Thursday, 29 September 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10. a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 pharmaceutical drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat, and place them for cost-saving reasons only on a special list requiring authority from a Canberra bureaucrat; and that we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to seek permission from a bureaucrat in Canberra, who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Aldred (from 56 citizens), Mr Beale (from 15 citizens), Dr Blewett (from 54 citizens), Mr N.A. Brown (from 181 citizens), Mr Burr (from 59 citizens), Mr Cohen (from 27 citizens), Mr Dobie (from 98 citizens), Dr Hewson (from 264 citizens), Mr Howard (from 75 citizens), Mr Kent (from 26 citizens), Dr Klugman (from 27 citizens), Mr Millar (from 25 citizens), Mr Peter Morris (from 27 citizens), Mr Rocher (from 16 citizens), Mr Ruddock (from 302 citizens), Mr Sinclair (from 80 citizens), Mr Tuckey (from 302 citizens), Mr Webster (from 880 citizens) and Dr Woods (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's recent changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, resulting in more than 50 drugs-including many used for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-being placed on a restricted listing requiring doctors to seek permission from a Canberra bureaucrat before the drugs can be prescribed at the usual P.B.S. price. Furthermore, we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge of the medication required to treat a patient's particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force the doctor to waste valuable time referring the case to a public servant who has no personal knowledge of the case. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to call on the Government to immediately reverse this decision and keep its election promise of high quality, affordable and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson (from 334 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House- That we welcome Parliament's decision to increase the Pensioner Tax Rebate to $430 but point out this still leaves the allowable earnings before tax has to be paid to be less than applied in March 1983 and by June next year will be very small indeed. We also point out that the pension has not increased in real terms since 1983 and the six weeks delay from May and November to June and December further deprives pensioners of their just entitlements. We therefore call on the Parliament to: 1. To immediately restore the May/November adjustment dates for the pension and move quickly to implement the Governments promise of 1983 to reduce the delay to only one month. 2. To increase the Pensioner Tax Rebate to $800 and index this rebate. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann (from 113 citizens), Mr Beddall (from 18 citizens), Mr Blunt (from 69 citizens), Mr Humphreys (from 34 citizens), Mr Lindsay (from 21 citizens), Mr Millar (from 36 citizens) and Mr White (from 133 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned, are appalled that the Romanian Government plans the commencement of the destruction in September of 7000 villages, hundreds of thousands of peaceful homes and homesteads, thousands of churches, historic monuments and cemeteries. With this barbaric action millions of people will be disadvantaged, even sent to their death with these totalitarian actions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give these matters earnest consideration and request the Romanian Government to abandon these horrific acts against the Romanian Community and its minorities. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from 10 citizens), Mr Beddall (from 50 citizens), Mr McArthur (from 132 citizens) Mr Peacock (from 48 citizens) and Mr White (from 83 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker, and the members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to draw to the attention of Honourable Members the cynical and cruel oppression of ethnic minorities in Transylvania by the Romanian Government through the forceful relocation of village dwellers so that their villages can be demolished and used for collective farms. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House should urge the Australian Government to put diplomatic pressure on the Romanian Government to refrain from this savage act and leave these unfortunate people in their villages where they and their forefathers lived. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann (from 12 citizens). To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: A decision has been made by the Rumanian Government to completely raze villages where there are fewer than 5,000 inhabitants. This will result in the loss of approximately 7 to 8,000 villages. This is against the wishes of these people and is a complete denial of their basic human rights. It would result in total cultural genocide of regions and ethnic minorities which have a history dating back to the middle ages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia does all that is within its power and influence to immediately halt this cultural genocide. by Mr N.A. Brown (from 114 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the surveys of the Australian Bureau of Statistics represent: 1. an unnecessary demand on the time of certain Australians; 2. an intrusion into the private affairs of individuals and families; and 3. excessive penalties for non-compliance. Your petitioners therefore request that the House take action to pass legislation making government statistical surveys voluntary and to ensure the protection of the privacy of Australians from government departments and authorities. by Mr Andrew (from 15 citizens), Mr Rocher (from 32 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 251 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: It is the petition of certain citizens of Australia that some recent surveys of the Australian Bureau of Statistics relating to individuals and households and families- (1) are an excessive and unnecessary intrusion into the private affairs of individuals and families; and (2) make an unnecessary and unfair demand on the time of affected Australians; and (3) provide excessive penalties for non-compliance. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House- (1) pass legislation making such personal household and family surveys voluntary; and (2) act to protect the privacy of Australians from government departments and authorities. by Mr Rocher (from 156 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whilst acknowledging the Government's desire to contain the growth in health costs, the introduction of 61 new drugs to the `Authority Required' listing will result in potentially serious delays in patients receiving medication prescribed by their doctors. Your petitioners request the House to immediately reverse the Government's decision and withdraw these drugs from the `Authorities Required' list. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard (from 188 citizens), Mr McArthur (from 26 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 108 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament The Petition of the undersigned shows: That we oppose any mineral exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park, the Kakadu Conservation Zone, or the Alligator Rivers Region. Your petitioners ask that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Halt all mineral exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone by revoking current leases and licences and by incorporating the zone in Kakadu National Park and; Prevent proposed mining in Kakadu stages one and two by incorporating the Jabiluka and Koongarra project areas in the National Park and by proclaiming the whole park under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lamb (from 48 citizens), Mr Langmore (from 140 citizens) and Mr Sinclair (from 122 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the film, by its false and indecent portrayal of characters and conversations, does injury to the person of Jesus Christ (recognised and worshipped as God by Christians), obscenely and blasphemously misrepresenting His nature and His teachings. 2. That the film discriminates against all who hold to the truth of Christianity, by its public false depiction of their faith and the Christ Who is the object of their worship. 3. That the film is likely to be injurious to the general understanding and practice of morality through its attempted discreditation of Christianity, which espouses a high view of morality. 4. That the film, is falsifying the truth of an historically based faith, is not in the public interest as it obscures both the content and purpose of Christianity from those who may seek to know it. 5. This film, although portraying real, historical figures has displayed complete disregard for the truth. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will do everything possible to prevent this film, ``The Last Temptation of Christ'', from being registered for screening in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann (from 17 citizens) and Mr Millar (from 74 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker, House of Representatives, and Parliament assembled. Considering: The clause in the censorship guidelines which reads: ``Under provision of the regulations 13 (1) a film should not be registered if in the opinion of the board, the film is (a) blasphemous, indecent or obscene; (b) likely to be injurious to morality, or (c) to encourage or to incite to crime or (d) depicts any matter the exhibition of which is undesirable in the public interest.'' would be violated if the film ``The Last Temptation of Christ'' were permitted to be screened in our Country, we petition you to: prevent such entry of the film, as we believe on the basis of reports from other countries that the film is blasphemous, obscene and indecent. We as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair (from 287 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned at the Government's proposal to reduce significantly the pension and access to fringe benefits of persons who in good faith bought market linked insurance bonds, friendly society bonds, approved deposit funds, deferred annuities and unit trusts to protect their savings. Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, amend the proposed legislation to ensure that it will not apply retrospectively and that provision is made to protect savings against inflation. by Mr Andrew (from 79 citizens) and Mr McArthur (from 98 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Government's decision to impose the pension income test on money received from market linked investment products. This decision represents yet another attack on the Australian pensioner. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the House take action to ensure this decision is revoked. by Mr Webster (from 58 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X-rated videos (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade and the Mafia connections. Because 98 per cent of Australians in other States have banned X-rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and its availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography peddlers are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from 27 citizens) and Mr Macphee (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Bendigo respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely to a great degree on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infrastructure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Brumby (from 28 citizens) and Mr Lloyd (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely extensively on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infrastructure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, Oppose any proposal to absorb road funds into General Revenue Assistance to either Local or State Governments; and immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 2,300 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian national flag can only be changed by a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Chynoweth (from 12 citizens) and Mr Macphee (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia humbly suggests that the area known as Western Tasmania Stage 2, containing Australia's longest and deepest caves, sites of international archaeological significance, Australia's most glaciated landscape and the tallest flowering plants on Earth, is in urgent need of protection. Your petitioners therefore request that Western Tasmania Stage 2 be immediately nominated for World Heritage listing. by Mr Duncan (from 1,341 citizens) and Mr Sinclair (from 50 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: There is too much crime and violence on TV and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House compel TV stations to improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programs, by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes by fifty per cent. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 780 citizens) and Mr Lloyd (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: the video industry has no right to promote anti-social behaviour Community and professional concern has been publicly expressed over video violence and anti-social content. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House ban the hire and sale of all R-rated, X-rated and proposed Non-violent Erotica rated videos from all outlets patronised by the general public. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 161 citizens) and Mr Lloyd (from five citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of citizens of Australia points out to the House that the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 has: degraded men; lowered the status of women; affected the safety of children; and escalated crime including sexual crime. Because the Parliament has a role to play in the well-being of the people of this Nation, your petitioners therefore request that the House: 1. not adopt a Non-Violent Erotica (NVE) Video classification; 2. not permit NVE in cinemas; 3. retain section 13 of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations as it is; 4. control all Censorship criteria by substantive legislation; and 5. give earnest consideration to these matters, in order that no Attorney-General shall ever again have the power to change our social and home environment for generations to come, without thorough and full debate in both Houses of Parliament. by Mr Rocher (from 16 citizens) and Mr Shack (from 311 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We oppose the advertising of alcohol in any form. Alcohol is recognised as Australia's number one drug problem which is responsible for at least 50% of all road fatalities; a high percentage of serious crime and vandalism. Hospital beds are filled with sufferers of the many alcohol related diseases including: cirrhosis of the liver; heart disease; stomach ulcers; various forms of cancer and mental illness. Alcohol also causes much family unhappiness and marriage breakdown, as well as being involved in some cases of child abuse and molestation. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ban all advertising of alcohol on television and radio because of its persuasive effect on children and young people. by Mr Ruddock (from 236 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 23 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia, in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned electors in the State of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the introduction of the two dollar coin as a replacement for two dollar note does not have the support of the Australian people and is too easily confused with the existing five cent coin, thereby causing much confusion for both the very young and the elderly in Australia. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will act immediately to remove the coin from circulation and reinstate the two dollar note as the only two dollar currency. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann (from 141 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: It would appear evident that the content of this film is a gross distortion of both the New Testament record of Jesus and also of current scholarly findings. Also as this really cannot be considered a serious study of Jesus, it must be little more than an attempt to devalue, indeed to blaspheme the faith of Jesus Christ. Under censorship guidelines, regulation 13 (1) a film should not be registered if in the opinion of the board, the film is (a) blasphemous, indecent or obscene. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately ban the showing of this film. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from 807 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Federal Government proposes to place the anti-epileptic medication sodium valproate (`Epilim') on the `Authority only' listing as of 1st August 1988. Your petitioners believe that this may well cause great problems for the people who take Epilim, for whom no effective alternative medication is available. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will rescind the decision to place sodium valproate (`Epilim') on the `Authority only' listing. by Dr Blewett (from 26 citizens). The Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: about the evil caused by the fact that x-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt (from 233 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: In respect of sole parents on the Supporting Parents Benefit or the Widows Pension, whose youngest (or only) child has turned 16 years old and who will lose their pension or benefit from September 3, 1987 regardless of whether that child is still at school. 1. It will be difficult for them to support a child at school, especially in years 11 and 12, on unemployment benefits. 2. It will be difficult for most of them to find employment due to their lack of work skills and the high unemployment rate. 3. It will be difficult for them to undertake a retraining programme as the Austudy rate is even lower than unemployment benefits. We believe that these sole parents should be able to retain their benefit or pension at least until all their children have finished their high school education. We call on the legislature to change the legislation to this effect. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown (from 67 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that there is too much crime and violence on Television and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to call on the Federal Government to require Television Stations to improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programmes by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. by Mr Burr (from 121 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain undersigned citizens of the Division of Flinders draws to the attention of the House that: There is too much crime and violence on TV and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House: Urge TV stations to clean up their act and improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programs by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. by Mr Reith (from 181 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: the petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that The Federal Government has reaped an unprecedented amount of revenue in taxation recently, over and above expectations. PAYE tax payers are losing one quarter and more of earnings through direct tax deductions. Sales taxes which are charged on a vast range of everyday goods and necessities add to the taxes already imposed on wage earners. The range of compulsory licences, fees, and charges imposed by governments and Statutory Authorities further erode family disposable incomes. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House immediately reduce PAYE taxes and all Sales Taxes by one third and hold all Government and Statutory Authority charges at the current level for a minimum four-year period. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 99 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: the petition of certain citizens of Australia and residents of the State of New South Wales draws the attention of the House. Worksafe Australia mentions (on the Sydney Morning Herald 21.5.88) that 550 Australians died at work in 1987, last year, and that many more slipped through the Worker Compensation Statistics because they had no friend or family left behind to lodge a claim. This figure includes the 200 fatalities for NSW alone. In addition 114,000 workers were injured this year in this State. The unions say that it is because there are not enough convictions. How can there be enough convictions when so many Compensation Lawyers abuse the workers during the procedure to start with? Still 80,000 injured are trapped in the old system of Compensation. This petition aims to help reducing the number of fatalities and ordinary accidents at work by eliminating the Lawyers abuses, it has 6 claims which are: 1. All known injuries must be taken into account at the start of the procedure. 2. Dr. reports should be accepted by the Solicitors such as they are unless a complaint from the injured states that it is not right. No interference should be made with them. 3. All arrangement by the Solicitor for a medical examination should be complete and right not to be made again. 4. Barristers should be fully informed by the Solicitor of all the particulars and communicate with the injured before the Hearing to avoid further complications. 5. Judges should be independent and impartial. The right compensation should be given and correspond to the severity of the injury and cover the duration of the procedure. 6. The injured should have the right to have their cases reviewed at their own request. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House amend the existing Laws to value the life and health of workers through a fair settlement in the Court of Compensation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia request that a National public holiday be declared each year on the second Friday in September, National Aborigines' Day, starting in 1988. This would commemorate the contribution which Aboriginal people have made to the development of Australia and it would acknowledge the rich cultural heritage of the original inhabitants of this continent. This petition aims to improve race relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. by Mr Hand (from six citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their absolute opposition to the Privatisation and Deregulation of the Australian Telecommunications Industry. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House will take the necessary steps to ensure: That Telecom's social responsibilities are preserved and extended and adequately funded. That the telephone service is accessible and affordable to all. The maintenance of public ownership and control of telecommunications services in Australia. That Telecom consumer's rights are respected by the establishment of mechanisms whereby their grievances can be adequately represented. Especially domestic, small business and socially disadvantaged people within the community. Also, your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will reject current proposals to: Impose State and Local charges and taxes on Telecom. Alter the legal status, employment conditions and organisation of Telecom from a public sector service provider to a commercial corporation. Take away Telecom's regulatory function and place this with a new body called Austel. Remove Telecom's `Buy Australia' policy, thus threatening local manufacturing. by Mr Howe (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully draws to the attention of the House. That the activities of the Soviet Union in our region and in particular the South Pacific are detrimental to and threaten the security of our country. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House urge the Government not to enter into a fishing agreement with the Soviet Union. by Mr Hunt (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House the dangers to our nation's security implicit in any granting of fishing rights to the Soviet Union. Your petitioners therefore request the House to use its influence to prevent the granting of any fishing rights to the Soviets within Australia's waters. by Mr Moore (from 193 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australian families are highly dependent upon telephone communications. 2. The Australian community needs an extensive and reasonably priced telephone system. 3. For many Australians, especially the aged and infirm, the telephone provides a ready means of communication especially at times of illness. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House of Representatives will take measures to ensure that the aged, infirm, and other fixed-income groups that are dependent on telephone communication are in no way disadvantaged by any changes to the system of charging for local telephone calls. by Mr Johns (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Canberra respectfully shows: The decision to close Pearce Primary School is causing great distress and anger in the community served by the school; The decision will divide the community by forcing children to attend two different schools by drawing a line down the middle of the suburb, in contravention of the ACT Schools Authority's own publicly-stated strategy that school communities should remain intact; The consequent relocation of the primary and secondary Introductory English Centres will disrupt the operations not only of those centres, but of the schools to which they are to be relocated; The cost of closing the school and relocating its pupils far exceeds the projected savings from closure. Your petitioners therefore pray that. The House of Representatives note our strong and unified protest at the decision to close Pearce Primary School. The House resolve that the threat of closure be removed, pending an independent study of the costs and benefits of closing the school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly (from 122 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We pray that the House immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent (from 719 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, in the Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that there is widespread concern by farmer and consumers about the proposal to Irradiate Food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the house of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia 2. Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products, 3. Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation. (electron beam, X ray etc.) 4. Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Wright (from 137 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, Note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee in Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification. Call upon the House of Representatives to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X rated video material (and its R rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And Your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerr (from 421 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the House of Representatives to reject any proposal or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 248 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Indi. Draws to the attention of the House the current inadequate level of funding for road construction and maintenance and express concern that the House may have placed before it, as part of the government economic strategy, options to further reduce such expenditure, and in so doing placing an increased financial burden upon local government ratepayers. Your petitioners therefore respectfully call upon the House to ensure an increase over current road funding levels through a clear dedication of a proportion of fuel excise collected, indexed for inflation, towards roadwork and that such funding arrangements provide for a clear and reliable method of distribution to local government. by Mr Lloyd (from six citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Corangamite respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent the Australian people from being seriously affected by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The sale of violent videos, books glorifying violence, and toys of violence encourages violence in the community, and has a deleterious effect on the more vulnerable members of the community who are easily influenced. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ban the sale of violent videos, books and toys of violence, in an effort to put an end to the increasing number of violent crimes committed in this country. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McArthur (from 239 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned electors of Ballarat respectfully showeth that: 1. Roads form a valuable part of the nation's infrastructure; 2. The road construction industry is an important employer; 3. Roads support the social fabric of country communities; 4. Roads are a vital part of a district's commerce; 5. Country roads are deteriorating; 6. Deteriorating roads threaten the lives of Australians; 7. Road surface maintenance affects the efficiency of road transport; 8. Insufficient funds are being spent on roads. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. The parliament recognise the importance of roads to the economy; 2. The importance of roads to country people; 3. The parliament increase funding to maintain the road system; and 4. Grant a greater proportion of fuel taxes to road funding; 5. The parliament continue to grant specific federal funds for roads. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mildren (from 672 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and all members of the House of Representatives of Parliament. The humble petitions of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Cowper respectfully show: That your petitioners deplore the proposed changes to the incomes test under the Social Security Act as outlined in the Treasurer's Budget speech. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to reject out of hand the concept of reducing pension payments to individuals on the basis of estimated future earnings as totally inequitable and unjust. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 1,064 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Cowper respectfully showeth that: The petition of certain qualified electors, residing in the Commonwealth of Australia, petition you to raise the current taxation threshold to $10,000.00 to assist senior citizens to maintain an equitable living standard. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Increase the current taxation threshold in regard to Age Pensions to $10,000.00. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 510 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned voters shows: That the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a high rate of serious disease such as syphilis, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B and bowel diseases; That the incurable, fatal disease AIDS was first brought to Australia by homosexuals and is largely transmitted by homosexuals or bisexuals who practise sodomy; That homosexual cohabitation is in no way equivalent to a legal marriage or family relationship. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives should: Immediately request the Minister for Immigration, to forbid entry to Australia by homosexuals under the `family reunion' program. by Mr Pratt (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of N.S.W. draws to the attention of the House their concern at the violence, thuggery and intimidation of Palestinians in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, seeks support for the calling of an international conference for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, and protests at the disconnection of communication facilities, including telephones in the occupied territories. Your petitioners therefore request the House to note and support the Palestinians in the occupied territories in the current situation. by Mr Price (from 413 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that we believe the Commonwealth owned land at Buckland Hill should be retained as public open space so as to recognise, (i) its premier status in Perth's European heritage as the place of Willem de Vlamingh's landing in 1697, (ii) its historically established identity as an open area since being the first site considered for the Swan River settlement in 1827, and (iii) its importance for the future recreational needs of the people in an area already under pressure for high density residential development. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House urge the Government to: 1. Confer ownership of the Buckland Hill land upon the people of Western Australia as a Bicentennial gift. 2. Require as a condition of that gift that the land be reserved by the Government of Western Australia as inalienable public open space for the future benefit of the people of this state and the nation. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher (from 4,800 citizens). To the Honourable, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia have in past years adopted policies, which have been against the opinions of the majority of voters, for example, the Australia Card Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament pass a bill to provide for a Constitutional change so that when five per cent of the voters demands a referendum to initiate or veto legislation, the referendum shall be held within a specified time, for example, nine months, and its decision shall be binding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock (from 845 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will refer the above mentioned Bill to an appropriate Parliamentary committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will refer the above mentioned Bill to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shack (from 200 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House that: 1. Parliament should allow insurance for the gap between the Medicare rebate and the scheduled fee. 2. That the unfair discrimination against private patients in hospital should be withdrawn. Your petitioners therefore request the House take action to ensure that all patients receive an equal Medicare rebate for services regardless of where they are provided, on the understanding that all patients pay the same compulsory Medicare insurance levy. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients and calls upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 195 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the proposed showing in this country of the film `The Last Temptation of Christ'. This film is offensive to Australians because of its anti-christian, blasphemous and sacreligious nature. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the House take action to ensure that the viewing of this film in Australia is rejected by the Film Censorship Board. by Mr Webster (from 635 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth: The irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of the food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House: 1. Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. 2. Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. 3. Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. 4. Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal to deny Western Districts Health Fund Medicare agency rights in the Blue Mountains and to deny Springwood the availability of a Medicare agency altogether. The agency has provided an important service to a community characterised by its large number of young families and aged persons and by its public transport difficulties. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the termination of the Medicare agency rights for Western Districts Health Fund and the withdrawal of Medicare services in Springwood in particular. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws the attention of the House to the public concern over the creation of human embryos for the specific purpose of fatal experimental research. The citizens are concerned that human life is deliberately being created with the premeditated intention to destroy it. They believe that this is a gross breach of the responsibility that each member of the human race has to another to ensure life is allowed to thrive and develop according to nature. Your petitioners therefore request that the House do all in its power to ban the creation of embryos for the specific purpose of life destroying research. by Dr Woods (from 218 citizens). Petitions received. Debate resumed from 25 August, on motion by Mr Beddall: That the House take note of the report. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.13) —First, I want to pay a tribute to the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), and all members of the Committee for the efforts that were made to approach this important inquiry into investment in Australian manufacturing in an objective and bipartisan manner. Secondly, I thank the staff, led by Mr Paul McMahon, for the excellent work they carried out to complete this report. I wish to address the core issue briefly-that is, investment in manufacturing. As the Australian Manufacturing Council pointed out in its annual report for the year 1984-85: In the 14 years to 1983-84, Australia's GDP grew in real terms by 2.9 per cent. By comparison manufacturing output grew in real terms by 1.3 per cent resulting in the sector's share of the GDP declining from 22 per cent to 16.8 per cent. The Bureau of Industry Economics publication Investment in the Manufacturing Sector 1959-60 to 1984-85 pointed to the decline in investment in manufacturing during the 1970s compared with the 1950s and 1960s-falling from 5.9 per cent between 1954-55 and 1960-61 and 6.1 per cent between 1960-61 and 1970-71 to 0.8 per cent in the 1970s and 2.4 per cent between 1980-81 and 1983-84. Until the mid-1960s manufacturing accounted for more than 40 per cent of non-farm private gross fixed capital expenditure. It now accounts for about 20 per cent. The substantial depreciation of the Australian dollar since 1985 has improved our trading competitiveness and has led to significant increases in gross investment in manufacturing. However, there is no room for complacency against the background of our deplorable balance of payments and our huge current account deficit. This situation could have been far worse but for the outstanding performance of our agricultural and mining industries. We remain far too dependent upon our farms and mines. Our living standards are largely dependent on these industries, their efficiency and world commodity prices, which can fluctuate widely. Our manufacturing sector remains an essential element of our overall economic recovery. Our manufacturing industries require an incentive to invest. Although the corporate tax rate has been cut to 39c in the dollar, I doubt whether it will be sufficient to encourage accelerated investment in manufacturing. The following factors are shown in the report as determinants of investment: the macro-economic environment, which includes the exchange rate and the level of inflation; the current demand and expected demand for output; the level of capacity utilisation; the level of net returns; corporate taxes and any investment or depreciation allowances; real interest rates, especially among the smaller industries which are more dependent on debt capital; the cost of wages and on-wage costs; and the availability of skilled and trained labour. Whilst the report did not list these factors in any order of priority, such factors as the exchange rate, the comparative levels of inflation, the level of interest rates, the comparative wage and on-wage costs and our overall international competitiveness are obviously fundamental to the degree of confidence with which those responsible for investment decisions will invest in their enterprises. All these factors have not been conducive to investment confidence for many years. There is little wonder that there is concern about the level of investment in manufacturing. It is doubtful whether the corporate tax rate cut in itself will be sufficient to increase the investment required to boost manufacturing. Let us remember that our industries are competing against the tax concessions other nations are offering their industries. Our productivity and wage and on-wage costs and our unique work practices do not engender confidence. I am not one who believes in the so-called level playing field because it does not exist in the world scene. To attempt it unilaterally in Australia is unrealistic and will not encourage investment. I believe that incentives and disincentives will always remain as motivators. It will, in my view, retard investment in manufacturing unless we are prepared to recognise the need for incentives for investment. I hope that our Committee will update its findings in 12 months' time to ascertain whether the `level playing field' concept is sufficient to ensure that our manufacturing industries start kicking goals, increasing our export earnings and investing billions of dollars in their newfound fortune. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.18) —Like my colleague the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), I congratulate the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), on the way in which he handled the inquiry. I think we probably all found that the inquiry, as well as being of some value to the nation, was of particular value to us all. I would also like to thank the secretariat of the Committee, headed by Paul McMahon, for the diligence it displayed in assisting the Committee at all times. As has been alluded to on a number of occasions during the discussion on this report on investment in Australian manufacturing, there are some major problems with the Australian economy which have been evident for some time. The economy is vulnerable because of its undue reliance upon revenue from exports of non-value added primary industry commodities, whether derived from farming or minerals. The emphasis now has to be on diversifying our export oriented products and encouraging the development of more import replacement industries. This point has not been adequately explained to the farming community, which has for so long supplied products that have underpinned our export sector. The farming community needs reassurance from the Government that its efforts are still recognised as being crucial to the continuing health of the economy. At the same time, the experience in the industries of wheat, sugar and cotton in the last two seasons should highlight the folly of relying far too heavily upon those industries. Also, it must be stated that the external debt will require a reduction in the current account deficit of proportions unable to be met by projected sales of non-value added primary products alone. I cite the following figures: at present the current account deficit is approximately $13 billion. Eighty per cent of our exports involve commodities or primary processed products such as meat, bales of wool, et cetera. What must be understood is that, if that figure of 80 per cent was increased to 100 per cent, our current account deficit would rise from $13 billion to $30 billion. I emphasise-and I have had this discussion with quite a number of farmers in my electorate-that the farm sector is still crucial, because we need every dollar that we can get from the export market. We should not just throw out a product because it is non-value added. What we must do is broaden the base to incorporate the non-value added and primary processed products with the more processed products that are of higher value, and move into different industries so that we are making certain that there is value added. We are a little profligate, because we do not really recognise the significance of the resources that we have in this country which ought to be developed into value added products. Instead, we tend to sell them either as non-value added products or with just an initial processing having been done. For instance, with regard to bauxite, we just sell aluminium. To a large degree that is like selling solidified electricity. The maximum value is not being put into those products. Mr Barry Jones —Iron ore and ball bearings. Mr MILDREN —That is the same sort of thing. I make these points because the strengthening of the Australian economy through broadening its base in a revitalised manufacturing sector is also very critical to the nation's future. The terms of reference of the inquiry into investment in Australian manufacturing industry demonstrate the concern that the Government and the Parliament feel about this issue. The terms of reference were two-fold. The first stressed the need to determine current levels of investment in Australian manufacturing industry, and the second was to investigate policies with potential to improve the performance of investment in the sector. Initially, it became evident that there were problems in defining and measuring the various types of investment. It is important that this matter be addressed, because each facet of investment has its own significance for the restructuring that is required. For instance, investment in physical capital has tended to fluctuate seriously over the last three decades and, because of policy anomalies, has not produced the desired results. The investment which occurred during the late 1970s was primarily led by a much vaunted but little realised minerals boom, so it was not surprising that there was some reluctance on the part of industry to invest in the early 1980s. The investment which has taken place since 1985 has been encouraging. It must be recognised that it comes from a very low base. It resulted from a deep depreciation of the Australian dollar in 1985. There is some concern that this investment in export oriented manufacturing should be undertaken on the assumption that the depreciated dollar will remain at a low level. In restructuring these industries it is critical that the advantage of a low dollar value be seen as a window of investment opportunity that will help industry to get its act together in the long term. We must always monitor the situation so that, in the long term, those incentives which we consider important to trigger the process are not left for too long. There is plenty of evidence that, by doing so, industry adjusts to the level of incentive rather than recognises that incentive is a take off point. That, to me, is critical. I have just been informed by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) that it is about time I finished. I just want to make a couple of other points. It has to be recognised that a revitalised economy is bound to result in an appreciated currency, especially in a deregulated money market. It is with this expectation in mind that industry investment plans need to be put in place. Quite obviously, the investment problems cannot be solved without attention to the particular difficulties that small business have in attracting either capital for development or risk equity. This has to be understood because it can stifle the development of those niches that we need to be able to fill. Finance houses tend to want quick returns and, in Australia, unfortunately they have an appalling tendency to invest in the non-manufacturing sector. There is strong evidence that the increasing level of investment has been assisted by the 150 per cent tax incentive scheme. I hope we ensure that that research and development scheme is not so seriously affected by the Government's policies that it would then have a stifling effect upon the development of those industries that we need and which the Committee has identified. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.28) —In the few minutes available to me I also want to congratulate the Chairman and the secretariat on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled Investment in Australian Manufacturing. I want to mention a couple of the important aspects in this report. Obviously, investment in manufacturing is crucial to the future of this nation, although we will continue for a long time to rely to a considerable degree on our primary industry exports. Nevertheless, it is very crucial that we restructure our manufacturing industry to ensure that we develop especially the export manufacturing sector. We must also ensure that we have investments so that much of our domestic manufacturing demand is supplied through Australian companies, corporations and industries. I want to focus on one aspect of the report. I am pleased that the report recognises the very important role of the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) and other such public bodies in terms of their crucial role for investment. Indeed, the Committee recommended: That the government take steps to strengthen the AIDC so that it can make an effective contribution to industry restructuring, including ensuring that it has a sufficiently strong capital base to participate in comparatively risky equity investments. This is an important matter because often in this House we hear many people saying that we should reduce the investment role of the public sector and bodies such as the AIDC. As the report quite clearly shows, there are certain risky areas where the private sector is very reluctant to invest anything at all, especially if it does not see quick short term profits. In that sort of context, it becomes very important to have a body, such as the AIDC, and to make that body as strong as possible. A similar role was played earlier by the management and investment companies (MICs) in encouraging investment in high technology industries. I think there is no doubt about-and the report confirms this-the important role which the MICs and government concessions, through the MICs, play in encouraging investment in high technology and high risk industries. We must recognise that the general tenor of the report is that it is always important for the Government to play a role in monitoring investment and in ensuring that there is substantial investment in manufacturing. Various means should be available to the Government. If there is a reduction in manufacturing investment, the Government should intervene at that point to ensure that that kind of investment takes place. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) mentioned that he does not agree that there should be a level playing field. That is an interesting point because most members opposite want as much of a level playing field as possible in relation to investment in all types of different industries. Personally, I agree with the honourable member for Gwydir that manufacturing is a special case, that investment in manufacturing is something that we should focus on and that it should have special incentives. Of course, it would be good if we had agreement on both sides of the House as to what those incentives should be and on how we should proceed in relation to them. Perhaps the honourable member for Gwydir could help in achieving that goal because there is no question that, if we are to achieve an increase, especially in relation to manufacturing exports, we will have to target that area more and achieve better results. Another important factor in the report with respect to this matter is its general condemnation of much of the useless activity in terms of takeovers of companies. Many takeovers have been purely speculative and have done nothing for the achievement of new investment in manufacturing. The report makes no recommendation as to how we should deal with this problem of purely speculative takeovers where one company is taken over by another and, instead of there being any new investment, there is often asset stripping and de-investment. The report says nothing about that except to recommend to Treasury that it is a serious problem which should be looked at. I look forward to the Government's response to this report, particularly with respect to this very serious problem, because we will continue to have fluctuations in the stock exchange and a lot of takeover and speculative activity with insufficient investment in jobs and manufacturing production. It is a crucial problem that needs to be addressed. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.33) —I move: That this House condemns the insidious, sinister activities of the League of Rights in this country which are aimed at undermining public respect for, and public confidence in, the democratic institution of Parliament and its elected representatives. I join with other members of parliament from all political persuasions in continuing to expose the Australian League of Rights. It is an organisation which, to quote the Country Liberal Party senator for the Northern Territory, Senator Grant Tambling, has `already infiltrated the community, spreading racist, anti-semitic and neo-nazi philosophies'. I ask honourable members to recall the speech that Senator Ron Boswell, the National Party senator from Queensland, made in the Senate on 27 April this year when he described the League as a `subversive' and `destructive' organisation. He also claimed that it `thrives wherever there is discord, dissension, frustration, fear, resentment and financial hardship'. There is a library of evidence to back up these allegations. It is an organisation which has dominated the extreme right of the political arena in Australia for almost half a century. However, it has been repeatedly underestimated for its political influence and, more importantly, its financial clout. The Australian League of Rights is one of the most sophisticated political organisations and structures in this country and it has carefully and strategically infiltrated what could add up to hundreds, if not thousands, of organisations and associations right across the country. It has established front organisations everywhere, including Wake Up Australia, Women Who Want to be Women, The Logos Foundation, Ladies in Line Against Communism, the Australian Heritage Society, Australians Speaking Up, the Immigration Control Association, the Christian Institute for Individual Freedom, the Conservative Speakers Club, the Institute for Economic Democracy, Voter's Veto, the Citizens Electoral Councils, Citizens for Democracy, and the many social credit groups. It has access to unlimited funds. During the recent referendum campaign, the League paid for and distributed an estimated one million copies of the newspaper Wake Up Australia. It had them personally delivered to hundreds of thousands of household letterboxes in every State-in some cases two and three editions. It is estimated that the cost of this publication, the advertisements and distribution is over $1m. At the same time the League is funding other publications and newspapers such as Inside News, Ladies Line, Intelligence Survey, Enterprise, Intelligence Line, On Target and the infamous New Times. Mr Hunt —Peter Sawyer. Mr WRIGHT —I will come to Peter Sawyer. The League employs nine full time directors and organisers, and one estimate given to my be one of its own people is that it has at least $1m to spend just to run its organisation. It funds unlimited travel, it has speaking engagements not only in Australia but all over the world, and it has a direct mailing and cassette tape and video distribution that is the envy of every political party. It is nothing for it to bring international speakers to this country or send its people to other countries throughout the world. On 2 July this year the League, through one of its high profile leaders, extremist Michael Darby, paid $7,000 to meet the costs of a tour by Peter Sawyer to southern Queensland and the city of Rockhampton, which I represent. The question needs to be asked: Where is the money coming from? Jackie Butler has a group called Women Who Want to be Women which takes the responsibility for producing Wake Up Australia. There are about 20 members in the organisation. The Logos Foundation has a number of dedicated, although I believe duped, followers, but its annual income is believed to be only a few thousand dollars a year from donations. The material it sends out would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The League of Rights itself admits that it does not actually have any members but apparently it has access to millions of dollars for spending. The referendum campaign was not just an isolated case. The gun lobby campaign against the New South Wales Government was another. Michael Darby, the extremist from New South Wales, came to my city and said, for example, that this country had signed an international covenant to disarm every Australian person. It is totally untrue, but it is all part of what people such as this do. It was the League also that funded the expensive campaign against the Bill of Rights and the Australia Card. It sent tens of thousands of tapes and videos and hundreds of thousands of letters all over Australia. The Perth based Veritas publishing company, though very small, has been able to circulate again tens of thousands of free booklets and pamphlets. Mr Barry Jones —And they published David Irving's book. Mr WRIGHT —I am going to mention that as well. This publishing house repeatedly denies having any link with the League of Rights, but coincidentally it publishes the League's evil anti-semitic and racist publications. As the Minister just pointed out, it published David Irving's infamous book Churchill's War, which claims that it was Winston Churchill and not Adolf Hitler who was responsible for the death of millions of Allied soldiers and civilians during the Second World War. Irving is the English writer who says he is an historian revising history. He claims that Hitler did not even know about the annihilation of the Jews and he did not order it. They are the same sorts of views that Eric Butler holds. It is sheer coincidence, I suppose, that those views are held by Eric Butler-or is it? It is very interesting that Veritas published Irving's book when none of the main publishing houses of the world would touch it. It is not surprising also that Veritas publishes racist material like Geoffrey McDonald's anti-Aboriginal tract Red over Black. It publishes the anti-Jewish book The Diary of Anne Frank-a Hoax. It distributes the anti-Zionist publications None Dare Call it Conspiracy. It also produces and distributes dozens and dozens of anti-semitic and racist publications like The Myth of Racial Equality and The International Jew. In recent times, however, the League has significantly lifted its public profile. I was told by one of the supporters of its organisation that every week the League is sponsoring a public meeting somewhere in this country. It is quite a frightening thing. It has speakers like Jeremy Lee, Peter Sawyer, Michael Darby, Butler and so on travelling this nation and travelling the world. Who is paying for it? The public face, however, is quite different and it makes one understand why people will support the League. It paints an image of a Christian based, God-fearing organisation. It sometimes opens its meetings in prayer. Its speakers repeatedly make references to the Bible. It also involves unsuspecting local church ministers and pastors, even asking them to let the League use their pulpits. It proclaims God, Queen and country as the cornerstones of belief and then it very subtly, effectively and very strategically undermines and chips away at parliamentarians, governments, bureaucracies, political parties, and authority generally, specially using ridicule. At the moment it is promoting the outlandish allegations and predictions of Peter Sawyer about a world conspiracy centring on Australia. I debated Peter Sawyer in Rockhampton about his 60 or so allegations and predictions. Not one has been proven; not one has come true. For instance, he said that in February or March this year there would be an Aboriginal uprising and half the people would be killed. He said there was a black army operating in northern Australia, but that has been totally denied by our security forces. He said 7,000 Russian rifles had been smuggled into the country and that he had photographs of them, but he would not show those photographs. He said earlier this year that the whole country would become a cashless society based on a gold currency. He said that the Deakin centre in Canberra was an national surveillance centre. He said that this Parliament House was built for a world government. He said pensioners this year were going to have all their pensions taken away and only have vouchers. As I said, not one of these predictions has come true. When he was taken on in a recent radio interview he said he was premature; he said then that it would happen in six months' time, in October-November. So we still have to wait. Trevor Perrett, the member for Berambah, is part of this citizens electoral group supported by the League of Rights and others. He went to the Deakin centre at my invitation, and has now sent me a letter refuting the allegations of Peter Sawyer. It is not surprising that even Eric Butler is now writing in his New Times magazine that Mr Sawyer may be wrong. But the League of Rights has used the man; it has used him to undermine confidence in government, to create fear and dissension among people. That is all part of the insidious and sinister activities of the League of Rights. It is infiltrating churches and community groups. It is setting up its own front organisations. It is going along to every sort of respectable group. Its members front at the Country Women's Association, the Returned Services League, Lions International and Rotary groups as speakers. The League is prominent also in stirring up all sorts of issues, including the logging issue in north Queensland. It has been claimed by a Northern Territory parliamentarian that the League is behind some of the Aboriginal problems up there because it is supplying alcohol to the Aboriginal people. Its most recent and open activity involves the Voters Veto group, also known as the citizens electoral councils. It is forming cell groups right across the nation, pushing the idea of voters referendums on any issue and the right to initiate legislation. All these things can sound reasonable to ordinary people, but it has to be realised that it is part of the plot to attack and destabilise government. The League has also targeted the Fabian Society. I am not a member of the Fabian Society, but the League has been telling total lies, just as Hitler did. It has raced around promoting a book, a copy of which I have in my office, that says that the emblem of the Fabian Society is a wolf in sheep's clothing. As I said, I am not a member of the Society, but I rang one of its heads and asked about its emblem. He said it was a tortoise. But people do not bother to check; they simply believe these things. The League just picks an enemy, targets someone, and in this instance it has targeted the Fabian Society-a group that has linked politicians from all sides of the political arena. The League adds this to its anti-semitic strategy. It is quite frightening because good, caring people are getting caught up in the League's net. The ministers of some churches are handing over their pulpits to the League. Pamphlets are being sent through some of the schools, quite illegally, and it has infiltrated local organisations, including farmer groups and even some local councils. I am told that now it is targeting small business associations. It has a very clever and sophisticated propaganda machine that would make Goebbels envious. The use of cassette tapes and videos as a method of communication has been given a new meaning, and it has developed a network of writers to every letters to the editor column in every newspaper in the country. It has an army of people who organise and write form letters or threaten members of parliament and others who do not agree with them. Honourable members have probably all received such a letter; it starts of, `It is my will that . . . '. We all have them; they are coming through in hundreds. The League cannot be brushed off as just a group of a few fanatics. Remember that the Germans did this in the late 1920s and early 1930s, with Hitler and his Brownshirts. We know what happened there. I suggest we need to wake up, as Australians, as Jackie Butler says-but we need to wake up to this festering, cancerous and very dangerous movement; a movement that is anti-Jew, racist, anti-democracy, anti-establishment and anti-bank. It is anti-everything except for its own type of domination. I am asking honourable members to join with me in supporting this motion of condemnation. We need to be concerned, not only at an Australian Labor Party level but right across the community. Churches need to be concerned. The problem is not new. In 1971 the Right Hon. Doug Anthony, a former Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party of Australia, said that the League was disreputable, racist, anti-semitic and pro-nazi. The head of the National Party in Queensland, Sir Robert Sparkes-when that man speaks out against something, on the right of politics, it has to be wrong-has issued a warning to the National Party in Queensland that its branches are being infiltrated and taken over by the League. There has to be concern here because of the similarities between the nazis of Germany and this group. They are unmistakable. The League is nationalistic, allegedly pro-morality, disciplinarian and anti-semitic. Its strategy is to target common enemies-first of all the Jews, then the Fabians, and the financial institutions. It is frightening. It is sowing dissension, it is preying on people's fears, and it is exploiting people's predicaments. The League targets local issues just to generate unrest. It is internationally linked, it is backed in some way by unlimited finance. I am calling for an all party parliamentary committee of inquiry into the activities of the Australian League of Rights. There is need to expose publicly its hidden agenda. There is a need to trace its financial source. There is a need to awaken Australians to this threat to its democratic institutions from within-the most insidious, sinister threat coming from the most extremist force that this nation has ever seen. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Hunt —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to speak? Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.46) —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have not done any research for this speech, but I support the concern expressed by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), who has just moved the motion. I hope that we can get all party support for the motion. I believe that there should be an all party inquiry into the activities of the League of Rights, which I see as a despicable, divisive movement stirring up racial hatred, creating anti-Jewish fever and backing people who are prepared to frighten other people with all sorts of fears. There are certain activities of the League of Rights, certain objectives, that we on our side of politics have supported, such as the opposition to the Bill of Rights. We welcomed its support in that case. The League of Rights has latched onto issues that are of concern to the community, but it is the basis of its activities that causes me a great deal of concern. Elements of the League of Rights have been active in my electorate for nearly 20 years, for practically the whole time that I have been in Federal Parliament. In fact, in 1972 there was an attempt to defeat me in the electorate of Gwydir when the appetite of the movement was whetted because its supporters believed that they were successful in defeating Mr Gordon Freeth in Western Australia simply because he spoke out against their activities at that time. The time has come to take their activities seriously and to expose their real motives. We have come a long way during my lifetime in this world in trying to bring people together, trying since the last war to create a more peaceful existence for our children and for the future of this nation. There is no room in this world for continuing divisions between people. Because of our means of communication and transportation, we live in a world that gets smaller and smaller every year. None of us has a God-given right to believe that we own it or have any more power than another. The time has come to try to rid this country of divisive elements that create difficulties between races, people and sections of the community. Although we in this House have different parties and different basic philosophies, we sit here together at times trying to reach a consensus on issues that are important to the Australian people. In this century we have come nowhere if we tolerate such groups in the community and let them go, without opposition or examination, as has happened in the past, creating bitterness, division and fear. Mr Sawyer has built fear into the hearts of people, many of whom do not sleep at night because they believe that this Parliament, as the honourable member for Capricornia has said, is to be the world parliament, with a secret tunnel between here and the Deakin centre, with communication networks to the Jews of Brussels. We are told that out in the pine forests of Canberra one of the Rothschilds is building homes and bunkers for the day when the big bang comes. The League is anti-Jewish, anti-Rothschild. It blames the Rothschilds for the last war; it blames the Rothschilds and the Jews for all the problems we have encountered in this century and before. The allegations are outrageous and his writings in Inside Canberra are in many cases totally libellous but not many people have bothered to take out libel actions. Mr Wright —He is a man of straw. Mr HUNT —He is a man of straw, and even the League of Rights itself has started to realise that it is funding a person who is a man of straw and who has made incredible allegations. I had to put out a statement in my electorate earlier this year to counter the story and the writings at that time that there was to be an Aboriginal rebellion on the day we celebrated Australia Day in Sydney Cove. We were told that there would be bloodshed. We were told that the Russians were bringing guns into this country, and Alan Bond was supposed to be harbouring them in an arsenal in Perth. They were to be distributed to the Aborigines to block every highway and to create an uprising so that the Russians or the United Nations could come into this country and once again restore peace. It did stir up people in my electorate, and I had to put out a statement on the eve of the Australia Day celebration saying that people should be calm and should not be led to believe this sort of incitement was likely to occur. I support the motion and, what is more, I believe that the honourable member is right and that there should be an all party committee of inquiry into the League's activities. Those activities need to be exposed through such an inquiry. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(10.52) —I support the motion, and perhaps will come at it from a different angle. Certain people in my electorate have approached me recently with a series of stories about world government and domination. They have been throwing around accusations and asking questions such as `Are you a Fabian socialist?'; `Do you know that the Prime Minister was a Rhodes scholar?'; and so on and so forth. I admit that my first response was to laugh. I did not believe that the accusations meant anything to the person making them. I did not believe that some people in my electorate actually believed some of the things that they were saying to me. On each occasion-I am thinking of two women in particular-I had to sit down for an hour to an hour and a half and go through all of this material they had been fed and one by one knock down each of the foolish propositions. All honourable members who have people coming to them with the sorts of accusations that the League of Rights, the Citizens Electoral Council, the Logos Foundation and other groups put forward should sit down with these people and give them the time in order to debrief them. There is a temptation not to take these things seriously, but there are a number of naive people in the Australian electorate-out in the suburbs-who may be in difficult circumstances who want to believe that there are simple answers to complex problems, who want to see the world in terms of black and white, who want to believe that there may be an ultimate government. This matter must be taken seriously. Let me put to the House some of the propositions that these two women in particular threw around. First they would ask, `Do you support your electorate or your political party?'. They would ask me whether I was a Fabian socialist. This morning I looked up the definition, and I will come back to it in a moment. They repeated,`Do you know that Bob Hawke and others were Rhodes scholars?'; `Do you support the citizens initiated referendum?'. I was asked whether I knew that the United Nations and groups like the International Monetary Fund really ran the world, were run by Jews and so on and so forth. I was asked whether I was a humanist. In disbelief I heard these sorts of accusations, but I thought that I should explain these things to them. Let us run through these accusations, especially for people who are listening to this debate. Do I support a party or do I support my electorate? The implication of the question is that people simply do not understand how our democratic process or our Parliament works. I tried to explain that one morning someone will come into my electorate office and ask for an increase in pension and that that, all other things being equal, requires an increase in tax rates. The next day someone else will ask that tax rates be cut. How do I reconcile the apparently irreconcilable needs of my electorate? Someone wants taxes increased; someone else wants them cut. We use political parties to debate, reach consensus and find solutions. There is a simple retort to the unbelieving questions that these people put to us. Do I support my Party or the electorate? I do my best for the electorate, but I resolve the differences in my electorate within my political party and the Government. Am I a Fabian socialist? I do not know. I do not belong to the Fabian Society. The Fabians are a fairly conservative group of democratic socialists who want to change things very cautiously, who do not want any sharp breaks in the political process. They simply gradually want to improve things. Mr Wright —They are against revolution. Mr JOHNS —That is right. Again, why is that accusation so powerful in the minds of these people? Fabian socialists really are not anyone to deal with; they are not attempting to overturn the parliamentary processes. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) is a Fabian. Certainly, these people are not revolutionaries. But these questions arise and we need to sit down with these people in the electorate and explain things to them. They ask whether I support citizen initiated referenda. In some ways I do, but the recent lesson taught to us was that referenda do not work in this country by and large. It is not a very powerful mechanism that these people want to thrust upon us. Citizen initiated referenda probably will never work. If we attempted to run government by referenda we would get nothing done. Again, these people bring to me a proposition that has no foundation but which needs to be explained to them in nice simple terms. They ask whether I am a humanist. To the extent that humanism means the belief in human effort and ingenuity to improve the world and the lot of our fellows rather than in a god who might solve everything for us, I am a humanist. Again, that is not such a difficult or revolutionary proposition. There are many in this Parliament who are humanists, but who, I suspect, at least philosophically, are Christian; that is, they believe in looking after their fellow men. To care for one's neighbour is a basic Christian tenet. If someone alleges that I am a humanist or a Fabian socialist, it does not worry me at all. Both of those sorts of people are by and large those who have a Christian ethic. They may not read or believe in the Bible or a god but they have a Christian ethic of looking after people, of attempting to solve problems and to create progress. If people are naive enough to take these tags given to them by the League of Rights and others and to spread them, one must sit down with them, take each accusation and rebut it. One must take the time to do that. I will look briefly at some of the things that the Logos Foundation and the Citizens Electorate Council are hoping to achieve. Brian McDermott, Chairman of the South Coast Citizens Electoral Council, said: The way I see the CEC, the Citizens Electoral Council, is that it is Christianity in action. That is to say it's practical Christianity out in the field. He goes on at length. I make another appeal here. There seems to be some infiltration by the League of Rights, and those sorts of groups, into some of the churches, perhaps the more fundamentalist churches. I have a great many of that type of Christian in my electorate, those who belong to the Christian Outreach Centre, the Assembly of God, and so on. I visit them. It seems that some members of these groups are more likely to be taken in by the propaganda of the League of Rights. I say to those churches: `Please help in this fight against the League of Rights. If you have people coming to you with these amazing allegations send them to me and we will talk it over'. I do not like receiving in my mail the sort of propaganda which says that God should run this Parliament and that God has all the solutions. I am not aware that God could solve the current account deficit for us, or help out pensioners by avoiding the market linked investments, or that He understands the movement of interest rates, or that He can solve the wages-tax trade-off. There is a fundamental separation in this country between religion and politics. Please let us keep it that way. I do not believe that the Bible has any lessons for us when it comes to, in the terms of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the main game, that is, running the economy of this country. But it gives us moral guidance. I am aware of that. I like the basic rules which the Bible tells us about how to live and care for each other. But for goodness sake, it should not be read as some sort of handbook on how to run a government. I appeal to the churches to say to the League of Rights and those sorts of people: `Stop! Do not use our organisation and our beliefs to further your political ends'-something which appears to be happening in Queensland and certainly in my electorate of Petrie. I would like those churches which have people coming to them with these crazy notions given to them by the Logos Foundation and the League of Rights to send them to me so that we can talk it through and help them understand the fundamental separation of church and state, so that these amazing accusations about Fabianism and world government and the rest of it can be talked through quietly, in a settled manner, so I can persuade them of the foolishness of the accusations which they make. I fully support the proposition. If we were to set up some sort of parliamentary committee on this matter I would dearly love to be part of that committee. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.02) —There have been many times in this chamber and in the former chamber when I would have taken issue with matters that were raised by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), sometimes on fundamental, philosophical and political points, and sometimes on matters as incidental as the calling of a quorum, or something like that. But this morning I rise not to take issue with him but to agree with the motion that he has put to the House and that has been seconded by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). It is true that we have in our electorates-I suspect it is true for all of us-a tendency to want to believe the worst in any situation. It is certainly true that we all seek simplistic answers to difficult and complex problems. It is no less true that when people put a point of view in a charismatic and persuasive way we are inclined to want to agree with them because it is comforting to think that there will be some sort of simplistic answer. The desire to seek a simplistic answer and endorse it is never more apparent than it is when times are tough economically or when, for example, in rural Australia, there is a drought and people are grasping at straws to survive. In 1988, when we are celebrating our bicentenary, we seem to be looking at an Australia in which there is a great deal of concern because of the breakdown of traditional family structures, because of the impact of drugs on our young people and because of the way in which a number of people are endeavouring to escape society as we know it. Into this environment it has been easy for all sorts of groups around the political spectrum-and in this case for the League of Rights-to get an audience. I have resented-and the honourable member for Capricornia has outlined his resentment-the way in which the League of Rights has used Mr Sawyer in order to irritate and alarm people in my electorate of Wakefield. Like every other member in this House I have had people phoning my electorate office expressing concern about what they saw as Mr Sawyer's predictions-predictions that Australia Day 1988 would see some sort of Aboriginal riot, predictions that this would become the seat for some form of world government, and predictions that the Deakin centre contained some sort of massive computer network which had every Australian on file and which would be used to trace the actions of every Australian. Mr Hunt —A massive bank teller machine. Mr ANDREW —That is right. This computer network would be extended so that every bank transaction, for example, was recorded at the Deakin centre. The honourable member for Capricornia should rejoice in the endorsement of what he has had to say by this side of the House and, might I be so bold as to add, by the honourable member for Gwydir because it has from time to time been convenient for people to suggest that there was sympathy on this side of the House, particularly among my National Party colleagues, for this group and for this action. I believe that the honourable member for Gwydir has more than adequately indicated that he joins the honourable member for Capricornia in the motion before the House today. With respect to the honourable member for Capricornia, I think that this matter was most adequately and courageously addressed by Senator Ron Boswell in the other House. I stand this morning to applaud Senator Boswell for the comments that he was prepared to make and for the way in which he carefully and skilfully enunciated what he believed the League of Rights to be about. I applaud Senator Boswell because I found his speech so helpful that I have sent it to a number of my constituents who have written to me expressing concern about the actions of the League. This resolution has also been supported by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) and I do not want to take issue with anything that he has said, except perhaps to dispute, if I may, some of his finer theological points. From my own understanding-and, I suspect, the understanding of some of the honourable member's colleagues-the Christian ethic is just a little more than care for fellow human beings. I would have thought that the capacity to care for fellow human beings was something on which Christians had no monopoly at all. In fact, human beings generally manage to care for each other unless they are sinking into some form of animal relationship, one to the other. Without taking issue with the honourable member for Petrie, I just want to point out that his left of centre philosophy and my right of centre philosophy would both be a disaster were it not for the capacity of the Christian ethic to reform either. That is the only point in the debate with which I would take issue. I simply wish to say on behalf of this side of the House that I am pleased to support the honourable member for Gwydir and the honourable member for Capricornia in their comments in the debate this morning. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 13 October 1988. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Thursday, 13 October 1988. The report read as follows- Pursuant to sessional order 28D, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 13 October 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. Delegation report Statements upon presentation Delegation to 33rd Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference Report [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 30 minutes] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted *1 MR CHYNOWETH: To move-That this House- (1) recognises the serious environmental threat posed by the greenhouse effect; and (2) believes that urgent steps should be taken to implement and maintain research into the greenhouse effect and that such research should be funded by means of a levy on polluters and pollutants. (Notice given 31 August 1988.) 1 hr *2 MR JOHNS: To move-That this House acknowledges the debt of the Australian community to veterans and the need to compensate them for their sacrifices, and notes the achievements of the Government in providing for the welfare of veterans in times of restraint in public expenditure. (Notice given 28 April 1988.) 30 mins *3 MR SMITH: To move-That this House- (1) recognises the importance of science and research to the future economic and social well-being of Australia; (2) acknowledges the contribution made to Australia's economic growth by the flagship of Australian science, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO); and (3) notes the rapid decline in support for science, including the CSIRO, by the Government and accepts an urgency to address the appalling situation. (Notice given 27 September 1988.) any remaining private members' business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.09) —I move: That this House rejects the ongoing use of taxpayers' funds for public enterprises which would be more appropriately funded by the private sector. In moving this motion this morning I point to the devastating effect that government policy is having on a number of institutions run by the Government today. Particularly, I point to the devastating effect it is having on the capital base that these corporations require in order to compete in today's market. The calls on the public purse which come to mind most readily include that from Qantas Airways Ltd, where $400m was identified by the company's management, and on top of that I presume another $150m will be needed for the share of Air New Zealand. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has its hand out for $160m, while Australian Airlines has said that it wants $450m up to 1995. On top of that, the Commonwealth Bank has clearly indicated a requirement for up to $1 billion over the next three years. The Commonwealth Bank underscores, probably more than any other institution that the Government owns, its chronic shortage of funds and its dramatic need to bolster its capital base. While the funds of the Commonwealth Bank erode, the private banks which operate in competition with it have raised significant capital sums this year-the National Australia Bank, $603m and Westpac Banking Corporation, $740m. These are the sorts of funds required by the banks. I am sure that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) will concede that because he probably has some shares in them. The best the Commonwealth Bank can do is to increase Australia's international indebtedness by raising a $400m floating rate issue on the Euromarket. That is not bad for a government enterprise. Despite severe funding pressure on these and other government organisations and the host of additional benefits that would flow from privatisation, the Federal Government has not yet seen the light. By contrast, the Federal Opposition's stance is well known and highly respected. The coalition unashamedly regards a considered and sophisticated program of asset sales as very much part of the main economic game. Let me assure honourable members opposite that privatisation is not some crazed or ideological obsession. Above all, it is about ensuring a better return for taxpayers and consumers. The coalition believes that a considered privatisation approach is central to the objective of achieving a lean and efficient public sector-a public sector freed from the burdens of running enterprises which more appropriately belong in private hands. Privatisation fits into the grand plan. It promotes efficiency, fosters employee participation, benefits consumers, develops the sophistication of the capital markets and, most importantly, alleviates the burden on the taxpayer by applying the proceeds of sales to the retirement of Australia's massive public debt. Despite all the hoo-ha, privatisation is the real answer to Australia's problems. This is the Liberal point of view and it is well known and widely endorsed. The policy is workable and, unlike Government policies, which are in a state of flux, it is set in concrete. And, surprise, surprise, even the press endorse it. What of the overseas experiences in relation to the private sector? Countries all over the world have abandoned the belief that governments, with support of state enterprises, can deliver sustained economic prosperity. Even the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, would concede that. The overwhelming belief in more than 60 countries, ranging from New Zealand to the Caribbean, is the ringing endorsement of the role of the market-place. Even on a visit to Russia a couple of weeks ago, I found it quite evident that the new mood of the leadership in Russia is attempting to put some personal initiative into the market-place to allow the citizens of that very substantial nation some element of private enterprise and introduce some competition into the market-place in the hope of raising productivity. That is a significant step by the world's leading communist power. The Russians can see it; the only bunnies left are members of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). They cannot see it. Mr Barry Jones —What about China? Mr MOORE —The Chinese can see it; they have made some concessions in this area. The obvious manifestation of this new direction is, of course, privatisation. The United Kingdom remains the foremost example of the merits of this program. Honourable members should compare the performance of that country's nationalised industries prior to 1979 with the performance of its private companies since that date. The Liberal-National Party answer to the problem is that we have noticed the aggressive approach taken by the United Kingdom Government in the area of privatisation. As a consequence the Federal Opposition has adopted an approach which, we believe, is both mild and non-controversial. In our first term of government we have nominated the sale of the following key government assets: Aussat, Australian Airlines, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Australian National Line, the Commonwealth Bank, domestic and international airport terminals, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Medibank Private, Overseas Telecommunications Commission, the Pipeline Authority and Qantas Airways Ltd. Most of these assets comprise commercial enterprises already operating and competing in the private sector. Consequently, their transition to private ownership will be relatively painless. Let me compare this with the position of the ALP. We have already looked at what we would do; let us see what the Government intends in relation to asset sales. The ALP has pursued a unique role, positioning itself diametrically opposite all international privatisation precedents. It is even at loggerheads with its mates in New Zealand. It is also firmly at odds with its alleged conversion to market-driven economics. That might be difficult for the honourable member for Calwell to accept but it is certainly what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) says. The world's greatest Treasurer need only read Euromoney magazine, the Economist or the Financial Times-all the papers that the honourable member for Calwell would read-to assess the worldwide market endorsement of the privatisation programs. Anyone can read those papers; they are freely available-even in Russia. Instead, the Treasurer and his band of backsliding economic rationalists continue to pursue an approach defiant of conventional economic wisdom. At a time when governments are selling their business enterprises, this Government is doing the very opposite and undertaking organisational changes to entrench them in the public sector. Some of the managerial reforms and efficiency measures we support to the extent that they make these institutions easier, eventually, to privatise. However, the Government's motive is entirely different. The Government's motive is to allow these enterprises to compete more aggressively with their private sector counterparts. It is an approach which wholeheartedly endorses the role of the state in private markets, irrespective of whether any social objective is to be achieved. To illustrate my point I instance some recent developments: Qantas's bid for 25 per cent of Air New Zealand, which is a continuation of government market intrusion; Telecom's joint ventures with Hewlett Packard and, more recently, with Fujitsu Australia Ltd; the Overseas Telecommunications Commission's $40m space contract with Intelsat; and the Commonwealth Bank's interest in buying a significant stake in the Bank of New Zealand. Such an approach is reminiscent of the economic wisdom which saw postwar Britain go down the road of industry nationalisation. It is not a policy for our times and its acceptance and positive endorsement by the Treasurer cast serious doubt on his stewardship of the Australian economy. No matter how successful and how profitable government enterprises are, ultimately, to keep pace with the private sector and maintain an adequate market share, large calls have to be made on their shareholders. This is where the logic of running government business enterprises comes seriously unstuck. In the minute or two I have left, let me talk about one or two of the Government's better efforts at privatisation. The Government had a go at selling the Williamstown Dockyard. Its presumed value was $200m. Eventually a contract was signed at $100m. When the Government accounts came out they picked up the figure of $66.9m. What happened to the rest? It went into sweetheart deals to buy out the Government's union mates in the dockyard. So, the privatisation of the Williamstown Dockyard, which started out as $200m, ended up as $67m-to the detriment of the taxpayers of Australia. There was the privatisation of the Defence Service Homes Corporation. The Government on-sold, to the Westpac Banking Corporation, presumably, a package of loans, which has left it subsidising to Westpac every year the difference between the market rate and the borrowing rate, at a cost to taxpayers of roughly $140m a year. In conclusion, I leave the Government with a very sombre warning. No political party anywhere in the world has been successful in arguing against privatisation once the floodgates have been opened. Early resistance from the Labour Party in Britain quickly went to water when it realised that the privatisation cause was so acceptable to the ordinary man and woman in the street. People who had never owned shares before were introduced to the cut and thrust of the market. Consumers, who were tired of the lacklustre services offered by government enterprises, welcomed the more responsive approach of the private companies. Taxpayers, who had funded inefficiencies, rorting and ongoing losses, were heartened to see an increasing return on their tax dollar. Employees, once alienated in huge government enterprises, became substantial shareholders in their own enterprises. The clear winners in privatisation are the ordinary people. Once its benefits are enjoyed no political jargon will sway them. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(11.19) -The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) could not have been more wrong on more points than he was in the speech he has just made. We totally reject his motion. When the honourable member talked about the whole world he was really talking about only the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It might not have occurred to him that recently in Sweden the Social Democratic Party was re-elected with a massive majority. This is just one example of a political party that has totally rejected the Thatcher approach to privatisation. We heard a long monologue from the honourable member about how wonderful things are in Great Britain. Let me say, as chairman of the Caucus immigration committee, that there has been more than a 100 per cent increase in the number of people queueing outside Australia House. Thirty new lines have been put in at Australia House to cope with the numbers of people inquiring about coming to Australia, most of whom are workers. Why do they want to come to Australia? Is it because of the wonderful situation in Thatcher's Britain? What nonsense! An article by Tony Thirlwall, a British economist and Professor of Applied Economics at the University of Canterbury, who is visiting the University of Melbourne's Department of Economics, appeared in the Age today. He spoke to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, a very prestigious committee. The article, headed `The Myth of the Thatcher Miracle', states: Since arriving in Australia two weeks ago for a brief academic visit, I keep hearing references to an alleged British economic miracle. There appears to be a widespread belief that nine years of Conservative government under Mrs Thatcher has resulted in a radical transformation of the British economy and a marked improvement in its potential for faster growth on a sustainable basis. I am afraid to say that this is a myth. There has been no `supply-side' revolution; the inertia and conservatism of British business, finance and other institutions remains, and the British economy is no closer to finding a solution to the simultaneous achievement of faster growth, full employment, stable prices and balance of payments equilibrium than it was before the `Thatcher experiment' of monetarism, privatisation, trade union reform, tax reductions and rolling back the frontiers of the state. What is being witnessed in Britain at the moment is a short term unsustainable boom fuelled by consumption and this follows the deepest recession ever experienced in the British economy, which was deliberately engineered between 1979 and 1981 to curb the power of the trade unions and to squeeze inflation out of the system . . . For the fact is that if the Thatcher years are taken as a whole, the average annual growth of GDP is less than 2 per cent- much lower than it is in Australia- investment is only recently back to its 1979 level; unemployment is still more than double what it was in 1979- when the Labour Government in Britain lost power- and the country is heading for a huge balance of payments crisis like the days of old. So much for the Thatcher achievement. So much for looking to the Thatcher experiment as a means of solving our problems. What does the Federal Opposition say? We are supposed to sell off every Commonwealth enterprise in sight. Honourable members heard the long list of enterprises that was read out. What a nonsense. The Australian people are to own nothing. The Opposition says that every government enterprise should be sold into private hands. What would it mean if we sold off all the major government enterprises? It would mean two things. Firstly, many government enterprises would be bought by non-Australians-foreigners. In other words, things that belong to the Australian people through public enterprise would be sold off under Liberal-National Party policies. And the Opposition has the gall to come in here and tell us that this is the way we should run the economy. Secondly, these enterprises contribute significant amounts to the Federal Budget in dividends and returns. It is true that at present there is a capital base problem with government enterprises. Why is there a capital base problem? It is because all these enterprises are doing so well that they need more money to expand. Just like any other business that is doing well, government enterprises need money to expand. Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines and the Commonwealth Bank all need money to expand because they are growing. Why are they growing? They are growing because the economy as a whole is growing. Qantas is doing a fabulous job as Australia's overseas airline and is taking over a proportion of Air New Zealand. That is why we need more money for the capital bases of these enterprises. But what do we hear from the Opposition? It says that the solution to the problem is not to provide more money for the capital bases of these enterprises but rather to sell them off to private enterprise, to get rid of them. How would that help us? Imagine selling off the Commonwealth Bank-the fundamental institution which has provided generations of working people with enough funds to enable them to purchase homes, which has provided them with loans for all sorts of things. The Commonwealth Bank has played this historic role. Imagine suggesting that it be sold! We have enough private banks. We need the Commonwealth Bank to compete with them and to look after the public interest. We have heard no refutation of the argument that public enterprises provide a return. We heard earlier this week the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), try to criticise the great Cain Labor Government in Victoria. He said that it had borrowed a bit too much money. Why has that Government borrowed money? It borrowed the money to invest in major public enterprises. These public enterprises are already giving a return to the people of Victoria. So the loans will be repaid. If one borrows money to buy a house and the value of, and return from, that house is high, that is a very good investment and a good basis for a loan. The Victorian Government has not borrowed money in order to throw it away. It is different from borrowing money in order to enjoy oneself by throwing money around. There is a big difference between those two simple propositions. When we look at the borrowings of the Victorian Government, we see a very positive situation. Most of the borrowings have been to help to develop the industrial infrastructure in Victoria. In fact, Victoria is by far the best State with regard to its record on employment and industrial development because the Government has been in favour of public investment in enterprises. So the whole argument that the Opposition parties are putting here-they have been putting it in Victoria-that there is something wrong with public enterprise is nonsense. It has been refuted overseas. Everyone is running away from the Thatcher model and the Reagan model. Those foolish models did a lot of damage to many people, especially the British people, who suffered from a 15 to 20 per cent unemployment level. We have never had such an unemployment level in Australia and we will not have it while there is a Labor government that believes in the crucial role of public enterprises. We totally reject this motion. Mr COBB(Parkes)(11.27) —I second the motion moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). The people of Australia have just heard the ravings of the Socialist Left in Australia. It is quite incredible to listen to that sort of drivel. If the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) were running the country it would end up like Russia. The Government would own everything, people would own nothing, and our standard of living would be comparable to that of socialist and communist countries such as Ethiopia and Russia. This morning we are talking about returning the assets of the country to the hands of people in the private sector. The honourable member for Calwell does not trust the people to own assets. Of course, that is what socialism and communism are all about. People of those political persuasions want the control of the assets in the hands of the Government, in the hands of Big Brother. I note that the honourable member for Calwell is fleeing from the chamber because I have exposed his views. We on this side of the House believe that things are better looked after, better cared for, and better serviced if they are in the hands of the people. That is what privatisation is all about. If a person owns a car, for example, he will drive it more carefully, look after it better and park it with more care. Generally, after a period the car will be better looked after, last longer and be better maintained. If it belongs to some sort of vague body such as the government, it will probably be thrashed and it will not be looked after so well. That is simple common sense. A person who owns something or works for himself will work harder, longer and more productively. If a person, rather than a government, owns a business he will be more flexible in the way in which he runs the business and more responsive to the needs of the consumer. One has only to visit a communist country, walk into a shop that is owned by the government and try to get served. The shop assistants are just not interested. There is virtually nothing on display. In regard to what little there is to buy, the shop assistants wander around and perhaps serve a customer after 20 or 30 minutes. In a shop that is actually owned by a private owner, as are most shops in Australia, the shop assistants are only too eager to serve the customer because they are driven by the profit motive. Decisions made by the people who are running their own businesses are more informed decisions and they are made at a local level. Mr McGauran —Exactly. Mr COBB —The honourable member for Gippsland acknowledges that point. If losses occur, they are limited to the business; they are not foisted upon the rest of the community, as is the case in government enterprises. If and when profits are made, as they usually are, eventually they are dispersed to the whole community by way of taxes, investment and employment. I believe it is time that we allowed more private ownership. We should trust people to run enterprises. The more private enterprises we have, the more competition there is. Public ownership usually involves a monopoly and there is no incentive to be efficient. The nationalisation of enterprises in Australia only ties up valuable public money which could be used more productively in the hands of the people. One has only to look at some of the examples raised by the honourable member for Ryan. Australian Airlines will need a capital injection of $240m over the next three years-that is, an extra $240m in taxes or borrowings must be raised. Qantas Airways Ltd needs an injection of about $600m over the next five years. The Commonwealth Bank will need $1,600m over the next three years. I believe that these amounts will be best raised with the minimum disruption if the ownership of these enterprises is passed, at least partially, to the private sector. Privatisation does not mean that the whole asset must be sold. There can be a partial sale. When we look at government enterprises such as fire brigades, mail services, garbage collection, health care, telephone, water, electricity, rail, passenger transport, air services, banking, education-a whole range of things-there is no doubt that, almost without exception, private ownership would control and run them better and in a more responsive way to consumers than would public ownership. As time is running out I will wind up my comments so that the next speaker can make a contribution. I stress the point very strongly: it is human nature that if one owns something, one will look after it better and thus serve the whole community better in the long run. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(11.33) —The motion that is before the House exemplifies the basic differences between this Government and those who sit opposite. The motion is couched in very general terms. Let us look at the motive for the moving of this motion. We have had the suggestion, as was summarised by the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), that private ownership gives more direct involvement or accountability. What must be taken into account is that government enterprises, by definition, are owned by all of the people. Therefore, all of the people have, and require, involvement in those enterprises. Some of the criticisms that are often made by those opposite relate to the nature of the accountability of those enterprises. I have no argument with the making of that criticism because it is only just and proper that those enterprises that are publicly owned should be accountable. I would be quite happy to have a genuine debate on those matters. The motion that has been put forward by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) is nothing more than a knee-jerk, ideological preference. Privatisation consists of a collection of ideological truisms and infantile economic catchcries. The reality is vastly different. It is important when dealing with privatisation schemes to ask: In whose interests are they conceived? Why is it that people claim that the private sector is more appropriate? If efficiency and adequate service provision are the objectives, privatisation has clearly failed. As is often the case in this sort of debate, Thatcher's Britain has been trotted out as a guiding light for those whom we describe as privateers. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) quoted from an article in today's Age which indicates that the myth of Thatcherism is slowly but surely being exploded. Let us take, for example, British Telecom. When British Telecom was privatised in 1984 one of the many promises made was that a privately owned telephone company would give better service to consumers. This has proved to be empty rhetoric. Since privatisation, British Telecom's profits have soared-but to whose benefit? The ordinary consumer in Britain now pays 40 per cent more for telephone services than he did five years ago. British consumers have the world's most expensive local calls. The number of public telephones has been dramatically reduced and the costs have doubled. Could it be said by those opposite that the British Government has, in the words of their own motion, rejected the ongoing use of taxpayers' funds for this public enterprise which would be more appropriately funded by the private sector? It just seems to me that the reasons for privatisation being put forward by Thatcher's Britain clearly lie in other areas. Let me return to the question of why the private sector is more appropriate. I do not know that that question has necessarily been answered in this debate. There is a notion abroad that government investment crowds out private sector borrowing but, in the context of Australia, it has been shown to be without foundation. In terms of economic consequences, it matters little whether the capital needs of enterprises are meet via borrowing to achieve increased public equity or borrowing for private equity. For those opposite, the answer to why the private sector is more appropriate is a matter of simple, irrational, ideological preference. They all suffer from a desire to flog off public sector enterprises to their mates in the private sector. In this arena the present Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, Jeff Kennett, is one of the worst offenders. Early in the State election campaign presently being conducted Mr Kennett yet again demonstrated his incapacity to offer a credible alternative to John Cain as Premier. Early in the campaign, some two weeks before the release of the Opposition's transport policy, Jeff Kennett declared in one of his characteristic off the cuff comments that the Victorian transport system should be turned over to someone like transport magnate Lindsay Fox to get it into shape. This is one of those unfortunate off the cuff statements because, of course, the media pursued Mr Fox and Mr Fox obviously was not in on the joke. When he was asked to comment on the idea that had been floated his suggestion was that perhaps the system might be run for free, which is exactly opposite to what Mr Kennett had in mind. There had been no consultation with the Liberal transport spokesman, Mr Brown. He was caught off guard. He stated that there was no intention to sell off the entire system. So it was another case of apparent policy-making on the run. What would a Liberal government or perhaps a coalition government in Victoria do to Victoria's transport system? Presumably it would hand it over to its mates in private enterprise. It might take a leaf out of the book of Premier Greiner of New South Wales where his example is to slug the commuters with a 12 1/2 per cent increase in fares and to place under the axe any lines which do not show a profit. What other policies has Mr Kennett put forward in the public ownership area? It has been suggested that a Liberal government in Victoria would withdraw from the Portland smelter. This is a classic example of ideological lunacy. The vision of the Cain Government in backing the Portland smelter is now a matter of record. The aluminium smelter has been exceptionally important to that State's economic development over recent years. Smelter production is set to increase by about 10 per cent which will take export earnings to almost a billion dollars a year. Profits to the government trust are expected to rise to about $70m a year by the early 1990s. There is no need to impute motives to the Victorian Liberals as they stand condemned out of their own mouths. The Liberal Treasury spokesman, Mr Alan Stockdale, is quoted as saying that it is time to turn the investment in Portland into cash. Yet just over 12 months ago he was chiding the State Government because it was converting investments into cash and using it as part of a budget strategy. So where is the Liberal Treasury spokesman's strategy and vision for the Victorian economy? Are we to assume that, because of the Liberal suggestion about Portland, the vision of the Cain Government's investment is starting to bear fruit which will benefit all Victorians? Again I stress that in any public enterprise it is not a notion that somebody else is in ownership-it is something in which we all share. But the State Liberals see now as the time to flog Portland off to some of their rich mates. Clearly, it is another example of Mr Kennett showing that he immatures with age. The simple facts are that Mr Kennett has only a few weeks left as Leader of the Opposition in Victoria. Mr McGauran —A few weeks? Mr JENKINS —A few days. But he will not be moving into John Cain's office. He will be moving into the offices set aside for Opposition backbenchers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate, therefore, is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.44) —I move: That this House- (1) acknowledges the critical importance of Australia's road network to the well being of rural communities and to the economic performance of export orientated industries; (2) recognises that a deterioration of this national infrastructure is highly wasteful in both human and economic terms; and (3) accepts the need to address urgently the many issues surrounding road funding by the 3 tiers of government. I have moved that motion for one reason and one reason only-that is, that our road system is being dismantled under this Government and it is no exaggeration to say that it is rapidly heading towards disintegration. It is on the verge of collapsing in its entirety. Any rural dweller knows that to be a fact. It will be quite fascinating to hear the Government's response to the allegation that our road network is falling down around our ears while the Government remains immobilised with respect to funding for improvements. I travel along unsealed roads that were once sealed in my electorate of Gippsland. The tragedy of this whole issue is that sealed roads all over Australia are being ripped up and returned to gravel because of lack of funds. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) both represent large rural areas and know better than anyone that that is the situation. The cost to Australia's very important export orientated industries of dairy, wool, wheat and beef is really quite incalculable due to the wear and tear and time delays with respect to transportation. It is a very grave situation indeed. If, as the Government bleats daily, we need to redress our balance of payments, and, heaven knows, the latest figure released yesterday-- Mr Sharp —It is not doing a very good job. Mr McGAURAN —It is not doing a very good job at all. The figure released yesterday was $1.5 billion, which gives further weight to the urgency with which the Government should address this problem. Why are we making our export orientated industries that much less competitive? It is because of our inadequate transport system. However, we could also look at the human cost of our inadequate road system. Figures released by the Government itself are really quite horrifying. The then Minister for Transport and Communications released a media statement on 12 April this year in which he said that better roads have been shown to substantially reduce Australia's road death toll. He even went on to detail the actual reductions in crashes and fatalities on various roads throughout Australia. He compared the fatality and road crash figures for upgraded roads with those before upgrading. For example, on Sydney's Western Freeway there were 42 crashes in 1984, compared with a massive 362 crashes in 1980 before it was upgraded. The Minister recognises the cost in human terms of having bad roads, but what does he do about increasing road funding? Tragically, he does next to nothing. Meanwhile, lives are lost and the already crumbling road system adds to our deteriorating health system. Anyone who represents constituents in any sort of form or shape knows that one of the most obvious and consistent complaints relates to our health system. In fact, hospital beds are at a premium in many parts of this country. Since 1980, 24,700 lives have been lost in road accidents, according to the Federal Government's Office of Road Safety; and also there has been almost $6 billion in property damage, lost wages, hospital and rehabilitation costs for last year alone. Given these indisputable facts, the Australian public has every right to be angry with a government which refuses to understand the vital economic importance of increased road funding, as well as the need in compassionate terms to turn around the tremendous cost in lives and injury. It is particularly ironic that, at a time of manipulated Budget surpluses-financed, of course, in large degree by massive contributions by our rural export industries-it is really country roads more than any others that have suffered under this urban-centred Government. Our major arterial roads, on which are transported our chief export commodities such as dairy, wool, wheat and beef, to mention just four, are so bad that they could seriously weaken our international competitiveness. The previous coalition Government understood the critical importance of Australia's road network and initiated the Roads Grants Act program and the very successful Australian bicentennial road development (ABRD) program. Indeed, it was the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), then Minister for Transport, after urging by the National Party and in conjunction with our Liberal Party colleagues, who brought about that very efficient system, which showed the vision that the Liberal and National parties have for Australia's economic and human considerations. Mr Peter Fisher —They built a magnificent bridge over the Murray River at Mildura. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Mallee states that the previous Government built a magnificent bridge over the Murray River at Mildura. That is just another example-and, in passing, I praise the honourable member for his work for his constituents-of the concern that we on this side have for not just Mildura and north-eastern Victoria but for country people generally. In fact, it is quite fascinating that in the forthcoming Victorian State election the State seat of Mildura, which has been so well represented for many years by its retiring member, Mr Milton Whiting, will soon be represented by someone whom we within the National Party consider to be an outstanding man of great ability, Mr John Arnold. I certainly urge electors within the seat of Mildura to continue to support their National Party candidate. However, let us not talk about only the seat of Mildura with respect to road funding. All Victorians, as they trot out to the polls on 1 October-having just been to the polls on 3 September to reject massively the agenda of the Australian Labor Party (ALP)-will have to take into account issues such as road funding. People will have to ask themselves what sort of society they want to live in. Do they want a society whereby our economic export orientated industries can thrive and they can feel somewhat safer in terms of road injury, if not fatalities, or do they want to re-elect a government that cannot see beyond the inner suburbs of Melbourne? The Cain Labor Government has bled rural Victoria dry for the past seven years. It has been a tragic period for the people that we represent, whether it be with respect to forest, land and water conservation, soil degradation, small business, families or the working men and women of Victoria. The Cain Labor Government has surrendered-even abdicated-its responsibilities to people outside the inner suburbs of Melbourne, and the road funding issue is just one example. Really, if the truth be known, the self-preservation of those living in Victoria would lead them to cast a vote for the National and Liberal parties on 1 October. I return to the motion before the House. I think it is time that we closely examined what this short-sighted bunch of fiddlers opposite has done in disguising the true extent of its savage road funding cuts. Under this Federal Labor Government we have seen a slashing of Federal road funds by a massive 27 per cent in real terms from the peak contribution in 1983-84. Not even the Government disputes these figures. The Government has held grants for road funding at about $1.2 billion for over four years, while inflation, particularly on road maintenance costs, has risen dramatically. At the same time, the Government's projected collection from road users this year is expected to be $7 billion. The Government is ripping $7 billion off road users and returning a paltry $1.2 billion. So road users throughout Australia really want to know what they are receiving in return for the petrol excise and the crude oil excise. In fact, I could list a plethora of State and Federal government taxes and charges in regard to fuel. Compare that with the Fraser-Anthony Government, which in 1982 reacted so very quickly to the falling real levels of road funding under our administration and instituted the ABRD program. This Government has not finished with road funding. In this year's May economic statement a further $50m was slashed and now it has the temerity, the cheek and the hide to insult our intelligence by claiming that its supposedly revamped program-the Australian bicentennial road development program-will solve our problems. What nonsense! There is only one way to solve the problems associated with our deteriorating road system in Australia, that is, to increase funding. All that program will effectively do is reduce road funding to the end of the 1989-90 financial year by a total of $80m. As mentioned previously, it is the rural road network which is really bearing the brunt of this Government's woefully inadequate road funding program. Some country roads that are used by our rural exporters and our constituents-the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who has an enormous area to cover and to represent and who does it so very well, would know this better than anybody else, certainly better than any person on the Government side of the House-are little better than what was originally forged by our pioneers. I am pleased to see the honourable member for Farrer in the House. He has been very busy in the Victorian election campaign in the seat of Benambra, where he has so diligently and so effectively campaigned on behalf of Miss Judy Brewer for the National Party. The representation to be provided to the people of Benambra will be a reflection of the expert representation by the honourable member for Farrer in this House. As time is running out I am unable to address at greater length some of the issues that arise out of this Government's handling of road funds. The RACV, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, has estimated the increase in the cost of various goods due to road conditions. The deteriorating road system has increased the cost of foodstuffs 18 per cent. The increase in chemical and petroleum products due solely and entirely to the bad roads is 14 per cent. The figure for manufactured goods is 13 per cent and primary products 10 per cent. Yet the Government still gloats about its supposed Budget surpluses, when in such a vital area as road construction and maintenance it slashes its allocation. It is local government which has borne the brunt of the deteriorating road system. A week would not go by when some contact was not made with any member of the House by one or other of the local government authorities within his or her electorate about the problems of specific local or main roads. In fact, that has been acknowledged by the head of the Government's country task force, the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), in May this year, when he stated that road funding in rural areas was the overwhelming issue of concern to the country voter. In drawing to a conclusion I wish to make available to the House two reports that have been prepared within the electorate of Gippsland by the Central Gippsland Road Funding Committee, which is made up of local government representatives within the Road Construction Authority Central Gippsland region. One is dated 1987, the other 1988. They deal with the extent of the problem, put forward solutions and moreover concentrate in very large part on the need to invest in roads so as to return economic viability for a whole number of industries. Tragically, this Government does not allow very much time at all for debate on such a fundamental issue as road funding. This has been a rare opportunity for members of the Opposition to raise it. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) from South Australia, who would be known to those he represents as somebody who works tirelessly in this place to raise the issue of road funding, will support me in this debate. Let us wait now and hear from the Government. We will hear platitudes; we will hear excuses; we may even hear a juggler's version of figures. Let us face it, this Government is made up of con men who are able to draw up figures to suit themselves and apply all sorts of weird formulas. I urge the House to take notice of the arguments put forward by the Opposition. We are dealing not just with dry economics but with people's lives. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Andrew —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr McGauran —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the two documents. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member cannot intervene at this stage. The honourable member for Fisher has been called. The honourable member for Gippsland can raise the matter subsequently. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(12.00) —I am quite happy to speak to the motion moved by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Without doubt, there is concern in the Australian community about roads, the adequacy of the Australian road network and the level of funding. Those concerns are genuine and I certainly accept that point. Quite correctly, the situation should be drawn to the attention of the House. However, the honourable member for Gippsland went to great lengths to identify the problem and glibly went over the solution, saying that we need more funding for roads. That is probably self-evident but what he did not explain was how we are actually going to find the funds. He did not give some alternative as to where the money should come from. He did not suggest what programs should be cut if that was one way of finding the money. If we are going to maintain spending at the same level and if roads are going to be given higher priority, then some other program will have to be cut to find the money. The honourable member for Gippsland did not suggest that as a solution. Maybe the honourable member is saying that there should be increased taxes to fund extra road expenditure. I do not know whether he is supporting personal income tax increases or increases in company taxation or increases in indirect taxation-he did not state that. Maybe his third alternative simply is to get the Government to go back into a debt spiral: Increase the funding now, spend for the day and let future generations pay for it. He presented no alternative solutions. There is no doubt that funding for roads has been cut over the last few years. I am not going to get up here and say black is white. But let us put it in some sort of context. If one looks at the figures over the life of this current Government and compares those figures in 1988 dollars with the last six Budgets of the Fraser Government, one will see that funding from the Australian Government for roads has increased in real terms by 21 per cent. That has come about because in the first years of this Government there was a massive increase in road funding. The Government has a plan and works within an economic framework. There is a good explanation for this. In 1983, when the Government was elected, Australia was in a deep economic recession. We had unemployment over the 10 per cent mark. We had negative growth for the first time in the country's history, apart from the years of the Depression-we had the economy actually shrinking-and it was obvious that the Government had to do something to get the economy up and going, to give it a kick-start. That is what happened in relation to road funding. There were massive increases in road expenditure in the first years of this Government. If one combines that with programs such as the community employment program and the special components of the community employment program which enabled local councils to submit programs on road building and then averages it out over the life of the Government, in real terms, in comparison with the Fraser Government, spending on roads today, as outlined in the Government's last Budget, is 21 per cent higher. There have been reductions in spending on roads and there have been spending reductions across the whole range of government activity. Here we have the Opposition saying, `Look, I'll go to my local government audience and say, ``Well, it is terrible what is happening to road funding. I think you fellows are getting a bad deal. Let's spend more on roads''.' Yet they will go to the next audience of business people and say, `This biggest spending, highest taxing government of all time-let's get into it and start slashing government spending'. In fact, I read a press release from the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock)-I think he issued it two days ago-in which he said that there was pressure on interest rates because the Government had not reduced its spending sufficiently. We have the shadow Treasurer saying that there should be reductions in government spending. We have a whole range of Opposition spokesmen urging us to cut government spending. Yet we have the honourable member for Gippsland coming in here today and saying, `Well, there is not enough money spent on roads. Let's spend more money on roads'. He also threw in the health system. In effect, he is saying, `Let's spend more money on the health system. Let's spend more money but let's cut government spending. Let's not increase taxation but let's reduce debt'. Opposition members want to achieve everything; they want to do everything that costs more money but still have people pay less tax. According to them there would be no more debt, and indirect taxation would be reduced as well. It is all done with mirrors. It is a great miracle; achieving this would be a great conjuring trick. The honourable member for Gippsland was very good at pointing out the problem but he was totally silent about any solution. That is the Opposition to a tee. It is good at picking out the problems, picking out the faults, but it is absolutely silent, absolutely negative, when it comes to finding solutions. The Government has put in place a reasonable level of road funding. As an individual member I would like to see the level of road funding increased. That is my personal view, but I accept the economic realities of the situation that the Government finds itself in. We have now a program which will develop a base level of road funding which will be indexed over the next couple of years. So we have real guarantees for the level of road funding, and planning authorities can make their own judgment about how they run their programs. Local government says it has been hard hit by our road funding program, but local government also receives its share of untied grants. It can make its own decision about where its priorities lie. If a local council wants to build a cultural centre or a civic centre, or get involved in water or sewerage works, that is fine but if it finds that road building is a very high priority for it there is nothing in the world stopping that council from allocating its untied funding to supplementing its direct government road funding. Those untied funds have been substantially increased over the term of this Government. If we look at the overall picture, if we put it in some sort of context and look at the economic realities, we can see that the Government is tackling a difficult problem very effectively. I often hear the furphies that commonly float around in the community. One is that the motorist gets hit with a 30c per litre fuel tax at the petrol bowser but only 5 1/2c or 6c goes back into road building. The first point is that 10c of that 30c is paid as a result of the crude oil levy. If that were reduced, or if Esso and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd did not have to pay it, the petrol price would not reduce by 10c; the companies would just take the extra profit. So the motorist cannot get any benefit from that. Of the remaining 20c, it can still be said that only 6c goes into road funding. If the honourable member for Gippsland suggests as a consistent line of argument that every cent that is taken out of the petrol bowser should go back into road funding, I suppose he would also suggest that every cent taken by way of the cigarette tax should go back into tobacco plantations or research in the cigarette industry, and that every cent taken from alcohol sales should go back into recarpeting or providing facilities for hotels. The reality is that taxes on petrol are a form of indirect taxation and they fund a whole range of government activities as well as road building. The honourable member simply says that we should spend more of the petrol tax on roads because motorists can identify with that; they can say that although they are paying when they buy their petrol, it is going back into roads and they can see the link. People understand that but what the honourable member for Gippsland and others espousing this view do not go on to explain is how the problem of the revenue shortfall that would cause would be solved. Are we to increase personal income tax to make up for what we would not get in general revenue from the petrol tax? Would we increase other indirect taxes? Would we slash spending on social welfare, education, defence or some other government activity? It is easy for an honourable member to move this motion, point to shortfalls and simply say nothing about how we can overcome such shortfalls. The honourable member for Gippsland would have much more credibility in this House-as would his Party in the broader community-if he were able to say, `This is a problem, we are going to earmark more funds for it and we will do so by adopting these particular measures'. The Opposition would have some credibility if the shadow Treasurer were not out saying that the Government should cut its spending more because of pressure on interest rates and our economic well-being. We cannot have it both ways. It cannot be done with mirrors; it is not a conjuring trick. These problems mean hard decisions, balancing the range of government programs and putting together a plan which balances government priorities. That is what this Government has done across the board, and what it has done with road funding. It is a difficult question but I am confident in and proud of this Government's record on it. Mr McGauran —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table two documents that I referred to in my contribution earlier. Mr Hand —Have you cleared them? Mr McGauran —The Minister at the table is prevaricating. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! We should not enter into debate on this matter. Mr Hand —The honourable member should not provoke me. If it has been cleared, I will grant leave. Mr McGauran —I certainly do not intend crawling. This was cleared by the Minister previously at the table. Leave granted. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.11) —It is my privilege this afternoon to support the motion of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) concerning road funding. In my opening remarks I want to pick up a comment or two made by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch). Mr McGauran —They are hardly worth commenting on. Mr ANDREW —He made a presupposition that I found hard to swallow, which was that petrol companies would merely pocket the extra 10c or whatever it is that would be available to them as a result of a change in the petrol tax. I would have thought that the petrol companies' present performance in cutting bowser petrol prices would indicate that that presupposition is largely without foundation. He made another point that I think the honourable member for Gippsland would find rather uncomfortable to live with. As a result of the honourable member for Gippsland's advocating that all money collected in petrol tax should be spent on roads, he suggested that all money collected by way of tobacco tax ought to be given to the tobacco plantations and all money collected in wine and beer taxes ought to go towards carpeting hotels. That is an astonishing form of logic. I would have thought that such a point would totally destroy his argument about road funding and money collected from petrol taxes. The whole point we raise about petrol taxes concerns returning to the road funding network a proportion of funds raised by the people who have worn out those roads. In fact, we have had from this Government, from the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), a plea that money collected from the tobacco industry and the wine and brewing industries ought to go into health funding. I thought that the argument of the honourable member for Fisher was entirely fallacious. It strikes me as something of an irony that we in this House should be celebrating in 1988 a bicentenary when all around our electorates, rural and urban, we have green and gold signs festooning highways proclaiming that a new road is a government bicentennial road project and this Hawke Government claiming credit for what was an initiative of the Liberal and National parties when in government. I can understand it claiming credit, and I am even bold enough to refer to the bemused Minister at the table, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), and say that were we in government we would be tempted to do a similar sort of thing. But we would not have had the sheer effrontery not only to claim credit for projects but also to use projects as an excuse to reduce funding for roads. The Government is claiming credit for projects while reducing funding in this our bicentennial year. Furthermore, it has generally been overlooked that not only is 1988 our bicentennial year but also it is 100 years this year since Mr Dunlop invented the pneumatic tube. We should be celebrating not only the bicentennial of Australia in 1988 but also the fact that 1988 represents 100 years of pneumatic tubes and tyres which have facilitated so much the use of our roads. Australia's current road funding program, which so effectively divides urban and rural Australia, is disastrous. Mr Hand —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a serious debate and I think the smile and smirk on the honourable member's face ought to be removed. If he has something to say he should say it, but he should not come in here and try to be a comedian. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. He knows there is no point of order. Mr ANDREW —I apologise for so deflating the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I wish to make the point that we are celebrating 100 years of a technique of transport that would not have been possible had it not been for this invention. My fundamental point is that the current regime of road funding is further dividing urban and rural Australia. In urban electorates there are people who do not know what it is like to have unsealed roads and who have made available to them alternative forms of transport under the public transport banner, while in rural Australia there are people who cannot even find a sealed road to get to their facilities. There are towns in my electorate that do not have a sealed road running either to them or from them. The people in those towns have access to their communities only over unsealed roads. These same people are in rural electorates and for the honourable member for Fisher to say that this initiative has been handed over to local government is totally misleading. How can a local government authority be responsible for rebuilding roads when the number of constituents facing each kilometre of road is so much less than is the case in urban areas? The people in my electorate and the people in the electorate of Gippsland do not seek sealed roads. They simply seek roads that allow them to have access to community facilities. There is no way that they can participate in the community without travelling some distance over unsealed roads. In urban electorates, because of the alternatives available and because of the number of community facilities, there are opportunities for people without wearing out motor vehicles to do the things they want to do. That opportunity simply does not exist in rural electorates. The honourable member for Gippsland has already effectively made the point that road funding is conspicuously and obviously being reduced in real terms. I noted that the honourable member for Fisher, in attempting to counter this, scratched his head and shuffled rather uneasily because he had to concede that what the honourable member for Gippsland said was accurate and, as he later pointed out, he agreed that further funding should be made available. It has been too easy for the Government to run around saying that the Opposition can plead for more funds, but that it does not say how it will have more funds available without lifting taxation. The Opposition sees government programs that could be further pruned; we have never suggested otherwise. The honourable member for Fisher mischievously accused the honourable member for Gippsland of advocating a greater expenditure on the health program. They were not the words used by the honourable member for Gippsland. He said that bad roads were a health hazard. He was not calling for greater expenditure on the health program; he was saying that there are areas where we can prune government expenditure and free more funds that could be made available for roads. From 1986 the fuel excise has doubled from 10.4c per litre to 20.8c. Half the money that goes into the fuel tank when a driver pulls up at a bowser goes in taxes. If a person buys household goods, he may spend up to 10 per cent in some form of sales tax. Motor vehicles and spare parts involve a figure of around 20 per cent. Cosmetics, hi-fis, and videos involve a figure of around 30 per cent. But once a driver fills up at the bowser, he commits to the Government over 50 per cent of the cost of that fuel in taxation. That same money, as the honourable member for Gippsland said, is not being returned to road expenditure. In fact, as he said, of the $7 billion that is being collected only $1.2 billion has been committed to expenditure on roads. Let me make what should be the fundamental plank of this argument. I remind the House that in the last year of the coalition Government 2.12 per cent of total Commonwealth outlays went in road funding. This year, under the Hawke-Keating regime, 1.6 per cent of total Commonwealth outlays will go in road funding. Need any more be said? Is that not an illustration of the priority afforded to road funding by the coalition Government compared with the present priority given by the Australian Labor Party to road funding, particularly in rural areas. Why do I speak with some passion on this matter? It is because in my own rural electorate of Wakefield we have a highway that runs-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The time for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member for Wakefield will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(12.22) —I move: That the Procedure Committee be asked to examine and prepare recommendations to provide that rules for the election of a Speaker at the first sitting of the Parliament, or at any time when the position becomes vacant, be changed to provide that the Member with the longest continuous service, not being a member of the Executive or Opposition office-holder, shall take the Chair until such time as a Speaker is elected and shall exercise whilst in the Chair all of the powers vested in the Speaker for the conduct of actual sittings of the House of Representatives. I should clarify this motion. It is concerned with the election of future Speakers. We are not going to declare the position vacant today! It is one of those items that I did not expect to be debated today. I thought that the House would have been dealing with more exciting matters probably relevant or irrelevant to the Victorian election. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to debate in this chamber the attempt yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria to sabotage Melbourne's bid for the Olympic Games. This motion is a serious one and probably has much longer term consequences and could seriously affect the functioning of this Parliament, including constitutional implications. At present if a vacancy occurs for the position of Speaker of this Parliament, either through the election of a new Parliament or through the resignation or death of an existing Speaker, the Clerk takes the chair in order to conduct a ballot for the election of a member of this Parliament to become its Speaker. In doing that the Clerk exercises only very limited authority, which is spelt out in the Standing Orders, and certainly is not placed by the Standing Orders and could not properly be expected to be placed in a position where he exercises the authority of a presiding officer in this Parliament. While the election of a Speaker in normal circumstances is uneventful-sometimes it has been eventful-and does not constitute serious technical or other problems for the Chair, there are occasions when it can have serious implications and involve protracted debate. Certainly that could arise with respect to a number of matters for which the presiding officer should not have to accept responsibility when he does not have available to him powers under the Standing Orders to deal with them. For instance, should a member act in a manner not acceptable to the House, there is serious doubt whether the powers vested in the Clerk would allow him to name the member and therefore for the member to be dealt with. But, even more seriously, there were occasions some years ago when debate on an adjournment motion, which was then the means by which a matter was raised by way of importance by the Opposition-it is a traditional parliamentary device to enable debate-took place while the Clerk was left in the chair over the election of a Speaker. A far more serious consequence could be if there were debate over the conduct of a ballot or over other matters of a political nature-over the fitness or eligibility of a person to nominate for the office of Speaker. The British House of Commons uses a practice which fortunately has not resulted in ballots on a great number of occasions, but a practice where the senior member of the House of Commons-not a Minister and I suggest not an officer-takes the chair as some recognition of that member's service to act as chairman during the conduct of the ballot. Similar rules apply in other parliaments, notably the Canadian Parliament. I suggest that it is time the Australian Parliament adopt standing orders which provide for an elected member of the Parliament to occupy the chair as chairman, not as a presiding officer, exercising his own vote only and not the casting vote of the chamber, and having a direct vote during that period. I suggest a scenario where the present circumstances could have caused very serious problems. Given that we have an even number of members in the House now, they could arise again, although slightly differently. In 1961 this House came as close as it ever has come to having an equal number of members on both sides. In fact, it had an equal number of members on both sides, for two members of the Labor Party did not have votes in the chamber: the member for the Northern Territory and the member for the Australian Capital Territory. They had very limited franchise. Had one more seat been won on that occasion-and only 100 votes prevented that from happening-the House would have met with 61 coalition members and 61 Labor members with votes in this chamber, and two other members who were members of this Parliament elected in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution but who could not exercise a vote in the chamber on normal business of the chamber. It is almost certain that neither party would have proposed that one of the full voting members become the Speaker, because in that event it would have placed itself in a situation of having a minority vote and, therefore, would have placed the other party in government. The Speaker does not have a direct vote in this Parliament, so in a hung parliament whichever side puts up the Speaker gives the other side a majority. It is almost certain that a motion would have been proposed to the chamber for one of the non-voting Labor members to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It would be highly undesirable for the House not to have one of its members in the chair conducting the business of the House during the debate which certainly would have ensued on the propriety of that particular action. It is doubtful whether the election of Speaker would ever have taken place unless one of those members became Speaker, because I do not think the Liberal and Country Party coalition, under Sir Robert Menzies, would have surrendered government to the Labor Party. I am sure that Arthur Calwell at that time would not have said to his members, `Let's go back into opposition. We won half the seats, but let's give one away'. I do not see that sort of magnanimity occurring in such an important circumstance. The proposal, as I understand it, has the support of the Committee on Procedure. I am suggesting that the matter be referred to that Committee so that standing orders to meet the requirements can be drafted. I think it is proper. I think it is an honour that the senior member of this House-as is the case in other Houses-should hold that position. I think that would be much more satisfactory should circumstances arise in which there is controversy surrounding the election of Speaker, and it would prevent the Clerk of the House being placed in a situation which is totally improper for him to be placed in by this House and which I think would be untenable. I will continue my remarks on another occasion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The honourable member for Corio will have leave to continue his speech when this item of private member's business is next accorded priority. Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Acting Treasurer. Is he here? Yes, he is here. Right. Government members interjecting- Mr PEACOCK —I know he cannot answer them, but he is bound to be here to receive them. Honourable members opposite can stroke their platitudes until they purr: it will not change Saturday's result. The Acting Treasurer is a bit worried about the statement by a spokesman of the Reserve Bank of Australia today. In light of the comments by a Reserve Bank spokesman, reported in today's Melbourne Herald, that the claims about the Federal Government holding down interest rates until after the Victorian election were accurate, I ask the Acting Treasurer: How can he deny that interest rates are being deliberately manipulated in the run-up to the election? Mr DAWKINS —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition appears to be referring to an article which appeared in the Melbourne Herald on the 29th. Mr Howard —Today. Mr DAWKINS —Yes. Today is the 29th; I am aware of that. It is a rather jumbled article. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —Hang on a second. The Sydney branch of the Bank has been in touch with us today and denies absolutely the content of this article. So there is no accuracy whatsoever in this report. The Opposition must decide what it thinks we are doing about interest rates. Yesterday, the honourable member for Wentworth, the meretricious player, asserted, in typical cynical and arrogant fashion, that the Government is attempting to hold interest rates down. He did not tell us how we might be doing it. All he did was to throw abuse at the Governor of the Reserve Bank, asserting that he was in some way complicit in some activity on the part of the Government to hold down interest rates. That is what the honourable member for Wentworth says. He says that we are cynically, arrogantly holding down interest rates. But what did his predecessor as shadow Minister for finance-perhaps not former mentor-John Stone, say today, on the 29th? He said that the Government is now condoning the jacking up of interest rates. So, on the one hand, the current shadow finance Minister says that we are cynically holding interest rates down and on the other hand, in the Senate, Senator Stone says that we are condoning the jacking up of interest rates. It is about time the Opposition decided what it thinks we are doing. What is actually happening is that we are doing nothing about putting up interest rates or keeping them down. Interest rates are finding their own level. There is no manipulation of interest rates. The people opposite are taking another trip through the time warp to the days when they used to sit in little groups and decide, not only what interest rates ought to be, but also what exchange rates ought to be. The great advocate of exchange rates relaxation and of deregulation, the honourable member for Wentworth, just a year ago said that we had not gone the whole way, that what we needed to do was to deregulate the housing sector as well. Under our Government 50 per cent of mortgages are protected by the 13.5 per cent regulated rate. The honourable member for Wentworth is really saying, `Jack up the rate for half the home mortgages in Australia. Half the home mortgages should be jacked up immediately from 13.5 per cent to 14.5 per cent'. He knows very well what that would cost on a $50,000 mortgage-an additional $40 to $45 a month. I think it is about time that his former boss, who has never had a clear answer on what he wants to do about the regulated rate for housing interest rates, asked the shadow Minister for finance what he wants to do. Does he want to deregulate the 13 1/2 per cent housing rate? Is that now Opposition policy? The honourable member for Wentworth said 12 months ago that it was his policy. It is about time that the Leader of the Opposition either repudiated that statement or stated exactly what the Opposition policy is. Mr KERR —Is the Minister for Employment, Education and Training aware that, in spite of a personal explanation by me on Tuesday which set out the facts of the matter in detail, the honourable member for Deakin has persisted, on Radio 7HT, with his grotesque allegation that the Minister suppressed inquiry into and covered up alleged financial irregularities in a department of the University of Tasmania? Is there any substance to these allegations? Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have had considerable discussion on the responsibility of Ministers to answer questions under standing order 142. You played a very serious role in that regard a short time ago. This question clearly is not within the Minister's capacity to answer, and should be declared out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair finds the question in order. The Minister will answer the question. Mr DAWKINS —This relates to a question asked by the honourable member for Deakin in his maiden foray into the area of education. What he did, in a quite scandalous way in my view, was to refer to some irregularities in the University of Tasmania. First, he asserted that I knew about them, when I did not. Secondly, he said that because I knew about them I should have done something about them. In other words, the new Liberal Party policy is that the Federal Minister for Education ought to intervene in the minute details of the running of every university around Australia. Mr Beale —What about the White Paper? Mr DAWKINS —Of course, his allegations-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Deakin will not interject. Mr Beale —So are the allegations scandalous, grotesque-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is defying the Chair. He will not interject. Mr DAWKINS —The allegation then becomes even more serious. He said, firstly, that I knew about them and, secondly, that I should have done something about them but did not. He then said that I engaged in some conspiracy and cover-up to suppress these irregularities in the University of Tasmania. Firstly, this displays a woeful ignorance of the relationship between the Commonwealth Government and the independent, autonomous universities around the country. Secondly, this is not just some vague innuendo; this is an actual assertion of my involvement in a conspiracy with the honourable member for Denison and certain other persons to cover up this event. I have been accused of being derelict in my duty for not having exposed this matter and taken some action. This is not the first time that the honourable member for Deakin has been found wanting in relation to his ignorance. When he was shadow Minister for communications, the Australian newspaper attacked him for inadequate thought and inadequate knowledge of a highly complex subject which should not be dealt with casually. Something else that should not be dealt with casually is assertions about me that I have been involved in a conspiracy or a cover-up. We can excuse him for his ignorance but we cannot excuse him for the indecency of those allegations. If he had an ounce of decency, he would know that not only did I not know about the alleged irregularities-if I did, I should not have taken any action-but most of all, I certainly was not involved in any conspiracy to cover them up. If he had an ounce of decency he would rise in his place and apologise for this offensive remark. Mr PEACOCK —My question is again directed to the Acting Treasurer. In view of the alleged denial by the Reserve Bank of Australia-let us see whether the Acting Treasurer has another denial up his sleeve or whether he wants to bucket the Melbourne Herald-and in view of the statement by Mr Bernie Fraser, the Secretary to the Treasury, also reported in today's Melbourne Herald, that monetary policy is likely to remain quite firm over the months ahead, I ask the Acting Treasurer whether he can substantiate this remark that he made in the House on Tuesday and reaffirmed yesterday: This Government has set the circumstances whereby there will be a general downward trend in interest rates. Mr DAWKINS —I have also seen the remarks reported to be those of Mr Bernie Fraser. I have not seen a transcript of them or been in touch with the Secretary to the Treasury, but I will presume for the purposes of this discussion today that, even though some of the quotes in the paper obviously have some omissions in them, the reported remarks were in fact accurate. The first thing that one should say is that essentially Mr Fraser is simply repeating what the Treasurer said in his Budget Speech: For the future, while other instruments have taken a greater share of the weight, monetary policy must continue to play its vital balancing role in the overall strategy of restraint. The Secretary's observations about the direction of monetary policy over recent months and the likelihood of firmness over the coming months were again simply stating the obvious. It is equally self-evident that short term interest rates in the professional markets have risen in the past few days. This is simply a product of the floating exchange rate and the deregulated financial markets. In other words, the markets have made their own assessments of the circumstances. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that I said that interest rates were going down. I did no such thing. In fact, I quite specifically said-- Mr Peacock —You said that they were going to go down. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —When I call for order, I include the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as well as everyone else. The Minister will continue. Mr DAWKINS —Perhaps they have had something over lunch. The first thing I said in answer to the first question on interest rates was that I would not speculate on the direction of short term interest rates. I then went on to say that, to the extent that the Government could influence policy in relation to interest rates, our policy was about ensuring that there was no upward pressure on interest rates by ensuring that there was a zero public sector borrowing requirement, which means that there is no level of government in this country that is out there borrowing in the market in a net way. And this has been brought about by a surplus which is equal to 1.7 per cent of the gross domestic product. As well, we have a policy-- Mr Sinclair —You know what you said yourself. Mr DAWKINS —The first words I said were that I would not speculate on the direction of interest rates. I said that there was a general policy which underpinned a general lowering of interest rates over the longer term. But I then went on to say-- Mr Howard —This is what you said. Mr DAWKINS —I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition is so fascinated by my answers. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease shouting across the table. Mr DAWKINS —This is not all about what has happened to interest rates today or what might happen tomorrow; this is all about the Opposition rejoicing in the possibility that interest rates might go up. Members of the Opposition say that this is further confirmation of the `the times will suit me' remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition wants interest rates to go up in order to imperil the economy. Because this is about economic prospects for this country, let me quote someone whom at least the Leader of the Opposition used to admire. This is what his former leader, another Fraser, Malcolm Fraser, had to say today, 29 September: I am optimistic. I think we are going to have some difficult times which will largely be imposed upon us by economic problems caused significantly by the United States. The Budget surpluses that the Government has now are obviously a very significant step in the right direction. The Leader of the Opposition might wish and hope and pray that interest rates will go up in order, he would think, to create the circumstances whereby he might become a bit more popular. Mr 28 per cent might go up a bit if interest rates went up-that will not happen. In fact, we only have to rely on remarks by his former leader to see that the direction that the Government is taking is right because both Mr Fraser and the Government are optimistic about the future. Mr LAMB —Can the Minister for Community Services and Health inform the House of the progress in developing the new national child-care strategy in Victoria? Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: this is clearly a policy statement; therefore, it should be in the form of a statement. It is about time that the Government recognised that the number of formal statements it has made in this House in the past two years has halved. Question Time should not be abused in this fashion. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister was asked for information, and I expect him to give information. Dr BLEWETT —I am very happy indeed to respond to an issue which is at the heart of the social and economic policies of both the Hawke and Cain governments. I think it is most appropriate that the question should come from the honourable member for Streeton, because he played a major role in developing this Government's child-care policy. I think the first thing that should be noted as a background to this question is that this Government has been the government for child-care in the history of this country. I will give the House two facts: Firstly, in the past 15 years $1 billion has been spent by Commonwealth governments on child-care, and $853m, or 85 per cent of that, has been spent by this Government in the past five years. Secondly, in that five years we have lifted the number of child care places from 46,000 to 110,000. The success of that policy has been very dependent on cooperation with the State governments and, in fact, the Cain Government has actively worked with this Government in the development of child-care. In fact, Victoria now has over 28,000 child-care places and nearly 5,000 of them have been created in the past few years as a result of the expansion of child-care initiated by the Commonwealth. I am also pleased to say that in principle we have now reached agreement with the Victorian Government for the funding of a further 7,900 child-care places in Victoria over the next four years under the new national strategy, and that will include 20 long day care centres in that State. I am also glad to say that Victorian industry has responded very positively to the Government's invitation to enter into partnership arrangements with the Commonwealth Government to provide child-care for employees. We have received a number of expressions of interest from private industry, and we will be following them up. I can confidently say that the Hawke and Cain governments will continue these progressive initiatives in the child-care area. Mr HOWARD —I direct my question to the Acting Treasurer and I ask him whether in the House on Tuesday he made the following comment regarding interest rates: This Government has set the circumstances whereby there will be a general downward trend in interest rates. Does the Acting Treasurer still stand by that statement and, if so, will he please explain to the House how the burgeoning current account deficit is to be financed otherwise than by letting the exchange rate go? Mr DAWKINS —As I indicated before, at the very beginning of the answer from which the Leader of the Opposition quoted, there was a quite clear statement that I would not get into the business of speculating on the direction of short term interest rates. That is what I said. I remind the Leader of remarks he made on the question of interest rates and interest rate control. He may not recall having made these statements, but it was in Perth in 1982 when he was Treasurer. He said that-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr Shack —On a point of order: Under standing order 145 I ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask the Minister to be relevant in his answer. He has been asked whether he said a certain set of words. He has not been asked about anything said by the Leader of the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —Minister, answer the question, please. Mr DAWKINS —I just think it is worth while to see whether the Leader's views on interest rate control have changed in the last few years. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, on a further point of order: it is my understanding that you just asked the Minister to be relevant to the question. The question is very specific: it asks him to say whether he said something or he did not. It has nothing to do with someone else. It is your obligation to tell him to answer the question or to sit down. Madam SPEAKER —It is not your obligation to tell me how to run the House. I asked the Minister to answer the question. I did not tell him he was not relevant. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I am on my feet on a point of order to ask you to tell him to be relevant. Madam SPEAKER —I have heard your point of order. I am asking the Minister to answer the question. Mr DAWKINS —Madam Speaker, I was about to quote from the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know whether these quotes are so fiendishly embarrassing to the Leader that he does not want to hear them, but he said: The regrettable fact is that the sheer complexity of the Australian financial system and its linkages with those of other nations make it plain that any attempt to control or regulate all interest rates in Australia must be doomed to failure. Mr Fife —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the Minister is clearly flouting your ruling. You asked him to answer the question and he is not answering the question. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is answering the question in his own way. The Minister will continue to answer the question. Mr DAWKINS —The point that I have been making consistently is that any attempt to control interest rates, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition-or Treasurer, as he then was-would be doomed to failure, much more now than would have been the case then, because in those days the then Government did make some failed attempt to control interest rates. Of course, we decided to float the exchange rate and deregulate the financial markets. Therefore, we are not in control of interest rates. I said, as he says here, that the whole question of interest rates-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —Madam Speaker, do they want me to answer the question or not? Madam SPEAKER —I might point out to the House that there is an enormous amount of time being wasted by interjections. Opposition members-Your words. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will not speak while the Chair is speaking. There is an enormous amount of time being wasted by points of order, and if you want to get in 16 questions in a day you are not going the right way about it. I understand that the Minister is drawing his answer to a close. Mr Shack —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order under standing order 145 again. It is not that we want to get 16 questions in a day; we want to get 16 answers. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: there are standing orders relating to frivolousness in points of order. That was clearly not a point of order. I ask you to interpret whether or not that was a frivolous point of order. Madam SPEAKER —As I pointed out yesterday, I get an enormous number of points of order, which you are all entitled to raise, relevant to how the House is running. However, those who are raising the points of order are sitting in their places persistently interjecting. I am telling you that you are refusing to accept the authority of the Chair. If it continues I will have to take action. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, can I have your assurance that that kind of admonition will be given with equal vehemence to the members on your right? Madam SPEAKER —If members on my right refuse to accept the authority of the Chair they will get exactly the same treatment, and I do not accept the implication of the Leader of the Opposition. I call on the Minister to conclude. Mr DAWKINS —I know that Opposition members would like to control this House, but they ought to learn to count because if they do they will find that we control the House and will do for a very long time-particularly if they carry on in this kind of way. Of course members of the Opposition would like to trivialise the business of interest rates. They are as well aware as anybody that this is a complex matter and that governments cannot in a deregulated system control interest rates. What we can do is set the circumstances whereby Government policy will not place upward pressure on interest rates. That is what we have done; that is the policy we will stick with. Mr COHEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. The Minister will recall that during the last election campaign the Government made a commitment to spend half a million dollars on establishing an endangered wildlife unit within the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, with the role of formulating and coordinating a national strategy for the conservation of threatened species. I notice that in both the 1987 and 1988 Budgets there has been no provision for the setting up of such a unit. In view of the fact that this was a firm commitment and that there is an enormous need for funds to protect a wide range of endangered species such as the bilby, the mountain pygmy possum and the northern hairy-nosed wombat-- Mr Hunt —It sounds like the front bench of the Labor Party. Mr COHEN —Many times I wish the honourable member was a northern hairy-nosed wombat. What is happening? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question and I thank him for his continued interest in this very important matter of protecting our endangered species. There will be a few endangered species in the Liberal and National parties in Victoria in the course of the next 48 hours, but there is nothing we can do about that. I am advised that an interdepartmental committee has concluded its deliberations and has worked out the structure for the most effective protection of these species. It is now determining the best allocation of funds for the carrying out of the objectives which, as I say, have been so laudably persisted with by the honourable member. Mr DOWNER —I refer the Acting Treasurer to the Budget assumption that `commodity prices are likely to remain firm' over the 1988-89 financial year, and the Treasurer's statement on 24 August that the terms of trade predictions are `in the bag, all we need do is to maintain the present price levels'. I also refer the Acting Treasurer to the fact that the State Bank of Victoria commodity price index has declined from 151.81 in the June quarter to 136.37 on 23 September, a decline of 10 per cent. In the light of this information, are the terms of trade still in the bag or has the bag got a hole in it? Mr DAWKINS —If Sir Alexander wants to work out and make predictions about commodity prices, and if he thinks he can do that with some accuracy, he might be better advised to get out of Parliament and make a lot of money doing so. Commodity prices are determined very much by circumstances in the world economy generally. Any index will from time to time measure the bundle of commodities which may or may not be most important to Australia. It is worth realising that in the past six months both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have revised upwards their world growth forecasts for 1988-89. The IMF now predicts an increase in growth in the industrial economies of 3.75 per cent in 1988, slowing to 2.75 per cent in 1989. The OECD in its economic outlook published a few months ago forecast rates of growth broadly of the same order. These rates of growth which are now forecasts for the world economy are higher than they were six months ago. That means to a country like ours, which relies very much on the export of raw materials, that the demand for those raw materials and therefore their prices are likely to remain firm in the course of this strong growth in the world economy. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Have decisions taken by the Government sapped the morale of the staff of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and weakened the organisation? Can ASIO still perform its duties effectively? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question and welcome this opportunity to set the record straight. The shadow Attorney-General, who has just recently been restored to the Opposition front bench, has disgraced himself in the last 24 hours by his statements which simply disregard the facts in regard to ASIO and, more importantly, are harmful to ASIO to the point of irresponsibility. We are glad the honourable member is back on the front bench. In a press release yesterday the shadow Attorney-General said that Australia's security services had been allowed to run down to the point where they were no longer effective-a remarkable contribution as the honourable member for Menzies comes back to the front bench. The utter hypocrisy of this position was revealed in an interview this morning in which the shadow Attorney-General came out with the extraordinary suggestion that ASIO should be scrapped and started all over again. That was a remarkable contribution from this new addition to Opposition front ranks. Clearly no suggestion could have had a more damaging impact on the morale and effectiveness of the ASIO organisation. Moreover, the shadow Attorney-General's charges about the Government's management of ASIO are, as one would expect from this recently returned reject, utterly without foundation. The Government's decisions on ASIO have all been to render it a more modern, more capable and more accountable organisation. I come to the matter of the relocation of ASIO's headquarters. The fact is that the relocation of ASIO's headquarters was recommended in 1977 by the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies conducted by Mr Justice Hope to allow ASIO to take a more central role and place in government decision making. Mr Justice Hope's recommendation made in 1977 was accepted by the Fraser Government-a government of which this shadow Minister was then a Minister. That Government accepted Mr Justice Hope's recommendation to relocate ASIO headquarters from Melbourne to Canberra, and it was a sensible thing to have done. I ask, rhetorically: Would the shadow Attorney-General have Mr Justice Hope's recommendation ignored, leaving ASIO headquarters in Melbourne and out of the mainstream of national decision making? Is that the implication of his position? Once the decision was made-the Fraser Government knew it and we knew it when we were faced with the recommendation-we knew that when we said to a group headquartered in Melbourne, `We're going to shift you from there to Canberra so that you can be centrally part of the decision-making process and so that you can have contact with the other intelligence organisations', it would be inevitable that that organisation would suffer a significant loss of staff. Everyone knew it. The honourable member knew it, and we knew it. Without going into detail about the number of people who decided not to make the shift from Melbourne to Canberra, we faced that fact because the recommendation of Mr Justice Hope was right, and the honourable member knew it was right. We faced up to the fact that we made the decisions that were necessary to ensure that we got the people and the quality of people into ASIO that would be necessary to continue its operation. Without going into detail on the current position, ASIO's staff strength is now higher than it was before the relocation. That is a fact. As if that were not enough from this recently returned reject, he also made another remarkable statement. He said that ASIO records had been destroyed. This is the contribution of the new shadow Attorney-General. What is the shadow Attorney-General talking about? ASIO has not been destroying any of its operationally significant records. How would any sane, concerned, objective person suggest or imply that ASIO would be destroying any of its operationally relevant records? But this fellow who has come back into the front bench thinks he has to make some splash, and he does it by casting aspersions upon ASIO, saying that people have been lost because of the move to Canberra, implying that they should have been left more ineffectively in Melbourne, suggesting that they are destroying records, and suggesting, as a result of those mistaken assumptions, that ASIO should be scrapped. It is hard to imagine anything more likely to undermine the morale or the confidence of a central and important intelligence security organisation than the contribution of this new shadow Attorney-General. Mr Reith —Sit down. You are only wasting time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Flinders is not running this House. Mr HAWKE —This Government, as distinct from the Opposition and as distinct from the shadow Attorney-General, values the important work that is being done by ASIO. It has had our support and it will continue to have it. I suggest that the Opposition would best serve the interests of this country if it stopped playing its miserable politics, got its facts right and stopped putting around in the community the suggestion that this organisation is destroying its records, carrying the implication that in some way that is endangering the security of this country. It is a foul aspersion on the integrity and the competence of ASIO. The shadow Attorney-General should be ashamed of himself. Mr Scholes —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have just listened to this House on the radio and the noise and the rabble of interjections are such that they are a disgrace to this chamber. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member does not really have a point of order. However, he does have a point that I have made repeatedly. Mr EWEN CAMERON —Is the Acting Treasurer aware that some housing loan applicants in Melbourne have been informed by Commonwealth Bank officials that the announcement of interest rate increases is being delayed until after Saturday's State election? Does the Acting Treasurer deny that housing interest rates are likely to rise immediately after the Victorian election? Mr DAWKINS —Of course there is no basis for that claim whatsoever. Housing interest rates are established by the market. The Opposition has to make up its mind about what its position is on interest rates. On the one hand, one of the Opposition members is saying that the Government is trying to suppress interest rates, keep them down, but on the other hand Senator John Stone is saying that we are trying to push them up. If one is interested in mortgage rates the most interesting question to ask the new shadow spokesman for finance is whether he still supports the statement that he made on 15 May 1987 when he said that the Government had only done half the job by not deregulating the whole of mortgage interest rates. He wants to see overnight half the home buyers in this country faced with an interest rate increase from 13 1/2 per cent to 14 1/2 per cent. That is what the shadow finance Minister wants-an overnight increase of one per cent in mortgage interest rates. Does the Leader of the Opposition agree with this policy? If he does not, he had better pull his shadow Minister for finance into line; if he does he should have the guts to say that his policy would mean that interest rates for half the mortgage holders in this country would go up by one per cent overnight-or $45 a month for the average mortgage of $50,000. That is the Opposition's position. We have a firm position on interest rates. We will retain the regulated rate of 13 1/2 per cent and the other rates will, as advocated by so many people including many on the Opposition front bench, be established by the market without interference from us. Mr JENKINS —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at the National Press Club earlier this month when he suggested that a coalition government would slash spending on so-called `middle class welfare'? Can the Minister tell the House why it is not this Government's policy to make such mindless, arbitrary decisions about its income support programs? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for Scullin for his question. Of course, as we have just seen in the previous question, the Opposition deals in the throw away line and the throw away phrase. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is, of course, a master of that. He is a master of saying something which he knows is nonsensical in terms of policy and not something that would be relevant to what his Party in government would say it was about in any sensitive context. It is interesting to note what happened only a few weeks later in the party room. After 5 1/2 years in which to talk about retirement incomes policy that issue goes into the party room and is immediately withdrawn because a decision must be made on whether to continue to pay millionaires their pensions. That is because of the honourable member for Richmond, who likes to move around the country attacking the sole parent and the unemployed but defending decisions not to target pension payments so that they do not go to millionaires. The honourable member for Bradfield cannot take that question into the party room because he knows that Charlie Blunt from Richmond will go for him. Mr Blunt —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker-in fact I have two points of order. Some moments ago in Question Time you said that you would enforce the Standing Orders without favour. You are aware, as well as I am, what the Standing Orders say about referring to members of this House. I would suggest that you correct the Minister's reference to me. Madam SPEAKER —What did the Minister say? Mr HOWE —I simply referred to the honourable member by his name and I withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister has withdrawn. I point out to the honourable member for Richmond that when I was referring to behaviour in the House in relation to the Standing Orders I called upon those on my left and right to adhere to the Chair's authority. The interjections are continuing and I now ask honourable members on my left to cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition gets a lot of latitude, but he must not just talk across the table as it suits him. Mr Howard —On that point of order, Madam Speaker: the cause of my responses is that for years there has been a torrent of Government interjections during Question Time with very little rebuke and it seems very strange for us to be rebuked now because we interject. Madam SPEAKER —I reject that totally because if I indicate to honourable members on my right that they should keep quiet they stop interjecting. That is absolutely accurate. If I found any cooperation from honourable members on my left, I would be delighted. I tell you now that you are using and misusing the forms of the House. You are failing to accept the Chair's authority and the Chair will no longer put up with it. The House should not put up with it. It is the House that is bringing itself into disrepute by its noisy behaviour. Mr HOWE —I was making the point that while the Opposition specialises in throw-away lines and while it specialises in raising standing order 145, when it comes to making a difficult policy decision it is frankly incapable of doing anything. In terms of the party room, this is pretty clear. There is a choice. We currently prevent people of great wealth from receiving the pension. But the Opposition, faced with that difficulty, cannot deal with the divisions in its own ranks, particularly in terms of relations between the Liberal and National parties, and cannot deal with the fact that the honourable member for Richmond, who has a record of attacking and stigmatising more low income people than any other member of the Opposition, is stopping it from making a policy choice of that nature. The Opposition is quite unable to make such a decision. Honourable members should remember that we are talking about the shadow Treasurer of this country who went along to the National Press Club and said that when the Liberals got into government they would cut middle class welfare. The new shadow spokesman on finance just last week told Michelle Grattan: I have a personal view that some of the genuinely needy may need more. The only way you can do that is to take a fairly hard line to access by others. We would not disagree with that but, when it comes to making that kind of decision, the Opposition has been proved incapable of making it. That is why we have to deal with disruption in this Parliament day in and day out because there is not an analytical thought on any major issue on the other side of the House. Indeed, there are very few thinkers on the other side of the House. In 5 1/2 years the Opposition has not yet produced a sentence on retirement income policy, but on one little aspect of that policy, one that we on this side can decide in two minutes, the Opposition puts off making a decision for weeks. Contrast that with the Government's approach. We have sought to build a policy based on the principles of social justice in which we have systematically sought not simply to provide assistance for those in greatest need but also to provide a range of programs that are designed to help people who are disadvantaged during a period of very high unemployment which flowed from the policies of the previous Government. We have helped them to move back into the work force. We have developed those policies in a systematic way. They have been open to debate. Not a single policy paper issued by the Social Security Review has received any kind of significant response from the Opposition. We have gone ahead and made our policy publicly and openly. We have developed it in a coherent way. I can tell the House why we do not hear much from the Opposition and why it is so devious. The reason for that is included in a brief sentence from this morning's Age which refers to the State Liberal Party's policy for the Victorian election. It says: The Liberal Party's social welfare policies have only been announced as principles, but the main thrust is towards child abuse. The reason that we hear only attitudes and throwaway lines about middle class wel- fare; the reason we hear only vagaries and statements that have very little or no meaning-- Mr Reith —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. This Minister is simply abusing Question Time. I request you to exert your authority and to ask the Minister to bring his answer to a conclusion. Madam SPEAKER —That is not really a point of order. The Minister is drawing his answer to a close. Mr HOWE —I am drawing my answer to a close. The reason the coalition is in opposition is that in six years in opposition in Victoria and in 5 1/2 years in opposition here it has been unable to agree on substantive areas of policy. Opposition members bleat in this Parliament about what may or may not be the impact of interest rates, when they have not been able to develop a coherent policy on anything, including an important area like social welfare. Mr Reith —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr HOWE —I can understand why the honourable member would want me to wind up. Mr Reith —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I think you have given this Minister an adequate indication that he ought to draw his answer to a close. Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Flinders understood the Standing Orders he would realise that the Chair has no authority to ask the Minister to resume his seat. Mr Sinclair —Rubbish! Madam SPEAKER —I do not need the right honourable member for New England to tell me that that is rubbish. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, on a further point of order: I point out to you-I have drawn your attention in this place before to examples from Hansard-that previous Speakers have called upon the Prime Minister and other Ministers to bring their answers to a close. If that advice is ignored, the Speaker simply tells the Minister to resume his seat. Previous Speakers have used their authority because they have had the backing of their colleagues. Madam SPEAKER —This House has never given to the Chair, as Speaker Snedden clearly pointed out, the authority to ask a Minister to resume his seat. The Chair may persuade the Minister to conclude his answer, and does so. Mr HOWE —Madam Speaker, I am drawing my answer to a close. The honourable member for O'Connor is a clear case in point. That is why he had to be dumped from Health. He made no contribution in terms of policy. He disrupts every Question Time. Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has persuaded the Minister to resume his seat. I ask the Minister to finish quickly and resume his seat. Mr HOWE —To conclude my remarks-- Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Richmond on a point of order. Mr Blunt —Thank you, Madam Speaker. You may not consider that you have the power to ask the Minister to resume his seat, but you do have the power to enforce the Standing Orders. Standing order 145 requires the answer to be relevant. The question was about child support. The Minister has not uttered one word on child support. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will draw his answer to a conclusion. He will heed the Chair. Mr HOWE —I understand that the point of order was on the question of relevance. What I was referring to was a very clear statement by the shadow Treasurer that the essence of the Opposition's welfare policy is that it would slash spending on so-called middle class welfare. Everything that I have said has been pertinent and relevant to that point. The problem with honourable members opposite is that they are incapable of developing a coherent policy on anything, let alone welfare. That is underlined in Victoria where the Liberal Party's social welfare policies have been announced only in principle. Honourable members opposite are not on about telling the truth. They are on about spreading rumours, innuendo and lies in the electorate. Mr Hawke —Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Mallee. Mr Peter Fisher —Madam Speaker, my question also is-- Madam SPEAKER —No; the Prime Minister has brought Question Time to a close. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair recognised the Prime Minister and then the honourable member for Mallee. I know that it is difficult for honourable members to hear; but, if they continue to interject and refuse to heed the Chair, what can I do? 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- Government Response to Parliamentary Committee Reports-response to the list tabled by the Speaker on 25 May 1988. Defence Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922-together with Freedom of Information Section 8 Statement-section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Australian Bureau of Statistics-Annual Report 1987-88-section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. Australian Statistics Advisory Council-Annual Report 1987-88-section 24 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975. Official Establishments Trust-Annual Report 1987-88. Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veteran's Pensions-section 29 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986-together with an explanatory statement. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —by leave-Madam Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the Government response to parliamentary committee reports. Leave granted. The response read as follows- Aboriginal Affairs (House, Standing) 1. Return to the country-The Aboriginal homelands movement in Australia. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is finalising a response to the Committee's report. The Minister expects to be able to table the Government's response during the Budget Sitting. Aboriginal Education (House, Select) The House of Representatives Select Committee on Aboriginal Education presented its report on Aboriginal Education on 26 November 1985. The Government has noted the report but reserves its response pending the development of an Aboriginal Education Policy (AEP). The AEP, which is intended to identify measures for improving education opportunities for Aboriginal students, will address many of the issues identified in the Select Committee's report. It is proposed that the AEP will be finalised by the end of 1988. The Government has already acted upon a major recommendation of the report, namely the transfer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs' education and formal training program to the Department of Employment, Education and Training. The transfer was effected on 1 March 1988. Aircraft Noise (House, Select) The Minister for Transport and Communications Support has written to the Committee's Chairman advising on progress and will respond to the Committee's report as soon as practicable, following consultations on the recommendation relating to the Sydney curfew. Australian Capital Territory (Joint, Standing) 1. Metropolitan Canberra The Minister for the Arts and Territories expects to be in a position to present the Government's response shortly. Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings (Joint, Standing) 1. Televising and radio broadcasting of both Houses of Parliament and their committees The then Minister for Transport and Communications announced on 9 August 1988 the intended establishment of a separate dedicated ABC service for the broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings. A response to outstanding broadcasting issues arising from the report will be developed in the process of the establishment of the dedicated service. A response on the televising of proceedings is being prepared for presentation as soon as possible. 2. Provision of sound and vision services in the new Parliament House The recommendations in the report have in large part been implemented. Confirmation of arrangements to apply will be provided by letter to the Committee. Environment and Conservation (House, Standing) 1. Hazardous chemicals (First and Second Reports) The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has written to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts to outline progress in the preparation of the Government's response to the reports on Hazardous Chemicals. The Government expects to table its response shortly. 