to the Bundaberg irrigation scheme? Can he inform the House about the Commonwealth's involvement in this matter? Mr Ian Cameron —They do not need it up there. They have had rain. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will cease interjecting. Mr KERIN —He has never been the same since that policeman bashed him up, Madam Speaker. Of course I am aware of the local importance of the scheme referred to by the honourable member for Hinkler. Actually, he has written to me about it a couple of times on behalf of his constituents. He is an excellent member. Following those representations, my colleague, the Minister for Resources, has announced a review of the present agreement between the Federal and Queensland governments on the Bundaberg irrigation scheme. The honourable member for Hinkler's representations were made in full recognition of the fact that the Commonwealth has more than met its original commitment to the scheme. The project and Queensland have been generously treated by the Commonwealth under the Federal water resources assistance program and its predecessor, the national water resources program. When the initial Bundaberg scheme was proposed, the Commonwealth was to fund the dam headworks and the State was to fund the irrigation infrastructure. From the original commitment to the Fred Haigh Dam in 1970, at an estimated cost of $12.8m, the Commonwealth has now contributed a total of $52.65m for the dam and the irrigation infrastructure. A further $4m will be provided in 1988-89 under the current agreement. During 1987-88, Queensland has also been allocated 60 per cent of the total funds allocated to the States for the Federal water resources assistance program. The Commonwealth's actions in this regard are in marked contrast to those of the Queensland Government. Put simply, the Queensland Government has failed to meet the commitment it entered into with us. This is shocking. It has failed to provide sufficient money to have its portion of the job finished by 1988-89, which was the agreed timetable. Honourable members opposite are looking a bit worried about this. But the Fraser Government agreed to reimburse Queensland $4m a year for eight years to encourage the State to meet its commitment. We have continued those reimbursements, but an estimated $36m is still needed to complete the Isis part of the scheme. The Federal Government appreciates the importance of a secure water supply to the area, including to its sugar industry. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The level of conversation is far too high. Mr KERIN —Well, Madam Speaker, they take no notice of the problems associated with the dry areas of Queensland and the sugar industry in Queensland. They put no pressure on their National Party colleagues in Queensland. I conclude by saying that in reviewing the situation that will apply after 1988-89, one of the factors of great concern will naturally be the likelihood of the Queensland Government meeting its share should a new agreement be entered into. Mr COBB —Can the Treasurer explain to the House the mechanism through which a capital gains tax interacts with a company gains tax of 49c to produce an effective rate of tax of nearly 75 per cent on retained earnings for companies? In addition, I ask the Treasurer whether an effective rate of taxation of nearly 75 per cent on retained earnings for companies is one of the factors discouraging much needed investment in industry in Australia. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, I will not attempt from this position to try to disaggregate the muddled sums in that muddled mind. Let me just re-enlighten the Opposition about its record on company taxation. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the responsibility of the Treasurer to be relevant. He has been asked a question he cannot answer and now he wants to dodge it. Madam SPEAKER —As I have not heard from the Treasurer yet, it is a little difficult to know. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, before this Government introduced dividend imputation, $1 of company income was taxed as to 78 per cent. This is what happened under 40 to 50 years of coalition government. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —For the dummies opposite, I point out that this was the case since the Income Tax Assessment Act was introduced in 1936, I think it was. The result is that now, under this Government, company income is taxed as to 49 per cent-that is, from 78 per cent to 49 per cent. Members of the Opposition talk about business-small business, medium business and large business. They are always standing up and crying crocodile tears, particularly about small business, but they were prepared to belt them as to 78c in the dollar of every dollar of distributed company income. If one was a trust, one was taxed as an individual; if one was a single trader, one was taxed as an individual; if one was a member of a partnership, one was taxed as an individual; but if one had to have the protection of limited liability in a trading circumstance, one was taxed twice as to 78 per cent. That is the record of the Liberal and National parties in this place. That is their record of concern about company taxation. They tried to compensate for that in terms of their own constituency by letting off tax free those who took their income as capital rather than those who took their income as straight income. A lot of the great aggregations in corporate Australia, particularly amongst personal wealth, was on the basis of that non-taxation of capital gains. I do not understand what is in the honourable gentleman's mind, but apparently he is looking at something to do with retained earnings or capital in a business being taxed upon a liquidation, a distribution or something of that kind. The fact of the matter is that one reason why we never had an adequate level of capital formation in Australia is that the private company was taxed to death under the classical system of double taxation that was introduced by the coalition parties in this country. In addition, when shareholders received their dividend, they paid 60c in the dollar at the top marginal rate of income tax, which we have reduced to 49c. The total tax paid on distributed income is now 49 per cent. So when honourable members opposite get up here and talk about the tax on company incomes, they should not forget their own record which was one of shameful neglect. Instead of using the great poultice of revenues that it picked up out of Bass Strait, instead of using the new money when the price of oil went up, to cut tax rates and to diminish the burden of tax on all levels of income, including company income, the coalition Government spent it on a whole lot of outlays projects which were politically inspired. In other words, the coalition Government squandered it rather than use it to make reductions in the tax rates. If the honourable member's question is a plaintive plea for relief of capital gains taxes, I simply make the point that the capital gains tax is a concessionary tax. The real gain only is taxed, not the nominal gain, as is the case in most countries. The fact that we did not have a capital gains tax has distorted the allocation of resources in this country to the non-productive areas. That is one of the reasons why our capital stock is down. It is one of the reasons why we have run a current account imbalance of this magnitude for years. It is one of the reasons why, in the Opposition's craven desire to help its friends, it basically finished the economy off by letting them place their resources where we did not need them-in highly speculative areas of the economy which produced very little added value and, therefore, left us in the hands of foreigners and in overseas debt. That is the sorry record of honourable members opposite and they should remember it when they address questions to me about company tax. Ms FATIN —Can the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel tell the House what specific support is given by the Government to the spouses of service personnel? Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for Brand for her question and also for her interest in this issue. This Government has put in place two very important measures to provide direct support to the spouses of families of service personnel. The first of these measures was the establishment of the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Staff, known as ADFILS. ADFILS provides community development support and education information assistance to service families. An extensive network of professional advisers has been established throughout Australia. The recruitment program is now well under way to fill positions. In total, there will be seven community development coordinators to direct activities on a State-wide basis; eight regional education liaison officers; 30 community development officers; and 51 family liaison officers to act as a first point of contact for families. We have recognised that service spouses also have much to contribute by way of advice to government on service conditions and family support. This is the first time that has been recognised formally by any government. We have formalised the contribution which they have made and continue to make by establishing a national consultative group of service spouses. Under its convenor, Mrs Jaye Cook, the consultative group has been very successful. I take this opportunity of thanking Mrs Cook and the members of the consultative group for their support. Also it is necessary to pay tribute at this time to the spouses of our Defence Force personnel for their enormous contribution to the defence of this country. This group is supported by ADFILS with travel and administrative costs being provided by Defence. Those are just two of the measures which this Government has adopted to give direct support. I will be raising many of the other issues in a statement in Parliament next week. Mr ALDRED —I thank the Minister for the Arts and Territories for his letter today, although it does not really answer any of the questions I raised yesterday. I refer the Minister to a departmental document written by Mr P. N. Guild, Assistant Secretary in his Department, dated 15 October 1987 in which he says that the major practical obstacle to the proposed Canberra casino will be: The ordinance will be subject to review in the Senate. None of the other action required to put the proposal into effect are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Later, at the request of the former Minister-the honourable member for Parramatta-Mr Guild, in a ministerial submission dated 26 November 1987, detailed three options, the third being: . . . draft ordinance and have made in conjunction with the opening of the casino. He recommended option 3 as the only viable option to avoid disallowance by Opposition senators. Madam SPEAKER —The question is very long. Mr ALDRED —I ask the Minister whether option 3 has been adopted by the Government. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to honourable members that they cut down their preamble in questions. The questions are far too long. Mr Cadman —And the answers too. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will not interrupt. I call the Minister. Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: having canvassed the length of questions, I suggest to you that exactly the same criteria might well be applied to the length of answers. In Question Time today both the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Security have given extraordinarily long answers. I suggest that the same criteria be applied to them. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable gentleman has made his point. There is no need to labour it. I call the Minister. Mr PUNCH —Honourable members will recollect that yesterday the honourable member asked me a question about another document that he had received some two weeks ago, which was an internal Australian Capital Territory Administration minute from one officer to another about certain matters relating to the social impact study. Today I have replied to the honourable member by letter. I think that he has the letter with him. Mr Sinclair —This has nothing to do with it. Mr PUNCH —The right honourable member for New England will find out what it has to do with it in a minute. Mr Sinclair —I hope so. Madam SPEAKER —The right honourable gentleman will wait. Mr PUNCH —It seems that the honourable member for Bruce intends to have quite a field day with freedom of information (FOI) documents. In view of yesterday's circumstances, today we are making available to the media not only my response by way of letter to the honourable member regarding his question yesterday but also all the FOI documents that he has received. So anyone from the media can come down and go right through them. Honourable members should be aware of why I am doing this. I do so because yesterday the honourable member not only selectively quoted but also selectively misquoted the document of November last year from Mr Lyon. Honourable members will recall that yesterday the honourable member, in his question to me, referred to the gentleman who is leading the consultancy team, Dr Geoff Caldwell, and said: . . . Dr Caldwell's appointment `could become an issue . . . because of past or present associations and perceived bias'? What the honourable member for Bruce forgot to say in the question was that the full sentence reads: I suspect for example that any local consultants, including Geoff Caldwell, could become an issue in themselves because of past or present associ- ations . . . The document continues. On checking with my officers yesterday-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr PUNCH —Honourable members opposite do not like it. There is more to come too. Mr Aldred —I raise a point of order. I ask the Minister why documents, particularly documents-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member will not do that again. Mr PUNCH —On questioning my officials about this memo of November last year, they informed me that the debate among themselves at that time was whether the consultant should be a Canberra-based consultant or someone from outside Canberra. The officials informed me that their concern at the time was that, because there was a previous casino debate in this town, I think in 1983, locals may have had a position, a stance, at that stage and that would compromise any report of which they may be in charge in the current casino debate. That is why that sentence is there. That is what that means. There is no more and no less to it. Yesterday the honourable member asked: Will the Minister explain why, despite the fact that four research companies were recommended in Mr Townsend's minute-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question asked by the honourable member of the Minister was on a separate matter to the question asked yesterday. So far the Minister has spent his answer explaining the circumstances under which he would seek to exculpate the Government. In my submission, it is quite irrelevant for this kind of answer to be allowed, especially since you have reprimanded us for asking lengthy questions. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair drew the attention of the House to the length of the preamble to the question, which is fair enough. One of the questions recently was five questions in one. The Chair is hearing the Minister for the Arts and Territories and he will continue. Mr Spender —He will be relevant? Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is answering the question. Mr PUNCH —One would not pay for that advice, would one? As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, the question asked: Will the Minister explain why, despite the fact that four research companies were recommended in Mr Townsend's minute . . . The problem for the honourable member for Bruce is that not only is the word `recommended' nowhere in appearance on the document but also it contains no recommendation. Mr Shipton —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the Minister, in answering the question asked of him by the honourable member for Bruce, has referred constantly to the alleged motives and conduct of the honourable member for Bruce. I draw your attention to page 460 of House of Representatives Practice. Madam SPEAKER —I am aware of standing order 76. Mr Shipton —That page states: The practice of the House, based on that of the House of Commons, is that a Member cannot direct a charge against another Member nor reflect upon his character or conduct- which I submit the Minister is doing- unless he does so upon a substantive motion . . . The Minister's answer is out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister. Mr PUNCH —Not only does the document not couch any recommendations but also the actual document which is attached-I will table all these documents in a minute, Madam Speaker-is far from being a recommendation as it is headed `Interim List of Possible Organisations/Individuals to Conduct Social Impact Study'. That is the recommendation which the honourable member was talking about. When he gets up in here in future and talks about FOI documents, he will be saddled with one distinct problem; that is, everyone in the Press Gallery will have access to the FOI documents which he has. So his selective quoting and misquoting will no longer-as of yesterday-with all the imputations in them, be suffered by us. He will have to live with that problem. As to the distinct question he asked yesterday, let me say this, before coming to his next question-- Mr Spender —I raise another point of order, Madam Speaker. The last thing the Minister said was `as to that question yesterday'. We now have had five minutes on `that question yesterday'. It is about time that you exercised your authority and told him to be relevant. I ask you to wind him up and sit him down. Madam SPEAKER —I accept the intervention. The Minister will draw his answer to a close. Mr PUNCH —So yesterday's question has fallen on its face. As to today's question, let me say to the honourable member that I do not and I am not going to carry around in my head or my brief every little instance and nuance that he digs up out of a thick pile of FOI documents. I will find the document, as I did yesterday, and I will give him another answer. Mr Aldred —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 145, which clearly states: An answer shall be relevant to the question. The Minister still has not answered my question as to whether he is using a device to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister has finished his answer to the question. Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the Minister suggested that he would table some documents. As we are all looking forward to reading them, I invite the Minister to return to the table so that he might do what he said he would. We would all like to see those documents. Mr PUNCH —I table the documents. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Is the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs aware of remarks by the shadow spokesman for immigration, the honourable member for Mitchell, expressing support for an amnesty for some illegal immigrants? Do such statements assist in the management of a planned, orderly and fair immigration system which has the support of the Australian community, particularly when interest in migration to Australia is running at record levels and many hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants will not be able to come to Australia this year? Mr HOLDING —I am aware of the statement by the shadow Minister on a television program when he indicated that he felt an amnesty could possibly be extended to illegal immigrants once they have been here for a period of about 10 years. That comment was not helpful in a situation where many illegal immigrants are living in the hope that this Government will create an amnesty in the bicentennial year. I have made it perfectly clear-I take this opportunity of making it clear again-that here will be no amnesty now or in the immediate future. The reason is very simple. We will have well over one million applicants seeking entry to Australia. We will be refusing something like eight out of ten of those. Apart from the illegality of those who have entered without complying with our laws, the reality is that illegal entry is an exercise in queue jumping and wastes the resources of the Department that should be directed towards the processing of those applicants who are complying with the law, and who intend to comply with the law in seeking entry into Australia. I think the comment made by the honourable gentleman was an off the cuff comment. It would be a very odd precedent indeed if we said, `If you are evading taxation and you can get away with it for 10 years, we will forgive you. If you are breaking any aspect of the criminal law and you can get away with it for 10 years, we will forgive you'. It was a nonsense statement. I hope that on reflection the honourable gentleman will join the Government in indicating on behalf of the Opposition that illegal immigrants will be treated as illegal immigrants and there will be no amnesty at all. Mr ROCHER —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Now that the crisis is over, has the Minister any information about security arrangements at Bangkok Airport, which was the apparent port of origin for the hijackers of the Kuwaiti aircraft? If not, will he ascertain as a matter of urgency how and where security was breached? Is the Minister satisfied that security arrangements in Australia are adequate to meet our international obligations and to avoid similar breaches at Australian airports? Mr HAYDEN —Inquiries are still being made by a number of countries on the former question. On the latter question, the answer more properly rests with the Minister for Transport and Communications. Mr BALDWIN —Can the Minister for Defence assure the House about the measures that have been taken and are being taken by the Navy to protect the citizens of Sydney in relation to the handling and storage of ammunition in Sydney? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question in the interests of his constituents. I am advised that the practices involving ammunitioning at Sydney Harbour have been considerably modified following the adoption of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation principles, to the extent that now no permanently inhabited area on Sydney Harbour remains within the prescribed safety distances. Measures adopted to this date include: arrangements that have been made or are being made with local councils in the Newington area to control public access to foreshore areas by the Parramatta River where the prescribed safety distance extends beyond defence land; moorings at Spectacle Island have been repositioned to optimise public safety; the quantity of explosives held temporarily in barges at Spectacle Island has been significantly reduced; a number of unused barges have been relocated from the island; buoys and man-o'-War anchorage have been repositioned to optimise public safety; and where necessary limits have been placed on the amount of ammunition that can be loaded into Navy ships at man-o'-War anchorage. While the situation is safe, and that should be said in relation to the debate that has proceeded to this time, it is necessary to emphasise that we are talking about what in the past has been a program of very safe handling of ammunition in this country and the attempt is being made to make it even safer. The situation is obviously undesirable, although safe, which is one of the reasons for the Government's decision to shift the Navy from Sydney to Jervis Bay. A substantial component of that program is the shifting of ammunitioning procedures and storage out of Sydney to Jervis Bay. The fact of the matter, as I am advised, is that the processes of ammunitioning a ship in Sydney, take two to three days, given the constraints that exist in both safety and movement terms on ammunition down the river. Should we be able to proceed with the shift to Jervis Bay, the amount of time taken to ammunition a ship will be six hours. Obviously, it is desirable that the ammunitioning process be shifted out of Sydney and it is the Government's intention to do that. In the interim, every step is being taken to ensure that we conform to required safety standards, and I am advised, with the changes I have outlined, that we are. Mr NEHL —I direct my question to the Minister for Transport and Communications Support. In view of the importance of direct Commonwealth financial involvement in road funding and the importance of the road infrastructure to our national economic and social development, will the Minister assure the House that he will resist with all his might any attempt to have road funding absorbed into general States grants? Will he continue to fight for the provision of adequate funding for the Australian bicentennial road development and Australian land transport programs? Mr PETER MORRIS —As always, this Government will maintain its unprecedented record of road effort. This Government has done more than any other government in a comparable period of history to improve the road systems of this country. I welcome the support of the honourable member for Cowper on this issue. It is an area long neglected by those who sit opposite. I was surprised at the content of his question, but my understanding is that the policy of the Opposition is for absorption of local roads money. That is as I understand it. I certainly know it is the personal view of the honourable member for Deakin. He is on public record saying that is his view, and I think it is reasonable to say it is the view of the Opposition. The matter is under consideration. It is a top priority of this Government and will continue to be so. Mr FREE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is it a fact that a distinguished delegation from the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) states is due in Canberra today? Is it also a fact that the Minister is to meet that delegation? If so, will the Minister seek to reassure the delegation that Opposition hostility to the provision of $100m of Australian aid over three years to the front-line states will not cow the Government into retreating either from this commitment or from its opposition to apartheid? Mr HAYDEN —It is correct that there is a delegation from the Southern African Development Coordination Conference in Canberra today. Its distinguished chairman is Mr Mmusi, who is the chairman also of the Southern African Development Coordination Conference. He is a member of parliament from Botswana, Vice-President of that country and Minister of Finance and Development Planning. I will certainly make it clear to him that hostility towards our proposal to provide $100m of aid to the front-line states of southern Africa coming from the Opposition will not deflect us from that commitment, nor will that hostility in any way cause us to dilute our opposition to apartheid. What I will make clear to him is that fair-minded and concerned people in this country are worried about the way in which the incursions of institutions supported by South Africa into front-line states in southern Africa are disrupting their economies and disrupting their social and political systems. Our commitment is a very firm one and it will be carried out. We are, of course, concerned to assure this delegation on this matter. While I was in southern Africa several weeks ago, there were repeated criticisms in the Australian media and in the international media reaching southern Africa coming from spokespeople from the Opposition-for instance, from the Leader of the Opposition, the Ronnie Corbett of the Australian political scene; from the honourable member for North Sydney, the sort of Deadeye Dick of Liberal Party politics; and from the honourable member for Mayo, a sort of Mexican Pete of the system. That leaves an interesting role for someone else on the back benches who is currently talking. These people were arguing-- Mr Blunt —On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is outrageous for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to be allowed to go unchecked from yourself, and I call upon you-- Madam SPEAKER —If I could hear, I would be quite happy to hear it all, but I cannot hear it all. If honourable members would use the microphone when they are speaking, it would assist the Chair. If the Minister has said something offensive, I would ask him to withdraw. I did not hear him. Mr HAYDEN —No. It was entirely appropriate, I thought. While I was in southern Africa I was criticised for engaging myself in matter remote from Australia's concern. I want to put on the record some of those matters. For instance, I went to Zambia to participate in a meeting of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers who belong to a particular committee set up by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Vancouver late last year. As a member of that committee I had an obligation to be there. There were a number of matters to be addressed by that committee, including the commitment of Commonwealth countries to promote further opposition to apartheid and to contribute support in various ways to the front-line states of southern Africa. The honourable member for North Sydney, the honourable member for Mayo and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition were hostile to my attending this meeting to fulfil the obligations which I had. They were very critical to my going to the country of Mozambique, which they still described as a Marxist state, in spite of a United States State Department commentary to the contrary. They are still opposed to the Administration there and the internal condition of that country, blaming it on the Administration, when the State Department of the United States of America is quoted this morning as pointing out that it is not only Renamo but the support of the Government of South Africa which is causing that disruption. I had an obligation to go there to find out what are the implications of any commitment which might be made or contemplated to be made by the Commonwealth Association of Nations. I went to Kenya in particular because that country is burdened with one of the great aid disasters, of which there are quite a large number, from the Fraser Government period. It is a project called Magarini. It is a so-called integrated development project. The Fraser Government at the time got the great brainwave, `Well, we irrigate arid and semi-arid land in Australia: we will irrigate a bit of semi-arid land in Kenya'. What they did was to put the money in for this project, to bore for water, to pump the water out, to reticulate it through underground pipelines and distribute it to villagers who had been moved in from other more marginal countryside. What they did not do was to establish what was the content of the watertable, what was the rate of replenishment of the watertable, and what was the cost of putting in this underground reticulated project-allowing for the fact that they talked the Kenyan Government into accepting the project. The Kenyan Government said, `Fine, but it is user pays'. What they had not worked out is that the project that they had put in place pulled water out faster than it was replenished, and there is no way in the world that the user could pay for it. Any time members of the Opposition wants to have a little argument in this place about dud aid programs, I invite them to be my guest, because I have a small mountain of these sorts of projects which were introduced during the period of the Fraser Government. There were no really effective cost-benefit analyses or opportunity cost analyses, until I got into the job and started asking very serious questions. For instance, the previous Government decided that Australia is very good at crop-dusting agricultural land, and therefore, we should provide a certain country with an Australian crop-dusting aircraft. It went ahead and committed itself to it-and suddenly discovered that Australia does not produce crop-dusting aircraft; it gets them from the United States. It said, `Don't worry; we will make one of our own'. It proceeded to make its own, and the problem was that it had a lot of trouble getting it into the air and no trouble getting it on the ground-vertically. I am telling the House that there is a whole range of these dud projects which I have been trying to tidy up, and Opposition members have been running around in circles saying I have been wasting my time. I have been trying to get this project back into some sort of decent shape, to get us out of what is, frankly, an embarrassment that they got us into. Then they say, `Oh, you have been cutting aid in your own region, the south-west Pacific region'-all three of them Ronnie Corbett, Deadeye Dick and Mexican Pete. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will address the members by their correct titles. Mr HAYDEN —They said, `You have been cutting aid in your own region, in the south-west Pacific'. I say to the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, `Get me out the figures', because that is strange; that is not what I have been understanding. They got the figures out for me in 1987-88 real terms. Let me take the Oceania area-the south-west Pacific-minus Papua New Guinea (PNG). Mr Howard —Minus PNG! Mr HAYDEN —Yes, but we will come to that. I would not interrupt too much, if I were you. In the period 1979 to 1983 the level of aid grew by $350m. In the period from 1984 to 1988 it grew by $408m-that is, in real terms, nearly $60m more. And these people are running around in circles like chooks putting their heads between their legs for some peculiar reason, clucking madly, `Oh, you are cutting aid. You are cutting aid in the south-west Pacific', but the figures show we are not. Then they say, `Oh, this is terrible. You have cut aid in PNG'. The figures there are instructive in themselves. In the period 1978 to 1983-and bear in mind that these are real terms 1987-88 figures-the cumulative cuts under Fraser were $143m. In the comparable period 1983 to 1988 the cumulative cuts under us were $89m. That is, 60 per cent more in real cuts under the Fraser Government than under us. The reductions under us are proceeding, largely, according to a formula. There was a one-off cut of $10m, understood and accepted by Papua New Guinea. As regards relative performances, either here or in a whole range of other areas, I have taken pains for weeks to prepare myself for questions from the Opposition. They are very brave when I am away, but when I am here they go into their funk holes. I have been waiting for these questions. The figures show that the record of this Government, both in its activity in the Asia-Pacific region and in its aid contribution, is far superior to that of the Fraser Government, yet we are still able to fight apartheid and try to help the black front-line states of southern Africa. I will conclude by saying that I was very pleased today at the expressions of appreciation from the members of the delegation from SADCC for the role of the Prime Minister both at CHOGM and internationally for consistently fighting apartheid and defending their interests. It is a pity the Opposition is so soft on apartheid. Mr Spender —Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order. The honourable member for Bruce asked the Minister for the Arts and Territories a question today. The Minister then dealt with a question from yesterday and at the very end of his answer he said, in effect, `I do not carry that kind of detail around with me' and `I am not going to answer it' or `I will come back'. So he deliberately spent time during Question Time in dealing with matters which he knew to be utterly irrelevant to the question asked of him. In the interests of the proper running of Question Time and the conduct of this House, I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether that is action which in your view is a proper use of Question Time and which will be countenanced by you in the future? Madam SPEAKER —To be quite honest with the honourable member for North Sydney, I was not really following yesterday's question, today's question or the Minister's answers. I am unaware what is relevant there and what is not. So I do the best thing I think I can do and that is let the answer go so that the member who has asked the question will get the information he is asking for. If he does not get it, that is not the Chair's responsibility. I gave time for the answer to be given. I suggest to the honourable member who asked the question that if he is not satisfied with the answer he should see the Minister. Mr Spender —May I raise a question on that? Madam Speaker, you have said, in effect, that you were not following the question yesterday and the answer yesterday or the answer today. May I inquire, in those circumstances, how you can manage the Chair of this House if you do not follow the questions and the answers? Madam SPEAKER —What I am telling you is that sometimes when the questions are asked-and I think that the honourable member for Bruce in his preamble referred to yesterday's question-I am not aware in the same depth as both the Minister and the honourable member for Bruce of the topic in which they are interested. I listen carefully to see that nothing unparliamentary happens and I try to give the Minister and the member who asked the question sufficient time so that they can delve into the facts. If neither satisfies the other, that can hardly be put at my doorstep. Let me also say that another question was asked today which I totally did not understand. The honourable member is quite right. I would not know whether the answer was relevant because it was a question on economics and I do not really understand economics. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, further to the point of order: is it not a fact that when a Minister says, `I am not going to answer the question' at the end of a nine-minute response which by his own words is not an answer to the question, surely the Minister is guilty, by his own admission, of irrelevance? It is one thing for a Minister to talk, in a purported relevant answer to a question, about something that has nothing to do with the subject but when he is so arrogant that at the end of the question he says, `Having talked about something other than the question I am now telling you that I will go away and find out the answer to the question' that is going over the top, and I think it ought to be stopped. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bruce, in the preamble to his question, referred to his question of yesterday. Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order in relation to the matter you have just raised. In the preamble to my question I referred to receiving a letter from the Minister in relation to yesterday's question. I then clearly and quite distinctly asked a separate question which the Minister still has not answered. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. It is quite evident that, when a matter is included in the preamble to a question, it is legitimate for the Minister to go to that preamble. A wide element of discretion is always given on the grounds of relevance in respect of answers. I submit that it becomes particularly wide if honourable members are foolish enough to include in their preambles matters that they do not want answered by the Minister. That is the experience of people in opposition on both sides of the House and I would have thought the honourable member had been sufficiently educated on that matter in the past. Mr Aldred —In brief response to those remarks by the Leader of the House I did not restate yesterday's question. I asked an entirely-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He is out of order. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CADMAN —Yes, Madam Speaker. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), in reply to a question today, represented my position and that of the Opposition as being in favour of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. On 10 April, in an interview on the Special Broadcasting Service with Vladimir Lusic, I was asked about an amnesty and I stated very clearly at the end of my answer the following facts: Recent arrivals who are trying to beat the system and those who are trying to abuse our welfare system, I have no time for that sort of individual. Few Australians would have, and I think that sort of person ought to be regarded as an illegal immigrant and I would not see an amnesty ever in sight for that sort of individual. In a preliminary part of the discussion with the interviewer, we discussed long term stayers who had been no cost to the Australian community. After discussing that matter, I qualified it, as the Minister well knows, by saying: So to that degree I would want, in government, to look at some of the details that I can't get now . . . I would need that information so I could decide. The Minister represented that as the Opposition being in favour of an amnesty. That is not true. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not debate the issue. He has explained his position. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), not surprisingly, had a go at me over my statements on his aid priorities. I do not mind that. I do not resile one iota from what I have said about the aid and foreign policy priorities of this Minister-and I am glad he has given them some more publicity. The Minister sought in the context of his answer-this is where the misrepresentation occurs-to make two points. The first was that because we criticised the foreign aid priority it demonstrated we were `soft on apartheid'. I reject that and any intelligent, thinking person would reject it. Secondly, he sought to extol the foreign aid record of the Hawke Government vis-a-vis the Fraser Government. I remind him of a simple statistical fact which he deliberately omitted from his tirade: in 1982-83, which was the last year of the Fraser Government, official development assistance represented 0.47 per cent of gross national product. This year it is estimated to be 0.36 per cent. In fact, the foreign aid record of the Hawke Government is the most miserly and mean in the post-war period. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the issue. He will resume his seat. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SPENDER —I also claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden)-who else? He is the most practised person in that field. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will get on with his personal explanation. Mr SPENDER —In addition to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, in the course of the Minister's answer, which at times seemed to verge a little on the hysterical, he said that I had expressed hostility to his attending the meeting of the states to which he referred. I never at any time expressed any form of hostility to his attending that meeting-nor would I. The Minister implied in his answer that we, and therefore by implication I, were soft on apartheid. I, with other members of the Opposition, have repeatedly condemned apartheid as a thoroughly repellant institution. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DOWNER —I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DOWNER —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) in his reply to a question today had a lot to say, and I would like to make a personal explanation regarding comments he made in relation to me. During the period the Minister was in Lusaka for the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers meeting I was the acting shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Minister suggested that I said that the Opposition and I `objected to his being at the Lusaka meeting'. I did not object to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade being at the Lusaka meeting; on the contrary, I object to the way in which, in the main, he ignores the Commonwealth as an institution. Furthermore, as with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), he said that I was `soft on apartheid'. I am not soft on apartheid and-- Mr Beazley —On a point of order, Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —A point of order has been taken. Will you please resume your seat. Mr DOWNER —That is a well known fact amongst those who know my record. