Monday, 23 May 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death on Friday, 20 May of Mr Clement Frank Ridley, a former senator. Mr Ridley represented the State of South Australia from 1959 to 1971. As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Ridley, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Madam SPEAKER —I thank the House. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, will be absent from Question Time today on Government business. Questions which would normally be addressed to Mr Keating should be directed to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Peter Morris. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to widespread news reports about the question of Australian troops possibly being committed to Vanuatu. I ask the honourable gentleman to inform the House of the current position and whether those reports are accurate. Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Perhaps I should indicate that I have discussed the situation with the Leader of the Opposition. He indicated to me that he would be asking this question and I thank him for it. I take this opportunity of informing the House that no decision has been made by the Government to send Australian military personnel to Vanuatu. I talked at length to Father Lini last Thursday night and he expressed concern to me about a possible deterioration in the law and order situation in Vanuatu. He asked whether Australia would be prepared to provide assistance in the event of the Vanuatu authorities being unable to contain the situation. I told Father Lini that if such a situation arose in Vanuatu, in particular one which endangered the safety and lives of Australian citizens, the Australian Government would provide assistance. In this case, the form and the nature of such assistance would require further discussion and consultation between us. Following this conversation, contingency steps were taken, which was, of course, only sensible and prudent in the circumstances, but these stopped short of putting Australian forces on alert. These steps included extending the training exercises of HMAS Jervis Bay and Stalwart off north Queensland in order to be better prepared should it become necessary to assist in the evacuation of Australian citizens. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade also issued advice to Australian citizens that all but essential travel to Vanuatu should be deferred at this time. Father Lini has also been in contact with the governments of Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. I have consulted with both these governments. I have indicated to Prime Minister Wingti that, in the event of a law and order breakdown in Vanuatu and a positive decision by Papua New Guinea to provide police personnel, Australia would be prepared to provide transport assistance to Papua New Guinea. Throughout the events of the past week or so in Vanuatu the Government has acted at all times with a concern, which I am sure would be shared by all honourable members, to respond in a proper manner to requests for assistance from a friendly neighbouring and democratically elected government and, of course, at the same time, to take appropriate account of the interests of Australian citizens. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, I crave your indulgence to make a short statement. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —Naturally without giving any blanket commitments about the future, I indicate to the House that the Opposition supports thus far the action taken by the Government in relation to Vanuatu. Mr FREE —Can the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether local government bodies throughout the country support the referendum proposal to give constitutional recognition to local government? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. I am delighted to be able to inform the House that local government bodies throughout Australia strongly support the referendum proposal. I have before me a Press release by the President of the Australian Local Government Association, which was issued today. It says: ``The Parliamentary debate last week was peppered with quite extraordinary claims as to the implications of Constitutional recognition. Pictures were painted of hundreds of mayors and shire presidents calling for a Local Government version of the Premiers' Conference, of Local Government demanding Constitutional guarantees on revenue sharing and road funding, and of a secret agenda of the Labor Government to impose a network of regional governments across Australia.'' Cr Kyle stated that these claims are simply untrue. ``They are red herrings aimed at diverting voters' attention from the real issue-- Mr Porter —Because you told him so. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have not had a conversation with him. That just shows the paranoia of honourable members opposite. The Press release goes on to make the following point: There is overwhelming Local Government support for the Constitutional recognition of Local Government in the form proposed in the Bill. I can understand the concern of local government. Let me make the position very clear. Not only did Councillor Kyle say that but also the spokesman for the Municipal Association of Tasmania, Mr Len Armsby, strongly criticised the Opposition for opposing the referendum. That might explain why the honourable members for Lyons and Franklin took the stand that they did. The interesting thing about this debate relating to referendums is that the Leader of the Opposition took part in it after about 11 hours of the debate had ensued. In fact, he came in in the last hour. One wonders who is leading the Opposition in regard to the recognition of local government. Mr Tuckey —Drive time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It might have been drive time but the proceedings were not being broadcast when he spoke. I make the point also that the honourable member himself, as the honourable member for Bennelong, wrote me a letter saying how strongly he supported the local government position. But as Leader of the Opposition, he is opposing it. Apparently he is not the only member on the other side of the House who has two different points of view, depending on whether he is speaking as the local member or in some other capacity. I would be interested to know whether the Leader of the Opposition is now going to write to the 838 local government organisations in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition or as the honourable member for Bennelong. He would have to write two separate letters to do both. I want to make the point very clear that it followed from the debate in respect of referendums that the real Leader of the Opposition was the Leader of the National Party of Australia. He is dragging the Leader of the Opposition along with him. The National Party, on the basis that it has set the agenda, is going to indicate clearly to the Liberals opposite what is to happen in the referendums. Luckily for the people of Australia, the issues are very clear. They will judge them on their merits. They will support them because they give more power to the people and no additional power to governments. That is the real issue, and those opposite hate to admit it. It is on that basis that I am delighted to receive the support from local government. We acted in accordance with its representations. We had a member of the Local Government Association on one of the advisory committees and accordingly gave local government every opportunity to put forward a good case, which was accepted by the Constitutional Commission. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to the current investigations by the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) in relation to the sale of large portions of shares in the Bell Group of companies. Would the Attorney-General be prepared, in the interests of the proper operation of the NCSC and a full disclosure of the relevant facts, to make a simple request to the Western Australian Government that it waive crown immunity in relation to itself in respect of the Bell Group of companies and also authorise the waiving by the Western Australian Government Insurance Commission of that same crown immunity? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —At the outset, the honourable gentleman presupposes that immunity has been claimed. I do not know that that is the case. Of course, the difficulties concerning the whole administration of the NCSC relate to the fact that there is no ministerial responsibility or accountability. I think the Leader of the Opposition, in his heart of hearts, agrees with me on that. A series of questions has been asked about the position, and I have always had to say that I have to wait for advice from the NCSC. I can tell the House that apparently as a result of questions asked last week, and my own inquiries, I was delighted to receive some information by phone this morning from the NCSC. A private hearing by the NCSC has commenced today. It telephoned to advise us of that, and we appreciate its courtesy. It is the first time we have ever had any information. The information is still limited. The NCSC has told us that it will be a private hearing, but I think we can read into that that it expects all parties to participate. Ms McHUGH —Can the Minister for Housing and Aged Care explain what the Government is doing to ensure that Australia will be able to cope with the needs of our rapidly ageing population into the 1990s? Mr STAPLES —As Chair of the Caucus committee in this area, the honourable member for Phillip is very much involved in these sorts of problems. In the next 25 years Australia's population will increase by about 40 per cent but the population of people aged over 85 years will go up by 133 per cent, or treble the rate of normal population growth. That is an important factor for all of us to consider. When this Government came into office five years ago, older people had little choice. There was basically their own home or a nursing home. Since 1983, when there were about 73,000 nursing home beds in Australia and only about 22,000 hostel beds, this Government has contributed significantly by providing both more nursing home beds and an increased number of hostel beds, from 22,000 to approximately 38,000. So by 1990, after only seven years in government, this Government will have effectively doubled the number of hostel beds for elderly people. Today I was able to announce a further $81m in capital works which will ensure another 2,589 hostel beds and 440 nursing home beds. When the Australian Labor Party came to government it did have an aged care policy, and that policy is being faithfully implemented. By comparison, the Opposition does not have an aged care policy now, and that is no surprise because the present Opposition parties did not have one when they were in government. The figures I have just given are ample evidence of that. The Labor Government's aged care reforms will give security and peace of mind to our older Australians. Our eight-stage residential care program, going through to 1992, will ensure that funding and resources are provided according to the needs of old people in hostels and nursing homes. As evidence of that, by 1991 people will not have to pay the extra thousands of dollars that many of them now have to pay in fees. All they will have to pay for all their nursing needs is the standard minimum pension contribution. There has been considerable criticism of this Government's policy in the media and from those opposite about the latest nursing home funding arrangements. I would like to quote to the House a couple of supporting comments from none other than the Australian Pensioners Federation, which also speaks on behalf of many other groups such as the Combined Pensioners Association of New South Wales, the Accommodation Rights Service and the Australian Consumers Association. The Australian Pensioners Federation has said that in its view the package is in the best interests of the residents of nursing homes, that it does not accept the criticisms of the nursing home industry groups, and particularly abhors the use of scare tactics to influence the view of residents, their relatives and their friends. Other groups support the Government's approach. The South Australian Council of Social Service expresses its support for the nursing home funding package that the Government has just announced, which it says will maximise national equity and minimise the adjustment problems. The Australian Council on the Ageing is very supportive of the Commonwealth's approach. It believes the new initiatives in nursing home care are both correct and necessary. And on and on it goes. We have been dealing with a very big problem, as the figures indicate. We have to look at the standards of care in hostels and nursing homes, and we have done that. We are also looking at the problems of ethnic groups and Aborigines. We have to give greater choice to people, to fill the gaps between nursing homes and their homes and to provide services through the home and community care program. There have been big increases there. As I have said, there has been a doubling in hostels. This Government has been the first to recognise, in a fitting way, in services, the contribution that older Australians have made to this country. We are giving them the security and the peace of mind that they will be looked after then they need to be looked after, that they will be able to afford it and that they are getting the best that this country can provide. Opposition members talk a lot and they scare a lot. By staff comparison, the plans and programs-- Mr Tim Fischer —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 12 February 1986 you, when in the chair, drew the answer of the Prime Minister of the day to a close because of its length. I submit that this answer has gone beyond the length of that answer. I ask you to apply the same rule on this occasion. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will draw his answer to a close. Mr STAPLES —The aged people of Australia, I am sure, are interested in what is being said here, as well as other people. The plans and programs of this Government in providing for the needs of older Australians are in place, and being developed are the plans, organisation and commitment for providing for our rapidly ageing population into the 1990s and the twenty-first century. This Government is committed-- Mr Aldred —Madam Speaker, I support the point of order raised previously by the honourable member for Farrer. The Minister, in opposition to the declaration you have just made, is continuing. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has no authority to make the Minister stop answering. I have asked the Minister to draw his answer to a close. I suggest that he take the Chair's advice. Mr STAPLES —This Government is committed to a fair deal for our older Australians. Our aged care program, our record in government and our commitment to future growth are clear evidence of social justice and a fair deal for older Australians. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Minister for Administrative Services to his comments reported on 4 March 1988 concerning the capital needs of several government businesses. He said: Those needs can be met by . . . if necessary, moderate injections from the Budget. The Budget can stand it. I also refer the Minister to a speech by Senator Walsh yesterday which included the following statements: Nor do I believe that many people see intrinsic merit in using scarce resources (taxpayers' dollars) to do something in the public sector which would otherwise be done by the private sector. Does the Minister, in the words of Senator Walsh, see intrinsic merit in using scarce resources-that is, taxpayers' dollars-to do something in the public sector which would otherwise be done in the private sector? Mr WEST —Unlike members opposite, I am a member of and a Minister in a democratic party and democratic government. In the discussion within our Party in the lead-up to our National Conference, within the Conference and beyond the Conference, I certainly will continue to put the view that the capital requirements of our Government business enterprises can be met from a mixture of internal cash flow, borrowing and moderate government equity injections. Mr SIMMONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Given that the Government has been active in attempts to free up the international trading environment for agricultural exports, can he inform the House what the Government is doing within Australia to encourage innovation in the export marketing of agricultural products? Mr KERIN —As the honourable member pointed out in his question, since the Government came to power we have put a lot of work and attention into freeing up agricultural trade and freeing up trade in basic commodities. My colleague the Minister for Trade Negotiations is assiduous in the pursuit of freer world trade. Despite the excellent actions of the Minister, we understand the reality of dealing in the international world. There is a need to take a lot of action at home. The Government's moves with respect to statutory marketing authorities-making them more commercial, dynamic, flexible and effective as marketers-is one part of that program. Another part is to try to enhance the innovative capacities of agriculture because often we see innovations that do not come to commercial reality. That was why in 1986, in the economic and rural policy paper, we set up this innovative agricultural marketing program. This scheme is administered by Austrade and my Department, but basically by Austrade under Senator Button. It involves the expenditure of $25m over five years. So far there have been 541 applications. Although there is a lot of talk about high technology these days, there is a lot of innovation, a lot of good thoughts and ideas out there that need some spelling out. There have been many successful applications and the benefits are starting to flow through. Producers, processors and marketers are involved in making applications under the scheme. Shortly, I hope to make an announcement of another 23 projects involving about $1.4m. Honourable members opposite might be interested in the range of industries that are covered. I am certain that honourable members on my side of the House are. Some of the more interesting projects before us at present relate to flat or native oysters, cheap cheese, low alcohol wine, seedless pearls and sea freighted tomatoes. All of these projects have the potential to add significantly to the value of Australia's rural exports. Funding for the flat oyster project, for example, is being provided to a Victorian company which proposes to develop a new and significant oyster industry in Port Phillip Bay. Significant funding is also being provided to Berrivale orchards for the introduction of innovative technology which will enhance their product lines. I could go on. I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. The innovative agricultural marketing program is further evidence of what we are doing for rural industries at home. Mr FIFE —My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services, as the Minister responsible for the sale of government assets. I refer him to his speech to the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) forum last weekend, in which he said: It seems to me as soon as one successfully rebuts one line of argument for privatisation, the proponents surface with another. It's like chopping off the head of a hydra, the mythical Greek Monster . . . we have won the debate and I do not accept that this issue should be kept alive beyond the Conference. Will the Minister confirm that he and his left wing colleagues have won the debate on privatisation within the ALP and, therefore, the privatisation issue is now dead? Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member that his question does not come within the Minister's portfolio responsibilities. Mr Fife —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I draw your attention to the first part of my question. I asked the Minister the question as the Minister responsible for the sale of government assets. The question is relevant to his portfolio. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is responsible for the sale of government assets; he is not responsible in his portfolio for what he said at the ALP conference. If the Minister chooses to answer, he may do so. Mr WEST —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not wish to add at length to my previous answer, except to say that I believe that the arguments I have put within the confines of the Party have been persuasive. The consideration of those arguments is for the Federal Conference of our Party. Mr MARTIN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for the Arts and Territories, is of vital concern to the people of Macarthur. Can the Minister provide further details on the reported apprehension of Indonesian fishermen for destroying wildlife at Ashmore Reef? Mr PUNCH —I thank the honourable member for Macarthur for his question. Indonesian traditional fishermen have been able, since a memorandum of understanding was signed with Indonesia in 1974, to visit the Ashmore and Cartier islands over those years for fishing purposes. Unfortunately, over those years they have also caused some considerable environmental damage to the bird life which abounds at Ashmore Reef. Of course, the Ashmore Reef nature reserve was declared in 1983. The Commonwealth Government has maintained a presence at the Ashmore Reef since October 1985 to exercise our national sovereignty over these parts. The initial presence, of course, was a camp on one of the islands. Since April 1986 our Department has stationed a charter vessel, with no enforcement role, at Ashmore Reef during the peak fishing season between March and November to monitor the activities of those fishermen. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service wardens visit the reef on Navy patrol boats. Periodic aerial surveillance is commissioned by the National Parks and Wildlife Service under the Coastwatch network. Unfortunately, in the last couple of weeks there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Indonesian fishing vessels apprehended off the north-west coast of Australia. Information received by the National Parks and Wildlife Service last Friday, 20 May, indicated that the crew of an Indonesian fishing vessel, the Karya Sama, had illegally taken from the nature reserve some 3,000 to 4,000 eggs and 120 birds. Opposition members interjecting- Mr PUNCH —This is an important issue. Even if honourable members opposite are not concerned, we are. Through the Coastal Protection Unit arrangements were made through the Navy to apprehend the offenders and they are to be taken to Darwin, with the likely arrival time being tomorrow afternoon, when formal charges will be laid. Of course, this action follows a number of similar offences. On one occasion it is thought that some 3,000 Sooty and Noddy terns were killed or poached. The possibility of the involvement of this particular boat in those actions also will be investigated. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services in his capacity as Minister responsible for the sale of government assets. In view of the confidence of the Minister in the eloquence of his powers of argument on the issue of privatisation, does he share to the full the view expressed by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Simon Crean, that privatisation is dead; or does he share the views of the Prime Minister that the privatisation debate within the Australian Labor Party is well and truly alive? Mr WEST —This House and those who count within the Party are well aware of what my views on privatisation are. Within our democratic Party-a democratic party, unlike that of honourable members opposite-I will continue to put those views. We decide on our policies in a democratic manner, unlike the people opposite. The people opposite are utterly incapable of producing anything like a policy. When are we going to see their policies on, say, the consumption tax, on health, on housing, or on anything else for that matter? On the one hand, an Opposition shadow Minister in the Senate is opposing a consumption tax, while, on the other hand, the National President of the Liberal Party of Australia is supporting a consumption tax. Many in the gaggle of Opposition frontbenchers do not know where they stand. I see the Leader of the Opposition sitting here smiling and cack-ling away, knowing that he is a temporary leader and not capable of producing one specific policy. The people of this country are in the process of demanding to know where the Opposition's policies are. We know where we are going. On Wednesday next the Treasurer will be making his statement on the mini-Budget. Within the next few weeks the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party will be meeting to determine its future platform. We are a democratic party. We can produce policies and programs. However, the people of Australia are still waiting out there for this mob opposite to produce theirs. All I can say to them is, `You will be waiting a long time before this inept gaggle opposite can produce one single policy item'. Mr LEE —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General, and I preface it by reminding the Attorney-General of the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday that the half-Senate election provisions in the referendum to provide four-year terms for both Houses were `a conspiracy to keep the Government in office for another six months'. Are these half-Senate election provisions the same as those provided for in the Fraser Government's May 1977 simultaneous elections referendum? Does the alleged conspiracy exist? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There was never any conspiracy, and that was made clear at the time the question was asked last week. The answer, of course, was that we were extending the term of the Senate; that is the fundamental first issue. The honourable gentleman drew the parallel of what happened on a previous occasion when in 1977 the simultaneous elections referendum of the then Government, led by Malcolm Fraser, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, sought to extend the Senate's term by some nine months. That relates to the question of precedent. The issue, of course, was to make it clear that, instead of the Senate having a 2 1/2-year term, it should be extended to three years; and there could be no criticism of that. That is basically what we are about in the proposal now before the Senate. But let me also make it clear that there is no hidden agenda either. The second reading speech was made on 10 May. That speech and the explanatory memorandum adverted to this fact and they were delivered to the Leader of the Opposition on that day. It is a bit surprising that, after the debate on the constitutional matters had concluded, the honourable gentleman should ask whether the Government is extending the term of the House, knowing full well that all we were proposing was to extend the short term of the senators. The other suggestion was that the Government would get a political advantage out of that. Let us make it very clear that we have the majority of long term senators. We would get no advantage out of it at all. To extend the term of the short term senators would assist those senators who oppose the Government. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer to his answer to a previous question in which he said, inter alia, `Everyone knows there was something wrong with the way the privatisation debate was conducted'. I ask him: Who conducted it wrongly? Mr WEST —The honourable member is putting words into my mouth. I have nothing to add to my answers to the previous questions. I have said that we are a democratic party and we will conduct the debating processes within our Party in our own manner, thank you very much. Mr CHARLES —I ask a question of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Has the Minister seen Press reports regarding the purchase by the Navy of motels for around $9m for the provision of recreation for defence personnel? Are these reports correct, and for what purpose was this acquisition made by the Navy? Mrs KELLY —I confirm that the Navy is purchasing two motels in Cairns, but I deny the headline in the Sunday Telegraph which says, `Navy buys Perfect Match love nest for sailors'. I assure the House that nothing could be further from the truth. The facilities will be used to provide accommodation for single and unaccompanied officers and sailors in the Cairns area, and they are needed because of the announced upgrading of the naval patrol and the hydrographic survey activity in Cairns. The Navy will continue to make a large contribution to the economy of Cairns but will be in no way detracting from the tourist potential of the Cairns area by taking over those two motels. Also these two motels-which were correctly reported as being purchased for in the vicinity of $9m-will be in addition to the $57m already announced for the upgrading of singles accommodation for the Services throughout Australia, and in addition to the 4,568 rooms that have been announced and approved by the Joint Committee on Public Works. So after years of neglect defence service accommodation is being upgraded. It is unfortunate that we have had to buy motels to do that, but we feel this is one way of rectifying the need for singles accommodation and of showing this Government's commitment not only to Defence Force families but also to singles. Mr LLOYD —Can the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy confirm that screw worm fly, the most serious exotic pest potentially threatening our livestock industries, has been identified on a vessel in Darwin with cargo from Asia? Is it a fact that it was only late last week that positive identification of screw worm fly occurred, even though the vessel arrived in Darwin on 24 April? If so, why this dangerous delay? Does the Minister realise that an outbreak of screw worm fly could have horrific implications for Australia's cattle industry in tropical regions? What is the Minister doing to ensure that the presence of screw worm fly in Darwin is contained and not allowed to spread to the cattle industry? Finally, what is the Minister doing to fulfil his international quarantine notification obligations? Mr KERIN —In April during routine quarantine inspection insects were trapped aboard a vessel in Darwin bringing cargo from Asia, and subsequent tests have confirmed that five of the insects were screw worm flies. The Northern Territory veterinary authorities have implemented a campaign to monitor the situation involving the location of fly traps, the location of insectocutors at strategic sites, and the placement of susceptible sentinel cattle at appropriate locations. At present Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific islands are the only areas in the Southern Hemisphere free of screw worm fly. All relevant authorities are aware of the situation and will be kept fully informed. There have been no screw worm flies found on Australian soil. In the unlikely event that screw worm fly is found to have become established, a prepared exotic animal disease plan will be implemented immediately. Mr COURTICE —Is the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy aware of claims that Australia is losing new coal mine developments to other countries because of high taxes and charges, particularly in Queensland? Mr KERIN —I am aware of reported claims by a Queensland coal company executive to the effect that, unless taxation on the coal industry by way of rail freight is reduced, new mines will not be developed in Australia and the companies will take their money and expertise to more attractive environments. The comments were made at the recent Australian coal conference in Surfers Paradise, and the executive was putting his perceptions of the relative attractions of Indonesia and Australia as places for coal mine investment. The executive claimed that his company has developed a mine in Sumatra which has port costs and rail charges respectively one-fifth and one-quarter of those paid for his Queensland operation. Clearly claims such as these are ones that governments need to pay close attention to in terms of overall responsibility for providing a suitable framework for the industry's viability. An important part of the long term coal industry strategy I recently announced is the development of a more coordinated approach with the States to industry development and taxation policies. The Queensland Government extracts a rent from the coal industry. I think in one instance the rail freight was $15.60, and it was calculated by the companies concerned that there was at least a $10 profit in that rail freight. For some years the Commonwealth has been encouraging the State governments to move away from specific taxes and charges which add to the costs of mining companies trying to move to a more profit-based system. We will be promoting this approach in the new Australian Coal Industry Development Council. Ultimately, decisions by companies as to particular mining investments will be made on factors which go well beyond the single issue of taxation, including the physical nature of the coal resource, the sales prospects for that particular coal and the level of capital expenditure required. However, it needs to be recognised that governments, as the community's representatives, have a responsibility to ensure that a fair return is obtained from resource exploitation. The Queensland National Party Government, that corrupt Government-and Mr Ahern never knew about the corruption-is extracting a rent or a tax from the coal industry, despite the way in which it puffs itself up about its success in the coal industry. Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the several answers on privatisation given by the Minister for Administrative Services which vigorously asserted his right to go on expressing his own personal view on the subject. Does the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility under his Government mean that, in advance of the settlement of a clear policy on an issue or determination by the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party, individual Ministers have a right to argue their own personal point of view in public irrespective of the confusion that that creates for the public and affected areas of the public constituency? Mr HAWKE —I wondered whether at last the Leader of the Opposition was going to address a question in this area to me. Of course, the reason why, until this point, he has avoided doing so is that he knows that this question must rank as one of the most hypocritical ever addressed in this Parliament. If ever there has been a leader of a political party in the Parliament who cannot speak with any authority, who has been racked with division, public and private, in his own ranks, it is the current and very temporary Leader of the Opposition. Let us just examine a few of the areas in which he speaks with no authority. We have the situation with regard to the referendum where the honourable member for North Sydney has been forced to say, `I am damned if I know what he is about'. This is what the honourable member for North Sydney has had to say about the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition on the referendum. It is not surprising that the honourable member for North Sydney is saying, `I am damned if I know what the Leader of the Opposition is about' because in the Liberals' own platform, in their own policy, which is supposed to be binding upon them, they have a position in regard to local government and they have a position in regard to fair compensation for the acquisition of property. The honourable member for North Sydney gets up and says, `Well, of course I would expect that the Liberal Party would be supporting this, but I am surprised'. Why is he surprised? He is surprised because he is led by an opportunist, a man who puts his finger up to the wind and thinks, `Here is a little wind blowing, a little breeze here, a little zephyr there. If I go along with that I might get a few votes'. The Leader of the Opposition has behind him a group of people who do not know what he stands for. He does not stand for anything in the area of local government. He writes a letter to people in local government saying, `Of course I'd support a referendum which would enhance the position of local government by entrenching reference to it in the Constitution'. When the honourable member for Bennelong writes a letter saying that that is his position and belief, not only the people in local government but also his own members behind him are entitled to expect that that is the position that, as a matter of principle, he will support. They have now reached the position where they know that the honourable member is worth nothing. He has reached the unfortunate position that not only does his own Party not believe in him and the leader of his own organisation not believe in him, but also he is now the most pathetic of creatures in that he does not believe in himself. He does not believe in himself because he cannot adhere to any position. It does not matter whether it is on the media or anything else. When he talks to the media chiefs he says, `Yes, I know what the position is. That is what I can carry in my Party'. When the honourable member has to face up to that commitment, he cannot carry his own shadow Cabinet, he cannot carry his own Party. This what has happened in regard to the media and the referendum. In the new Parliament House the Leader of the Opposition was going to support a united position between this side of the House and his side of the House in regard to the prior occupation of this country by Aborigines. He said that he believed that as a matter of principle. But then he put his finger up, he found which way he thought the wind was blowing and said, `No, I will give that away'. That is the background of this man of principle who comes and asks me a question about the right of my Ministers on a particular issue to pursue a point of view. I have made it quite clear that we are bound as a government by a position in the platform and policy of our Party. We could not move to any position beyond that. I have made it quite clear to my Ministers and to the members of my Party that it is appropriate that they discuss this issue within the Party. They have done that and there have been reports of the positions they have put. I am not at all upset about that. It is appropriate and in accordance with what I asked should happen. For this unprincipled person opposite, who cannot carry anything in his own Party, who moves with each perceived sway of the breeze and who says one thing as the honourable member for Bennelong and another as Leader of the Opposition, to suggest that what is happening here is some breaking of the position of Cabinet solidarity is a manifest absurdity. The Cabinet has made no decision-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —The giggle machine is wound up again. The position is simply this: if the Cabinet makes a decision on this matter or on any other, the Minister of whom those opposite have asked this series of questions, the Minister for Administrative Services-they are so bereft of any economic policy that they have asked not one question but four pathetic questions of him-will be bound by any such decision. Indeed, there is previous experience on this matter in regard to the honourable gentleman in question. He will be bound, as will anyone else in the Cabinet, by any decision which is taken on this issue or any other. When the Cabinet makes a decision on any matter, he or any other Minister who broke Cabinet solidarity would be out of the Cabinet. For this Leader of the Opposition to speculate on this matter is an absurdity. No decision has been made and therefore the question does not arise. He would be much better served addressing himself to the much more serious matter of speculation which is dominating this Parliament, this House and the media of this country, that is, how long he will last as Leader of the Opposition. The question is not whether he will last but whether he will see this year out. The odds against his lasting this year out are very long. He will not save himself from that fate by asking stupid questions such as this of the Minister for Administrative Services or me. His time is finished, not that of the Minister for Administrative Services. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Corio asked me last Thursday to inform the House of the last possible sitting date of the House of Representatives in this Parliament. Section 28 of the Constitution provides: Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General. This House first met on 14 September 1987. Therefore, the House of Representatives will expire by effluxion of time at midnight on 13 September 1990. Madam SPEAKER —Honourable members are reminded that a series of photographs of groups of occupants of the building will be taken on the front steps tomorrow morning, beginning with members of the House of Representatives at 9 a.m. I would also like to inform the House that, as I understand this will be the last sitting week of the House of Representatives in the provisional Parliament House, I have arranged for a photographer to produce a photographic record of many facets of the operation of the Parliament in this building, to form part of the parliamentary archives. The project will cover many areas not normally photographed, including dining facilities, offices and library and Hansard facilities. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that, in order to permit the live radio broadcast of the economic statement by the Treasurer and the reply by the Leader of the Opposition later this week, the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings has decided to alter arrangements for the parliamentary broadcasts between the Senate and the House of Representatives. As a result the broadcast will be from the Senate today and tomorrow and from the House of Representatives on Wednesday and Thursday. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Local Government Grants Commission, Queensland-1987 Report on Financial Assistance for Local Government-section 13 of the Local Government(Financial Assistance) Act 1986. Australia-Japan Foundation-Annual Report 1986-87. Australia-New Zealand Foundation-Annual Report 1986-87. First Report of the Constitutional Commission-Summary-May 1988. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. STRENGTHENING AUSTRALIA'S SCHOOLS: A CONSIDERATION OF THE FOCUS AND CONTENT OF SCHOOLING Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —For the information of honourable members, I present a paper entitled Strengthening Australia's Schools: A Consideration of the Focus and Content of Schooling, together with a brief announcement releasing the paper. I move: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HUMPHREYS —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HUMPHREYS —Madam Speaker, on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio news this morning it was stated: Veterans' Affairs Minister Ben Humphreys has told Vietnam veterans in Brisbane he is prepared to be sprayed with Agent Orange to show it's totally safe. Madam Speaker, I said no such thing during my address to the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, and this report irresponsibly misrepresents what I said. Following my address I was interviewed by a radio reporter. I was asked this question: Mr Minister it was reported the other day that Mr Bishop or someone would like to throw Agent Orange on politicians . . . Would you be prepared to have Agent Orange thrown over you? My answer was: Well, I was a motor mechanic for many years and I've had kerosene and petrol and oil thrown on me so if he wants to throw Agent Orange over me I don't think that's going to worry me in any way . . . I suggest that that answer is very different from a story which says that I would be prepared to be sprayed with agent orange to show that it is totally safe. With regard to any link between agent orange and veterans' health, I made it clear last week that the Government accepted Mr Justice Evatt's findings that exposure to chemicals had not produced dosage levels likely to cause any long-term health effects, but did not accept the heading `Agent Orange not guilty'. I said that the Government would continue to monitor health trends within the Vietnam veterans' community. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MILTON —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MILTON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the debate on uranium mining and export last Thursday afternoon the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) misrepresented me by stating: I wish the few members like the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) well in their cause, because there is a rational basis on which uranium exports should be permitted and uranium mines should be opened and extended . . . I make it clear that the Leader of the National Party has confused me with some other member. I have not at any time advocated that uranium mines should be open and extended, as I support the present Australian Labor Party phase-out policy on uranium mining in Australia. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SIMMONS —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SIMMONS —In today's Australian on page 3 under the headings `Fewer farmers as investment doubles' and `Rural roads in poor repair' reference was made by Julian Cribb to a report I issued on Friday as the chairman of the country task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) relating specifically to the question of road funding. The report referred to me as Mr David Siddons. I make it quite clear to the House that I have not changed my name by deed poll since the task force released its report last Friday. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr SPENDER —In the course of the last answer given by the Prime Minister, that lengthy rant, he said that I had said of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), `I am damned if I know what he is about'. I have not said that, I have not suggested that and, in the remarks to which he may have been referring, I have not in any way implied that. He was misquoting something which was directed to a quite different matter and had nothing to do with the Leader of the Opposition, as he must have known when he said what he said, which means that he either deliberately or negligently misled this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is arguing the matter now. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable member may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —If I was inaccurate in my reference to the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) I apologise for I did think better of him. It seems that my mistake was that I should have referred to the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) and a senator for the Northern Territory. In that light I withdraw the allegations of impropriety. I hope that the honourable gentleman might have a change of heart. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DONALD CAMERON —A speech I made in this chamber last Wednesday in relation to the Australian Bureau of Statistics was reported in the Australian on Thursday as part of a report about the appearance of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) in a court in Queensland. That article purported that Ian Cameron, the honourable member for Maranoa, had made that particular speech. I believe that the honourable member for Maranoa contacted the editor of the Australian on Thursday. It was for that reason that I did not raise the matter here on that day. The honourable member for Maranoa and I were both surprised on Friday when the Australian made absolutely no reference to the matter or correction. I then checked through to find the cause of the misreporting to find that the Gallery's report to the Australian referred to the story as having come from Mr Ian Cameron, the honourable member for Maranoa. I hope that these misrepresentations, which can cause some concern, are corrected at the source and that the Press Gallery, from where these reports are sent out in the system, takes greater care in differentiating between the honourable member for Maranoa and the honourable member for Moreton. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat posed to Qantas and Australian Airlines by the policy drift and indecision of the Hawke Government on privatisation. 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 BEALE(Deakin)(3.00) —This Government is in an appalling mess on privatisation. If ever we needed proof of that we saw it in what happened in Question Time today when the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) was ducking and weaving, saying, `Yes, I am going to do that', and, `No, I am not going to do that'. Then the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) got up and said-is this not lovely?-`We have no policy on privatisation'. The Australian public has been subjected to several turbulent months of internal divisions in the Government as Cabinet Ministers have proposed mechanisms, contradicted each other, sought to prevent the Prime Minister being rolled, dabbled with international mergers and generally behaved in a way that could be described only as divisive. There is a view, propagated by some media commentators, that the Government is indulging in a healthy debate on privatisation. That view contrasts rather sharply with the view, also being propagated by certain elements of the media, that because the coalition parties have a couple of members who abstained from voting on the referendum Bills, we are in eternal conflict in some way. Let me say quite clearly that a couple of abstentions pale into distant insignificance compared with the contradictory remarks and vicious infighting that is taking place in the Cabinet of the Labor Government. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and-bless him-the Minister for Administrative Services are at each other on privatisation. All that remains after all the bickering that has gone on is that they have left behind them an appalling mess. Even today the newspapers are ablaze with a new factional outburst on privatisation. Senator Walsh said in his Press release yesterday, `Privatise or taxes will go up'. He warned that, if agreement was not reached on methods of injecting more money in Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines, taxes would have to rise. My friend and colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) will deal with the honourable senator's comments in more detail when he supports me on this matter of public importance. Today the Minister for Administrative Services said, `I'm sorry, but the debate on privatisation has been wrongly conducted'. Yesterday the Minister for Administrative Services, who is a member of Cabinet, spoke at a New South Wales Australian Labor Party privatisation seminar in Sydney. He said that he had become tired of privatisation supporters raising new arguments every time opponents had successfully rebutted others. He said: An example of this continual shifting emerged again as recently as Thursday when Senator Evans addressed an ACTU executive meeting. What he is saying to Senator Evans is, `Look, the debate has been wrongly conducted, Senator. When I put forward something and you go on to the next thing, you must not rebut that; you must accept what I am saying'. The Minister for Administrative Services has also said that he would conduct this debate in the forums of his Party. I do not know what stage we have reached if the Minister thinks that this chamber is a forum of the Labor Party. The Minister is conducting this debate out in the open. If what the Minister for Administrative Services said about Senator Evans is not having a go at a Cabinet colleague, I do not know what is. The Prime Minister and Senator Evans are arguing for a continuation of discussions on privatisation and intend to form some new kind of committee, a 15-man committee representing all the factions and, no doubt, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. A 15-man committee will be formed to look at the privatisation issue after the Australian Labor Party National Conference, as if we have not examined the issues on airline privatisation enough. At the same time as senior Cabinet Ministers are arguing for a continuation of discussions on privatisation, the Minister for Administrative Services says-he said it yesterday-that it is time to kill off the controversy. Even the Minister for Administrative Services is calling it a controversy. They may call it a public debate, but even the Minister is calling it a controversy. Again, I quote from the transcript of yesterday, when the Minister said: We have bled too long on this issue. Bleeding does not follow healthy debate. Bleeding follows the kinds of vicious attacks which senior Cabinet Ministers have been indulging in on each other over the past few months. To complete the trilogy of Ministers-not the other trilogy which involved that out of touch Labor Party, that out of touch Government, breaking yet another promise to the Australian people-I refer to what Senator Evans talked about yesterday in regard to options that are open for the privatisation of Qantas and Australian Airlines. He took us through the alternatives of equity, loan, debt, grants, trusts-all the while dangling from the hook of internal divisiveness on this issue-all the alternatives of finding more money for Qantas and Australian Airlines. Senator Evans seems to think that the answer for the two Government owned airlines is simply more money. However, that is a quite misguidedposition. I will return to that. Senator Evans took us through all the financing options for the two airlines. They included allowing the airlines to borrow more; fiddling the Budget conventions-to move the borrowing, so to speak, off the balance sheet-to fund the airlines from the Budget; and establishing an airline equity trust along the lines of the Victorian Equity Trust. The Minister wants to form an airline equity trust along the lines of the Victorian Equity Trust, just a few days after it has been disclosed that the Victorian Equity Trust had a shortfall of $150m in its subscriptions. This $150m shortfall is a pretty clear indication of what Australian investors think about this kind of distortion of the free market. I can tell Senator Evans that he would have the same kind of shortfall with an airline equity trust. The fifth alternative suggested by Senator Evans was to form an airline equity trust to be managed by the Australian Industry Development Corporation-in other words, to be managed by the Government. So what is new? It would be managed by the Government, which would therefore hold shares in the two airlines. Like that international merger, this sounds like another madcap scheme put forward in an attempt to persuade the Stewart Wests of the world to come to that party called privatisation. Senator Evans went on to say: I hold no fixed brief for any particular solution-but we have to find one . . . This Government is all at sea over the privatisation of Qantas and Australian Airlines. Its policy drift and indecision have led to a series of extraordinary outbursts between Cabinet Ministers that are reflected in declining public support. The Government should be governing. It should be conducting its discussions internally. It should be deciding its position and then taking that position to the Australian Labor Party National Conference. It should not be conducting its internal squabbles in public. This situation is all the more extraordinary because the Government has quite misunderstood what the airline privatisation debate is all about. The Minister continually focuses his attention on financing methods to solve the airlines' problem of where to get money in order to re-equip their fleets so that they can compete more effectively in their respective markets. The Government has quite misunderstood the privatisation debate. That debate is not only about raising money from the private sector rather than the public sector. Privatisation is not an ideological binge. Privatisation is not about selling assets to pay for expenses. Airline privatisation is about delivering benefits to Australia's travelling public. Airline privatisation is about sharpening the competition between airlines, leaving them free to compete in the open market without the restraints that envelop public authorities and free from the dead hand of the bureaucracy. Nowhere was this better recognised than in the report of the advisory group on Australian Airlines commissioned by the Minister. The Minister asked this advisory group to advise him-listen to this-on how Australian Airlines could be stronger, more efficient, more viable and better able to provide effective competition across the trunk route network. Those were the Minister's words. He wanted to `provide effective competition'. They were the Minister's words when he set up this advisory group to tell him what to do about the future of Australian Airlines. This advisory group comprised the Chairman of Australian Airlines, the Secretary to the Department, the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions-it always has to be in there-and a former President of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria. This is what the group recommended to the Government: the Government should, firstly, remove restraints which currently restrict commercial flexibility and detract from the board's and management's responsibility for the operations and performance of the airline; secondly, make the board accountable for a competitive rate of return on assets; and thirdly-and only thirdly-ensure a capital injection of $240m over the next three years. That is what airline privatisation is all about. It is not only about funding; it is also about taking the Government away from the direction of the airlines' operations. The reason that the Government has been all over the place on airline privatisation is that it has failed to understand what privatisation is all about. It has focused narrowly on financing issues and has failed to take into account that a privately owned enterprise which is required to make a profit is immeasurably more responsive to the interests and demands of consumers-in this case, the travelling public-than any government owned enterprise which is insulated from the need to be concerned about commercial diversions. The list of coalition policies pinched by this Government is too long to enumerate; but one of them is relevant to this matter of public importance. It was coalition policy for some years to deregulate the domestic airline industry, and the Australian Labor Party has now adopted that policy. In a deregulated domestic airline environment, where competition provides the stimulus for relatively lower fares and more appropriate timetables, the operators will be left free of government controls and funding restrictions or they will, as Senator Evans said yesterday, `wither on the vine'. Senator Evans calls this privatisation by stealth. In the domestic market this would amount to monopolisation by stealth, and that is a process that the coalition will not countenance. Accordingly, we urge the Government to adopt coalition policy so far as our two great Australian airlines are concerned. We urge the Government to transfer ownership of Qantas and Australian Airlines from the Government to employees of the airlines and the Australian public. A very real threat is posed to Qantas and Australian Airlines by the policy drift and indecision by this Government on privatisation. The Australian public has been exposed to months of turbulent infighting by Cabinet Ministers using the Press as a forum to persuade their colleagues in discussions that should have been held only in the Cabinet room. Now is the time for the Government to get its act together on airline privatisation. Now is the time for Cabinet Ministers to stop their squabbling. Now is the time for a decision to be reached. Now is the time for the Government to adopt another coalition policy and privatise Qantas and Australian Airlines. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Communications Support)(3.15) —I was looking forward with some expectation to a rip-roaring contribution by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), but I have to say that that was one of the most pathetic matters of public importance I have heard presented to this chamber. So impressive was it that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) managed to listen intently, as did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), with his eyes closed most of the time. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) reverted to twiddling his thumbs to pass the time, and the other honourable members opposite generally were not impressed. It is a pity that the honourable member for Deakin could not address the advice he was trying to give this House to his own colleagues. The Opposition now finds itself in a shambles in respect of the four referendum questions and its about-face on the question of greater recognition of local government. It tries to brush the question aside. It is a major question for the 839 local government bodies across this country. They feel betrayed by the Opposition. When I put this matter to some of the colleagues of members of the Opposition in local government they say, `How do you explain this?' and I say, `To understand it you have to recognise that it is to do with the campaign against the Leader of the Opposition. It is part of a process of trying to put the Leader of the Opposition in an embarrassing position'. I have no doubt that that is the real reason. But when the honourable member for Deakin tries to advise the Government on how to conduct party discussions on policy, I again say to him, `I think you ought to direct that kind of comment to your own colleagues.' It was very interesting to hear the honourable member for Deakin referring to privatisation being about providing benefits to the travelling public. In a few moments I will look back at the history of the Liberal-National Party Government and the kind of priority it gave in government to members of the travelling public. That Government saw members of the travelling public under the two-airline agreement as pawns-pawns to be used, to be squeezed, from whom money was to be extracted, to whom poor service was to be given, simply to further the relationships of the Liberal-National Party with people in the private sector. Whilst it is a new and interesting proposal from the Opposition that there should be interest in consumers, including air travellers, it is a policy that this Government has had for many years. Let me say at the outset that this Government is proud of the achievements it has made in transport policy. The Labor Government has done more in five years, as the industry readily acknowledges, than was done during the 30 years of previous Liberal-National Party governments to improve the efficiency, reliability and performance of transport systems, and, most of all, the coordination of our different forms of transport. When we look to the performance of the last 30 years of the Liberal and National parties, the first thing we look at in respect of Australian Airlines is the two-airline policy-the brainchild for decade after decade of Liberal-National Party governments. What was that policy about? It was about restricting the operations of the government business enterprise, Trans Australia Airlines, later Australian Airlines. Previous Liberal-National Party governments restricted that organisation; they starved it of capital and extracted from it non-commercial dividends. They attacked it publicly both in this chamber and in the other chamber. They denied it leadership; they put on its board people who had little interest in furthering the objectives of that organisation. I can put it in no better words than the words of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who now sits opposite and who is a former respected and honoured Minister for Transport in this place. Mr Fife —Still highly respected. Mr PETER MORRIS —And those of the honourable member for Hume. The words of the honourable member for Gwydir in this chamber in 1983 were that Australian Airlines had been forced by the Fraser Government to fly with one wing tied behind its back. That was the performance of the Liberal and National parties in respect of Australian Airlines. I will come to Qantas Airways Ltd a little later. When the Opposition rails publicly and in this place about the capital needs of Australian Airlines and Qantas I simply say to it, `Look back at your own performance and ask yourself how these organisations came to be in the financial position they are in'. The capital needs of these airlines developed over the period in which they were under the superintendence of successive Liberal-National Party governments. Those governments, and those who now sit opposite, saw government business enterprises as pawns to be used to ingratiate themselves with people outside; pawns to be used to place their old friends, retired members or anybody else they could think of; and pawns that could be used as political instruments. Let me give honourable members one quick example. The Australian National Line lost $42m over the years it operated north of Brisbane-from Brisbane to Cairns. It never made a profit and it was never going to make a profit. But $42m of shareholders' capital was lost because that line was used as a political instrument to satisfy the interests of the National Party of Australia in north Queensland. The difference is that this Government has brought leadership and responsibility. It has brought modernisation to each of those government business enterprises. Government business enterprises must have four things if they are to function successfully. First, they must have leadership from government. Secondly, they must have capital injections, and this Government has provided those capital injections. Thirdly, there has to be freedom within the legislation and guidelines governing the organisations for them to function and perform like commercial enterprises; we have done that. Fourthly, they have to be given the opportunity to operate competitively; the government enterprises I am talking about are increasingly doing that. But we have a long way to go to catch up. Just for quick contrast, let me draw the House's attention to what has happened. Contrary to the cant that we have heard from the Opposition on this question, let us look at the performance of these organisations. In 1983-84, the year in which those opposite lost government, Qantas incurred a loss of $59.7m. This Government came to office in March 1983; the Qantas year ends on 31 March. The following year, under the sounder management of the economy by this Government, under the better leadership given to those organisations, Qantas's profit rose to $211.8m. The next year the profit was $27.9m. In the year ended March of this year, the profit was $114.7m. Australian Airlines went from two losses in 1981-82 and 1982-83 to profits of $3.8m in 1983-84, $28.7m, $37.7m and a record profit of $42.7m in 1986-87. Similarly, the performance of the Australian National Line has improved for the same reasons. Again, this organisation was given leadership, support and freedom to operate like a business. Its guidelines and the Act under which it operates were loosened up. The Australian National Line was encouraged to operate commercially and it was prevented from being used as a political tool. When that was done the organisation went from a loss of $67.7m in 1983-84 to a profit of $39.5m in 1986-87. We are not talking only about these three public enterprises. This debate is really about how government public enterprises function successfully. The Opposition wants to talk about ownership as if, in some way, simple ownership solves the question of competitiveness, profitability, reliability and efficiency. When the Opposition had the chance to change ownership of Australian Airlines it did not do so. One may well ask the question: `Why did it not do so?'. It legislated for the formation of Australian Airlines as a corporation but it did not carry it through. I think if we knew what happened in the heart of hearts, we would find that the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) and the honourable member for Gwydir knew full well, from their wisdom and knowledge of the industry, that that was not the way to go. The point is that they had the opportunity but they did not do it. Let me then move to Australian National-the railways. All of these four enterprises are in the same general position. They have the same requirements and they need the same kind of leadership and guidelines to enable them to perform successfully. We came into government in March 1983. In the year that concluded in June 1983, Australian National lost $102.4m in 1982-83 dollars. That loss, which was covered by a revenue supplement, was reduced in 1986-87 to $65.1m in 1986-87 dollars, and will be further reduced this year. In real terms we have seen an improvement of more than 40 per cent in the financial performance of that organisation. Across those four enterprises we have seen that, given the right kind of leadership, independence and responsibility and the chance to operate efficiently and competitively, government business enterprises can perform successfully. The simple point in all of this debate is that, in the philosophy of those who sit opposite now, there is no role for public enterprise. It is accurate to say that, in the time in which those opposite presided over public enterprises, they deliberately hamstrung those enterprises. We had the spectacle in this chamber and in the other place of members of the then Government saying in here and in public, `Australian Airlines is bankrupt'. Let us look at the damage they did to that organisation. Not only did they starve it of capital, not only did they extract a wholly and totally uncommercial dividend that brought a conservative chairman of that airline to this place to complain publicly of the actions of the then Fraser Government, but they also demoralised the organisation, showing its thousands of employees that they had no place under a conservative government, and severely damaged it in the marketplace. Every time that government senators and members here attacked Australian Airlines they pulled down its market image, cost it money and lost it passengers. That is really what this debate is all about. On this side of the House we believe there is a role for efficient, competitive public enterprise, and the public wants to see that. Out there in the marketplace it is those public enterprises that have provided the alternative. But those who now sit opposite, unlike the old Country Party, which saw a role for public enterprise, pursue the ideology, `If it makes money sell it, and, if you can't strangle it, get rid of it'. Right down through the years, no matter how we look at it, the performance of those who sit opposite has been to restrict and to hamstring public enterprise. Let me show the hypocrisy of the Opposition in bringing forward this matter of public importance. It reads: The threat posed to Qantas and Australian Airlines by the policy drift . . . For heaven's sake, if ever there was a policy drift it is in the Opposition. It is not a drift; it is a raging current. Those opposite know not which way their policy goes, except that it goes in multiple directions. The honourable member for Deakin says that the Government's privatisation policy is a ship off course. He belongs to a party off course, a party which is divided and knows not where it goes. Mr Beale —You are frightening the children. Mr PETER MORRIS —The children agree. They recognise the wisdom that is being put here. The actions of those opposite in suggesting to us that a threat is posed to Qantas and Australian Airlines by a policy drift simply confirm the idiocy of the view that has been put forward. I have before me a newspaper article. When I read it I thought the honourable member for Deakin was fair dinkum. Mr Hollis —Was that his transport policy? Mr PETER MORRIS —No, this was before the transport policy. The article said: Beale has been described as one of the new breed of Liberal politicians. He supports the re-introduction of university and college fees, the abolition of first-child family allowances, state road grants, funds for public housing and Federal grants to local government, and tightening eligibility for unemployment benefits. I believed that. I thought, `He is an honourable man'. I do not know him to be a dishonourable man. The policy that he has presented now is the direct opposite of the views he has expressed as an individual. He obviously does not believe them. The difference about the Hawke Government and its policy on privatisation is that this Government and the Australian Labor Party can discuss these matters and develop policy. The two issues I refer to are these: Qantas Airways Ltd was damaged severely by the withdrawal of its inter-lining rights within Australia, an administrative decision of those who now sit opposite, and Australian Airlines has been hamstrung and hindered by a denial of capital, by the restrictive nature of the bureaucracy's activities under the Fraser Government and by the extraction of a non-commercial dividend. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(3.30) —Until the Minister at the table, the Minister for Transport and Communications Support (Mr Peter Morris), read out the actual terms of the matter of public importance three minutes before the conclusion of his 15-minute address I suffered under the misapprehension that he did not quite know the terms of the debate because he never once mounted an argument for or against privatisation. The truth is that the Minister does not have the political courage that either Senator Walsh or Senator Gareth Evans carries around in one hand. Why do we not have the main players putting forward the arguments for privatisation-as they do, frankly, bravely in the face of extraordinary opposition within the Australian Labor Party (ALP)? The answer is simply that there are only two Labor Party supporters of privatisation in this place. One is here today and the other is absent from the chamber. I refer to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), both of whom have been conclusively rolled on this debate. It is left to two honourable senators to carry on the fight, in a last ditch attempt to stitch together some sort of face-saving solution for the Prime Minister. The truth is that the internal debate in the ALP over privatisation is sliding irrevocably towards a split. The gloves are off. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been shoved aside. They are not taking part in the debate any more, and they are not doing so for different reasons. The Treasurer is not taking part because of his ultimate ambitions. He deems it politically wiser not to offend a faction that he will have to rely on to assume what he so obviously covets-the prime ministership. The Prime Minister will not take part because he does not want to rub salt into open wounds. Why would the Prime Minister want to remind all of us time and again that he has been utterly defeated on this issue? So it is left to Walsh and Evans to carry on the fight. It seems that there are only the two of them. We have had in this debate only the junior transport Minister, with his lame pretence of a defence of privatisation which, rather, was simply a history lesson. The free-for-all is on, and the three Cabinet Ministers brawling in Cabinet yesterday over economic policy is perhaps more than anything else a measure of the Prime Minister's authority over the ALP. As well, it gives us some idea of his lack of control over economic policy. With the National Conference looming in Hobart within a matter of weeks, the privatisation debate is reaching crisis proportions within the Government. In all of the blood-letting within ALP ranks the most important interests have been ignored-the interests of Australian taxpayers and consumers. Consideration of privatisation proposals has two basic limbs, as we all know: can services to consumers be enhanced, and can the toll, the burden, on taxpayers be reduced? Yet the Left, with the aid of the trade union movement, has succeeded in reducing the debate on privatisation to simply an exchange of ideological slogans. It is, as none could deny, a test of the politics of the warm inner glow against the politics of economic rationalism. Even more, it is a struggle within the ALP for the hearts and minds of its members. I should say it was a struggle; nobody can doubt just who has emerged as the victors. The left wing has triumphed. Let no-one doubt that. How galling that must be for the Prime Minister, who for almost 12 months has repeatedly promised a brave new world of privatisation. Mr N.A. Brown —It is sad. Mr McGAURAN —It is sad, as the honourable member for Menzies interjects. It is not sad for the Prime Minister; it is sad for the people he is charged with protecting-ordinary Australians, those who carry the burden of some of the more extravagant ideological bents of the left wing. What degree of control does the Prime Minister now have over economic policy? What is the measure of his control when he has been rolled by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West)? Of all the people in this place to have rolled him, he has been rolled by Stewart West. Is he a worthy opponent? Mr Howard —He's got a better blue singlet than Bob Hawke. Mr McGAURAN —He certainly has better working class credentials than the Prime Minister, a better blue singlet. It has not done the Prime Minister much good at all to be rolled by the Minister for Administrative Services. And is not the Minister pleased with himself? We saw the Minister for Administrative Services ram it down the Prime Minister's throat to such an extent in Question Time, with such confidence and self-assuredness, that the Prime Minister was moved to take the opportunity later in Question Time, in an answer unrelated to the question at hand, to attempt, feebly, to assert his authority. He gave a direct message to the Minister for Administrative Services: `Break Cabinet ranks, and you are out'. But why should that worry the Minister for Administrative Services? He has already determined the Cabinet position. The decision has been made. There will be no privatisation. Mr Howard —King Stewie! Mr McGAURAN —King Stewie. The kingmaker within the Labor Party has rolled the Prime Minister. My, Mr Deputy Speaker, how the mighty have fallen! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will refer to members and Ministers by their titles. Mr Howard —The Wollongong wonder. Mr McGAURAN —The Wollongong wonder, as the Leader of the Opposition says. I have a new-found admiration for the Minister for Administrative Services because he has weathered a fair bit of personal abuse. Senator Walsh called him a liar; on 8 May Senator Walsh said that one of the great lies about the privatisation debate was that it had contributed to the downturn in the ALP's electoral performance. But Stewart West, with this sudden new-found confidence, strength and numbers ability-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have asked the honourable member for Gippsland before to refer to members and Ministers by their title. He shall do so. Mr McGAURAN —The Minister for Administrative Services said this in reply to Senator Walsh yesterday, when sharing the same platform in New South Wales: Despite what my colleague Peter Walsh says, I have found that this change of heart has contributed to our loss of traditional support. That view has been expressed to me consistently within branches of the Party and the wider Labor movement. Full marks to the Minister for Administrative Services, who in the face of a vitriolic and direct accusation by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), has stood his ground and, frankly, has thrown it back in the face of the Minister for Finance. The final nail in the coffin of the supposed authority of the Prime Minister-indeed, it is now his humiliation-is that we had to learn about the death of the privatisation debate from none other than the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Simon Crean, who on 19 May announced, `Privatisation is dead'. The union bosses rule again. Frankly it is fitting that Simon Crean should make the announcement on such a major plank of Government economic policy. After all, he and the trade union movement had as much to do with the scuttling of the Prime Minister's plan on privatisation as anyone. The galling fact is of course that the trade union movement had always deemed privatisation as totally unacceptable. It has won, and it has won unqualifiedly. Mr Peter Fisher —They always do. Mr McGAURAN —They always do, as the honourable member for Mallee says. It is tragic that in the conduct of this Government's economic policy it must first seek and obtain the approval of the trade union movement-forget about the interests of all Australians and about the responsibilities of its higher office. It is pandering-and there is no other word for it-to the trade union movement first and last. The Prime Minister, in attempting to direct a message at the Minister for Administrative Services, said that there had been no decision on privatisation. Who is kidding whom? Who really believes that there is now going to be anything like a legitimate and fair examination of the important principles surrounding privatisation? After all, yesterday Senator Evans himself, sharing the same platform as the Minister for Administrative Services and the Minister for Finance, opened his speech by saying: It has been perfectly obvious for a number of months that the Party is simply not prepared at this stage to make any significant change to the existing Platform commitment to full public ownership of a number of major government business enterprises. That is in the usual format of Senator Evans. He could have said all of that in four or five words. Privatisation is dead. The economic agenda is now in the hands of the Left and by any reckoning this is a fundamental shift of power within the ALP and it forebodes ill for the Government in the months ahead. With the deteriorating balance of trade payments there will be a need for an even more determined and greater analysis of things that we have always accepted in this country. What confidence can anyone now have that the Government is serious about addressing these fundamental weaknesses? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(3.40) —It is a great honour to participate in this debate this afternoon, particularly following the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Since I have been here I do not think I have ever witnessed a more blatant attempt by the honourable member to advance his own standing within the National Party of Australia. I think he has been reading too much of Laurie Oakes, and he believes that the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) has a bit of a jump on him. I do not think what he has said this afternoon has convinced anybody. Both the honourable member for Gippsland and the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) this afternoon went to great pains to try to point out the totally so-called undemocratic ways in which the Australian Labor Party (ALP) goes about determining issues of great significance to the Australian people. The one under consideration today is the question of privatisation. The honourable member for Gippsland said that legitimate and fair examination of the proposals is no longer possible because of what has happened. The honourable member for Deakin went on to say that the Government should conduct its discussions internally, within the Party, and not in the public arena. How can one reconcile those two views? It is not difficult when one understands that one honourable member is from the National Party and one is from the Liberal Party of Australia. The ALP prides itself on being representative of the broad views in the community and it goes to great lengths to try to establish those views and to take them into consideration through a variety of forums. The honourable member for Gippsland said, `I am sorry, but they have not discussed it. Legitimate discussion has been stifled'. I point to two policy documents provided for the Australian Labor Party-one on Australian Airlines and one on Qantas Airways Ltd-by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans). They are two of several documents prepared for consideration within the Government and I concede that they found their way into the newspapers of this country. These are only two such background documents. On top of that we have had a series of discussions at branch level; we have had discussions at Federal electorate council level within the ALP; and, heaven forbid, we convened a seminar in Sydney yesterday to discuss the whole issue of privatisation. Goodness gracious me, members of this Government went along and put their views. Yes, there were differences of opinion. Senator Evans had a different opinion to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) whose opinion again was different to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). What a dreadful thing it is that within an internal discussion of the Australian Labor Party members of the Party, whether they be Ministers or not, had different opinions. Was that not terrible to have rank and file members attend that meeting in Sydney, to have ordinary Australians from the western suburb of Sydney, from central Sydney and from all over New South Wales-even from the Illawarra-expressing views? They expressed a view which had been formed from discussions in the clubs, the pubs, at the bowling greens on Saturdays, et cetera. What a dreadful process for a party to go through! The Opposition says that that is terribly wrong. The honourable member for Deakin said that the Government should conduct its discussions internally. I say to the honourable member for Deakin that that is how he might do it in the cloisters of the Melbourne Club, that might be how the Liberal Party conducts its consideration of policy issues. Maybe it is over a can of Fosters with the Federal President that the Party gets its direction. That is not how this Government works and it is not how this Party works. The whole issue was skated over by the contributions from the gentlemen on the other side to this debate. They made the classic statements that privatisation and ownership in the private sector mean an efficient industry and better operations, and that more entrepreneurial skill can be brought to bear. That statement is simply not supported by the facts. The honourable member for Deakin should know better but he skated over this issue. Quite often comparisons are drawn with operations such as British Airways which was privatised under Margaret Thatcher. What happened there? It is quite interesting. One of the most drastic things that occurred was that one-third of the staff were sacked. Do we therefore equate privatisation with unemployment? Is that what the Liberal and National parties are now suggesting to the Australian people? Are they saying, `Privatise and sack people.'? Both Qantas and Australian Airlines-and the Minister ably demonstrated this in his contribution today-which were supposed to form the basis of this debate on a matter of public importance have, over the last few years, since the injection of capital by this Government in 1983, made incredible steps forward in profitability, in returning dividends to the major shareholder, being the Government, and in improved performance. We forget so quickly. What about at the end of last year when Qantas had to lease additional aircraft because of the demand for seats into this country? Do we quickly say, `That airline is no longer efficient. Get rid of it because private enterprise can do it better.'? Does that overcome the basic need for an immediate injection of $600m of additional equity? No, it does not. We have to go through the facts and the figures. I am sure the Opposition spokesman on transport has received the document from Qantas and the briefing-as members of the Government have-on why $600m is needed and why, by 1991-92, $5.4 billion will be needed. No doubt he can read for himself that according to Qantas the easiest way to effect this is to have equity capital of $600m; plough back profits estimated to be $1,500m and depreciation allowance of $1,500m; arrange net long term finance of $1,800m; and sell assets of $200m. That is where the money can come from. Where is the consideration and argument from the National and Liberal parties about how to finance Qantas? What about Australian Airlines? Recent financial performance has shown that in 1983-84 the net profit after tax for Australian Airlines was $3.9m. In 1986-87 it was $24.9m and that was after a one-off loss associated with the closure of Air Queensland. In the financial year 1986-87 Qantas generated its best ever profit with a record turnover of $2.562 billion. That is a staggering figure, yet honourable members opposite say that Qantas and Australian Airlines are two examples of publicly owned operations that cannot make a go of it, that cannot make a profit. They quite clearly can. They do it effectively. Yes, they need to expand, they need to improve their fleet and there are ways to do so which need to be examined. Within the forums of the Australian Labor Party, through the publication of background documents we see various scenarios put forward which suggest how that might be done. I suggest to the honourable gentlemen that as they have copies of these background documents, they go back and read what is being advanced. Clearly, this Government is concerned about ensuring that its publicly owned operations are efficient and effective, as I have said time and again in this place in debates on this particular issue. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that because an enterprise is publicly owned it is less efficient than something in the broad private sector. For example, one can look at British Airways and many other organisations overseas. Let us not forget that in this case we are talking about airlines servicing a market that is so markedly different from any other market which has been used as an example that allowances have to be made. To suggest that benefits being brought to the Australian travelling public are no longer there because of the Government's attitude as to whether capital funding should be put into Qantas and Australian Airlines completely abrogates responsibility in determining how that money is found. I suggest to the honourable member for Deakin and the honourable member for Gippsland that they go back and look at the discussion that is occurring in the Australian Labor Party on this issue. If they do they will learn something about democracy in action. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the seventh report of the Committee for 1988, relating to the relocation of the Albion explosives factory to Mulwala, New South Wales. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr Tim Fischer —I want to commend the report presented by the Committee this afternoon. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have already put the question. There is no provision -- Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was on my feet. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have put the question. I am afraid that we have passed that stage of proceedings. If the honourable member wants to make a few brief remarks he could probably do so by way of indulgence. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —I indicate my support for the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works regarding the Mulwala explosives factory. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That standing order 48a (adjournment of House), as amended by sessional order, be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That- (1) standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for this sitting; and (2) in relation to the proceedings on the following bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the bills: Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988; Customs Tariff Amendment Bill No. 2 1988; Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988; Industrial Relations Bill 1988; Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988; Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988; Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill 1988; Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Audit Amendment Bill 1988; Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988; Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988; Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988; Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; and Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1988. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(3.53) —The Opposition did not oppose the previous motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) which was designed to suspend the standing order that requires the adjournment of the House to be moved at 10.30 p.m.. That means, for the benefit of those who are not familiar with parliamentary practice, that the House can now sit at the Government's pleasure until late in the evening. We did not oppose the previous motion because we realise that the Government has a great deal of business to consider between now and when the House rises for the winter recess. However, we oppose this motion vigorously because it will enable the Government, today, to press through this chamber no fewer than 14 Bills. According to the Government's timetable, the House will sit until around 1 a.m. tomorrow. Of the 14 Bills, there are a large number of very important matters to be dealt with. Perhaps I can give the House one or two examples. There are two defence Bills which will occupy a maximum of about 50 minutes debate. One has been listed to be debated in no less than 10 minutes. That is a disgrace, to say the least. Another set of Bills to be debated could be described loosely as the industrial relations package. In one instance, 45 minutes has been set aside and, in the other, 2 hours and 20 minutes-a total of 3 hours and 5 minutes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that, as a trade unionist and a member of the Australian Labor Party, it must appal you that the House of Representatives should be given so little time to discuss such important matters. I recognise that towards the end of sessions governments often have a log-jam of legislation. However, the Labor Party, when in government, has had a policy, which has been adopted consistently by Labor governments, of regarding the Parliament as an unavoidable obstacle; in other words, if it could govern without coming to the Parliament the Labor Party would do so. The Hawke Government has the worst record of any Commonwealth Government in this regard. I say to the Leader of the House that I hope this will be the last occasion-I say this very sincerely; these are not the pious words of someone sitting in opposition-that any Minister in this House on behalf of any government stands up and requires that so much legislation be passed in so short a time. Already today the Opposition, and indeed the Parliament, have been refused the opportunity to debate a statement by the Minister responsible for education. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) came into the House today and refused to make a speech which I understand would have taken around 15 minutes to deliver. He tabled the paper and refused the Opposition the opportunity to respond. The paper was entitled Strengthening Australia's Schools: A Consideration of the Focus and Content of Schooling. Is there any issue in the education portfolio that should be focused on more by this House than issues associated with the Australian schools system? I deplore what has happened and say as strongly as I can, and with all the sincerity that I can muster, that what is happening today is a reflection on this Parliament and the parliamentary system. We oppose strenuously and will vote against the motion. Question put: The the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. Martin, S.P.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L. Duncan, P. Dobie, J. D. M.Fatin W. F. Hall, SteeleHayden, W. G. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988; Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988; Industrial Relations Bill 1988; Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988; Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill 1988; Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill 1988; Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Audit Amendment Bill 1988; Anti-Dumping Authority Bill 1988; Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1988; Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1988; Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; and Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1988. I move: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. Martin, S.P.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L. Duncan, P. Dobie, J. D. M.Fatin W. F. Hall, SteeleHayden, W. G. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows: (1) Customs Tariff Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 4.50 p.m. this day. (2) Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2); For the remaining stages, until 5 p.m. this day. (3) Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill; For the remaining stages, until 5.45 p.m. this day. (4) Industrial Relations Bill; For the remaining stages, until 10.20 p.m. this day. (5) Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill; For the remaining stages, until 10.30 p.m. this day. (6) Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill; For the remaining stages, until 11.30 p.m. this day. (7) Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 11.40 p.m. this day. (8) Defence Legislation Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 12.20 a.m. on Tuesday, 24 May. (9) Audit Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 1 a.m. on Tuesday, 24 May. (10) Anti-Dumping Authority Bill; For the remaining stages, until 6.10 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 May. (11) Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill; For the remaining stages, until 6.20 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 May. (12) Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 6.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 May. (13) Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 9.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 May. (14) Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 9.55 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 May. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). There being no opposition to that, I will allow that course of action. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.11) —The items being discussed today are two cognate Bills, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988. As the recently recognised doctor of science, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), would recognise, these are two very interesting Bills. The Opposition will not oppose these Bills but will raise an amendment as a matter of principle; but I would like to raise some other probing questions about the confused path that the Government's industry policy is following, which is continuing to plague Australian industry. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988 is the first of a bag of different amendments. Firstly, it revises upwards the surcharge placed on aviation gas last year, which was 3.9c a litre; it will rise by 0.5c to 4.4c as a consequence of the revised charging arrangements. The Bill also gives effect to the Government decisions following the release of an Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report on pulp, paper products and printing industries, medical and scientific equipment, glass and glassware. The new tariff rate on an industry-wide basis for each of these industries is to be 15 per cent for the large majority of products, and this will be phased in, where necessary, on a tops down basis. Loss of revenue is estimated to be only $2.3m in the first year, $10m the next year and in the order of $22.5m in 1998-99. From all reports, the 15 per cent figure is a foreshadowing of the sorts of tariff cuts we can expect to see in the mini-Budget later this week, as part of the Government's long-overdue micro-economic reform package. Speculation started before Christmas and resulted in delayed investment plans, consumers' deferred purchases and importers' speculation on imports. After months of speculation, depressed investment levels and rampant uncertainty, the Government will finally make a statement. The protection portion of the package has been designated as a tussle between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) pushing for two 12.5 per cent cuts and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) wanting a 15 per cent cut, with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) supporting the harder line. The 15 per cent figure, however, was apparently tried out in the areas of glass, scientific and medical equipment and paper. However, changes of this magnitude would not make up for the advantages most industries have gained from the fall in the dollar through devaluation since the Government came to office. A series of amendments is also proposed for the current textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) sectional plan, including a developing country quota, and adjustments will become dependent on market thresholds. The customs value criterion, which determines whether footwear is subject to tariff quotas, will be increased from $1.35 to $1.45. The TCF sectional plan and the steel plan have their own distinct legislation, which allows the Government to make changes to tariff levels without referring to the IAC. The car plan, however, does not have this advantage: there must be an IAC report before changes are made in tariffs under this plan. Therefore, the Treasurer has free rein over cutting tariffs in the TCF and steel areas, if he so desires. This seems to be a trend with sectional plans: to make them independent from an IAC report so that the Treasurer can tinker with the tariff levels for political gain. The car plan, however, does not have these advantages. It looks as though the textiles, clothing and footwear sector will continue in the certainty of a plan, which it was promised by Senator Button some months ago. The forces in the Government pushing for reduced protection seem to have petered out as more or less a case of `Let's avoid another brawl in Caucus'. Much as the Treasurer would have loved to tackle tariffs, he appears to have slunk away from the Caucus fight. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill seeks to correct a number of anomalies that have become apparent since the introduction of the harmonised tariff system in Australia in January 1988. These amendments should ensure that industry is not disadvantaged by misclassifications or errors. That is a nice sentiment, but there are some basic impediments to these changes. In the Government's haste to get these changes through the House, it has forgotten about section 23 (3) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act, which requires a report before tariffs are tinkered with. The Government must pass the Industries Assistance Commission Bill before it starts chopping and changing without reference to an IAC report. I spoke last week on a Bill which would have amended the Industries Assistance Commission Act to allow this sort of amendment to occur in a variety of circumstances. It is a dangerous Bill which empowers the Government to raise or lower tariffs at will, without relying on a professional specialised body like the IAC. It is my belief that this portion of the amendment runs contrary to section 23 (3) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act, which requires a Minister to refer to an IAC report before making tariff changes. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) apparently agrees with this. In a letter to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, he advised: The relevant Minister cannot, because of section 23 (3) of the (IAC) Act take any action in respect of a matter specified in s.23 (4) of the action that is related to the provision of assistance to a particular industry . . . unless he has first received a report from the IAC. If that is not clear enough, I do not know what is-even to a PhD. Mr Barry Jones —DSc. Mr MOORE —And bar? Mr Barry Jones —Absolutely. Mr MOORE —I will speak more about that matter later. This Bill also gives effect to the Prime Minister's election promise, which placed a 6 per cent limit on the consumer price index (CPI) increase for August 1987 and for February 1988 relating to alcohol, tobacco products and refined petroleum products. Originally, it was an off the cuff comment made in the Prime Minister's zest to win, during the election campaign. It was made at a time when the Prime Minister thought inflation would hover around the 6 per cent mark. As everyone is well aware, inflation has remained well over the 6 per cent limit. This undertaking was contained in the Prime Minister's famous Ruby Hutchison Memorial Address on 13 March 1987, and I quote: We will continue within the limits of fiscal responsibility to do everything within our power to restrict the growth of Commonwealth taxes and charges and those of our authorities. To be more concrete, the Commonwealth pledges that it will generally restrict the increase in our excises which would otherwise have occurred at the next two half-yearly indexation adjustments to a total of around 6 per cent. The Prime Minister called for price restraint but then turned around and promised to spend some more taxpayers' money to quell the tide of the resentful Left within the Australian Labor Party. Along with the 6 per cent promise, the Prime Minister made some other promises. He promised to enlarge the price watch network, to expand the task force for the Prices Surveillance Authority, to establish a new Bureau of Consumer Affairs and to assign a Minister to spearhead a consumer affairs campaign. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business started that, and it has passed to other hands. I ask the Minister, who is primarily responsible for this area, what has happened to all these task forces that were set up around the place. Have they been a success or another flop in relation to these policy outlines? In order to implement these expansions-and I refer here to the Hutchinson address-the Prime Minister announced that he would make $35,000 available for voluntary price watch activities. He handpicked the Australian Pensioners Federation as the lucky recipient of $18,000 and the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) as the lucky recipient of $15,000. It is my understanding that the Australian Pensioners Federation was a reluctant player and was sensible enough to see through the political ploy; it turned down the money. I believe the whole amount of the grant was then transferred to the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations for price watching purposes. More than a year has elapsed since the Prime Minister's announcement, and I would like to know how the money was spent and how the consumers have benefited. How were these funds shown in the accounts of AFCO? Have they been spent, and where, and if not, why not? It is interesting to note some of the changes in percentages and amounts that the Government has spent on its various regulatory authorities. The Industries Assistance Commission is one of the most significant bodies that the Government has, it advises the Government on matters of enormous importance for Australian commerce. In 1985-86, $12m was spent on it. In 1986-87 the amount had dropped to $11.6m. These are actual figures and bear no relation to the inflationary effect. That is in real terms a significant drop. The estimate for 1987-88 is $10.8m, a further decline of some 6.7 per cent in money terms; in real terms the drop is far greater. One can see from those figures that the emphasis on the IAC is on the wane. The Government's ability or desire to take any interest in its reports and the significant independence of the IAC are clearly put at risk because of these practices. At the same time it is interesting to note the amount of money that has been given to the Trade Practices Commission over the same period of time: $10.9m in 1985-86; $7.6m in 1986-87; and up to $8.6m in 1987-88. Over the three-year period it is still lagging behind 1985-86 in money terms. Goodness knows what the effect is in real terms, especially as so much depends on the Trade Practices Commission these days. Many of the very controversial decisions that have been made in Australia as they relate to the Press and other media areas, to the takeovers of retailers and to other inquiries surrounding the whole area of trade practices must have been inhibited by the decline that has taken place in the amount of money allocated to the resources of the Trade Practices Commission. No doubt the Commission itself will be looking at that. I turn to the big growth areas: the Prices Surveillance Authority has gone from $1.2m in 1985-86 up to $2m in 1987-88-an increase of 22.1 per cent. At the same time the amount allocated to consumer protection, which ought to be part of the trade practices area, has gone from $3.7m to $5.9m, an increase of 42 per cent. In 1987-88 the National Companies and Securities Commission, which should be well funded to give the appropriate levels of management, received $2.7m as the Federal Government's contribution. The Commission is undertaking a very significant inquiry at the moment relating to the Bell-Bond-State Government Insurance Commission fiasco in Western Australia. Honourable members will recall that the States make an equal contribution; in three years that has risen to $3.1m, an increase of $400,000. It is no wonder the Commission does not have the resources to undertake the prosecutions and investigative work that it is charged to do. The corporate watchdog has not been fed appropriately. Other areas we can look to include standards and accreditation, which has been barely maintained. While all these actions have been going on in these areas, the Government's order of priority is quite clear: the winners have been prices surveillance and consumer protection and the big losers have been the Industries Assistance Commission, the National Companies and Securities Commission and trade practices. The significant areas of operation within government have been starved of resources at a time when they are most needed. I move now to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). This Bill proposes to implement the changes to the passenger motor vehicle plan announced on 13 April 1988 by Senator Button. In the mid-term review of the car plan it became evident that the four-year-old car plan had not succeeded in reducing the relative cost of cars in Australia. The prices of some popular sedans had risen between 43 per cent and 63 per cent since the introduction of the vehicle building nationalisation plan. It now takes the average worker 46 weeks to earn enough to buy a standard Commodore, whilst in 1985 it took only 39 weeks. Action was needed; the car plan was failing. Firstly, this Bill will abolish tariff quotas altogether on passenger motor vehicles. Secondly, it will reduce customs duties on passenger motor vehicles from 57.5 per cent to 45 per cent and then phase them down by 2.5 per cent each year until 1992, when the rate will remain at 35 per cent. Thirdly, it will reduce tariffs on light commercial and four-wheel drive vehicles immediately to 20 per cent and later 15 per cent. Fourthly, export facilitation will be amended to provide that the upper limit for export credits under the scheme will be increased to 20 per cent of value of production in 1988 with a credit earning of 50 per cent in the dollar on the export performance above 15 per cent. Fifthly, the present requirement for plan producers to meet an average local content target of 85 per cent will remain unchanged. Producers retain the right to import 15 per cent of the value of their production duty free. However, penalties for importing outside the 15 per cent by-law limits will no longer be prohibitive. It does not take a genius to realise that, if a car maker is forced to buy from a producer at least 85 per cent of his parts, the producer can charge whatever he likes because there is nowhere else to go. The penalties for non-compliance with the 85 per cent local content rule were daunting. If non-compliance took place over three quarters, the penalty rose to as much as 75 per cent on the value of its production over and above the 85 per cent limit-a severe penalty. While the 85 per cent rule was meant to make component makers more competitive, the devaluation of the dollar let them off the hook in a more precise regard. The Button plan mark 2 will allow car makers to run under the 85 per cent limit and pay a penalty of 45 per cent, reducing to 35 per cent. This means that, if Australian suppliers are found to be unreliable or provide poor quality components, car makers can now look elsewhere. This also injects a further incentive to suppliers to become internationally competitive, which is part of the car plan. The Opposition welcomed these changes when they were announced in April and will continue to do so. However, I would like to make the point that these tariff changes were merely adjustments, and minor ones at that. Currency realignment has been massive due to the devaluation of the dollar. As a matter of fact, the realignment has been so savage that, if tariffs were cut out altogether, the local motor industry would be more protected now than it was when the car plan commenced. The effect of devaluation on the cost of landing a car has become an embarrassment. For example, the increase in the last few years in duty and sales tax taken by the Government for a Mazda 323-not a substantial car-went from $4,500 to more than $11,000. Duty and sales tax have increased from $14,400 to $37,600 on a five-series BMW. So really, in easing the tariff rate down to 45 per cent and then later to 35 per cent, the Government is doing nothing but cutting out the fat that it is too embarrassed to wear any more. The fact is that these tariff cuts will only take importers back to the position they were in before the stock market crashed in October. However, the changes are certainly in the right direction, particularly the decision to cut the tariff to 45 per cent-a drop of 12.5 points or 20 per cent-and the change in local content penalties. Reductions in tariffs on light commercials will also put pressure on local passenger vehicle producers and should assist consumers. It was well known that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) was unhappy with the continued high prices being charged for motor vehicles and particularly some comments which emanated from industry. One producer commented, `People will have to get used to paying more for cars'. Consumers should not have to get used to paying more for cars. If this Government has the consumers' best interests at heart, it should start by making cars, clothing and the necessities of life less expensive rather than sinking funds into those inadequate price watching programs that I mentioned earlier. Senator Button hit the nail on the head when he said: There is room for improvement particularly in the objective of achieving more affordable cars for consumers. The price of cars has played a large part in putting Australia's standard of living well below that of many other countries. The car industry watchdog, the Automotive Industry Authority, told Australian car makers last year in a report tabled in the Parliament that vehicles were too dear and were not made well enough. The Authority carried out a detailed quality analysis of Australian-made cars and found that only three out of 10 surveyed had made significant improvements in quality over the last three years. The Authority said that a car that took 33 weeks to pay for in 1973 now takes more than 39 weeks wages and is likely to have twice as many faults as an imported Japanese car. Car makers were also rapped over the knuckles for having lifted prices last year faster than the CPI. Car prices have increased by double the rate of increase in the CPI in the last 2 years. This has resulted in a 20 per cent decrease in car sales in that period. In a Press release of 7 February 1988, the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations stated: Industry protection is increasingly being paid for by Australia's lower income households. Cars and clothes are major items of household expenditure-taking 10 per cent of the average Australian's income and up to 14 per cent of the income of poorer households. . . . assistance for these two industries cost each household between $600 and $900 in 1984 in the form of higher prices resulting from tariffs and other import restrictions. . . . high tariffs don't seem to have preserved industry employment. In fact, the most highly assisted industries have shown some of the poorest returns in their stakeholders-employees, shareholders and consumers. I urge the Government to read those comments. Finally, I would like to talk about the methodology that this Government is using in the implementation of these changes, which appears to be highly questionable. As anxious as the Opposition is to see these changes put in place, there are question marks hanging over the whole Industries Assistance Commission at the moment which need to be addressed. It appears that the Government is trying to push through legislation that would give Ministers ambit powers to change tariffs without reference to the IAC. The IAC was established to ensure that the case for industry protection and the reasons for government decisions on protection were put under the microscope and subjected to public scrutiny. The Opposition opposed sections of that legislation last week when it was debated in this House. It now goes before the Senate only days before the May economic statement. In this controversial legislation, the Federal Government outlined five circumstances under which a Minister could change tariff levels without consulting the IAC. The Opposition readily agreed that tariffs should be changed in cases of error, ambiguity or anomaly. The Opposition also agreed that tariffs should be changed without an IAC report to keep harmonised tariffs in line with those in the rest of the world. However, we opposed the two sections which would allow the Government to act as the `court of last resort' in relation to tariff classifications. In essence, the Government could overturn a ruling by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, thereby diluting appeal channels currently available to industry and importers. What use is there in having a tribunal whose decisions can ultimately be reversed by the Government relying on departmental advice? Another circumstance which the Opposition is concerned about is the last one which would allow a Minister to: . . . vary details of industry assistance arrangements which were adopted by a Government decision following receipt of an IAC report- the standard way- and where the variations are in accordance with the Government decision. This is quite a revolutionary approach to the use of IAC reports and the conventional methods of changing industry assistance. What this really means is that the Government can change tariffs at any time and the IAC no longer has a major role to play. If this legislation were in place at the time of the May economic statement which is to be delivered this week, the Government could do whatever it pleased to tariff levels without the safeguards the IAC provides. Furthermore, it appears that the Act is being contravened by changes to the car plan that we are debating today. Where is the IAC report recommending these changes? What is the role of the IAC if it is left out of decisions such as this? This is an administrative bungle. This matter is intriguing because it indicates that the Treasurer believes that now he has control of the IAC he can ignore that body and make it impotent. All power will revert back to Treasury, and we all know that the Treasury is interested only in raising revenue, not in lowering prices so that average wage earners can afford their consumer items, particularly their motor cars. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for the tediously slow pace of reform and the confusion, uncertainty and speculation which has abounded in the interim, resulting in a widespread reluctance to invest'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Shack —I second the amendment. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(4.38) —I have pleasure in rising in support of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 which, as has already been outlined, put before the House a series of amendments to present customs tariff arrangements. As has already been mentioned, this debate is taking place in the context of much speculation about what might occur in next Wednesday night's economic statement. It is, therefore, perhaps appropriate to make some general comments about customs and tariff arrangements. The Australian economy, and in particular the manufacturing sector, have traditionally enjoyed high levels of protection. In September 1970 the annual report of the Tariff Board estimated that the nominal cost of protection available to manufacturing industry was $3.3 billion. In 1986-87, net tariff assistance to manufacturing was estimated at approximately $6.9 billion. Levels of protection vary widely both within the manufacturing sector and among the different sectors. A study by the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, released in February this year, calculated that average effective protection of manufacturing in 1985-86 was 22 per cent. This compares with mining at one per cent and agriculture at 12 per cent. There are acknowledged costs to the economy for protection, both in terms of an inflationary effect, sometimes estimated to be as much as 7 per cent, and a disadvantage to export oriented sectors. A recent study by the Melbourne University Centre for International Economics found that a removal of tariff protection would increase rural exports by 6 per cent or some $500m. If other sectors were not protected, it has been estimated that real net returns on mining would rise by 18 per cent. It might also be argued that the tariff regime is increasingly out of step with the general trend of the Government's policies of deregulation in the economy. But what is often overlooked-and I think this is important in the context of the current debate-is that unilateral cuts in the levels of protection would also have tremendous social and economic costs. The approach to economic reform must always involve a balance of competing interests. The only means of achieving this is medium to long term economic planning. Prime examples of this approach are the Government's sectoral plans, such as the passenger motor vehicle industry plan, the textile, clothing and footwear plan, the steel plan, the heavy engineering plan and the pulp and paper plan. Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) puts into place a number of changes to the principal Act which were proposed by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in his recent mid-term review of the car plan, which was tabled in this place on 13 April. The original car plan was established to provide the framework for the necessary transition from a high cost, domestically oriented industry, to supply Australians and the world markets with a better quality product at a more reasonable price. The long term objectives of the plan were that the industry be successful and prosper with lower levels of government assistance and provide quality products at reduced prices in real terms and that the restructuring be carried out, importantly, with minimum disruption and cost. It has been successful so far. After three years there has been a major rationalisation of producers. It is expected that, by the end of next year, the number of models will have been reduced from 13 to eight. Importantly, automotive exports have reached $755m in 1987, an increase of $290m, or 63 per cent, over the previous year. This is almost double the level in 1984. Investment has increased sharply, showing that confidence in the viability of the industry and plant rationalisations to improve overall efficiency have been achieved with long term planning and significant consultation with the work force. The review concluded that the better competitive environment enabled an acceleration of the original plan provisions. The aim is to ensure that the incentives for adjustment are maintained. The adjustments are designed to re-establish the competitive circumstances originally envisaged in the plan. Senator Button has indicated that the Government does not expect, therefore, that there will be serious disruption in production or employment as a consequence. The changes will continue to be monitored by the Automotive Industry Authority, which recently submitted its 1987 report to this House. I wish to highlight in that report a section about industrial relations. We all know that in the past poor industrial relations in the car manufacturing industry have been a major threat to achieving increased efficiency, but since the plan has been in place industrial relations have been much better and have contributed in their own way towards the success of the plan. That is not to say that there will not be a need for continued cooperation at a tripartite level to see the plan through to further success at its finish in 1992. That is the important thing that we must realise. A number of the plans that I have already mentioned have been based on close cooperation at a tripartite level between government, the employers and the trade unions. That is one of the hallmarks of the way in which the Labor Government has gone about its industry policy, and it makes a nonsense of the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), in which he talks about uncertainty and speculation, resulting in the interim in widespread reluctance to invest. In the past we have had very successful plans because of the way in which the Government has considered all views. As to some of the media comment about what may be happening with tariffs in the economic statement to be made on Wednesday, I hope that the Government on Wednesday will give conscious recognition to the need not to do anything to jeopardise the success of these very successful plans, worked out in cooperation with employers and trade unions, to jeopardise the confidence in these plans which has been recognised by investment. That is very important. I think the Government needs to recognise it and in any of its proposals continue the close cooperation and consultation with those types of bodies that it has in the past. I have pleasure in recommending this legislation to the House. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.45) —I wish to respond very quickly in rejecting the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). It is a curious amendment because its text is completely contrary to the thrust of what the honourable member was saying in his speech. For example, the Government is condemned for the `tediously slow pace of reform and the confusion, uncertainty and speculation which has abounded in the interim, resulting in a widespread reluctance to invest'. The decision on the car plan was announced on 13 April, the reason being that we wanted to avoid the hiatus between 13 April and 25 May, which we thought would have a severely inhibiting effect on the motor car industry generally. So we have speeded up the process, but this is described in the amendment as a `tediously slow pace'. Indeed, at the time we made the announcement on 13 April it was supported-although in a customarily tepid way-by the honourable member and strongly in the community as a whole. I do not recall having heard any significant criticism of it. In fact, everything we did in that area was aimed specifically to reduce confusion, uncertainty and speculation, and we have done it quite successfully. The honourable member for Ryan, in one of the major points in his speech, challenged the legality of what the Government is doing. He claimed that there was a contravention of section 23 (3) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1975. There is a very important distinction to be made. There is no doubt that the effect of that section of the legislation is to inhibit an action by a Minister-whether it be me or the honourable member for Ryan in his previous role-in amending the customs tariff by either a customs tariff proposal or a notice of intention to propose a customs tariff alteration, known within the trade as a Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice, unless there has been an Industries Assistance Commission report within the preceding 12 months. The inhibition in section 23 (3) is aimed at what a Minister can do, but it cannot be held that this inhibits what the Parliament can do. Mr Moore —Of the Minister's own volition. Mr BARRY JONES —There is an important distinction. Obviously, there are things that can or cannot be done by a Minister simply signing his name on a departmental brief and then finding it immortalised in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. But when legislation is put up in this place and subjected to the pitiless-indeed withering-examination of this very powerful Opposition, that is where the scrutiny takes place. There is no question about the advice of the Attorney-General's Department. It is as follows: The IAC Act as advised previously by this Department- that is, the advice from the Attorney-General's Department of 5 September 1985- does not constrain parliamentary action. As previously advised, section 23 (3) of the Act does not prevent the introduction into the Parliament of legislation. There can be no radical entrenching provisions in Commonwealth law. Any legislation providing for varied assistance when in force could override anything to the contrary in section 23 (3) of the Act. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) conforms perfectly with that advice, because every variation in it follows Industries Assistance Commission reports. In Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), a Government decision has gone through Cabinet. Cabinet has not taken that decision in isolation. It is proposed in the form of legislation to be debated by this Parliament. There is no doubt that it is not in conflict with section 23 (3) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill having expired, I put the question that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 27 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: 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 Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(4.52) —The first point I want to make about the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill, which overall is positive and important legislation, concerns the lack of time we have to debate this Bill adequately because of the Government's unnecessary and unwarranted use of the guillotine. It deprives the Parliament of adequate debate, in particular on the detailed important issues of concern in the Bill. Mr Barry Jones —Sinclair would never do that, would he? Mr LLOYD —I agree that we would never have done such a thing on such an important piece of legislation concerning the future of the export industries of this country. I am pleased that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), agrees with me on this point. The Opposition generally supports the legislation and therefore there will be no division. I understand there will be a very brief time at the end of the committee debate to allow me in passing to address the amendments which stand in my name. The agricultural and veterinary chemicals industry, and the widespread and safe use of chemicals, particularly in the advanced agriculture economies of the world-Australia being one of those-have transformed agricultural production. It has transformed the productivity of farmers; it has transformed the ability to store food products safely. Without these tremendous developments in these chemicals the world would now be starving. We would not have the ability to sustain the large and growing population that we have to feed. If we look at the developments in agriculture over the last 10 to 15 years we see that some of the dire prophecies of the Club of Rome have proved to be quite wrong. I believe the winning of the battle not just to feed the world but to feed it adequately is being won, and agricultural and veterinary chemicals deserve quite a compliment for the significant role they have played in that progress. Australia would be a far poorer country without the widespread use by farmers of these chemicals thus enabling us to feed ourselves and to export desperately needed products so that we may maintain our standard of living. When one considers that, in spite of all the incentives and advantages given by government to the manufacturing and other non-primary industries of this country, agriculture today provides a net 50 per cent of our total exports, and it is produced by about 5 per cent of our population, it is a tremendous achievement. The critics of the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are themselves beneficiaries. They enjoy and will continue to enjoy the standard of living that we all do, but have the hypocrisy to criticise the use of those very chemicals. Australia has a very good record in the actions of chemical companies, the farmers or the State departments of agriculture in the use of these chemicals. But there has been concern for many years about the lack of uniformity and or duplication in our federal system. There is fragmented responsibility between the Federal and State governments. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) noted in his second reading speech that as far back as 1967 there was a voluntary arrangement whereby the Commonwealth would provide clearance prior to State registration. I emphasise that it was voluntary. It was noted, and has been continually noted since then by the Australian Agricultural Council, that this was an improvement but that there were still weaknesses because it was voluntary. Both this Government and the previous coalition Government attempted to raise this issue at Australian Agricultural Council meetings in order to make some progress towards overcoming this problem, but no progress was made until 12 months ago when we had the United States meat pesticide residue crisis. It is about 12 months ago today that that occurred. It highlighted one of the problems of this fragmented and voluntary arrangement. There is no power to remove clearance for a chemical quickly when it becomes apparent that it provides a major threat to valuable export markets. Twelve months ago, and for some time after, we had the absurd situation where several States did not ban the use of those chemicals which had so obviously caused us problems in our major market for meat-an export market worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year-and it took a little while for State departments to stop recommending, through their extension services, the use of those chemicals. The other weakness revealed at that time was the failure of the Federal Government's national residue survey scheme to pick up contaminated material. In other words, there should still have been a sampling procedure in this country that prevented contaminated meat from leaving this country. The lesson-and in my view it is still being learnt-was that the Federal Government's sampling system was inadequate. At that time the Federal Government reneged on its responsibility, as did some of the State governments. Initially all of them did, but some State governments are now providing compensation and other forms of assistance to affected farmers. The point is that the beef industry, which has suffered because of this meat residue problem, did not cause the problem. The chemicals causing the problem were crop chemicals, not livestock chemicals. In spite of the problem being caused partly by other industries, partly by the failure of the Federal Government's own sampling and partly by State governments-it was not in any way caused by the beef industry itself-the beef industry still had to pick up that dramatically increased cost of more intensive testing to make sure that we could guarantee the purity of our product. To its credit, it did. It has cost it over $35m so far. Mr Andrew —And they are tainted with screw worm. Mr LLOYD —As my colleague has mentioned, now we have the added danger of the pest screw worm possibly getting into the cattle industry in this country through the failure of our quarantine system. We still have over 1,000 farms quarantined and the future viability of the farmers involved is very much at risk. We also have new charges applied to the beef industry to make sure that the Government's failed national residue survey scheme may operate somewhat better in the future. The Government promised $10m in the Budget to assist the industry with these problems and hardly any of that money has been spent. The coalition parties believed that the correct way to highlight these problems was to have a Senate committee investigate the failures. What happened? After being told that we would have support for this committee, no support was forthcoming because the Government and the Democrats did a deal. The deal was that, in response to the Government supporting the Democrats in some way and the Democrats supporting the Government in other ways, including increased charges to the beef industry, the cattle industry and the agricultural and veterinary chemicals industry had to face a witch-hunt by that Senate committee. The Minister, in his second reading speech, referred to the use of that committee. In the confusion that the Ministers, in particular, caused by their unprincipled double-dealing, the Government tried to give the impression to the cattle industry and the agricultural and veterinary chemicals industry of this country that it was the fault of the coalition parties. It was not. Our inquiry was very positive in terms of assisting the industry. We were advised that Ministers were asking why we did not withdraw it. We have on record the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) claiming that they did not want it. When we offered to withdraw our application for this committee, provided the Government did not support the Democrats' proposal so that there would be no inquiry whatever, we were told, `Sorry, a deal has been made'. Finally, we withdrew our notice to make it completely clear to the people of this country, particularly the cattle industry and the agricultural and veterinary chemicals industry, that we would have nothing to do with a witch-hunt type of inquiry; yet that inquiry remains. As I said earlier, the Opposition parties generally support the legislation, as do the State governments, the Australian Agricultural Council, the National Farmers Federation and other farmer organisations and the agricultural and veterinary chemicals industry. There are still a number of issues which require attention. For example, the States are to retain the registration power. I am not opposed to that happening; it is their responsibility. But, according to the report by the Standing Committee on Agriculture at the Agricultural Council meeting earlier this year, part of the proposal for this legislation which received the in-principle support of the States was that `State legislation would be amended as necessary to accept a clearance certificate for automatic registration of chemicals under State-Territory legislation, except in special instances determined otherwise by a State'. I hope that the Minister has obtained the necessary approval, not just in principle but for the detail of the legislation, so that we will not have the worst situation possible, that is, added duplication because of this legislation-instead of simplifying it and having an automatic registration procedure, we will still have the States proceeding in their own ways as though nothing had happened. That, to me, would be the worst possible outcome because it would mean even more duplication, more fragmentation and more bureaucracy. I would like an assurance from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), who is at the table and who is a veteran in all these sorts of things, so that we will have the confidence that this legislation will achieve what it should. The second issue of concern is the membership of the Australian Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council, the Council that will determine the clearances. The membership will be one presumably agriculture oriented representative from each State; one from the Australian Environment Council and Council of Nature Conservation Ministers; one from each of the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health; and a chairperson from the Minister's Department. Nowhere is there provision for membership of this Council from the two most significant groups in relation to this matter, that is, the chemical companies that compound these chemicals and put a lot of money into investment, and the agricultural people of this country, the farmers, who are the users. Because of the guillotine, I will refer to our proposed amendments at the committee stage. As I know that other members want to speak in the very contracted time we have for this debate, I conclude by saying that generally the coalition parties support the legislation, with those concerns I have mentioned and with more specific concerns that I will raise at the committee stage. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(5.06) —The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill has six main objectives. They are to protect and enhance trade and commerce in agricultural produce and livestock; to assist in the conduct of agricultural and veterinary operations in all or any of the Territories; to minimise any undue hazard to the public, the environment, users and agricultural produce and livestock from the application of chemical products in accordance with recommendations for their use; to ensure accurate representation in product labelling of the intended effects of chemical products available in Australia; to minimise the need for separate evaluation of chemical products by the registering authorities of States and Territories; and to ensure that evaluations of chemical products are carried out in a timely and efficient manner. I acknowledge the comments made by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). While I do not agree with everything he said, I endorse his statements about the need for chemicals. Unfortunately, we have to use chemicals in agriculture. Some of these chemicals are dangerous not only to consumer, but more so-and this is often forgotten-to the users, the farmers themselves. It is evident that farmers in the United States of America have higher levels of cancer than do people in industrial areas. That is a point that is often overlooked. I also agree with the honourable member for Murray that we need to ensure that we get safer chemicals. That will be an ongoing problem. As we find that some chemicals are dangerous, whether or not they be carcinogenic, we will need, through technology, to improve them. The problem of chemical residues in our environment, in our watercourses and in our stock will be an ongoing one. I think honourable members on both sides recognise that fact. This Bill has important ramifications for my region, as I am sure it has for the regions of other speakers on this Bill. In my region the sugar cane industry is a very large user of agricultural chemicals. One of the biggest shocks to the industry was the problem that dieldrin has caused. While I have been a sugar cane farmer I have been fortunate in never needing to use dieldrin. I acknowledge that some farmers, because of the different types of soils and pests, have had to use extensively these types of chemicals without knowing the effects on themselves or on the environment. This Bill aims to minimise the need for separate evaluation of chemical products by the registering authorities of States and Territories. To do this, the legislation will establish the Australian Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council. The Council will comprise representatives of the Federal, State and Territory authorities with chemical clearance or registration responsibilities. The Minister will be empowered to declare States and Territories to be participants in the national clearance system when the State or Territory and the Federal Government have entered into an agreement substantially similar to the agreement incorporated in the proposed Act. The Minister may certify that it is necessary in the public interest to divulge confidential information concerning a chemical product acquired by a member or a member of staff or a committee of Council. The Council is required to prepare annually a report of its operations and to provide this report to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I understand that the Minister will table the report and that the Council will forward copies of the report to relevant State Ministers. While I accept that the Council will report to State Ministers-and the honourable member for Murray has raised this issue also-there appears to be no guarantee that State Ministers necessarily have to act on the report. I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), who is at the table, to clarify this. We certainly do not want duplication or the States going their own way on this matter. As I understand it, there is no clear-cut constitutional basis for the legislation. Like so many other aspects of contemporary Australia, our forefathers who drew up the Constitution were not able to foresee the massive extent of international trade and the extent to which it could be threatened by the use of certain chemicals, particularly in the beef industry. We are, therefore, left in a situation where we need the cooperation of all States to make the legislation workable. Whilst I acknowledge that there are many issues on which the States have cooperated with the Federal Government to date, cooperation on the use of chemicals has often been tardy. I refer to a report entitled Dieldrin in the environment at Bundaberg written by B. D. A. Stickley from the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations. The investigation concluded that wind borne dust in the Bundaberg area contained detectable qualities of dieldrin residues. It suggested that there was a possible association of peak dieldrin levels with cultural operations carried out during the fairly dry period of the year. The results of this investigation indicate that dieldrin attached to wind borne dust particles could be a potential source of dieldrin residues in pasture grasses and soil. Given the fact that the dieldrin scare became a major issue in 1987, honourable members probably will be surprised to learn that this report was written in the Bundaberg area in 1980. In other words, it was available for Queensland Government departments for almost seven years before it acted in any serious way to collect dieldrin and ask farmers to hand in their supplies. The point I make is that the majority of farmers and people were not aware of the problem. I refer the Parliament also to a report entitled Bundaberg-Maryborough Extension Programme and problem statement 1.3 of the report which states: The group expresses concern that little is known of the pesticide levels in horticultural products. The group requests a firmer statement from head office on the extent of pesticide sampling in horticultural food crops and it sees a dearth of legislation in this field. The horticultural industry is emerging as an export giant in my region of Bundaberg, yet this report showed that there was no firm statement from the State Government. The report was even more damning when it said that the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) staff were occasionally made aware of improper uses of agricultural chemicals. Other improper uses undoubtedly occur. There is concern about adverse effects on consumers and markets both interstate and overseas. There is no means of preventing their use and there are no checks in Queensland on chemical residues in produce being offered for sale. The threat to the Bundaberg district was made very clear in problem statement 1.4 of this report: On at least one occasion a road accident has produced a large spillage of toxic pesticides. In this instance the chemicals would find their way via Monduran Dam for distribution into farms in the region. There is apparently no State Government department with the authority and knowledge to handle or dispose of such massive chemical contaminations. It might surprise honourable members to learn that these concerns for the multimillion dollar horticultural industry in my electorate were raised in 1982. Yet it was only in 1987, some five years later, that the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Harper, banned the use of dieldrin, DDT and other organochlorides. Just as it did with the beef industry, the Queensland Government, if not prodded by the United States contamination scare, would have allowed the horticultural industry in my electorate to fall apart under contamination scares. Even more damaging for the Ahern Government is the fact that Mr Ahern was the Minister for Primary Industries at the time these reports were compiled. The Ahern Government does not inspire any greater confidence as a determined decision-maker. The report shows that Mr Ahern was not keeping his Department fully informed of legislative arrangements needed to prevent a crisis. The responsibility has now been passed to Mr Harper, who, if his administration of in-line machines is any guide, has never had the courage to be a front runner in legislation. The problem is that Queensland took action eight years after one report and five years after another. It is important to point out that, by contrast, in 1985 the National Health and Medical Research Council suggested restrictions on the domestic and urban use of organochloride compounds. I believe that the New South Wales Government put restrictions on their use in 1985. I might add that when the Minister, Mr Harper, finally decided to ban dieldrin in the beef industry, the Queensland Primary Industries Department still allowed the use of dieldrin in some sugar growing areas. While it is necessary to use chemicals to combat pests, now that we know the problems dieldrin is causing, I think that is wrong. When I see that the Bill has no basic constitutional powers but relies on cooperation between the States, you may understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, why I have some trepidation towards it. I notice too that, of necessity, the Bill does not mention compensation to farmers who have been affected. It is more appropriate that the States decide their own compensation arrangements. I note that the National Farmers Federation (NFF) is involved in a legal tangle with the Victorian Government over compensation for farmers. I have no quarrel with that. However, I do object to the fact that it has not shown the same determination to take on the Queensland Government over the same matter. Now that the New Right activist, Mr McLachlan, has stood down from the presidency of the NFF, farmers in my own electorate might get better representation from the NFF concerning chemical residue problems in the State. I wish to bring to the House's attention the case of a constituent of mine. I will call him Mr R. M. His farm has been quarantined because of a chemical residue problem. He can no longer earn a living from it. About a month ago, a neighbour of his was spraying with chemicals. Fearing further problems with his property, he took to the DPI a leaf which he believed came from the affected area. Under present Queensland legislation, there was nothing the DPI could do about it. He then took up the issue with the Health Department which confirmed to him that it would not test the material simply because he believed it had been sprayed with dieldrin. The case reveals that 12 months after the Queensland Government gave the appearance of taking action, there was still no legislation in place for the mandatory testing of material where a farmer suspects dieldrin is being used. Given the fact that this man has already lost his viability, one can well understand why he was trying to take some precautionary action. The complexity of the chemical issue can be shown from another case in the Bundaberg district. A farmer took a beast for private consumption to the local abattoir and the carcass was confiscated because of chemical contamination. The beast weighed 648 pounds dressed and represented approximately nine months supply of meat for the family. This has been a costly exercise for this large family, typical Aussie battlers. The most intriguing aspect of this case is that the soil samples taken from the property and the neighbouring property have been shown to be clear of any chemical residue. The beast was shown to be contaminated by BHC dust which is used to control cane grub. Yet I am advised that no cane is grown near the property. It now appears that the warnings of wind carrying chemical residues agree with the reports of farmers and may have been proven to be true. As the Bill aims to minimise any undue hazard to the public, the environment, users, agricultural produce and livestock, I believe it should be supported. I am pleased to see that it is supported by both sides of the House. The costs for these measures are estimated at $600,000 for the first three years of operation. Offsetting these costs will be revenue raised through fees levied on the examination of applications for clearance. I understand that the Council will operate on the basis of 50 per cent cost recovery. I wish the Minister every success with this Bill. If its effect is to ensure that there is no international suspicion of our beef and horticultural industries, it will be making an extremely important contribution to our export industries. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.19) —I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill. I open my remarks by saying that at the heart of the capitalist system, at the heart of what has me sitting on this side of the House, is my fundamental belief in consumer choice. Every day we in this House, staffers and the people of the nation exercise a great deal of power as 16 million individuals when we choose to purchase or not to purchase a particular commodity. I will illustrate my point by taking the liberty of showing the House an apple which I chose to purchase in the staff canteen this morning. The decision to purchase this apple was made simply on the basis that it looked like a very desirable apple to consume. Mr Ian Cameron —Is it from South Australia? Mr ANDREW —Undoubtedly it is a South Australian apple. Furthermore, clearly it is an apple that has been grown with a measure of tender loving care. It is an apple that I chose to purchase because it appealed to me. I chose to purchase it in place of a banana or an orange because it happened to be just what I was wanting at the time. I was exercising the power of consumer choice. I, doubtless along with everyone else in the canteen who chose to purchase an apple today, came out and rubbed the apple on my sleeve in an effort to remove what I imagined could possibly be any remaining chemical residue sitting on it. This diligent polishing is in 1988 largely unnecessary and reflects the nervousness we all have about well-preserved foodstuffs because we imagine that they might have been sprayed with something that could put human beings at risk. Of course, the truth is that because of consumer choice, because no manufacturer, processor or packer will put onto the market a product that runs the risk in some way of affecting the consumer, we can be sure that the apple has already been washed and is already free from harmful chemical residues. I want to say, in this debate about chemical residues in terms of the legislation currently before the House, that we have got the whole issue of pesticide residues largely out of perspective. This time last year when people were so nervous about the pesticide residues in our beef, alluded to by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), and so concerned about contamination and our sampling processes, few realised that the level at which the pesticide in the beef had exceeded the allowable tolerance was the equivalent of five centimetres in a journey between here and Sydney. In other words, so low were the parts per million by which the pesticide exceeded the allowable minimum tolerance, if I were to put it in the perspective of a journey between here and Sydney, I would not even have got the car into gear before I would have exceeded, in relative terms, the proportion by which these pesticides were supposed to have exceeded allowable limits. The wheel could not even have turned; it was five centimetres in a journey of 300 kilometres. I restate to the House that I recognise, as every member of the House recognises-indeed, without intending to be egotistic I suggest that I recognise better than a number of the members of the House recognise because, prior to entering this House, I spent much of my professional life dealing with agricultural and veterinary chemicals-that the chemicals we are dealing with in order to feed the world are dangerous. However, I make the point that also they are essential and without them the sort of revolution that has occurred in agriculture would never have occurred. Chemicals rank with mechanisation in providing us with the opportunity to increase our agricultural production. One hundred years ago one farmer produced enough food for six people. Today, that same farmer produces enough food to feed 70 people. If that were not sufficient illustration of what chemicals and mechanisation have done for us, let me add that in the last two decades we have seen a dramatic increase in the use of available land for tillage, largely thanks to chemicals. I repeat: that increase has occurred in the last two decades. So often in any debate on farm chemicals we think of pesticides and fungicides as being the only chemicals used to get our fruit and vegetables and grain crops to us in a consumable and uneroded, for want of a better word, form, but we forget that weedicide use has been one of the major inputs required to increase agricultural production. In the last decade and a half the impact of weedicides on Australian agriculture can scarcely be overstated. Furthermore, these very weedicides, rather than being something that we ought to fear, or something that we say is in some way destroying our environment, have been a key in allowing us to secure much of the environment that mechanisation had formerly destroyed. I doubt whether, apart from fertilisers, there has been any influence as dramatic in increasing productivity and restoring soil structure in Australia as the use of weedicides. The legislation before the House proposes the establishment of an Australian Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Council which will, in fact, enhance the uniformity of legislation across the States endeavouring to deal with agricultural and veterinary chemicals. We hope that that legislation will ensure that those chemicals perform while minimising the hazard they might cause to the environment and allowing us to reassure those who buy our products on the export markets that what we are providing to them is in fact the sort of material and foodstuff that they can safely consume. It is proposed that chemicals that are currently in use in Australia should be regarded by the proposed council as cleared for use while new products will, of course, be evaluated to ensure that they can be safely used. I want to return to a couple of statements I made earlier and say that while every one of the 16 million consumers in Australia makes a choice, as I did with this apple, the real risk from the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals exists not in the form in which they appear in this apple, not in the way in which the consumer may think he is going to consume them, but, as the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) suggested earlier, in the impact these chemicals have on the operators who have to put them on livestock, grain crops or fruit and vegetable crops. I say with some passion, as one who was once, as I said, involved in the process of getting those chemicals onto those crops, that the operators are not exposed to the chemical at the one litre in 100 litres form in which it is sprayed on this particular apple or on any other form of foodstuff; the operators are exposed to the chemical in its concentrated form. That is the point of risk. If the chemical has been safely evaluated and is safely used by operators in its concentrated form, we can be reasonably assured that there is little consumers need to be concerned about when they are exposed to minimal levels of the chemical in its diluted form. Furthermore, recent advances in technology have meant that chemicals that were once hazardous to human beings can now be placed on crops in the knowledge that their toxic range is relatively low when it is in contact with human beings. Their toxic range is targeted to the specific pest that the grower or producer is endeavouring to control. For example, I noted that the honourable member for Hinkler made much of the impact on the environment of the chemical dieldrin. No-one is proud of what we have subsequently discovered dieldrin does in the sense of its long life and difficulty to break down. However, let us not lose sight of the fact that this nation is indebted to dieldrin for what it has done in enabling us to control a number of very difficult pests and diseases. I was disappointed to note that, in what should be a largely bipartisan debate, the honourable member for Hinkler chose to focus on what he saw as the shortcomings of the Queensland Government, instead of focusing on the way in which parties from both sides of the chamber are supporting the legislation currently before the House. I restate that not only is the consumer, by consumer choice, largely protected from any sort of hazard as a result of the use of modern chemicals, but also there has been a real effort by operators to ensure that the chemicals that are applied to crops are applied in a form and at a concentration that will not put the ultimate consumer at risk. I want to illustrate the degree to which growers have been keen to see that the chemicals they are spraying on crops would not be ultimately hazardous by voluntarily adhering to the withholding periods laid down in the consumers' interests. I shall conclude by making one other point. I restate the dependence that we as a nation have on the assiduous use of farm chemicals. I remind you and the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, that one-third of the food produced across the globe disappears because it is consumed by some form of pest or disease. I also make the point that we have an increasing dependence, and a long term dependence, on the availability and the use of chemicals if we are to continue to feed a hungry world. The legislation before the House allows us to reassure exporters and consumers that the chemicals that are applied to the apples they produce will not put them at risk. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(5.31) —In speaking to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988, I must say that we on this side of the House support the Bill. Of course, there are a number of things with which we do not agree and the Bill gives us a chance to speak on subjects to do with chemicals. I remind the House that we are 99.9 per cent chemicals ourselves, and most living things in the world are the same. I think it is important for us to understand that we must learn to use chemicals safely because, as previous speakers have said, we produce more and more with less and less mechanical input and increasing chemical input. We have reached the stage today, particularly in broad acre agriculture, where we are now fully chemical farming, using a mechanical instrument only to plant and harvest the seed. The rest of the working of the crop is done with chemical spraying, either by aircraft-and we tilt our lids to those humans who are prepared to sit in crop sprayers and dive under power lines and such obstacles to spread these chemicals for us-or by those who drive around all day in boom sprayers. It is not the chemical that kills pilots but the fact that they hit the ground every now and then. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) is prepared to be sprayed with agent orange. As a farmer, I have often been sprayed with 2, 4-D. I am not saying to the House that that has not affected me in some way or another; I am sure the Minister has not been affected by agent orange. Of course we must be responsible with chemicals. I do not know that we need to encourage the Federal Government to get into more and more bureaucracy on this subject; the States are bureaucratic enough, with all their controls. But the Commonwealth wants to set up another organisation, which will cost $600,000 in the Government's own figures, over the first three years. We can double that and then multiply by two, and that is about what the result will be. We are being asked to pay 50 per cent of the costs. I say `we', but that cost will be passed down to the end user. Not only are we paying for the cost of the primary industry department in each State but we are now to pay some more costs for another Commonwealth umbrella organisation to administer chemical control. So primary producers and other chemical users throughout this nation will be asked to bear the cost of this body, and that needs to be well understood. The Bill makes provision not only to appoint 11 members to the committee but also to establish expert committees. The hotel bills and travel expenses of those people will have to be paid. This body has been recommended by the Agricultural Council, which is the association of all State primary industry Ministers. I note that there is mention of the World Health Organisation and the United Nations. I do not know why we want to get involved with them. All these external affairs powers we have had wrapped around our necks in the last five, six or 10 years have done nothing for us at all. I do not know why we cannot form our own laws and regulations without worrying about what other nations want to impose on us. The Bill provides a right of appeal. If an applicant has an application refused, he has a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I am not sure what sort of expertise on chemicals members of the Tribunal have. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) has set up this body. If his committee then rejects an application, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I really do not know what members of that Tribunal know about chemicals but I would suggest that, if an application is refused, that is about where it will stay. The Bill contains a sunset clause and the position will be reviewed within five years. That is desirable. The beef residue problem has forced the hand of the Federal Government in setting up this body. As with other speakers, doctors have said to me that one would need to eat at least a bullock a day to get any sort of toxic dose from the levels of pesticide that have been found in meat. I point out that Australia has some of the purest meat in the world for export. Our beef is grass fed. All the Northern Hemisphere farmers lot-feed their beef throughout the winter months. That includes many parts of northern America and Canada, where they have to hand feed livestock throughout the winter. We do not have to do that in Australia. We have the cleanest non-polluted beef in the world, and we have not sufficiently promoted that aspect for our beef producers. All we have heard is a howl about a very slight chemical residue problem, which is being used by other countries to restrict our exports, particularly Japan. Every time mention is made of a chemical, they jump up and down. Of course, America is using it against us to get into the Japanese market. I turn now to the growth promotants. A pregnant woman probably has 1,000 times more hormones running around in her bloodstream than the levels of growth promotants that are put into cattle in feedlots. The European Economic Community has banned growth promotants, but it must be remembered that all that was done before the report on this matter came out. We do not need to get into the silly situation here of banning growth promotants. An enormous dose of hormones is needed before they become toxic in any way, as with the chemical residue problem. I have also been speaking today with Midge Hook. He is from the Australian Grains Council and is one of the representatives working here with the National Farmers Federation. The Australian Grains Council has a lot to do with farm chemicals. We have to use chemicals such as Glean, Round-Up, Atrazine, 2, 4-D and a whole range of other chemicals and mixtures that are used to produce ever higher yields of wheat to keep all those hungry city slickers looking fat and shiny-and that includes the greenies who scream about all these things. It is amazing how they have to get up and have a meal for breakfast. I always ask them what they eat for breakfast. Mr Hicks —Muesli. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, muesli; and even muesli has probably been sprayed at some time or other. It is amazing how weevils have to be kept out of grain. Every grain board in Australia excessively sprays our food many times before it is consumed, yet we seem to be living much longer. It is amazing how our lifespan has increased. One hundred and fifty years ago everyone died at 40. Now, hopefully, we will live until roughly 70 or 75; we have that hope ahead of us. No-one has yet actually found a chemical that will make us live forever. I look forward to that discovery; although most people in this House probably do not. I see my friend the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), with a grin on his face. He is probably hoping that I will live a little longer; most people here may not think that I will live that much longer. However, it would be nice if we had something like that. I suggest that one of the more practical things the Government should do is to consider imposing a high deposit on the containers in which chemicals arrive at our farms. We seem to be able to impose a deposit on beer bottles but when it comes to chemical containers no deposit is applied. I think there should be a fairly steep deposit on chemical containers so that people are forced to return them to the manufacturer. That is all I have to say; others are getting chemically worked up about wanting to say something on the Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(5.39) —in reply-Chemical residues were not the reason for this legislation. This legislation is all about streamlining-streamlining registration and deregistration. The situation is that we have 120 pieces of legislation or regulation in the States. This legislation gives ministerial responsibility for the first time. It is part of a process that had a very long gestation and it also fits in with other moves being taken by the Federal Government in this whole area of chemicals in the environment and chemicals in the workplace. There was some discussion about the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural Chemicals. I simply point out that it was the beef industry that was behind the putting up of a motion in the Senate. The Opposition did not think through its position in the Senate, and hence a motion trying to put the blame on chemical residues and an effort to find out where they went. It was a legitimate concern for the producers. As a result of the chemical residues problem we have now had some 600,000 tests; 76,000 properties have been cleared; there are about 1,000 properties in quarantine, but over 400 properties are out of quarantine. A branch of my Department is still dealing with problems at Maralinga going back to 1955 or 1956 and we have also had a problem with agent orange; therefore, we realise there is no sense in having a witch-hunt to apportion blame or getting into the legalities of this matter. That is why we agreed with the Australian Democrats to form a proper constructive committee. There is one amendment among those to be moved by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Lloyd) that I could accept, and I give him my undertaking that I will give those amendments the closest consideration when they go to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.42) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 15, page 10, after subclause (2) insert the following subclause: ``(2a) The Council shall provide the applicant with a notice under subsection (1) or (2) as soon as practicable and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, within 12 months after receiving the application for clearance of a chemical product.''. (2) Clause 20, page 16, after subclause (2) insert the following subclause: ``(2a) The Chairperson shall, before divulging any information under paragraph (3) (a), advise in writing the person who made the application for a clearance under section 12 that it is proposed to divulge the confidential commercial information.''. (3) Clause 21, page 17, line 42, after ``constituents'' add ``, provided that that other person includes all information in support of the application as is required by the Council under section 12''. (4) Clause 22, page 18, line 4, before ``information'' insert ``significant''. (5) Clause 22, page 18, lines 6-11, omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute the following paragraphs: ``(a) significantly contradicts any information furnished to the Council under this Act; or (b) indicates that the use of the chemical product in accordance with the claims or recommendations for its use may have an unintended harmful effect or may be significantly less effective than was set out in the application:''. (6) Clause 43, page 29, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall imply or be taken to imply that the applicant's provision of documents and samples to the Council in accordance with that subsection constitutes an assignment of the copyright, or any grant of an interest in the copyright, to the Council or the Commonwealth by the applicant.''. (7) Clause 46, page 30, line 17, after ``application for'' insert ``registration or''. I shall speak generally about the amendments. It is a question of balance between the necessary regulations and safety provisions and what is a reasonable requirement so that we have chemical production and the companies and the farmers involved are protected. The first amendment concerns clause 15. I believe it is desirable to have a time limit for clearances, otherwise we are going to continue with the unnecessary delays which are causing frustration to farmers and companies. Some chemicals are cleared and registered here years after they are available to people in other countries. The amendment to clause 20 is the one to which the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) indicated he would possibly agree. He is aware, no doubt, as I am aware, that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has already drawn attention to the unsatisfactory state of that clause, and therefore the amendment should be accepted. The amendment to clause 21 is designed to provide equity so that all applicants must provide details of all constituents. I believe that is a necessary safety requirement in case there are some unknown toxic effects of some of the constituents about which information does not have to be provided. The amendment to clause 22 would protect us against absurd situations that could arise if there were any change in the information available about a particular chemical. For example, if the efficacy of a product was shown, by further experimentation or data, to be 95 per cent rather than 94 per cent as claimed, the company concerned could be up for quite a heavy fine or a period in gaol could be involved. The insertion of the word `significant' brings more sense to that clause. The amendment to clause 43 is to ensure that the Commonwealth does not take over the proprietary rights of what is rightly the ownership or province of the company that developed a chemical. I ask the Minister to consider favourably all the amendments, in particular the amendment to clause 46, when they go to the Senate, as they are considered amendments; they are not moved just to make some capital. They are sensibly considered amendments, designed to overcome a particular problem of a company in the process of gaining clearance having to start again on the whole lengthy clearing process. I ask the Minister to give the amendments the logical and calm consideration that the way in which the Opposition has moved and spoken to them deserves. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(5.44) —I reject the amendments. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Amendments negatived. Bill reported without amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —The question is that the report be adopted and the Bill be now read a third time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(5.47) —The House now turns its attention to this long awaited Industrial Relations Bill and the consequential legislation, the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill. So that there may be no doubt about where the Opposition stands in this debate and its attitude towards these Bills, let me begin by saying that these Bills are a disgrace and an outrage. Their only redeeming feature is that they confirm the one core element of this Government and that is its absolute subservience and subjection to the leadership of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and militant sections of the trade union movement. These Bills demonstrate yet again the inability of the Hawke Government to come up with an acceptable means of changing Australia's outmoded industrial relations system because it is ever mindful of the wishes of the ACTU. After several years of inquiry and debate, all that the Government has been able to produce is a couple of seriously flawed Bills that will, on balance, significantly worsen industrial relations in Australia. The Opposition takes the view that industrial relations is the area most in need of major reform in our economy. So seriously does the Opposition approach this legislation that it has prepared nearly 30 amendments. There will be no opportunity in the guillotined debate in this chamber to consider those amendments, and it is out of protest against the way in which this legislation is being handled and because we oppose the Bill unamended that we will be voting against the second reading. However, if the Opposition's amendments are passed in the Senate, the Opposition will, of course, allow the Bills to pass. If the amendments are not considered favourably by the Government, the Opposition will oppose the Bill at the third reading. Against this background it is simply absurd for the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech to describe this as `the most substantial revision of Australia's Federal industrial relations system' since 1904 when in fact it totally fails to tackle a number of critical issues. The most obvious of the shortcomings of this legislation is that it is totally deficient when it comes to addressing the impotence of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to enforce its decisions and directions. That this should be so is a disgrace, given that the compliance provisions of the present Act have been described by the Minister himself as `substantially moribund'. To appreciate the seriousness of this failure one merely has to look at the Minister's second reading speech on 14 May last year when he presented his first version of the Industrial Relations Bill. I quote the Minister: An essential element of any industrial relations system which provides benefits and protections to registered organisations and their members is that there should be effective means of ensuring adherence to the principles on which the system is founded and compliance with the decisions of its institutions . . . The Minister went on to point out that the bans clause procedure which was meant to ensure compliance had long since fallen into disrepute, and was, as I have quoted earlier, substantially moribund. Yet on this second attempt by the Hawke Government to straighten out our industrial relations system the legislation still retains that `disreputable' and `moribund' bans clause procedure. It utterly fails to address what the Minister himself described as an essential element of the industrial relations system. What is the Minister's excuse, and the excuse of the Hawke Government, for its failure to address this crucial issue? Simply put, it is that the enactment of enhanced compliance measures, without abolishing access to common law remedies, would have placed unions in a situation of what the Minister describes as `double jeopardy'. This can be described only as a `joke' excuse. There would be nothing at all special, or unusual, in unions being exposed to liability for penalties under more than one avenue for legal redress. Indeed, even under the 1987 Bill, a union could have been fined for disobeying an injunction of the Labour Court and, I stress, sued for damages under common law. It is true that an employer could theoretically have pursued an injunction both under common law and industrial legislation. But what on earth would have been the point? Such so-called `double jeopardy' is a common feature of the law. There is `double jeopardy' between common law torts and the Trade Practices Act; there is `double jeopardy' between criminal defamation and civil defamation. The courts are experienced in dealing with any problems that may arise. What must be recognised is that the Minister's excuse is simply a bogus one to hide the real reason why he and the Government have failed to come to terms with the need for improved compliance provisions. It needs to be recalled that, even after the Government had agreed not to limit access to trade practices and common law remedies, the Minister still maintained his intention to introduce new compliance provisions, with directions backed up by court injunctions. On 29 June last year-that is, three weeks after the Government had decided to drop changes to common law and Trade Practices Act remedies-the Minister, in speaking on Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio, reiterated his support for a direction system backed up by an array of penalties for non-compliance with Commission decisions and orders. However, after the election the Hawke Government's and the Minister's boss spoke. In the Government's version of `Simon says' on 17 August last ACTU President Simon Crean was quoted in the Australian Financial Review as saying: Our position is that if the Bill does not touch Common Law or the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act then it must not increase or strengthen sanctions. They can still introduce a Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. There we have it in a nutshell. The ACTU had given its orders and the Minister and the Government quickly changed their position. On 10 September on the ABC's World Today the Minister stated: . . . in the absence of a willingness by the employers to make concessions in respect of penalties which can apply to unions outside the arbitration system, we don't believe it is appropriate to be amending the provisions within the arbitration system now. So there we have it. Just three months after having traded off the retention of the employers' rights with respect to common law and the Trade Practices Act, having accepted that there should be no changes to monetary penalties as a quid pro quo, the Minister for Industrial Relations then had the extraordinary hide to blame employers for his failure to deliver a better compliance system. The Minister's claim on the ABC's AM program of 29 April this year that the proposed new Industrial Relations Commission could have had more power `if the employers hadn't stopped it having it' is, I submit, a gross distortion of the facts. And it will be seen as such by anyone who has followed the whole sorry saga of this Government's attempts to reform the industrial relations system while at the same time being ever fearful of offending its ACTU masters. The reason that the Minister changed his mind over the compliance provisions is simply that after the July 1987 Federal election the unions put on the thumbscrews and demanded a backdown on his intention to introduce a directions and injunctions procedure. Once, again, Australian industry and Australia's industrial relations system have been forced to pay the price for the `special relationship' with the ACTU of which the Hawke Government is so proud, a relationship based on subservience by the Government to the ACTU elite. There can be no doubt that effective compliance provisions are essential to a properly functioning, equitable system of industrial relations. The policy of the Opposition is that employers and employees should be free to determine wages and conditions of employment by direct negotiation and agreement. But in those cases where parties choose to remain subject to conciliation and arbitration, they must accept the rules implicit in that system. Arbitration, by its very nature, involves a third party making binding decisions-yet, under the system as it operates in Australia, unions may defy Commission rulings with impunity. A system of arbitration where decisions can bind only one side barely deserves the name. The Minister implicitly accepted this in his second reading speech on last year's aborted industrial relations legislation, but now, at the behest of the ACTU, he has had a change of heart. In this legislation he has utterly failed to provide for what he himself has called an `essential element' of the industrial relations system. In our view, that in itself is enough to condemn these Bills. But that is not all. Our criticism of this legislation does not concern only this one aspect of a lack of proper compliance procedures. A second major defect of the legislation is its total neglect of any attempt to protect the rights of employees who choose not to be members of a trade union. On a number of occasions both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Industrial Relations have asserted that there is no such thing as compulsory unionism in Australia. What an absurd proposition! As we all know, the fact is that Australian law does not formally require employees to be members of unions. But that is neither here nor there. What we have instead are preference clauses and `closed shops' enforced by industrial pressure, which in many industries result in a situation where no union card means simply no job. Such preference clauses may compel employers to favour union members in such things as engagement, promotion, retention, training and the taking of leave. They place non-union members under such a great disadvantage that their practical effect is to make trade union membership virtually mandatory. The closed shop, while it cannot be formally ordered by the Commission, is totally legal under this new legislation, which means that there are circumstances where trade union membership will be a condition of employment. While such arrangements operate with the acquiescence of the employers, this is usually because they are threatened with industrial action if they do not cooperate in preserving the closed shop. Very few employers choose, without the threat of industrial pressure, to make trade union membership a condition of employment. The Opposition very clearly believes that the decision on whether or not to join a union should be one for individual employees to make and for them to make alone. We totally reject the paternalistic attitude implicit in the current provisions dealing with the right not to belong to a trade union. There should be no need to show conscientious objection to trade union membership. The extreme difficulty of obtaining a certificate of conscientious objection is revealed by the very low number of such certificates granted each year. Applicants are put through an extremely difficult test, putting the onus on them to show possession of a deeply held belief against being a member of any association of employees. Mere past membership of a union is usually enough to dismiss an application out of hand. Moreover, it is not enough to show conscientious objection to joining a particular trade union, even if that union has policies which are deeply abhorrent to the individual. The objection must be to joining any union. There can be no argument against the proposition that compulsory unionism interferes with the freedom of the individual. The only defence for compulsory unionism is that the rights of the individual should be subjected to the interests of trade unions in the public interest. We recognise that the argument for subordinating individual freedom to the interests of unions was succinctly put by Sir John Quick in supporting the original Conciliation and Arbitration Bill in 1904. I quote him: The only justification for the Bill is that, although it interferes with freedom, it does so with the object of securing the greatest good to the greatest number. . . if we want a scheme which will work in a satisfactory manner we must make the necessary provision, even though it may interfere with individual rights and interests. But even if one accepts that individual freedom should be subordinated to the greatest good of the greatest number-a dangerous proposition at best-we in the Opposition in any case totally reject the proposition that compulsory unionism is in the broader interest. It is simply untrue that compulsory trade unionism is necessary to the effective operation of an industrial relations system. In the great majority of Western countries there is the reverse: legal protection for the right not to belong to a trade union. Yet, at the same time, many of these countries are widely recognised as having industrial relations systems that have produced better results for their people than ours has for our nation. For example, Austria, France, West Germany, Italy and Spain all have constitutional guarantees concerning the right not to join a trade union. In other countries, such as Switzerland and Belgium, the closed shop as we know it is forbidden by law. In Britain, industrial action to impose a closed shop is unlawful, as is dismissal for non-membership of a trade union. Many of the States of the United States of America have passed laws outlawing the closed shop. Finally, if those examples are not enough, even in Norway and Sweden-countries lauded by the ACTU in its Australia Reconstructed manifesto-the closed shop, while not technically illegal, is very rare. This is because the peak employer bodies of both countries forbid their members to enter into such arrangements. The general view that freedom of association also implies the freedom to dissociate was well put by Irish Appeal Judge Kingsmill Moore in his 1961 verdict in the case Educational Company of Ireland Ltd v. Fitzpatrick. I quote: I think a guarantee of a right to form associations and unions is only intelligible where there is an implicit right to abstain from joining such associations or unions, or, to put it another way, to associate and unite with those who do not join such unions. Thus protection of the right not to join a union is the norm throughout the civilised world, and Australia's acceptance of the closed shop places it firmly amongst a small minority. Furthermore, it is also clear that the absence of compulsory unionism is compatible with high degrees of unionisation. It is, therefore, not a question of being anti-union. We in the Opposition support the individual's right to belong to a union as strongly as we support the right not to belong, but we believe that the law should protect both rights equally. It is our firmly held view that unions should be voluntary organisations. Voluntary unions are more likely to show real concerns for their members' wishes and interests. Unions all too often treat their members as sources of revenue, or simply cannon fodder for industrial disputes-disputes which can have more to do with enhancing the power and prestige of the union organisers than gaining real benefits for their members. Where unions have to persuade workers to join voluntarily it is likely that they will be more inclined to treat their members' wishes and interests with respect. I have dealt with the lack of compliance provisions and the lack of protection from compulsory unionism as two areas in which this legislation is defective because of what it fails to do. To that extent the legislation is essentially and fundamentally a disappointment, representing as it does the retention of an unsatisfactory status quo. However, this legislation is seriously flawed in more than just these instances, for in a number of areas its provisions would positively and seriously worsen industrial relations in this country. Perhaps, as time allows me to concentrate on only one, I should focus on those aspects of the legislation concerning amalgamations and registration. These represent an explicit attempt to force unions in Australia to reconstruct themselves, so that there are far fewer, but much larger, unions. In defending these propositions the Minister has put forward a number of arguments, including the following: Australia has too many unions; small craft-based unions cannot effectively represent their members; and small unions can often be seen as an inhibiting factor in change. In response to these notions, I point out first of all that the Liberal and National parties agree that there are problems with the existing union structure. We recognise that a situation where most employers are forced to deal with a multiplicity of unions can make effective employer-employee relations more difficult and lead to demarcation problems. The existence of unions largely based on occupation can also encourage the rapid flow of wage adjustments from one part of the economy to other areas. Indeed, it was my former colleague from Western Australia Ian Viner who, as Minister for Industrial Relations in the Fraser Government, developed proposals in 1982 which were designed to encourage enterprise and industry-based unions. It is interesting to note that those proposals were opposed by the Australian Labor Party. While we agree with the need for reform of Australia's trade union structure, we do not agree with the Government's proposals on how to achieve it. In our view, the Government's proposals could well lead to a worse union structure than that which we have at present. Let us look first at the Minister's claim that small unions cannot effectively represent the interests of their members. In doing so I must express the view that I do not believe that it is for the Minister, or the Parliament, to decide how union members' interests are best represented. Surely that is something for the members of those unions to decide. We totally reject the paternalistic proposition that the members of small unions should be forced to join with large ones `in their own interest', as the Minister would have us believe. This really smacks of corporatism at its very worst. We do not necessarily agree, either, with the Minister's proposition that we have too many trade unions. The problem is not really with the number of trade unions in Australia, even though we have some 300 of them. By comparison, West Germany, a country whose industrial relations system is often considered to be more effective than ours, has some 16 or 17. On the other hand, Japan, which has literally tens of thousands of unions, is also often held up as a model of an industrial relations system worth emulating. As these examples show, it is clearly not so much a matter of the number of unions, but more the relationship between the union structure and the boundaries of industries and enterprises which are the crucial factors. In both Japan and West Germany any given enterprise essentially faces just one trade union. In Australia, on the other hand, enterprises typically face a multiplicity of unions-sometimes as many as 20 or 30. This not only creates demarcation problems but also makes negotiations more difficult. The Opposition, therefore, recognises the desirability of moving to a system where each employer faces a single bargaining unit. However, we are very sceptical that the Government's proposals represent a useful step in this direction. Indeed, they could well entrench a union structure that makes this goal more difficult to achieve. The key criterion in these pieces of the Government's legislation, as in so many other areas of its policies, is size. Here we have yet another example of the extent to which the corporatist approach of the Government results in a `big is beautiful' mentality. If implemented, the Government's proposals would certainly eliminate small unions, but whether this would lead to a better union structure is highly questionable. A survey of recent demarcation disputes shows that of 32 such disputes only one involved a union that would be affected by the amalgamation legislation. Those unions which were most commonly involved in demarcation disputes were in fact large ones, such as the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union and the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia. Indeed, most of the small unions facing destruction under this legislation are industrially moderate and rarely, if ever, involved in industrial action. Thus this legislation would have the effect of eliminating a large number of small, essentially moderate unions and forcing them to merge with larger and often more militant unions-without doing anything to resolve the demarcation problems which plague Australian industry; nor is there any reason to believe that the amalgamations likely to result from the legislation would produce a union structure organised more along industry lines. The key here is to look at the definition of `community of interest' included in this Bill as part of the overall grand design for trade union amalgamations. The definition of `community of interest' is very broad. Indeed, it is slightly broader than that contained in the current Act. It would allow, for example, the amalgamation of two unions on the grounds that some members of each of them may be eligible to become members of the other union. Many occupationally based unions share at least some overlapping coverage. Such unions might primarily operate in totally different industries, yet the Bill is designed to facilitate their amalgamation. The outcome is likely to be not industry unions but fewer, larger conglomerate unions with members in a range of industries. In fact, the most likely outcome of the Government's so-called reform of the industrial relations system is a situation in which Australia as a whole has fewer unions, but where employers continue to face a multiplicity of them. This might facilitate the Government's desire for greater corporatism, but it will do absolutely nothing to improve the nation's industrial relations. It should be understood that this legislation will assist and accelerate a trend that is already under way-a trend that is in many respects likely to worsen our union structure and move us away from the goal of unions organised on industry or enterprise lines. A recent example concerns the proposed amalgamation of the Building Workers Industrial Union and the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association (FEDFA) of Australasia. A Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission recently found that such an amalgamation was in the public interest because the community interest test had been met. In particular, a substantial number of the members of both unions were engaged in the same work in the building industry. Yet only a minority of the FEDFA members are employed in the building industry at all. If the two unions merge, the result will be a union with over 100,000 members employed not only in the building industry but also in the power industry, the mining industry and the manufacturing and public sectors. We will certainly have a super union, but whether or not such a union would contribute to a more rational union structure is surely open to debate. Yet the likely effect of this Bill will be precisely to encourage such amalgamations. The position of the Opposition is that the issue of union structure is of vital interest and that there are serious flaws in the Government's proposed legislation which are likely to make an unsatis- factory position even worse. I have focused on three aspects of this Bill-the lack of proper compliance provisions, the failure of the legislation to uphold the right of an individual to join or not to join a union, and the absolute adverse consequences that the legislation will have for the rationalisation of the union structure in this country. We cannot move amendments during the guillotined passage of the Bill through this House, but in the Senate we will be moving amendments to retain the existing registration and amalgamation provisions in the current Act. The amendments go to some 30 provisions in this legislation. I could have mentioned many other points-for example, the support given to strike pay, the support given to striking and taking industrial action on the grounds of health and safety standards, and provisions which would totally override State legislation designed to regulate industrial action. This Government has totally abdicated its responsibilities in the area of sanctions. It should not prevent State governments from acting in this area. I seek leave to table the amendments. Leave granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(6.17) —We ought to establish at the outset that nothing focuses the difference in approach between the Government and Opposition parties to the community and to the economy in general more than the matter of industrial relations. One can list many debates in this Parliament to which we take a common approach, but industrial relations has one particular quality to it that is not found in other areas of debate in this place; that is, certain historical prejudices tend to be the governing agenda for the framework of policy and for the development of debate. Unfortunately, those historical prejudices have emerged again in this debate on the Industrial Relations Bill and the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill. I would have thought that, given the experience from 1975 to 1983, the Opposition would have taken a new approach to industrial relations. I would have thought also that, given the success from 1983 to 1988 of this Government's approach to industrial relations, the Opposition might have thought there was some merit in re-examining its historical approach. I do concede that some of what the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) is saying draws upon some new ideas in industrial relations about approaches to the deregulation of the labour market and so on, and I will comment on those in a moment. However, it is important to say that we on this side have no trouble in seeing the trade unions and union members as part of the wider community. Our approach is to try to recognise that, to enhance that, and, flowing from that, to see that their behaviour shows the responsibility we accord them. The experience of recent days confirms that. The Opposition seems to have great difficulty in coming to terms with that because it seems to see the trade unions and union members as being outside the general ambit of the community. That view just does not stand up. It does not stand up in terms of statistics-I will turn to those in a moment-and it does not stand up in terms of a philosophical approach. So I want to take issue with that. I also want to take issue with the general notion that industrial relations can be segmented from the general economy and treated as a particular case and that we can adopt an approach to industrial relations which might satisfy our particular ideological underpinnings but the adoption of that approach will not have any wider economic effects. The facts are against the Opposition and particularly the honourable member for Tangney. First, the fact is that they must recognise that industrial relations is part of the wider economy and also that, if the approaches they adopt in industrial relations are successful, that will show up in results in the economy. If they see that as being the purpose, then if the intentions and procedures are properly carried through and the elements of consultation are there, that will show up in the economic realities. In all fairness to the honourable member for Tangney and to honourable members of the Opposition who are going to speak, that is the ultimate test. It is no good saying that industrial relations is the area where we work out ideological feelings or that because Charles Copeman or Senator Stone has a particular axe to grind it will be worked out as part of industrial relations. I say to the Opposition that this is a democratic community, that trade unions are part of that community and so are employer organisations. When the Opposition recognises that, the world view will change. None of us is immune from the appeals of dogma, but we all have to recognise that we are dealing with the real world. Let us give some substance to that general philosophical underpinning of which I have spoken. I have said that we have to look at an approach to industrial relations that reflects the way we see the world. We also have to look at the consequences of our approach. Let me make some comparisons. From January 1976 to February 1983, the monthly average of working days lost was 249,000.People may wonder why I chose that period. It was that of the Fraser Government. From March 1983 to December 1987 the figure was 115,590. So we are comparing 249,600 working days lost with 115,590; in other words, a reduction of 54 per cent. That is an example of an improved industrial relations system working. Let us not forget that. Let us canvass this more widely to ensure that we have our statistical focus correct. The annual average of working days lost per thousand employees from 1976 to 1982 was 591. From 1983 to 1987 the annual average fell to 238; in other words, a 60 per cent reduction. That is the initial test of how the industrial relations system is going. What is happening in terms of industrial disputes? The fact is that industrial disputes have fallen dramatically. My colleague the honourable member for Tangney mentioned the former member for Stirling, the Hon. Ian Viner. Unfortunately, the experience he had in his latter days in the Ministry was that industrial relations was an area of massive conflict, many working days were lost and there was much industrial dislocation. It is not clever in this place to make those points and move on, but we have to see industrial relations disputes as the end product of an industrial relations system. No industrial relations system will ever be perfect. No industrial relations system will ever achieve all the objectives because by definition conflict is built into the system. Further to that, because of the competing objectives of trade unions, employers and governments and because of the economic policy underpinning it all, we will never get to a situation where we can say, `That is the ideal model'. We have to ask whether the process is heading in the right direction. I have heard the remarks of the honourable member for Tangney and in a sense he is saying that he does not think it is heading in the right direction. That is fair enough as that is what this debate is all about. But if we impose that test in terms of the way it works, our experience is that it is working better. It is no good saying, `We have now said that; we can put it in an election pamphlet. Everything is solved'. That is not the role. We have to ask what other changes can be made to make it work even better. That is what the Industrial Relations Bill is about. The Opposition has to understand that the changes in the compliance procedures came about as a result of pressure from employers, not from the trade union movement. They wanted the existing compliance procedures and they wanted new compliance procedures. So the pressures that were exerted around the June-July period last year can be traced to the employers. Let us get that clear. We also have to get it clear that union amalgamations make sense in an economy which is being modernised in all sorts of areas. We are modernising the financial system and we are modernising the manufacturing industry. Yet we are creaking along with a number of trade unions that far exceeds a workable level. We would be crazy to say that we are happy with the number of trade unions that exist and we are happy to let that continue. In the Federal system around one-half of the 145 federally registered unions account for less than 3 per cent of the overall membership of unions. That is a nonsense. We have a multiplicity of trade unions. So that people who are listening to this debate can understand that point, I point out that we have in Australia an amalgam of two historic circumstances: one is the craft based union movement that we inherited from Britain and the other is the industry based trade union movement that developed in Australia over time. That is understandable. But it is not then acceptable to say, `That is what we have got and now we are going to move on and leave that number of unions in place'. It makes much more sense to combine those unions. I hear the Opposition say, `That will lead to much more powerful unions'. The Opposition seems to have this predilection for being worried about trade unions being large and therefore saying it will treat the membership and the leadership of those unions as though they were beyond the pale. It should consider the consequences of an approach that says, `We will not treat trade unions, trade union leaders or their members as responsible citizens'. We, on this side, have no trouble with that. So that we get it clear, we have no trouble either in dealing with those who we regard as the bandits of the trade union arena. The Opposition only has to look at our approach to the Builders Labourers Federation to understand that. We have no difficulty in dealing with unions whose behaviour goes beyond what we consider to be normal industrial relations practice. I say again that if the Opposition behaves towards trade unions as though all trade unions and unionists are lawbreakers, it will get the consequences-the statistics of the Fraser years. The Opposition has to understand that there were two or three major themes that underpinned the change of government in 1983. One was the tax system, another the collapse in the economy and the mass unemployment. A third one was the fact that industrial relations was a farce and industrial conflict was the order of the day. That is something that we have to keep reiterating-I did not think we would in this debate but obviously we do. The coalition Government's approach to industrial relations was a disaster. The Opposition should not think it can please itself by picking up a little from the H. R. Nicholls Society or from Charles Copeman or Senator Stone, who are grinding their ideological axes. It has to go into the real world to understand what trade unions and employers are about. This Bill recognises that. The Bill also picks up on a change in the debate in Australia. It has gone unremarked so far but it ought not to go unremarked. When we look at the whole notion of participation in decision making in industrial relations, this Government sees a lot of merit in recent statements by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions about participative practices in the work place. That is, in my view, a very important watershed because it says that both sides of the industry see merit in pushing for greater participation. It is all very well to stand in this place and say, `Let us look at Japan, at Sweden and at West Germany'. We have to say that there are cultural differences, that there are some things to learn from those economies and that we will pick and choose the things that are beneficial. One of those is enhanced participative practice. We are learning and benefiting from that. We ought to note in this debate how pleasing it is to see the trade union movement and the Confederation of Australian Industry drawing upon that. To dispel any thought of doom and gloom facing the Australian economy, we should look at what industry thinks. It is predicting, for example, a 10 per cent increase in investment by 1988-89. Industry itself not only sees a great future for industrial relations and a participative approach to industrial relations but also recognises that its own investment decision will support that. A 10 per cent increase in investment in the manufacturing industry gives substance to that. Another factor is a substantial increase in the level of employment and in the level of work force participation. Australia is back to work. It is now not seeing itself as an industrial museum. It is not an economy which is characterised by industrial disputation. Australia is back to work. Business is part of that process. The trade union movement is part of that process and this Industrial Relations Bill is central to the notion of modifying the industrial relations system in the light of the times. It is not about looking back over the shoulder and working out old grievances; it is about responding to the changed circumstances. Accordingly I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(8.00) —The long-awaited industrial relations legislation has finally reached the Parliament in its last week of sitting in the provisional Parliament House. The broad thrust of the legislation reinforces the concepts of the 1907 Harvester judgment which has shackled Australia's industrial relations system ever since. Australia's international competitive advantage has been whittled away by the outdated view that wages and conditions must be maintained regardless of the wealth creating ability of Australia's primary export industries and manufacturing sector. In 1983, the `Industrial Relations Club-based' Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems began its inward looking inquiry into the current industrial relations system. The present legislation is supposed to be based on the recommendations of the Hancock inquiry. After a long gestation period, one false start and a further capitulation to trade union pressures, this important piece of industrial relations legislation is to be debated for just three hours in the last days of this session. In recent years, the industrial relations debate has been led by the coalition. There has been a dramatic change of attitude by employers, employees, management, unions and even the Government itself to the forward thinking, soundly based policies of the coalition. The coalition has been advocating workplace voluntary agreements that establish a genuine working relationship between management and employees. This fosters goodwill and an appreciation that all business enterprises must become internationally competitive by mutual cooperation between management and the work force. The outdated concept of confrontation, of a `them and us' attitude, is counterproductive. The present Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission encourages this attitude in the legal sense with the abrogation of responsibility for setting wages and conditions being given to a third party by employers and employees. The coalition advocates voluntary unionism and an equality of employer and employee before common law. We support employee share ownership to encourage genuine worker participation at the enterprise level. In the changing mood of industrial relations in Australia, an equal emphasis should be placed on improved management practices and attitudes, along with a more responsible union approach to disputes, productivity and improving Australians' standard of living. The Industrial Relations Bill fails to address four main areas. Firstly, the compliance provisions are unequal. Unions are treated as different-a class apart from the rest of us. Secondly, compulsory trade unionism is supported by the operation of preference clauses in the Bill. Thirdly, union amalgamation is legislatively encouraged to suit the purposes of big unions. Fourthly, strike pay is sanctioned under the guise of health and safety conditions. Nothing in this Industrial Relations Bill has changed the unequal position of the trade union movement. Historically, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has had difficulty in binding employers and trade unions to its decisions. Because of their privileged position, the unions are able to flout the Commission's decisions with impunity. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) was aware of this problem when, in 1987, he said: The principal initiative is that the present bans clause provisions, which have long since fallen into disrepute and are now substantially moribund, will be replaced by a new direction and injunction process. At the same time, when introducing his first version of the Bill, on 14 May 1987, the Minister indicated: there should be effective means of ensuring . . . compliance with the decisions of its institutions. As honourable members will recall, there was an utter rejection by employers when the Government attempted a trade-off by removing common law access to the Trade Practices Act under sections 45D and 45E and inserting the compliance provisions of the Bill. Because of this strong employer reaction and the imminent election, not to mention the trade unions' concern that the Minister was attempting to make decisions of the Arbitration Commission binding on the union movement, the Bill was withdrawn dramatically. Having won the election, the trade unions' position on this aspect of the Bill became crystal clear. On 17 August 1987, Simon Crean, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), said: They can still introduce their Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. As is the usual practice with this Government, the ACTU brought pressure to bear to preserve its privileged position so that the 1988 Industrial Relations Bill which finally emerged had the stringent compliance provisions of its predecessor unceremoniously removed-in the Minister's own words, `to preserve the system which currently exists'. There is the confirmation of the Hawke Government's subservience to the political muscle of the ACTU in overcoming any sensible reform. Throughout the Western world, the power and influence of trade unions are diminishing. Within this context, Simon Crean and the ACTU are making a last-ditch stand to create monster unions which might withstand the tidal wave of change. In the United States of America, where the pressures on the labour movement are strongest, membership has been in a long run decline, falling from 35 per cent of the labour force in the mid-1950s to just under 17 per cent in 1986. In Great Britain, under the Thatcher Government, the union movement has felt the cold winds of legislative change and more enlightened management practices. In the United Kingdom, the power of major unions has been shattered, with the coalminers union being the prime example. In England, workers prefer to get on with the job, improving productivity and raising the standard of living of their families. Ideological battles of a bygone era are largely forgotten. In Australia, with the help of the Hawke Labor Government, the union movement sees amalgamation as a panacea against its demise. While it is conceded that Australian industry has suffered from demarcation disputes centring on union membership and job specification, these difficulties will barely be affected by this legislation. Smaller unions are not always the basic cause of demarcation disputes. Members of some smaller unions fear that they will be swallowed up by larger, more powerful unions which would not have the knowledge or inclination to properly represent their interests. Let us take the Medical Scientists Association of Victoria as an example. Which other union would have even the vaguest idea of the concerns of those employed in such a specialist area? What about the Builders Workers Industrial Union of Australia? These may seem extreme examples, but it would be ludicrous for those unions to join with any other union, regardless of the industry on which it was based. The Association of Hospital Pharmacists of Victoria is another in a very specialised field. Would it be aligned in spirit and attitude with the Federated Storemen and Packers Union? The coalition would like to see enterprise based unions which have a common objective. In the amendments to this legislation, already tabled by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), amendment No. 21 provides that a member of an organisation or union who ceases to pay union dues for a period of six months is deemed to have resigned. I hope that the Government will see fit to accept that very important amendment. It corrects a serious anomaly. Currently, members of organisations believe that, by not paying union dues, they have indicated to the organisation that they no longer wish to be involved in that organisation. That is not so. They are liable to back dues, whether for six months or six years. Once challenged, they are bound by law to pay back dues which, in some cases, can run into thousands of dollars over several years. One of my constituents has come up against this very problem. He is a shearer who took out his last ticket in 1985. Since then he has not paid his dues because he no longer wishes to belong to the union concerned. Recently he received a demand for two years dues-a total of $225 for two union tickets and $80.40 for legal costs, presumably the cost of the lawyer's letter of demand. He has received a summons for refusing to pay for two union tickets which he did not require and was never going to use. Under the letter of the law, he must pay or face the consequences. He has no choice. This is compulsory unionism by historical precedent at work. Amendment No. 21 would redress that situation. Amendment No. 4 would remove from clause 94 of the Bill the requirement that the proposed Australian Industrial Relations Commission should provide, so far as possible and as far as the Commission considers proper, for uniformity throughout an industry in relation to hours of work, holidays and general conditions. This amendment would allow for agreements to suit enterprises rather than industries across the board. This would add emphasis to the coalition's policy of voluntary agreements between management and individual workers in particular enterprises. Finally, I wish to refer to clause 124 (3), which gives the Commission the right to award strike pay. The excuse given is that in the area of health and safety employees can receive compensation for what are termed reasonable strikes. No doubt industrial action based on health and safety grounds will be the order of the day under this new Industrial Relations Bill, if it is passed. The Minister has failed to bite the bullet and take the tough decisions. He has failed to bring about any real change in the industrial relations system in spite of his claim that this Bill represents the most substantial revision of Australia's Federal industrial relations system undertaken since it was established in 1904. He has joined his leader in turning from consensus to compromise. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(8.10) —Earlier this evening my colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) eloquently put the differences between the Opposition and the Government in the area of industrial relations, or lack of industrial relations. The honourable member for Stirling also adequately pointed out the record of the previous Fraser Government and its lack of industrial relations, which was an absolute disaster for this country. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) has learnt nothing from that. For him to cite the example of Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who would have to be the greatest anti-working class Prime Minister that the Western world has ever seen, shows the intelligence of honourable members opposite when they start to talk about industrial relations. In talking about industrial relations, let me just cite the example of Ian McLachlan, the great conservative supporter, touted as perhaps a future Leader of the Opposition and as someone who may lead the conservative forces into government at a future election-either him or the jam man, Mr Elliott. In an Australian newspaper article of last week it was stated: Australia's waterfront and maritime industries were the target of a savage attack yesterday by the retiring president of the National Farmers Federation (NFF), Mr Ian McLachlan, who referred to them as`garbage' and the epitome of `the very worst in Australian industry'. . . . . `These industries are the garbage on our doorstep,' Mr McLachlan said. `Riddled with inefficient work practices, over-manning, high unit costs and frequent industrial disruption, they epitomise the very worst in Australia's industry.' Mr McLachlan also suggested waterfront issues might be exploited by the NFF in its efforts to top up the Australian Farmers Fighting Fund, now believed to be depleted following 16 calls on its finances during the past year. `We've been trying to get a decent barney going but we can't,' he said. `Perhaps if we go to the wharfs we might have a different result.' That is the man who has ambitions of leading the Liberal-National Party to government. I think that typifies the attitude of the Opposition. Members of the Opposition really are the people who want confrontation, not consensus. As the honourable member for Stirling pointed out very adequately earlier this evening, we on this side of the House are prepared to consult and discuss. We have done that very well indeed. I like to think that the days of confrontation are gone and that now we have consensus. Let us just take up Mr McLachlan's statement. He knows so much about consultation that he has probably never heard of Jimmy Beggs, the President of the Waterside Workers Federation of Victoria. Jimmy Beggs heard about the problems of the farmers and the way in which they were being brainwashed byMcLachlan and his cohorts, so he invited the farmers to meet waterside workers and to consult. Now the Victorian waterside workers and the farmers have a really good rapport. We do not want the McLachlans of this world coming into the industrial market and trying to peddle their type of confrontation policies. I think that, if there is anybody who is garbage, perhaps we on this side of the House ought to look at those people who typify and articulate that sort of vested interest. It is just drivel. I support the Industrial Relations Bill 1988. It is a rewriting of legislation originally brought into operation on 15 December 1904, a very early stage in the history of the Federation. The system of conciliation and arbitration it set up has generally served Australia well. This legislation, like its predecessor in 1904, depends on section 52 (xxxv) of the Constitution. Much of the debate in the constitutional conventions of the 1890s centred on the issue of whether this placitum should have been included. It was included on a vote which saw 22 for and 19 against. The 1890s saw not only the great conventions debate, but also great industrial upheavals. The Australian Shearers Union, the original name of the Australian Workers Union, was forced to take action to ensure decent wages and conditions. Experiences from the 1890s led unionists to form the Australian Labor Party, which has continued to this day as the political advocate for working men and women. I am very proud indeed to be part of the Australian Labor Party. Common law treated workers harshly. Actions taken under it prevented them combining effectively to improve their lot. More recently, sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act have increased the harsh sanctions imposed on workers who take industrial action to improve their wages and conditions. Unions have looked to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for satisfaction of their claims. It is essential that the Commission act with efficiency, equity and rapidity. This legislation will help it to do so. The main features of the Bill are as follows: it provides that the minimum number of members a union can have is 3,000, except in special cases. Unions must achieve this within three years. There will be a review in the fourth year. I must say that amalgamation is certainly the way to go. As a person who has worked in the shipbuilding industry and with its demise in Whyalla, I know in retrospect that, had we had one single union, some of the demarcation difficulties that we experienced certainly would have been resolved. Anyone who has had any commitment to or understanding of the trade union movement would see that to cut down on the number of unions really is the way to go. I congratulate the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) because he certainly has taken this most positive step. Amalgamation of unions will be made easier. The rules regarding what must be established to prove community interest will be relaxed. If community interest is established, amalgamation will take place. Also, a fast-track has been installed. There will be no objection phase, as is presently the situation. Each union will make application to the Registrar and he will refer the application to a designated presidential member. Although I am running short of time, there are a couple of other things I want to discuss. I would like to take up a statement made by the Minister. The Minister said in his second reading speech: The joint statement by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Confederation of Australian Industry and Business Council of Australia in September 1986 on restrictive work practices was a major recognition by the parties, and the unions in particular, of the need to eliminate restrictive work practices to improve productivity and competitiveness. These restrictions certainly are very important indeed. Their removal should enable the development over the next few years of a more skilled, flexible and productive work force, thus improving competitiveness, economic growth and our capacity to improve living standards. I am surprised that the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), from South Australia, does not support me in this. I refer to the traumatic situation in South Australia, with the possibility of losing the submarine contract. Obviously, the honourable member for Wakefield should be aware that, if we had one single union to cover the manufacture of the submarines, we would cancel out a lot of the problems we are having at present. Let me just say that the Minister deserves praise for his efforts in bringing forward this Industrial Relations Bill. The Opposition is seeking to amend the legislation in an attempt to make it even more harsh on the labour force. There is no doubt that the industrial relations system, through the courts, is particularly harsh on unions. They have no lawful right to strike. There is no industrial action of which I can think that cannot itself provoke action under either the criminal law or the civil law-action such as intimidation, conspiracy, or actions taken under section 45d and section 45e of the Trade Practices Act. The union movement has a very harsh series of sanctions hanging over it. This must not be forgotten. Apparently an attempt will be made to increase even further the harshness of those sanctions. This Industrial Relations Bill introduced by the Minister is the most far-reaching reform of the industrial relations law since the first Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was introduced into this Parliament in 1904. I congratulate the Minister for Industrial Relations. He is certainly one who is prepared to consult not only with the trade unions but also with the employers. This objective legislation is certainly on the right track and is brought forward in a constructive manner. It is just a pity that members of the Opposition are not prepared to support it. Mr COBB(Parkes)(8.20) —The Industrial Relations Bill is, of course, nothing more than a revamped version of the horrific Industrial Relations Bill presented last year but withdrawn before the election. Honourable members will remember that, in that Bill, the Government tried to restrict employers' access under sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act to common-law injunctions; but such was the public outcry that the Government was finally forced to withdraw the Bill from the Parliament. It has now re-presented this Bill which, regrettably, is still riddled with flaws. In fact it has on it all the footprints of the Australian Labor Party's subservience to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In particular, I would like to identify three main areas, amongst others, where this Bill fails. Firstly, it continues-and I think the people of Australia will be disappointed to hear this-the system of de facto compulsory unionism in this country. It does that through the preference clauses and closed shops, which the coalition will abolish as soon as it is returned to government, and also through industrial pressure. Surely this Government must wake up to the fact that 83 per cent of the Australian people, according to the last poll that I saw, want voluntary unionism; they do not want compulsion in this area at all. Even 77 per cent of trade union members themselves are opposed to compulsory unionism, because they recognise the abuse that has gone on in that area. There is a perception in Australia that trade union leaders have far too much power, and I think that is an accurate perception. They have too much power, to the detriment of the workers in Australia. We in this country need a shift or power from trade union leaders towards the workers themselves. The second area where the Bill falls down is in relation to the arbitration system. Unfortunately, there are no effective compliance provisions in the Bill. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission will have little or no power to enforce its directions to make employers and unions comply. Employers will have to comply, but not the unions. I think the failure of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to deliver here is due wholly and solely to trade union dominance of policy making. The Minister, who is at the table, said that he would provide teeth to the Bill, and I am disappointed that he has backed off. Trade union compliance with directions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is virtually optional in Australia these days. The Minister has said in the past that he would introduce an effective direction system. However, this was shelved after Simon Crean made that famous statement which was reported in the Australian Financial Review on 17 August last year. It stated: They can still introduce a Bill, but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. Mr N.A. Brown —What a joke. Mr COBB —It is a joke, as the honourable member for Menzies says. Who is running this country? Certainly not the Minister; the unions, as usual. The Minister pathetically and slavishly caved in again, and honourable members see the result of it in the Bill now before the House. No system can work unless both sides have to comply. If one side knows that it can continue to defy the rules with impunity, we will always have problems. A third major area of concern to us on this side of the House is that there is no move towards single enterprise bargaining units, which I think more than anything else would stop the inter-union wrangling that is going on at the moment. I know that there is in the Bill a section on amalgamation and registration provisions, as a move towards fewer and larger unions. I think the minimum membership has been set at 3,000. I recognise that there are 148 federally registered unions in Australia, 72 of which have membership of fewer than 3,000, adding up to only 2.9 per cent of total union membership. However, to force them to amalgamate does not necessarily lead to a better union structure, which is surely the point; nor will it necessarily lead to fewer demarcation disputes. The last 32 demarcation disputes in this country, I am told, involved only one union with fewer than 3,000 members. It has usually been the big conglomerates that have had trouble with demarcation disputes. The recent ones have involved the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia, the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia, the Transport Workers Union and the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia. Bigger unions do not necessarily mean fewer disputes, which is surely what we are on about. The aim should be not just for fewer unions but for fewer unions within a particular industry; so I hope the Minister takes note of that point. In the limited time I have left in which to speak, I also express my disappointment that there is no prohibition in the Bill regarding strike pay, which is absolute anathema to us on this side of the House and, I think, to most Australian people. Mr McArthur —Hear, hear! Mr COBB —I am pleased that the honourable member for Corangamite acknowledges that point. We also should delete provisions designed to override State legislation on industrial action. It is amazing that, every time the Government introduces a Bill into this House, it just cannot seem to resist trying to centralise more power in Canberra. We see it in the referendum Bills and in almost every piece of legislation that is brought in. I am amazed to see that there is a requirement in the Bill aimed towards uniformity throughout industry. Again, the old egalitarian principle has come to the fore where everybody must be dragged down to the same level. I think this will only destroy reward for effort and the pursuit of excellence in this country. Regrettably, the Australian Labor Party cannot accept that someone in this country would want to work harder, do better and be rewarded accordingly for it. There should also be higher priority for constructive cooperation between employers and employees before disputes reach the Commission, the common-law courts or the statute law courts. There is not enough flexibility here, because I think the Labor Party is simply not prepared to let the power that the union leaders have go back more to the workers. I also believe that, in wage setting in this country, wages should be determined on a minimum award set for each industry, based on an hourly rate. If someone wants to work a 35-hour week, so be it: he will get 35 times the hourly rate. If he wants to work a 40-hour week, he will receive 40 times the hourly rate. That will restore some incentive to the system. On-costs should be wholly and solely eligible for negotiation between employer and employee. I am thinking of things like penalty rates, hours of work, length of holidays, the 17 1/2 per cent loading and all those sorts of things. We need genuine youth wages to be set in this country so that we can give our youth a chance. That age group has an horrific unemployment rate in excess of 20 per cent. Essential services legislation should be brought down. Deregistration should be fast tracked and made much simpler and faster than it is in this country. Independent contractors should be protected; they should not be allowed to be coerced in any way whatsoever. Secret ballots before strikes should be made mandatory in most cases. No work as directed no pay provisions should be restored. Secondary boycotts should remain illegal, and common law access in the civil courts should definitely be retained. As well, I believe part time work should be made legal to an extent that does not now apply. Employee profit sharing incentive schemes need to be examined. In bringing down decisions, the Commission should be made to take into account more than is provided in the Bill the capacity of industry to pay. The Commission should have to have regard for the effect on employment, for the effect on inflation and for the effect on Australia's international competitiveness. In other words, the Commission should have to bring down a fair dinkum economic impact statement, because that is what this country needs if it is to get out of the morass that it is in today. In conclusion, I think most of the crucial points that could have been dealt with in the Bill have been neglected, avoided or superficially dealt with. Mr N.A. Brown —Or weakened down. Mr COBB —Or weakened or watered down, as the honourable member says. This is particularly so when it comes to the Arbitration Commission having some teeth to enforce its decisions and directions. It is presently almost impotent, and I cannot see that position changing much. The new Commission will be similar in that regard. This Bill totally rejects that. In such a major piece of legislation, into which so much work has gone, this is an opportunity lost. That is a great shame because much needs to be done in this area to restore productivity to Australia and to get Australia back into an internationally competitive position in this world so that we can start to compete again fairly and squarely on our own two feet. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(8.31) —The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) echoes the sentiments of the Opposition quite markedly, namely, that it is terrified of the union movement. Everything that Opposition members have said today makes it quite clear that they are terrified. They are paranoid about the union movement generally. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that unions generally do not support the Opposition politically. Perhaps it has something to do with the record of the Australian Labor Party when it comes to the workers of this country and the record of the Liberal-National Party Opposition when it comes to the workers of this country. Much has been said during the debate tonight with respect to the Fraser years. The level of industrial disputation during the Fraser years is evidence of the fact that the confrontationist attitude of the Liberal and National parties in opposition, and even in government, is certainly not as good as the accord situation which the Labor Party has proven to be a most successful operation during the period of the Hawke Government. The Opposition said that this Bill will encourage large and powerful trade unions and that this necessarily is a bad thing. It may be a bad thing. It may be a bad thing for those New Right people, members of the Liberal Opposition who want to demolish the trade union movement. Let us make it quite clear: that is what they want to do. Mr Lavarch —They want to attack workers. Mr SCIACCA —As the honourable member for Fisher says, they want to break the influence of the trade union movement in this country. But it is in the best interests of the trade union movement that these amalgamations take place, and I will talk about the amalgamation provisions of the Bill later on. Perhaps more importantly, it is in the best interests of better industrial relations generally in this country. The Opposition would have us go back to the Dark Ages of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the sweatshops of Mother England in those days, because that is what voluntary work agreements would end up promoting. Voluntary work agreements do not work. If honourable members want evidence of that, they should come to Queensland, where the old doyen of the Queensland National Party, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, tried to break the union movement-and unfortunately succeeded to some degree, but thankfully not to a major degree-and they will see what the position is there. The first voluntary work agreement that had to go before the court to be sanctioned was refused because it did not contain the proper conditions. The Queensland Industrial Commission refused to ratify the agreement because it did not work. So much for voluntary work agreements. Contributions by various speakers tonight make it clear that a Liberal-National Party Government would seek to demolish the trade union movement in the same way as that great reactionary, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, attempted to do in Queensland. The Opposition wants to dismantle the union movement as we know it, which has served this country well for over a century. Confrontation, not conciliation, is the aim of this Liberal-National Party coalition and the people who support the views of the reactionary New Right about which I have had a lot to say in this Parliament in the last seven months. This Bill attempts to simplify all the legal aspects, and one of the most important areas of our economy in the running of this country is the area of industrial relations. The Bill replaces the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 because that Bill had become something of a mess as a result of the many amendments made to it over its 84-year history. The result is a Bill that solves the problems of internal inconsistency present in the former Bill. The Bill, however, has kept the conciliation and arbitration process as the fundamental plank of Australia's industrial relations process, and rightly so. In this respect it recognises what Australians have known since the days of the great strikes in the nineteenth century-that the system of collective bargaining is not the most appropriate way to conduct industrial relations. Having learned from the mistakes of the mother country, England, and with the experience of the great strikes in mind, the Federal Government passed the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in 1904, and this process has remained central to our system of industrial relations ever since. This Bill will provide no joy to those in our community who want to return to the law of the jungle when it comes to industrial relations. Those sections of our community include the New Right, the Opposition and the Queensland Government, as I and my colleague the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) know from our experience there. They are the leaders in trying to demolish the system as we know it now. The Bill will provide no joy to those who believe that the only industrial relations law we should have is one which breaks unions. Those who would deregulate our industrial system will be disappointed in this Bill. They are the same people who would have us return to the sweatshops, as I said previously, of eighteenth century England. If honourable members do not believe that could happen, they need only pick up the newspaper from time to time to read about what happens in outback Australia. Labourers and young kids are employed out there with no proper awards or systems, and they are being exploited. That is the sort of thing that the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) would like to see. Mr McArthur —You got that wrong last time. Mr SCIACCA —That is exactly what he would like to see. The Australian newspaper said in its editorial of 29 April that this Bill falls far short of being a blueprint for harmonious relationships between employers and employees. I do not think I have heard the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) say that this Bill was ever intended to be a blueprint. If the Minister could write a Bill which would resolve conflict it would be a miracle, and even the Minister cannot create miracles. I think even he would admit that. It is a fact of life that disagreements between employers and employees will sometimes occur. This Bill recognises that the arbitration process institutionalises conflict resolution so that the debilitating consequences of industrial action are avoided in the majority of cases. The concept of an arbiter is a tried and true method of conflict resolution, and this Bill recognises that, as did its predecessor. One of the greatest examples over the last couple of weeks of cooperation between employers and employees was in the Industrial Commission in Queensland, where again the Queensland Government is applying for the abolition of the 17.5 per cent holiday leave loading. Mount Isa Mines Ltd in north Queensland, which employs only members of the Australian Workers Union came out on the side of the union and told the State Government, `Get out of here; leave us alone. We have a great situation going here. We have good relationships with employees. Don't come in here and try to force confrontation'. I want to say publicly in this, the highest forum in this country, that Mount Isa Mines Ltd ought to be congratulated on taking that stance. I will send the company a copy of this speech because it needs to be congratulated. The major aspect of the Bill that I would like to speak about is the amalgamation of unions and in particular how it relates to the situation in Queensland. Honourable members may remember that not long ago there was a large dispute in Queensland-the electricity dispute, or the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute. In that case the Queensland Government introduced a number of draconian measures, including the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act 1984, amendments to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961, the Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985 and the Electricity Authorities (Industrial Causes) Act 1985, to name a few. The effect of such legislation was to prohibit strikes, to establish cumbersome requirements for notice of strikes and to make unions liable for fines of up to $250,000 and individuals $50,000. The Government tried to bankrupt the union movement. It is easier to do that if the Government can pick on the smaller unions, and that is what it did. It picked on some of the smaller unions that were not able to back themselves financially in court cases defending applications under sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. The Queensland Government deliberately attempted to assert its superiority so that the Premier at the time, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, could show that he was a great Thatcher man and that he could do what Thatcher did to the coal unions. A large firm of Queensland solicitors was told by the former Premier, `You have a blank cheque; don't worry about that because the State of Queensland is paying for this, no problems. Just get those couple of unions over there'. I can say, because I had some personal experience in a couple of cases-one of them is still before the courts so I cannot give details to the honourable members as it is sub judice-that we were able to stop it, but only because the union concerned had the financial resources to do it. If in the future similar situations occurred, if these amalgamations were not forced to go ahead, the small industrial unions could be bankrupted by governments such as the government of Queensland or by future governments, God forbid, of the Liberal-National Party when they try to do something about getting rid of the union movement. I congratulate the Minister for Industrial Relations, who is at the table, because by forcing amalgamations, by forcing a situation where no small union will have fewer than 3,000 members, he is ensuring that the institution of unions in this country will be able to survive irrespective of attacks from the New Right, from the National Party of Australia particularly, and from the Opposition. I am very happy to be supporting this Bill. As far as I am concerned, all of the provisions of the legislation are quite good. We are serving the interests of the workers of this country. We are not out in the workplace to be confrontationist. We are out there to be conciliatory. We are out there to try to solve disputes. We are out there to continue what has happened over the last five years, and that is a level of industrial disputation which is probably the best that has been achieved in this country for many years. It is half the level that existed during the Fraser years. I support the Bill and I urge everybody else to support it. Obviously, I do not agree with any of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(9.41) —It is the grossest exaggeration of language for the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to describe the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 as `the most substantial revision of Australia's Federal industrial relations system undertaken since the system was established in 1904'. Nor does the Bill make anything remotely like the sweeping changes to our industrial relations system that he claims for it. The Bill in fact is not a reform at all. It does not make any of the sweeping changes to the system that are in fact so essential. In fact, if one reads the Bill one finds that it does exactly what one would expect the Australian Labor Party to do and exactly what one would expect a government dominated by the trade union movement to do. It perpetuates the rigid centralised system of industrial relations that is one of the main institutions holding this country back from achieving the very best that it could achieve. One just needs to look at what the Bill contains to see how true this is. The Bill perpetuates the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and changes only its name. It keeps the same procedures of notification of disputes, conciliation and arbitration, Full Bench matters and preference clauses. The provisions on industrial inspectors are not new. The powers of the Commission are retained in substance and the pathetically weak provisions on secret ballots in the old Act are retained as are those on common rules and awards. Finally, the provisions on cancellation of registration, offences and financial assistance are still there. Both the old Act and the new Bill also have a miscellaneous section. So the system, when this Bill becomes law, will be substantially the same as it is now with the same centralised power, the same scope for the unions to ignore the system when they want to and manipulate it when they want to and the same rigidities as the present system has. Perhaps the clause that sums up that sameness more than any other clause is clause 94 because that clause provides that the Industrial Relations Commission is to impose uniformity. Can one imagine a clause as deadening as that, a clause that requires the Commission to impose uniformity-uniformity in hours of work, holidays and general conditions of employment? It is clear that the Government could not care less what individual workers want, whether they want to negotiate their own hours of work or their own conditions of employment. Oh, no; uniformity must carry the day once again. The same dull uniformity is therefore being imposed again on an economy that now, more than ever before, needs variety, flexibility and difference to give us some challenge, incentive, life and energy in our industries. It is a complete myth to pretend, therefore, that the Bill is any reform at all because it is no reform at all. The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca), who spoke before me, said that one of the virtues of the Bill was that it simplified the law. Just have a look at it. The old Act of 1904 was amended umpteen times and ended up with 198 sections. This Bill itself has 358 clauses which are just as cumbersome, just as complicated and just as entwined in complexities as was the original Act. Of course, it is true that there are some provisions in this Bill which are new. I will maintain that they are certainly not reforms, but they are new and they deserve to be stated. In the first place, the Bill contains a whole battery of clauses which deal with the Industrial Registrar. There is to be more bureaucracy to achieve nothing. Secondly, the principles of the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act are to be applied in industrial relations. This is more social engineering. Thirdly, demarcation disputes are now going to be fixed up by a triumvirate of the President of the Commission and the heads of the peak councils, presumably the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the Confederation of Australian Industry. Of course, there will not be much of a look in here for the ordinary workers or even for their own trade unions. Fourthly, in clause 121, there is the strangest provision that I have ever seen, which enables the Industrial Relations Commission actually to overrule laws made by this Commonwealth Parliament on public sector employees. We will be able to sit in our grand new Parliament House as long as we like passing laws on the public sector, only to have unelected members of the Industrial Relations Commission, no doubt preening themselves with their new title of `the Honourable', overrule them. Fifthly, there are proposals on union amalgamation. These provisions are in the Bill solely for the convenience of the ACTU and certainly not for the members of the smaller unions. This provision will not achieve anything by way of removing demarcation disputes because, as anyone who knows anything about this field will tell us, demarcation disputes are not caused by small unions. The amalgamation provisions are inserted for the convenience of the ACTU and the large unions. Having said all that, the second thing that must be said about this Bill is that the Government has failed miserably to include in it a whole host of matters that it should have included. It should have included some provision for voluntary agreements between employers and employees if for no other reason than the convenience of the employees themselves. I have long since given up any belief that either trade unions in this country or this Government represent the interests of working men and women. Instead, we have been given a feeble provision on certified agreements. At least the Government now, after pressure from the Opposition in a debate that has gone on for five years, has been dragged kicking and screaming to the point where it has actually got into the Bill, believe it or not, these words: While a certified agreement is in force: (a) the terms of the agreement prevail over the terms of an award . . . What a miracle it is to get even that into the Bill. At least we have achieved that after five years of debate. But what does the Government do then? It then puts the whole notion of those certified agreements under the dead hand of the Commission for approval. It may as well have strangled it at birth. The Bill should also have included some provision for voluntary unionism and ended the disgraceful abuse of human rights that is known as compulsory unionism. It should have included some decent enforcement provisions. It should have included some mechanism for fixing youth wages so that employers might be able to afford to employ young people again. It should have included some provision to make the Commission more responsive to economic realities. But it contains none of those provisions at all and it fails miserably for that reason. The third thing that must be said about this Bill is that it is the charter within which the Government is going to apply its new wages policy. What, we may ask, is that new wages policy to be? Believe it or not, it will perpetuate inflation into our wage cost structure. The most extraordinary thing of all is that this same old system that we have had since 1904 is now to be cranked up again to give wage increases based on inflation at the very time that inflation is now rising and wage increases are catching up to the inflation rate. As we know, ordinary time earnings have now grown by 6.7 per cent for the year and inflation is 6.9 per cent. Average weekly earnings have grown by 7.3 per cent, but the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average-the average of the countries we try to test ourselves against-is only 3 1/2 per cent to 4 per cent. So it is clear that economically things are getting worse. Yet, despite that evidence, on top of all that, we now see a trade union claim of 6 per cent, based, if you please, on future inflation. We are going to fix our wages by reference to the future rate of inflation. That is a formula for disaster for any country. Nothing could be more calculated to give us even higher inflation. The Government, of course, will tinker with the proposal at the edges but basically it will once again give in. That is what it really means by consensus-give in. Is it any wonder that there has been a drop in the number and types of industrial disputes when the message repeated and enforced time and time again is that the Government will give in? Look at what is happening to our economy as a result of it. The Government will give in to the union claim that wages should be increased in line with the expected rate of inflation-at a time when inflation is increasing. That policy will be disastrous for Australia. When it is applied, the resulting increase in wages will run all through the veins of industry, because that is exactly what the centralised system is designed to achieve. We should not be surprised when that is the result because that is what the centralised system is intended to achieve. This legislation will do nothing more than perpetuate that system. Is it any wonder that we are in for major economic problems? What is really wrong with this legislation is that it guarantees that the inflationary cycle will simply roll on and on. At this time of inflationary pressures, the Government serves up to us this legislation, mutton dressed up as lamb, perpetuating a system of wage fixing which gave us the problem in the first place and which is now guaranteed to give us more of the same. I suppose that the worst thing of all is that this system is not giving us any higher productivity. That is why we on the Opposition side say that it is time for a change in industrial relations. It is time to give the working man and woman, for the first time, some incentive, some chance to exchange their hard work and productivity growth for real wage increases, not phoney money increases and raging inflation under the same old centralised system, which is all that this Government can give. It is a pathetic situation when we are presented with this sad legislation, legislation of wasted opportunity. Frankly, the only decent thing we can do about it is defeat it. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(8.53) —I enjoy listening to the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), popularly known as Gough Brown-`It's time for a change in industrial relations'. I strongly support the Industrial Relations Bill, the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill and the initiative of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). I wish to respond to a few of the remarks made by the honourable member for Menzies. He attacked union amalgamations as not being in the interests of workers and as something that should be opposed, and is opposed by the Liberal Party of Australia. If the House will indulge me, I wish to give a quotation which I will identify at the end. Listen to this: The Government's longstanding objective, expressed in our industrial relations platform, is the encouragement of industry based unions. It is also the objective of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This legislation faces up to the need for change by providing a legislative framework which will facilitate the restructuring of unions into fewer industry based organisations. The Government is well aware that the development of industry based unions will not be an easy process or one that will take place overnight. However, a start has to be made. I repeat the words, `a start has to be made'. The quotation continues: Within the trade union movement itself and amongst employers there is evidence of interest in some industries that unions should be industry based. Was it a Labor member, a member of the National Party of Australia or a member of the Liberal Party who made such remarks? It was a former Minister for Industrial Relations, the former honourable member for Stirling, Mr Viner. That was a direct quotation from his speech on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1982. I regret that the honourable member for Menzies has left the chamber. What has changed in the Liberal Party-and it refers to its long held views-since 1982? Why has it made such a complete about-face? That was a quotation not from a Labor backbencher, not from a shadow spokesman but from the second reading speech of the then Minister for Industrial Relations. On the subject of union amalgamations, it is important to understand that the imposition of a floor of 3,000 members before unions can be registered is part of the process of encouraging unions to amalgamate. For example, at present the federally registered unions with fewer than 3,000 members-there are 72 of those-constitute 2.9 cent of the total membership of all federally registered unions. One of the issues we have to face up to in this legislation is the legitimacy of the trade union movement. On the one hand, we have an arbitration system which is unique by world standards. Established in 1904, it recognises the legitimate rights of the trade union movement to exist. The Opposition does not accept that. It feels that in the 1980s and 1990s the way forward, the way to restructure the Australian economy, is to smash trade unions, not to recognise the legitimate role that they play in our society and in our economy. One of the distinguishing features of this Labor Government is that it has recognised the role of the trade union movement and constructively harnessed that movement, together with business, to bring about real changes in the economy. The cornerstone, of course, has been the accord. What we have been able to do under the accord is contrasted with what was done under Fraser. Under the accord every working man, woman and youth of this country has accepted decreases in real wages as a contribution to putting more than one million jobs back into the economy and as a contribution to restructuring industry. We have done it by agreement. This is in contrast to what happened in the Fraser years, under the policies beloved and espoused by the honourable member for Menzies, who languishes on the back bench. He wants to replace the present system by traditional Liberal methods, those of confrontation. Why should we have an arbitration system? One of the central features of the arbitration system is that it allows unions to negotiate and to get decent wages irrespective of their industrial strength. That is to be applauded. It is traditional in Australia for increases to have been awarded to all working Australians and, as I said, that is to be applauded. The previous speaker talked about voluntary agreements. He made what I thought were some rather poor remarks about the certified agreements. Honourable members opposite want to bring in voluntary agreements. Voluntary agreements are all about destroying the trade union movement. We have certainly established a climate for negotiation, for consensus. We have been able to get agreements between employers and employees about the removal of work practices without having massive strikes and without lockouts. There have been agreements about these things. After all, it was through the process of agreement between employers and employees that some of these practices were brought in. They ought to be taken out, and are being taken out, by the same type of process. We have negotiated industry agreements for the restructuring of Australian industry. We have put into place plans in which voluntary agreements would play no part. So I reject the notion of voluntary agreements. I wish to cite just one other example. There has been a tremendous leap forward in negotiations in the metal trades industry between the employer organisations on the one hand and the unions on the other. There is the real possibility that we may be able to get down from 300 different awards to maybe nine industry classifications. Who would have thought that that was possible? But we have set the climate for it. We have set a climate whereby unions and employers have a legitimate role and agreements can be worked out not by confrontation but by negotiation. I had to laugh when the honourable member for Menzies suggested that the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party were not representing the interests of working men and women. I am always amused by such things coming from Opposition members, who have consistently opposed every wage increase through the arbitration system, a system which they deride. On the one hand they oppose these wage increases but on the other they set themselves up as somehow the great saviours of working men and women in Australia. I think that is cause for derision. The honourable member for Menzies went on to talk about inflation, suggesting that it was increasing. Inflation in our period in office has come down quite significantly, and is projected to come down even further. It is interesting to reflect that nothing destroys the living standards of pensioners and those dependent on the social welfare system, as well as the living standards of ordinary men and women, as much as inflation, and no one has had it any higher that the Opposition had it when it was in office. Mr Sharp —What about good old Gough? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member will not interject. Mr McArthur —Why not? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member on my left said, `Why not?'. He might have said it while he was sitting in his own place, but if he looks at the Standing Orders he will realise that all interjections are disorderly. Mr PRICE —Let me quickly wind up. There has been some comment about youth wages, and that has been a thorny issue. As far as I am concerned it is still an issue that is worth looking at. I was talking about inflation, and reflecting on the fact that inflation moves through the veins of the industrial relations system. The second tier increase was all about trading off productivity gains for wage increases. That was a unique move, and a move that I think has been thoroughly vindicated. Certainly it is the way ahead. I conclude by strongly supporting the initiative of the Minister for Industrial Relations, often called the quiet achiever. He is regarded highly by all sides in the industrial relations system and in this Parliament. I reject the propositions put forward by the Opposition and I am sure that people of Australia will welcome this long overdue legislation. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(9.03) —`Efficiency', `productivity' and `competitiveness' are three words used often in this place and elsewhere to address the needs of Australian industry. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech on the Industrial Relations Bill used similar words to justify this important piece of legislation. He said that Australia: . . . should develop over the next few years a more skilled, flexible and productive work force thus improving competitiveness, economic growth and our capacity to improve living standards. In reality, though, he was talking about a system under a government that was prepared to act responsibly and prepared to make hard decisions even against the wishes of its union masters. That government, of course, is not the present Government. Regrettably, this legislation fails to take advantage of a general agreement on reforms gained over years of discussion and consultation between industry, unions and government. It has failed to find a mechanism to achieve reform, therefore it must be condemned as a monument to loss of opportunity. It will not provide Australia with a badly needed efficient, comprehensive and, more importantly, flexible industrial relations system. While employers agree that reform is vital, the Government's tripartite consultation has obviously come down in favour of the trade union movement. Clearly the bonds of the so-called accord between the Government and the trade union movement have been so welded together that they are unbreakable. In place of a solid yet forward looking system the Government has proposed a plan that will further reinforce the existing centralised industrial relations system and inflexible labour market. The planned amalgamation of unions into super-unions will centralise union power. The report of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which the Minister says formed the basis of this legislation, describes trade unions as centres of power. The Industrial Relations Bill will transfer what little power is left for members on the shop floor. There is already valid criticism that control of industrial disputes lies not with the membership but with a small number of officials and militant unionists. The Government's plan will have the onerous effect of further transferring power to a few at the expense of the silent majority. Employers will have the difficult task of having to deal with union officials and with a Federal commission with scant knowledge of the local conditions. This surely is not the substance on which to build a productive, efficient, competitive economic environment. At a time when Australia must present a unified front to overseas investors, the Government is proposing a system which is likely to spark widespread disunity in the union movement itself. The Government's claims of a major improvement in the industrial relations climate in recent years will count for nothing if it continues to promote disharmony in the community through this Bill. In the end the losers will be Australian business and industry and the Australian people-including the Australian work force. The position of the Opposition is that the issue of union structure is of vital interest, and that there are serious flaws in the Government's proposed legislation which are likely to make an unsatisfactory position worse. We will be moving amendments to retain the existing registration and amalgamation provisions as they are in the current Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and to have the whole issue referred to a parliamentary committee for further inquiry. There are a number of other provisions in the legislation which we strongly oppose. We are totally opposed to the provisions that would give the Industrial Relations Commission the power to award payment for lost time in disputes involving health and safety. Payment for lost time is effectively an open invitation to go on strike. This is not merely an academic proposition. The building industry has seen the appalling consequences when this principle has become widely accepted. `Paid homers' are a running sore in that industry and are proving extremely difficult to eradicate. The usual excuse for a `paid homer', that is a paid strike, is precisely that the dispute is about health and safety. If the provisions in the Bill concerning strike pay are enacted, the Commission will come under extreme pressure to order payment for lost time. It will be very difficult in practice for the Commission to restrict this to genuine health and safety disputes. One can be sure that health and safety issues will become abused to provide the justification for paid strikes. We could soon see the problems of `paid homers' spread from the building industry to other sectors. I should stress that this in no way implies any lack of concern or commitment on the Opposition's part for occupational health and safety. Industrial action is not, however, the right way to ensure health and safety standards. That should be done through the State inspection services and proper legal regulation. We are also totally opposed to provisions that would override State legislation designed to regulate industrial action. This Government has totally abdicated its responsibility in the area of sanctions. It should not prevent State governments from acting in this area. We also support the deletion from the legislation of the clause requiring uniformity of conditions throughout our industry. This is a clear legislative barrier to greater flexibility at the enterprise level-something which the Government is only prepared to pay lip-service to. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(9.10) —The Government is responsible for engendering a new industrial relations environment in Australia. To that end, I believe it is to be commended. The legislation before us this evening has taken some time to produce. If one looks at what Australia has had to endure in terms of industrial relations legislation over a long period one can only congratulate the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is at the table, and his departmental officers for preparing something which will set the standards for some time in the future. The hallmark of this Government, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers on this side, is one of discussion, drawing out ideas, and putting them into action. Conversely, those on the other side in the industrial relations environment have been characterised through confrontation, union bashing and generally putting forward the myth that trade unions were destructive, self-interested, power hungry and led by communist agitators. That sort of attitude became entrenched for a long period in this country and it has taken since 1983-this is very significant; it was the time when the Hawke Labor Government came into office-for that view to be changed. Since 1983 a number of major decisions have been taken in the field of industrial relations. We have seen the accord put in place. We have seen wage restraint, industrial stability and employment growth. We have seen occupational superannuation introduced. We have seen the establishment of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. We have seen equal employment opportunity and anti-discrimination legislation, legislation which National Party and Liberal Party members in this place voted against consistently. We have seen Government initiatives in employee participation and industrial democracy. We have seen at first hand the Government working successfully with unions and management to restructure key industries such as coastal shipping, the car industry, clothing and footwear and, of course, the steel industry, with which I am most familiar. We have seen the two-tier wages system introduced in March 1987. We have seen all of these changes in industrial relations, yet we are subjected to the nonsense from the other side during this debate that suggests the Government has achieved nothing. We are also subjected to Press releases such as one from Senator Fred Chaney, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and shadow Minister for industrial relations. In that Press release of 4 May 1988 he said: The Industrial Relations Bill presented last week also proves that, when it comes to the crunch, the ties that bind Labor to trade unions work to the community's disadvantage. Can the House believe that nonsense after hearing the list of achievements I have just run through? Does the House think they are to the community's disadvantage? The steel industry plan, the car industry plan, et cetera? It is industrial relations put into action, yet we are subjected to this sort of nonsense as well. Quite clearly the Industrial Relations Bill makes nonsense of the claims that have been put forward by those opposite that this is cosmetic, that it does nothing to improve the industrial relations environment and simply embraces attitudes and policies that may have been announced by other people. As I have indicated, I have one criticism of the current legislation. In an industrial relations sense, confrontation is promoted through any industrial legislation. I am pleased that clause 3 (a) of the Industrial Relations Bill states as one of its objectives: -to promote industrial harmony and co-operation among the parties involved in industrial relations in Australia. This Labor Government has shown that it is the only government capable of achieving that. The Bill overcomes the problem of the definition of the term `industrial matter'. I also note that it is no longer necessary to have a legal qualification to become a president or deputy president of the Commission. That also says something for the recognition of people with talents in this area who could be appointed to very important places. Therefore there is no longer a need to have a strong legal background or system. It is something that works to the advantage of the average working man and woman in this country. The jurisdiction of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission will be framed as broadly as possible within the limits of the conciliation and arbitration power, subject only to the requirement that disputes relate to matters concerning employers and employees. It is intended that disputes involving all such matters will be able to come before the Commission, thus removing existing constraints on the Commission's involvement. The Bill provides for speedier and simpler union amalgamation procedures, a matter which has been dealt with previously tonight. There is a greater emphasis on resolution of disputes at the shop floor level. Surely this is a unique approach to industrial relations. It is an approach that I maintain is one which can be framed and developed only in that very strong working relationship that has been the hallmark of this Government. The trade union movement, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), that we hear quite often derided by those in the conservative ranks, works with the Government, a government that understands. There is no nonsense about being out of touch with the average working man and woman in Australia. What absolute nonsense that is. Look at the industrial relations record of this Government over the last five years. It is outstanding yet we still hear criticism levelled at us. The Bill also has provision for fixed term, non-variable certified agreements which will increase flexibility while it avoids undesirable de- regulation-again, protection of the workers. I do not think anybody in this Parliament could honestly say that these provisions are not there to protect the interests of the workers in the community. There are new powers to permanently settle demarcation disputes and the Commission can allow the ACTU to attempt initially to settle a dispute of this nature. In an area such as the Illawarra with the steel industry, the coal industry and so on, such a provision is vital. Certainly industrial disputation has occurred in times gone by, yet through the provision of these sorts of activities and the provisions that are in-built in this legislation the opportunity is provided to eliminate some of those problems. However, I must say to the Minister that I do have a concern about that part of his second reading speech that relates to the Australian coal industry. I refer to a couple of paragraphs in which it was indicated that consideration was being given by this Government to looking at whether the Coal Industry Tribunal might be eliminated or modified in some way. I remind the Minister at the table that some 12 months ago, when similar proposals were put forward, the Caucus coal industry task force made strong representations on behalf of our constituents, objecting to such a provision being included in the former Industrial Relations Bill. The Minister agreed with that and it was removed from the Bill. That Bill subsequently lapsed. We now find that in the new Bill before us this evening, while there is no specific provision for the Coal Industry Tribunal, a signal has been given that the Government is looking at that particular operation. I remind the Minister that again the Caucus coal industry task force has some concerns about that issue. We believe that, with the difficulties in the coal industry, this is not the time to bring on further confrontation and dispute over that issue. We believe that the paper that is being prepared by the Miners Federation, which spells out the benefits to the coal mining communities of Australia in the retention particularly of the Coal Industry Tribunal is worthy of consideration. That paper makes the point that having local tribunal representatives in coal mining districts is often a very real way of listing disputes quickly and leads to a settlement of those disputes. I would also be the first to admit to the Minister that the Coal Industry Tribunal often makes determinations which unfortunately are not acted upon. We have a present crisis within the Hunter Valley where the Coal Industry Tribunal handed down a determination in favour of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. The trade union movement believes that it is not a fair and reasonable compromise to the problem that is there. It is hoped that that can be worked out in the next couple of days. That is not unique to the coal industry. It is not unique to the arbitration system in this country. I ask the Minister once again to give consideration to the future of that body. It concerns us that he has contacted the New South Wales Government and requested comment on its feelings as to the future of the Coal Industry Tribunal. It is also of concern to us all that the Australian coal industry unfortunately does not enjoy the best industrial record. As the Minister has been at pains to point out over a long period to those involved in the industry, there is a need to look at the industry's problems, at industrial disputes and the reasons for them. However, in this climate of uncertainty as to the future of the Australian coal industry perhaps it would be unwise to take away a body which has in the past been able, in most cases, to tackle problems of an industrial nature effectively. I do not think that this is the time to get involved in attacking it. I will leave my comments on that matter for a later date. No doubt the Minister will take them on board. I would simply say in conclusion that this Bill is a giant step forward for industrial relations in this country. It will bring significant benefits to all workers in this country and I commend it to the House. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.21) —It has been suggested in this House tonight that this debate is the most important debate we have ever had. If the debate is so important, why has it been guillotined and restricted? Why is the Government not prepared to face the people by providing a decent interval of time so the legislation may be examined properly in all quarters? Of course, this is a re-run of what happened last year. When the Industrial Relations Bill 1987 was introduced in this House an attack was mounted by the business associations of Australia. We then realised that its withdrawal was used as a trigger for the 1987 election. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is at the table, will recall that event very well. When one talks about confrontation, one is aware that the 1987 Bill set out to do just that-confront. For the first time in my memory, on that occasion the employer associations throughout Australia were as one in their attack on that Bill. The Industrial Relations Bill 1988 highlights the master and servant relationship of the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). I think that honourable members will appreciate the term `master and servant' as a legal term. Unfortunately, in this case the master is the ACTU and the servant is the Labor Government which has indicated on more occasions than this that it is not only prepared to listen to the ACTU but also it is prepared to bow to the dictates of the ACTU. The uranium debate is one such aspect. I invite the Government to consider the fact that when one compares statistics in this House one compares like with like. Dr Theophanous —Tell that to John Howard. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I will tell it to the honourable member. It has become obvious in the last few years, particularly since the Labor Government has been in office, that the collection of statistics-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member for Calwell will cease interjecting and will call members of the Opposition by their correct title. Mr BRAITHWAITE —He is harmless enough; it is all right. The present method of calculating statistics on strikes is far different from what it was in the Fraser years. To do a proper comparison one has only to look at the Whitlam years. Queensland has seen a significant decrease in the number of days lost through industrial disputes. That is the result of the discipline imposed in the industrial relations area in Queensland which has not been imposed anywhere else. I turn to the history of the Bill and refer to what we call the Swedish experience. In the 1986-87 Budget, as a pay-off for asking for wage restraint-the Government imposed a wage ceiling and suggested taking up the difference in superannuation claims over a period of two or three years-the Government allowed a group of trade unionists, under the Secretary of the ACTU, Bill Kelty, to travel to Europe, at a cost to the public purse of some $86,000, and study what we call the Swedish experience. One would think that such a tour would have looked at the industrial situation of one of our competitors in terms of our balance of trade position. Therefore, one has to ask: Instead of going to Sweden, why did that tour not go to the United States of America to study its industrial position? Why did it not go to Japan or Germany? I mention those three countries because they are our competitors. I ask government members: To what extent is Sweden a competitor of Australia in terms of international markets? As far as I know, we get Volvo cars and that is about it. Why did we not face the real competitive markets of the three countries which I have mentioned and try to draw a comparison with them? No, the group went to Sweden, and as a result came back with the document Australia Reconstructed, which called for things such as the restructuring and amalgamation of the union movement into 20 super unions within two years; the establishment of a national employment and training fund paid for by a special company tax; a conditional six months price freeze followed by a comprehensive and effective policy on price restraint-if that is not socialism in its worst form I would like to know what is; and the imposition of industrial democracy, including a union representative at the top level of all large business and enterprises. All I can say is that Australia Reconstructed is a lot of hogwash. But the Bill before us adopts many of the proposals contained in Australia Reconstructed. I repeat that if we wanted to improve our balance of trade situation we would be comparing our industrial relations system with that of our major competitors and asking why the tax rates, our industrial relations policy and our interest rates are in such conflict with those of our major competitors. That would be the way to improve our balance of trade situation. There is no doubt in my mind that the most significant thing that acts as a halter to Australia improving its balance of trade situation is our industrial position which, as the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), the previous Government speaker, said, is unique in its own way. It is so unique that the only country, as I understand it, that comes close is Sweden. Over the last few years three major decisions have had a significant effect on the industrial situation of this country. No employer was large enough to mount a battle against a major union when such a conflict was bound to go for months or years, ending in economic loss and probably bankruptcy or liquidation of the company. The National Farmers Federation backed Mudginberri in a very just dispute under the Trade Practices Act and won out in a major claim against one of Australia's larger unions. Another case involved the South East Queensland Electricity Board. Contrary to what has been said in the House tonight, that the Queensland Government picked on a small union, in that case the union begged to go out on a different plane and, after a lot of prevarication, the Queensland Government decided that it had gone far enough. The people of Queensland said the same. So that had the backing of the Queensland Government. The third case involved Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd-a decision was handed down in only the last couple of weeks-and was taken on by the Victorian Chamber of Commerce. I believe that the Bill before us tonight attempts, in its own way, to cement union protection against such actions. The Bill is little better than the 1987 legislation which sought to sidetrack sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act, to establish a labour court and basically to set up a system of justice in this country which was peculiarly unique to industrial matters, taking them right out of the way of the normal law of contracts under common law. That is where the industrial relations system is at the moment and I suggest that it is not a very good situation. Some parts of the Bill are still offensive and they are mentioned in the amendments. For instance, the health and safety provision is a strike incentive. Under the Bill, if anybody wants to initiate a strike in the future, he just needs to pick on a health or safety requirement. The aspects of the Bill which preclude the right of association at an enterprise or workplace level would be an offence against individuals' rights enshrined in any Bill of Rights. An enterprise or workplace union situation allows face to face contact of boss with worker in order to alleviate many of the problems that exist. Of course, that comes down to contract labour. I believe that it is as much a human right not to belong to a union as it is to belong to a union. The membership provisions of the present Bill and past legislation have been archaic. The present Bill does not correct those provisions in any way. I now take up the comments of the previous Government speaker regarding the Coal Industry Tribunal. It is the biggest travesty of justice that one commissioner can oversee the destiny of our largest export, coal. No industry has suffered more from industrial disputes than the Australian coal industry. Basically, what we are saying is that this Bill does not ensure the right of all Australians to freedom of association. Nor does it include the right to join or not to join a union, the right to form a new union or the right to work in an environment free from coercion. It does not do any of those things. It does not allow employers and employees to negotiate wages and conditions of employment by agreement with legally enforceable voluntary contracts at the work face. I believe that the faster we get back to the work face, the better. The Bill does not encourage any review by employers and employees of industrial work practices at the work face, with the object of facilitating award changes to remove those practices which reduce efficiency and productivity. There is no requirement on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to arbitrate wages and conditions on the basis of capacity to pay or the economic circumstances at the time. Productivity certainly should be a paramount consideration and work practices should also be taken into consideration. The Bill does not abolish compulsory trade unionism and the closed shop situation. In fact, the legislation sets it up. Also there is no penalty on the employee union or any provision for deregistration of an industrial organisation that does not comply with its rules or the rulings of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which are binding on it. The legislation will not place trade unions in the same situation as employer unions, as far as accountability and published accounts are concerned. There is a great opportunity here to remove a rort in the taxation system. Through the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill we could remove that tax exemption that applies to the hundreds of millions of dollars of union investments, the interest from which flows tax free to the individuals. On all of these aspects there are major differences between the way the Opposition would approach them and what the Government is proposing. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(9.32) —I agreed with one comment made by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) in his concluding remarks on the Industrial Relations Bill and cognate Bill. He said that there was a fundamental philosophical difference between the Opposition and the Government in relation to the Bill. There is no question about that. The reason is that in recent times the Liberal Party of Australia has been moving more and more to the extreme right and is coming more and more under the influence of the New Right movement. Indeed, whereas this Bill would have been considered fair and just by the Liberal Party under the regime of Malcolm Fraser, and there is no question that it would be acceptable to people such as the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) and other honourable members, the situation now is that the Liberal Party has moved so far to the right and has been overtaken to such a degree by the New Right philosophy that that philosophy is now clearly the basis on which it is opposing this Bill. It is an ideologically blinkered position based on the domination by the New Right of the Liberal Party in recent times. A series of determinations which are totally out of touch with what the Australian people want have been taken by the Liberal and National parties in recent times because of the domination by the insidious New Right movement. There is no question that again we see a position being dictated not by employers as a whole, not by responsible people in the community, but by a small but vocal group of think tank people who have been dominating the media with the New Right philosophy. They are the people who have been pushing the Liberal Party. They are the people who have pushed the Liberal Party into taking the position it has adopted in relation to the Industrial Relations Bill. If we look at what the coalition is suggesting we see that it is the wholesale dismantling of the conciliation and arbitration system. This is a system which has served this country very well over the years. It has been one feature that has created stability in Australia. It has also established a measure of justice in Australia. It has established economic justice for workers and their families. It has also been one of the factors responsible for a reduction in industrial disputation. Increases in instability and industrial disputation have coincided with those periods when there was a challenge to the essential system of arbitration and conciliation and the various concepts that go with it, such as the minimum wage and the awards. Whenever we have had such challenges to or breakdown of that system we have also had a substantial increase in industrial disputation. In 1981-82, when the previous Government under the influence of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) temporarily nullified the system after a period in which it had stuck to it, we had the biggest increase of industrial disputation. We had a lot of problems. The final result was that perhaps some major wage claims were granted in excess of what they should have been. However, on the other hand, we had all sorts of fighting in the industrial area and a general breakdown in the productivity of the nation. As we were going through a recession, that did not help anyone at all. Therefore, when we look at the basic system of conciliation and arbitration which is being advocated here, it is unbelievable that any major political party in the current context should dispute the importance of that system to Australia and to the way of life that we have established over the years. That is only a further indication of the extreme position which this Opposition is adopting on a number of issues. As I say, it is because of the influence of mad elements of the New Right that we find the Opposition taking the position it is in relation to this Bill. The honourable member for Dawson referred to some problems in regard to the previous Industrial Relations Bill. However, if we read the second reading speech of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) we will see that the Minister pointed out very clearly that most of those problems have been ironed out to the satisfaction of the major employer bodies. The question then arises: why is the Opposition opposing this Bill, given that it was accepted by the major employer bodies after amendments were made? Why is the Opposition persisting with a total rejection of the approach that has been taken? As I say, that is clearly contrary both to the historical position of the Liberal Party and, indeed, to the development of Australia as a modern society. One of the distinguishing features of our society, ever since the judgments in the 1920s, has been the judgments establishing awards, arbitration and minimum wage systems and protecting workers, but also giving predictability to business in terms of what may be happening on the wages front. All of those things have been in place. Now it is proposed to throw them out the window for no reason other than the ideological nonsense of the New Right. We heard the honourable member for Dawson asking why we should look to the Swedish experience as an example or look to Australia Reconstructed and why we should not look to the United States of America. If anyone wants to look at a society in which there are enormous elements of injustice, inequality in the distribution of wealth and industrial disputation, one should look at the United States. Why should that country provide a model for anyone? The honourable member then said that a delegation went to Sweden to study what was going on there because it wanted to solve Australia's balance of trade problems. He said that that delegation should have gone to the United States. Imagine that! If there is a country that has a balance of trade problem it is the United States of America. Mr Braithwaite —Not to the same percentage as ours. Dr THEOPHANOUS —You had your go, and you know very well that the fundamental problem facing the United States is the balance of trade problem. Mr Braithwaite —What is ours? Dr THEOPHANOUS —Our position in the last few months has been very positive. We are overcoming the problem. You have not noticed of course because all you have-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —The honourable member for Calwell will address the Chair. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I am being interrupted, Mr Deputy Speaker. Members of the Opposition have not noticed what has been happening in Australia because they are ideologically blinkered and they want to point to the experience of the United States. The people of the United States are every day turning away from the New Right philosophy. If the trend continues, we will see the election of a new President of the United States in November of this year and the rejection of the New Right philosophies which have been rejected throughout the whole of Europe and are being rejected increasingly in the United Kingdom. They have been rejected in the United Kingdom and even Margaret Thatcher has had to abandon many of her policies because they are not working any more. Rather than holding on to the glorification of the nonsense from the New Right we should be looking at the international trend and at what the new trends are going to be in the world in the next few months and years. Those members of the Opposition who have put all of their faith in the nonsense of the New Right will very soon be thrown into the dustbin of history because the fact of the matter is that the trend is turning against the New Right and people are recognising that it is an inhumane philosophy. The philosophy of the New Right has been described in the following words by the honourable member for Goldstein, (Mr Macphee), who is a member of the Liberal Party: They are the antithesis of a just society and exclude the compassion that is crucial in any enlightened liberal society. That is what the honourable member for Goldstein said about it. The fact is that all of the arguments being presented by the Opposition in relation to the Industrial Relations Bill, as I said, are based on this very nonsensical and in some ways dangerous philosophical concept. If one looks at the facts of the situation, one can see there is no question that the Minister has done an enormous job bringing together the different aspects of labour and capital and in trying to achieve a consensus approach, an agreed approach, to establish a fair and just system for the future of Australia, and he ought to be commended in that respect. A couple of the aspects that have been introduced here are important if we want to achieve an efficient and rational economy. One is the amalgamation of unions, and Opposition members are opposed to the amalgamation of unions. They do not like the idea of reducing the number of unions so that we can reduce the number of disputes between unions, which used to plague Australia, especially during the years of conservative rule. Indeed, many members of the Liberal Party in the time it was in government are on record as saying, `We have to do something to reduce the number of unions and to reduce disputes between them'; and now that the Government has introduced legislation to achieve that result, members of the Opposition say, `We have to oppose it'-for purely ideological reasons that have nothing to do with the real situation. In the few minutes that are available to members I have tried to concentrate on this false philosophical foundation of this whole issue in relation to the Opposition. The Government totally rejects the Opposition's approach and says to members of the Opposition that that philosophy will soon be totally discredited throughout the world; and the Liberal Party will have to go back and rethink its philosophical foundations and where it is going in the future if members of the Liberal Party think they are going to have any future at all as a viable Opposition. In relation to this particular Bill, there is no question: it is fair, it is just, and it is legislation that is certainly worth supporting. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(9.44) —The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has described the Industrial Relations Bill as `the most substantial revision of Australia's Federal industrial relations system since 1904', but there is little in the Bill to justify such a claim. In fact, if the Bill is at all a marginal improvement on the ill-fated 1987 version, to which I will come back, it is still seriously flawed. The Opposition's view is that, if the amendments we propose-30-odd of them-to address the shortcomings of the Bill are not accepted, we will vote against it. Those criticisms, which I will set out in a moment, are nothing to do with this alleged way-out New Right philosophy which the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) was talking about, but, rather, are based on traditional Liberal concerns with civil liberties and the rule of law. That is basically where the flaws are, and I will set them out in a moment. Let me just say at the beginning that the Bill does give an impression of substantial change by replacing or, perhaps more accurately, just renaming the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as the Australian Industrial Relations Commission with an array of consequential amendments associated with that. In matters of substance it does take some limited steps towards increased flexibility in providing for limited forms of agreement between a particular employer and his employee which may differ from the prevailing award outcomes. But on the crunch issues-in particular, the voluntary membership of unions and civil liberties, the rule of law and the importance of the equal application of the law to employer and employee alike-the Bill remains deficient. It has got nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called New Right. I referred a moment ago to the 1987 version of the Bill. That was an extraordinary episode. A comprehensive Bill, designed like the present one to revamp the whole system of industrial relations in this country, was brought into this Parliament in May of last year in what proved to be the last few weeks of sitting before the Parliament rose for the Federal election last July. After about only two weeks of being high up on the Notice Paper, the Bill was suddenly relegated to the bottom of the Notice Paper and subsequently withdrawn altogether. I stress that that 1987 Bill was no hastily conceived measure. Rather, it was a product of long and exhaustive deliberation by the Government, dating right back to when it assumed office in 1983. Soon after it assumed office, it appointed the tripartite Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which deliberated until about 1985; then there were extensive consultations on the recommendations of that Committee, some of which were accepted and others not. Finally, after all that, the Bill was brought in in May 1987. The point I make is that there can be no question but that the 1987 Bill truly embodied Labor's considered authentic views and its policy as to what should be the shape of Australian industrial relations law and systems. It was a totally unacceptable view. What the provisions of that Bill amounted to was to put the trade union movement above, or outside, the ordinary law of the land; to create, in effect, one very protective set of laws and courts-the so-called labour court jurisdiction-for the unions, and another set of laws and courts for everyone else. It amounted to a system of industrial apartheid. As part of that policy thrust, the very important sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act outlawing secondary boycotts-- Mr Webster —They do not like that. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Right. Those opposite do not like those sections. The sections which enabled the important Mudginberri and Dollar Sweets Co. actions and other actions to be brought against disruptive and totally unjustified trade union boycotts were to be emasculated by preventing access to injunctions or damages under that law until a protracted conciliation process was attempted. Labor took that route, of course, at the behest of its Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) masters, because it had failed in an earlier attempt to do away with those anti-secondary boycott sections 45d and 45e laws when the Senate rejected a Bill to abolish those laws. That was a notable plus for the Senate, which the Australian people might well remember in the current referendum context, where the Australian Labor Party is hell-bent on undermining the power and influence of the Senate via that first referendum proposal, namely, that the Senate term should be the same as that of the House of Representatives, which would put the fate of the Senate at the whim of the Prime Minister. As I said, the 1987 Bill embodied the considered authentic position of the Labor Party and demonstrated very clearly that when it comes to a choice between what is good for the trade unions, the ACTU, on the one hand and what is good for Australia and for Australians generally on the other hand, the unions win hands down. No wonder that Bill last year was hastily pulled out once the premature election was called on. What of the present Bill? The proposal for the labour court was abandoned, and good riddance to it, but while that was a component of an intention of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) at the time to introduce some sort of direction system backed up by penalties for non-compliance, what do we find this time? The answer is: a total failure to do anything to improve the existing compliance provisions of the Act, retained in this Bill, albeit those provisions-the so-called bans clause procedures-were described by the Minister as now `substantially moribund', as indeed they have been since the Clarrie O'Shea episode of 1969. Effective compliance provisions are essential to a properly functioning equitable system of industrial relations, and the Minister has said so. Mr Hand —Do you support the penal powers? You would take us back to the Dark Ages. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I remark in passing here that I am focusing on the conciliation and arbitration sphere, which under our own policy in this area will continue to be available for those who wish to choose that track. I want to stress, however-and I do so in parenthesis, so to speak-that our policy is one under which employers and employees should be free to determine wages and conditions of employment by direct agreement. We want to return the primary responsibility for industrial relations to employers and employees, and to that end we will encourage employers and employees to determine wages and conditions, including changes in work practices, by negotiating voluntary agreements among them, instead of by an award. Such voluntary agreements will be legally enforceable. But, as I said, it will be possible to choose to remain subject to conciliation and arbitration. However, where the parties do so, they must accept the rules implicit in that system. Arbitration by its very nature involves a third party making binding decisions, yet under the system as it now operates unions may defy Commission rulings with impunity. There is no workable provision in this Bill to provide effective sanctions for parties who fail to comply with decisions and orders of the Commission. The Minister for Industrial Relations has utterly failed in this respect, and that in itself is sufficient reason for this Parliament to reject this Bill. Indeed, it makes a mockery of the Minister's claim that it is, as I quoted earlier, `the most substantial revision of Australia's Federal industrial relations system since 1904'. Mr Martin —I said that, too. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —The honourable member for Macarthur also made a claim to that effect-a claim equally as wrong as that of the Minister! I take this opportunity of pointing out that the coalition parties have shown the way in this matter, that is, the shadow Minister in the other place has already introduced a Bill which would provide for effective sanctions in this respect. Australia surely needs, but will not get from this Hawke Government Bill, a less centralised, more flexible system of industrial relations which will provide greater freedom to employers and employees to choose how they will regulate their own affairs. In particular-and I shall conclude on this note as our time is limited-this includes the freedom to join or not join a trade union. It is another major defect of this Bill, as I foreshadowed, that it totally fails to protect the rights of employees who would choose not to be members of a union. The Hawke Government avers that there is no such thing as compulsory unionism in Australia, totally ignoring the practical realities of preference clauses and closed shops. On behalf of the Opposition parties I counter aver that in government the Liberal Party will ensure that membership of trade unions is genuinely voluntary, which is the situation either by constitutional guarantee or by appropriate law in the great majority of Western countries. Mr Shipton —You would have to change the Constitution to put that in it. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, what about changing the Constitution to put that in? We do not hear anything along those lines. We would provide that the closed shop would be outlawed. It is on these grounds, nothing to do with way-out, philosophical positions of the so-called New Right, that the Opposition opposes this Bill. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(9.56) —I found this debate rather refreshing, for it was on one of the few pieces of legislation that have come before the House in my limited time here on which the Opposition at least seems to have some position. It actually tries to stand for something on the question of industrial relations. It does not simply adopt the Dr No syndrome of opposing everything regardless of merit for the sake of opposition. The Opposition not only opposes the Industrial Relations Bill but proposes a different regime to replace it, so in that sense I am grateful to the Opposition for having taken the stance of formulating its own policies. This Bill should be viewed in the broader economic framework in which it has been introduced. The Government has reviewed a number of the institutions which govern the Australian economy-for instance, in terms of financial markets, deregulation of the Australian dollar, the freeing up of the banking system, questions of industry protection and so on-and the review of the industrial relations system has to be viewed in that context. We have to decide whether the system which has served us since 1904 is a relevant system and can and should be continued into the next century. Despite the Opposition having these great principles of collective bargaining and freeing up the system, having flexibility and letting people decide for themselves and having individual employees and employers make decisions at the coalface, we come back to the fact that this basic system of conciliation and arbitration has been in place since 1904 and during the majority of the time since then there have been conservative governments. In none of that time, especially during the Fraser Government where for a large amount of the Government's period in office there was a large majority in the House of Representatives and, at least for a time, majorities in the Senate, was any attempt made to bring in the sort of system that the Opposition is now talking about. I wonder why that is so. The reality is that when the Liberal-National Party was in government it knew that the essential basics of the existing system served Australia well. They have served Australia well to the present day, and they continue to serve Australia well. That is not to say that the system is perfect; of course it is not perfect, and there is scope for improvement. This Bill brings about many significant improvements. It is simply a nonsense to say there is no flexibility in the existing industrial relations system in this country. There is flexibility. What is the two-tier wage system all about? Under the two-tier system negotiations have been going on at the enterprise level for a couple of years now for increases in wages linked to productivity. That is being delivered under the existing conciliation and arbitration system. There is no need to throw it out the door; there is no need to start from a blank piece of paper and pretend that no history has ever existed. The existing system has the ability to cope with Australia's needs. The other point that the Opposition seems conveniently to forget is that the Commonwealth's power in industrial relations is quite limited under the Constitution, and that each of the States adopts a similar system within its own boundaries. If we are to talk about starting again and introducing a flexible collective bargaining system it is no good just talking about the Commonwealth; it must be talked about in each of the six States. There are conservative governments now in three of the States, and there has been one in Tasmania for a considerable period. Has there been any attempt in Tasmania to try to move away from conciliation and arbitration? No, there has not. Even in Queensland the basic tenets of the system are still in place. The rhetoric of the Opposition unfortunately is consistent with its position on all its policies. We hear great rhetoric about moving forward in accordance with its so-called liberal ideas, but in practice the Opposition never actually delivers. The Opposition did nothing when in practice it had the opportunity federally to deliver. Nothing has ever been done to try to change the position in the States, which have complementary systems of industrial relations. In contrast, this Government works within the system and makes the system work. That has been the great difference between this Government and the previous Fraser Government. We have, through the accord and through the good relationship this Government has built up with employer groups, a system which is actually meeting Australia's needs, which is meeting the economic challenges this country faces. That is being provided by the existing system. There is no doubt that the Bill before the House is a rewrite of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The centrepiece of the Bill is what is now called the Industrial Relations Commission, which will essentially have the same sort of function as the body it replaces. But there is still built into the new system the flexibility which is necessary to cope with Australia's needs. For instance, there is the question of the certified agreement. This is again an example of where an employer and an employee or trade union can negotiate an agreement on an industry level or an enterprise level to suit a particular enterprise or industry. The safeguard is still provided in the legislation that such an agreement has to come before the Commission and be ratified to make sure that the basic conditions are preserved. We make absolutely no apology for the fact that we think there should be basic conditions to which every Australian worker, regardless of sex and age, is entitled. That is a basic tenet of the Australian Labor Party; it is a basic tenet of this Government. We make no apology for that. We do not run away or retreat from that in any form. On the other hand, the Opposition says, `Well, okay, let us give them this flexible wage system. You beaut, we will have this face to face bargaining and come up with the right outcome'. But the Opposition never accepts the unequal bargaining position that in many cases exists between employees and employers. The Opposition always assumes that the two parties are on an equal footing. There is this great belief that an employee can say, `Well, if I do not like the conditions you are going to give me, I am going to leave your job and go somewhere else'. The Opposition does not accept the fact that there is such a thing as unemployment, that people have commitments and families to support. They think it is so easy for an employee to say, `I am going to walk away from this and get another job because I do not like the deal you are giving me'. That is where it all falls down for the Opposition. It all sounds great. The Opposition talks about giving people incentive to get out and work and to do their own thing. It simply does not accept that basic conditions and safeguards have to be built into the system. We do not apologise for that. We believe that all Australians have basic rights and that a basic standard of living should be preserved and guaranteed. The Government will introduce a system which recognises, preserves and enhances that objective. That is the basis of this Bill, which does not in any way take away the flexibility that is needed. In fact, over the last few years we have seen that flexibility can be provided under the existing system. That flexibility will be enhanced under the new system through the provision of certified agreements. So let us forget about the nonsense the Opposition is trying to peddle against this Bill. Essentially, the Bill is building on a system which I agree is historically almost unique to Australia, but it is a system which has served this country well; it is a system which exists in all the Australian States; it is a system which the major parties, the trade union movement and the employers accept; it is a system which is currently working and which has delivered to Australia a wages outcome which is probably vastly superior to what can be achieved in a collective bargaining position; it is a system which is still providing for the expansion of things such as superannuation; and it is a system which is allowing for the processes of affirmative action and equal opportunity to be built in to make a fairer society. This is all done through the advantage of the central wage fixing system and the new Industrial Relations Commission. Of course, the other great strength of the existing and continuing system is the ability it gives a government to have some influence over economic policy. For instance, the Fraser Government introduced the wages freeze. I did not agree with the wages freeze but I accept that the Fraser Government could adopt that policy. It was able to adopt such a policy because of the existence of a central wage fixing body. To remove such a body would be completely to take away from government the ability to have a direct input at a time when this country needs in a very large sense to have a hands-on approach to economic management. That, of course, is the great weakness of collective bargaining. The Opposition often correctly points to the relative strength of some trade unions. In some industries the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission acts as an effective brake on unreasonable trade unions. Probably far more importantly, it also preserves the position of the worker who is in a weak industrial position, who has commitments and who cannot just walk away from a job. He does not live in a perfect world where he can leave his job if he does not like the conditions. All those facets are contained in this Bill. It is essentially a very good Bill and I certainly lend my support to it. I hope that the House will vote accordingly. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.07) —The Government should welcome scrutiny on the Industrial Relations Bill 1988, given the claim that it is very important. Yet what do we see? We are faced with the farce of the guillotine and restricted speaking time for members. The fact that the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 is a second attempt really should not exclude it from the fullest possible debate. The compromises which this Bill embodies might make the legislation more palatable to certain interest groups outside the Parliament who have lobbied the Government, but this does not guarantee any advantages for individual workers or employers. The importance of this Bill is not in what it will achieve-I can see little positive benefit in most of its measures-but in what the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) concedes to the critics of the conciliation and arbitration system in an attempt to justify this new legislation. For too many years the industrial relations system has been a sacred cow whose critics have been attacked and denounced by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), trade unions, some employer groups and, above all, the Australian Labor Party. This Bill and the Minister's second reading speech vindicate those longstanding critics of Australia's centralised industrial relations system. The Bill suggests that the existing conciliation and arbitration system needs to be thoroughly revised to take into account modern practice. It recognises that there have been and are corrupt criminal elements in some Australian trade unions as well as the often less than democratic procedures which those same unions have adopted. The Minister recognises to a limited extent the need for greater freedom for agreements outside the centralised framework. Finally, the Bill recognises that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has produced outcomes that have undermined the economic well-being of workers and employers alike. Unfortunately, whilst recognising those problems and wide criticism, this Bill fails to offer much hope for future solutions. That is because the Minister and the Australian Labor Party cannot bring themselves to tackle the causes of those problems. They reinforce rather than condemn greater power for trade union officials. Honourable members opposite continue in the mistaken belief expressed by the Minister that the centralised wage system has protected the industrially weak. Precisely the opposite has occurred. The strong trade unions, through a combination of excessive wage demands and closed shop deals, have placed an enormous burden of unemployment on the shoulders of Australian workers and taxpayers. The unemployed are the real industrial weak and they have never been represented in the councils of the centralised industrial relations system. The link between wage restraint and employment growth is now, belatedly, openly acknowledged by this Hawke-Keating Government. It is a criminal shame that this link did not occur to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when, as President of the ACTU, he oversaw a massive blow-out in wages based on industrial muscle rather than productivity. That is the context of this Bill. As the political arm of the trade union movement, the Australian Labor Party must bear the greatest responsibility for the industrial relations system which we now have. The Minister continues to uphold an ideal of a centralised, unified national conciliation and arbitration system, but it is a flawed ideal. The attempts to achieve it are the cause of the very problems which the Minister says he wants to address in this legislation. Many of the details of this lengthy legislation set up the structure and powers of the proposed Industrial Relations Commission and an industrial registry, which will take over the existing functions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Whilst many criticisms of that later body will carry over to its successor, it is on the new provisions in this legislation that I intend to focus on tonight. As the Minister points out, the Industrial Relations Commission will have considerably wider powers than its predecessor. Some of these will be the result of High Court decisions to which the Minister has referred, for example, in the area of unfair dismissal. The Minister claims that unfair dismissal proceedings will be dealt with by the new Commission `more speedily, more informally and more cheaply'. This unlikely circumstance assumes a dramatic improvement on current proceedings. Such matters as disputes over dismissal, which often involve only two individuals, are most expeditiously settled by highly decentralised procedures which can adjust to local and particular circumstances. That is a long way from the unified national system which the Minister strives for. Other new powers are based on this legislation. The ability to override State authorities in the same field is simply a reflection of the ultimate antipathy of the Labor Party towards federalism and State governments. It is a power directed towards State governments of a different political persuasion which do not toe the line with the Federal Labor Party. In that regard, as well as in regard to other measures which I will come to later if time permits, this Bill is essentially anti-democratic. It allows for the Federal Government to override the legislatively based endeavours of democratically elected State governments which are necessarily closer to those industrial matters within its own jurisdiction than a Federal Industrial Relations Commission would be. This Bill is an improvement on its hastily withdrawn predecessor, if only because it does not completely absolve the field of industrial relations, however defined, from the jurisdiction of the civil courts. The timely end to proposals for a labour court allows employers to have access to the more effective means of ensuring compliance provided by the legal system. These provisions and other similar remedies are entirely appropriate where trade unions or their members are in breach of the law. It should be noted that workers have similar rights against their employers, especially if negligence can be proven in, or example, a safety matter. The issue of compliance with the orders of the Industrial Relations Commission is important. Many people saw the inability of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to enforce its decisions as an essential flaw. If one believes in a centralised industrial relations system, one could at least have the commitment to make it work. The Minister claims to be worried about the risk to unions of double jeopardy at the hands of the Commission and the courts. That claim is plainly fallacious, since the areas where the Commission will need enforcement powers are not the same areas open to tort or trade practices cases in the courts. The urgings of many groups for more strict compliance measures seek to strengthen the Government's own hand in industrial relations. They are not the politically biased attempts of deregulators to undermine this legislation. If the Government takes this Bill seriously-and the Minister assures us that it does-it should consider adopting elements of Senator Chaney's private member's Bill before the Senate, which seeks to further compliance with decisions of the Commission. It has been suggested that the sop to the ACTU for dropping the idea of a labour court maintaining civil cases was the provisions of the Bill which facilitate the amalgamation to fewer and larger trade unions. Whatever the reason that this is included in the legislation, it offers no benefit to trade union members, employers or anyone other than the power brokers in the ACTU. This aspect of the legislation is an affront to freedom of association. As a solution to demarcation disputes, the forced attempts to decrease the number of unions will achieve little. It is a bit like saying that if we have one union we will have no demarcation disputes at all. What advantage would there be in a single union compared with the enormous disadvantages? Shades of humanism behind the Iron Curtain. If it is really so desirable for unions to amalgamate, surely the members of those unions can decide for themselves. If unions could really help their members more with the staff and resources of a larger organisation, all that would be needed to ensure larger unions is genuine freedom of association. Members would flock to the unions which were best able to look after their members' interests. If, as the Minister suggests, Australia has too many unions for them to service all their members' interests effectively, the registration limits in this Bill are unnecessary, because the changes will emerge anyway. That is not what is happening, and that fact suggests two things. It suggests first that many trade unionists like the benefits of small unions in terms of participation and control. They do not want to increase the resources available to a new union based bureaucracy. Secondly, as I have suggested, individuals have little choice as to which union they join and a limited ability to change unions without changing their trade. Not only is the attempt by this Government to enforce larger union size a denial of freedom to associate with the organisation of one's choice, no matter what its size, but also, if the economies of scale are accurately represented, free association will achieve the professed aims of the Government and the ACTU anyway. The Government has decided to use the big stick of legislation to promote the plans for the future of the leaders of the ACTU. It chooses one of many alternatives to ensure that trade unions are more than ever a part of the Labor Government. This Bill ignores the potential for enterprise based unions, which would also help overcome demarcation disputes. The mechanism for encouraging larger unions and amalgamations is to be registration. This is to be done through the offices of the Industrial Registrar under a Deputy President of the Commission. The whole process of registration does little other than limit the diversity of participants in industrial relations to criteria set out by the Government. With the lack of effective enforcement in other areas of the Bill, the threat of deregistration is empty. It is relatively easy to deregister a rogue union such as the Builders Labourers Federation when other unions are hungry for its members and the organisation is fairly small, but attempting to deregister the largest unions, when they have exclusive coverage over some important industries, is another matter. In any case, registration further limits the freedom of association which should be an essential element of Australian democracy. The Industrial Relations Bill seeks to give the Industrial Relations Commission the widest possible jurisdiction within the boundaries of the Constitution. It is based on a preconceived idea that greater central power can resolve disputes better than the parties immediately involved. It makes a mockery of the Government's talk of consensus. The Government has developed a system of industrial relations which imposes a consensus on all Australians where none exists, and effectively prohibits agreements among individual Australians for their mutual benefit, unless that agreement meets government imposed guidelines. That is the essential difference between coalition policy for voluntary contracts between employer and employee and the certified agreements provided for in this Bill. Voluntary contracts reflect agreements between individuals which will adjust to the needs of both parties. Certified agreements as required under this legislation will be able to operate only under strict limits. They are designed to work best for deals between large industrial employers and large unions. They are not readily accessible to the business owner with only a few staff. The agreements are to be subject to the whim of the Commission at 12-month intervals. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Keefe, N. P.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Price, L. R. S.Dubois, S. C. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Carlton, J. J. Rocher, A. C.Cobb, M. R. Shack, P. D.Connolly, D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.McArthur, F. S. Duncan, P. Dobie, J. D. M.Fatin, W. F. Hall, SteeleHayden, W. G. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! I now put the question that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.29) —The Opposition intends to oppose the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill as well, consistent with our opposition to the Industrial Relations Bill. It is consequential legislation and consequently we oppose it. What will happen in the Senate is that the Government will be subject to an enormous debate dealing with some 25 to 30 amendments. It is an outrageous position that I cannot imagine even the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) himself would be comfortable with. The Minister said in his second reading speech that this was the most important industrial relations legislation since 1904. Just as he allows himself to be dominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions President, he allows himself to be dominated by the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley). This legislation is being guillotined. There is no opportunity in this chamber to debate those substantive amendments. We face the prospect now of the substantive debate about the amendments taking place in the Senate. The Minister, who has championed this Bill after a couple of false starts, will not even have the opportunity to put forward his point of view. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Keefe, N. P.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Price, L. R. S.Dubois, S. C. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Carlton, J. J. Rocher, A. C.Cobb, M. R. Shack, P. D.Connolly, D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Smith, W. L.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.McArthur, F. S. Duncan, P. Dobie, J. D. M.Fatin, W. F. Hall, SteeleHayden, W. G. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Mr Duncan: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Connolly had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House deplores the Government's failure to develop consistent superannuation policies without imposing additional taxes and its reliance for over 3 years on `legislation' by press release causing confusion and lack of confidence in superannuation for those planning their retirement'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill with the Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.38) —I was speaking on the Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill previously and unfortunately ran out of time. I was trying to make the point that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) ought to-- Mr McGauran —You did not do it very well. Mr PRICE —I thought I made an excellent case as to why he should sack the shadow Minister for social security, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). On at least a couple of occasions the shadow Minister, who speaks on a number of matters, has grossly misrepresented my constituents. Firstly, when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) launched the family assistance package in my electorate, the shadow Minister suggested that it had been launched not at Mount Druitt, but at Campbelltown, some 30 to 40 kilometres away from Mount Druitt. Secondly, given the Opposition's obsession with South Africa, the honourable member visited the Prospect caravan park in my electorate and claimed that it was in the western suburbs of Sydney at Mount Druitt. Prospect caravan park-- Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member raised this matter in the House a few nights ago. I did not bother to reply to him on that occasion because I had already told the House on a previous occasion-- Mr Punch —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: that is a not a point of order. The honourable member is interrupting the speaker's time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Bradfield has not raised a point of order. Mr Connolly —I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I do not think that there is-- Mr Connolly —When a member has made a personal explanation-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is an appropriate procedure for making personal explanations. A personal explanation can be made at the appropriate time. Mr PRICE —All I am trying to suggest is that Prospect is some eight kilometres away from Mount Druitt. I wish to goodness that the honourable member would get it right. I am happy to give him a Gregory's directory so he can understand it. He knows the North Shore of Sydney very well. He knows the needs of the silvertails on the North Shore. His Party's President is a multimillionaire and the head of a transnational company. Of course, like the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), the shadow Minister doubtless gets his instructions from the President of his Party, who is a multimillionaire. We are talking about superannuation. The Opposition has not resisted one opportunity to misrepresent the superannuation position. When the shadow Minister spoke previously about superannuation he exhibited not one iota of concern for the figures that were released on that day by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, but in his speech on this Bill he suddenly trotted them out, saying, `Yes, it is a matter of concern'. The fact is that only 40 per cent of all workers receive the benefit of superannuation. The figures show that 50 per cent of males and only 25 per cent of females receive the benefit of superannuation. They show that the most highly paid professionals have benefited overwhelmingly from superannuation and that 70 per cent of those earning more than $520 a week but only 30 per cent of those earning less than $440 a week have superannuation cover. Those figures are significant. This Bill reflects the Government's historic approach to extending superannuation through the decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to all Australian workers by granting a 3 per cent increase in two parts. The Australian Public Service is part and parcel of that decision and that is reflected in the legislation. The legislation covers not only the 325,000 public servants currently enjoying a superannuation scheme but also the 75,000 temporary or casual part time public servants who currently enjoy no superannuation at all. The Opposition consistently vilifies the Public Service by suggesting that the Commonwealth Public Service scheme, by comparison with those in private enterprise, is very generous. The essentials of the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme have not changed much since Billy Hughes first introduced it. His boast at that time, and it remains true today, was that this was superannuation on the cheap for the Commonwealth. If honourable members want to look at generous Public Service superannuation schemes they should look at the State schemes-not the Commonwealth's scheme. The essential difference between private superannuation schemes and the public scheme is that most private superannuation schemes concentrate on lump sum payouts whereas the Commonwealth's superannuation scheme, basically, is pension-based. It is also, for those who wish to benefit from it, based on the notion of continual and rising promotion within the system. For blue collar workers-that is, tradesmen-who do not look for increasing promotion through the system, the scheme is very unsatisfactory. My sincere hope is that in the future we will look at changing the system to better suit them and to perhaps provide a larger lump sum component than is currently enjoyed under the system. My time is limited. May I keep going? Mr Martin —Keep going. Mr PRICE —I thank the honourable member for Macarthur very much. I am pleased to receive that sort of encouragement. I was suggesting that the Opposition has not declined one opportunity of trying to misrepresent the situation on superannuation. In the May economic statement the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will announce the approach of the Government to superannuation. Be that as it may, it has not stopped the Opposition from trying to get hares running with claims that the Government, notwithstanding the commitment of the Prime Minister, will affect people's lump sum entitlements. That has been refuted by the Prime Minister. The Opposition tries to suggest that the Government is not committed to superannuation per se. Of course it is. The historic Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decision providing for the 3 per cent certainly reflects that commitment. The big difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Government does not want to maintain superannuation exclusively for the highest paid workers in society whether they be in the Public Service or private enterprise. We want a scheme in which all workers have equal access to superannuation, and it should not matter whether they are male or female. This Government has stated a number of times-although the Opposition has misrepresented it-that it accepts the concessionality of superannuation; that is, that taxpayers not covered by superannuation currently contribute about $3 billion towards those who are under schemes. The other furphy was that the Government would introduce retrospective superannuation legislation to affect people in superannuation schemes. They are all canards and I am confident that when the Treasurer announces the overall treatment of superannuation funds, Australians will see that this Government is pledged to decent reform, to extending superannuation cover in private schemes and to ensuring that people currently not covered in Commonwealth superannuation schemes-those 75,000-have access to them as well as the 325,000 who currently do. I commend the Bill to the House. It is really a tidying up operation. Already a significant number in private industry receive the 3 per cent benefit and this extends the benefit to all Commonwealth employees. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.53) —I rise to speak in this cognate debate to the Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amend- ment Bill. I am pleased to see so many members of the Government in the chamber taking an interest in defence; it makes a unique occasion. The Bill flows from the June 1986 decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. One must ask why it is still an interim Bill two years after the decision was made. It is now May 1988 and we are still having to deal with an interim Bill, an interim arrangement. The fact that the legislation is two years late and no permanent scheme is in place indicates very well the neglect the Government has shown towards the defence forces in the past five years. Mr Cleeland —Rubbish! Mr WHITE —The honourable member for McEwen says, `Rubbish!' He sits there nodding his head like a cockatoo, saying, `Rubbish!'. I ask him: Why is it that the Government is presiding over the greatest wastage of Defence Force personnel in the history of this country? `Rubbish', is all that he can say. I might say that that is the sort of stupid attitude that is contributing to the increased wastage, month by month, from the defence forces of this country. This is a result of the Government members' failure to understand and to pay any proper heed to what is happening to the defence forces of their own country. Like everything else, the Bill is too little and too late because honourable members opposite are seen as reluctant starters to take up the cudgels to defend their own defence forces. In the second reading speech the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) referred to factors peculiar to the Defence Force. She went on to say: The Defence Force scheme has to have regard to the conditions of service peculiar to the Defence Force. They are fine words from a Minister who has no understanding of what is peculiar to the defence forces of this country. She is paying lip service to the Defence Force. Members of the Defence Force know it because they continue to vote month by month with their feet. The problem is that too many honourable members opposite regard members of the defence forces as just public servants who happen to be in uniform. They have no real understanding of what it is that is peculiar to and special about the defence forces. Members of the defence forces are not public servants; they are a unique profession. They have unique responsibilities. They have a unique lifestyle. They work longer hours than probably any other members of the community, perhaps excluding politicians. They do not receive overtime. They do not like to be regarded as public servants, because they have a special and very distinctive profession. The Government keeps asking them, and has asked them for some five years now, to do more and more with fewer personnel and less resources. The result is that the average working week of a serviceman or servicewoman is now about 55 hours. It raises a question as to why this superannuation Bill is so important to these servicemen and servicewomen. It is important because their pay and conditions are not seen to be commensurate with their working lives. Therefore they look increasingly to superannuation and the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Fund to compensate them. Let us look, for example, at what the Chief of the Naval Staff said in a recent submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee inquiring into wastage. He said that the total average earnings of members of the Defence Force are $484 a week. The average total earnings of someone in Australian industry is $505 a week. That is a $21 a week difference for something like an extra 15 hours work. When it comes to getting justice before the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal this is what happens-again I quote the Chief of the Naval Staff: Due to the complexity of the case it is unlikely to be presented to the DFRT Tribunal before late 1989- eighteen months from now- or early 1990. It is no wonder that members of the Services feel that they are poorly done by. What is required is that more resources be given to the Tribunal and that more resources from the Department of Defence be given for the preparation of these cases. One of the other reasons why superannuation is so important is that the wage structure has become entirely out of kilter. One of the reasons why young officers are leaving the defence forces in such numbers is that they look at their middle rank and senior officers and say, `Am I going to serve on, considering what I am getting now, and hope that in 20 years I am on that salary?'. They look at that salary and say, `No way', because the structure has got out of kilter. If a lieutenant-commander commanding a ship at sea is promoted and sent to a shore job, his total gain out of that promotion is $1 a week. Everywhere one goes throughout the Services one finds junior officers earning much more money than their commanding officers because of anomalies caused by flying allowances, special allowances and because the service allowance does not apply to senior officers. The younger officers, many of whom are in that area and who are on quite good salaries, as they see it, ask, `If I am going to serve on for 20 or 30 years and I command this base, what sort of salary will I be on?'. They look at their pay cheques and see that they will probably be on a salary that has increased nominally from what they earn now. Is that any sort of attraction to keep them in the service? Of course it is not. They then start looking at the benefits from the superannuation and they find that those benefits have also largely been eroded. That was part of the submission from the Chief of the Naval Staff. In passing, it is interesting to ask the question-for which I guess no answer will ever be given-why is it that an attempt was made to recall that submission from the Committee after it had been submitted? It is to the great credit of the Joint Committee inquiring into wastage that it did not allow the submission to be handed back. When one looks at the submission from the Chief of the General Staff about his soldiers, one sees the same pattern emerging. I quote: Soldiers in particular feel they are disadvantaged by the lack of realistic overtime payments. Until positive action is taken, this perception is unlikely to change for the better. The action must be responsive to the unique nature of the Australian Defence Force to change the perception. There is a need for government to recognise the uniqueness of the Defence Force in a manner which takes into account this uniqueness. He goes on to say that those areas which must be addressed are family allowances, equitable benefits for single members, retention of protection of current Defence Force retirement and death benefit provisions, work value reviews of the Defence Force salary structure and a review of hours of work. They are all things the Opposition has been saying in this Parliament month after month, but, I regret to say, with little effect, because no action has been taken in these basic pay and conditions areas which would make some attempt to address this debilitating wastage that is ripping the guts out of the defence forces of the country. In her tabling speech, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel refers to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. For years it was left to languish in the Department of Defence, and that Department used its total resources to prepare a case on behalf of the Government against the very people employed in that Department. It has now been transferred to the Department of Industrial Relations. Whether that is better or worse is hard to say because the Tribunal is being subjected to all the civilian arbitration and conciliation guidelines that have no place in determining fair and just pay and conditions for members of the Services. Earlier this year, evidence about the service allowance was not accepted. Less than half the seagoing allowance asked for was granted. Earlier this year, an interim arrangement for flying allowance was agreed to. Within two weeks, that flying allowance must go back to the Tribunal, which will be faced with an enormous problem because, some two weeks ago in this House, the Minister, unbeknown to almost everyone and at the urging of the Department of Industrial Relations, brought in a $70,000 bonus for selected pilots in the Defence Force. If honourable members do not know, I can tell them that the $70,000 bonus is creating the most enormous problems in the Defence Force. I will give an example. Last week I flew in the navigator's seat of an F111 aircraft and it came home to me, if I was not aware of it before, that here were a pilot and a navigator sitting side by side for hours through the night and through the day, working as closely as two men can work, each depending entirely on the skills of the other. One man has been offered $70,000. The man sitting beside him day after day is getting nothing. What sorts of conditions do honourable members think that generates in the minds of those two people? Selected pilots get $70,000. The maintenance crew are offered nothing. The week before I had been in a submarine. Crews of submarines will get nothing; nor will anyone else of those 70,000 men and women who serve this nation get anything-only a few selected pilots. Why? Because the Government has failed to address all the basic problems that we are talking about here and have talked about for months and that are besetting the defence forces of this country. Instead, it opts for some plugging of the gaps when they appear. A week ago the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) was asked, `What are you going to do about this wastage problem?' `Nothing', he said. `It is a very difficult problem. Don't you understand? What we will do, when it gets too bad, is just put another few bonuses on the plate and see who takes them up'. My God! What sort of approach is that in terms of giving justness and fairness to the people who serve this country? `We will just offer a few more bonuses', he says, `and we will fix it up'. And next month there will be a bigger record of wastage than there has ever been before. As far as the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal is concerned, I understand that something like 100 cases are awaiting either determination or presentation. If the Government is serious, why does it not act boldly? Why does it not recognise what is happening to the defence forces of this country and take some dramatic steps to show its interest and deliver some justice and fairness? Why does it, for example, not take a look at the Defence Force retirement fund, the very thing that we are talking about tonight, and address some of the anomalies? Why is it that officers who retire after 20 years but before reaching retiring age for rank are penalised, and nobody else in the Service is? Why is there not some interest on the contributions they make? Why is there not some attempt to adjust the inequitable portability provisions? The Government will not address the matter and I will tell honourable members why: Because the Government is frightened that, if it opens up that scheme for review, the left wing of the Australian Labor Party will get stuck into it and they will not increase benefits; they will reduce them. Mr Punch —Oh! You have got to be kidding! Mr WHITE —The honourable member may laugh. He should ask the Minister for Defence whether those are not the very words he has used-the very words the honourable member's own Minister has used. I am pleased that at last this Bill is going through, because it is fair that the Services benefit from it, but it will not stem the tide. It is not bold enough for that. The Government will simply not address the issue. We are going to see more desperate measures of offering another bonus of $70,000 or more to plug another gap which is sure to appear-probably tomorrow or the day after that. The Government cannot ignore what is happening to the defence forces. This Government is destroying the Australian Defence Force as this country has known it for years. The Government is destroying it. For God's sake, it should wake up to itself and what it is doing before it is too late. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.05) —I want to address my comments to the Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill, which is one of the two Bills that have been addressed during this cognate debate. In June 1986 the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission rejected the claim of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) for an additional superannuation benefit based on a 3 per cent increase in ordinary time wages, on the grounds of a supposed increased national productivity, but the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission said it would honour employer-employee agreements consistent with the Commission's guidelines. In the March 1987 national wage case the Commission modified its position, stating that the maximum allowable increase resulting from any agreement between employer and employee would be no more than 1.5 per cent no earlier than January 1988, and another 1.5 per cent no earlier than January 1989. The Government has now agreed to a 3 per cent overall superannuation benefit for Commonwealth sector employees and it has agreed with that increase generally across the board, with 1.5 per cent of that increase commencing on 1 January 1988, and the balance no later than 1 January 1989. The Government has supposedly agreed to the claim for this additional superannuation benefit on the basis of increased productivity. But it has offered no proof of the increase in productivity. What work practices have changed, and where is the increased output? The Government claims it entered into negotiations with the ACTU, the postal and telecommunications unions and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. It claims that those negotiations were concluded on 22 December 1987. No information has been provided to us or to the House as to the outcome of those discussions. Perhaps the claim made at those negotiations was that the acceptance by the Public Service of the restructuring of departments last year was sufficient to justify this 3 per cent increase. But we on this side of the House have asked on numerous occasions for details of the outcomes of the changes in administrative arrangements, and the changes in the so-called machinery of government which were introduced last year. But none of those outcomes, the results, have been provided. Productivity improvements and staff reductions were supposed to result from the new administrative arrangements through the amalgamation of departments. But no proof of those outcomes has been given to the House. We have asked; we have had no response. The second reading speech introducing this Bill does not even mention off-setting productivity gains in support of these improved superannuation arrangements. There are a number of areas that the Government may have wished to refer to to support the supposed improvements in productivity. I go back to the 1987-88 Budget itemised projected savings. They were 3,137 staff savings from the machinery of government; 1,600 staff savings from a 1.25 per cent efficiency dividend; and 550 staff savings from efficiency scrutinies. Perhaps it is these savings on which the Government is relying as support for its case for this additional superannuation benefit. If so, on what basis? The facts presented to date indicate there has been very little change in staffing. Those were the projected savings, but what are the real savings? Heaven only knows. The staffing level as outlined in the 1987-88 Budget is 181,869 compared with 182,013 for 1986-87, a decrease of only 144 staff years-hardly sufficient to pay for the cost of this legislation, which will rise to $62.8m in a couple of years' time. Savings were also to be made as a result of the amalgamation of departments, as I said a moment ago, but again, all the indications to date are that excess staff resulting from departmental amalgamations are not being redeployed or retrenched from the Public Service, and the savings that were supposed to be generated from the amalgamation of departments just have not occurred. If they have, where are they? Again, we have asked the Government on a number of occasions; it has been silent. Savings in staff from amalgamation of departments should have occurred through the elimination of duplicated administrative functions such as personnel officers and payroll officers as well as library and security services, and from efficiencies gained in the number of upper management staff. Instead of those affected by these amalgamations who found that they were no longer needed in the jobs they were previously doing being retrained and redeployed, or paid out as being redundant so they could get on with their lives, we have seen the creation of a whole new class of public servant-the redeployed. These employees are kept on the Federal payroll but are shunted from position to position. They are never given any real job responsibility, are unable to find another position within the Public Service, and are unable to move out into the private sector. They are not gainfully employed; they are bored to tears and they are continuing to be paid by the Commonwealth Government. The Public Service associations claim that there are as many as 4,500 redeployees in the Australian Capital Territory and up to 15,000 Public Service redeployees awaiting redeployment nationwide. Based on the average annual Public Service staffing costs, the 4,500 redeployees awaiting meaningful placement in the Australian Capital Territory are costing $180m a year, and nationally over $600m a year is being wasted. But departmental heads to whom the responsibility of reducing the Public Service has been devolved know that it is less costly in any given year to keep redundant employees on the payroll than to make redundancy payments under the redundancy awards, because the redundancy payment is more than the annual salary. Perhaps the justification for the 3 per cent superannuation benefit is not increased productivity arising from the changed administrative arrangements, but increased productivity in the Public Service generally. If so, again I ask the Government: Where is the proof of increased productivity? As I have said, the Government claims savings would accrue from the itemised Public Service savings projected in the Budget, but the Government has not demonstrated any increased productivity there. Despite the revisions to the machinery of government, the application of supposed efficiency dividends and the efficiency scrutiny reviews, no improvement in productivity has been indicated by the Government. Not only has the Government failed to justify this new superannuation benefit, but we also find that benefits paid to many public servants will now be even more generous than those in most of the private sector. The level of benefits provided by public schemes is substantially in excess of the limits set by the Australian Taxation Office for benefits provided by private sector schemes. The Government imposes limits on the maximum level of benefits which can be provided by private sector or superannuation funds. In the case of a lump sum benefit this maximum is seven times the member's final average salary calculated over the last three years of service at the normal retirement date of 65 years. Where the normal retirement date is less than 65 years, the maximum permissable benefit is reduced by a proportionate 2.5 per cent for each year prior to age of 65. However, an examination of the benefits provided by public sector schemes illustrates that the maximum benefits provided at retirement age are up to nine times the member's final salary. Early retirement benefits for government employees are also generous when compared to the maximum set by the Government for private sector or superannuation plans. The Bill will, therefore, further aggravate, at taxpayers' expense, the difference in entitlement benefits between the private and public sectors. This Bill has one redeeming feature whereby it extends superannuation to some Commonwealth employees who were previously not covered. Nevertheless, this legislation again graphically illustrates the power of the unions over this Government. As a plaything of the unions, the Hawke Government has been totally unable to justify this extra benefit being given to the Public Service through productivity gains. It has provided no such gains. Unlike the private sector, where increased productivity had to be shown, this has been ignored in the case of the Government. The Government stands condemned for its failure to abide by the same standards that are required for the rest of the community. Its meek compliance is costing this nation dearly. This is yet another example of the Government's failure to come to grips with its responsibilities as public administrators. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.17) —The legislation before the House tonight, the Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Bill and the Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill, concern improved superannuation benefits for Australian Public Service and Defence Force employees. I rise to my feet tonight to make a few points in regard to the Opposition. We have heard two Opposition speakers bleat on tonight about improved superannuation benefits. Is it any wonder that the coalition parties, the conservative forces of this country, have opposed 19 out of the last 21 pay rises for the working people of Australia? The conservative forces, represented opposite, have opposed 19 out of the last 21 cases before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We should be encouraging every Australian to take out superannuation, but honourable members opposite come into this chamber bleating about it. It is ironic the way in which the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) went on about defence superannuation. He went through his usual diatribe about Defence Force pay and conditions. However, he forgot to mention a few little things about what the Opposition did when in government or what it would do if it won government. Nothing has been said by the honourable member for McPherson or anyone else opposite about what the coalition would do if ever-heaven help us-it won government. Maybe it is frightened to tell the defence people what it did when it was last in government. When it won government in 1975-unfortunately, as history dictates-it was not until 1981 that the Defence Force of this country received a pay rise. Another rise was supposed to be due to the defence forces in 1982, when the honourable member for McPherson was sitting on the government side of the House. At that time the coalition Government decided to introduce a wage freeze. But instead of putting the Defence Force rise through and then freezing any further wage rises, the then Defence Minister and the Government deliberately sat on the purported rise in Defence Force pay and did not give it to defence personnel. The Government introduced the wage freeze and therefore froze the wages of the defence personnel of this country at the lower level, not at the higher level as should have been the case. That is what honourable members opposite did from 1975 to 1982. They are too damned frightened to say that they would do the same damned thing again. They have not said anything in this House tonight, nor have they ever said what they would do. We have heard some of the grandiose ideas of a few of the lunatics at the back such as the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) and the former member for Denison, who used to come into this House and bleat about all the wonderful things the coalition was going to do. The former member for Denison came into this House one night and said that the coalition was going to spend another $7 1/2 billion on defence. No-one ever refuted that. Where were they going to get the money from? Absolute piffle and rubbish. It is about time members of the Opposition came into this House and started to talk about some genuine policy in regard to defence. Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr CHARLES —We are talking about superannuation-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! Mr CHARLES —because this relates directly to the defence forces of this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Isaacs will adhere to the rulings of the Chair. When I call for order he will kindly resume his seat. A point of order has been called. Mr Porter —I raise a point of order on the grounds of relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member obviously realised the point of order that I was going to raise. He is actually down on the list to speak on another defence Bill. I wonder whether he has got up to speak at the wrong time because he is certainly not talking on defence service superannuation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will bring his remarks to the Bill before the House. Mr CHARLES —I am. It is all very relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are talking about pay and conditions. We are talking about superannuation. I know the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) is a bit thick, but superannuation is another condition of the defence forces, as it is a condition of the employment of a lot of people in this community. Members of the Opposition are again getting up in the House and saying, `No, this is not good enough. There is something wrong. The defence forces are going to get something that they did not have before. The Government is improving pay and conditions for them and superannuation is part of that package. By golly, we cannot have that'. What absolute rubbish. It is about time members of the Opposition stopped bleating about pay and conditions, about all the wastage, and started to think about some of the major problems in the defence forces and how they relate to 1988, not 1958. It is time they started to bring some constructive thoughts into this House, which they never ever do. The measures before us tonight in regard to superannuation, which relates to the pay package, are another step forward by this Government. The legislation has been brought forward by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who are in the chamber at the moment. Over the next decade or so the changes brought about by this legislation and the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill, which I will talk on later, will be of great benefit to the defence forces, particularly in terms of their pay and conditions in this country. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(11.23) —I do not intend to say very much, except to thank the Opposition for its support of this amendment in relation to the Defence Force. I would like to point out to the House that the Defence (Superannuation Interim Arrangement) Amendment Bill will go to the Senate. If members of the Opposition are serious in their support for improving conditions of the Defence Force, they might like to have a word with their Opposition colleagues in the Senate to ensure that this legislation in particular is dealt with by the Senate before that House gets up. There are a lot of people in the Defence Force who are waiting for this change. Mr White —I do not think there is any problem. Mrs KELLY —Thank you. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mrs Kelly) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 April, on motion by Mr Beazley: 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 Mrs Kelly) read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(11.27) —The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 is divided into three main parts, the first of which is the election to commute a pension which can take place some three months before a member retires from the defence services instead of the present arrangement. I must admit that the present arrangement has been in place for some time under successive governments and I commend this Government for taking this initiative. In the past, people have been able to elect to commute their superannuation only after they have retired from the Services. They might have been on leave in remote parts of the country and they might have posted a letter on the retirement date. That letter might have taken a week or so-sometimes accidents have occurred-and that commutation would not have been effected until the time that letter reached the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority. This is a very important issue. I do not say this too often in this place but, for the Government's benefit, I commend it for adjusting this matter. It has been a long time coming. As I have said, it allows people to elect to commute their pensions before they actually leave the Services, whereas in the past they have had to retire and then elect to commute their pensions. Sometimes that commutation took some months, usually three, to come through in which time they had to take out insurance policies to cover the period before their commutation was effective. That three-month wait also has normally meant bridging loans. After people have been moving around the country for 20 years or more and they have probably lived in 10 or more houses and had 10 or more postings, the one thing they want when they retire and they have made their plans is to get hold of that money as quickly as possible, without bridging loans or anything else, in order to establish themselves in houses. The fact that they will now be able to elect to get that money before they leave the service is a major step ahead. This raises the question of the defence service housing loan. The Government had a fiasco last year when it tried to introduce a $10,000 loan and very sensibly backed off. I ask the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who is now at the table, whether the Government is going to address the matter of the defence service home loan. Is it going to extend the scheme to all service men and women, as was the case before May 1985? I suggest to the Minister that, if she is going to address some of the major causes of wastage, it would be a positive step to restore that benefit to all service men and women so that after a certain period they would be eligible for the defence service home loan. She would find that that would have a major impact on the Services. There is also the question of the amount of the loan-$25,000. From memory, that has not increased since 1981. There is a vast difference between what $25,000 meant in 1981 and what it means now as a contribution towards the purchase of a house. It is no wonder that there is great dissatisfaction with the amount of that loan. I come to the question of the Government's whole approach to pay and allowances, which we have gone through once before tonight. In recognition of the lateness of the hour I do not intend to go through it again, but I say to the Minister-and I think she is genuine in what she is trying to do for the Defence Force personnel of this country-that I do not believe that what she is doing will be effective. She is nibbling around the edges. She is not making the dramatic moves which would indicate to the men and women serving in the defence forces that she is serious about improving the range of pay and conditions that we have talked about for months on end. One thing that would indicate to people in the defence forces that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is not serious was his reaction the other day when he was asked about the $70,000 bonus. He said, `If there are more problem areas we will simply provide some more bonuses'. I do not know whether the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel knows what havoc this is wreaking in the defence forces. I hope that she does. Maybe this measure was presented as a genuine effort to do something about the pilot wastage, but I can tell her that it will not halt pilot wastage, which is causing enormous disruption in not only the Royal Australian Air Force but also the Army and Royal Australian Navy. I strongly urge the Minister to look at that measure and rethink it before it does any more damage. The defence force retirement and death benefits scheme is not proving to be a carrot, as it was in years past, to younger members of the Defence Force. I strongly urge the Minister to review it and improve it. That raises the question of the 2 per cent loss of pension by Commonwealth and service superannuants in 1986. The Minister knows, as well as all the retirees, the superannuants, that the Government has promised to restore that 2 per cent as soon as economic circumstances permit. Senator Walsh and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have given that undertaking. We hear from the Treasurer day after day that the Treasury is bulging with excess revenue which he does not know what to do with. I suggest to the Minister that one of the things that should be done in fairness and equity is to restore that 2 per cent as soon as possible. The second part of this Bill relates to the Defence Housing Authority. It increases the membership of the Authority by two-one a service spouse and one a financial expert. Both measures we approve and support. The establishment of the Defence Housing Authority was a first class move by the Government. I hope that it gives the Authority the support that it needs and will not allow it to become bogged down by bureaucracy. I understand from some reports that there has been a tendency for it to become so. For example in the Richmond area houses have been identified for purchase but, as I understand it, the purchase of those properties is being delayed because of bureaucratic entanglement. It is no good setting up this Authority unless it is allowed to do the job for which it was set up. I hope that we do not see a repeat of the 1987 sleight of hand with the $75m which has been promised to this Authority. Most of the amount was spent on new housing in Tindal and Rockingham. It was expected that the money would be spent on refurbishing or buying houses in existing areas, not on new housing in new areas. The third measure in this Bill relates to open-ended engagements. It is a tidying up measure. It corrects a drafting error, as I understand it. I think that open-ended engagements in the Services are certainly worth trying. We hope that they will be successful. They will provide a measure of flexibility for young men and women so that they will not feel obliged to make that great decision every time their three-year, six-year or nine-year engagement is up. It will encourage them to stay in the Services for longer than they are staying now. We support the measures that are brought forward in this Bill and wish it a speedy passage. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.36) —I will not speak for very long tonight. The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 makes three small but very important changes. There are three distinct parts to the legislation that is before the House, as the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) quite correctly said. The first part relates to the commutation of pensions by retiring members of the Defence Force. It is a welcome change. I am glad to see that, for once, honourable members opposite are supporting a change. For once, we agree. It is an important change. There were hold-ups. Indeed, one could say that there was an anomaly in the previous situation. Defence Force members were held up for quite some time. Sometimes the family of a Defence Force member had a problem if, for example, that member had died before he was able to commute his lump sum. The change will enable defence personnel to make an election up to three months before their actual retirement. The second part relates to the expansion of the Defence Housing Authority which this Government set up. Again, the Opposition supports it, as it supported the introduction of the Authority, which was instigated after much discussion and investigation by members on this side of the House and the respective Ministers. I am glad to see that it is working so well. The third part concerns a very small change. It is more like an anomaly in the legislation which was passed by this House last year, the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 1987, in regard to the concept of open-ended or permanent enlistment of members of the Defence Force. This is quite a change to the enlisting of defence personnel. I think it stands a very good chance of working very well and very effectively. Previously, people enlisted for six or nine years. It was a little like a person being told, `You have so many years before you get out'. The open-ended arrangements will mean that after a certain initial period, which will vary-let us say that on average it will be about a six-month period for training, et cetera-people will be employed on a continuing basis, and must give three months notice of resignation.That is a much better path to go down. It gives people the feeling of being in a career that they will be in for quite some time, and they must make a major decision to get out with this three months notice of resignation. Hopefully in the future that will change the attitude of many defence personnel. As I said, this small change relates to an anomaly that has been in the legislation since it was passed last year. It fixes that problem. Those three legislative measures within the overall Bill are supported by both sides of the House, if one takes the speech of the honourable member for McPherson at face value. They are small but very important changes; we on this side of the House support them wholeheartedly and we trust the Opposition will too. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(11.41) —The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill introduces three changes in the areas of retirement benefits, preconditions for resignation from permanent enlistment and service spouse representation in the defence bureaucracy. As has been pointed out a number of times, the first amendment is to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act. It will allow service personnel to elect to commute a proportion of their superannuation entitlements to a lump sum prior to retirement so that the lump sum is available on their first day of civilian life. This is a significant and welcome decision, and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) is to be commended for it. However, many aspects of service life are causing dissatisfaction amongst service personnel and their families and retirement benefits is not the least of them. As you probably recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, the decision by the Government some time ago to discount service pensions by 2 per cent has seriously eroded the confidence of service personnel. That has occurred as a result of the Government's willingness to do the right thing in regard to recognition of service. I believe that that 2 per cent needs to be restored. In the meantime small measures such as the one I am now dealing with will be important elements of what must be a comprehensive package of upgraded conditions for our service personnel. The particular package we are dealing with will be essential if the confidence and trust of service personnel is to be restored. Before moving on, I raise once again an aspect of the Defence Force retirement and death benefits (DFRDB) scheme which is ignored every time amendments such as this are considered. The opportunity for servicemen to commute benefits to a lump sum is dependent on good health and good luck. For example, should an airman walk into a propeller at the Richmond Royal Australian Air Force base in my electorate, or at any other air base, his invalidity could prohibit payment of his benefits in a lump sum. The very person most in need of the ability to pay out his mortgage and set up his family financially to cope with his serious invalidity is not entitled to the lump sum payment of his benefits. I have raised this matter with the Minister on a number of occasions, and I do so again tonight. The Minister is to be commended for the proposal before us, but I would hope that in the ongoing review of the DFRDB scheme the question of fairness to service personnel retired due to serious illness or accident ought to be a very high priority. The second amendment in this legislation adds to the Defence Housing Authority a representative of service spouses. Once again the Minister is to be commended for this small but important initiative. Many areas of life for service personnel and their families would improve if the experience and judgment of service spouses were to be built into advisory and policy-making structures in the Department of Defence. Hopefully, the Defence Housing Authority will not be the last body to have its membership expanded to include service spouse representation. Having said that, however, I warn the Government that it should not expect that such an initiative is a sufficient response to the problems service spouses are raising every day at bases around the country. Even this small step, this commonsense approach to better management via consultation and input, has been too long in coming. In the end, what will matter to service spouses is not how many committees they have a token voice on but how real and urgent the pace of improvement is for life on and around defence establishments. There is no better way to quieten critics than to provide formal participation in decision making. I doubt that that is the Minister's motive but the Minister should not become too complacent as a result of the accumulation of minor initiatives for spouses such as this one tonight. Mrs Kelly —I will not be. Mr WEBSTER —I am sure the Minister will not be. Service spouses are not interested merely in being heard in the numerous defence bureaucracy committees but in getting action once they have identified the nature and priorities of day to day service life difficulties. The third amendment in this Bill deals with service obligations to be fulfilled prior to resignation by service personnel under open-ended or permanent enlistment. As with the other two amendments, the coalition supports this amendment. I do not wish to comment further on what has already been said by the Minister and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) as shadow Minister. This defence legislation is being examined in the shadow of what is now the annual Hawke Government's catch up for its mistakes mini-Budget. Over the last two years in particular, defence has suffered dangerous cuts to its funding levels despite what I believe would have been very good fights put up by both Ministers representing the defence cause. Those cuts have been so deep that it is doubtful whether the next coalition government, with Defence Minister White, will be able to make up for the equipment and training gap the cuts have produced. The cuts have not just brought into doubt the credibility of our defence capacity. They have also without doubt destroyed any credibility the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) may have been credited with in the early days of his portfolio. Indeed, there is no questioning that he has been making a very conscientious effort. The debate on these amendments tonight provides me with the opportunity to state clearly what I and all those associated with the Richmond Royal Australian Air Force Base in my electorate believe so strongly: defence must not suffer cuts in the forthcoming Budget. Defence expenditure must increase in real terms at least to the 3 per cent level identified as minimally required by the Government's own consultants. The Government and the Minister took great pleasure in suggesting recently that the coalition supported the proposal of the Business Council of Australia (BCA) to cut defence spending as part of its package of expenditure reduction. That was not the case at the time; is not now and will not be the case when the coalition is in government. While scoring political debating points, the Government knew that that was a misrepresentation of the coalition's position on defence spending in the context of overall expenditure reduction. The BCA's specific proposal for defence cuts was inappropriate and unacceptable to any person with any idea of the current and projected funding needs of our defence forces. The only party with a record to match the short-sightedness of the BCA on defence is the Australian Labor Party. It is the party which has, in government, talked of increased defence expenditure then savagely cut that expenditure in spite of, as I say again, a good fight put up by its Minister. The Government regularly tables statements, updates legislation and undertakes conciliatory initiatives such as those before us tonight. Yet the heavy spending cuts and fundamental imbalance in priorities remains. The result is a demoralised, undermanned, underequipped and overbureaucratised defence system which, should it continue with insufficient funding or further cuts, will soon, if it is not already the case, not be able to match the security needs of the nation. I know the Minister is embarrassed by the last two years. I simply ask him to remind his colleagues once again about the fundamental priorities of government. The defence budget must be increased; it certainly must not be cut again. I suggest that it would be appropriate at the end of this debate for the Minister to take the opportunity to reassure us about his portfolio in regard to the mini-Budget about to be brought down. These amendments before us are welcome and are supported by the coalition. The point I make, however, is that the next time that we discuss defence Bills, I hope that the Bills will focus on major funding increases and policy adjustment to repair the damage of the last few years and to provide a secure basis for defence planning in the future. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(11.51) —Because it is less than 10 minutes to midnight my contribution will be extremely brief and because of the very constructive contributions made by almost all members of the Opposition, far be it for me to introduce any discordant note. Having said that, I will make passing reference to the fact that it is not surprising that the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) is going at 100 miles an hour in the opposite direction from that of the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), trying to distance himself from the commitment and call by the honourable member for Kooyong not simply to back the Business Council of Australia's proposed cuts but, as the honourable member for Kooyong said, to cut more. I also highlight for the honourable member for Macquarie that both he and other Opposition speakers fundamentally misunderstand the operation of the Defence Housing Authority because that Authority, rather than simply being part of the defence bureaucracy, as suggested by them, quite deliberately and by policy of this Government is set apart from that bureaucracy to bring private sector and community expertise to this very important area of defence housing. I seek to make only three brief points. The first is to remind people what life was like in relation to defence housing before this Government came to power. The reality was that soldiers and their families in and around my electorate were living in World War II slum housing. I welcome the support given by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) to the Defence Housing Authority. It is an important advance by this Government. The second point I seek to make is to highlight the responsiveness of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) in picking up the call put forward by the Government members defence force action committee to appoint a service spouse to the Board of the Authority, because we believe very strongly that service spouses who are on the front line of service conditions have an important contribution to make. For that reason, we warmly welcome the Minister's support for that additional appointment. The final thing I wish to say is that I am pleasantly surprised that perhaps the lateness of the hour has brought an uplifting in the standard of contribution made by the Opposition speakers in relation to Defence Force conditions. What they have had to say tonight, strongly backing the Minister, is a very welcome change from the fairly pointless and shallow haranguing we often hear in this debate. I commend the Minister. This is a further example of the runs we are putting on the board. I have no doubt that we will go on to do even more in the time of this Government. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(11.54) —Following the brief contribution from the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and his references to statements allegedly made by our shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), I would like to assure the House that we on the Opposition side support our defence forces as avidly, strongly and enthusiastically as possible. I am quite sure that the honourable member for Kooyong has rushed into the House tonight to prove that he supports the defence forces of Australia just as much. As our policies unfold over the next few months people such as the honourable member for Kooyong, and everybody on the Opposition side, will be seen to be keenly supporting our defence forces. We will back that up with policy and committment. The honourable member for Kooyong has come into this House at this late stage in the debate to prove that he is as keen on our defence forces as anybody in this House here today. The Opposition supports the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill, and in the process of supporting it, it affords us the opportunity to debate some of the issues that surround the overall issue of our defence portfolio. At present the Government luxuriates in self-congratulations. For the last several years the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and his colleagues have patted themselves on the back and told themselves what a wonderful job they have done with our defence forces. They have busily tried to sell the story to Australians but, I am sorry, it is not going down so well. The reason is that people in our defence forces are leaving in record numbers. This is a very telling story. It tells the truth of what is actually going on behind the scenes within our defence forces. It proves the point that what the Government is telling us is not true. It tells us that we have major problems which this Government cannot properly address, which it cannot resolve, and which through its meddling and trying to solve is making them worse. The Bill before the House tonight is an attempt-and I make a sincere comment that it is an attempt-to address some of the problems. Many defence personnel in my electorate of Gilmore who are based at HMAS Albatross, who serve at HMAS Creswell and those who serve within the Army Parachute Training School, over time have expressed concerns about the two issues that this Bill picks up: superannuation and defence force housing. Despite the addressing of these issues we are seeing massive resignation rates within our defence forces. It is interesting to see that in two years the Army has lost 10,000 soldiers and 1,200 officers from a base force of 32,000. In two years the Army has lost more than one-third of its total personnel. That is, I think, the story that tells the truth. The story is that people are leaving because this Government cannot administer our defence forces in a way that is satisfactory to the people who work within them. One of the issues that have come up has been the record resignation rate of our pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force. Because of that the Government has tried to address that problem by offering a $70,000 one-off grant to pilots if they are prepared to stay for a period of six years. Tax reduces it to about half. As our shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), has pointed out, it is creating more problems than it solves. The Minister must recognise that point. If one talks to people in the Air Force and to the flyers in the Navy, one will find out that observers, mechanics and other people who are instrumental in keeping aircraft in the air are put out by the fact that they are not being treated in any commensurate way with those pilots who are getting the extra $70,000. It creates a morale problem. It creates an envy problem, and I am sorry to say it is creating more problems than it is solving. Mr Martin —Get back to the Bill. Mr SHARP —That is what this Bill is all about. It is about trying to improve the service conditions of people in our defence forces. The Minister recently tried to add to the service conditions of the people in our defence forces by bringing out this $70,000 one-off grant, but it places base commanders in some of our Air Force bases in the position of being paid less than some of their junior officers. That creates a problem. I understand that our airlines are offering pilots who want to leave our defence forces the same amount of money to compensate for the inducement that the Government is offering through this $70,000 grant. It has just come to light to me in the last few days as I have been talking to some pilots in my electorate, that the airlines are offering a $70,000 grant to make up for the inducement that the Government has offered. No matter what the government tries to do in these areas something seems to go wrong. It seems to fail somewhere along the way. People in our defence forces are looking for better housing and this Bill addresses that problem in part. They are also looking for more things than that. They are looking for stability within their employment. They are looking for a little independence. They are looking to get rid of the red tape that ties up the people in the uniform section of our defence forces. They find it very frustrating that they are being controlled and interfered with by public servants. If one talks to a base commander one will find that he has very little independence and authority to authorise the payment of an account, to have some work done and to make changes around the place that he best knows are needed. He has to go to the public servants in Canberra, who are divorced from the reality of the situation. This is a problem. It is causing dissatisfaction amongst the people in the uniform section of our defence forces. This is another area that the Government must address if it is to try to stop the haemorrhaging of the skilled and expert people from our forces at the moment. They really need a government that is prepared to stand by them. I was interested to read a report made recently by the Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Hudson, to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. He said that there is low morale due to poor pay, poor conditions of service, low job satisfaction and a lack of government interest. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) is in the House trying to do something for the defence forces. I think one thing she can do for our defence forces is to give them sincere support. They are not looking for reductions of 2 per cent in their Defence Force retirement and death benefits; they are not looking to see the reserve forces being taxed, as the Government tried to do some time ago; they are not looking towards seeing the Veterans' Entitlements Bill being raped, as it was in May 1985 by this Labor Government; they do not want to see a government fiddling around with a Defence Force home loan scheme; they do not want to see people such as those who served on board HMAS Sydney during the Vietnam period refused a medal. They want to see more legislation such as the legislation we are debating tonight. The Opposition has some very good proposals to put forward to address some of the issues that are concerning the people in our defence forces. The other important element of this Bill is the item of Defence Force housing. It has taken 12 months for the Government to recognise that some of the most important people-perhaps the most important people-in our Defence Force housing scheme are the spouses of our Defence Force personnel and their children. They make up more than half of the people who live in these houses. Some 12,000 Defence Force houses are substandard. I have a number of them in my electorate of Gilmore. I have inspected them and they are not up to the standard of people in commensurate areas of employment who live in the town of Nowra. The houses are not up to scratch. It has taken 12 months for the Government to recognise that we need representatives of the other half of the people who live in these Defence Force houses; that is, the spouses. This is a positive step forward. We should look more down this track to ensure that in the future, when we have committees which govern these houses. They should know the people who live in the houses, what they need, what the demands are, what the failures within them are so that we can ensure that as we proceed in the development of our Defence Force housing we are doing it appropriately and not missing out on some very valuable advice. At the end of the day, we need a very effective Defence Force. What we have seen in Fiji last year and in Vanuatu in the last few days highlights the importance of an effective Defence Force. We live in a region that many say is stable, but Fiji and Vanuatu proved to us that instability can happen very quickly. We do not have a chance to prepare ourselves. We must be prepared at all times. We need an effective Navy and an effective Air Force. We certainly do not have either at present. I am led to believe that in Darwin we have 20 aircraft, but we have only seven pilots to fly them. We have a Navy that at present does not have sufficient people to man it. All in all, we must have a Defence Force that is able at all times to react within our region and deal with the instability in our lives. At present, I am afraid to say, Australia's defence forces have been caught with their pants down. If anything were to happen today we would not be able adequately to deal with it. We need to be ever alert, always prepared and to have more legislation such as the legislation that is before the House tonight. We really must see a government that is prepared to get in there and support our Defence Force personnel and provide them with better conditions of service so that we can stop the haemorrhaging, the massive resignation rates we have witnessed over the last few months, and maintain the skills and expertise of our highly trained Defence Force personnel that sadly we are losing due to the mismanagement of this Government. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(12.05 a.m.) —I support the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) and would add just two other things. The House is considering the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill and I note that, in considering the defence question, there is an increasing complexity which makes it difficult for the Parliament to have much opportunity to come to grips with all of those complexities and dimensions. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, have moved to overcome this, by degree, by introducing an annual White Paper which is published in addition to the annual report of the Department of Defence. That is a course of action which has something to commend it for the future. Clearly, the Parliament's opportunity to look into this country's defence structure, the performance of defence units, even in peace time, and their equipment situation and so on would be helped if an annual White Paper were presented to the Parliament. I put that suggestion forward in the context of this debate. The second point I wish to raise concerns clause 11 of the Bill which I think has a lot to commend it. It refers to defence housing. The clause is in sharp contrast to the shocking revelations last week when we learnt that our immigration policy is being administered in such a way as to admit a large number of people of the same sex on the basis of their alleged relationship. Subclause (c) of clause 11 states-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member should not allude specifically to clauses during a second reading debate. He is not precluded from making broad reference to the matters. Mr TIM FISCHER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that the debate will not be going to the committee stage. Of course, I bow to your ruling. I will just make a passing reference to the broader context of sex discrimination. Clause 11 of the Bill includes the phraseology, `a person of the opposite sex', which makes a pleasant change from all the dimensions of the immigration debate over the weekend. I think that it is a commendable dimension of the legislation in terms of the broad principle which it adopts. I do not plan to dwell further on that now. This is probably the last time I will speak in this chamber, depending on what happens later in the week. I wish this chamber in the old parliamentary building well. I wish the new Parliament House and the new House of Representatives chamber well. I am reminded of the fact that it will be our performance in the new Parliament House on which we will all be judged rather than on the dimensions of that magnificent new building. I support the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(12.08 a.m.) —in reply-I will not take up too much of the time of the House, but I want to respond to a few points raised by the Opposition that were relevant to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. A number of things have been raised that were not relevant and I will not comment on those tonight. The issue of home loans was raised and the Opposition asked for clarification in that respect. Some months ago the Government announced that it was in the process of negotiating to sell that portfolio. That is still under way. In the statement made by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) and me, we made it very clear that there would be a great benefit to defence service personnel by the sale because it would cut out the 10-month waiting list which existed previously for the $25,000 loan and make it possible for personnel to get one mortgage for a loan and, therefore, considerably reduce the overhead. Mr Tim Fischer —When will that be complete? Mrs KELLY —Statements will be made about that in the near future. The other issue raised-it was not totally related to the legislation, but I think that I should make some comments on it-concerned the bonus system. The Opposition has been very critical of this system. The bonus system was initiated as a clear response to an identified problem. What we have said about the problem with pilots is that we have to train our way out of the problems that exist, recognising that they are quite acute in relation to retaining pilots. We have had to respond with a bonus system. By itself the bonus will not work. I am the first to concede that. But it is important that some monetary consideration is given to the problem as well as dealing with other issues that concern management of the Air Force, looking at job satisfaction and looking at the option for pilots to spend more time flying instead of working out of Russell. All of those things are very important. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The key reason for bringing in a bonus system is that the market outside, principally Qantas Airways Ltd and to a lesser extent other commercial airlines, is pulling our pilots out. I was interested in the point the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) made about commercial airlines offering a similar bonus. I must pursue that. If Qantas is doing that, we could take some action in relation to that. Qantas is a major problem because it has been recruiting exactly that category of pilots we need to train our way out of our situation, and that is why dramatic action was necessary. I would have preferred not to have to bring in a bonus system. Really what have we to lose? If it does not work, it does not cost any money. I know it is causing some dissatisfaction in other categories but the other categories are not nearly as acute nor is the market working the same way to pull the pilots out, through direct attraction, into Qantas. That is really the rationale; the bonus is a response to market forces. We will review it and see whether it is successful. If it is not successful, we can drop it. Early indications are that it is working. Even if five or 10 people, particularly in the category of flight lieutenant, stay in the service when otherwise they would not, it has been successful. I am pleased the Opposition has given support to the addition to the Defence Housing Authority of a defence service spouse and someone with financial expertise. Mrs Lorraine Sanderson, the wife of Brigadier John Sanderson from the electorate of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), is already serving. She has been doing an excellent job. The addition of these people is in no way a criticism of the membership of the existing board, to which I pay tribute. The members have worked well; they are a lean team. They have very few resources but they are putting them to work efficiently. I have seen that demonstrated in the past few months when the Government decided that housing was an area that deserved top priority. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The Government has not just kept its commitment to defence housing in financial terms this year but has added $46m to it. We have had a major procurement exercise throughout the country, and with the support of the Services I am pleased to say that we have actually met our target everywhere except Sydney. Sydney has been a problem. A number of houses have been bought there but the market is so overheated that, in my view, the way to proceed there is to purchase some land and to build on it. We are going too far west in Sydney, particularly for the Navy. The Authority and I are looking at that issue at present. I pay tribute to the work in the forces and through the Defence Housing Authority for the assistance they have given us in meeting those targets. As of today we have purchased about 260 houses in the past two months, which is a great achievement, as well as putting about $10m into minor improvements. Another point raised by the honourable member for Gilmore was the issue of devolution of financial authority. I agree with him that there is a need for further devolution of financial authority. The Defence Force senior executive held a seminar this weekend and discussed that issue and how it can be followed through. I think there is agreement on the civilian side and service side that more financial responsibility needs to be given to the base managers. That will be occurring a great deal more in the next few years. Basically, the legislation shows that the Government is supporting the Defence Force not just by words and by rhetoric but also by action. I thank all honourable members for their contributions and I ask members of the Opposition for their assistance in getting this legislation through the Senate before it rises. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mrs Kelly) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(12.16 a.m.) —We are now debating the Audit Amendment Bill 1988. The coalition parties will not be opposing the Bill, but we will be seeking committee stage amendments. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) said in his second reading speech: The principal amendments are intended to enhance the Commonwealth's financial reporting, administration and audit and to bring certain penalty provisions into line with present day criminal law policy. That all sounds quite innocuous, and for most of the Bill that is in fact the case. However, the Opposition has serious reservations about two areas of the proposed amendments. Once again, the Hawke-Keating Government is threatening the integrity of the Parliament in the guise of so-called better administration. The Opposition will be moving amendments to two substantive areas in the Bill. Firstly, let me discuss clause 6. I might say that because of the guillotine moved by the Government, I have confined my remarks and, whilst moving amendments in the committee stage, I will be referring in my comments on those motions to remarks that I intend to pass in the course of this rather shorter speech on the second reading debate. Firstly, as I said, let me discuss clause 6. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member might be well advised not to be specific. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, I will put it another way. I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is an endeavour in the Bill, particularly around clause 6, to amend a section of the Audit Act. That subsection currently provides that the format of the monthly statement of financial transactions which is published by the Minister for Finance shall be varied only with the prior approval of both Houses of parliament. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES We believe that these monthly statements are a very important check on the movement of the Government's expenditure and revenue accounts during the year. They are a formal and important check by parliament on the executive arm of Government. They are an indication that the Executive derives from the Parliament and must answer to the Parliament. We are concerned that there is a need to enable the form of the monthly statement of the Minister for Finance to be changed by regulation. Of course, such an endeavour is not new. In essence, it is not a new proposal. Indeed, in October last year the Government sought to amend the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987 to give the Minister for Finance authority to approve variations to the format of the monthly statements and table details and explanations of such variations in Parliament. The coalition, with the support of the Australian Democrats, it will be recalled, rejected the amendment in the Senate on the grounds that it would diminish existing parliamentary control over the forms of reporting of monthly financial performance. In essence, we plan to do the same again at a later stage of the House's consideration. Contrary to the assertion in the Minister's second reading speech, if I were to accept an amendment along the lines proposed in the Bill this would not accord with suggestions made by the coalition during debate on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Our stand is clear. The Opposition opposes the amendments contained in the Bill on this issue, namely, the amendments to the reporting of monthly statements, which diminish the parliamentary control of the process. It is apparent that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has little regard for parliament. We have seen that before and see it again in this legislation. Honourable members will recall that only a few weeks ago he sought to amend the Appropriation Acts so that he could expand his discretion to use the vote for the Minister for Finance. He is trying to do the same sort of thing again in the legislation before the House tonight. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES If we examine the legislation, we will see that further incursions into the areas of Parliament's oversights are also contained. I foreshadow now that I will be addressing my remarks to clause 15 and respective clauses at the committee stage. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is quite in order if the honourable member does not make reference to the clause but merely deals with the subject. Mr PEACOCK —Clause 15 and the respective clauses have, in effect, the same faults to which I have been drawing attention-the whittling away of the power of the Parliament. Currently, the Auditor-General has discretion not to include in his reports on some statutory authorities covered by the Audit Act details of inconsequential or trivial breaches of legislation. Generally, however, other legislation involving statutory authorities requires the Auditor-General to report all breaches, irrespective of their significance. Elements of this Bill would introduce a new section 63r and, as a consequence of that, will provide that, where an enactment which establishes a body or authority requires the Auditor-General to report to a Minister on a matter relating to the compliance by the body or authority with the requirements of that enactment, the Auditor-General will need report only those breaches which are, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, of such importance that they should be reported. Of course, the Government argues that a great degree of trust is already involved in relying upon the competence and integrity of the Auditor-General in the performance of the audit task. The Opposition does not call into question either the competence or the integrity of the Auditor-General. However, the Government argues that the extension it has discussed is entirely consistent with that trust and that elements of the Bill are in step with the statutory discretion that the Auditor-General already has not to report breaches which he considers too minor to mention. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts has considered this viewpoint of the Government and has expressed its opposition to that attitude. The Joint Committee is deeply concerned, as is the Opposition, at any further erosion of the power of the Parliament. The Committee correctly maintains that the present reporting requirements of the Auditor-General enhance the thoroughness with which the Audit Office conducts its task. In addition, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills looked at this particular element of the Bill and described it as an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. That Committee is particularly concerned with the proposed discretion that will allow the Auditor-General to determine whether an issue is of such minor importance as to exclude the need for its reporting. In reading the Committee's report, I note that it, in turn, had noted: The difficulty with this discretion is that, of its nature, it would clearly not be possible to determine the circumstances in which the discretion has been exercised if and when it is exercised. We on this side of the House agree with what can be termed only as strong reservations in the quotation I have just made from the Senate Committee report, and I foreshadow amendments to particular areas when the Bill reaches the committee stage. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The Opposition's concerns are based on maintaining the power of parliament, the body directly elected by the people of Australia. We do so to protect people against future abuse from the power of government. This form of abuse, as I said, has been sought to be introduced in legislation by the Minister for Finance before. We have successfully, with the Australian Democrats, resisted that in the Senate on other legislation, and I trust we will have their support, if not that of the Government, to the amendments we will move at a later stage in the passage of this Bill. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(12.25 a.m.) —I should say that, once again, my contribution will be particularly brief. The popularity of a member speaking past midnight bears some inverse proportional relationship to the length of his speech; so in an endeavour to curry favour with my colleagues, I shall be necessarily brief. I think the Audit Act is probably one of the pieces of legislation of the Commonwealth about which members of parliament ought to know a great deal more. Certainly, while I have been a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I confess that I have not really given the legislation the attention that I believe it truly deserves. Honourable members should recall that it was one of the first pieces of legislation ever to be passed by the Commonwealth. I should also say before continuing my remarks that the Audit Act, these amendments and, indeed, the role of the Audit Office itself are currently the subject of a major inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee on the subject of reform of the Australian Audit Office in which the Committee will be examining the issue of whether the staffing and resources of the Audit Office are adequate to meet it needs. We will also be examining whether the Audit Office has kept pace with reforms of comparable bodies around the world and in the Australian States. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Having said that by way of introduction, I must say that I have mixed feelings about the legislation before the House but, on balance, am prepared to support the Audit Amendment Bill primarily for the reasons put forward by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in his second reading speech. You have made a ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, to counsel the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) in relation to his comments concerning particular clauses of the Bill and, of course, I too will be bound by that ruling but would seek to make some passing reference to the matters raised by the honourable member for Kooyong. The honourable member mentioned areas of the Bill around clause 6 which deal with section 49 of the Act relating to the format of monthly statements which are published by the Minister for Finance and, of course, can, according to subsection (2) of that section, be varied only with the approval of both Houses of parliament. It is true that the amendment seeks to vary that. I should highlight, however, that the variation still gives parliament control because it will retain in parliament scrutiny over the form of the monthly statements, and the format of those statements can be set by regulation. In relation to the other substantive issue raised by the honourable member for Kooyong, I seek at least to be on common ground to an extent on this issue. The Minister, in his second reading speech, highlighted the fact that the amendments proposed in this Bill affect the discretion of the Auditor-General to report on immaterial breaches of establishing legislation by certain statutory bodies, and the effect of this amendment will permit that discretion to apply to all statutory bodies. In effect, it is an extension of an already existing discretion on the part of the Auditor-General. The Minister recognised in his second reading speech that the Public Accounts Committee has indicated that it does not support that amendment, and that is a view with which I am intimately and personally familiar, and I endorse it. The Minister points out, however, that there is already a great degree of trust involved in relying upon the competence and integrity of the Auditor-General in the performance of the audit task; and the extension of this discretion suggests that the Minister is consistent with this trust. He also suggests that it is in step with the statutory discretion that he already has not to report breaches which he considers too minor to mention. That discretion exists for audits of the departments and a wide range of statutory authorities. I recount in detail what the Minister had to say in order to deliver my own mild disagreement with that view. I take the view that it is for parliament to form a view of whether or not a breach of the law is or is not material. So far as I am concerned, as a member of parliament, everyone in this land is bound by the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. That applies not only to individual citizens but also to government departments and statutory authorities. Therefore, as the Minister is aware, I take issue with him in relation to this matter. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES But I do support overall the terms of the Bill on balance. I do not agree with what the honourable member for Kooyong has said concerning the role and attitude of the Minister for Finance. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I have found the Minister to be responsive to views put forward concerning the accountability of the Parliament, and I welcome the cooperation being given by him in relation to the review of the Australian Audit Office conducted by the Public Accounts Committee. The only other matter I raise in this debate is to reply to what the honourable member for Kooyong had to say concerning the recent amendments to the law following the report of the Public Accounts Committee concerning the Advance to the Minister for Finance. That Committee said in its report that the form of the guidelines issued by the Department of Finance was contrary to the terms of the Appropriation Bill. The response of the Minister was immediately to take note of that report of the Public Accounts Committee and to amend the law accordingly. Our Committee also said that there ought to be greater accountability and responsiveness to the Parliament in tabling information about expenditure under the Advance. The Minister is currently reviewing the information provided to parliament, and I believe discussions will be held with the Public Accounts Committee. For those reasons I believe that the arguments put forward by the honourable member for Kooyong, although put forward with the most vigour he could bring to bear at this early hour of the morning, are an exaggeration. I believe the amendments are on balance supportable. But I do hope that the Parliament, the people of Australia and the Minister himself will cooperate, and continue to cooperate, with the comprehensive review being undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee, which will review the Australian Audit Office, as I have said, to make sure that it is equal to the best in the world. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr PORTER(Barker)(12.33 a.m.) —Given the lateness of the hour I will also be brief. I welcome the introduction of this legislation as a step forward in the departmental reporting requirements, although the Audit Amendment Bill does have other shortcomings, as outlined by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). Clause 7 of the legislation revises departmental reporting requirements in accordance with the recommendations for departmental reporting, which were tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this House on 17 November last year. The current practices for reporting departmental budgets, the departmental staffing levels and departmental performance through the annual report mechanism provide too little information for a thorough and proper evaluation of the management of the machinery of government. Year-to-year comparisons of the performance of departments in managing their staff budget becomes next to impossible when from year to year the figures reflect changes in definitions of coverage under the rules of reporting and changes in agencies or activities subject to Budget controls. For example, the 1986-87 Budget Paper No. 1 estimated that there would be 197,148 public servants during the financial year 1986-87. The 1987-88 Budget Paper No. 1 indicated that there were actually 182,013 public servants during 1986-87. That is some 15,000 less than had been predicted in Budget Paper No. 1 at the beginning of that financial year. Clearly these figures are not comparable, nor are the year-to-year figures reported in the previous year's Budget Papers comparable. The movement of activities in and out of budgetary staffing controls from one year to the next makes any meaningful comparisons impossible. This year-to-year comparison becomes important when the Government sets up, as one of its major objectives, streamlining of government and reductions in staff numbers through amalgamation of departments and through the application of efficiency dividends and efficiency scrutiny reviews. The Opposition shares the Government's concern that they should be major objectives. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Let us look at the example of one department-the Department of Administrative Services. The 1986-87 Budget stated that the Department of Administrative Services would have 5,033 employees. The 1987-88 Budget introduced the administrative changes in which activities from at least seven other departments, including the Department of Housing and Construction; the Department of Resources and Energy; the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism; the Department of the Treasury; the Department of Science; the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment; and the Department of the Special Minister of State were incorporated into the new Department of Administrative Services. The result is that that new Department is now budgeting for 18,171 employees. The Budget Papers claim that this actually represents a reduction of 600 employees. The difficulty is that there is no way of knowing whether it does or does not represent a reduction without knowing what happened in the departments which surrendered the positions which were merged with the Department of Administrative Services. It is important for the Parliament to be able to measure the success or otherwise of the Government's achievement of its managerial goals of improved efficiency and staff reductions. Take, for example, the Division of Survey and Mapping Services, still within the Department of Administrative Services. Last August the Division of National Mapping was transferred from the Department of Resources and Energy to the Department of Administrative Services, which already had a survey operation. Prior to the merger of the two divisions, they had a combined staff budget of about 800 people. As a merged division they have a staff budget of 740 people-a loss, or saving, of 60 positions. Two months ago I was advised that a number of people within the Division of Survey and Mapping Services were laid off on Friday and rehired as contract workers on Monday at a significantly higher hourly rate than they were being paid as employees. This move supposedly reduces the number of staff within the Department, perhaps to meet the targets, but it is a total abuse of the system and it avoids the very reasons for departmental amalgamations in the first place-that is, to produce a smaller, more efficient, more cost-effective government. If indeed this is some inept attempt to rig the figures to meet the projected savings, we will not rest and the truth will inevitably out. It is, of course, the taxpayer who would be footing the bill for such incompetence, and we shall have no hesitation in informing taxpayers of the rort. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The Government's own guidelines lay down very specific procedures for dealing with excess staff capacity resulting from departmental amalgamations and other similar initiatives. These guidelines include reporting requirements for all departments under the provisions of the streamlining Act. With respect to clause 7 of the proposed legislation, I direct the attention of the Minister specifically to the report entitled Guidelines for the Preparation of the Departmental Annual Reports. That report was tabled in the House on 17 November last year and forms the basis for this clause. This report states that the reports of departments `should reflect the general thrust of the Government's package of administrative reforms and should show the impact of those reforms on departmental operations'. The Government's package of administrative reforms must surely refer to the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Act and the changes to the machinery of government. Specifically with respect to staffing information, the tabled report recommends: Departmental annual reports should provide an overview of the staffing levels and characteristics of the department, with statistics in sufficiently standardised format to permit comparisons with Service-wide statistical information published by the Department of Finance. The report also states: The kinds of staffing information in reports should include information on the classifications and locations of staff. To that we say, `Hear, hear'. On 14 April, in seeking to justify the increase in the appropriation for the increase in the number of Ministers, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) stated: In return-for the increase in ministerial salaries-$105m in savings and 3,000 staff savings will have been achieved. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Surely these savings are at the nub of the Government's package of administrative reforms which rests with departments' abilities to achieve efficiency and economics of scale through cuts in staffing levels, though departmental amalgamations, and application of efficiency dividends and efficiency scrutiny reviews. I therefore strongly recommend to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that, when formulating the guidelines for departmental reporting under this legislation, he give special consideration to those sections of the Public Service Act which lie at the heart of the Government's administrative reform package. Surely within the context of streamlining of the Public Service, compliance with freedom of information or industrial democracy are no more significant than those sections of the Act which now address the streamlining process. Departments must report on the application of the laws and regulations involved in the streamlining process. Those laws and regulations include division 8c and subsection 7 (3) of the Public Service Act, together with regulations 120c and 120d of the Public Service Regulations establishing the rules to be complied with in retiring and redeploying officers; the Australian Public Service Redeployment and Retirement (Redundancy) Award 1987 between the Commonwealth and the Public Service unions and associations protecting the rights of individual employees; and the instructions included in `Streamlining Circular 7, Excess Staff' published in response to the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Act 1986. These laws and regulations are an essential part of departmental operations in the environment of the Government's reforms of the machinery of government. I seek the Minister's acknowledgment that these issues will be fully reported on in the departments' annual reports. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(12.44 a.m.) —in reply-I thank honourable members who have contributed to this debate-a splendid performance of erudition at this hour of night, particularly on such a gripping measure as this. I will refer the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) to the appropriate Ministers for their response. I will leave my remarks on the foreshadowed amendments until they are formally moved. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Clauses 1 to 5-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 6 (Minister's monthly statement of financial transactions). Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(12.46 a.m.) —The Opposition opposes clause 6. As I indicated in a roundabout fashion, I suppose, in my speech during the second reading debate, clause 6 seeks to amend subsection 49 (2) of the Audit Act. That subsection currently provides that the format of the monthly statement of financial transactions which is published by the Minister for Finance shall be varied only with the prior approval of both Houses of the Parliament. The Opposition believes that these monthly statements are a very important check on the movement of the Government's expenditure and revenue accounts during the year. They are a formal and important check by parliament on the executive arm of government. The reality is that the Executive is derived from this chamber and the other place and is answerable to us. The proposed amendment in clause 6 will enable the form of the monthly statement of the Minister for Finance to be changed simply by regulation. We oppose this for it diminishes parliament's control over the Executive. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(12.47 a.m.) —The Government accepts the fact that these are very important statements that the Minister for Finance makes. Indeed, it was when the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) proposed that he ought to be able to amend the format of the Minister's monthly financial statements, when an earlier proposal was in the Senate, that in fact Senator Lewis suggested that he should resort to this procedure if he wanted to amend the format. In other words, he had proposed a method of amending them which did not involve any parliamentary scrutiny. It was suggested by Senator Lewis that one appropriate means that the Minister should employ would be to amend them by regulation because, of course, if they are amended by regulation they come before the scrutiny of the Parliament. It was with Senator Lewis's suggestion in mind that this amendment was formulated. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES So I am not quite sure whether the Opposition in this chamber has a different view from that of the Opposition in the other House or whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has a different view from that of Senator Lewis. I guess the place for this matter to be resolved is in the Senate where the suggestion for this amendment actually came from. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(12.49 a.m.) —by leave-I move: (2) Clause 9, page 4, lines 19-21, omit ``, being cases that are, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, of sufficient importance to justify particulars of the cases being set out in the report''. (3) Clause 15, page 6, lines 27-39, omit proposed section 63R, substitute the following section: Auditor-General shall report on all cases of non-compliance. `` `63R. (1) The Auditor-General shall report on all cases in which, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, the receipt, expenditure or investment of money, or the acquisition or disposal of assets, by a statutory body was not in accordance with the enactment by or under which the body was established. `(2) In this section: ``statutory body'' means a body or authority established by or under an enactment.'.''. The amendments concern related clauses 9 and 15. The essence of the changes that the Government seeks to make are contained in clause 15, but clause 9 relates thereto. Clause 15 seeks to permit the Auditor-General to report only those breaches which are, in the opinion of the Auditor-General, of such importance that they should be reported. For the reasons generally stated in my speech during the second reading debate relating to these amendments, the Opposition presses the amendments. 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(12.50 a.m.) —Again the Government does not accept the amendments moved by the Opposition. In relation to clause 9, I am advised that the words proposed to be omitted by the Opposition reflect an existing provision within the Audit Act at section 51 (1) (b) which was inserted only last year, I am advised, with the Opposition's agreement in the Senate. So again there seems to be some difference of view in this chamber compared with that expressed in the Senate. The proposed provision in clause 15 would remove the anomaly whereby the Auditor-General does not have to report on immaterial matters in the remaining types of authorities. It is an anomaly because the Parliament has already accepted the sense of the Auditor-General not having to report on minor or immaterial breaches, and the Opposition's amendments would enshrine that anomaly. Therefore, not being interested in enshrining anomalies, the Government will not accept the amendments moved by the Opposition. Amendments negatived. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. House adjourned at 12.52 a.m. (Tuesday) 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 23-24 May 1988 23-24 May 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The following notices were given: Mr Beazley to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted with effect from 22 August 1988: Standing orders 46a and 47 be omitted and the following standing order substituted: 47. When the attention of the Speaker, or of the Chairman of Committees, has been called to the fact that there is not a quorum of Members present, any Member who is within the physical limits of the Chamber shall be counted to determine whether a quorum is present and no Member shall leave the Chamber until a quorum is present or 2 minutes have elapsed. Mr Beazley to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following sessional order be adopted for the first 3 sitting weeks of the 1988 Budget sittings: In all standing and sessional orders, except standing order 200a, relating to the taking of a division or counting of the House or committee for quorum purposes, any reference to 2 minutes be omitted and 4 minutes substituted. Mr Beazley to move- That this House authorises: (1) the Speaker to make arrangements for the preliminary proceedings relating to the introduction of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89, all or part of the second reading speech of the Treasurer, and all or part of the reply to that speech by the Leader of the Opposition to be filmed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; (2) the direct, live telecast of all or part of that film and the accompanying sound of the proceedings by any television station provided that a station telecasts both speeches live and give approximately equal time to both speeches; and (3) the use by any television station of any part of the filmed proceedings and accompanying sound in subsequent news, current affairs and documentary programs. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 May 1988: Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 52. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 54. Fisheries Act-Notice-No. 213. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules-1988, No. 53. Public Service Act-Determinations-1988-Nos. 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 798) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 16 March 1988: (1) How many prescription record cards have been despatched to individual pharmacists throughout Australia. (2) How many cards does the average pharmacist use in one year. (3) Has the number of cards sent to individual pharmacists increased since the trial year, 1987. (4) What is the cost of supplying these cards. (5) Has the Government surveyed pharmacists to ascertain the number of cards actually used by individual pharmacists. (6) Is there any provision for the recall of surplus cards. (7) Can excess cards be used in subsequent years by pharmacists; if not, why not. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) About 10 million Prescription Record Forms were printed for use during the 1988 calendar year. An initial supply of 500 forms has been made to each of the approximately 5,600 approved pharmacists. The additional forms are held in store and will be provided to pharmacists as required throughout the year. (2) As Prescription Record Forms are not accountable, once the initial issue of 500 forms is made to pharmacists no composite record is held by pharmacies of further issues. This system is simple to administer and minimises the stocks required to be held by pharmacies. (3) The number of forms ordered in the first year of the Safety Net Scheme for issue to individual pharmacists was 8.75 million. The number obtained for the 1988 calendar year is 10 million. This number will ensure continuity of supply to pharmacists. (4) The cost of printing 10 million Prescription Record Forms for the 1988 calendar year is approximately $200,000. (5) With the change in Safety Net year, new Prescription Record Forms uniquely identifying the 1988 year were provided to pharmacies thus negating the requirement for pharmacists to return unused forms. (6) No, but surplus entitlement cards are recalled. (7) Excess forms cannot be used in subsequent years as they are colour coded and date printed. This assists in ease of identification for the qualifying period and will prevent fraudulent use of the forms in future periods. (Question No. 906) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 April 1988: (1) Has he or any member of his staff sighted or been made aware of any of the documents concerning Tina Wong released to me by the Director of Public Prosecutions, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act; if so, which documents have been sighted? (2) Is the Australian Federal Police (AFP) still conducting inquiries into allegations of political interference in the Tina Wong case? (3) Has a statement made by a Principal Legal Officer in the Sydney offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions provided evidence of political interference in the Tina Wong case; if so, which statement? (4) Has the statement or statements made by the Principal Legal Officer referred to in part (3) been (a) referred to the AFP; if so, when and (b) the subject of further investigation; if so, what are the results of those investigations? (5) When was the statement made and when was it brought to the attention of (a) the Minister for Justice or his staff and (b) himself or his staff? (6) Why did a member of his staff contact the Principal Legal Officer on 18 February 1988? (7) On what evidence did the staff member assert to the Principal Legal Officer that (a) certain allegations were an absolute furphy and (b) the person handling the matter may have sensed or felt that something odd was occurring at the time? (8) Will he (a) table and (b) refer to the NSW Attorney-General all documents relevant to the Tina Wong case? Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Those documents sent to the honourable member by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 12 April 1988. (2) I am advised by the AFP that the answer is no. (3) I assume the statement to which the honourable member refers is the statement referred to in the second paragraph of the letter from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of 12 April 1988. That statement does not identify the person with whom the Principal Legal Officer had a conversation. Neither the statement itself, nor any material presently available, provide evidence of political interference in the Tina Wong case. (4) (a) Yes, on 11 March 1988. (b) Yes, the result of which is that neither the statement itself, nor any material presently available, provide evidence of political interference in the Tina Wong case. (5) The statement was made between 9 and 11 March 1988. Neither the Minister for Justice nor any member of his staff have seen the statement. A member of the Minister for Justice's staff was made aware of its existence on 19 April 1988. A member of my staff was made aware of the existence of the document of 11 April 1988 and brought it to my attention shortly thereafter. A copy of the statement was received in my office on 13 April 1988. (6) At my request and in the light of the question asked by the honourable member for Flinders on 16 February 1988 a member of my staff sought to contact the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in Sydney. In the absence of the Deputy Director, the Principal Legal Officer was contacted for the reasons set out in paragraph (3) of the file note of the conversation between the Principal Legal Officer and a member of my staff. (7) (a) The reference was made in respect of the allegation that Mr Anderson, then Minister for Police in the NSW Government, had visited Tina Wong in Central Police Cells shortly after her arrest. The comment was made because of oral and written advice from the Australian Federal Police that Senior Constable B. Healy contacted Central Police Cells in Sydney and asked a police officer on duty whether Mr Anderson had visited Wong in the cells. He was told that no-one had visited her. In addition, the member of my staff was aware of the statement, which had not been rebutted in any way, made by Mr Anderson in the NSW Parliament concerning these allegations in September 1984. The staff member was also aware that the police officer who had made the allegations had made no record of the allegations at the time they were said to have been made. (b) No such assertion was made and none is recorded in the record of the conversation. (8) (a) No. (b) No, because I have been advised by the AFP and DPP that none of the material presently available discloses any offence against NSW law. (Question No. 953) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 27 April 1988: (1) Do the submissions of the osteopathic profession to the Layton Inquiry, dated 7 December 1987, and subsequently to himself, provide a substantive case for including osteopathic services in the Medicare schedule or for other forms of Government assistance to this profession. (2) Is there evidence that community benefit could occur, either through better services or reduced costs, for further recognition of this form of treatment. (3) What direct inquiry has the Government initiated in recent time to gain such information. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The submission of the Australian Council of Registered Osteopaths dated 7 December 1987 to the Medicare Benefits Review Committee (the Layton Inquiry) was received over two years after the Committee had completed its inquiry. The Committee concluded its consideration of submissions in December 1985 and presented its findings to me in June 1986. The report was tabled in Parliament on 13 November 1986. The Layton Report concluded that there was no substantive case for the inclusion of osteopathic services in the Medicare Schedule. Moreover, it recommended against an extension of the Medicare arrangements to cover on a fee-for-service basis any modality not included in those arrangements. (2) The Layton Report concluded that it was not satisfied as to the effectiveness of osteopathic services nor their cost efficiency. In addition, osteopathic services did not appear to be available on a nationwide basis. (3) The Layton Inquiry was established by the Government specifically to obtain such information. There has not been a further inquiry since then, nor is it planned that there will be one in the foreseeable future.