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is defying the Chair. Mr Beazley —I think that the honourable member has finished now, Madam Speaker, but that was clearly a debating point he was making. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair was satisfied that he had every intention of making a personal explanation. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) —I might suggest that this is perhaps one of my better days. I think it is called a hat trick-three, one after the other. I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member claims to have been misrepresented. Please proceed. Mr HAYDEN —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) used certain statistics. I remind him that not only was the economy smaller in the period he was talking about under the Fraser Government but also it was in sharp contraction-- Madam SPEAKER —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is not making a personal explanation. He is rebutting an argument put forward by the Opposition. Mr HAYDEN —The only other thing I would say is that I am pleased-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I am listening to the Minister. He will not debate the issue. He claims to have been misrepresented. Mr HAYDEN —I am pleased that honourable members opposite have now recanted and now support both my visit to Southern Africa and our aid commitment and opposition to apartheid. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Mr Spender —Sit him down. Yes, thank you very much. Even if it is a little too late. Madam SPEAKER —May I say that one of the points made by the Minister in rebuttal was also brought up in a personal explanation on the Opposition side, so we should be wary of that. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs) —I seek leave of the House to make a very short personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOLDING —Yes. First I refer to the reply of the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Cadman)- Mr Cadman —You had the transcript. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I cannot hear the honourable member. Mr HOLDING —I desire to confirm the accuracy of what the honourable member said in his reply to the House and to make clear that the basis on which I answered the question was that aspect of what the honourable gentleman said which he did not quote. At the end of his statement, which was correct, he was asked by the interviewer, `Does this constitute a partial yes?', to which the honourable gentleman replied, `Yes, a partial yes'. Therefore, I say to the honourable gentleman that there cannot be a partial amnesty or a partial yes. I am perfectly happy to accept what the honourable gentleman said. I accept his assurance that he now takes the view that an amnesty should not be available. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Pursuant to subsection 125 (12) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, I present the annual report of the Arbitration Inspectorate of 1986-87. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1988 Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill 1988 Laying Chicken Levy Bill 1988 Laying Chicken Levy Collection Bill 1988 Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Hawke Government to introduce the necessary economic policies to improve the standard of living and limit the accumulation of our huge and growing foreign debt. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.15) —It is perhaps not surprising that the Opposition puts before the House this matter of public importance today after the gyrations that have occurred and the explanations of the Government regarding the state of the Australian economy. Apparently, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) decided to take a punt on the balance of payments data for March that were released yesterday but, unfortunately for him, the data did not turn out as well as expected. Now, once again, we are witnessing the Government's gyrating all over the place regarding the state of the economy. The Government simply does not have a consistent position. I remind the House of the banana republic speech in 1986. That speech came as a terrible shock to the Australian people. The people, having been told before it of the nirvana that was about to be reached, suddenly had dumped on them elements of the so-called banana republic. Honourable members opposite had been talking up the economy as they, in fact, pursued their ill fated push for economic growth. As we know, that push was destined for failure. It was based on massive increases in expenditure, resulting in huge government deficits, which swallowed our national savings and forced us as a nation to borrow overseas. It was evident that the rot had begun to set in then. The Treasurer was forced to change tack. Thus the Australian people were jolted into lower living standards by the Treasurer's vision of, in his words, a banana republic. All of a sudden the Treasurer's view of the state of the economy took an about turn. Of course, he blamed it all on the decline in the terms of trade. We are accustomed to his use of economic statistics and economic policy as political football. Again, in the last few weeks we witnessed the same thing. Before Labor's recent electoral disasters, Australians were being told of the need for a continued hard slog; Australians were reminded of the need for continued restraint to get us out of our foreign debt problems, and of the prospect of continuing tightening of living standards. But, because of the Government's failed economic policies, because of its failure to raise living standards and address our foreign debt problem, because of its record as the highest taxing and highest spending government since the Second World War and, I might add, because of its absolute failure to implement a wages policy that links wage movements to productivity as well as because of its failure to lift the tax burden and increase the incentive to invest, it has failed to raise living standards. There is little prospect of our trading our way out of our foreign debt problem. Yet, after a string of electoral losses, we have both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer telling us that the worst is behind us. Only last Thursday the Prime Minister said that Australians could now expect improvements in wages, taxes and inflation. On top of that, we had the Treasurer and the Prime Minister gleefully, and with their usual immodesty, congratulating themselves for the analysis of the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) of `an economic miracle'. Honourable members will recall that dear old Mr Noakes of the CAI this time last week spoke about a Lazarus-like recovery, and there was a loaves and fishes introduction to his assessment of the economy. The loaves and fishes appear to have been devoured very quickly and Lazarus is looking decidedly sick. It is riding high, according to them. On the weekend the Business Council of Australia produced a schedule of cuts in government expenditure that it described as absolutely necessary for the economic health and recovery of this nation. The Opposition believed that, in fact, even more had to be done, and it will be recalled that in this House earlier this week we were told that there was no need for such fiscal restraint and that all was going well. Once again, the nirvana was there. All would be well. But by yesterday, in yet another remark- able turn of events, we saw u-turn after u-turn. I hazard a guess that most people, if they consistently do u-turns, go round and round in circles. Yesterday, in an extraordinary Press conference, once again we heard the Treasurer warning Australia of the need for fiscal restraint just as the Opposition and the Business Council of Australia had said only at the commencement of the week. Yesterday in his dire warnings the Treasurer even went so far as to say that if we did not get the matter under control we might lose our sovereignty, and he warned that the economy was a little too strong. It is no wonder that, quite apart from the rejection of Labor around the country and falling living standards, the people do not have faith in the Government, especially when one week they are told that everything is on the up and the next it is implied that there is a bit of a downturn to the upturn. Only yesterday the Treasurer gave one of his better performances as he sought to explain the figures that were placed before the nation. However, I remind honourable members that, at the time of last year's Budget, the Opposition stood virtually alone in condemning the Government for not seeking to put Australia's house in order. In the face of all the Government-inspired hype, the Opposition argued that the Government had missed an opportunity to cut spending and to force the pace of adjustment. The Opposition has maintained a consistent analysis of Australia's economy and a consistent policy prescription for economic problems. Our external position has been and remains highly vulnerable. Our underlying balance of payments has deteriorated. The Opposition has warned of the structural problems but, in seeking to talk up the economy, the Government relies entirely on the increase in commodity prices. The only thing that is giving any sort of veneer to this economy is that factors outside the Government's control, namely, international commodity prices, are tending to make people think, wrongly, that the problems have been solved. In fact, the underlying realities and concerns about Australia's structural problems that we had in government are still there and have not been tackled. The only reason the Treasurer can glibly say that the balance of payments is on track overall is because of this unanticipated increase in commodity prices. Without that improvement in the price of exports, our balance of payments would be in very poor shape. Indeed, in the Budget the Treasurer said that zero real growth in imports would be reached. Well, it just will not be reached. That is another unanticipated result. I remind honourable members that the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) asked a question on Australia's terms of trade and yet again the House got the Treasurer's doubletalk on economic matters. He is just not prepared to answer questions. His response to the rapid rise in imports during 1987-88 is to say, in effect, `Don't worry about that. The imports are rising because investment in rising. So, by and large, all remains on track'. It is not on track. Despite continued strong import growth, Australia will be lucky to record an increase in investment in plant and equipment of the 3 per cent projected in the Budget. When the Treasurer is challenged to understand and comprehend what is transpiring, he uses words similar to those he used in the Press conference. Honourable members have heard some of his stuff in here, but yesterday's Press conference was a gem. He was asked a question about the J-curve-remember it? His answer went on for two pages or more before the next question was asked. He started by saying, `I'm not sure a lot of you are sure what net export means'. It takes him a couple of pages to talk about it before he gets to the point where he says: Exports take a while, you know, because you've got to build up merchandising networks, you know. You've got to put the plant and equipment in, you know. You just can't run away on exports. But how long that tail is depends on how good the conditions are. As I said at the Treasury- this is where he goes over there to give them a learned dissertation of economics- it is what I call the tadpole effect. You have a bulge with a long tail. Whether it is a long tadpole or a short tadpole depends on how long that net export tail is. I can just imagine it: Moses coming down from the mount to the Treasury with the tablets under one arm and a bowl of tadpoles under the other. This is the economic theory to explain to the Australian nation why we are doing so well! Mr Miles —He could become a frog. Mr PEACOCK —I will make no allusions to Queensland toads or others. The harsh reality is that weasel words of any description cannot rationalise away the rise in imports. The reason that the underlying balance of payments remains weak and the pace of adjustment on our external account is so slow is because of the Government's fiscal and wages policy. The rhetoric will mask what is happening at the moment. Apart from the Government's refusal to tackle what is required in fiscal policy, it vacillates on wages policy. It cannot deliver a wages policy that keeps our unit labour costs in line with our competitors in the international market, let alone the Treasurer's stated objective of moving towards price stability. Talk about people who are prepared to say one thing in one part of the world and another thing in another. The only time that the Treasurer was able to talk about price stability was when he was in Germany last year. Different audiences get different stories. The Opposition continues to argue for urgent action on fiscal and wages policy. Government members can throw all they like in condemnation of the Opposition for being prepared when it releases its tax program and what it rests upon-- Mr Hayden —Ha! Mr PEACOCK —The Minister laughs. I should say our further tax program because, since this mob of people have been in power, they have never been to an election with a tax policy. They have stumbled into summits, they have jacked taxes up higher than they were when they came in, and they have never put down a blueprint or a schedule. The Opposition does not resile from the reality that there is a need to curb demand and to curb it in the public sector, and to move the resources across to the tradable goods sector and to give people incentives to work and invest-notions that seem to escape Government members altogether. I am not surprised that the Australian people are running out of patience with this Government; but joining Government members as a bloc, apparently, is the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. He is reported to have said last week: The hub of our concern is that one would have hoped to see the growth of imports being less than it has actually been over the last year. We think it appropriate to have a worried brow. Yesterday the Treasurer denied that tighter monetary policy was needed to dampen demand. Today he sought to explain away words used in that Press conference. The reality is that in the last two or three days it appears that monetary policy has been tightened by the Reserve Bank. It has moved to forestall the continued deterioration in our balance of payments and it is clear that the Reserve Bank has lost faith in this Government. Honourable members will recall that last year the Governor said that he could loosen monetary policy only if he was assured that tight fiscal policies would be pursued by the Government. It is apparent to all that they are not, so clearly he has had to move to tighten monetary policy and short term interest rates have risen yet again. I am not surprised that the Reserve Bank is worried. As for the allegations that the Opposition is intent on some draconian approach to cutting expenditure. I say that the figures yesterday increased the pressure on the Government to cut spending. They show just how correct the Business Council of Australia and the Opposition have been in calling for substantial cuts in government expenditure. It is possible to direct policies towards reducing our foreign debt while maintaining or even improving standards of living. It is not, however, if the Government continues the line that it is peddling at the moment. Micro-economic reform can increase productivity, reduce taxes and raise disposable income. Cuts in government expenditure and taxes will permit a transfer of resources away from the non-tradable government sector to the tradable goods sector, thus strengthening our underlying balance of payments and permitting us to trade our way out of our huge foreign debt-concepts that the Government will not address. The Government is not delivering on what was supposed to be the hallmark of the third term of the Hawke Government, namely, micro-economic reform. The Government cannot deliver, either, on expenditure cuts or lower taxes. In short, it cannot provide the economic policies that are necessary both to raise our standard of living and to reduce the vulnerability of the Australian economy. In short, the Government has been caught short. Its rhetoric is wrong. Its policies are wrong. The U-turn has been displayed yet again, by the Treasurer in an extraordinary Press conference yesterday in which he virtually admitted failure. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs)(3.31) —The terminology of the matter of public importance and its advocacy by the shadow Treasurer (Mr Peacock) is nothing more than a cheap, cynical move on at least four counts. The shadow Treasurer was a Minister in the Fraser Government which massively savaged living standards by doubling unemployment in its terms of office. The Opposition has consistently advocated policies which, if they were listened to or applied, would decimate the living standards of the ordinary Australian. It was the empty-headed policies of the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer in the Fraser Government from 1975 to 1983, which failed to address structural problems that led to the build-up in the first place of our external debt. The matter of public importance is merely a cheap attempt to exploit the essential requirement for Australia to adjust to its terms of trade and external debt problem. Probably the most harmful and destructive element in the current Opposition's tactics is that it has decided to abandon all notions of economic credibility and, instead, has taken to mouthing populist platitudes. How can one take seriously the statement of a shadow Treasurer who knows that the Leader of the Opposition has put him and all his colleagues under a ban? I would have thought that the income tax base that operates in Australia is a matter of concern for any political party which seeks to govern. The position of this shadow Treasurer is that he must not say a word about tax policy. All honourable members opposite are under a vow of silence. One would think that they were a bunch of cloistered nuns-they may well be, for any effect they will have in terms of solving or positively contributing to solving the problems that face Australia. Mr Tim Fischer —Where is Paul? Mr HOLDING —He is doing the things that the Treasurer ought to be doing. He is not wasting his time listening to ill-conceived nonsense from the Opposition. I have the responsibility for dealing with that, and I am happy to do it. The questions that have been raised by the Opposition do not require much answering. Let us look at the terms of the matter of public importance. The Opposition is concerned about the `failure of the Hawke Government to introduce the necessary economic policies to improve the standard of living' of ordinary Australians. What does the shadow Treasurer mean by that? Does he mean that it is untrue that on every single occasion on which the Hawke Government has proposed wage rises for ordinary Australians, honourable members opposite have opposed them? Yet they come in here to talk about living standards. Does he mean that the Opposition policy, both at the last election and to the extent that it has a policy now, is touting tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts on welfare? What was the Opposition policy at the last election? That is the effect of Opposition policies, if one listens to them and as they are expressed on a day to day basis in this House. When the shadow Treasurer talks about living standards, has he forgotten the level of unemployment that he and his colleagues left for this Government to face? Has he forgotten that in the period of the Hawke Government we have created more than one million jobs? Mr Donald Cameron —What about the number of unemployed? It is still high. Mr HOLDING —We could not find a job for the honourable member, that is one thing that is certain. Let me say this: Does the shadow Treasurer regard that figure and the turnaround in the job situation as some kind of illusion? Does he mean that the commitment of this Government to equity through such measures as the family assistance package does not exist? Of course, he means none of this. What he means is that he, being a little more erudite than some of his shadow ministerial colleagues, will adopt any occasion that he can to mislead and misconstrue on a day to day basis any set of figures that comes his way because he is in the unfortunate position in regard to essential aspects of policy that he cannot open his mouth because the Leader of the Opposition has placed a ban of silence on him. All the shadow Treasurer can do is sit and wait for his time to come, as I am certain it will. I say to the shadow Treasurer: Be patient. Recently the Sydney Morning Herald took to task the Leader of the Opposition for the opportunism that is shown in the Opposition's approach to these issues. The Sydney Morning Herald was quite right when it said of the Leader of the Opposition: . . . to maximise the Liberal vote, he- that is, the Leader of the Opposition- turned his back on economic rationality. The newspaper went on to say that the approach of the Leader of the Opposition: seems to have damaged the Opposition's credibility with business generally. And so it should. I must say that it takes a lot to make this Opposition feel any sense of shame. It is beyond that. The fact is that when we are talking about living standards-that is essentially what this debate is about-this Government has introduced fundamental reforms that the previous Government, of which the shadow Treasurer was a member, did not want to know about, was not prepared to consider and was too weak to do anything about. Reforms such as the floating of the dollar, balancing of the Budget, real wage restraint to ensure that depreciation worked, tariff reduction and company tax reforms were all talked about in the period of the Fraser Administration. They were talked about by the now Leader of the Opposition, the then Treasurer. But not a thing was done. All these issues have been tackled. They were not easy but they have been faced up to by this Treasurer (Mr Keating) and this Government. Yesterday's balance of payments figures show that the current account deficit for the first nine months of the 1987-88 financial year is $1,670m better than last year. This is an improvement of 16 per cent. The current account deficit has been reduced from 6 per cent of gross domestic product to 4 per cent in only two years. Because the growth in our external debt is directly linked to current account deficit, this big improvement in our trade position has arrested the growth in our external debt. We can confidently expect soon to turn around debt growth. No other country in the world has achieved such an adjustment without throwing the economy into reverse. The reality is that this Labor Administration has protected the interests of its constituency and of all Australians while, at the same time, successfully adjusting the Australian economy to cope with our trade problem. In regard to jobs there was a record level of unemployment during the time of the previous Government. Since April 1983 over 80 per cent of jobs created have been in the private sector. We have created over one million new jobs. To talk about living standards means something to all the young unemployed and other unemployed created during the years in office of the shadow Treasurer. Job growth in Australia has been more than twice that of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries and four times that of the previous Fraser Government. The unemployment rate including the teenage unemployment rate is now at its lowest level in 5 1/2 years. I refer now to living standards. Surely social security spending is relevant to that. The family assistance package introduced by this Government was brought in for lower income families. It pays $22 per week per child and an extra $6 per week for any child aged between 13 and 15 years. What that means for a family earning $320 per week with three children is a tax-free payment of $66 per week. It is the equivalent of a wage rise of $93 a week. Does that not affect living standards? The pension is up from 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings in 1983 to 25 per cent today. The standard pension has increased by 8.4 per cent in real terms under Labor compared with a reduction of 2.6 per cent in the seven years in which the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer. The tax system has been changed to eliminate poverty traps. The income test free area has been increased from $30 to $40 for single pensioners and from $50 to $70 for married couples. That is the record of this Government. This Opposition and this shadow Treasurer live on Press handouts. They run from one position to another. Only this week the shadow Treasurer endorsed the hit list of $2,500m worth of cuts prepared by the Business Council of Australia. Not only that, but he also criticised it for not going far enough; for falling short of the mark. The honourable member then comes into this House and talks about living standards. Let the average Australian look in some detail at the proposals of the Business Council of Australia and ask himself the simple question: what does that mean in terms of my family's living standards? What would it mean if the Opposition were given some sort of opportunity to govern? As far as the shadow Treasurer is concerned, his only criticism of the Business Council of Australia-and this is a desperate effort to try to recover some of the support from and curry favour with the business community which knows that this Opposition is a bunch of economic no-hopers-is that although it has done well it has not been hard enough. What has the Business Council of Australia proposed? Its first proposal is to abolish family allowances. Is that a position that commends itself to any Australian who is concerned about equity and justice? The Council's second proposal is to cut the Medicare rebate to 75 per cent-a move which would eliminate bulk billing and mean that people would be charged for every visit to the doctor. What will that do to the average family's standard of living? It also proposes to make pensioners pay for pharmaceuticals. I suppose that as the shadow Treasurer believes that the Council has not gone far enough, he would want pensioners to pay to visit the chemist. Other proposals are to stop indexing pensions to the full rate of inflation and to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs-- Mr Tim Fischer —You don't believe all this, do you? Mr HOLDING —That was the statement of the Business Council of Australia. That was the statement which the honourable member's shadow Minister said did not go far enough. The people of Australia are now hearing this Opposition bleating and complaining as it lives from day to day making grabs at any particular policy that is flashed past it. The fact is that the Opposition spokesman said that the Business Council's proposals did not go far enough, so the honourable member should not bleat because he has to go and square off with the Returned Services League and tell it that it is not Opposition policy to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Other proposals include the introduction of tertiary fees, a cut of $80m in road funding and the elimination of general purpose assistance to local government. Those are all proposals which the shadow Treasurer said did not go far enough. In the same breath he attacks the Government for a `decline in living standards'. He says that ordinary Australians are hurting. If we were to regard the statements of this Opposition as being in any way credible ordinary Australians would not be hurting, they would be bleeding to death. What this country needs to overcome its economic problems is an opposition which will sort itself out and come forward with some credible policies so that these issues can be seriously joined. The exercise that we have in this House today is nothing more than a cynical attempt by a shadow Minister to try to bolster and put some odd principle into the rantings and ravings of an opposition leader who is so desperate to achieve electoral support that he is chasing any wind that blows in any direction. He is trying to keep his Party under control. He has put a ban on Party members discussing publicly any major aspect of fiscal policy and taxation and the shadow Minister has to come in here and try to make the best of it. I think he made the best of a very difficult brief but, really, I suggest he tell his Leader that it is time he sorted out his problems, so that he can come to the House on a matter of public importance with an argument that is at least credible. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(3.45) —I believe that the Australian people could reasonably expect that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) would be here in person today to debate this matter of public importance put forward by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), which is, indeed, a very serious one. Instead, he sends in the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), who is now fleeing the chamber as the Treasurer did. We have just seen the Treasurer struggling in Question Time; now he will not even debate the very serious matters affecting the country today. Listening to the Minister's speech, one would think that we were well off in this country. To me, that only indicates how out of touch this Government is with the ordinary people out there who know that things are not going well at all. The people are much more informed than this Government. There seems to be no realisation on the Government benches of the seriousness of the economic situation in Australia today. Now, there is no Minister in the House and barely a Government member. It is absolutely appalling. If the Australian people could only see the contempt with which this Government is treating the country. The Government cannot even comprehend that our living standards in Australia are constantly dropping behind those of the rest of the world. Our current account deficit, which we are debating here today, is running second last to Norway. If we move any further down the track we will drop off the list. This is how much the Treasurer is in touch. I will quote a statement that the Treasurer made at a Press conference a week ago on 14 April: We've got the current account deficit improving, we've got the Budget strongly into surplus, we are super competitive in world terms and we are now seeing the restoration of our industrial base to return us back to what we should have always been, and that is a modern industrial country. This is almost unbelievable, but it comes from the Treasurer's lips. He is totally out of touch with the people and with economic reality in Australia today. Since 1983, when he became Treasurer, he has run an ad hoc, stop-start policy. He started off by saying that all was well. We then went into a policy of restraint and banana skins. From that we went to a policy of joy. Only at the beginning of this month-appropriately on 1 April-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made the statement: `The worst is over'. And where are we now? We have gone back to battening down the hatches. The Treasurer is trying to run the economy on his ego and how he feels when he gets up in the morning. This constant chopping and changing is only leading to confusion. I remind the Government of a few fundamentals. When it came to power in early 1983 the gross overseas debt in this country was of the order of $30 billion. At the end of last year it had risen to $111.6 billion. I know that honourable members may have heard this figure before but I put it to them that it is the most horrific thing that any government has done to this country since Federation. Mr Braithwaite —Who was the Treasurer? Mr COBB —The grim reaper! Look at the interest rates on the debt in this country today. When the Treasurer came to power in 1983 we were paying out $2.5 billion interest, which was a high enough figure. At the end of last year it had risen to $8.8 billion. That alone is equivalent to 20 per cent of our gross export income and it is hamstringing us all. In effect, we are working a considerable portion of our time for overseas creditors. Our children will have to pay this back. If the Treasurer goes out shopping, walks into an antique shop and buys a French Empire clock, I presume he takes out his wallet, produces money or a credit card-if he has one-and pays for it on the spot. He does not say to the owner of the shop, `Put it on tick'-no pun is intended-`and send the bill to my children in 20 years time'. That, in effect, is what he is doing to our country today. Our children will have to pay for this. Dr Hewson —Plus interest. Mr COBB —Plus interest, as the honourable member says. I put it to honourable members that the talk we are starting to hear from the Government about surpluses in the May statement and the Budget later this year is a fraud. The Treasurer has managed to balance the domestic Budget, while at the same time blowing out the current account deficit and the overseas debt, by doing two things-selling assets and increasing taxation. He has not done it by cutting Government expenditure, as one would reasonably expect. The total revenue income to this Government has increased by $34 billion since this man became Treasurer. For heaven's sake, that is a 60 per cent increase since he came to power. Even when we allow for an inflation rate increase of 40 per cent, that is an increase in real terms of 20 per cent. Income tax alone has gone up 80 per cent, which is double the inflation rate increase of 40 per cent. The average marginal tax rate has gone from 30 per cent in 1983 to 40 per cent today. That, of course, is killing incentive. We all know that the average family is paying $40 or more a week more in tax than in 1983. An honourable member asked earlier, `What about indirect tax?'. The Government has used that method to increase tax perhaps more dishonestly than any other. The Government has increased sales taxes by 110 per cent since March 1983 when the Treasurer took over. Mr Sharp —A consumption tax. Mr COBB —It is a de facto consumption tax, as the honourable member for Gilmore says. That represents an increase of 70 per cent in real terms. As well as increasing taxes, the Government has also put new taxes on wine, orange juice, flavoured milk, ice-cream and children's ice blocks. The list goes on and on. Dr Hewson —Not on antique clocks? Mr COBB —Not at all. Taxes have not been put on expensive ball gowns or pornographic magazines. The Government has not taxed these items. I ask honourable members to look at what the Government has done in respect of the indirect tax area of excises. The tax on petrol has gone from 6c to 20c a litre. Taxes on alcohol and tobacco have been tied into the consumer price index which means that the Government is not now subject to the odium of having to announce increases in the Budget. Such moves are unparalleled in our history. As well as that, the Treasurer has introduced new taxes such as the capital gains tax, which it promised not to do, the fringe benefits tax and the entertainment tax. It has also introduced an assets test on pensioners and so on. The total tax revenue this year alone will go up 14 1/2 per cent. I ask the question: Why are the economic media in the country mute about the horrific things that are happening to our economy? It seems that the grim reaper has got them somehow hypnotised. Mr Braithwaite —Like Madam Speaker; she does not actually understand economics either. Mr COBB —No, she does not. But the Treasurer is so arrogant that he is boasting that the Government has raised more tax by these methods than it would have had it introduced the infamous option C consumption tax a couple of years ago. Dr Hewson —That explains a lot, doesn't it? Mr COBB —It does. The Treasurer has only balanced the Budget by these methods. As I said, he should have done it by cutting expenditure. But, of course, the Treasurer has no stomach for that. He is always telling us that we duck for cover when the first whiff of grapeshot goes over the bow. Well, who has ducked for cover? The Treasurer has not cut anything since he has held that position. All he does is increase tax. The Government's tax policy is one of more tax. The March current account deficit figure was $1,185m for the month. I think that indicates alone that the so-called recovery is fragile. The figure would have been much worse had it not been for rural exports which increased by $62m for the month, up to $1,467m. If we reflect on that figure for a minute, we can see that if exports stall we could go back into a dive again. Already imports are surging-they are 16 per cent ahead of what they were last year. So, it is indeed a very fragile recovery. Our options in this country are very limited because of the overseas debt. People are asking, `Where are we going?'. Business is asking, `Where is the consistency?'. The direction of the Treasurer's policies on the economy keep swinging backwards and forwards like the pendulum of an antique clock. Economic fundamentals do not count any more. The Treasurer is running a verbal economic policy. He has gone from doom and gloom where we all had lamps going around looking for banana skins, to a state of joy, saying, `The worst is over'. Now, after by-elections, the poll figures and the trade figures are out, we all have hairshirts back on. I put it to honourable members that it is time the Treasurer lowered tax rates, cut spending, got his act together and ran this country in a coherent and consistent manner. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(3.56) —It is a measure of the confusing debate that has been engaged in today by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), that we are discussing a matter of public importance about living standards. The honourable member has brought this debate on less than a week after he endorsed a massive cut back in the expenditure proposed by the Business Council of Australia (BCA). I feel that is ironic. Let us look at the Press statement of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia that was released on Sunday, 17 April. The shadow Treasurer said: While the Business Council's call for reduced Government spending is welcome, it does not go far enough. But so far we have not heard how far those on the other side of the House want to go. That is not surprising because we have an Opposition in disarray. We have an Opposition that has no more policies today than it had in 1987, 1984 or 1983. That is why it is on that side of the House. The shadow Treasurer went on further: . . . the BCA's target of $2.5 billion in expenditure cuts is somewhat short of the mark. I would like him to say where the mark is. Let us look at some of the things which the honourable gentleman says are short of the mark. The proposals include speeding up the phasing in of new nursing home arrangements; tightening means and assets testing for community service programs and nursing homes and hostel contributions by asset testing nursing home benefits and varying the subsidy according to income. The cost of this is $100m. However, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party tells us that this does not go far enough. But he will not say how far he wants to go. Maybe he is waiting for John Elliott to tell him. This is from the same man who, in 1984, said, `Labor's assets test is un-Australian and I will not have a bar of it'. The Deputy Leader was, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that. His endorsement this week of the assets test clearly shows that he has changed his policy since he has changed his jobs. While we are talking about jobs, let us not forget that in excess of one million jobs have been created since the Hawke Government came into office. This helps living standards; it does not drive them down. Under the wages accord there has been a massive reduction in industrial disputation, which is quite the opposite to what happened under the industrial relations policy that the Opposition not only had in government but would have tomorrow if it could get back in. Its view on the capacity to pay is to pay less. Its view on the way the trade union movement should be treated is to hit it with a stick. Some 270,000 families have now been helped as a result of the first home owners scheme and 220,000 more families are living in public housing. That is not a bad example of increasing living standards. We have agreed under our wages policy, which comes within the terms of the accord, to a series of indexed wage rises that total in excess of 22 per cent. A worker who was receiving some $400 a week in March 1983, when the Australian Labor Party first came to power, is today getting at least $90 extra because of the national wage rises that have resulted through the accord and through a sensible and intelligent approach to industrial relations. Looked at in another way, someone today who has a weekly wage of $500 would be getting only $408.76 a week under the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) who has opposed every wage rise and the opportunity to increase living standards through the conciliation and arbitration system, a system which, if he had his way, he would destroy. The Business Council wants to raise the female pensionable age to 65 for new pensioners and to 60 for female service pensions to make the eligible pension age the same as for males. The savings would be $50m, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that they do not go far enough. Perhaps he will tell us how far he would like to go. Does the coalition intend to write to the Returned Services League and pensioner groups informing them of its new policy? Is it going to come out and say, `We will destroy your living standards. We support the Business Council of Australia. We support the economic dries, the economic lunatics in our society, who would take the food out of children's mouths', which was the very thing that happened before this Labor Party came into existence some 80 years ago? All honourable members on this side of the House can well remember the Liberal and National parties running a gruesome scare campaign in 1984 about the assets test and what we would allegedly do to pensioners. The former member for Denison claimed that the gold in pensioners' teeth would be assets tested. I am glad that he is no longer a member of parliament; we now have a top member for Denison. That is a fair indication of the scare tactics and the absolute bankruptcy of policies of those on the other side of the House. Today we find that the coalition endorses an assets test. It not only endorses it but also wants people who are eligible for a pension to miss out. However, it will not tell us how far it wants to go. The Opposition has the hide to talk about living standards. Under Labor, pensions have increased by 8.4 per cent in real terms, compared with minus 2.5 per cent under the Liberals. Yet the Opposition talks about the standard of living of all Australians. Mr Ronald Edwards —What about the unemployed? Mr COURTICE —Under the conservatives, thousands of jobs were destroyed. We are now restructuring the economy and industry so we will have a foundation on which to build a future Australia with a vision. On the other side of the House there is no vision, no light on the hill and no hope for the unemployed. Mr Ronald Edwards —One million new jobs have been created under us. Mr COURTICE —That is the proudest statement we could make. As the honourable member for Stirling says, a million jobs have been created. The Business Council proposes to abolish the family allowance and increase the income tested family allowance supplement to $32 a week for children under 13. It proposes to lower the income test for the joint family allowance to $40,000. Yet, presumably, the Liberal Party would like more cuts. It would lower that figure even more because, again, it says that the Business Council has not gone far enough. Why are backbenchers opposite and members of the coalition not running off to the Press Gallery announcing to their electorates that they support those policies? Do they support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and his statement, or do they not? Do they intend to disown him or endorse him? Why do they not say so in the Press? While we are talking about living standards, let us talk about the family package-a family package which provides half a billion dollars to families most in need. That revenue comes from the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. It comes from those who should have paid tax but had never done so before. The money is going to those most in need. That is what living standards are all about. The runs are on the board and the facts are there. That is why the Opposition is in disarray today. Mr Ronald Edwards —They don't have a tax policy. Mr COURTICE —That is correct. They do not have a policy on any issue. Why will they not be honest with the ordinary men and women of Australia and say, `What we are really about is slashing your family's standards of living.'? That is what the Business Council of Australia report is all about-slashing living standards. It is not a good document and it does not contain good news. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition believes that it does not go far enough. Let us examine what the Business Council of Australia and the coalition would do to health care facilities for ordinary Australians. They want the Medicare rebate to be reduced from 85 per cent to 80 or 75 per cent; they are not sure which. In other words, assuming that doctors adhere to the medical schedule-many of them do not-the gap which ordinary families must fill would widen under the coalition's policy. If that is not an attack on living standards, nothing is. As the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) has already pointed out, under conditions of a 75 per cent rebate it would be impossible for doctors to continue to bulkbill and pensioners would be the hardest hit of all. In addition, the Opposition's health plan would slash $3 billion from public hospital funding for the States. The States would be forced to recover the full costs. Everybody would be forced into expensive flat rate private insurance. Those who did not go into private insurance would, under the coalition, be fined up to $100 in their tax. If that is not an attack on living standards, nothing is. Yet, according to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, it still does not go far enough. There are now two million Australians covered under Medicare who were not covered when the Opposition was in government. The Business Council of Australia also advocates cutting back funding to the States. It says that real spending would decline by less than 4 per cent. That would be quite interesting for my State. The Ahern Government is looking at a deficit this year of some $200m. It has already advocated the destruction of the free hospital system and a round of privatisation, including the selling off of the Government garage which is in the electorate of Lilley. In Queensland, the amount provided for police, education and health services is already well below that of the Australian average. Yet it appears that the policies of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would go further. He does not think that the BCA's proposals go far enough. Honourable members opposite have asked for more money for roads. Yet, under the Opposition's policies, there would be cuts in road funding; otherwise, cuts would be greater in other areas. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged: Lemonthyme and Southern Forests-Commission of Inquiry-Interim Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Fisheries agreement between Commonwealth of Australia and Midwater Technological Resources Pty Ltd-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Japanese tuna long-line fishing-Subsidiary agreement-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Financial assistance for schools-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. National policy for the education of girls in Australian schools-Reports by Commonwealth Schools Commission-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Higher education-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Procedure-Standing Committee-Report-Improved opportunities for private Members: Consideration of report. Procedure-Standing Committee-Report-Government response-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Expenditure-Standing Committee-Report on aviation industry inquiry-Government response-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Transport Safety-Standing Committee-Report on sports aviation safety-Government response-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Economic Planning Advisory Council-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Government responses to parliamentary committee reports-Response to list presented by Speaker-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Commissioner of Taxation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Australian Institute of Sport-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Australian Water Resources Council-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Industries Assistance Commission-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Australian Agricultural Council-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Commonwealth financial relations with other levels of government 1987-88 (Budget Paper No. 4)-Corrigendum-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Director of Public Prosecutions-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Family Law Council-Report on access-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Commonwealth Schools Commission-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Inter-State Commission-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Defence and the 1987-88 Budget-Ministerial statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Brewarrina riot-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Australian Taxation Office-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Australian Postal Commission-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Law Reform Commission-Report on evidence-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Law Reform Commission-Report on matrimonial property-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Director of Public Prosecutions-Report on civil remedies-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Remuneration Tribunal-Reports and determination-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Textiles, clothing and footwear industries-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Aboriginal Land Commissioner-Report on Murranji Land Claim-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Aboriginal Land Commissioner-Report on Ti-tree Station Land Claim-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: 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 DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 28 April 1988. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Tuesday, 26 April 1988. The report read as follows- Report relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 28 April 1988 Pursuant to sessional order 28d, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 28 April 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. Committee report Statements upon presentation Joint Select Committee on Video Material Report. [The Selection Committee has determined that the following time limits apply to statements made in connection with the report- Member presenting report-15 minutes Other Members-10 minutes each Total time for statements-until 11 a.m.] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted 1 MR PROSSER: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935. (Notice given 21 April 1988.) 5 mins (pursuant to sessional Order 104a) *2 DR CHARLESWORTH: To move-That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its commitment to a health insurance system based on the principles of fairness, simplicity and efficiency; (2) calls upon the Government to maintain a universal system of health insurance funded by a fairly applied levy arrangement; (3) condemns attacks on the universal health insurance system by sectional vested interests, including some members of the medical profession; and (4) rejects the Opposition health policy requiring most families to pay the first $250 of their health bills. (Notice given 15 September 1987.) 45 mins *3 MR I. M. D. CAMERON: To move-That this House condemns the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs for the lack of funding and the new arrangements for the distribution of funds for the 800 local government councils in Australia. (Notice given 15 September 1987.) 45 mins *4 MR WRIGHT: To move-That this House condemns the decision by the ANZ Bank to introduce a fee for withdrawals from savings accounts, believing that- (1) such a fee is unwarranted, unjust and unfair, particularly to pensioners, low income families and others who depend on savings accounts for the protection and management of their finances; and (2) it is commercially immoral for a bank to charge a depositor for the right to withdraw his or her own money. (Notice given 15 September 1987.) any remaining private Members business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day 21 April 1988...D. M. CAMERON Acting Chairman Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Statutory Instruments (Tabling and Disallowance) Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 amends the tabling and disallowance provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and of the Acts relating to the external Territories. It also makes consequential amendments to certain other Acts that apply the tabling and disallowance provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act to various instruments made under those Acts. The tabling and disallowance provisions of part XII of the Acts Interpretation Act provide the means of parliamentary scrutiny and control over delegated legislation. This control is essential to the functioning of parliamentary democracy. The current tendency towards embodying matters of detail in ministerial instruments makes this scrutiny even more important. The amendments in this Bill arose out of suggestions by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which is the body charged with scrutinising subordinate legislation. The amendments do not extend the existing powers of either House of Parliament to disallow regulations and other subordinate instruments-rather, they are designed to fill two possible gaps in the system of parliamentary scrutiny. Section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act requires regulations to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the making of the regulations. If regulations are not so tabled they cease to have effect. Either House may by resolution disallow regulations. The disallowance resolution must, by section 48 (4) of the Act, arise from a motion, notice of which was given within 15 sitting days of the tabling of the regulations. Thus the tabling of regulations allows for their scrutiny by the Parliament-in practice, by the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee-and disallowance enables the parliamentary control to which I referred earlier. As the Act stands at the moment, it may be possible to circumvent this scrutiny by not tabling regulations and remaking the identical regulations on the day after the expiration of the 15 sitting days tabling period. By repeating this process, regulations could be kept in force indefinitely and Parliament would be prevented from exercising its right to examine and, if it felt it necessary, disallow them. Clause 6 of this Bill therefore inserts new section 48a into the Act to prevent the repeated remaking of untabled regulations and instruments and to prevent the repeal and remaking of tabled regulations so soon after tabling as to have similar practical effect. Parliamentary control of subordinate legislation could be circumvented in another way. If regulations have been tabled and notice of a disallowance motion has been given, it would be possible, as the Act presently stands, to repeal the regulations and immediately remake them. The disallowance motion would, of course, fall as there would no longer be any regulations to which it could attach. The new regulations would be tabled and the process could be repeated each time notice of a disallowance motion was given. Proposed section 48b of the Bill, also inserted by clause 6, is designed to prevent such repeated repeal and remaking of regulations in respect of which a notice of motion for disallowance is in force. The Acts governing the Australian Capital Territory and the external Territories require Ordinances made in relation to those Territories to be tabled in Parliament. Those Acts contain similar disallowance provisions to the Acts Interpretation Act. As it is desirable that these tabling and disallowance provisions follow the Acts Interpretation Act, the Bill makes similar amendments to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, the Norfolk Island Act 1979, the Christmas Island Act 1958, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955, the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act 1933, the Coral Sea Islands Act 1969, the Australian Antarctic Territory Act 1954 and the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act 1979. The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 also contains its own tabling and disallowance provisions and similar amendments are being made to it. The remaining provisions of the Bill make consequential amendments to other provisions in part XII of the Act. Apart from amending the specific Acts I have just referred to, the schedule applies new sections 48a and 48b to various instruments to which the existing tabling and disallowance provisions already apply. I should state that, while proposing these amendments which, as I said earlier, arose out of deliberations of the Senate Committee, the Government is in no way suggesting that the Governor-General in Council is always likely to be available to repeal and remake regulations in order to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. This scenario is one which I feel is most unlikely to occur. The possibility, even if still unlikely, could, however, arise in the case of the multiplicity of ministerial and other instruments to which the tabling and disallowance provisions apply. The Government is concerned that the ability of the Parliament to scrutinise the actions of the Executive be maintained, and for this reason is proposing these amendments of the Acts Interpretation Act. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Staples, and read a first time. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(4.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, the National Health Act 1953, the States Grants (Nurses Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985, and the Australian Institute of Health Act 1987. The major purpose of this Bill is to introduce new nursing and personal care staffing and related funding arrangements in nursing homes. It also provides for improved respite care. These measures will enable better targeting of Commonwealth funding to those aged people most in need of residential care and will achieve greater efficiency and equity in Commonwealth funding of nursing homes. The Bill also provides for increased freedom of choice for members of health insurance funds currently locked into a single health benefits organisation. This will be done by removing existing impediments to transfer between such organisations. Over the past 10 years major criticisms of the nursing home program have been made by representatives of the industry, aged people, unions, Commonwealth parliamentary committees and other representative bodies. The criticisms have covered a broad range of matters, including unfair distribution of taxpayers funds between facilities; the significantly varying levels of staffing between individual residents, homes, industry sectors and States; poor standards of care provided in many nursing homes; the amount of nursing and personal care funded in nursing homes bore little relationship to the actual care needs of residents; the lack of flexibility in the nursing home arrangements and the absence of incentives for improving efficiency in management; and the growth in expenditure which has characterised the nursing home program over many years and the resultant high costs to residents and the taxpayer. The Government has responded to these very serious criticisms in a positive way. The Government outlined early in 1986 an integrated program of reform of residential care services for aged people. The program of reform has been undertaken on a phased basis to ensure that the process of adjustment was smooth and to avoid disruption of the care of the 110,000 frail aged residents and the employment of the tens of thousands of dedicated people providing that care. In the 1986-87 Budget and subsequently, the Government has provided significant additional resources to implement the strategy. Initiatives taken in the first three stages of the reform process have included a needs based planning system for expansion of nursing home and hostel places, development of geriatric assessment services, new quality of life and quality of care standards in nursing homes, increased hostel recurrent funding, and new flexible arrangements for the capital funding of new hostels. Also, as part of this process, the first major step was taken to introduce an equitable national standard funding approach to financing nursing home care, with the transition phase to be completed in 1991. The first element of this process, the standardisation of infrastructure costs, commenced on 1 July 1987. This Bill will enable the implementation of much of the fourth stage of the reform strategy and will do much to enhance the care of the aged. The package of reforms includes a range of measures to improve the quality of care for nursing home residents by a substantive increase in total funding for needed nurses; linking Commonwealth funding to the needs of individual nursing home residents, based on national nursing and personal care standards and resident classification; further increases in funding for geriatric assessment, gerontic nurse training and nurse reskilling; special provisions to support small nursing homes and, where appropriate, to help them restructure and rationalise their management; creation of an additional 4,000 respite care places by 1995 and a supplementary respite care benefit. To help ensure that nursing home care is affordable by all Australians who need it, this package of reforms will provide that by 1991 residents will no longer face the burden of substantial fees over and above the statutory minimum resident contribution of 87.5 per cent of the pension plus rental assistance. There will also be funding for a crackdown on fraudulent practices engaged in by a small minority of nursing home proprietors. These reforms aim at higher quality care for residents in nursing homes throughout Australia by giving the management of each home flexibility in the use of its nursing and personal care staff to tailor services provided to the individual needs of each resident. For the first time in Australia this Government initiative, foreshadowed in 1987, will link Commonwealth funding for nursing homes to the needs of individual nursing home residents. In developing the package, the Government recognised that a significant input was required from service providers and community organisations if the objectives were to be achieved. To this end extensive consultations have taken place with service providers, consumer and welfare organisations, unions and State governments on the package. I see this consultative and participative approach as vital and will ensure the closer involvement of these groups also in the monitoring and review of the new arrangements. I will also shortly announce new approvals totalling around $80m for funding of 3,000 hostel and 500 nursing homes places to help expand hostel care generally and fill serious gaps in the network of nursing home services. Geriatric assessment services are helping to ensure that aged people receive proper professional help in finding the type of services which best meet their needs. As a result, people are not going into nursing homes when there are alternatives which better meet their requirements. Increasingly, nursing home care will be targeted at more highly dependent people. Commonwealth spending on nursing and personal care staffing has increased by 38 per cent in money terms from $420m in 1985-86 to an estimated $580m in 1987-88. It is essential that these substantial resources be targeted to those most in need of care through the implementation of the proposed national nursing and personal care standards. These arrangements, provided for in the Bill, are based on the recommendations of the Commonwealth-State working party on nursing home standards established in 1986 to provide advice on these issues. I pay tribute now to the State and Territory governments and their representatives who played such an important role in developing the new arrangements in conjunction with the Commonwealth and the nursing home industry. There will be a direct link between the service needs of nursing home residents and approved staffing levels. Staffing levels will be established on the basis of categorisation of individual residents; that is, a specified staffing level will be approved for each resident per week. This staffing level will be uniform for a resident with a given service need level across Australia and will entail a redistribution of both funds and hours across the whole non-government aged nursing home sector. There will also be deliberate targeting of resources to those most in need of nursing and personal care services. The standardisation of nursing and personal care staffing hours and costs will increase the level of financial control for the Commonwealth and will provide, for the first time, a sound, equitable and efficient base for determining staffing levels. While nursing and personal care staff hours will be uniform across Australia, the hourly rates at which they are reimbursed will, of course, be consistent with the different State award rates. No longer will the Commonwealth simply set fees to reimburse whatever the nursing home happens to incur on staffing levels. Under the new arrangements nursing homes which spend more than the amount determined through the nursing and personal care staffing standards arrangements, plus a small tolerance, will not be permitted to impose that excess cost on their residents or on the taxpayer. Under the new categorisation arrangements, a resident classification instrument (RCI) will be completed by a geriatric assessment service or the director of nursing in each home, in respect of each person newly admitted or to be admitted on or after 1 July 1988, to permit such a person to be classified into one of five categories, depending on the assessed level of care they need. There is provision for review by the Secretary to my Department and by the Minister. The Bill also provides for each category to be allocated a specific number of nursing and personal care staff hours, which will be used in calculating nursing home fees. A fee will also be set for the existing unclassified residents. The Bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to provide that a resident contribution will be set. Existing residents will not be required to pay more under the new arrangements than they would have under the current system. Also, under the new arrangements, the amount a resident pays will not increase as fees increase as under the current arrangements. This will provide greater certainty for residents and remove a cause of serious concern, particularly as over 80 per cent of residents rely solely on the pension. The Bill provides for transitional arrangements which allow any necessary adjustment to be undertaken gradually. These arrangements will also include assistance for small nursing homes. For example, I intend to allow small nursing homes the choice of either joining the new system from 1 July 1988 or waiting until 1 March 1989. Small homes, even though they account for only 5 per cent of beds, are an important part of the industry, particularly in remote areas. In the past, they have been relatively highly staffed for their residency dependency levels. It may also be necessary to provide assistance for some small homes to restructure or to supplement the resources of those small homes which need to remain small; for example, those in remote areas or catering for Aboriginal or ethnic groups. All homes will be able to take advantage from the outset of the increased flexibility that the new system will give them to manage their resources more effectively. Since residents in the highest categories of service need attract the greatest resource levels, almost all homes will overall have scope for further increasing their staffing resourcing by admitting such residents. By the end of the transition period, the funded staffing levels for about two thirds of all nursing home residents will have risen. All residents should benefit from the capacity of nursing home management to draw flexibly on their approved hours to provide special services including the various therapies whenever these are required. The Bill also provides for the monitoring of the accuracy of the resident classification instruments submitted by the nursing homes, and to reclassify residents where necessary. Measures will also be able to be taken under the financial arrangements principles to ensure that nursing homes do not routinely use nursing and personal care staff, whose cost is directly reimbursed to the home, to carry out the tasks of other staff whose costs are intended to be met by the standard grant under infrastructure cost funding arrangements. In implementing these changes, I intend that an additional hour per resident per week of nursing and personal care be provided nationally across the board. In particular, this extra time will allow homes to provide increased therapy services to their residents, services which are sadly lacking under the present arrangements. It will also allow for increases in in-service training to maintain and develop staff skills. Both these elements are critical to the provision of high quality care. I propose to make allowance for 24-hour coverage to be provided by a registered general nurse in all homes and nursing and personal care administration time for each home's director of nursing. These proposals recognise the importance of professional nursing in the provision of high quality care, and that more effective management of staffing resources will lead to more efficient and effective care provision. The introduction of the nursing and personal care arrangements will result in a net increase of some 2,000 jobs nationally by the end of 1989. Since becoming responsible for aged care I have been concerned that some 23 per cent of nursing home residents across Australia are required to pay more than the statutory contribution of 87.5 per cent of pension plus rent assistance. Nursing home costs are such that these aged people pay, on average, about $1,600 extra each year. This creates financial hardship for many. The reforms contained in this package reaffirm the Government's commitment that by 1991 no resident will be required to contribute more than the statutory contribution. The only exception to this would be the small number of aged people with substantial assets or income who wish to pay for care and accommodation outside these funding arrangements. A small proportion of non-Government nursing homes for the aged-comprising up to 6 per cent of the beds in each State-will be permitted to charge residents an additional contribution to that which would otherwise be payable. The Commonwealth benefit normally payable for these homes will be reduced by a minimum of 50c in the dollar for each dollar by which the unregulated fee exceeds the fee which would otherwise be charged. Nursing homes wishing to qualify for exempt beds will be subject to selection by tender. This proposal provides flexibility for service providers who wish to cater for patients who wish to purchase a higher level of accommodation or services. These arrangements modify those previously foreshadowed last year reflecting the views of industry, consumer and union groups, expressed in subsequent consultations. Legislation to implement this proposal will be brought forward for consideration in the Budget session. The Government is committed to the provision of respite care services as part of its strategy of responding positively to the care needs of aged people. Respite care is essential to prolong the length of time frail, aged people can continue to live in the community among family and friends. Respite care is also critical in providing support, relief, and stress reduction for carers of frail aged people. This Bill proposes amendments to the National Health Act 1953 and the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 to increase the availability of respite care services in nursing homes and hostels and to make these services more accessible to aged people. The long term objective is two places per 1,000 aged persons in both hostels and nursing homes, with an additional 4,000 places available by 1995. The Bill enables regulations to be made that provide for a payment of a respite care supplement in addition to the Commonwealth nursing home benefit and the Commonwealth subsidy to hostels. Nursing homes will receive a supplement based on a percentage of the standard infrastructure cost component of fees, which will be determined in writing by the Minister. I propose to set this supplement at 35 per cent of the standard infrastructure cost. In hostels respite care subsidies will reflect the level of care. The current respite subsidy of $8.05 per day will be retained for `hostel care' level residents. For `personal care' level respite residents, there will be a payment of the personal care subsidy plus a supplement also based on a percentage of the personal care subsidy. This percentage will be set at 25 per cent. The supplement will be payable for 63 days for each recipient in a year and will provide an incentive for organisations to offer respite care services. Arrangements for approval of admission for respite and classification of patients will be in line with the arrangements applying to new admissions to permanent care. The Bill also provides for persons involved with the provision of respite care not to provide false or misleading information consistent with similar amendments by Parliament for nursing homes and hostels in the Budget sittings of 1987. The Government has a continuing concern about the range of practices used by some residential care providers which may result in inflation of costs which must be met either by taxpayers or residents or both. The Government has agreed to provide additional resources for a continuing program to detect and prevent fraud. The National Health Act is also amended to allow contributors to health insurance who wish to transfer from one health benefits organisation to another, because of factors such as lower contribution rates and other benefits, to do so without having to face difficulties through the imposition of new waiting periods. These measures improve the freedom of choice for that half of Australia's population which currently has private health insurance. Members will be able to transfer from one organisation to another without the imposition of waiting periods, or with reduced waiting periods where part or whole of the waiting period has been served in the previous organisation. Over the past decade a number of reports to parliament have criticised the number of inappropriate admissions to nursing homes. The Government has responded to these criticisms by supporting the development of regional multidisciplinary geriatric assessment services to ensure that aged people seeking care could be fully assessed and advised of the most appropriate way of meeting their needs. It is now intended that these assessment services may approve admissions to specified nursing homes or nursing homes in a particular region. The insertion of a new provision into the National Health Act will enable this to be done. The Bill also provides for the amendment of section 40ad of the National Health Act. This amendment will enable waiving of the 26 February 1988 deadline for proprietors to apply for fee increases resulting from costs that were incurred prior to 1 July 1987, but of which the proprietor did not become aware until too late to meet the 26 February 1988 deadline. This concession will be granted where the proprietor could not reasonably be expected to have made the application before 26 February 1988. Clause 17 of the Bill would enable the approval of a proportion of a fee increase sought by a nursing home proprietor to overcome cash flow problems caused to proprietors where there are a significant number of fee applications awaiting processing. Provision is made in part III of the Bill to amend the Australian Institute of Health Act 1987 to clarify a cross-reference and to remove an unnecessary provision relating to the making of annual reports. Part V of the Bill which seeks to amend the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Act 1987 is caused by the wording of a transitional provision. Part VI of the Bill provides for the amendment of the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985 to simplify the process of appropriating moneys for the purposes of that scheme. The new hostel respite care arrangements under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 are expected to cost an additional $1.9m in 1988-89, $3.4m in 1989-90 and $5.2m in 1990-91. The new financial arrangements for nursing homes and related arrangements are expected to result in increased expenditure of $17.6m in 1988-89, $44.7m in 1989-90 and $58.7m in 1990-91. There is no financial impact upon the amendments to the Australian Institute of Health Act 1987, the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Act 1987 and the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Debate resumed from 20 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(4.35) —In continuing my comments on the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill, I thought I would first, briefly summarise my position on the idea of an authority for the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries and, secondly, make a very strong plea for markedly faster handling of the issue of protection of industry in Australia. As I was saying last evening, my view is very simple: I do not think we need the Authority. It is totally unnecessary and it certainly is not necessary to administer the textiles, clothing and footwear plan. And as I suggested last night, it could well be counter productive. Moreover, we certainly do not need it either for the `safety mechanism' to be implemented or monitored. It is a complete injustice from the point of view of the industry that it has been led to believe that this Authority is a necessary element of that `safety mechanism' as it will operate under the plan. It is not. The Authority will be unnecessarily bureaucratic and intrusive, not only to the industry as a whole but also even in the affairs of individual companies and enterprises in that industry. Mr Tim Fischer —A quango of the worst kind. Dr HEWSON —It will be the worst sort of quango. The Authority will be able, under the proposed Bill, to ask virtually any question it likes and to ask for virtually any piece of data it likes. It can impose penalties in that process under certain circumstances. It will establish a very detailed database on the industry, from what we can gather from the proposed legislation. Yet the confidentiality provisions in the Bill really do not guarantee any kind of confidentiality. Indeed, if we look at those provisions, in conjunction with clause 66, which allows the Authority to delegate to, among other groups, its staff, one can only be concerned about what I think is a glaring loophole in the area of confidentiality. We have seen how this Government, in its activities in the Department of Community Services and Health, for example, in relation to the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), has breached the concept of confidentiality. If those are the same sorts of standards that will apply under this Authority, the industry has something to worry about. Finally, I do not think the Authority will work. It has essentially been modelled on similar authorities under the steel industry plan and the car plan. They speak for themselves as massive failures relative to the expectations that were built up. To my mind, the best things the Government can do for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries are two in number: one is to get out of the way, stop meddling in the industry and let it get on and restructure itself. Second, I suggest that the Government devote its activities much more to cutting the level of protection in that industry, which is excessive and, even after the plan, will remain excessive by the standards of other industries. The Government should expose those companies in the industry to genuine international competition by cutting its production more quickly and more decisively. The only way efficiency and a true sense of `competitiveness' can be injected into that industry and the only way to get realistic wage deals, work practices, an orientation towards productivity and so on is to genuinely expose the industry, much more quickly than is the case under this plan, to international competition by cutting protection. The issue of protection, tariffs and so on has been subject to enormous debate over many years in this country. But we have made very little headway. I was impressed by the remark of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) yesterday in his now famous Press conference, following the release of the March balance of payments data. He was asked about cutting protection and he made the following comment: I think it is never the right time in the view of some people for structural change. My view is you can never do it a moment too soon. The Treasurer is echoing very much some of the comments of his colleague in the other place, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). Both are to be complimented for the fact that they have tried to push the protection debate along somewhat faster than might have been the case. But I have noticed in the Press in recent days mounting evidence that this Government is totally divided internally on the issue of protection. So perhaps again, we are about to see some of the very good ideas of the Treasurer and Senator Button being waylaid. So yet again there will be far too little adjustment in the protection area-and it will be far too late. The whole concept of protecting industry is one of the most misguided to be pursued and it has been pursued for many years. One of the most pressing needs in this country at the present time is to come up with a viable solution to this problem. To my mind we have tried everything else; why do we not try cutting protection in a far more significant way and a lot faster than most people presently think is justified? There are many parallels in a sense between the protection of industry and the protection that used to exist in the financial sector. It is interesting that, as we have deregulated the financial sector and eliminated much of that protection, a lot of the old bogey men and a lot of the old fears have not been validated. Now we have one of the most dynamic, efficient and successful industries in our financial sector in comparison with its counterparts throughout the world. Highly protected industries result in lost jobs. They create circumstances where there are excessive wage deals and excessive and unproductive work practices. They increase costs and inflation. As a consumer I am sick and tired of waiting to buy a cheap but quality pair of trousers, shoes or anything else. Primarily, protection adds on 50 per cent or 60 per cent to costs in the TCF industries, and that should be of concern to every consumer. Highly protected industries tend to price us out of the export market because many of our protected industries provide significant inputs to our export industries. In that process we can easily price ourselves out of export markets. If we look back over our history, we see that the case for industry protection has been totally misguided. The most substantial contribution that this Government can make to the development of manufacturing industry in this country would be to cut protection, and do so as soon as possible. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(4.41) —The honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) suggested that certain elements within the Australian Labor Party are divided on protection. I assure the honourable member for Wentworth that elements in this Government Party are not nearly so divided on protection as the conservative forces are divided on the question of a consumption tax. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill. The purpose of this Bill is twofold: it implements key elements of the Government's strategy to restructure and revitalise Australia's textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries in accordance with the plan as outlined in a statement to Parliament in June 1987; secondly, it establishes the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority which is an integral part of the Government's plan. The objectives of the Authority are to promote the restructuring and revitalisation of the industries so that they can become more efficient and internationally competitive, and less dependent on tariff protection. Despite initial concerns about the lowering of tariff barriers, not only the industry itself but also the unions have widely supported the plan. I am very pleased that the response from industry and unions to this plan has been entirely different from the response in 1986 to the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). At that time my office was flooded with letters from my constituents who work in TCF industries in the Hunter electorate. I am very glad that the Government decided against adopting outright the IAC recommendations which would have been absolutely disastrous for the TCF industry. Tariff protection in Australia has been rampant and is the culmination of more than 30 years of coalition policy. In fact it is interesting to note that the late Sir William McMahon was a dissenting voice. He was the only one in former coalition governments who had the foresight to see the adverse effects of Australia's protectionist policies. Sane thinking of protectionist policies has taken a long time to filter through. When this Hawke Labor Government came to office we had the National Farmers Federation calling for the abolition of all tariff protection, yet during coalition governments where were the voices of farmers and farming organisations? Their voices were silent, and they supported policies put in place by the late Sir John McEwen. The former Whitlam Government, to its credit, tried to grapple with the vexed problem of tariff protection and tried to introduce across the board cuts which unfortunately had a detrimental effect on several industries. The Whitlam Government moved in the right direction but, in my opinion, it moved too quickly, and I can understand TCF workers being opposed to too rapid restructuring. It has been this Hawke Labor Government that has produced sensible restructuring and revitalisation plans for several industries, including the TCF industries, plans which have embraced workable and acceptable reductions in the level of tariff protection. Today we are faced with a situation where we have to be competitive on international markets. It is important to Australia as a nation that we adapt to the changing international environment. In the past, by insulating our industries with excessive tariff protection, we have reduced their competitive edge, which in turn has had an adverse effect on the growth of our economy. For far too long we have taken the view that it is cheaper to buy from overseas. This attitude has been prevalent with regard to imports of textiles and clothing mainly from countries such as Taiwan and China and footwear from Taiwan and Brazil. We are all accustomed to seeing labels endorsed `Made in Taiwan'. But fortunately the tide is turning and we are now seeing more `Made in Australia' labels. It is inherently clear that we have to reduce our reliance on imports, we have to reduce our balance of payments and we have to ensure that our own domestic industries are competitive on international export markets. Included in the plan for the revitalisation and restructuring of the TCF industries is a gradual reduction in the level of protection. As mentioned in the statement to Parliament in 1987, the Government has decided that the existing costly and highly fragmented quota system will be progressively phased out under the new plan starting from 1 March 1989. This will be achieved by gradually phasing out duties applying to imports outside the quota arrangements. Basically, quotas will lapse at the end of the plan and clothing and footwear production will be assisted by tariffs of 60 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. Tariff quotas applying to some fabrics will phase out to 40 per cent by 1996. Assistance arrangements for textiles, clothing and footwear are to be reformed to reduce very high levels of assistance, to remove distortions and to create an environment for the development of efficient and competitive industries. Reform has been comprehensive and, without canvassing all aspects of the plan, I say again that the plan has the support of the industry and the unions and I commend both for their responsible attitude. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), in his second reading speech, said: 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. Senator Button went on to say: The TCF industries cannot expect the plan to be immutable and industry planning should take into account other factors such as macro-economic circumstances. The point I would like to make here is that there are two major textiles manufacturers in my electorate of Hunter, namely, Bonds Wear at Cessnock and National Textiles at Rutherford, as well as a number of other smaller clothing manufacturers. I make no apology for my determination to protect the jobs of my textile and clothing workers. My concern is that this plan be adhered to and that no further drastic cuts in tariff protection be implemented until the plan runs its course. Further cuts could have a very adverse effect on Hunter electorate TCF industries and could lead to job losses for my constituents working in the industry. This current plan for the industry is long term and I urge the Government to allow it to run its full course before further reductions in assistance are imposed. Changes in exchange rates are an argument against further cuts in assistance in the near future. Predictability and stability are essential in the TCF industries to ensure that investment continues to respond favourably to this plan. Let the present restructuring establish secure floorboards without imposing harsher measures prematurely and causing the whole edifice to crumble. The TCF plan also has the support of the Opposition, but after reading the Hansard record of the debate in the other place I was amazed to see that the Opposition has not supported the establishment of the TCF Development Authority, despite the Government agreeing to several amendments to the original Bill. I remind the Opposition in this chamber that the industry, with the support of the unions, has called for the establishment of the TCF Development Authority. While this legislation establishes an authority to monitor a plan for the TCF industries, I am disappointed that the same opportunity is not being afforded to the coal industry. However, having said that, I would like to comment on the need to establish a TCF Development Authority. In arriving at the decision to establish the Authority, the Government considered several alternatives, such as department, industry council, an informal advisory committee along the lines of the former Elix committee, or a statutory authority. The Government decided on a statutory authority because it was the most appropriate organisation to monitor the industries, to offer advice on barrier protection issues, and to develop and administer the industries development strategy. The Authority will have sole responsibility for these functions. It will be independent of the Minister but still responsible to him. It can be seen as being impartial and free from day to day political pressures. It will be accountable to Parliament. It will have a cross-section of capable people on the Board and be assisted by a small group of public servants expert in TCF matters, and it will have a finite life. Under clause 12, the Authority is also required to review and report to the Minister not later than 30 June 1992 on the operation and effectiveness of the bounty assistance policy, the barrier assistance policy and the industries development strategy. Opposition members in the other place claimed that clause 10 epitomises the reasons why the Opposition is bitterly opposed to the establishment of a TCF development authority and claim the Bill gives the Authority draconian inquisitorial powers. I assume they are referring to clause 10 (4). However, the Government considers that because these industries receive such high levels of community support the recipients have an obligation to the community and, in particular, the industry has an obligation to act responsibly in the climate of the Government's restructuring of the industries' assistance. To act in a manner contrary to the Government's restructuring policies would be against community interest. The Bill provides for the TCF Development Authority to report to the Minister on any such instance and the report may be published. No penalties will be imposed, and the Minister may decide not to publish the report. The Government amendments in the Senate provide for the person to be notified in advance of any recommendation to publish a report and that person may appeal to the Minister against the recommendation. Examples of matters coming within this provision are difficult to predict but some hypothetical instances might include a movement to offshore production, or repeated or significant circumvention of the rules relating to quotas, or perhaps large retrenchments of labour without adequate consultation with unions. It is absurd to claim that clause 10 is draconian. The Authority has the responsibility of looking after the public interest and should be in a position to deal with situations when they arise. I now turn briefly to other key elements of the Bill. Part IV contains the industries' strategy development programs, which provide incentives and opportunities for the industries to restructure and capitalise on areas of opportunity. The strategy will consist of four programs and will be implemented by the TCF Development Authority assisted by specialist agencies such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation, Austrade and the National Industry Extension Service. The raw materials processing program, the plant and equipment modernisation program, the international competitiveness incentive and other programs lay a solid foundation for the TCF industries to become more efficient and competitive. In my electorate of Hunter, Mr Ron Cowlishaw, Manager of Bonds Wear, Cessnock, has commented on the legislation and said that it is quite good, that it goes in the right direction. He cannot see anything in particular against it, yet speakers from the other side of the House rant and rave and find all sorts of objections to the legislation. Surprisingly, very few of them have TCF industries or plants in their electorates. It is obvious that they have not taken the trouble to talk to the people in the industry. They have just repeated what was said in the other place and have no clear understanding at all of the industry. Mr Cowlishaw's only concern was with the membership of the Board of the TCF Authority, which has not been announced. He believes that industry should be represented on the Board, and I agree with him on that point. However, I believe the Minister is desirous of having persons on the board with fresh minds, without any particular barrow to push but with an expert knowledge of the TCF industry. Miss Anna Booth, Federal Secretary of the Clothing and Allied Trades Union, has informed me that she is very happy with the legislation and has no criticism of it, except that she is very concerned at the Opposition's negative approach: yesterday's men; negative approaches. It typifies the Opposition. I express my appreciation to these people for their cooperation and also to Mr Roger Brown of Bonds Wear, Sydney, and the union representatives at Cessnock and Maitland. Finally, I congratulate the industry and the unions on their sensible and responsible approach to the problems in the TCF industry, and my congratulations go to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce on this exemplary legislation. The TCF industry can look forward to the future with confidence. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(4.58) —In listening to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), I was very much reminded of a cartoon in yesterday's Melbourne Age, which summarised the sentiments being put forward by him. I will briefly describe the cartoon because it shows a perceptive understanding of what is going on with protected industries, particularly the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries. The cartoon shows two babies on a table, one named `Business' and the other named `Unions'. Both babies have bottles in their mouths and the milk in the bottles is labelled `High tariffs'. Looking rather concerned at the side are caricatures of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). They are looking at a book entitled Weaning Babies, and the Treasurer's comment is: `The problem with twins, of course, Bob, is that they're both going to scream together.' That sums up exactly what the previous speaker meant when he said that the industry supports what the Government is doing in establishing another quango, as do the unions. It is very obvious. I suggest that all honourable members have a look at that cartoon because it summarises very accurately what has been going on with protected industries for a long time and, seemingly, unfortunately will continue for a long time. Despite this I would commend the Government on taking some steps to improve the situation. In speaking to the Textiles, Clothing and Foot- wear Development Authority Bill, I would like to reiterate some of the points made by my colleagues, both here and in the other place and, in particular, point out that we do not see the need for yet another authority. I would like also to talk a little about the textiles industry as it exists in my electorate-the fact that we still have very high government involvement-and some particular aspects of tariff protection and what it is doing for other industries. I think that when we look at it in the context of the wider economy we see that there is a very different picture from the one put forward by some Government speakers. In my electorate of Wannon there are three clothing factories. They are well known clothing factories and, in fact, two of them at least are household names Australia-wide. Of course, one of them is Fletcher Jones and Staff Pty Ltd, which is famous Australia-wide not just for very high quality clothing but also for the almost unique system of ownership whereby in fact 75 per cent of the employees own the factory. Therefore, instead of the business being called just Fletcher Jones honourable members will notice that it is always called Fletcher Jones and Staff. We also have the Warrnambool woollen mills, which is quite a large operation and produces quality woollen products, particularly blankets. We also have the Country Road Clothing Co. Pty Ltd factory in Camperdown. Also there is a shoe factory in Hamilton run by Grosby Footwear. As well in the electorate we have a number of smaller cottage industries which, although not recognised in this category, are very successful. I would also like to draw attention to the submission made by Fletcher Jones and Staff to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) following the interim report on the textiles, clothing and footwear industry. This submission showed the forward thinking of people in the industry, in this case particularly Fletcher Jones. In the summary of the submission there is one comment to which I would like to draw honourable members' attention. It states: Fletcher Jones supports the Commission's finding- that is, the Industries Assistance Commission- that the most important thing to do is to reduce the highest barriers to imports first, and consequently to adopt a `tops down' approach to the phasing down of reductions in out-of-quota duty rates over a prescribed period. Furthermore, Fletcher Jones went on to observe: The Commission has made a compelling and convincing case. It is now apparent that a more competitive, efficient and flexible apparel industry in Australia can be achieved through more drastic restructuring than in the past, linked with lower overall protection in due course. We note the Commission's view that substantial restructuring is likely to lead to further contraction of the industry, but that such a development may involve considerable benefits for the economy overall. These may include a more internationally competitive industry, partly because of the application of new technology to reduce inherent cost disadvantages, and partly because of a sharper focus on production where some comparative advantage exists, i.e. in the higher quality and fashion ends of the market. I would like to commend Fletcher Jones for taking a very bold step, as it was two years ago when it made that statement. The company was roundly criticised by some people in the industry, but it stuck to that opinion, and I think that not only has it been proved right but also it will continue to be proved right. In fact, Fletcher Jones is still expanding. The statement was made at a time when the supposed doom and gloom merchants saw that the industry would be severely threatened by further reductions in protection. I would like also to talk about the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority because it is another quango. Frankly, I do not believe the Authority is necessary. If the Department were doing its job properly, the Authority would not be needed. The Authority is said to be needed by the industry to ensure that the plan for the industry until 1996 can, in fact, continue. I find it hard to be convinced by that argument. I think that no doubt it would also please the industry to hear that the Opposition has stated that its policy when we are returned to government will be in fact to continue the plan. When we look at the proposed Authority and similar efforts by the Government in regard to other industries we see a very mixed result. We can look at the steel plan and the car plan. In the case of the steel plan, for which the Government claims so much credit in revitalising the steel industry, I was interested to hear a very senior executive of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd say the other day that the thing that saved the steel industry was far more the effects of the devaluation of the Australian dollar than the steel plan that the Government had brought in. I thought that that was a fairly damning condemnation of what the Government had done. I was pleased to hear that. I think that we only have to look at the results of the car plan. Everyone in Australia knows what has happened. We have cars increasing in price at a rate roughly double that of the consumer price index. If that is a positive achievement I would like to know what is a negative one. I would like also to draw attention to some of the comments made by other members of this place in the debate. In particular, the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) made reference to commodity prices and suggested that they will continue to fall in the longer term. I would not argue with him because who knows what the future holds. However, I would like to say that to ignore the commodity industries, particularly some of the agricultural commodities, is to be extremely short-sighted and also shows a lack of understanding of the importance of some of the primary industries in our export performance. I cite just one example. In the case of wool, which is now the nation's number one export earner, a 10 per cent change in the price of wool is equivalent to the complete value of all manufacturing exports. So for the Government to ignore the importance of one of these other industries and concentrate all its efforts on manufacturing is extremely short-sighted and, I would suggest, also rather misdirected. I would like also to talk a little in the wider context of protection to industry and to suggest to honourable members that it is very important that we should consider the economy-wide effects of protection if we are going to get a rational approach to industry and a rational approach to the most effective and efficient resource allocation. If we look at it on an industry by industry basis, we will see that there will always be very good reasons as to why today is not the right time for changing the levels of protection. I am reminded of the comments of the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) in this debate when he said that in the case of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries since 1920 there have been about 500 inquiries, and yet despite all those inquiries we still have the situation where the industry is roundly criticised in so many cases for being highly inefficient and very inward-looking. Such criticism has come from honourable members on both sides of this chamber. When we look at authorities being set up, such as this one, and consider the likely outcome of setting up such an authority, we should take note of some words last year by Professor Wolfgang Kasper, who said: It is virtually impossible for the Good and the Great who represent the interests of a given industry, to agree on a plan that is not to the detriment of third parties which are not represented on the industry council. I think that that is very pertinent to this case because, despite the best intentions, there is little doubt that the authority proposed to be set up by this Bill will continue to see things very much from the perspective of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries-which, of course, one would understand it to do. However, in the longer term it could well be to the detriment of the economy at large. Of course, when we look at protection for any one industry, we must always remember that that imposes costs on industries that are not related to the particular industry being protected. That cost can come in two forms. It can be by direct Budget assistance, in which case it is reasonably visible, or it can come in the form of protection through quotas, import restrictions or tariffs and the like. In many cases those hidden costs can be quite significant. In fact, they can be enormous. I was most interested to see a paper produced by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics recently called Primary Industry Assistance in an Economy-Wide Context, in which the Bureau highlighted the levels of assistance for manufacturing versus the levels of assistance for primary industry. When one takes into account both the budgetary assistance, which in the case of agriculture in highly visible, and the other forms of assistance which go into manufacturing, one finds that manufacturing assistance works out effectively to be about $6.5 billion, while in the case of agriculture it is just over one-tenth of that-about $700m. So, there is a huge difference between the levels of support of primary and secondary industries despite the fact that the Government has made some minor, albeit welcome, changes to reduce the protection for manufacturing industry. Of course, there are other benefits that flow directly into the community from reducing the level of protection for some of these industries. The most important is the direct benefit to the consumer in lower prices of manufactured products. It is timely to remind honourable members that we should not lose sight of the fact that the consumer ought to have some say in the direction we take. I am sure the consumers would have a lot more to say if they were fully acquainted with the facts that I have pointed out. In concluding this section of my remarks on protection, I quote from the conclusions in the paper put out by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics which, I think, are very pertinent. I hope that all Government members take note of this paper because it is an excellent document. The Bureau has a very high standing in the community. Certainly, its figures are widely read and respected. In the conclusions, the Bureau makes the statement: The ORANI model was used to examine the implications of removing all forms of assistance. From the results of this analysis, it appears that an across-the-board removal of assistance would provide substantial incentives for both the agricultural and mining sectors to expand. One should remember the size of these two sectors. The Bureau continues: All of the agricultural industries would tend to expand despite the removal of direct assistance. Again, that is an interesting point. The Bureau goes on to say: All mining industries, except the domestically oriented brown coal industry, would be expected to expand. The export oriented mineral processing industries- some honourable members have talked of value added; this might be very pertinent to what they have been saying- and the export food industries would also be expected to gain as a result of the total removal of assistance increasing the proportion of Australia's exports in value-added form. However, a wide range of manufacturing industries would face pressures to adjust. These pressures would fall most heavily on the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, and the motor vehicles industry. The point about that is that it talks about the removal of all assistance. In the short run that is obviously quite impracticable and no-one would suggest it; but what the model shows-and I think this is important-is that reducing the level of support for some of these highly protected industries will mean a growth in value added industries, particularly value added to some of our major exports. All honourable members should be very interested in that observation because there is no doubt that that is how we can start to move in the right direction and get a healthy, increasingly export-oriented economy with a strong balance of payments, which is what everyone would like so much to see and what the Government seems to have so much trouble in coming to grips with. Returning to the question of the Authority, I say in summary that we see it as being a highly intrusive form of increased regulation in an industry which is already highly regulated. It will be costly and some of the powers vested in this Authority are quite unnecessary. There is a question about whether the confidentiality of some of the information that the Authority has the power to summons would be respected. There is no doubt that there is still scope for further reductions in the case of the TCF industries. Finally, I remind honourable members that we have probably all been around Australia looking at some of the most progressive industries in the manufacturing area. Almost without exception we find that the industries which are the most dynamic, the ones which are expanding the most, and the ones which are the most export oriented are the ones which have the least protection. I feel that there is a very strong message in this. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(5.15) —I enter this debate to support the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill which proposes to implement key elements of the Government's plan to restructure and revitalise Australia's textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries. The Bill establishes the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority. The Authority is an integral part of the TCF plan and will have the objectives of promoting the restructuring and revitalising of the industries so that they become more efficient and internationally competitive and less dependent on assistance from the Commonwealth. Under the TCF plan, the Government has introduced several areas of assistance. I would like to concentrate briefly on two areas in particular. Firstly, the Government has instigated an industries efficiency program. The industries have been 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 have been contracted to State industry departments for delivery via the National Industry Extension Service. In my electorate of McMillan this is carried out by a regional commission under the chief executive officer, Mr Phil Shannahan, who does an excellent job. Secondly, I wish to comment on the industries infrastructure program. The aim of the industries infrastructure program is to improve and coordinate the infrastructure support for the TCF industries, including training and skills upgrading, information services and research and development training. A major study of the existing and future training arrangements for these industries will be undertaken. The results of the study will be presented to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), with recommendations on appropriate measures to upgrade the quality of the TCF work force. In announcing reduction 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 be re-employed in jobs outside the TCF industries. These measures took effect from 1 January 1988. Overall, 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. However, 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 Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce further stated in the second reading speech: 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. I would like to cover several of the changes that have occurred in my electorate of McMillan. There are two companies, in particular, which have been restructured. One is CHL, a company which has moved into a factory in Churchill which is in my electorate. The history of that move is quite interesting and I would like to relate it to the Parliament. A company called Exacto Knitwear Pty Ltd was operating in that area and, because of the structural change, Exacto decided to move to other areas. CHL was situated in a town some seven miles away, in a factory which was inappropriate for expansion and with very poor working conditions. Given decent notice that the change was to take place, the regional commission, the local government authorities and I, as the Federal member, were able to get involved in a fairly strong discussion as to the best approach to adopt in that area. The company decided that it would move its operation to Churchill from the township of Traralgon. At the time that that occurred we received strong opposition from the people of Traralgon, who felt that they were losing their jobs. We also received fairly strong opposition from the people of Churchill, who felt that the Traralgon people were coming in to take jobs that they were entitled to. However, the plan has worked very well. CHL has expanded to the point where the same number of workers who were employed at Exacto in Churchill are now re-employed. The total work force from Traralgon is also now re-employed. At this stage as many workers as possibly are being trained because another 40 will be needed to go into that factory to produce next year's summer range of exports. So this is a fairytale story. It demonstrates what can happen in this area. We looked like losing Yarragon Textiles which is located in the township where I have my office. Restructuring was taking place and that firm looked like going to Brisbane. However, once again with appropriate moves from the city of Moe, the regional commission and Senator Button's Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, the factory was able to be restructured by new owners. We are looking now to a massive development and re-investment in that area and, once again, a growth in employment. So, it is certainly possible to restructure; it is possible to restructure positively. A substantial traineeship program has also been developed in our area. It is two years now since the Priority One program was first instigated by the Government. A committee has been working locally in the area for two years. At times we have felt like giving it away because it seemed to be taking so long to develop curriculum and agreements with unions right across the board. We have now developed a process of traineeships in that area. One of the real successes, once again, is in the TCF area where CHL now has an ongoing program of traineeships. Maurice O'Dowds, from Warragul in my electorate, is a growing company in the TCF area which is also participating in this program. The program is an excellent operation and I believe that we will see much more of this sort of thing. In fact, tomorrow a subcommittee of members of the Government's Caucus committee on employment, education and training will be travelling to my electorate to meet with our training committee. After lunch they will discuss training and employment problems in relation to these issues at the Yallourn College of Tertiary and Further Education. I am very much looking forward to this meeting tomorrow because I think it will be a very successful day. Whilst we do have successes that we can point to in many areas of Australia, there are still serious problems with restructuring. With this in mind, last week I drafted a letter which I circulated to my Caucus colleagues. I would like to put into Hansard some of the things I said in that letter. I would like to point out some of the things that I expressed in relation to restructuring which are related to TCF as well as to other sectors in the community. I said in my letter: We have witnessed the greatest movements in the Stock Exchange in Australia's history. Also there have been mind-boggling takeovers and re-adjustments in the private sector, the magnitude of which have generally left the general public stunned. . . . . Only a selected group of enterprises, (e.g. TCF, coal, steel, heavy engineering and the motor car industry)- which have all been mentioned in this debate- are not solely at the direction of market forces Even some of the select enterprises have developed enormous difficulties, especially the coal industry. The major successes to date have been the TCF, steel and car manufacturing. While events affecting these industries have dominated proceedings to a large degree, there have been a multitude of small changes occurring within the private sector, changes occurring in the heartland of Labor constituencies. Every time there has been a change in management in an industry or specific business, whether by takeover or movement on the Stock Exchange, structural change, has taken place causing massive upheaval to man, individuals and families. This raises a series of questions. These are the questions that I put to my Caucus colleagues and to members of the Cabinet: How much do we know about the real grass level results of these changes? What data is available and when is it collated? How many workers have been affected and how many have been retrenched? What are their special circumstances and how long is the average length of unemployment? Of those adversely affected how many own or are paying off their own homes? What are the economic circumstances of an affected family if the home has to be sold in order to move to where the new opportunities are available. What criteria are being used in the decision to locate a new factory development and who makes the decision about the locality of a new enterprise? Do market forces policies take into account the lack of worker's mobility created by the high levels of home ownership? Are we creating a long term pool of `new' unemployed people even though we can justifiably claim the creation of a million new jobs? Certainly we have improved the position of many families by providing more support to those in need. However, to have built your family's future around what was thought to be a sound, stable job, then to be suddenly on the unemployment scrap heap, or to be faced with massive upheaval, can have a devastating affect on both individuals and families. How do you economically sell your home in a `traditional' suburb and then finance a move to where a job opportunity may arise? The price difference of comparable dwellings in different suburbs or regions can be enormous. How do you obtain the skills required to the new opportunity? Who cares anyway? Market forces certainly do not! The fact is- this is what I pointed out in this letter- that the course is set, the restructuring that is so vital to solving the debt problems of our nation, is in place. I believe that many things need to be done so that we can keep up with the changes that are taking place. We need to take into account the effects of the massive changes that are taking place because of private sector restructuring in Australia. I have called upon members of Caucus to take this into account. I am very pleased at the reaction that I have been receiving. I am aware that the Government is working in certain areas and that working parties are looking at these issues. I commend Senator Button for his approach through this Bill and through the TCF plan to put this type of operation into place. It is certainly one of the success stories of how we should and will restructure Australian industry. But more must be done. I make a special plea in this speech, not only to the Cabinet and the Caucus that I have been in contact with, but also to the business entrepreneurs of Australia, the Business Council of Australia and the manufacturing councils of Australia, to take into account the human elements that are so vital in a restructure that has been so long overdue in our nation. We cannot allow entrepreneurs and investors to place their factories where they see the greatest profit. We cannot allow them to break up our family and community structures in Australia by developing in areas where there is a shortage of skilled workers. Some of this development and some of the factories have to be put back into some of the traditional labour areas where people live, where people own their own homes and where their children are going to school. This development has to be located where the facilities are available. We cannot allow restructuring which will cause massive upheaval to take place. We do not want to have a group of people in society whose sons and daughters will be still locked into a certain situation in 10 years time. We do not want to have a generation of unemployed followed by another generation of unemployed. I appeal not just to the Government but to the Bonds, the Brierleys, the Holmes a Courts-the people who have been getting the headlines for the last 18 months; the people who have been moving in and taking these companies and putting in their new whiz-kid managers-to look a bit above the economics of adjustment and to take into account what is required when the new structures are introduced. I am aware that entrepreneurs are building factories at the moment on the eastern side of Melbourne. One only has to take a swing through Frankston, the Dandenongs and Scoresby to see the amount of development that is taking place. However, is it necessary that all of these factories should go to this area? Would not some of these factories be better placed in the areas where people live on the other side of Melbourne? Some of the questions I asked in my letter relate to the State governments. I want to know what they are doing in relation to planning and environment laws. I want to know what local government is doing in relation to planning permits. Are local governments putting unnecessary obstructions in the road of this fast moving restructuring that we are seeing today? While I commend the Minister and the Government for the efforts that they are making in TCF, the steel industry and the car manufacturing industry and for the strong efforts that they will need to persist with in the coal industry, I am really appealing to all involved in this private sector restructuring that is taking place in Australia today to come together, to stop scoring points and to face up to the fact that this restructuring is creating a human problem. It can be to the real benefit of Australia to have one million new jobs created. But we must take into account that at the end of the 1970s and in the early 1980s manufacturing industries in Australia took one terrible belting. In the metal industries alone some 180,000 jobs disappeared. We have to make sure that the private restructuring that we are witnessing today does not add to that pool of unemployed people who are still seeking a solution to their problems. I make that special appeal. I would like to see some of this nation's business entrepreneurs come forward with some solutions to the problems. I would like the Opposition-I have not heard any discussions from the Opposition, only criticism of the Authority and the legislation-to say what it intends to do. What is its policy, other than the market forces policy, in relation to these issues? What does it see as a solution to the problems that are being created with restructuring, which I am sure will be one of the major issues in this Government's term of office? I am quite proud to be on the Labor side that will be facing up to these issues. We have already put some of the measures in place. I am sure that we will continue to put in place the necessary measures to address the problems and to see that, when we do restructure the private industry in Australia, as we are doing at present, it will be done to the benefit of all Australians. I honestly believe that business will have to contribute much more, in cooperation with government, to see that we achieve these objectives. I support the Bill. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.31) —I thank the House for the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill. I acknowledge to the House that originally I was not listed to speak. I made the decision to speak only in the last few moments following comments made by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon). I reflect some of the sentiments of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) who participated in this debate on an appropriately cautious note. I was forced into this House and, at your call, Mr Deputy Speaker, onto my feet, by the statements of the honourable member for Hunter which were distinctly venomous and divisive in a debate that ought to be cohesive and purposeful. I remind the House that I am the member for Wakefield. It irritated me interminably that the honourable member for Hunter addressed this legislation in the House and claimed that there had been only one dissenting voice ever on the question of protection for any industry in Australia and that the dissenting voice had belonged to the late Sir William McMahon. I respect what the late Sir William McMahon said about protection and the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, but I cannot allow such a statement to go unchallenged in this debate on the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill. I occupy a seat that was once held by Mr Bert Kelly. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, he of all people was the most articulate when it came to recognising the difficulties the nation would face if it continued down its protectionist road. It was quite unfair for the honourable member for Hunter to claim some sort of purist monopoly on that side of the House concerning the Bill before the House. I do not for one moment suggest that we in the Liberal Party of Australia come into this House with perfectly clean hands in the sense of protection; nor, I hasten to add, do my National Party of Australia colleagues. But neither are the hands of the present Government clean. It was grossly unfair for the honourable member for Hunter to claim some sort of purist monopoly on the legislation before the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware of how my predecessor, Mr Kelly, lay his reputation on the line as a representative in this place time and time again, how he proved to be a prophet well before his time, and how it has been only in the latter part of the 1980s that there has been real recognition of what protection and protectionist policies have cost this nation. Only in more recent times has he been heralded as someone who was pointing the way that we should have been following some time ago. No-one in this House can claim to be pure in the protection debate. It is grossly unfair for anyone opposite to claim to have a monopoly on that sort of wisdom. In fact, if we looked at the Hansard reflecting the history of this House, we would discover that protectionist voices have been raised just as loudly in the Australian Labor Party-I might even suggest more loudly, but for the purposes of being as charitable as possible in this debate I will not do so-as they have on this side, and it is quite wrong for the honourable member for Hunter to suggest anything else. The challenge has been to say: where do the Liberals stand on this legislation? The impression has been created that in some way we are opposed totally to what the Government is doing. Must I remind the Government, for surely it is not deaf, of the remarks made in the debate by the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), both of whom commended the Government for phasing down protection. In addition, they said that we were not opposed to the concept or the goal, but were opposed to the setting up of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority. We say that the Authority is unnecessary. We are expressing resistance to another quango, not to the target that the Government has. As the honourable member for Wannon pointed out, more eloquently than I, there have been sufficient examples of the fallibility of protection plans which have been brought in by any government. He mentioned the steel plan and the car plan. Let us look how imperfect they have proved to be. Nowhere do we have the measure of wisdom needed to anticipate what the future holds. I recognise that the honourable member for Hunter has been something of a lone voice in the venomous way in which he has politicised this debate. The honourable member for McMillan concluded on a much more conciliatory note and expressed some caution about what may be the repercussions of this restructuring. We all recognise that restructuring is uncomfortable and difficult and that there is no perfect solution. I repeat for the last time that it was quite unfair for the honourable member for Hunter to suppose that all enthusiasm for protection has been vested on this side of the House and that all enthusiasm for a freer trading environment has been vested on that side of the House. History would in no way validate his claim. Finally, I acknowledge that whatever we do in the textiles, clothing and footwear development area will not be easy. The mere criterion of saving jobs is not enough. Of course, we are all reluctant to sacrifice jobs. However, I pick up the theme made so effectively by the honourable member for Wannon, that if we carry on down the protectionist road-he only echoed what my predecessor, Mr Kelly, said so often-we so load the costs into Australian industries that the opportunity to develop the value added section, the processing that will go along with Australia's manufacturing industries, will be lost. We need to reduce protection. That enthusiasm for reduced protection is reflected around the House. Of course there is caution about the legislation, but the Opposition, far from opposing it, merely opposes the setting up of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority. The honourable member for Hunter has done this House a gross disservice. The gallery is full of people who are already decidedly cynical-as are those listening to the radio broadcast of these proceedings-about what we in this place are about. They have the impression that nothing that the Government proposes is agreed to by the Opposition and that this is a chamber of nothing but confrontation. We know that that is not the case. We know that there are elements of agreement. When that agreement exists, it ought to be more freely acknowledged in the interests of this institution. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(5.39) —I listened with interest to what the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) said. He epitomised the difficulty that faces the Opposition. He said that the Opposition does not oppose the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill. The Opposition does not oppose what the Government is about; it merely opposes the route, the pathway, to achieving the objectives which it agrees with. During my comments tonight I will outline what the Opposition did when in government. It failed to tackle the problem of high tariffs, high protection, and that did not assist industry. Before doing that I want to say that I agree with the comments made by the honourable member about the former modest member for Wakefield, Bert Kelly. I shared some three years in this Parliament with Bert Kelly and I have to agree with the current member for Wakefield that he had unlimited zeal, not only here in this chamber but also through those most readable articles in the Australian Financial Review, for rhetoric and energy aimed at high tariffs and protection. The Opposition is opposing the Bill and the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority on what I believe to be false grounds-that it is a quango, what the Opposition calls `overbureaucracy'. There are good and bad quangos; we all know that. If we have a quango which will achieve responsibly and effectively the targets which both sides apparently share, surely we have here, in nearly all respects, a good quango. I suspect that the argument is not put up with full belief behind it, but rather it is a case of hyperbole to cover the fact that there are no alternative policies. Opposition members have fallen into the very trap of which the honourable member for Wakefield warned the Parliament, that is, the politics of confrontation. I will return to that point. The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority that this Bill encapsulates will have a very broad role. It will promote the restructuring and revitalisation of the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries so that they can become more efficient and internationally competitive and less dependent on Commonwealth Government support. In the Government's mind the Authority will be a catalyst for desirable change. It will actively encourage those in the industries to take the necessary steps to improve their performance, to overcome the inertia, the resistance to change. The establishment of the body was recommended by the TCF industries; it is not a figment of the Government's imagination. It is not another quango for quango's sake, but was recommended by the industry itself. That was as a result of consideration of the post-1988 assistance arrangements for the industries. The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry Council saw the need for a specialised monitoring authority with responsibility for identifying the nature of changes occurring under the plan and with provision for advisory powers to remedy any deficiencies in the plan's operations. The Authority's major function will be to administer the industries' development strategy, a strategy which will be delivered in a coordinated and cost effective manner, because it is the strategy which will promote those changes in attitudes necessary to the reinvigoration of the industries. I congratulate the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) for bringing about a strategy that will give the industries the one thing they want in all the vicissitudes of international trade and competition, that is, predictability, the ability to plan manpower-or personpower, as we now say-and to plan capital investment. As some honourable members who have spoken in the debate know, the 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. It is this process that marks the difference between the present Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and Ministers of other governments. He has been willing to consult, to talk, to put up the objective we must meet, challenge the industries and develop with them the required strategy to meet that objective. So we have an Authority charged with implementing a very important plan. The IAC came to the conclusion that the trade protection measures enjoyed by the TCF industries were severely hampering the ability of other sectors of Australian manufacturing to compete internationally. This was something that the industries concerned did not deny. The Bill itself is a recognition of the agreement within the TCF industries that change was not only inevitable but also necessary. Let us look at what the IAC report, as opposed to the strategy, recommended. It suggested that tariffs be cut by 50 per cent by 1996. It suggested that there be no labour adjustment measures, no investment incentives, no monitoring authority and no review of the effects of the recommendations on the TCF industries. Perhaps it was as a result of recommending a cut in tariffs with no strategy that people within the industry quite rightly dubbed the IAC with the colloquial description `industry assassination commission'. If this Government had adopted the recommendations in the IAC report it would have been the death of the TCF industries in Australia. There would have been massive job losses and there would have been many casualties among the 112,000 or so people employed in those industries. As the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) pointed out, the dislocation to the social life of the families of the workers would have been horrific. It is right that the Minister, in consultation with the various bodies and peak councils of the industry, has developed a strategy to prevent that from happening. There would have been hundreds of tragic stories of job losses. In the development of the Government's strategy we have a unique, cooperative adventure between the unions and the manufacturers, something that is not often seen. It was witnessed around this country in combined protests, marches, demonstrations and meetings with the Minister. As a decision had not been made by Cabinet, the Minister was reluctant to give details of the strategy-and quite rightly so. So there was concern in the industries and the demonstrations went on. What support did we get from the National Farmers Federation (NFF)? At that time it argued for even more cuts than the IAC had recommended. It wanted to see tariff assistance reduced to 25 per cent of what it was. The honourable member for Parks (Mr Cobb) last night repeated many of its claims. He said-and this encapsulates the NFF argument-that there were no votes in it for any party because employment within the industries was so widely spread, both in regional and metropolitan centres and across electorates, that it did not matter what we did; we could take that goal and cut assistance to 25 per cent and not suffer for it. I remind the honourable member for Parkes and others who trumpet the words of the National Farmers Federation in this chamber, that this Government does not make decisions solely on political survival. It makes decisions because the correct strategy has to evolve and because, as the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) said in a debate earlier today, the role of government is to look after the welfare of people. In this case, a policy for the industries is for the welfare of all those who work and labour in the TCF industries. There were concrete alternatives. They were thrashed out and forged by this unusual alliance between employer and employee. That strategy forms the basis of what this Government has decided should happen. It did not accept everything. It did not kowtow to the unions. The unions wanted an end to quota duty at 75 per cent; the Government decided upon 60 per cent. That will put further pressure on the industries to respond by putting in more capital, increasing efficiency and becoming more internationally competitive. I also want to compliment the honourable member for Melbourne, now the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who played a major role in bringing together the unions, the textile workers, and so on. He had rounds of consultations with the industries to ensure that the result would be accepted and that there would be faith in the result by the industries as a whole. Let us contrast that, as I said I would, with the record of the Fraser Government. In 1977 the IAC recommended a restructuring and a reduction in tariffs for the TCF industries. What did the Government do then? It acted for political survival. That was an election year. That Government went in the opposite direction to what the IAC recommended. That Government did not bring about restructure. It did not reduce protection. In fact, it increased the amount of tariff protection. Whilst that might have looked good and cosy to some of the workers and to some of the employers, it did nothing for the industry. Job losses continued. Lack of investment continued. There was no increase in our balance of payments because there was no increased value added production in this country. We increased our imports, and we failed to bring about import substitution. We got no more exports. If ever there was a salutary lesson, it was that, let alone tariff protection, increased tariff protection is no way to create a sound TCF industry in this country. The Authority will have a very important role to see that the industries recognise that they have grown up behind significant import barriers and, as a consequence, have been insulated from the realities of operating in an international environment. The reductions in protection inherent in the new plan will progressively expose the industries, as I have said, 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 strategy is four programs of support. First is the raw materials processing program, to make sure we have more value added production. We produce a huge woolclip and yet only 5 per cent of that woolclip is processed further to a final stage. We have significant cotton production in this country, and yet less than 10 per cent of that particular textile is processed in this country. Now we will see through the Authority a monitoring of the Australian Industry Development Corporation financial assistance for investment in suitable modern and world-scale projects aimed at significantly upgrading domestic processing in these areas. Plant and equipment will be modernised. I am going to refer to a very large textile manufacturer in my electorate-Fibremakers-which has grasped the nettle. It will be at the leading edge of technology in the world due to a huge investment program. The aim of the industries infrastructure program is to improve and coordinate the infrastructure support to the TCF industries, including training skills, upgrading, information services and so on. We have criticism from Opposition members arguing that there may well be through the Authority a lack of confidentiality. They claim that it is semi-judicial in its powers. Yet if the Authority is to spend taxpayers' money, if it is to use Government funds to bring about the strategy that they agree with, then surely they must be convinced that the money will be used properly and effectively and in accordance with the strategy that both sides of this House agree with. The fourth arm of the program will be in announcing the reductions in import protection. The Government is conscious of the concern of the industries over the possible employment impact and the difficulties that face the work force. So the Government has developed this fourth arm, a package of labour adjustment measures specifically developed to assist workers to become re-employed in jobs outside the TCF industries. Those measures took effect on the first day of this year, well before the actual restructuring takes place. If we have learned anything from the Fraser years and the Whitlam years-and I did say earlier that I served with Bert Kelly in this place during the Whitlam years-it is that we must have our retraining programs in place before we cut protection and, secondly, that there should not be across the board cuts but there should be a calculated phasing in of cuts backed with a proper strategy. Of course, that strategy cannot be set in concrete. It must have the predictability that I mentioned, but it cannot be rigid. There are always dynamic and changing macro-economic circumstances. The dollar fluctuates in value. Other tariffs are lowered or may increase in a very small number of cases. So it is important that there be adjustments within this plan through the Authority, so that we have equivalent assistance; in other words, so that predictability is maintained at all times. Changes in the value of the dollar and in tariffs affect the cost of inputs and outputs in the industry and if they were to remain unchanged and the industry received even greater assistance than the plan called for, it would be alleged by other industries that the TCF industries were being favoured and would suffer from that concentration of criticism. So the objectives of predictability and the strategy of predictable equivalent assistance must remain. I turn to Fibremakers in my electorate and I thank the honourable member for Parkes for producing tables which indicate the number of workers in the industry in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne: the electorate of Aston, 980; La Trobe, 951; my own electorate, 984. We worked very closely with the Government to ensure that there were no jobs lost and that the industries prospered. But we heard very little from two other electorates nearby-the electorate of Deakin with 975 employees and the electorate of Casey with 811 employees. Fibremakers is the largest employer in the outer eastern suburbs. Situated at Bayswater, it had over 1,000 employees. It has a smaller plant at Penrith in New South Wales, employing another 190 people. When I first went to Bayswater as a young pharmacist, many of my customers were workers at Fibremakers, which was then known as British Nylon Spinners. Then it was taken over by ICI Australia Ltd. The history in those early years is one of lay-offs, ups and downs and recessions. It was not a very predictable environment, and certainly I had to carry in the short term many accounts there. But I can say this about the workers at that factory: they always settled their account. The plant is now owned by JGL Investments, which has quite a few fingers in the pie of TCF industries and a total of nearly 3,000 employees. Fibremakers has put its money where its mouth is. It has spent $45m in the two years to June 1987 in a number of initiatives to improve the viability of Fibremakers' business in the longer term, of which $29m was involved with the major state-of-the-art spinning technology. In this current year it has committed a further $9m, most of which will be associated with the conversion of three existing spinning machines to a high speed, partially oriented yarn process, which will deliver further productivity improvements and better quality products for the fine denier nylon yarns destined for the pantihose market. In 1988-89 Fibremakers would envisage a similar capital program, with a major spend in the following years involving a new high tenacity yarn process which could involve in excess of $20m. With this plan, they can now do that. They have export potential and import replacement potential. Fibremakers has a real potential for export increases-tyre fabrics, more than $2m, perhaps increasing to $30m or $40m per annum. The bounty assistance it received in the years 1982 to 1986 was $87m. It has been getting the highest level $14,000 per employee. We have to ask ourselves whether we can continue at that level. It has now been reduced, but marginally, to some $11,000 per employee. But fibremakers will receive $160m in bounty payments over the next nine years, as compared with that $87m. I want to finish by saying that I have been to that plant several times and spoken with the unions and the shop stewards. We received very much cooperation from them and management. My colleagues-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(5.59) —I am puzzled, and perhaps I should begin my contribution to this debate by declaring why I am puzzled. I cannot understand why, when we have a piece of legislation supported by the Government, supported by the industry concerned, supported by the trade union movement, supported by the Australian Democrats and supported by an Independent senator, the Opposition still opposes the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill. My contribution to this debate will at least partly involve trying to understand its reasons for opposing the legislation. I have read all the debates that have occurred in the Senate and I have listened to almost all the debate that has occurred in the House of Representatives. Despite all that, I am none the wiser because there appears to me to be no reason at all why this legislation should not be embraced by the Opposition and why it stands isolated and without any shred of support for the stand it is taking on this issue. I will begin by reminding the House that this Bill is quite straightforward. It proposes the establishment of a Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority to promote the restructuring and revitalisation of the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries in order that they can become more efficient and internationally competitive and less dependent on assistance provided by the Government. They are laudable motives but they are opposed by the Opposition. The establishment of the Authority is one of the measures included in the assistance package for these industries which will come into full operation on 1 March 1989. The proposals were announced by the Government on 28 November 1986. Full details were contained in a statement made to the Parliament in June 1987. I will make reference to that statement in the course of what I have to say. The Bill sets out very clearly the functions, powers and constitution of the Authority. It indicates that the Authority is to be an independent body and will be responsible for administering the industries development strategy which is a key element of the Government's assistance package for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. It will also be involved in providing incentives and opportunities for the industries to restructure and capitalise upon ideas for opportunity. The Authority will also provide advice on the technical and administrative operations of the package, particularly the barrier assistance measures. Furthermore, the Authority will monitor the operation of the assistance package and the progress being made towards the achievement of the Government's objectives in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries and will report to the Minister. That is all very straightforward and, as I say, they are laudable objectives. But, of course, the Bill is opposed by the Opposition. I should remind the House that we are talking about a very important series of industries for the future of this country. They employ in the order of 10 per cent of the total Australian work force employed in manufacturing. According to figures I have seen, this amounts to 120,000 people. It is true, as the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) has pointed out, that those people are spread throughout a whole range of electorates in this Commonwealth. For members of the public who listen to parliamentary debates and have an interest in the approach taken by the Government and the Opposition to integrity in government, I refer them to House of Representatives Hansard of 20 April, page 1887. They will there see a very interesting acknowledg- ment by the honourable member for Parkes about the approach of at least the National Party of Australia to the political process. He there makes the point that because the workers in the textiles, clothing and footwear industries are not concentrated in any one electorate, they do not have the political clout that they would have if they were so concentrated. The implication clearly is that, as a result, governments of whatever political persuasion have a free hand to treat them in some way differently from the way governments would if those workers were concentrated in one electorate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not seek to play on the fact that you are in the chair because I have enormous respect for your political integrity. I would be most surprised if you, and others who bring principles to politics, would share the view put forward on behalf of the National Party by the honourable member for Parkes. My approach to the political process is to treat issues on their merit and to deal with people, not on the basis of how much influence they can bring to bear, but according to what is right as a matter of principle. On that basis I approach debate in this House. The issue is also important not just for the workers involved in the industry but also because of its impact on small business. We are not talking in relation to these industries about corporations that have great strangleholds over large sections of the market. According to the figures I have seen, some 70 per cent of the manufacturers in textiles, clothing and footwear are small businesses. They strongly support the legislation before the House. The Senate has already heard from Senator Coulter of the Australian Democrats that Mr Keith Purcell, the Executive Director of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Council of Australia Ltd has written that the industry believes it is important that: . . . an Authority with monitoring and administrative functions be established for the purpose of effectively implementing the Post 1988 TCF Sectoral Plan. He concludes-and I ask the House to note this: On balance, we regard it as most important that the Authority be legislated for and would be concerned if the legislation was rejected. That is the voice of the industry, an industry overwhelmingly composed of small businesses. I would have thought that any Opposition worth its salt would have been having some discussions with small business and talking to the industry before it stood alone and isolated in opposing this Bill which is supported by everybody else. But that is obviously not the case. I will deal with that more in the course of my remarks. I want now to refer to the Government's approach to the TCF plan. We make no apologies for the fact that it is an interventionist plan, a plan that involves a government saying that unions and management must get together and work with government for the good of the country. It is a pretty commonsense approach to a social problem. The textiles, clothing and footwear plan has transformed what is a very old but certainly very sterile debate about the levels of tariff protection. We now understand that the options are not simply free trade or protection. There are other alternatives. The Government has introduced the principle of phased and predictable exposure to international competition in conjunction with a range of structural adjustments and a cushioning of the short term effects. We believe it is the only sensible course to adopt if we are to achieve both social reform and a reduction in tariffs and, at the same time, not bring about harm to the community. I have referred to the Opposition being out of step. I still am at a loss to understand why it stands alone and isolated on this issue. The only reason it could possible take the view it has is the oft-quoted statement, which has occurred in this debate, that it is opposed to what it refers to as quangos and to authorities being set up. It is basically a government involvement and a government initiative that the Opposition believes should be relegated to market forces. Mr Kerr —They would sooner see the industry go down. Mr TICKNER —The honourable member for Denison contributes to the debate by saying that the Opposition would rather see the industry go down. I do not know that I can totally agree with him but certainly, in part, its opposition is motivated by some ideological hang-up, some view that in this area of industry policy it is quite improper and wrong for there to be government intervention. But I contrast that approach-which is the approach of the New Right that we have heard so much about in the Parliament today, and with which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) openly associates himself with the approach that has been adopted ever since the Liberal Party of Australia came into existence and ever since the Country Party, subsequently the National Party, was formed in relation to primary production. I have said previously in the House and I will say again, probably later today, that people should consider what the conservative parties have done to regulate primary production and how they have handled this sector of Australian industry over which they have had a virtual monopoly of ideas and policy formulation in most of the post war period. What have they done? Let us consider this area where those governments have had so much impact and contrast their actions with the Bill before the House. If we look at all the areas of primary production, such as apples, dried fruits, meat and livestock, wine and brandy, barley, canned fruits and cotton-and I am only part way through the list-we see that in each and every one of these areas there is a highly regulated industry. In many cases there are statutory marketing authorities that have compulsory and draconian powers of acquisition, there are compulsory levies, and often there are subsidies. As I said, there are centralised marketing schemes. I am only part way through the list, which includes dairy products, dried fruits, eggs, fish, game, poultry, rabbits, grain, grapes, honey, oilseeds, pigs, poultry, wheat, wine and wool. In all these areas it is all right to regulate; it is all right to have government intervention. However, when we talk about 120,000 Australian workers who are employed in the TCF industries, all of a sudden we throw up our arms in horror and take a puritanical and totally unsupportable New Right position that regulation is somehow inherently bad and that we should not set up the Authority which is supported by every reputable source in the country. I could not give a more convincing demonstration of the absolutely double standards of the Opposition in this issue, but it does, I must say, herald a warning for rural Australia because, if the Opposition is consistent, it will be in the primary industry sector that fairly fundamental changes will be made. If the changes are made on the same basis as that promoted by the honourable member for Parkes, heaven help rural Australia. I refer again to the Bill having made the point that regulation is not something that the Opposition has run away from in the past when it suited political interest. I said that one of the functions of the TCF Development Authority will be to administer the industry development strategy. Broadly, that strategy involves four programs of support: first, raw materials processing programs; secondly, the industries efficiency program, which covers programs for increased access to the National Industry Extension Service, plant and equipment modernisation, and international competitiveness incentives; thirdly, the industries infrastructure program; and, fourthly and finally, an export development program. My colleague the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) has spoken at length about the fact that so little processing of those raw materials occurs in Australia. He cited figures in relation to wool and cotton that bear repeating. Australia is the world's largest producer of wool, yet it processes less than 5 per cent of the wool clip domestically to the final stage. Australia is a world class producer of cotton, but domestically it processes only 10 per cent of the crop. I ask honourable members to understand the incredible abdication of national responsibility that has occurred in the post war period presided over overwhelmingly by conservative governments. Can we believe it? We rode on the sheep's back all through post-Second World War Australian history; we had the perfect opportunity to develop an industrial base to go with that crop; but less than 5 per cent, in fact, of our wool clip is processed domestically to the final stage. One of the objectives of the Authority will be to seek to redress those years of neglect by the conservative parties. I note with great interest and approval that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) said that many companies in the industry, since the announcement of the TCF plan, have initiated major investment projects designed to facilitate improved efficiency and competitiveness. I believe, and I am sure my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) who, like me, is a member of the Government's high powered industry committee, shares my view, that one of the reasons we are seeing that investment is that the industry recognises that the Government is committed to the industry, not only to the workers in the industry but to ensuring that the employers stay in business, make profits and invest further, and, most importantly, that the industry has some stability and predictability. I welcome that. However, that reminds me that I would be remiss if I did not do my duty, as have my other Australian Labor Party colleagues, and herald a note of warning: the Government ought not do anything to slash tariffs across the board which would have an impact on the TCF industries. We must ensure that the industries-and I speak only for the industries at present-are quarantined in order to maintain that stability that is so important to investment. I note also with great approval that the Minister has gone further than his original statement to Parliament of June 1987 suggested. In the publication that was subsequently issued he referred to the safeguard mechanism that was, if you like, to be the watchdog for the industries, particularly the employees in the industries, to ensure that the changes that were occurring were not too dramatic thus resulting in loss of employment. Of course, the Minister in his second reading speech went on the record as saying that this safeguard mechanism, which will have the potential to ensure government intervention, will relate not only to the review that is undertaken by the Authority but at any time thereafter should the reckless circumstances giving rise to the safeguard mechanism being triggered come about. I welcome the Minister's commitment in that regard. It is a positive assurance to the industry and I compliment my colleague the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), because I know that as the Chairman of the Government industry committee he has been very determined to ensure the effectiveness of that trigger mechanism. In the remaining time available to me I would like to pay tribute to the trade union movement, having already handed out bouquets to the employers. The trade union movement has played a very noble and constructive role in relation to these reforms. I pay particular credit to Anna Booth, the National Secretary of the Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia, who has not only initiated pioneering work on the part of her union to secure an award for outworkers but has adopted a very far sighted approach and actively cooperated regarding the establishment of the Authority. It does her and her union great credit and I am sure that the Authority will bring many benefits to the country. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr KERR(Denison)(6.19) —I endorse the remarks made by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). I do not wish to traverse the ground that he covered, but I say at the outset that this measure reflects the cooperation in the community between those who employ labour, those who work in the factories, their representative organisations, and the Government. This tripartite consensus has resulted in these measures coming before Parliament. The textile industry is very important and employs approximately 10 per cent of Australia's manufacturing work force. Throughout Australia, many people's jobs and livelihoods depend on an effective manufacturing sector, in particular, the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. In response to the concerns that have developed over the years, the Government has taken steps to establish an authority whose role will be to promote the revitalisation of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries so that they can become more efficient and internationally competitive. I note with considerable pride that in my own electorate in Hobart we are witnessing a renaissance of the textile industry. The 1986 census figures tabled in the House show that 366 persons were then employed in this industry. That figure would be considerably higher now with the boom in the industry in Hobart. I have had the pleasure and the privilege, in company with union representatives and management, to visit the Sheridan factory, which is a first class internationally successful firm producing high quality printed bed linen that is sold successfully on every market in which the company seeks to compete throughout the world. A new firm called Gazal Industries Ltd has become established in Hobart, and it shows confidence in the future of the textile industry. In my discussions with union representatives and management I have been impressed at the way in which those who represent workers and those who employ them have the commonsense to work together with the Government to come up with proposals such as this. That makes us confident about the way in which the industry can move into the future. It is also a mark of the confidence the Australian Government has in the local industry that it has given Sheridan the contract to manufacture camouflage material for Army uniforms. In my electorate, a very important sector of the industry is being revitalised and strengthened and is showing confidence in the future because of the measures that are now under consideration. There is no doubt that the textile industry is subject to enormous competition. In the past it has suffered because of the impact of tariff reductions, which it found difficult to absorb. However, Australia's textile industry is becoming increasingly efficient. It is changing its structure and the way in which it responds to the pressures upon it. It is doing so in a way that gives me great confidence that it will survive in a very strong form into the future. The Development Authority that is to be established by this Bill is one step along the way towards giving confidence to the industry. The proposals embodied in this Bill are not simply those of the Government. The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority was recommended by the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry Council in its consideration of post-1988 assistance arrangements for the industry. The Council saw the need for a specialised monitoring authority with responsibility for identifying the nature of changes occurring under the plan and with provision for advisory powers to remedy deficiencies in the operation of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries plan. This proposal has not been brought forward by a government indifferent to the views of industry but by a government that has consulted with industry and has brought forward measures that are agreed by that industry and by those employed in it. In that context, I cannot help but agree with the comments made by the honourable member for Hughes that the Opposition's decision to oppose these measures shows a particularly ideologically blinkered perspective. The measures will have the effect of assisting the textiles, clothing and footwear industries and the knee-jerk response which has characterised Opposition speeches in this debate is quite unwarranted and does Opposition members no credit in terms of their alleged commitment to the well-being and future of this industry. The textiles, footwear and clothing industries are important industries employing approximately 120,000 people in Australia. They have undergone substantial change and will continue to do so. The Bill is an important contribution to ensuring that change comes gradually, that it is planned and gives consideration to the interests both of those working in the industries and those who invest in them. I commend to the House the remarks of the honourable member for Hughes, who has had a long involvement in these measures, and I join with him in congratulating the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), who is chairman of the Caucus industry committee, under whose charge these measures have been developed in some part. I commend the measure before the House to all honourable members. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(6.26) —In considering this legislation it is relevant to go back in time to late 1982, when industry after industry moved from crisis to absolute disaster. During the seven years of the previous Government, the manufacturing work force declined as a percentage of the work force by about one per cent per year. The philosophy behind the climate of using an artificially high dollar to maintain pressure on domestic manufacturing, which was supported by many of the speakers in this debate, did not achieve a more efficient industry. It just pointed out to manufacturers that it was much easier to import than it was to manufacture; that it was easier to import products, sell them on the Australian market, and ignore the cost of tooling up, designing and all the other aspects involved in the manufacturing process. Australia was moving dramatically from a nation in which one-quarter of the work force was involved in making things to a nation that was becoming increasingly a marketer or seller of products produced overseas. In that context it is relevant to examine the relationship between the Government and industry prior to 1983. There were two models of relationship. Under the first model, industries could be owned by the Government, and there have been examples in shipbuilding and aircraft manufacture. The second model was the arm's length approach, under which the Government considered that industry and manufacturing were none of its business. The first model produced some quite significant failures, and perhaps in many ways the Government was too close. Its vision was distorted by the containment of particular industries within government and within the bureaucracy. The Public Service was not designed to be a manager of manufacturing concerns. The most classic example of the failure of the arm's length model was the steel industry in mid 1982, when the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) went public with its problems. The Government's response was one of shock and horror. It was not aware of any problems and did not understand them. I distinctly recall the almost panic response of Prime Minister Fraser in referring the matter to the Industries Assistance Commission. So ignorant was the Government of the steel industry at the time that it was not prepared to come forward. I recall inviting the then Minister, Mr Viner, to a meeting in Newcastle to discuss with our community the problems in the steel industry. He declined to come because he did not know what the issue was about. It is pertinent to mention the steel industry because the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) moved to develop a third model and the model designed for the steel industry is, to some degree, being replicated in other industries that have been the subject of special government programs. The model concerned a neutral interface between government and industry. The Steel Industry Authority sits between the Government and the industry, between the Public Service, the manufacturers and the trade unionists, and comprises representatives of those groups. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —Before the dinner break I was outlining the significance of the model established with the steel industry plan of the interface between government and industry. The interface with the Steel Authority consisted of the three aspects of the industry-the companies involved, the trade unions or the work force and, thirdly, the Government itself. The intent of that model was to provide government and the public at large with an informed source of opinion not on any one company or any one point of view but on the industry itself in Australia and the rest of the world to enable it to develop an expertise and depth. Quite frankly, prior to the establishment of the Steel Authority the only company in Australia to know anything about steel was the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. If BHP said that there was a disaster, no one could deny that or even query it. I note with some, perhaps, disturbance the disparaging remarks by previous Opposition speakers regarding the Steel Authority. Quite clearly they failed to understand its true function and the significance of the role it plays. In regard to the other sectors that we have dealt with such as the automobile industry, heavy engineering and the shipbuilding and ship repair industries and now the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, we are finding that that model is an effective one. The reasons for the failure of Australian manufacturing perhaps are many and varied. I will not attempt to delve into all of those now, but perhaps the most important one was the violent polarisation of the manufacturing sector and the tendency for conservative governments-governments which we have been so used to-of playing off the polarity that existed. In other words, those governments exacerbated the confrontation rather than trying to bring the two sectors, the work force and the employers, together. Another aspect was, of course, the simplistic notion that by making imports cheap we would make our industry more competitive. That failed to recognise the much more simple conclusion, which was that by making imports cheaper we would turn our manufacturers into importers. At this point it is probably worth recounting a statement that was made to me by Mr Bert Evans almost five years ago when he was Director of the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia (MTIA). He pointed out that MTIA stood initially for the Metal Trades Industry Association. He remarked, `Nowadays perhaps we should be calling it the Metal Trades Importers Association'. He said that there was barely a member of that association who was not now importing some aspect or other. The industry model was therefore important. I think its success in the steel industry will in years to come be seen as perhaps the major departure from and the major point of change in Australian manufacturing trends. I think that honourable members will find that various other industries have in fact supported the concept. Of course, the textile, clothing and footwear industries support the concept because they can see the benefit of having some expert body in which they can participate and which can be seen as a neutral adviser to government and, again, to the wider community. The aspect of reporting to the Minister and to the Parliament was a major breakthrough. One only has to compare this attitude to the priority that was given by the previous Liberal and National parties to the industry portfolio when industry was a junior portfolio and industry policy had no public visibility. In the context of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries-another industry that moved into crisis in the Fraser years-this Government had to deal with it in a much more constructive way. The industry plan, in which the proposed Authority was one of the major planks, did not come as a result of some sudden inspiration by either the Minister or some bureaucrat but as a result of a very closely developed liaison between the Government, unions and employers. In that particular context the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who was then chairman of the Caucus industry committee, established, as part of that machinery, a group of Government members who in fact visited a number of industries in Australia in this field to ensure that we understood well enough and that the industry's views were being incorporated. Quite frankly, they were asking, to a person, for the separation of that industry into a separate sector with its own monitoring capacity. As was mentioned by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr), honourable members opposite who have spoken previously in this debate have suggested that this legislation is faulty because it is based on the simplistic notion that we are actually forming a quango. Their failure to understand even what a quango means seems to me to be paramount. They do not seem to be prepared even to consider the implications of what they are saying. What they are saying, in an interpretation of their position, is that they believe that industry would rather deal with bureaucrats than a separate statutory body. Those of us who have worked with industry over the last five years, and certainly prior to that, would know that industry would much rather deal with an organisation that was separate from government departments, that had some separate identity and some capacity to form its own views. Eventually the bureaucrats, with whom the Opposition would rather the industry dealt, are strictly under the control and decision making of Ministers and Cabinet. This is in contrast to the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority, which in fact would not have that constraint. The industry sees that freedom as being important. The Opposition has failed to address its own record in regard to the collapse of manufacturing. It has not addressed the fact that as a country 90 per cent of our cotton is exported as raw cotton and then a great deal of it is imported in manufactured form. The Opposition has failed to address the fact that our best hides are exported as blue or raw hides. It has failed to address the fact that 95 per cent of our wool is exported as raw wool and later imported in a range of processed products. The failure of Australia to develop or build on the advantages we have had in those areas has been a fundamental weakness for decades. To suggest that that will all suddenly change without government action of some form, quite frankly, is fantasy. There is no reason why it would change. The idea of the Australian Industry Development Corporation being an active participant in the establishment of additional processing of so many of our raw materials in this industry is an acceptance of the realities that we have seen so often expressed in Australia. The culture and the manufacturing context in this country will not lead by their own accord to an acceleration in our manufacturing performances. There has to be some form of positive and active participation by government and by taxpayers, if needs be, to try to ensure that we can develop the world class industries of which we are so capable. Looking at industries in various sectors around the world it is so obvious that, for a country that has so many advantages, such as a capacity to train its work force and a potential to build on natural advantages, our failure to capitalise on that must go down in history as the greatest weakness and greatest condemnation of so many years of conservative government. Many honourable members opposite have seen this debate as a protection or anti-protection debate. They see the issue as being the level of tariffs and not the need to change the manufacturing context in this country. For as long as the debate is about levels of tariffs, quite frankly we are going to fail. The debate on tariffs has been a smokescreen for failure and ignoring the real issues. In this industry the real issue is to develop mechanisms and devices which will accelerate the capacity of our manufacturing sector to grow and develop to the level of which it is capable and which the country will demand. In that process, the question of tariffs becomes a side issue. Tariffs will undoubtedly reduce as a natural, automatic part of the process. By reducing the tariffs we will not necessarily change the industry, but we could well destroy it; by increasing tariffs we will not necessarily improve the industry, but we could well destroy it. For too long the debate in Australia has been based on the level of tariffs and not on the context of the manufacturing sector. This has been evident in the speeches of honourable members opposite. Having read speech after speech after speech, I find that it is clear that even after five years honourable members opposite still do not understand what manufacturing is about. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the past five years we have seen a dramatic change in the restructuring of Australian industries. That change has been difficult, but it has been supported overwhelmingly by manufacturing management and increasingly by manufacturing employees. Unfortunately, it has brought with it a whole range of culture and work shocks, and these will not be endured with ease. But, if this Government is allowed to continue the process, it will create in Australia the kind of work that the manufacturing sector is looking for. Manufacturing employees want to make things. They do not want to become tourist operators, waiters or chamber maids. They want to be in manufacturing. There is a sense of pride in making something. It is fundamental to the Australian culture that we should re-establish our manufacturing sector. The Opposition has failed to recognise that the change in Australia's manufacturing history and culture will not happen by negative means; it will happen by positive means. This Government's efforts in the past five years are becoming increasingly evident from the detailed trade figures and the figures for investment. I was upset by the Opposition's failure to deal with the true details of those matters. If one looks at those factors, one finds it becoming increasingly clear that the changes in attitude of Australian management are significant. It is also increasingly clear that we are increasing our manufacturing scope in a major way. Looking at the older manufacturing areas of this country, such as the Hunter, the Illawarra and Geelong, it is clear that as industries change we need to be sure that the people in the work force are given work in which they can feel a sense of creativity and pride. Let us look at the question of cotton. Cotton is grown north of the Hunter and is shipped out through our ports as raw cotton in bales. Quite frankly, that is a dreadful insult to those people who live between the cotton fields and the ports. It is also insulting that honourable members opposite should think that that is the way to go. In years to come I can see this country having a significant processing capacity in cotton, in wool and, potentially, in hides. Those changes will more than make up for any traumas we experience in the shorter term. More importantly, they will provide a model for an entirely different kind of industry from the steel industry or the shipbuilding industry. This will be an industry with the potential to be a `sunrise industry'. We have heard the term `sunset industries' and the textiles, clothing and footwear industries were seen by the Opposition as sunset industries. This Government sees them as sunrise industries-traditional manufacturing industries in a country which has failed to address the problem. I have no doubt that this legislation will add to the momentum developed in the steel industry and that in years to come those in government in 1992 and the Opposition will ensure that the momentum is maintained. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(8.14) —in reply-This has been a quite important debate. As far as I can, I try to sit through debates for which I have responsibility. I apologise to the House, but on this occasion I have had to rely on the advice of proxies because I had commitments in another part of this building for much of the time. I thank honourable members for their contributions. Four Government and five Opposition members spoke yesterday, and six Government and three Opposition members spoke today. All of them supported the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) plan for 1988 to 1996, but there were differences in emphasis as to how that plan ought to be implemented. In fact, there was opposition-admittedly rather muted and not exactly argued savagely-to the creation of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority. The general points raised by the Opposition were that the TCF protection is still too high and that there should be no Authority. Opposition members preferred that the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce or the TCF Industry Council be used. One of the things that I found slightly puzzling was that the criticisms made in the debate were essentially a rerun of the Senate debate, although in a somewhat shorter form. In fact, it was curious that some of the participants in the debate apparently were not aware that the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill had been substantially amended in the Senate. When the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) were critical of the formal inquiry procedures in part V of the Bill relating to penalties and compulsion, they were apparently unaware that the legislation had been amended in the Senate. Much of the area that they complained of is no longer in the Bill. The Government considered several alternatives to setting up an authority. The monitoring of the TCF industries could have been done within the Department, by an industry council, by an informal advisory committee such as the former committee chaired by David Elix, or by a statutory authority; but essentially the Government wanted an authority which could monitor the industries, offer advice on barrier protection issues and develop and administer the industries development strategy (IDS). We wanted a body which would have sole responsibility for these functions, one which would be independent of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce but still responsible to him. We wanted a body which would be seen as impartial and free from day to day political pressures, be accountable to the Parliament and have a cross-section of capable non-government people available for advice; have continuity of people and policies, but have a finite life; and, in the end, have essentially the same cost as other alternatives. So, Government considered that a statutory authority would be the most appropriate organisation to meet these needs. It also had regard to the steel and automotive industries, where comparable statutory authorities exist. The role and functions of the Authority are set out in the Bill and will thus be clear and certain. Why, I hear honourable members cry, could not the TCF Industry Council perform the functions proposed for the Authority? The reason, we felt, was that the monitoring function was only one of the Authority's responsibilities in respect of the new plan. The type of monitoring to be undertaken by the Authority will be comprehensive, in depth and well outside the charter of an industry council, which is a consultative body for the purpose of developing policies for the promotion of Australian manufacturing industries. While the secretariat supporting the Council does undertake research into issues concerning its respective industries, it does not have the resources or capabilities to undertake the level of detailed monitoring which is envisaged for the Authority. The Government considers that, because industries receive such high levels of community support, the recipients have an obligation to the community and, in particular, the industry itself has an obligation to act responsibly in the climate of the Government's restructuring of industry assistance. To act in a manner contrary to the Government's restructuring policies would be against community interest. The Bill only provides for the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority to report to the Minister on any such instance and the report may be published. There are no penalties to be imposed. The Minister may decide not to publish the report. The Government amendments made in the Senate provide for the person to be notified in advance of any recommendation to publish a report. He may appeal to the Minister against the recommendation. The examples of matters coming within this provision are difficult to predict. But one might take the following hypothetical cases: the movement to offshore production; repeated or significant circumvention of the rules relating to quotas; and large retrenchments of labour without adequate consultation with unions. What form should the consultations between the trade unions and the employers take? The Government considers it very desirable that where there are major changes to operations with resultant employee implications, there should be proper consultation. We would hope that it is already an established practice that employees are consulted in the event of a firm restructuring. So this provision merely legitimises what the Government would hope is already an established practice of consulting with employees about developments within a firm. Another issue that was raised was whether any protection was afforded to a witness at a public hearing who considers that an answer might be commercially confidential. There is actually no compulsion for a witness to answer any question. Further, at a public inquiry the Authority can take an answer in confidence under clause 45 (4) (b), permitting the witness to provide his answer by a written statement. Such an answer may not, if the witness so objects under clause 45 (4) (d), be made public. What is the purpose of the confidentiality provision in clause 58, which was raised by one or two speakers? This is a standard safeguard provision in legislation which has been included in other laws which deal specifically with disclosure. But there is no provision in the Bill which requires or permits the disclosure of information received in confidence to persons outside the Authority other than the Minister, the Secretary to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce or a designated officer of that Department. Another question was whether the Authority should be able to delegate its powers to staff and to outsiders. The reason for that inclusion is to enable the Authority to pursue its functions with the most efficiency. The paragraph was inserted to cover circumstances in which the Authority may need to call on a person other than a member of the Authority or its staff to perform one of its functions. That may arise, for example, if the Authority wishes to exercise one of its functions in a place, such as interstate, where it may not be practical or possible for the Authority to attend. For example, the Authority will be delegating some of its powers to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to collect information and to the specified agencies for the delivery of some of its programs. Mr Tim Fischer —Will it be an efficient quango? Mr BARRY JONES —I believe so. It depends very much on the quality of the personnel and the quality of the administrators who are appointed. One has to be careful when one uses the word `pride'; one does not want to descend or rise up into a state of hubris. But I think the changes that have been brought about since 1983 when we approached this matter have been more comprehensive, far reaching and radical than in any comparable period in Australia's industrial history. Look at what happened, broadly speaking, with the original TCF industries plan, the passenger motor vehicle industry, the steel industry, the plastics and chemicals industries and the shipbuilding industry. All of those industries are now in a much stronger position, certainly than they appeared to be in 1982-83. Before the plastics and chemical program came down-I remember this because my own electorate was very much affected-we were told, as we always are amid terrible hand wringing and prophecies of doom and disaster, what would happen if tariff levels were reduced. In fact, in that group of industries there has been a significant increase in investment. There are strong indications that those industries will be in a very much stronger position in the 1990s than they were in the 1980s. I want to take up a specific point that was made by the honourable member for Parkes. The honourable member referred to the disparities in the levels of assistance between man-made fibres and natural fibres. This, to some extent, reflects the `needs basis' of assistance which was prevalent in government industry policy in decades past. Currently, man-made fibre yarns receive bounty assistance varying between 47.2 per cent and 26.4 per cent and wool yarns, excluding wool carpet yarn, receive bounty at rates varying between 26.4 per cent and 39.2 per cent. In the new TCF plan, which is to commence in the main from 1 March 1989, the Government has acted to remove some of these disparities and all yarn bounty rates will be phased to a uniform 30 per cent by 1994. Wool carpet yarn will continue as a non-bountiable yarn. However, its tariff duty has been increased from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. As a result, the assistance disparities in the yarn area will be lessened significantly. Furthermore, this drive towards greater uniformity has been carried through for downstream producers. As a result, by the end of the new plan, most plain, woven and knitted fabrics, regardless of fibre composition, will attract a uniform rate of tariff assistance of 40 per cent. As has been pointed out earlier in the debate, the textiles, clothing and footwear industries are a very significant employer nationwide. They are one of the biggest industries and are very labour intensive. Some electorates have a very small number of people in these industries. I notice that the electorate of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has only nine people working in the industries. At the other end of the scale, in the electorate of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), 3,298 people are employed in textiles, clothing or footwear. In my own electorate of Lalor, 1,349 people are employed, of which a pretty significant number are in the leather goods areas of tanning and so on. Madam Speaker, your electorate ranks 117th out of 148 electorates, with 1,057 people employed. So the industries are a very significant employer and they are politically very sensitive. I want to go back to what I said yesterday in my second reading speech and take up a couple of very thoughtful points that were made by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris). It is extraordinary to reflect that Australia's tradition in this area has been to manufacture essentially for domestic consumption. Until very recently our industries were not encouraged to look out for the overseas market. Only about 10 per cent of our cotton is processed domestically and turned into fabric in this country. It is commonplace to find that we export the raw cotton and then buy back the finished goods. The figure is not dissimilar in respect of wool and it is essentially the same in respect of leather products-it is around 10 per cent. We tend to export products that, if not in the rawest of raw states, have been processed only one or two stages. The lesson that we have to learn-and we are learning it very slowly-is how critical it is to be adding value to our production. I wanted to murmur some approving words about what was said by the honourable member for Newcastle. It is true in some ways that the debate about tariffs, I suppose ever since the 25 per cent tariff cut that was imposed under totally different circumstances at a time when the dollar was wildly overvalued in the Whitlam period, was conducted in such a way that for a long time tariffs became a kind of fighting word, a kind of King Charles's head. It was not possible to get any kind of rational debate on the subject at all. This also added to the fallacy that the only thing that really determines saleability is price, that price is the only factor. It was argued that people would immediately go for cheap goods, that the cheapest goods would always dominate the market. That just is not correct. It is essential that we see tariffs in a broader context. We need to develop that sense of a productive culture. We need to know why we are participating in world trade. We need to get our expertise right and our productive techniques developed in a much more sophisticated way than we have in the past. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Honey Marketing Bill concurrently with the Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill, the Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill and the Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.31) —The object of the Honey Marketing Bill is to reconstitute the Australian Honey Board with revised functions and powers, a changed membership structure and enhanced accountability to the industry which provides the Board's funds through levies and an export charge. As I thought I heard the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) remark when he came to the table, perhaps all should be sweet reasonableness with regard to this honey legislation. Indeed, I am happy to advise the House and the nation that on this occasion the Opposition does not oppose this package of legislation. In the goodwill pertaining to this important legislation, it is interesting to reflect on two things. Firstly, much of the legislation that goes through Parliament is not controversial, is supported by both sides and is purposefully considered and passed by both Houses. Some people observing the parliamentary scene from beyond Canberra complain that legislation is always controversial and that a lot of arguing goes on. On this occasion legislation is before us which, in general terms, has the support of both sides of the House. Secondly, I am a little sorry that a former member for Holt, Bill Yates, is not still a member of this House. He was an apiarist of some capability. He installed hives in the Senate rose garden for a period and was the Parliament's unofficial beekeeper. In many ways he is a unique person. He is one of the few people in the world to have served as a member of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom and then as a member of the House of Representatives in Australia. I am sure that, if Bill Yates were a member of the House at this time, he would be speaking on this honey legislation. He now lives at Tallangatta on the border of my electorate. He is very active in the community and we wish him well. I will be sending a copy of this legislation to him consequent upon tonight's debate. Mr Hand —Send him a copy of your speech, too. Mr TIM FISCHER —I will. The Minister has persuaded me to do so. The Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill, the Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill and the Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill, which are associated Bills in this package of legislation, aim to enhance the Australian Honey Board's accountability to the industry, as well as increase the maximum levy that can be imposed under the levy Acts for Board financing of research and promotion in consultation with the industry. In reconstituting the Australian Honey Board, the Honey Marketing Bill is designed to bring the structure and charter of the Board into line with the policy principles adopted by the Government for primary industry marketing authorities. These changes have been reached after more than two years of consultation between the industry and government. I deliver these comments on behalf of the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd)-the Opposition spokesman for primary industry-who, unfortunately, is unable to be present at this time. Delays in the implementation of this legislation have disrupted the normal functions of the Australian Honey Board and caused the Board to operate for a period in 1987 without membership from the industry. A new board to be created under Labor's statutory marketing authority reforms was overlooked and rushed measures to extend the life of the current Board collapsed when the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987 was trapped in Parliament by the double dissolution. Therefore, the Bill did not pass through the Parliament and the Australian Honey Board had no direct representatives from the industry for a time. When an industry cooperates with the Government to achieve administrative changes to its statutory marketing body, it does not deserve to be run through that type of gauntlet and I think that that was regrettable. The honey industry has much to be proud of. It is arguably one of Australia's most decentralised primary industries. In my electorate of Farrer the industry is scattered from near Mount Kosciusko in the east, along the red gum forests of the Murray Valley, downstream of Albury to Mathoura and through to Balranald, Wentworth and beyond. The industry is a producer of a natural product, something that is gaining popularity within the food industry worldwide. With exports of 11,874 tonnes, valued at some $16m-plus in 1986-87, the honey industry is doing a great deal for Australia's foreign exchange earnings. As such, it is one of many primary industries pulling its weight on the foreign exchange front. That is badly needed, given the other disruptions in the economy as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Government proceed down the wrong economic policy path. The industry exports around 45 per cent of its total production and has seen both domestic demand and export demand rise in recent times. With major export markets in the United Kingdom and West Germany in particular-those two countries represented 64 per cent of all Australian honey exports in 1985-86-and an increasing awareness by European consumers of food contamination since the Chernobyl nuclear incident two years ago, the prospects for further Australian honey exports are excellent. I believe that there will be further expansion to Europe and, I hope, the countries in our region, because of the high quality of Australian honey. The industry should be congratulated on the standard of its product which results in such widespread support on the domestic market and increasingly on the export market, particularly in Europe. The industry is also to be commended on its minimum export pricing policy which has successfully resulted in stable returns to the industry. Export values have risen to 140c a kilo f.o.b. in 1986-87 from a previous high of 114c a kilo f.o.b. in 1985-86. All in all, the honey industry may be underrecognised as one of our perhaps smaller primary industries, but it is a very solid and successful industry. I am sure that even the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), who looks as if he might just have been stung by a bee, would be conscious of that. This important legislation revamps the Board's structure and, as such, the Opposition is not opposed to it. It would be remiss of me if I did not make two other comments about the legislation. I draw attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the main Bill, the Honey Marketing Bill. Clause 57 (7) states, in part: `Parlt', in relation to the Northern Territory, means the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory; `State' includes the Northern Territory. I quote that subclause to sound a note of warning that as we track down this legislative path the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) may or may not be heading towards the creation of self-government through the creation of an assembly, which in itself may beget necessary addendums to a whole range of Federal legislation to cover the particular dimension covered by subclause (7). I lodge a query with the Minister as to whether the ACT possibility is picked up under the Acts Interpretation Act or elsewhere, or, if an assembly is established in the ACT whether that will require amendments in specific form to legislation of this kind and every other marketing board legislation and equivalent type legislation, right across the statute books. It is something that should be anticipated. Maybe there is a way around the problem, should it arise through the Acts Interpretation Act. I would appreciate any brief explanation which could be supplied when the Minister replies at the end of this debate. I refer to the longstanding difficulties with regard to Paterson's curse-or salvation Jane, or whatever name it goes by in the various States. I recall driving to Western Australia many years ago just before I went into the Army and coming across a sign in the middle of nowhere in South Australia-I can safely say that because I do not think there are any members from South Australia in the chamber at present-which said, `Do not stop for the next 100 yards. Keep moving. No camping. No pulling off to the side of the road. This is a Paterson's curse infected area'. I thought that they were getting the message and had some concern about the spread of Paterson's curse. Some years ago we had a very successful biological control program for what I call skeleton weed. That program did much to revamp the marginal country in the electorate of Mallee, the western part of my electorate, the electorate of Gilmore and elsewhere. The biological control of Paterson's curse has involved a lengthy process of litigation lodged by a group of apiarists exercising their rights and reflecting their interests. The matter has been before the South Australian Supreme Court on several occasions. It was the subject of further complementary legislation in the Parliament and it went back to the South Australian Supreme Court recently. There has been no breakthrough; indeed, there has been a step backwards, as I understand it, along the path of biological control. I have a personal view on that matter and I support the introduction of biological control, taking into account the position of this industry. I acknowledge that it has special circumstances which cannot be ignored. I hope that negotiations which are currently under way will be successful in bringing about a very early breakthrough with regard to the biological control program being held on ice by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Should that breakthrough be achieved, I hope that in the interests of the majority and also, on balance, in the interests of the environment in general and the economy of the rural sector, this problem will be addressed with biological control methods. The Liberal and National parties do not oppose this package of honey legislation. We salute the honey industry for the great steps forward it has taken in recent years. We encourage it further down the export path with its high quality natural product, free from any contamination from the spillover of Chernobyl and free from acid rain contamination which exists in parts of the Northern Hemisphere-in fact, crystal clear honey of a brilliant quality which can do much to further advance Australia's export income. It is for these reasons that the Bills are not opposed by the Opposition. However, I invite the Minister to comment on the coverage of the Australian Capital Territory in this legislation. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.45) —I join the Opposition parties in supporting the Honey Marketing Bill, the Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill, the Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill and the Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill. The Bills will increase the accountability of the Australian Honey Board and the Government to honey producers and packers. It is always a pleasure to follow the mellifluous tones of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). Mr Lamb —Honeyed tones. Mr SNOW —The honeyed tones, as my colleague says. The Bills are in line with this Government's desire to maximise markets and market efficiency for our rural industries and to boost production and returns to farmers. Under changes proposed in the Honey Marketing Bill, the Australian Honey Board will be restructured and the new Board will focus solely on two objectives: first, to maximise returns to the honey industry from exports; and second, to generate a greater demand for Australian honey both in Australia and overseas. The Bill will also allow greater freedom to honey producers in their exporting operations by reducing export regulatory or control activities. The Government has taken worthwhile decisions in the honey industry and in many other primary industries, some of which the Opposition has to admit it was too scared to take. For instance, I refer to wheat marketing, the wool reserve price plan, and fisheries management. Fisheries, of course, always have problems, but anyone who looks at the plight of the industry and its insecurity in 1983 will acknowledge that the industry is far better off now. I also refer to the dairy industry, which helped to change the government in New South Wales in 1976. The Federal Government has introduced a national dairy plan which was authorised, and whose formulation was assisted by, the dairy industry in Australia. Australia is ideally suited to the production of honey with numerous bee forage plants and a favourable climate. A constituent of Eden-Monaro, Lisa Brown, has drawn my attention to the potential for broadening honey variety and increasing production by the wide scale planting of additional native species that have a multipurpose value and are attractive to bees. I note that the Industries Assistance Commission in its report a couple of years ago on the honey industry recommended increased funding for honey research. Lisa Brown's ideas for broadening the bee forage environment may be an area of appropriate focus. The beekeeping industry not only provides substantial domestic and export income but also has other benefits for rural production such as crop pollination. The efficiency of honey bees as pollinating agents is recognised world-wide. Many agricultural and horticultural crops, such as sunflowers and rape seed, benefit from pollination not only in increased production but also in improved produce and storage qualities. For instance, honey bees have been shown to be essential, or at least beneficial, to fruit set on apples, cherries, some cultivars of pears, peaches, apricots, Japanese plums, loganberries and feijoas. In addition to rural benefits, there are benefits to consumers of a totally nutritious, natural and relatively inexpensive product. I commend the Government and the coalition for their support of this important industry. A major cause of production losses for Australian beekeepers is disease. Diseases have been accidentally introduced over the years with importations. Australia is fortunate in remaining free of a number of important bee diseases, including chalkbrood and diseases caused by several mite species. It is interesting that the Honey Research Council has recognised the need to prevent diseases entering Australia because of the likely immediate impact on honey production and in the longer term the threat to the growing export market for queen bees. We need to persevere with research. We need to concentrate on bee diseases. Compared with many other honey producing countries, we have the advantage of being a country that is fairly remote from others. We ought to keep exotic diseases and pests at bay. This legislation has the support of honey producers and packers, and I am pleased to support it. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(8.51) —You may have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker, a definition of `Parliament' that it is a place where somebody gets up to speak and says nothing, nobody listens, and then everybody disagrees. Tonight this definition does not apply because, as we have heard from the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who represented the shadow Minister, we have heard an excellent degree of unanimity-as someone said, a lot of sweet talk-as we have discussed these very interesting and necessary Bills, the Honey Marketing Bill and the associated Bills. Dr Harry Edwards —Very honeyed tones. Mr WEBSTER —As the honourable member for Berowra said, previous speakers have had very honeyed tones. It is good to be able to speak on Bills that are totally supported by both sides of the House. It caused me to reflect on some words that I read today in the Good News Bible, Australian edition, that was ably launched by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) last week. In the `Book of Proverbs', which contains sayings that are supposed to be from the wisest human who ever lived-Solomon-it says: Kind words are like honey, sweet to the taste and good for your health. So, having Bills like these, where we all agree, as we do on these particular Bills, may be good for the health of all of us. The Honey Marketing Bill and its associated Bills, as has been pointed out fairly clearly by previous speakers, are designed to repeal the 25-year-old Honey Industry Act of 1962, which is the Australian Honey Board's present charter, providing new legislation that will be streamlined. There will be a reduction in the number of members of the Board. There will be, hopefully, people elected to that Board who will be able to add perhaps greater expertise, if that has been seen to be needed, in the days ahead. There are other aspects connected with the Honey Marketing Bill that I will mention in a moment. Other appropriate amendments will be made with regard to the honey levies and the export charge Acts, and I need say no more of those. The aim of the new Bills is to make the Board even more effective. There were various parts of the legislation in the old charter that were never used and there were some anomalies. New legislation was long overdue and we are considering it this evening. As the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) pointed out so nicely in his second reading speech, the Honey Marketing Bill was not arrived at hastily. Due discourse was held with all interested parties and I commend the Minister, who has just come into the Chamber, for the fact that the legislation he has produced is the subject of a great deal of agreement in the industry. The Bill will improve accountability on the part of the Board. I notice that the 1986-87 annual report of the Board forecast a deficit in the Board's financial transactions. It actually turned out to be a surplus. We need to give credit to the Board for that. We do not seem to be able to talk about surpluses very much these days. The Board will have enlarged autonomy. It has been subjected to a lot of inertia in the past because even small decisions have had to be referred to the Minister. These areas of inertia will now be removed and, except for significant decisions, decision-making processes will be left to the Board. The Minister, of course, will retain his veto in relation to certain aspects of the industry. The honey industry, though small, is a very important one. It earns substantial export income, as has already been mentioned. It earned more than $16m in 1986-87 from the export of nearly 12,000 tonnes. This was exported in the main to the United Kingdom, where we achieved $4.3m in export earnings, and to the United States of America where we earned $1.2m. One of the future difficulties that will confront the new Board and will have to be dealt with by the new Board and the continuing administration before the Board becomes operative next January is that the United States still has a fairly substantial stockpile of honey. The Board will have to look very carefully at promotion, prices and so on. I have risen to speak on the Bills because within the electorate of Macquarie there are many apiarists who are engaged in the industry to produce a profit and there are many hobbyists who have one or two beehives. Also within the Macquarie electorate is the Hawkesbury Agricultural College, the college of advanced education, which has played a very significant role in the apiary industry for many years. They have a very imporant apiculture or apiary centre there, where they conduct schools for beekeepers and seminars for apiarists. They have had a substantial influence over the years-the school has been there for well over 30 years-with regard to beekeepers, not only in New South Wales but throughout Australia, and internationally. They have had significant influence, for example, with regard to bee breeding and in the distribution of breeding stock throughout the world. Mr Neville Cutts, who for more than 30 years was in charge of that particular area of the college, contributed a great deal to the bee industry. Before I came into the chamber somebody mentioned to me that this was a good opportunity for a politician to make a 3b speech-be upstanding, be brief and be seated. Before I be seated I would like to comment on the promotion of honey and then say a word on behalf of the bees. There has not been too much said on behalf of the bees tonight, so I thought I might add a little with regard to just how marvellous these small creatures are. If we did not have them, of course, we would not be here tonight discussing this legislation. Honey has been described as one of the purest foods available to humans. There are a great number of varieties of honey. There are many colours. There are all sorts of aromas. There are different flavours. We get honey that has varying densities. Most of the honey in Australia comes from over 600 varieties of eucalypts, which means that we get over 600 varieties of eucalypt honey. It is a wonderful food. I will give some details of just how good it is as I summarise a couple of points made by Fred Bailey in his excellent book, Beekeeping in Australia: for pleasure and profit, that was produced in 1982. Honey does not need refrigeration and, if it is kept sealed, it will keep indefinitely. He mentions that when honey is eaten it is: . . . easily digested and readily absorbed into the bloodstream, providing new energy, warmth, and a feeling of general well being quickly and naturally, and tends to regulate the system without the aid of drugs or laxatives. He also mentions the fact that even though the basic components of honey are carbohydrates, which account for about 80 per cent of it, those carbohydrates are in the form of natural sugars and are non-fattening. Those people who are listening to the debate and are on diets might care to take note of that. Honey can be ingested directly into the bloodstream of the human body. He says that athletes find honey very valuable as a training food, as the energy released by natural carbohydrates is immediately available to the body. That cannot be said of very many foods that we eat today. He says: The content of natural sugars varies in different honeys depending on the floral source of the original nectar ... He goes on to talk about the very complex nature of some of that sugar-glucose, fructose, sucrose, levulose and so on. That, of course, does not mean much to us here tonight but it reveals a little of just how complex this marvellous food is. He says it contains significant minerals and the lightness or the darkness of the honey often indicates the degree of minerals in the honey that are beneficial to human beings. The darker the honey, the more minerals contained in it. Some of the minerals found in honey that he mentions are iron, calcium, copper, sodium, manganese, potassium, magnesium, nickel, silicon, phosphorous, cobalt, aluminium and chromium. All this is gathered by that little bee that we see buzzing around in our gardens and do not take too much notice of. Mr Bailey says that honey contains certain amino acids. In some varieties, as many as 17 different amino acids have been detected. It contains the following vitamins: B1, B2, B6 and C, in varying quantities, depending upon the degree of ripening of the honey within the hive. He mentions, and I agree with him, wholeheartedly, that we can feel quite proud of the marvellous industry that we have and the honeys produced in this country when we go to the Royal Easter Show and see the displays there in various competitions. Those honeys are rated amongst the best in the world. One or two other things need to be said about honey. It is aseptic and bactericidal. Tests carried out by bacteriologists prove that organisms and germs which affect the human body cannot live in honey because it withdraws the moisture necessary for the survival of the bacteria. People today are relearning the value of honey in the dressing of cuts, abrasions, burns and scalds. The industry we are discussing tonight is associated with that marvellous product. I commend to the Australian people that they buy more honey and do what they can to promote it and make this industry flourish even more. I would like to say a word on behalf of the bees. I will not dwell on this very long but I would like to point out to the House, and to those people listening, just how much work is involved in the bee producing one kilogram of honey. Mathematicians have calculated that to place one kilogram of honey on our breakfast table, the bees have to carry almost 80,000 loads of nectar. In doing so, they would fly a combined total of 160,000 kilometres, or approximately four times around the world. It is quite an amazing achievement that we take for granted when we have a teaspoon or a tablespoon of honey on our toast every morning. Bees may visit as many as 300 flowers or florets to obtain one load of nectar, one load being about 50 grams. These little creatures set us a great example. They live in almost complete harmony within their hive, something that perhaps in our parliamentary hive we have not learnt to do. But we are getting towards that tonight as we discuss these Bills. The bees which are responsible for all this are remarkable little creatures. I just want to make one point with regard to a matter that is confronting our defence portfolio at the moment; that is, the establishment of in-flight refuelling, something the bees have not mastered. I mentioned that because quite often when we are in our gardens we notice a bee walking instead of flying. It usually is the case that the bee has run out of fuel. One of the ways we can help that bee is to get a little bit of honey, dissolve it in water and put it down in front of the bee. It can drink the honey, become revived and then away it will go to carry on with that marvellous job that the creator has designed it to do. I advise people to learn more about these creatures. There is a great film called the City of Bees that describes the marvellous life that these creatures live. There are lots of books, such as National Geographic, that tell us a lot about them. It has been good to be able to speak on behalf of the bees. I agree again with the proverb in the Book of Proverbs, `My son, eat thou honey for it is good'. I trust that the Australian people will take heed tonight of that exhortation. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(9.07) —It may seem unusual for a member representing a relatively urban seat to be speaking on the Honey Marketing Bill, the Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill, the Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill and the Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill. But I do so for a number of reasons. I have a genuine interest in the industry. I first became interested through my association with the former President of the Sutherland Shire, Kevin Skinner, who is a well-known apiarist. Following on from that, I had rather close contact with the Illawarra Beekeepers Association in my electorate of Hughes, which operates from premises in Sutherland. I take this opportunity to compliment the other speakers in this debate for their very genuine commitment to the honey industry. Of all the points that were made, the one I would choose to reiterate is the importance placed by, I think, all the speakers on the fact that honey is a natural product. Because of Australia's relative isolation we can produce pure honey and export it to the world with great benefit to our country. I compliment in particular my colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) who takes a great interest in the honey industry. The object of the Honey Marketing Bill is, as I hope honourable members would be aware, to reconstitute the Australian Honey Board with revised functions and powers, changed membership provisions and enhanced accountability to the industry which provides the Board's funds through levies and an export charge. Those things are the subject of the other Bills. I will be referring to them in a moment. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has recorded the fact that the changes are designed to bring the structure and charter of the Honey Board into line with the policy principles adopted by the Government for primary industry marketing authorities generally. Before I move to the substance of my remarks, I will deal in a little more detail with what is in the Bill. The proposed changes that we are debating tonight to the structure and charter of the Honey Board were decided upon after a detailed review of the Board's operations, and I think this is the most significant review since its establishment some 25 years ago during the time of the Menzies Government. In the course of this review extensive discussions took place with the honey industry, options about the future of the industry were discussed and consideration was given to abolishing the Board or leaving it unchanged. Of course, the end result is the package before us now. I stress that the restructured Board will be required to direct its attention and resources to promotional activity and to support the export marketing activities of the industry by assistance to honey exporters and by regulation of their operations to prevent undesirable trading conduct. The Board has quite extensive powers in regard to licences. It has power to issue export licences that will be subject to terms and conditions determined by the Board. In this regard the Board will retain its existing power to set minimum prices below which honey may not be exported. It will also retain the power to appoint agents in overseas countries and to require all exporters to make their transactions through these agents. It will also be open to the new Board, if it deems necessary, to operate other modes of control, such as export permits or time limits on forward contracts entered into by exporters. As I said, the honey levy and export charges legislation imposes compulsory levies on the industry and generates the funds to finance the Board. The amendments will improve that procedure. I speak with some conviction in this debate and I have already demonstrated my genuine interest in the honey industry based on my local experiences. Probably the only other honourable member with a predominantly urban electorate who speaks on primary industries legislation is the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), whose contributions on the egg industry have become a legend in this Parliament. I would not want to do anything that might rival or draw comparisons between me and the honourable member for Franklin-under any circumstances. In his contributions on the egg industry the honourable member has made a number of comments that have achieved him some notoriety in Parliament. I heard the contribution of the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) to this debate on the honey industry. He told us that ideas were buzzing around and he talked about sweet speeches and people speaking in honeyed tones. That is only half the story and, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) reminds me, I must not drone on. However, it is important that I make a number of significant points about the industry. I want to level a charge tonight and to really make some very important political points in this debate. The first is that the Opposition is guilty of the most monumental hypocrisy imaginable in that honourable members opposite have come into this chamber and uncritically supported a system of centralised marketing, compulsory levies and, indeed, one of the most centralised industry regulation schemes imaginable. In doing that tonight, in being so hypocritical, in their continued on the record statements opposing Government regulation, and in their tirades led by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) with his New Right affiliations, attacking this Government for having any involvement in regulatory schemes in the public interest and in the interests of certain industries, we hear honourable members opposite supporting proposals before the House not only tonight but also every time they come into this House to debate primary industry legislation, which was predominately set up under a Liberal Government in decades of post war, agrarian socialism. That is what it was. Liberal governments set up the Australian Wool Corporation, and they supported the establishment of the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, the Australian Dairy Corporation, the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation, the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation, the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, the Australian Honey Board-which we are debating at present-and, of course, the Australian Tobacco Board. Yet honourable members opposite would have us believe that they can talk with credibility about government involvement in regulation for the good of society and the public interest. We in the Australian Labor Party have an entirely different view to that of the Opposition. Our ideology does not entrap us or keep us locked into a blinkered view according to which all forms of Government regulation are bad because, of course, that is simply not the case. Nor do we hold a view or an ideology that states that all forms of Government regulation in its existing form are necessarily good. What we do say is that, in relation to each and every area of Government involvement, we should look critically to ascertain whether or not regulation is necessary and, if it is necessary, the best form of regulation. I level a charge at the Opposition of monumental hypocrisy. Fancy honourable members opposite coming in here and supporting this honey legislation. It runs completely contrary to everything that they purport to stand for as an Opposition. How dare they levy charges about this Government's being a socialist government or a government that burdens industry with unnecessary regulation. How dare they! How dare they levy such a charge at this Government. The scheme of agrarian socialism that they have put in place ever since the Second World War and before is the greatest and best example of compulsory levying, centralised marketing schemes and virtually total control by government of most of the industries to which we have referred. My reply to that is that this Government does not rule out a role, and a proper role, for statutory marketing authorities but we say, `Let us have an honest debate and let us never again hear from the National Party of Australia'-and there is not one single member of the National Party in the House at present-`or the Liberal Party of Australia any more of this phoney ideology or a call for total deregulation'. I refer now to another area of importance in this debate, and I am glad that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy is at the table because I know that he, probably more so than all other honourable members in this Parliament, has for a great many years had an affinity and a close working relationship with the Australian coal industry. I know that at present he is considering proposals for the future of that industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I ask the honourable member to come back to the terms of the Bills before the House. Mr TICKNER —I am glad to do that Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been talking about the role of statutory marketing authorities comparing them with the role provided under this Bill ever since I rose to my feet, and I make the point that, if it is good enough for wool, wheat, meat and livestock, dairy products, canned fruits, dried fruits, apples, wine, honey and tobacco, it is good enough for coal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to stay within the terms of the Bills. Mr TICKNER —I have finished my contribution. The point is made. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(9.19) —in reply-I thought I would buzz into the House tonight, wax eloquent, not drone on but speak in my usual honeyed tones about this industry. I thank particularly the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) for his comments, because he focused on a matter of principle as well as the facts in regard to this industry. There are always many double standards and much posturing in relation to people and parties, particularly opposition parties, where an ideological concept is involved. If one is to take an ideological stand on privatisation, pro or anti, regulation, pro or anti, one is stuck with these double standards. I am quite prepared, as the honourable member for Hughes said, to stand by the statutory marketing arrangements that we have in place. If I can see clear benefits for the producers concerned, I am also quite prepared to take the case to the industries concerned with statutory marketing and try to put in place arrangements that are not so regulated. Two or three statutory authorities perform minor functions which could be carried out in other ways. However, because producers are disparate-for instance, there have been about 2,200 to 2,500 honey producers since the 1970s-and because they are not strong sellers and sell on export markets, there is a need to set a minimum export price so that the gains can be maximised and we do not get picked off. I assume that was part of the matter that the honourable member for Hughes was going to get on to with respect to his concerns about the problems in the coal industry and the ways and means of securing greater government assistance for that industry so it does not face the same problems as small, disparate primary producers face. I could go on and say that the difference between the wheat industry, with its many producers, and the coal industry, in which there are only tens of quite competent exporters, is the reason that the Government takes different approaches. The Australian Wool Corporation and the Australian Wheat Board, which were mentioned by the honourable member, are most involved in marketing, selling and promoting the commodities for which they are responsible. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and the Australian Dairy Corporation very much facilitate and develop markets and they promote domestically. They are dealing with private sector firms, that is, the various dairying companies and the meat processing companies. To a large degree, the statutory authorities responsible for wine and pork are avenues through which the industries can address common problems in a concerted fashion. I do not want to take away from them the functions they perform but they are nowhere near the order of the Wheat Board or the Wool Corporation. The Honey Board simply needs this assistance. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) said that all the bees are boys. They are not-they are shes! That is a terrible thing to place upon bees; I mean, they do all the work in the field, and they are shes. The shes work like bees. The honourable member also spoke about Paterson's curse. That matter has been with us for a long time and the balance of the decision comes down to the fact that we would like to remove this exotic weed, even though we concede that it provides feed for bees when little other forage is available. The biological control mechanisms will affect the higher rainfall areas and it is to be hoped that, in some of the drier areas, particularly South Australia, the effect will not be so great. Although I may be wrong, it is my understanding that the injunction has not been lifted and the matter continues to run along. However, I am here to talk about bees. People say that it is a small industry. In 1985-86 there were 2,250 apiarists. The industry is worth about $25.5m and produces nearly 27,000 tonnes of honey. Australians consume nearly a kilogram of honey per head per year-0.89 kilograms- and over $16.5m worth is exported. The function of this organisation is to fix the minimum export price. Australia produces a very high quality honey and, if that was not the case, the usual situation would arise where the price on export markets would be frittered down. The organisation's other function is connected with promotion. It is very much a focus of the industry and very important to it and, as other speakers have pointed out, it is one to which I will be applying the general statutory marketing authority reform. It is a good industry and I am pleased that it is getting on with the job. Comments were made about a former member, Mr Yates. I am sure that if I say too much about him, I will receive a letter from him that I cannot interpret. There was another comment about self-government in the Australian Capital Territory and how that will affect this legislation. It is my understanding that it should be covered by any Bill establishing or enabling self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(9.30) —As the name of the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 implies, this is the second general Bill introduced so far this year to amend legislation dealing with criminal law matters. Of course, on top of this we have recently had introduced into the Parliament the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill dealing with technical and non-controversial amendments to no fewer than 31 separate Acts, including several criminal law statutes. We refer to that Bill as the `Slump' Bill. That, of course, has a certain connotation when one has to find one's way through 31 separate Acts. Fortunately the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has announced that this is the final `Slump' Bill. Regardless of the fact that the abolition of those `Slump' Bills will undoubtedly remove the continual arguments about whether the contents meet the technical requirements, the demise of such Bills will do nothing to stem the flow of omnibus Bills because, as the Attorney-General himself has stated, they will be replaced by portfolio related omnibus Bills. I suppose that in simple terms that means, so far as my portfolio responsibilities are concerned, more and more crimes legislation amendment Bills. I just say in regard to that development that I would hope that the Government will pick up the suggestion and comments made on `Slump' Bills by the Secretary to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which was basically to lay on the table the guidelines to which the Government will adhere in making decisions about what matters ought to be included in these omnibus Bills, which matters are defined as technical or drafting, so that we do not have the problem of finding in amongst the fine print the issues of great principle which can otherwise slip by and thereby deprive the Parliament of the opportunity to give greater consideration to matters of principle which may find themselves in those Bills. I join with the Senate's Scrutiny of Bills Committee in requesting that those guidelines be tabled so that we can have some adequate opportunity to examine them and comment on them. I hope that this will be done fairly quickly. I am pleased that the Attorney-General is in the chamber, as he always is in the management of Bills for which he is responsible. I say to the Attorney that I think that his Department needs to look very seriously at curbing the number of these crimes legislation amendment Bills so that we are not faced with a new Bill every time someone in the Department gets a bright idea of some loophole or need for tidying up is discovered. I wrote those words about four or five days ago and, believe it or not, since those words hit the paper we have had a phone call from the Attorney-General's office saying, `By the way, there will be some further amendments to be incorporated in the latest criminal law amendment Bill'. I suppose that just proves the point; one just cannot continually stack these things up, coming in willy-nilly just whenever it happens to suit. The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) moves amendments to the National Crime Authority Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 proposes amendments to both those Acts too. So we have a doubling up. I understand now that the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) and the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) will be given a cognate debate in the Senate. That debate apparently is also to take place in May and that surely indicates that there is no great urgency in the matter. If the thing had been dealt with differently perhaps it might have been dealt with as one piece of legislation rather than, as I said, a whole line up of Bills one on top of the other. The 1987 Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill went through this place and then into the Senate. We then had a great swag of amendments in the Senate-amendments on top of amendments on top of amendments. Quite frankly, I say to the Attorney that I appreciate that some situations are beyond human control in the Department, but sometimes I think the thing could be looked at and we could have a more regulated stream of legislation coming into the House. I turn now to some of the specific provisions in the Bill. Whilst I appreciate that it is practice in a second reading debate to cover the field and exercise a broad brush, it will be appreciated that in this situation we are dealing with a Bill relating to five separate Acts and so my comments need to be fairly specific. The amendments to the Customs Act are designed to empower the National Crime Authority (NCA) to use listening devices in its own right in the investigation of illegal drug offences, subject to obtaining a judicial warrant and otherwise complying with requirements similar to those applying to the Australian Federal Police. The majority of the eight references and general investigations of the National Crime Authority involve drug related offences. At present the NCA has to rely on the Australian Federal Police to obtain warrants for the use of listening devices in relation to those investigations. The National Crime Authority is currently empowered to obtain telephone tap warrants directly to assist with the investigation of both drug and non-drug related offences. The amendment we have before us this evening simply removes an anomaly and, in my view, is consistent with the Authority's powers to obtain directly warrants for telephone interceptions. Therefore, the Opposition does not oppose that measure. The amendments in respect of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act have a thrust which is to confer foreign law immunities on persons in Australia who give evidence for the purposes of criminal proceedings in a foreign country and persons who come to Australia from a foreign country to give evidence in local criminal proceedings. In both cases the witnesses will not be compelled to answer a question or produce a document or article where such a right of refusal is recognised by the law of the foreign country. Also, in the second case, the witness will not be subject to civil suit in Australia in relation to conduct preceding the person's arrival in this country. I think that those proposals reflect the principle that persons who give evidence in the situations mentioned do so voluntarily-in other words, they are not legally obliged to do so-and therefore they should be able to claim any exemptions available in the relevant jurisdiction so as not to put themselves in jeopardy. Another initiative in respect of this Act is that to extend the definition of `Australian forfeiture order' to include judicial declarations made under the Proceeds of Crime Act for the forfeiture of property in respect of an offence against Australian law. This will enable overseas enforcement of such forfeiture orders. Provision is also made for enforcement in Australia of a foreign declaration evidencing forfeiture of property under the law of a foreign country. Again, I think these proposals have merit and we do not oppose them. Under the National Crime Authority Act as presently worded, the NCA is limited in the type of information that it may disseminate to other Australian law enforcement agencies either to information relating to a relevant criminal activity or to information received in the course of any investigation conducted by it. The NCA regularly receives unsolicited information, that is information outside current inquiries, and, therefore, outside its legal powers to disseminate. The proposed amendments will enable the NCA to pass on that information in a proper and timely manner. This will extend to the transfer to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) of information relevant to security. In my view, it is proper that the NCA should be able to transfer all information in its possession to appropriate law enforcement and security authorities. This change should lead to improved relations with Australian police forces, which is good. In the past transfers of information have been regarded as a one-way street in the direction of the NCA. Therefore, I think the amendments will lead to the enhancement of Australia's total law enforcement effort. That is an objective on which we are at one with the Government. We are happy to give our support to that proposal. The proposal in relation to the National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Act is consequential upon an amendment in the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1). This is Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) amending Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1). Anyone who can follow that is a Philadelphia lawyer. That just reinforces the point that I made in my initial remarks. The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) enables the Chairman to be reappointed for an additional year from 1 July 1988. This amendment will ensure that the pension arrangements for the Chairman continue to the end of the period of reappointment. Obviously, that arrangement is appropriate; but, quite frankly, it should have been included in the earlier Bill. Someone omitted to cover that point when the earlier legislation was drafted. The Bill before us tonight also includes a new provision in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. The provision is inserted to facilitate the production in evidence of certified copies of interception warrants. It is designed to reduce the costs and inconvenience arising in connection with the secure transmission of original warrants. As I understand it, the amendment does not alter any rule of evidence applying to the proof of the issue of a warrant. Therefore, we do not have any objection to that seemingly sensible proposal. The last matters I want to comment on briefly are the additional amendments which have been notified to us in the last 24 hours or so. As I understand from the notes provided by the office of the Attorney-General, they will allow an officer of Telecom Australia to give to an officer of the National Crime Authority, in connection with the investigation by the Authority of a serious offence, lawfully obtained information other than foreign intelligence information obtained under a warrant issued to ASIO. The existing section 65 (a) currently provides for the communication of such information to the Australian Federal Police. Not having had the benefit of further oral briefings on that matter for which arrangements have been put in place, I simply say that that measure seems not unreasonable to me. Obviously, we will have a closer look at it when the Bill goes to the Senate. To that extent, in being cautious in dealing with those matters on behalf of the Opposition, I reserve our position on the amendment although I do not, at this stage, foresee any difficulties. I sent the Bills to a couple of people in the Law Council and the Law Institute of Victoria. I thank those people who will often have a look at a Bill for us. In some senses it is not a major matter, but from the Opposition's point of view it is useful to have people from outside this place look at legislation and give a second opinion. Those organisations do it not for the Opposition but for the Parliament. That is a good thing and I thank them for their assistance in this matter. That covers all the matters that I wish to cover. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(9.45) —I want to make a contribution on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) tonight because the Parliament and the people of Australia should understand how important the National Crime Authority (NCA) is to the Government's strategy to combat organised crime in Australia. That is important for a number of reasons. First, there is a justified public expectation that governments should be seen to be doing as much as is humanly possible to combat the menace of organised crime. It is also important to talk about the record of the National Crime Authority because it is true that the Authority posseses a number of powers beyond those normally possessed by other law enforcement agencies. The amendments before the House tonight expand those powers even further. The question we must ask ourselves before we vote on such a Bill is whether the record of the National Crime Authority justifies the trust that we repose in it. The evidence is that the Authority has performed remarkably well in the short time of its existence and that we have good reason to be proud of the initiatives that this Government took in 1984 to establish the National Crime Authority. It is, of course, the spearhead of the joint Commonwealth-State efforts to combat organised crime. The Authority investigates those criminal matters for which ordinary police methods are not likely to prove effective. As I have mentioned, the Authority has been given special coercive powers for those special investigations for which it is granted a reference by the relevant Commonwealth Minister or by a State Minister with the approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee. I have already indicated my belief that the National Crime Authority has made a significant contribution in the fight against organised crime. That confidence is borne out by the fact that the Inter-Governmental Committee on the National Crime Authority has also expressed its full and continuing support for the Authority. The Government has lifted the sunset clause on the National Crime Authority to enable it to continue its work-a decision which, I am pleased to say, was supported by all sides of the Parliament. As I say, there is that public expectation-in fact, it is a public demand-that members of parliament stand and be counted and that governments do all they possible can to combat the menace of organised crime. I thank the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), for his support. This Government's commitment is certainly shared by the Opposition, which has supported the Government's initiative in establishing the National Crime Authority and its subsequent work. This is particularly important in light of the fact that, as the shadow Attorney-General has highlighted, most of the National Crime Authority investigations involve major drug offences. A graphic example of the National Crime Authority's effectiveness is the conviction of major drug traffickers Bruce Cornwell and Barry Bull and a number of their associates. These two people became targets of the National Crime Authority following the unsuccessful use of ordinary police methods over a number of years to secure their arrest and trial. The full details of the Authority's investigations into the activities of these two men are in an important publication which was tabled in the House of Representatives in December last year. The `Operation Silo' case report is one which I would commend to anybody who has any doubt about the commitment of this Government to combating organised crime. The achievements of the National Crime Authority are very substantial, as they should be in light of the powers that we repose in it. Some 226 people have been charged with a total of 711 offences. Of the 78 cases completed to date, 72 have resulted in successful prosecutions and a further three convictions have been obtained against persons who face other prosecutions. Charges against another 148 persons are pending, the bulk of which are drug related. An example of the scope of these drug prosecutions is that, as a result of one referral to the National Crime Authority for investigation, 19 drug seizures have been made, netting a total of 2 kilograms of pure heroin, 1.8 kilograms of cannabis and 420 grams of cocaine. In the course of the 1986-87 financial year, the National Crime Authority seized a further 33 kilograms of heroin of varying purity. These seizures represent a significant contribution to the total amount of heroin seized by all Australian law enforcement agencies during the year. The National Crime Authority is clearly working. The Authority is also involved in the investigation of other major offences besides drug offences, including firearms, passport and tax, murder, kidnapping and grievous bodily harm. Charges have been preferred against principal targets or major figures under six Commonwealth references and three general investigations. As a result of the National Crime Authority's investigations, taxation assessments amounting to some $23m have been issued and the Australian Taxation Office has been advised of a further $17.7m in undisclosed or undeclared income. I have already said-and I repeat-that it is often the case that the National Crime Authority can catch the Mr Bigs where other law enforcement agencies have failed. Often the NCA's investigations into cases have been the first to result in serious charges being laid, despite individuals having been the subject of allegations involving criminal conduct for many years. I think this demonstrates the important contribution that is made by the NCA and I believe this justifies the special powers that have been given to it. I mention also the importance of the NCA and, of course, this Government cooperating with the States in the fight against organised crime. All States, including the Northern Territory, have passed underpinning legislation to give to the National Crime Authority powers to investigate State offences. The cooperation achieved through regular National Crime Authority Inter Governmental Committee meetings has resulted in a number of States granting references to the NCA under State laws. I believe that that record is a proud one and it justifies us giving powers to the National Crime Authority. I do, however, sound a minor note of warning and that is that I think that we, as a Parliament, have to be extremely vigilant that the National Crime Authority continues its record of success. We must have regard to the fact that there will eventually come a time when issues concerning the civil liberties of innocent people will become involved in the debate about organised crime. I think this will particularly arise in respect of the amendments to the National Crime Authority Act that have been proposed in the Bill. As I say, the Bill has my complete and full support. But I make the point that we have to make sure that the Authority continues to operate strictly within its charter. For that reason I welcome the existence of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. I believe that the Parliament has a role to play in purviewing the operation of the Authority. I make one other point. I understand from media reports that the Authority has been so successful in its work and its results have been so spectacular that the Joint Committee did not receive any submissions expressing concern from civil liberties organisations when it was reviewing the operations of the Authority. That seems to be incredibly important. There is, therefore, obviously a very great ground swell of support across the Australian community for the NCA. Of course, we as a parliament and the Government, which is directly charged with the responsibility of combating organised crime, have that great support of the Australian people for what we are doing. I wish to compliment, as I have done on other occasions, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for his commitment to the fight against organised crime. We hope, in the course of our period of Government, to nail a lot of Mr Bigs as a result of work performed by the National Crime Authority. I thank the House for the Opportunity to speak. I commend the Attorney-General and I also compliment the Opposition for its bipartisan support for this legislation. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.56) —I am glad that the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) has commended the Opposition because the question of organised crime within Australia is one of concern on a non-partisan basis. I note that the honourable member said that he was in favour of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, which is charged with the oversight, in a sense, of the work of the National Crime Authority (NCA). There are those who would suggest that this work is so important that it should not be looked at by a committee of the Parliament. But I would just point out to those who may have that point of view that there is no higher authority in the land than the Federal Parliament of Australia. The Federal Parliament is the final arbiter in terms of legislation that goes forward and the way in which that legislation will be implemented. I think it is important to underline this fact because organisations which are the subject of legislation of this nature should not be seen as having carte blanche in terms of the actions they can take. In the final analysis, the Federal Government will have to decide whether or not such an organisation as the NCA continues to exist and how it should operate. Having said that, I draw attention to some of the facts about the NCA. The Authority was established in 1984 and it now has a staff of 266 plus approximately 80 Commonwealth, State and Territory seconded police officers. In 1987-88 the NCA's budget was $16.595m. As we have just heard from the previous speaker, since its establishment in 1984 and up to 1 January this year 266 people have been charged with a total of 711 offences and, of 78 completed cases, 72 people have been convicted. That is a pretty fair record. This is a very high success rate which underlines the effectiveness so far of the work of the NCA. Leaving aside the question of bringing guilty people before the courts, although it cost $16.595m to run the Authority in this financial year, the amount of money recovered as a result of the activities of the NCA is considerably more than that and looks likely to escalate in the future. That having been said, it is interesting to note that the Authority drew attention in its 1985-86 annual report-which is a couple of years ago now-to the fact that it needed listening devices legislation. It drew attention to the same fact in its 1986-87 annual report. The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) brings before the Parliament some of the aspects of those requests for legislative approval. There are those who would say that the range of the amendments should be widened so that permission for the granting of telephone tapping would not only relate to illegal drug offences. I reject that. We need to move fairly carefully in this area. I do not believe that the case has been made successfully that those provisions need to be widened at this stage, but I do believe that the Bill is responsible in bringing forward the amendments before us. It is important, as has been demonstrated quite clearly, that the use of listening devices in the investigation of Commonwealth narcotics offences is absolutely imperative if the NCA is to successfully prosecute offences in that area. As the explanatory statement makes clear, it is anomalous that the NCA should be denied powers which are available to the Australian Federal Police. It is quite proper that the NCA get these powers. I hope, and I am quite sure that they will be, they will be exercised with due and proper constraint. The other amendments before the House relate to a number of other provisions. A particularly important one relates to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987. That Act provides the legislative basis for Australia to enter into and give effect to treaties and arrangements with other countries whereby it can request or grant assistance in criminal matters. Under that Act, assistance relates to both the investigation and prosecution of crime and includes the provision of evidence, documents and articles, location and identification of witnesses, execution of requests for search and seizure, and tracing, freezing and seizure of proceeds of crime. We all know that crime is now international in its ramifications and it is utterly imperative that the National Crime Authority have the means whereby it can effectively cooperate with organisations overseas to track down, locate and bring to justice criminals who may have fled from this country. There are a number of other amendments before us. An area which I think is particularly interesting is the fact that, as the NCA grows in its reputation, people throughout the community are placing more and more trust in it and are providing it with more and more information which does not necessarily relate to matters which are before the NCA for investigation at the moment. Naturally enough, one would expect and hope that such information which is relevant to police activities throughout the various States is made available to the relevant police forces to assist them in prosecutions as a result of their investigation of criminal activities. The fact that the amendment is before us is, in a very real sense, a justification of the NCA and its effectiveness because in the past, unfortunately-various examples come before us almost daily-police forces at the State level have not been considered by the general public as being utterly trustworthy in one way or another and, therefore, information has not been as readily forthcoming to them as one would like. More and more information is coming to the notice of and being provided to the NCA on a whole range of matters and now that information will be able to be passed on not only to the relevant police forces but also to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, commonly known as ASIO. That is utterly significant to Australia's security. The whole issue of the NCA has been one which has elicited a lot of discussion throughout the community. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority presently is looking at two aspects-an evaluation of the NCA, and witness protection. In the course of that investigation we have had the opportunity of listening to a range of witnesses and reading a wide range of submissions. I am glad to say that the content of those submissions has been of an almost uniformly high standard, although criticisms have been expressed in certain areas. That is only understandable and obviously those criticisms should be addressed properly. I guess the nub of the whole matter relates to whether or not the NCA is being seen by the community as doing a good job, as doing the task for which it was established-that is, to investigate and bring to justice those people who have so far escaped the investigative net of individual State police forces. On the evidence that is available to us so far, I do not think that it can be denied that the NCA has done a pretty good job in these areas. Obviously there is a whole lot more to be done. All honourable members, no matter which political party they represent, would be uniformly of the view that some of these heinous crimes which need to be tracked down, and which, if we are to have a healthy society, must be tracked down, will be tackled best, at least for the present, by the actions of the NCA. I am pleased that one of the amendments before us enables the present head of the NCA to continue in that job for another year. I think that Mr Justice Stewart has earned respect and admiration for the way in which he has dealt with the problems coming before his Authority and has established in the general community a reputation for fearless investigation. I have no doubt that whoever succeeds in his position will have a very fine example to follow. If we are to have a National Crime Authority which if worthy of the name and which is worthy of the continuing support of this Parliament, obviously those concerned with it at the highest echelons, the highest positions, must be above reproach in every sense and have unstinting support from both individual State legislators and Commonwealth legislators. I am happy, along with the Opposition, to support the thrust and the detail of the amendments. The NCA has and is doing a good job and it should be supported. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.08) —in reply-I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge the support for the National Crime Authority, which is very welcome. The Authority operates on a bipartisan basis and it is proving to be very successful. There are many problems in this country which have still to be identified. Other commissions in other States are assisting in that respect. As the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) said, the Parliament takes a keen interest-in fact, it has a responsibility to do so-in this matter because, as well as having a national basis, it has an international basis. Therefore, we have to have extradition treaties, mutual assistance treaties and a capacity to use modern technology. Also we have to bring witnesses from overseas. This has become quite an important operation. Money which is deposited in bank accounts elsewhere ought to be the subject of forfeiture. I can well appreciate the position. Criticisms have been made about the National Crime Authority. At times the media feel that the Authority might be deemed not to have been successful. I think that they are not looking at it in the wider context. The Authority's work is very efficient and it requires a new brand of investigator, a new type of intelligence and a new form of assessment. In that respect we have tried to help. For instance, the Cash Transaction Reports Bill relates to the money trail as well as tax evasion. The legislation pays recognition, in its own way, to the work done by Costigan, who started to identify these matters, and how we needed to have access to information overseas. All in all, it has been a very successful period. I understand that the National Crime Authority is about to meet the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority and I think that it should be able to justify its success. The shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), quite rightly, praised us to the point of asking why he was having to deal with so many Bills. I can understand his complaint. I think at times there is some merit in what he says, but in this case he might note that some of these amendments are relatively minor and they came at the request of the National Crime Authority as recently as three weeks ago. He should recognise that at times the Authority feels that something ought to be included in an Act, and we accept that, particularly when it comes to the Authority having direct access to information, as does the Australian Federal Police. We still have many problems relating to narcotics, with the mass of criminal transactions. Those of us who have some knowledge of what is pending will be interested in other reports that will be made later this year. I will be moving an amendment at the committee stage. It is a formal amendment and the shadow Attorney-General has indicated that it probably will not be opposed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.12) —by leave-I move: (1) After clause 25, page 11, insert the following new clause: Lawfully obtained information ``25a. Section 6e of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from paragraph (2) (a) `or' (last occurring); (b) by adding at the end of subsection (2) the following word and paragraph: `; or (c) in the case of the Authority-information communicated in accordance with section 65a.'.''. (2) After clause 26, page 11, insert the following new clause: Commission may communicate to Australian Federal Police or Authority ``27. Section 65a of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by inserting `or the Authority' after `by the Australian Federal Police'; (b) by inserting `or an officer of the Authority, as the case may be,' after `of the Australian Federal Police.'.''. The amendments are designed to allow Telecom Australia to pass to the National Crime Authority what is called `call charge information' which Telecom obtains in connection with the operation of the Telecom system. This information gives the number called, the calling number, time and duration. Telecom often needs to record this information for charging purposes. The Federal Police have access to this information. Members of the Federal Police who are on the staff of the National Crime Authority can get the information for the purposes of narcotic inquiries they are undertaking. Under the 1987 amendments the Federal Police will continue to have access to the information. Access to call charge information assists in the identification of criminal associates and patterns of activity. Information will be able to be passed only for purposes connected with investigations by the National Crime Authority of serious offences. I make the point that giving the National Crime Authority this facility brings it into parallel with the facility already available to the Federal Police. It is a very worthwhile amendment and I ask the Committee to support it. Mr MacKellar —Does that suggest that this information is available only following the issue of a warrant for telephone tapping? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Mr MacKellar —It is not just across the board? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it is a warrant. Mr MacKellar —It has to be a warrant? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-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 REITH(Flinders)(10.15) —William and Mary, Richard II, royal fish, bottomry, droits of admiralty, surrogate ships and laches all have something in common. They have in common the fact that, at one time or another, they have all been associated with the law of admiralty. I suppose that it would be fair to say that for many people the law of admiralty has been surrounded by mystery, and I must put myself in that category. Mr MacKellar —It is a sea of confusion. Mr REITH —I suppose that comment was inevitable, particularly at this hour. I came out of that category over Easter when, in moving house, I had the pleasure of reading the report by the Law Reform Commission on civil admiralty jurisdiction. Much of what I have to say about the Admiralty Bill 1988 relies very heavily on that Law Reform Commission's report. I start by acknowledging the excellent work done by all those associated with the Law Reform Commission in preparing the report. I particularly pay tribute to the commissioner in charge, Professor Crawford. The Commission received over 80 written submissions, held public meetings, and I think has done an excellent job in preparing its report on this important subject. It canvasses, I believe, all of the relevant issues and no doubt will be an invaluable source for many years to come, for anybody interested in admiralty law. It is probably the ultimate compliment to the Law Reform Commission that the Bill it proposed in fact becomes law. In this case the Bill before the Parliament is very nearly a total adoption by the Government of that Bill recommended by the Law Reform Commission. It is thus a mark of respect to the quality of the report that its recommendations should be so comprehensively adopted. I also pay tribute to Mr Justice Zelling, who chaired the Joint Committee of the Law Council of Australia and the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand. Its report was produced in 1982 and was the predecessor to and laid much of the groundwork for the Law Reform Commission report. In its opening paragraphs the Law Reform Commission report acknowledges the work of Mr Justice Zelling and his Committee on this subject. Under section 6 of the Law Reform Commission Act the Commission is required to review Commonwealth and Territory laws with a view to the systematic development and reform of the law, particularly in relation to the modernisation of the law by bringing it into accord with current conditions, the elimination of defects in the law, the simplification of the law, and the adoption of new or more effective methods for the administration of the law and the dispensation of justice. Applying that wide brief, I think it would be fair to say that few other areas of the law have required as much attention as has the law of admiralty. It is one of those areas where the jurisdiction has evolved through legislation over hundreds of years. We have seen the adoption of imperial legislation and a great volume of common law rulings on the subject of admiralty law. As a result, the field is very much a quiltwork of overlapping and confusing legislation, much of which was written before Federation when conditions were very different. It was, therefore, obviously important that admiralty law be reviewed. I pay tribute to the last coalition Government, because it was Senator Durack as Attorney-General who initiated the Law Reform Commission's report. I must say that we have had some Attorneys in the Commonwealth who have been very quick to blow their own trumpets and we have had others who have been great Attorneys but have not been as enthusiastic in promoting their own cause. Senator Durack was unquestionably a first class Attorney, and today we see the end result of something which he initiated. But it is also fair to say that this is probably a good example of good law-making by this Parliament. Admiralty law is a subject that one would not normally expect to fall into party political camps. We have seen the current Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) pick up this report and deal with it fairly expeditiously, so a bipartisan approach is adopted to it. That is a good thing. We often hear people say, `We hear those politicians carrying on at Question Time', and that is the impression they get. Here is an example where the Parliament, through its establishment of the Law Reform Commission, through the work of the Commission and now through the Parliament, has produced a very important piece of legislation. Australia is an island continent and greatly reliant on its maritime links. Whilst the tyranny of distance is receding with technological advances, Australia still relies very heavily on its sea communications, and transport by sea is an integral part of our economy. Unfortunately it could be said that much of our imports and exports is carried by foreign ships. Thus our interest is primarily as shippers rather than our having the interests of a maritime nation as such. In exercising the admiralty jurisdiction I think it is an important principle that we adopt a reasonable attitude as plaintiffs to the interests of those who trade with Australia and make their ships available for the transport of goods to and from Australia. To do otherwise would be simply to invite higher freight rates, which obviously would not be in our interests. The Admiralty Bill before us today in my view does adopt a reasonable attitude to the need for reform, and it has the support of the Opposition. The cornerstone of the scope and operation of admiralty jurisdiction was the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act of 1890, which as a paramount force statute effectively limited admiralty jurisdiction to matters within the admiralty jurisdiction in England in 1890. As a result of being caught in this legislative freeze, a time warp, the ability of courts to adapt to changing commercial and legal practices has been severely hamstrung and at times and at best haphazard. The net result of this has been that in almost all areas of law affecting admiralty, ranging from the scope of jurisdiction to the distribution of powers of the courts, uncertainty has been the order of the day. It is fair to say that it is a credit to the judicial system that it has been able to function at all, with the difficult and sometimes vague jurisdictional restrictions which it has faced. For instance, in addition to the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, Australian maritime law is arguably governed by statutes dating back to the period of Richard II, Edward II and Henry IV, not to mention the Admiralty Act of 1690. I am very pleased to see that we have grabbed your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, because admiralty law is a very interesting and important area of the law. In addition we have had some inconsistency and confusion with other parts of legislation such as the Navigation Act, the Shipping Registration Act and the Merchant Shipping Act. It is little wonder that courts and lawyers have been, in the words of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), all at sea when trying to adopt anything more than general guiding principles when dealing with jurisdictional issues and the rights of the parties involved. Mr Braithwaite —But the tide has turned. Mr REITH —While this situation may not be fatal for shippers and parties, it has led to inequalities of rights of parties. If the honourable member for Dawson can think of a more original interjection, I would be happy to respond and get it into Hansard. More importantly, it means that in the cut-throat world of international trade, where we must provide both a high standard of service and good quality to keep our market share, a modern admiralty legal system relevant to today's condition must be enacted. This will at the least put us in line with Singapore, the United Kingdom and others who are our trading competitors. This is necessary as at present Australia has one of the most antiquated systems of admiralty in the common law world. I will highlight this anomalous state of affairs with an example. At present the powers of arrest over a ship are so antiquated and vague that it can only pay the plaintiff to enforce his or her rights when that ship arrives in New Zealand or Singapore, both of which have modern admiralty laws, instead of seeking to enforce his or her rights in Australia. Clearly this is an area in need of reform and this reform should extend beyond clarification of existing rights, as that situation is so confused and unwieldy. I heartily concur with the Commission when it said: What is required is an admiralty jurisdiction that is both certain and accessible and relevant to Australia's interests in the 1980s, not the 1890s. I am confident that this Bill will make sure that Australia will have one of the most advanced admiralty laws in the common law area. It is necessary to have admiralty maintained as a separate jurisdiction because of the unique and distinct features involved in maritime law. Practically speaking, a separate jurisdiction will enable this area of law to develop with changes in technology and commercial practice. Furthermore, for admiralty courts to work effectively there must be some remedies and procedures not available nor appropriate in other courts, particularly in relation to actions in rem, which goes very much to the heart of the jurisdiction. In rem proceedings are of far more significant importance than actions in personam-that being the technical term to describe a court action made against a specific person or right affecting a particular person or group of people here applicable to maritime claims. This Bill has set a clear direction in laying down a comprehensive set of rights involving actions both in rem and personam. In relation to actions in rem the Commission correctly envisaged the requirement that such actions may be necessary to proceed on maritime liens. Instead, however, of exhaustively defining mainline liens, the Commission and this Government recognise the need for the operation and evolution of common law in this area. Hopefully, this balance of having clear and unequivocal law, with scope for the development of common law development, will enable this Bill to be both a clear signpost as to the rights of parties and to have a flexibility which will enable the law to develop simultaneously with dynamic changes that are occurring and will continue to occur in the maritime industry. The Bill also enables actions in rem to be commenced in relation to proprietary maritime claims on owners' liabilities, provided of course all the necessary nexus requirements are met. Recognising that often the party incurring the liability is not the owner but the charterer-that is a party who is in full control of the commercial operation and navigation of a ship, or in effect, the lessee-the Bill provides for an action in rem to be brought in respect of a demise charterer's liabilities. Australia will be on an equal footing with many of our trading partners who have long ago accepted such a right of action. As the Bill attempts to overhaul a complex area of law, it is thus of necessity both technical and fairly complex. There are some very significant changes, however, in the Bill. The Bill accurately reflects the Commission's desire to lay down a comprehensive definition of the expressions used in the Bill and in actions generally. What is also commendable is that for the first time there is a complete overhaul of maritime claims, both of the proprietary nature involving enforcing claims to title or possession of the ship in question, and of a general nature, which represent the bulk of maritime claims within the admiralty jurisdiction. This clause that redefines maritime claims will put Australia in line with our competitors' maritime laws. While this Bill does not create new causes of action or new kinds of maritime liens, it does streamline the existing procedures and simplify the law to those shippers, shipowners and members of the business community who have their goods freighted to and from Australia. A new feature of Australian law that is introduced in this Bill is the introduction of an action enabling the arrest of surrogate ships or sister ships in respect of general claims. This is an appropriate action provided there is sufficient provision for safeguards for owners' and operators' rights and strict nexus requirements, all of which are present. With the enactment of this provision Australia will be on common ground with many of our major trading partners. While this represents a substantial increase in the present jurisdiction, it is a necessary option for plaintiffs to have available to them. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(10.30) —As a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts and as chairman of the coalition back bench committee concerned with the environment, I have been taking a particular interest in the effect that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are having in depleting the ozone layer in the stratosphere. I do not intend to speak at any length on this most serious of threats that confront mankind living on our planet. It is too significant a subject for a mere mention in the adjournment debate and I am sure it will be, or should be, the subject of much thoughtful discussion in the Parliament in the future I rise tonight in response to a news release from the Aerosol Information Service, dated 11 April, which landed on my desk yesterday and which highlights the following points regarding the Australian aerosol industry's plans to phase out totally the use of chlorofluorocarbons in Australia. It is gratifying to note that according to the president of the Aerosol Association of Australia, Mr Lindsay Showyin, this voluntary decision has `meant Australia would continue to be a world leader in the replacement of chlorofluorocarbons in aerosols'. I was impressed to learn that the Australian industry has cut CFC use by 70 per cent since 1974 when environmental concerns were first theorised. I congratulate Mr Showyin and his association members for their action in this regard and for having voluntarily reduced usage of CFCs at a faster rate than called for under the United Nations environment program's Montreal protocol. For far too long we have heard too many uninformed criticisms of industrial enterprises in Australia concerning environmental matters. This is not to say that there is not ample reason for criticism as far as many uncaring industries are concerned when environmental aspects are discussed. Tonight I congratulate the Aerosol Association of Australia for its public spirit and concern in overcoming a threat to Australians, at least from Australian sources. We must, however, remain concerned about the use of CFCs in refrigerants and air-conditioners. I can only hope that we shall see a similar program from Australian and overseas manufacturers of these items. So I congratulate Mr Showyin and his colleagues. Perhaps in the last moment or two I should mention that he informs us that, at the present time, four out of five aerosol cans in Australia do not contain any CFCs. With the timing of his final withdrawal, he believes that in the next few months, after due consultation with government authorities, there will basically be no aerosols containing CFCs on sale in Australian supermarkets as a result of this decision. I have taken this opportunity-which is rarely done-to congratulate Australian manufacturers for having been aware, not only of the developments but also of environmental issues when they were at that stage not required to do so by law. I wish them well in the future. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.34) —Last Friday night marked the birth of a new local government authority in the State of Victoria. I speak of the City of Whittlesea. On Friday evening the Victorian Minister for Local Government, Mr Jim Simmonds, formally made the declaration by reading the proclamation of the Governor in Council declaring the then Shire of Whittlesea a city under the name of the City of Whittlesea, such proclamation being made on the grounds that the shire was substantially urban in nature and had a population of not less than 10,000 inhabitants-criteria which the shire had met for some time. For a number of reasons it was with great pleasure that I attended the function which celebrated the proclamation of the city. First of all, my paternal grandmother's family were early settlers in the southern part of the shire; in fact, the family name Mahoney is commemorated in the naming of Mahoneys Road, a major north-south thoroughfare which forms part of the southern boundary of the municipality. Secondly, my electorate of Scullin contains part of the new city, namely, the suburbs of Thomastown and Lalor, and part of Bundoora. The Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) is at the table and I acknowledge that he also represents part of the new city. He represents part of the suburb of Bundoora. I also acknowledge that my colleague the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) attended the function. He represents a large area of the shire, including the actual township of Whittlesea, and the growth areas of Epping and Mill Park. But of note is the fact that he also can lay claim to relatives who played a role in the early development of a portion of the southern end of the city, his great grandfather being a landowner and grazier in the area now known as Mill Park. A third reason for my personal pride in the conferring of city status upon the municipality arises from my past association with the shire as a councillor for seven years, including a term as Shire President during the year 1984-85. The Shire of Whittlesea was created in 1875 by the merger of the Whittlesea Roads Board and the Morang Riding of the shire of Darebin. Its 113-year history has seen much change and development. The shire has made a significant contribution to the development of the State of Victoria. There are theories that Batman may have actually struck his rather one-sided bargain within the shire's boundary. At this stage this is yet to be confirmed. In 1853, part of the northern area of the shire was named Whittlesea by Surveyor Mason who also named Epping which is the site of the municipal office. Both are named after English towns. The first form of local government in the area was the Epping Roads Board, formed in 1854. It is therefore of significance that road funding is still a very important topic, not only for this municipality but for all local government authorities in Australia. I take this opportunity to join members from both sides of this place in urging continued road funding for local authorities. For much of its early history Whittlesea was basically a rural shire with sheep grazing being the main activity in its early years. The municipality is the home of the Yan Yean Reservoir which provided the first reticulated water to metropolitan Melbourne on 31 December 1857. It is of interest to note that at this time much wheat was grown in the area and three mills operated along the Plenty River. The reservoir unfortunately strangled the river and the water-driven mills could not survive-such is the price of progress. In 1915 the shire enlarged its boundaries to practically those it now enjoys, with the mergers of the then Shires of Whittlesea and Epping. As I have indicated, until the end of the Second World War the shire remained mainly agricultural and developed into a well-established and renowned mixed farming district. Since 1945 the municipality's population has grown from under 4,000 to about 85,000. As was indicated last Friday, over the past 40 years the municipality has been involved in the major developments which have characterised Australia-immigration, industrialisation and urban development. Something like 37 per cent of the city's population was born overseas. A wide variety of industries have made their home in the area. In 1928 the building of the Fowlers Pottery provided the first factory employment. A large present day employer is Pacific Dunlop Tyres, with two factories. Mention should be made of the post-war development undertaken by a unique returned servicemen's housing cooperative at Lalor. One of the great challenges that will face the new city is further explosive urban growth because of the development of the Plenty corridor, as result of which it is expected that the population of the city will approach 200,000 by the turn of the century. For this to occur in an orderly fashion it will involve the close cooperation of all spheres of government. Both State and Federal government will have to play a role along with the city. The Shire of Whittlesea had a fine tradition of good management through the efforts of committed council members and dedicated officers and employees of the shire at all levels. I am sure that this fine tradition will be continued by those who serve the city of Whittlesea. I wish the council and citizens of the city all the best. May the city's first 113 years be as successful as that of the shire it replaces. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.39) —Tonight I want to draw attention to the plight of asthmatics, and the inconvenience that changes to the rules for supply of Ventolin broncho-dilators has caused them. Until 1 April, asthmatics could get a prescription from their doctor for the supply of one inhaler with a further facility for five repeats. On 1 April, all that changed. But did the Government warn the asthmatics? No, of course it did not. The Government did advise the pharmacists by means of the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list about a week before the changes were implemented. Pharmacists have been instructed to supply two Ventolin inhalers on each single prescription. Existing prescriptions with repeats are no longer permitted. While chemists may be aware of the changes, it is obvious that many doctors are not. Doctors are still giving their patients a prescription which includes repeats. One of my constituents took her prescription along to the chemist but was refused the inhaler she desperately needed. She had to go back to her doctor, inform him of the new regulations, and get another prescription. The changes of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) affect those asthmatics on stable or maintenance medication. Under the new rules, doctors can prescribe only two Ventolin bronchodilators on the one prescription. This means that all asthma sufferers must visit their doctor for a new prescription for every two puffers. In the past they needed to see the doctor only once for every six inhalers. This Government, with the enormous burden of its utterly discredited Medicare system, is forcing chronic asthmatics to increase their visits to the doctor by 300 per cent. Every visit costs the taxpayer $15, the rebate on a standard visit, whatever the doctor may charge. Now, thanks to the Minister's new ruling, asthmatics will be costing the taxpayer $45 instead of $15-three times the amount! Until 1 April, each inhaler was entered on the patient's pharmaceutical claims card. Now, one entry will be made for every two inhalers. This means that patients will now take twice as long to fill their quota of 25 prescriptions before they are free of charge. Of course, asthma sufferers can buy their Ventolin bronchodilators over the counter, but for chronic sufferers this becomes a major expense at around $11 a time. The average sufferer uses one bronchodilator a week. About one in 10 Australian adults, and 25 per cent of young children between four and 10 years suffer from asthma. In my own State of Victoria, the Asthma Foundation puts the figure of adult asthmatics at approximately half a million. All these people rely on some form of bronchodilator for relief and, in acute cases, for their survival. Asthma is the primary cause of death of five Victorians every week and a contributory factor in the death of many more. It is responsible for more admissions of young children to public hospitals throughout Victoria than any other illness. Thousands more are treated as outpatients during crisis attacks. Asthma is the cause of more absenteeism from school than any other condition. It affects one child in five throughout Victoria. It places a tremendous financial, mental and physical burden on thousands of families. Occupational asthma is Australia's fastest growing industrial chest condition. These facts illustrate the seriousness of the problem for an increasing number of Australians. I am not suggesting that the Government give a handout to all-or any-sufferers. I am pointing out the way in which this Labor Government is disadvantaging a large section of our community yet again by forcing those who need frequent medication back to their doctors. This places a further burden on the ill-conceived, incompetent Medicare system, and increases the burden on the taxpayer. If the Minister thought he was cost cutting by changing the number of inhalers obtainable on one prescription, his economics are hopeless. But, he forces patients back to the doctor for a prescription for every two inhalers-two more visits, treble the cost. With about two million Australians suffering from asthma, this is not a trifling matter. It is another example of the way this Government's Medicare scheme is falling around the Minister's ears. As with all this Government's programs, it is the taxpayer who is expected to cough up. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(10.44) —I want to refer tonight to a change that occurred in Denmark recently. As many honourable members and many people in my electorate would know, there has been a very important change in the law in Denmark which has, in fact, changed the face of Denmark for the time being. Many people in my electorate are concerned with issues of peace and disarmament around the world. They will have noticed recent reports of an attempt in the Danish Parliament to pass a law barring all warships with nuclear weapons from entering Danish ports in peacetime. I first noted this situation in a tiny article in the Australian newspaper on 14 April. As the Secretary of a group in this Parliament called Australian Parliamentarians for a Nuclear Free Australia, I was very pleased to note that article. Those people in my electorate and elsewhere and some honourable members will be delighted to know that the majority of members in the Danish Parliament have succeeded in passing just such a law. The motion was proposed by the opposition Social Democrats and it called on the Government to remind foreign warships not to carry nuclear arms in Danish waters. It was passed by 75 votes to 58. As a consequence of the Government's defeat on this issue, the Danish Prime Minister, Mr Schlueter, has called a snap general election to be held on 10 May. A number of Denmark's major allies have condemned the motion and nuclear-free Norway, Denmark's neighbour, has also expressed its concern over the change. While the comparison with New Zealand's nuclear-free policy is being drawn by some, Denmark's proposed ban does not seek guarantees from allied warships. In its previous policy, Denmark simply assumed that visiting naval vessels would respect Danish policy and the mere fact that it has proceeded beyond this position-which it has maintained since 1957-is what is worrying the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and others. The leader of the Social Democratic Party, Mr Svend Auken, has clearly indicated that his Party is opposed to nuclear weapons globally and that the resolution on visiting warships is meant only as a signal of that position. He has also indicated that his Party supports NATO. It is quite wrong, therefore, for the United States Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, to lecture the Danish people and to speak as if the US is being asked to alter its policy of neither confirming or denying the presence of nuclear weapons aboard its ships when they enter Danish harbours. Although the resolution may owe something to the example provided by New Zealand-and I certainly hope that it does-it does not go as far, and it certainly does not represent a barrier to NATO allies' accessing the Baltic Sea. It is wrong, too, for the Australian in today's editorial to intimate that the Danish resolution equates a demand for the declaration of the nuclear-free status or otherwise of allied vessels. Similarly, the Australian editorial has misrepresented the position of the Social Democratic Party in regard to NATO when it states: If Denmark were to leave NATO, Western defences would be weakened. So too would the West's bargaining position in disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union. As I said previously, the Leader of the Social Democratic Party has already indicated his Party's strong support for NATO, so it is wrong for the Australian to suggest that Denmark would not be a member of NATO if the Social Democratic Party won the election. Despite the strong expressions of disagreement from Britain, America and NATO spokespeople, I very much hope that the Danish people show their strength and support their important and long-standing anti-nuclear position by electing on 10 May a social democrat government or at least a coalition of parties the members of which took a stand on this issue. As the Australian has stated, much more than Denmark's internal politics depends on the result of this election. In fact, to my mind world peace depends on the election. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.48) —I rise in this adjournment debate to effectively place my parliamentary career on the line. I want to make the ultimate gesture in bipartisanship: I want to propose through the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), who is at the table, what is effectively a technique for the Treasurer (Mr Keating) both to make more money in tax take and to gain friends in my electorate. That is a gesture that is bolder than I would normally make. In fact, it is the sort of gesture that oppositions would normally keep to themselves until they were in government but, if I were to wait even 12 months, the industry most affected by what I am about to say might well no longer exist. Therefore, in desperation I am forced to my feet to bring to the Treasurer's attention something that I hope he will heed in the interests of both balancing his Budget and saving an industry that I represent. While I am on my feet I want to draw the attention of the House to the simple fact that, while we are here in relative comfort, the grapegrowers of the Riverland, the Clare Valley and the Barossa Valley of South Australia are slaving away, bringing to an end the 1988 vintage. For most growers, what they harvest goes into wine, dried fruit and spirits. I want to bring to the attention of the Treasurer the spirit side of the industry, particularly the brandy industry. Since 1976, brandy sales in Australia have fallen by nearly 50 per cent-down from 2.6m litres to 1.9m litres. As a result, excise generated by the Government fell from $42.7m in 1976 to $24.8m in 1986, despite a rise in the excise from $10.21 per litre to $19.30 per litre over the same period. Of course, that excise was imposed by the Government, yet despite that increase in excise, revenue has fallen because the brandy industry has been decimated. Boldly put, my proposal to the Treasurer is that, if he were prepared in the May statement or in the August Budget to lower the excise on brandy, the industry would be revitalised. He has all but killed the goose and the golden eggs have almost disappeared. If he were prepared to lower the excise, more money would be available through the excise, which would flow into the Government coffers. It is such a simple equation that I wonder why Treasury has not woken up to it and I hesitate to bring it to Treasury's attention, but I fear that the industry can wait no longer. Not only has revenue to the Government fallen, but in the meantime the imports of foreign slush that passes for brandy have increased from 201 kilolitres in 1966 to 938 kilolitres in 1986. In contrast, exports of fine Australian brandy have fallen over that period from 305 kilolitres to 40 kilolitres. Heavens, the House could consume that! I bring this to the attention of the Minister at the table and I know, through his reliable offices, to the Treasurer. The brandy industry is like an enormous sponge. In years of excess production, the brandy industry soaks up some of that excess. In years of shortfall, it makes that excess available. It is a great way to offer some sort of relief to the beleaguered bulk grape growers, and the Deputy Government Whip, the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb), would be aware of the quandary they face. By further revitalising the brandy industry, those growers can be relieved. I invite the Treasurer to take this simple step of yielding some of the excise he currently collects from the brandy industry in order to revitalise the industry and, in the long term, produce more excise and another viable Australian industry. Mr KERR(Denison)(10.54) —The call for academic freedom falls easily from our lips, and in this country those of us who have had the privilege of academic positions guard jealously the right to speak out boldly. In other countries that is a difficult and sometimes treacherous role. Tonight I raise the issue of Raymond Suttner, a South African academic, formerly a senior lecturer in law at the University of the Witwaterrand. He is a man of whom it was said by Professor Marinus Wiechers: Mr Suttner is very highly regarded by his academic colleagues and members of the legal profession and his articles and writings are of a high quality; he is an extremely careful legal scientist who leaves no stone unturned in realising the scope and depth of his research. In his approach to the subject . . . he avoids cheap controversy in order to get to the core of the matter. In many countries, that kind of praise would see such a person elevated in academic circles. In South Africa, it sees Raymond Suttner in gaol as a result of the emergency regulations that have been imposed since June 1986 and under which South African police have detained over 25,000 people. Approximately 40 per cent of those detainees have been children under the age of 18 years. In South African prisons, black and white detainees are held separately. Since the release of many of Suttner's fellow detainees, particularly white detainees, he has been the only white detainee held at Diepkloof Prison in Johannesburg. The present emergency regulations make it an offence in South Africa to describe the conditions of any detainees or to call for their release. As a person who has held the position of lecturer in law and Dean of the University of Papua New Guinea, I have a particular emotional response to the circumstances in which Raymond Suttner finds himself. He is an academic of high repute. His writings include significant professional contributions to the legal science of South Africa. He has held positions in a number of universities, and the circumstance in which he finds himself, having been detained for, amongst other things, advocating the end of apartheid, is an offence against our concept of academic freedom and ordinary civil rights and liberties. Raymond Suttner was detained following the writing of his most popular and major work Thirty Years of the Freedom Charter, which was published by Raven Press in 1986, and which chronicles the movement against apartheid in South Africa. On 12 June 1986 when he was about to fly to Harare to deliver two lectures on popular justice and the freedom charter to the faculty of law of the University of Zimbabwe he was arrested at the airport and was held under the regulations of the new state of emergency declared on that day. He has been in detention ever since. For the first 2 1/2 months he was held in solitary confinement, and for approximately 9 1/2 months thereafter up to four other detainees were held with him. Since 11 June 1987, he has been the only white male detainee in South Africa and has been held in isolation. He is allowed visits only from his sister and brother once every fortnight for half an hour. No friends are allowed and very little non-family correspondence reaches him. In June 1987, Raymond Suttner launched a court application for his release, arguing that the reasons for his detention could not remain perpetually valid and that he should be released. Those reasons related to his United Democratic Front activities and his advocacy of the freedom charter. His application was rejected by the Supreme Court in July 1987. Raymond Suttner continues to be detained because of his contributions to the struggle to end apartheid. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.58) —As we approach Anzac Day, I make mention of the significance of the welcome home parade late last year for the Vietnam veterans. It was very much a delayed welcome home for the people who had carried on a proud tradition of Australians in wars since the turn of the century. I make particular mention of the fact that only two welcome home parades were held outside Sydney and one was in my home city of Mackay. I like to think that it reflected the feeling of all Australians, given that the parade was witnessed by probably twice as many people as view an Anzac Day march. As we approach Anzac Day on Monday next I hope that a central feature of the parades will be further recognition of the Vietnam veterans and of the work they do as a special group and within the Returned Services League of Australia (RSL). The RSL has always seen to the benefits of returned soldiers and the organisation has a special role to play, particularly with these veterans. The Vietnam veterans carried on a tradition that started at the end of the World War I, when the then President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, at a conference to establish the League of Nations, asked Billy Hughes, with some disdain, how many people he represented. Billy Hughes said he represented 60,000 who died on the fields of World War I. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 26 April 1988, at 2 p.m, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Prosser to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935. Mrs Sullivan to move- That this House- (1) deplores the delays in the processing of applications for immigration and change of status; (2) criticises the uncertainty of business, independent and refugee immigration programs; and (3) calls on the government to upgrade and streamline the administration of immigration policy. Mr Courtice to move- That this House- (1) recognises the important role that the Government must play in natural disaster relief arrangements; and (2) calls on all States to participate actively in the arrangements. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 21 April 1988. Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to the extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Industry Research and Development Board-Report for 1986-87.