2. Protection of the Greater Daintree The primary reason for not responding to the report has been continuing Government action on rainforest conservation and, in particular, action on protection of Queensland's wet tropical rainforests which includes the Greater Daintree area. The report's recommendations concentrate on the World Heritage status of the Greater Daintree, consultation with the Queensland Government and construction of the Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield road-many of the recommendations are out of date or have been overtaken by subsequent events. A large number of statements have been made both in and outside Parliament about action taken by the Government to protect the wet tropical rainforests. The House of Representatives Standing Committee was briefed on the Government's action. It is intended to respond to the report in the near future in the context of a statement concerning Government action in relation to the wet tropical rainforests of north east Queensland. 3. New South Wales heritage properties Commonwealth-State administrative arrangements Recommendation 1 comes within the ambit of a joint Commonwealth/NSW Ministerial Council which it is proposed be established to consider issues relating to New South Wales World Heritage Properties. The proposal was made to the previous New South Wales Government on 25 February and to the current New South Wales Government on 24 June 1988. It is understood that the New South Wales Government is at present considering the proposal. Recommendation 2 has been implemented. The Natural Heritage and Environment Protection Division of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories is responsible for World Heritage matters generally, and in relation to Australian properties, up to and including their inscription on the World Heritage List. Once an Australian property has been inscribed on the World Heritage List, matters relating to the Commonwealth's involvement in the management of the area are the responsibility of the Conservation Division of the Department. Recommendation 3 will be reviewed when the joint Commonwealth/New South Wales Ministerial Council is established. Recommendation 4 provides that Commonwealth and State works proposals be deferred until such time as the Lord Howe Island Plan of Management has been completed. The Plan of Management (or, more correctly, the Regional Environment Plan) was gazetted in late 1986. Recommendation 5 provides that the Commonwealth Government should meet the additional costs of importing aggregates from the mainland or other sources. The importation of aggregate from the mainland was adopted for environmental reasons. The extent of financial assistance would need to be determined in the light of any request from the New South Wales Government. Recommendation 6 provides that the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 be amended. The Act allows the Minister to direct an environmental impact statement to ensure that environmental matters are fully examined and taken into account in relation to actions and decisions of the Commonwealth Government. Ministerial discretion is an important aspect of the legislation. The Act and its administrative procedures provide sufficient scope to ensure that Commonwealth proposals in relation to World Heritage Properties are subject to assessment without the legislative amendments proposed by the Committee. 4. Namadgi National Park The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has written to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts informing him of progress in preparing the Government's response to the report on Namadgi National Park. The Government expects to table a response shortly. 5. Fiscal measures and the achievement of environmental objectives It is anticipated that the Government's response to the Committee's report on fiscal measures and environmental objectives will be tabled early in the Budget Sittings. Expenditure (House, Standing) 1. Control of prohibited immigration by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Most recommendations in the report have been implemented as far as is practicable. Recommendation 3 relating to the control of passenger cards at Sydney Airport has been overtaken by events. The Government decided not to pursue, at this time, recommendation 6 relating to payment of Legal Aid to prohibited non citizens. Recommendation 7-relating to the prohibition of people who are not authorised to work in Australia from using the services of the CES-has proved not to be feasible. Alternative approaches to the issue have been developed. The recommendation to completely prohibit tourists and short term visitors from seeking a change of status (the second part of the recommendation 10) has also proved not to be feasible, as cases arise where a change of immigration status in Australia is justified. This is the final response to this report. 2. The Darling Harbour fiasco The Government's final response to the report was presented to the House on 8 December 1987. 3. Meteorological services The Minister for Administrative Services presented the Government's response to the House on 1 September 1988. 4. Telecom's zonal and charging policies in rural and remote areas The Government's response was tabled in the House on 25 August 1988. 5. Review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report into construction project management practised by the Department of Housing and Construction The Minister for Administrative Services presented the Government's response to the House on 1 September 1988. Finance and Public Administration (House, Standing) 1. Australian iron and steel industry On 16 March 1988 the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business made a ministerial statement to the House of Representatives advising that it would be inappropriate to respond to the specific findings of the Parliamentary Committee's report at that time as the Steel Industry Authority was conducting a review of the Steel Industry Plan and would be addressing the same issues identified by the Parliamentary Committee. The Minister undertook to respond to specific findings of the Parliamentary Committee when the review had been finalised. The Steel Industry Authority's report on the review of the Steel Industry Plan was forwarded to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce on 30 June 1988. However to date the Government has not announced any decision on the review nor has the report been publicly released. Accordingly, a detailed response to the Parliamentary Committee's report is still not appropriate at this time. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint, Standing) 1. Australia and the Philippines 2. Disarmament and arms control in the nuclear age Events have overtaken the recommendations in the reports of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on ``Australia and the Philippines'' and ``Disarmament and Arms Control''. Accordingly, the Government does not intend to respond to the reports. 3. The management of Australia's defence The Government's final response to the report was presented to the House on 3 June 1988. Parliamentary Privilege (Joint, Select) Legislation introduced by Presiding Officers (7 October 1986, 19 March 1987), supported by the Government and subsequently passed both Houses. Proposed resolutions tabled in each house. Resolutions passed by the Senate on 25 February 1988; one aspect-the proposed guidelines for witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees-is before the Procedure Committee. Procedure (House, Standing) 1. The standing orders and practices which govern the conduct of Question Time The Leader of the House will discuss a draft response with the Procedure Committee in the near future. 2. The ringing of the bells and the Chamber precincts in the new Parliament House. The recommendation was accepted, and the revised procedure adopted with effect from 22 August 1988. 3. Certification of petitions not in the English language A response will be provided in the current sittings. Publications (Joint, Standing) 1. Review of the cost and distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series The Government's final response to the report was presented to the House on 16 February 1988. Transport Safety (House, Standing) 1. Sports aviation safety The Government's final response to the report was presented to the House on 8 December 1987. Video Material (Joint, Select) The Attorney-General expects to be in a position to table the Government's response shortly. Mr ALDRED(Bruce) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ALDRED —Yes, Madam Speaker, I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr ALDRED —In a press release issued late yesterday the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Senator Ray, in essence confirmed my assertion, and that of the Age on 13 September last, that there is under way an Immigration Department investigation into abuse of the business migration program and that it involves a senior immigration officer formerly stationed in Hong Kong. However, the Minister has misrepresented my comments about an employee of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation having been involved, stretching them to say that the VEDC as an organisation is not involved and that there is concern only about the relationship between the senior immigration officer and a private migration agent. It would appear that the VEDC employee I referred to and the business migration agent the Minister talks about are the same person. This individual was responsible for business migration in the VEDC when Immigration Department investigations commenced-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member might say where he personally has been misrepresented by the Minister. Mr ALDRED —This is explaining exactly that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We want to get directly to the point. Mr ALDRED —We are getting directly to it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —And we want to do it rather quickly. Mr ALDRED —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said, this individual was responsible for business migration in the VEDC when Immigration Department investigations commenced in 1984 into major allegations of malpractice concerning the business migration program-- Mr Scholes —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member-- Mr ALDRED —I am coming to it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Corio on a point of order. Mr ALDRED —He was later manager in charge of business migration for the Victorian Department of Industry, Technology and Resources-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr ALDRED —Since early this year he has been a private migration agent-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member for Bruce. He will resume his seat. If the honourable member does not resume his seat, I will name him. Mr Scholes —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Bruce is reading into Hansard an allegation against an unnamed individual under the guise of a personal explanation. That is contrary to the practices and Standing Orders of this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bruce needs to tell the House where he personally was misrepresented, or he will resume his seat. He should succinctly come to where he was misrepresented. It is not permissible to use a personal explanation as a vehicle to introduce extraneous matters. Mr ALDRED —I have come to the point. I have explained that the business migration agent the Minister is talking about in his press release and the VDEC employee are one and the same person. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr N.A. Brown —During Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) grossly misrepresented me in two respects. The first respect was with regard to the thrust of remarks that I had made about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). You will recall that the thrust of his remarks was that I had denigrated the organisation, criticised it and called for it to be abolished. The point that I was making, and it is apparent from transcripts with respect to this first misrepresentation only, was that the conduct of the Government had so neutralised the organisation, particularly in view of the fact we learnt yesterday that the Government had rejected the organisation's advice, that there was a case for looking at improving and building on the good parts of the organisation. The Prime Minister has grossly misinterpreted and grossly misrepresented the thrust of the remarks that I made. It was quite plain-to elaborate on this; I will be very brief-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not think we are going to have too many elaborations. Mr N.A. Brown —There will not be too many elaborations, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask you to accept my undertaking to that effect. It is important to place on record the simple fact that my remarks came out of a situation where the Government had allowed the Prime Minister's vanity to be given a higher priority than the national interest-- Mr Beazley —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member is clearly out of order. This is not a personal explanation. He is debating the point. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member is now debating the matter. He has a second matter? Mr N.A. Brown —The second matter is that the Prime Minister again misrepresented me by saying that I had untruthfully said that a number of ASIO records had been destroyed. The Prime Minister misrepresented me because what I said was true. If we need an independent arbitrator to finalise this matter, I challenge the Prime Minister to table records which will establish the matter one way or the other. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr N.A. Brown —As usual, he is misrepresenting the situation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I seek leave to make a ministerial statement reporting on my visit to the South Pacific Forum. Leave granted. Mr N.A. Brown interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —If the honourable member for Menzies interjects again, I will deal with him. Mr N.A. Brown —We are entitled to defend ourselves. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Menzies. Mr HAWKE —I wish to report to the House on the nineteenth meeting of the South Pacific Forum, which I attended in Nuku'alofa, Tonga, on 20 and 21 September. I table the communique of the meeting. Honourable members will find in the communique an account of the various decisions taken by the Forum, all of them by consensus. In this statement I will address the outcomes of particular interest to Australia. Honourable members will recall that last year's Forum was largely dominated by the military coup in Fiji, which occurred just two weeks before the meeting in Apia, at which Fiji as a consequence was not represented. This year's Forum was held against a different backdrop: the appointment earlier in the year of Fiji's interim Government, the release of a new draft constitution, now the subject of community consultations, and the presence in Tonga of Ratu Mara, the head of Fiji's interim Government. Nonetheless, matters relating to Fiji were an important element in my discussions in Nuku'alofa. In addition to Australia's continuing interest in Fiji's return to parliamentary government, there was the regrettable decision taken by Fiji the week before the Forum in relation to Senator Evans's proposed visit. I am pleased to report to the House that I was able to discuss this matter frankly with Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara the morning after my arrival in Tonga. Honourable members will know from media reports that Ratu Mara agreed to Senator Evans visiting Fiji in a few weeks' time and that I received an assurance that he will be given free access to Government and other political leaders. In the end, the peoples of Fiji must determine the future of their own country. Nevertheless, I outlined once again during my discussions with Ratu Mara our concern about Fiji's internal security decree and urged the development of constitutional arrangements which protect the interest of all the peoples of Fiji. In the Forum itself, I drew attention to the annual report of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of the South Pacific. The report referred to the difficulties that the political environment had posed for the university over the past year and the assurances received from the Fiji authorities, which had by and large been honoured, enabling the university to continue to operate as a centre of learning. I welcomed those assurances, stating that it was essential for the region to have an active tertiary institution in which ideas and opinions could be discussed freely. Honourable members will note that these points are reflected in the communique. Honourable members will also see in the Forum communique an endorsement of the establishment of a regional panel of appellate judges. The idea, initially proposed by the 1987 meeting of the Pacific Islands law officers, is an excellent one and should be welcomed and supported by all who value the rule of law and maintenance of human rights in our region. The proposal has the support of the Chief Justices of Australia's High Court and the Federal Court. A number of Australian judges and retired judges, including the former Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, have already indicated their availability for the panel. The panel will meet a real need, as small island states often do not have the internal resources to constitute appeal courts. The use of panellists will be a matter for decision by any country wishing to constitute an appellate court. Countries would make a direct approach to a judge or judges of their choice, the aim being to avoid involving the governments of countries providing judges in the process of selection. The situation in New Caledonia has been a major regional issue in recent years. At Tonga, Forum members were pleased to be able to welcome the positive developments in French policy since President Mitterrand's re-election and the appointment of Prime Minister Rocard. For the past couple of years in particular, Forum members have been rightly concerned about the direction of French policy and the increasing tensions in the territory, which spilled over into bloody violence earlier this year. The agreement now reached in New Caledonia has already led to a welcome reduction in tensions. For the first time, the French authorities have established a process which, if properly implemented, should see a significant increase in the number of trained Kanaks ready and able to take on responsibility in those areas of administration which, until now, have been closed to them. Australia stands ready to assist in training Kanaks for this purpose and, as Senator Evans indicated during his recent visit there, in developing commercial, tourist and other links between Australia and New Caledonia. While welcoming developments in French policy, Australia and other Forum members are concerned to ensure that the planned 1998 act of self-determination is conducted in accordance with established United Nations practices and principles, encompassing all options, including independence. It remains our firm conviction that the indigenous people of New Caledonia must share fully in the future economic, political and social development of New Caledonia. In summary, the decisions taken in Tonga on New Caledonia were both principled and relevant to the current situation. In discussion on the South Pacific nuclear free zone, I was pleased to be able to inform other heads of government of the decision by the Chinese National People's Congress to approve ratification of protocols 2 and 3 of the Treaty of Rarotonga. This, combined with the Soviet Union's unqualified ratification in April, is further evidence of the widespread international recognition of the Treaty as a significant arms control measure representing, as it does, the collective effort by Forum members to express deeply felt and longstanding concerns about nuclear testing, ocean dumping of nuclear waste and proliferation of nuclear weapons. I informed other Forum leaders of Australia's continued efforts to seek signature of the protocols by the United States, the United Kingdom and France. As well as discussing these broader political and security questions, the Forum took a number of practical decisions designed to improve regional cooperation in matters relating to security. The 1987 Forum endorsed my proposal that officials examine means of improving the exchange of information on regional security. This exercise has now been completed and, henceforth, the question of security information exchange will be discussed annually at the pre-Forum meeting of officials. These arrangements will enable a more effective and coordinated response by Forum members to issues as they arise. Over the past year, Forum countries have defined their particular priorities in information exchange and Australia has prepared papers addressing international political and economic developments affecting regional security. I assured Forum leaders that Australia would continue to provide such papers as requested. While the South Pacific has remained relatively free from terrorist activities there are no grounds for complacency. This year's Forum endorsed the report of the Working Group on Terrorism and Hijacking, urging member countries to review, as a matter of priority, their domestic arrangements for preventing and handling terrorist incidents. I made clear Australia's preparedness to assist other Forum countries with training and technical assistance, and this offer was welcomed by other leaders. I now turn to economic and other matters discussed at the Forum. In doing so, I wish to emphasise that, while economic questions are not always the ones which capture the headlines in Australia when the South Pacific Forum meets, they are, and properly so, very high priority issues for all countries of the region. Most Forum members are heavily reliant on agricultural and primary products for their export earnings. The Forum therefore decided to make a strong statement in the communique urging the major trading countries to tackle, as a matter of urgency, questions of protection and market access, especially in the context of the forthcoming mid-term review of the Uruguay Round. These issues will be discussed by regional countries in more detail at a meeting being hosted next month by the New Zealand Government. There is, understandably, some dissatisfaction within the region with Japan's approach to the negotiation of multilateral fishing arrangements with interested Forum countries. Honourable members will recall the difficulties which arose with the United States Tuna Boat Owners Association and, with intervention at the political level, the resolution of that problem. I am confident that, consistent with its intention to become more involved in the region, Japan will likewise see its way clear to conclude satisfactory arrangements with interested Forum members. Fisheries are one of the few resources available to some Forum countries and it is clearly essential that they get a fair deal. I therefore assured the Forum that Australia, as a member of the Forum Fisheries Agency, would continue to provide active support in the negotiations with Japan. In the context of long term regional interests, perhaps the most significant outcome of the meeting related to the so-called `greenhouse effect'. A decision was taken to conduct a study into the possible establishment of a network of regional tidal monitoring stations which would provide Forum member countries with accurate data relating to the implications for the region of climatic change. This suggestion, on which Australia took the initiative, was enthusiastically welcomed and endorsed by Forum leaders. For some of the smaller South Pacific island countries, such as Kiribati and Tuvalu, the economic and social implications of a continued warming of the earth's atmosphere could be truly critical. At present, however, the infrastructure in the region for tidal measurements is limited. I advised the Forum that Australia would fund the study and, depending on the outcome, the establishment of a network of stations, including the provision of related training. Honourable members will need no reminding of the vital importance to Forum member countries of improved communication links, especially given their scattered location across the world's largest expanse of ocean. The Forum endorsed the establishment of a South Pacific regional and domestic satellite system, which is especially attractive to the smaller island countries. This has particular significance for Australia as Overseas Telecommunications Commission International OTC(I) has worked hard at developing the system, in consultation with Forum members. Other Forum leaders welcomed my offer to fund a hub station in Sydney at a cost of around $2.6m, which will enable OTC(I) to rebate to subscribers 10c per call-minute to further extend telecommunications facilities in the region. Also relevant to communications, the Forum welcomed Australia's decision to provide $2.5m towards the funding of a regional aviation project which will enhance air safety and other aspects of regional air travel and transport. Forum leaders encouraged other aid donors to follow our lead. As a result of the decisions taken at this year's Forum, institutional arrangements are being put in place to establish formal dialogue with a number of countries and international bodies involved in the region, but not members of the Forum. This process will add to the Forum's growing international stature. In addition, the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation (SPEC), now to be known as the Forum Secretariat, is to undergo a major restructuring and, for the first time, have a formal corporate plan. The restructuring will see a significant upgrading of the Secretariat's capacity in the area of economic planning and analysis, especially in tackling the particular problems confronting the Pacific island countries. I made clear Australia's willingness to contribute positively to this task. It is against this background of solid and constructive achievement on matters of practical and concrete interest to island countries that I referred at the beginning of this report to the excellent state of Australia's relations with its South Pacific neighbours and to our high standing in the region. Over the past 18 months I have had discussions with South Pacific leaders at two Forums and at the Vancouver Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. In addition, over the past year, I have had no less than 11 separate meetings with South Pacific heads of government. Senator Evans has just concluded his first visit overseas as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and, by making the South Pacific the exclusive focus of that visit, signalled his and the Government's commitment to the region. It was a most successful visit and one which contributed positively to the success of the Forum, and for that I thank him. No Australian government has pursued a more deliberate and energetic approach to the development of our relations and interests in the South Pacific. Conscious of our relative size and population, we have done so, not in any overbearing way, but as a friendly and helpful neighbour. The past year has not been an easy one in the region. I believe we have met the challenge and that Australia has emerged with an enhanced reputation. I repeat: our standing in the Forum has never been higher. We have a clear perception of our interests, a genuine sensitivity to the needs of others in the region, and an acknowledged willingness to accept our obligations. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-On behalf of the Opposition I thank the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for his report to the Parliament on his recent visit to the South Pacific Forum. Many of the things mentioned by the Prime Minister in his report have the support of the Opposition. I certainly welcome the contribution that Australia is willing to make to the development of an appellate court for the island states of this region. Their resources in this area are limited and the willingness of countries such as Australia to make a contribution is something that certainly has the support of this side of the House. I think it is fair to say that the Government has increased its preoccupation with this region in the past year or two. I do not think it is making a churlish political point for me to observe that, in the early years of the former Foreign Minister's stewardship of that job, he was less than enchanted with the importance of the Pacific region and preferred to wander further afield. But I am pleased to note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) chose to visit this region in his first visit overseas as Australia's new Foreign Minister. If that represents a change in priority by the Government it is welcomed and it will have the support of the Opposition. Of course, we have some stark differences with the Government regarding matters such as the nuclear free zone in the Pacific. We share the Government's total opposition to French nuclear testing-opposition which began with the Whitlam Government, which was supported by the Fraser Government, and which has continued under the present Government. But we have well founded objections to the nuclear free zone treaty for reasons that are well set out. We will maintain that objection because we believe that the terms of that treaty potentially derogate from the sovereignty which is involved in agreements such as the ANZUS pact. We also have some reservations about the Government's handling of Australia's response to the events of New Caledonia. Whilst we support to the full the Government's desire for complete self-determination, we believe that some of the criticisms that have been made of French policy in New Caledonia, particularly by the former Foreign Minister, are not justified and are not likely to lead to a more peaceful and orderly handling of that dispute. I say again that we do not share the rather open-ended character of the Prime Minister's invitation for a greater Soviet presence in this part of the world. We remain of the view that the Prime Minister's Singapore speech en route to see Secretary-General Gorbachev was ill-advised and sat uneasily with the warnings that have been given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister to a number of states in the Pacific area. But, in general terms, Australia should play a constructive, not overly assertive, but helpful role in this part of the world. I regret that this Government has not continued the practice of having regional heads of government meetings of Commonwealth countries that would have increased our preoccupation with, and concern in, the region. We also continue to have reservations about a commitment to the increased aid to Fiji, given the circumstances of the collapse of democracy and the clear racist nature of the Government which has been established in that country. But in general terms there is much agreement between the Government and the Opposition. There is a sign that the Government has put a greater emphasis on this region. To the extent that that continues, the Government will continue to have our support. To the extent that that diminishes, it will draw our criticism. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 1, Private Members' Business, given for Thursday, 29 September, being called on forthwith. [Motion] Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(3.54) —I thank the House for its courtesy. I move: That the House of Representatives speaking for the Government and people of Australia- (1) welcomes sailors and warships from many parts of the world joining our own Royal Australian Navy in the Bicentennial International Naval Review; (2) expresses its appreciation for the friendship and goodwill shown by all participating nations; and (3) trusts that the welcome extended by Australians not only in Sydney but in many other ports around Australia will build links of friendship and understanding which will assist all our navies and maintain the peace in the years ahead. Last Tuesday evening the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), on behalf of the Government and the people of Australia, formally welcomed the naval personnel and warships taking part in the bicentennial naval salute. On that occasion the Minister said that the arrival of 33 ships and over 17,000 sailors joining the Royal Australian Navy would fulfil the aim of the salute to commemorate Australia's maritime heritage and reinforce Australia's international friendships. This week's activities will culminate in the international naval review to be held on Sydney Harbour on Saturday. It will be the largest gathering of ships on Sydney Harbour in our history, surpassing the 1970 assembly for the bicentenary of Captain Cook's landing at Botany Bay and the 1986 review for the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy. All of the nations represented are Australia's friends: many are allies or our former allies in war, and some were our opponents in earlier days. However, all ships are equally welcome in Australia's bicentennial year. The visiting sailors have already been hosted in many ports around our coastline and will continue a program of visits in the next few weeks. Let us make every effort so that the contacts and friendships now made and renewed will contribute to a better understanding and peace in the years ahead. All Australians are proud and honoured to have as our special guests next Saturday their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of York. Let us hope for a glorious October day in Sydney to mark this memorable and important occasion in our memories. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.52) —I thank the House for the opportunity to say on behalf of the Opposition that we join with the Government in supporting this motion to welcome the visiting warships and their crews to Australia. I emphasise to the country and to these visitors that the majority of Australians welcome them. I think one has only to look at the success of the dial-a-sailor scheme-the line has now been closed-to see how welcome they are. However, I think that its popularity may have been distorted a little by the number of young women who rang up. Nevertheless, it is a sign of how welcome they are, and that the protesters are in the minority. I hope that as the visiting crews travel around Australia all citizens will welcome them to their cities. I think that what happened in Newcastle recently was a shame and something of a disgrace when some trade unionists set up a picket line to prevent stores being taken out to the USS Brewton. At one stage the picketers even held a council of war to decide whether or not they would let the band from the USS Brewton ashore to play at an old people's home. I assure these visitors to our shores that they are welcome and that that sort of demonstration is an aberration which is not supported by the people of Australia. The irony of those protesting against the presence of these ships is that they are free to protest in this country simply because the sort of power that these ships have projected for the last 40 years has kept the superpowers apart and has maintained, relatively speaking, world peace. The visit by these ships is also a tribute to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and the role that it has played over the last 80 or so years, particularly in World War I, World War II and the wars in Korea and Vietnam. It is a particular tribute to the men and women who served in the RAN during those years and who are serving today at a time of difficulty for all the Services. Of course, it should be noted that it is difficult for them not only at a time of war but also in peacetime. There is a certain amount of danger and difficulty inherent in serving in the armed forces. For much of the time there are difficult conditions, particularly on ships, and there are long separations from families. This gathering of foreign navies and crews is a great tribute to them. I return briefly to the protesters who are making life somewhat difficult for some of the visiting crews. These people are free to protest in this country because we are a democracy, and the strength of the Western world in recent years allows them this peace and freedom to do so. If one looks at the list of groups that are protesting, one must wonder just how serious some of them are. The list includes the PND, the PP, the PS, Greenpeace, the ACD and P, the MPANN, SANA, ALAND, IF, NIFP, and so it goes on. One wonders what they have in common. Mr Beazley —The alphabet. Mr WHITE —You have the whole lot. One wonders why they sometimes mouth the ridiculous phrases that they go on with. One wonders what they are trying to achieve. What we are all trying to achieve-and presumably this applies to some of these groups-is peace. I can assure them that no-one wants peace more than those who have served at a time of war. However, we differ on how we go about it. It is because of the West's nuclear strength and the strength of its resolve through the navies of the world, particularly nuclear navies such as those of the United States of America and the United Kingdom that we have been able to ensure this long period of peace between the superpowers. We in Australia want to ensure that we play our part by making welcome to these shores our friends and allies, some of whom have decided that they will have nuclear ships and nuclear weapons. Of course, when it comes to risk assessment, there is some risk. There is always some risk, but that very slight risk with respect to nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships in our ports is almost negligible. Will anything be achieved by telling our friends and allies, `You cannot come to Australia because you have nuclear powered ships'? Of course, the answer is no. We must ask the people who protest: What is the alternative? I join with the Government in welcoming these visitors. I congratulate the RAN on its service over the years. This celebration is a tribute to it. I wish it a great week in Sydney and also, of course, very best wishes and congratulations for the bicentennial naval salute on Saturday. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.02) —I join the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) in extending a very warm Australian welcome to the visiting naval ships and their crews to the bicentennial naval salute to be held on Sydney Harbour on Saturday, 1 October 1988. Every ship and every crew member are welcome in Australia. They are welcome in this land of freedom and liberty. As they visit this country the crews of the 37 ships will find that this land values liberty and freedom and that it is a land which treasures many of the democratic traditions and freedoms that some countries do not have and other countries take for granted. They will find that this country enjoys freedom of religion in that one has the freedom to attend the church of one's choice, which is something that is not permitted in many communist countries. They will find that we have freedom from want: that the general standard of living of our people is protected by wise and embracing government policies. They will find that we have freedom from fear: that one can travel from place to place in this country without fear of being bombed or shot at which, as can be seen on television, occurs in many countries around the world. They will find that we have the freedom to elect the government of our choice, which cannot be done in many countries around the globe. They will find that, more and more, those freedoms enjoyed by Australia are enjoyed by less than one-fifth of the countries of the United Nations. They will find, if they take the time to think about it, that it is difficult to find another country to our west, to our east-apart from New Zealand-or to our immediate north that practises the democratic traditions and freedoms that we do in Australia. Indeed, those visiting ships and crews will find that Australia is a shining beacon of freedom and liberty around the world. In 1987 there were 1.3 million inquiries from people around the world who wished to migrate to Australia. There are only two other countries in the world which a major group of people are seeking to migrate to. They are the United States of America and Canada. Both are democratic and free countries such as Australia. We would like to share with them those democratic traditions and freedoms that we practise, cherish and nurture in this country. We welcome them here to share with us not so much a celebration of 200 years of European settlement in this country, but rather 200 years of democratic freedom and tradition. That is the kernel of the welcome that we extend to each and every one of them. I particularly single out for a personal warm welcome to Australia Vice-Admiral Paul Miller, the commander of the United States Seventh Fleet. He, indeed, is a friend to Australia. Recently, we had a visit in Townsville of the USS Berkeley, commanded by Commander Rod Girvin. I can tell honourable members that the people of Townsville and Thuringowa extended to him and his crew the warmest of north Queensland welcomes and I had the opportunity to extend personal hospitality to them. We treasure visits by ships of the United States of America. They are always welcome in Townsville and I know that they are always welcome in Australia, as indeed are the international ships which will be participating in this bicentennial naval salute to be held on Sydney Harbour on Saturday, 1 October 1988. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.08) —In the circumstances now obtaining in respect of this debate, I too would like to add comments of support to the motion and acknowledge and welcome the naval salute to take place next Saturday on magnificent Sydney Harbour. In so doing, I would just like to add two other points. Firstly, I pay tribute to the navies of the Western world for their key role in maintaining peace. I think the role of the submarine is quite often forgotten. The submariners of the Western world navies especially have an awful life to lead in terms of their work environment, their constant risk factor and the very real hardship submariners face. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our own HMAS Platypus and our six existing submarines and I look forward to the emergence of the new submarines. I sound a note of warning to the Government in this regard: unless it takes very positive steps with regard to continuing to uplift the service and assistance available to our submariners, then manning those new submarines at some future date could well prove a major problem for the government of that day. I hope, of course, that that will be a different government. In paying this tribute to the naval salute, let us also pay tribute to that vital supporting role played by the submariners in their submarines. From time to time they do not get a great deal of attention. For example, on 26 January this year they did not get a great deal of attention. I think it is splendid that we have the opportunity to pass this motion in the House this day. I might add that this naval salute follows in the steps of the magnificent seventy-fifth anniversary year celebrations of the Royal Australian Navy. It was a privilege to be on Sydney Harbour on that particular occasion. It is a matter of record, as I understand it, that it was not until very late in the piece that certain senior Ministers, if not the Prime Minister (Mr Hawker), finally agreed to attend on that particular occasion. I am delighted that there will be a major turnout next Saturday on Sydney Harbour. Question resolved in the affirmation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The disastrous impact on family living standards of a further rise in interest rates. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.10) —A charge frequently and rightly made against the present Government is that increasingly that Government's senior members-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Acting Treasurer (Mr Dawkins) and all other Ministers in that Government-are out of touch with the hopes, the aspirations and the realities of life of ordinary Australians. Nowhere is that better illustrated than right at the very moment. As this debate commences, the drover's dog is winging his way overseas and the clink of the first-class drinks trolley can be heard. All of that takes place while the ordinary voters of Victoria and of his home town of Ipswich contemplate the impact on their living standards of a further rise in housing interest rates. If there is one thing that has emerged with crystal clarity from the tortured, writhing responses of the Acting Treasurer-and long may he remain Acting Treasurer-it is that, whether he likes or not, whether the drover's dog likes it or not and whether the Prime Minister likes it or not, interest rates are on the way up. It ill becomes the Acting Treasurer to try to deny it. It ill becomes the Treasurer, through his minions, to try to bludgeon the Reserve Bank of Australia into holding interest rates down again. They did it in 1984, they did it in 1987 and they are doing it again now. The proverbial blind Freddy knows that as soon as the Victorian election is over those interest rates are going to go up. Those home owners in places like Bentleigh in Melbourne are going to face a rise of $45 a week on an average loan. They are going to join the legion of home owners who are being robbed blind by this Government that is increasingly out of touch with what is happening to ordinary battlers in the Australian community. Government members trumpet the big picture, they strut the stage. The Treasurer lectures the United States about her current account deficit. Let us just ponder for a moment the sheer gall, the cant, the unreality of this Treasurer lecturing the United States about her current account deficit. Has he forgotten that two years ago, under his stewardship, this country had the largest current account deficit bar one in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)? Is he unaware that already we have racked up one-third of the prediction that was supposed to be in the bag only a few weeks ago? Is he unaware of the fact that under his stewardship the overseas debt burden of this country has almost quadrupled? Is he so out of touch that he does not realise that in March 1983, when he became Treasurer of this country, the average family had to set aside 19.7 per cent of its weekly income to pay off its home and it now has to set aside 27.7 per cent of its weekly income to pay off its home? Is he so out of touch that he does not realise that in March 1983 an average wage earner had to work 33 weeks to buy the Australian family car and now has to work 49 weeks to buy that same family car? Is he so out of touch that he does not understand the consequences of running the monetary policy of which he speaks and which the Acting Treasurer in effect confirmed today-although he found it distinctly uncomfortable? If ever one was reminded of that one-liner of the former Premier of Queensland about the barbed wire fence one was reminded of it today when one watched the Acting Treasurer answering questions about interest rates. The reality is that this Government, this Treasurer, this Acting Treasurer and this Prime Minister are all so out of touch with what is happening out in ordinary voter land in Australia that they really do not understand and worse, I suspect, do not care about the impact of interest rate increases on ordinary Australian families. We have heard from the Government a lot about tax reductions, and we have heard from the Prime Minister a lot about justice. He went along to the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Union a few days ago and got a ringing endorsement. It was a case of `Stay away, Paul; don't leave us, Bob', as far as Jim Maher and his right wing henchmen were concerned. The Prime Minister said that he was going to enshrine the tax cuts in legislation. Let us understand one thing about the tax cuts that we are supposed to get from the Government next year. All families in Australia, wherever they may live, ought to understand that, unless they get a tax cut of $56 a week, their living standards will still be well below what they were in March 1983. It is the unchallenged calculation of the Opposition that $56 a week is the quantum of the fall in family living standards over the last 5 1/2 years. That figure was first used by me when addressing the Victorian State Council of the Liberal Party in June of this year, and it has remained unchallenged ever since. It cannot be challenged. All the resources of the Treasury, the Department of Finance, the Reserve Bank of Australia and all the other minions that surround the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) cannot challenge that figure, because it is true. If any of them dared to go into the supermarkets of Australia, or if the Treasurer dared to jump out from behind the tinted glass of his Sydney car, if he dared to go back to Bankstown-and I doubt whether he could get there without the aid of a Gregory's street directory-they would find that the people in those parts of Australia know that family living standards have fallen. The pathetic attempts of this Government to hold down interest rates until after the Victorian election have been exposed for the deceitful, shabby and dishonest political excercise that they really are. In the last Federal election campaign the Australian Labor Party ran an advertisement using somebody called, euphemistically, `Whingeing Wendy'. It is a wonder Labor does not re-run it on this occasion, that it does not have somebody saying, `What about the higher interest rates, Mr Cain?', because there will be higher interest rates. They will not be higher interest rates emanating from Mr Cain; interest rates will go up as a result of the economic policies of this Government. But the deceit and the dishonesty and the shame is that the Government has not come clean. Government members have tried to tell the Parliament this week their side of the story. It has been the Acting Treasurer's misfortune to be saddled with the implications of what the Secretary to the Treasury has said. Let us understand what that was. He said that the Government was going to continue to run a firm monetary policy. If a government is going to run a firm monetary policy and market interest rates are going up, there is no way known to man, with demand and the current state of affairs, that interest rates will not go up right across the board-and that means housing interest rates as well. Yesterday and the day before we had the spectacle of the Acting Treasurer trying to tell this Parliament that it was all a matter for the market. Of course the market is relevant to the setting of interest rates, but so are government policies, as well as the intervention of the Reserve Bank. But the Acting Treasurer has paraded himself as a supporter of the market, and he and his mates have connived to get the Reserve Bank to hold interest rates down artificially. He parades himself as a supporter of market forces but at the same time has been coercing and traducing the central bank of this country into holding interest rates down for his Party's own grubby, short term political purposes. The Labor Government did that in 1984, and the result was intolerable pressure on the exchange rate early in 1985. One of the reasons the dollar began to collapse in 1985 was that the Reserve Bank artificially held down interest rates in the closing months of 1984 to boost the Government's election prospects. Had that not occurred, the pressure on the exchange rate in early 1985 would not have been nearly as great. The Government did that to try to bail out Barrie Unsworth, and it failed. It is doing it again to bail out John Cain, and that will fail too. It will fail because people can see that, although Government members parade themselves as supporters of market forces, although they parade themselves as good economic managers, when it comes to their own short term, grubby political purposes they are prepared to engage in deceit and they are prepared to use the monetary authorities of this country to hold down interest rates. Every Australian family should understand the impact on its household budget of another rise in housing interest rates. We all remember that never to be forgotten promise of the Prime Minister in November 1984 when he said that the Government had sown the seeds, that it was going to harvest the crop, and that we were all going to benefit from that. What has happened? Since then interest rates have gone up, they have stayed up, and all the fulminations of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister cannot alter the fact that those interest rates will go up even higher. The sorts of headlines we have seen in the Melbourne Age of this week will be repeated all around Australia over the weeks ahead of us. All those Australian families, whose living standards will be further affected, will have the comfort of knowing that they have a government that is regularly in touch with their needs! They will know that they have a Prime Minister whose guilt about the circumstances of his becoming Labor leader in 1983 goes beyond the appointment of people to certain positions and extends to an obscene squandering of taxpayers' money by somebody who has to have been the most travelled Foreign Minister that this country has ever seen. The people of Oxley and Victoria should understand that everything is okay, that this Government's priorities are right! People out there are paying through the neck for their houses-almost 28 per cent of their family income, against 17 per cent five years ago-and they are working 49 weeks to buy a family car, against 33 weeks 5 1/2 years ago. But do not worry: the drover's dog has helped himself to the biggest bone ever-he is being looked after-our priorities are right; there is nothing more to worry about; we have everything on track; the picture is in place; and we have our priorities! No wonder an increasing number of the ordinary people of this country see this Government as arrogant, complacent and out of touch-as a government that no longer governs for the interests of the ordinary Australian. It had the temerity at the last election to talk about new tax free help for Aussie battlers. I remind the House that the Aussie battler is now paying 23 per cent of his average family income in taxation, against 17 1/2 per cent 5 1/2 years ago. The average Aussie battler in Oxley is paying $183 a month more for his mortgage than he was paying a couple of years ago. The average Aussie battlers in the sandbelt areas of Melbourne will be paying $45 to $50 a week more when their housing interest rates inevitably go up in the next few weeks. But do not worry: everything is in order; the drover's dog has been accommodated; the priorities are right; and everybody should feel safe and secure in the knowledge that we are governed by a group of people who are completely in touch with the hopes and aspirations of the ordinary Australian people! The reality is that this Government has been in power so long that it has grown arrogant and indifferent. It has lost touch with ordinary Australians and increasingly it has no idea of the life and the circumstances of average families. That is the greatest indictment that can be made of any government of any colour in this Parliament. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training and Acting Treasurer)(4.25) —As a substitute for Opposition policy, which is what this debate is all about, the speech just delivered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) must go down in history as one of the most pathetic performances we have heard. We must bear in mind that it is not the Government that is on trial this week but the Leader of the Opposition. He has been an abject failure as leader, and in the last week or so he has gone through the exercise of shuffling the shadows. He knows that he is hopeless. He knows that he has not shone as a leader. He knows that under him the Party has gone backwards. So we now have the exercise of shuffling around a few of the shadows in order to try to generate some enthusiasm within his Party. There are so many obvious weaknesses on the Opposition front bench-they have been unable to produce policies-that the Opposition decided this week in the Parliament to have a little organised chaos. Organised chaos is always a good substitute when the Opposition has nothing to say. The House has recently had three urgency debates-today, yesterday and the day before. All were characterised by personal attacks on people who cannot defend themselves in this House-in the case of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) because he is not here, and in the case of the Governor-General designate because he would not stoop to reply to some of the scandalous things that have been said about him today and on previous occasions. There has also been the abuse of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia either directly or more indirectly today. This organised chaos is just camouflage of the fact that Opposition members have nothing to say about policy. They might be convincing themselves-and I dare say some of those bereft Opposition members might be convinced by the charade they have gone through this week-but they are not convincing anyone else. They will do anything to avoid discussion on policy. Today we heard a lament about living standards and the circumstances of ordinary Australians. What on earth would members of the Liberal Party or the National Party know about the living standards and circumstances of ordinary Australians? Did not those people comprise a Government which, in its last year of office, managed to destroy 186,000 jobs? Has any of them any idea of the devastation that that caused to ordinary families, with 186,000 breadwinners having been thrown onto the unemployment heap. These are the real things that people remember about the failed policies that the coalition Government pursued for so long. But the Australian people have not had to put up with failed policies for the last five years or so. They have had policies from this Government that work. What is so excruciatingly embarrassing to the Leader of the Opposition is that we have policies that work-and he knows it. It will be recalled that when the Leader of the Opposition was engaged in his treachery against his predecessor, the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock)-treachery that went on for a couple of years as he tried to undermine the honourable member's leadership-the one brave claim he made about what he would bring to Liberal Party leadership was that he would fill the policy vacuum. He was the one with the talent and the intelligence and he could bring to bear the sorts of policies that would generate a bit of strength in the Opposition. We heard all that. Obviously the Liberal Party was sucked in by it. He was made leader, but what has happened since? Absolutely nothing-a big, fat zero. I have enjoyed reading some of the earlier comments of the Leader of the Opposition's present shadow spokesman for finance, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), when he was writing about a different time under a different leadership. One sees how apposite are his comments about the current Opposition. They are as apposite as they were when they were written in 1985. He said: . . . the media seems to have forgotten the Federal Opposition and its contribution, or should I say lack of it, to the economic debate. Whatever happened to the economic opposition? He went on: If the Opposition had a strategy at all through this period it wasn't really evident. They were generally disorganised . . . Why is the Opposition so fundamentally weak? First, and perhaps most importantly, the current leadership is weak, and generally disinterested in, and lacks credibility in, economic matters. Presumably he was talking about the leadership in the plural, which then included the current Leader as Deputy Leader and spokesman on economic matters. The honourable member for Wentworth went on in his tirade to attack the Liberal Party, its structures, its front bench and its leadership. But what has changed? Nothing has changed. Opposition members are still a shambles, they still have no policies, and all they can do is engage in these camouflage debates, these organised chaotic periods in parliament, in order to distract attention from their own shortcomings and in a failed attempt to distract attention from our great success. Let us look at some of the policies the Opposition has promised us. Where are they? We have been promised policies on fiscal policy, tax policy, and have been told about expenditure cuts. Indeed, we have been told that tax cuts will be funded by expenditure cuts. But where are the details? They are nowhere to be found. The only time we got any details was before the last election, and the details were defective to the extent of about $1.5 billion-that big hole in the Opposition's funding proposals. Today, when the shadow Minister for finance is asked what he would do about expenditure cuts, he says, `We are going to cut expenditure, but do not for a minute ask us where we shall do it. It is unreasonable for anyone in the media to suggest that we should identify where expenditure cuts should be made'. The honourable member for Wentworth says, `I am new in the job'. The honourable member is not present in the chamber, but he has been talking about expenditure cuts from the moment he ceased being the current Leader of the Opposition's chief economic adviser. Yet in all that time-in all those writings, those lucid little articles we used to see in Business Review Weekly, in all the advice the honourable member used to give about the place-he has never been able to bring together a program of expenditure cuts which has any coherence at all. But we did get a new thought from him today. He said, `What we have to do to solve the current problem is for the Government simply to stop spending on imports-Government imports'. It is a new suggestion that somehow the Government should stop buying things from overseas. I am not quite sure what the shadow Minister for defence thinks about this, but about a billion dollars worth of our purchases from overseas happen to be defence requirements for the armed forces. How are we to buy the F18s if not from overseas? How are we to buy the 30 per cent of the submarines that comes from overseas? How are we to buy the colour television sets that so many members of parliament now want in their rooms if they are not bought overseas? It is a curious and nonsensical suggestion from the man who would be Treasurer, he reckons, in a Howard government. That is at least one suggestion, nonsensical though it may be. Where is the Opposition's tax policy? Today the Leader of the Opposition said that tax cuts have to be of a certain order. How would he fund tax cuts of that order, and how would he manage a tax-wage trade-off in order to achieve tax cuts in a sustainable form which would not create a problem in other areas of the economy? Where are the Opposition's wages policies? We have been promised wages policies month in month out, year in year out, and still there is not a semblance of a wages policy, a tax policy or Budget policy. One could go on into a variety of different areas. I ask the Leader of the National Party where his Party's trade policy is. He has not got one. We are the ones who have been devising trade policies, and all the right honourable member can do is shamble around saying that some bits are all right and some are not. Where is his rural policy? The Liberals and the National Party are thoroughly split on the question of deregulation of the wheat market. Where are the Opposition's defence policy and education policy? They do not have any of those policies. They have no intention of having them and no intention of having a debate about them. In the final analysis, what is wrong with the Opposition is that it is bewildered by the blinding success of this Government and our economic policies. Opposition members cannot come to grips with the fact that in the last five years we have created a million jobs. We have inflation coming down. In terms of wages policy in five successive years we have cut real labour costs. We have restored hundreds of thousands of jobs to the economy, particularly in the manufacturing sector. We have the beginnings of a new export-driven economy, one in which our manufacturers are once again competitive throughout the world. We are tackling the long-standing problems in relation to the micro-economy in order to achieve permanent and effective structural reform. It is the blinding success of these policies which the Opposition simply cannot cope with, simply is not prepared to debate with us. So we have this shambles that has been created in the House over the last three days as a substitute for policy preparation and policy decision making. We cannot derive any confidence from the capacity of the Leader of the Opposition to produce policy. But what about his success when he was Treasurer? If we cannot go to his current ideas about policy, surely we are entitled to go to his old ideas, the ideas that he held when he was Treasurer for so long. If we look at the record of that Government, we will see what a sorry record it is. The Opposition has the gall now to talk about expenditure cuts that we have made when we have been responsible for reducing outlays in real terms for three successive years, the last two plus one prospectively. If we look at the Opposition's record in terms of growth in outlays, we find that in its last three years outlays grew in real terms by 3.4 per cent, 2.6 per cent, and a massive 6.5 per cent. Surely we are entitled to say, `If you haven't got a fiscal policy now, if you haven't got a tax policy now, and all you can say is that ``We will find the tax cuts from expenditure cuts'', we are entitled to say, ``What about your record? Where is your credibility?'' ' Of course, when we look at the Opposition's record we see that there is no credibility and there is likely to be no credibility between now and the next election or the one after that. In relation to this debate, when the Opposition has no fiscal policy, no general economic policy, what is the one area it can stoop to in order to create a bit of mayhem and hopefully create a bit of trouble-it thinks-for the Labor Party in Victoria? It can turn to monetary policy. It can say that we ought to be doing certain things about monetary policy and it can make scandalous accusations about how we are in some conspiracy with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia to do something about interest rates. How on earth does that measure up with the action the Reserve Bank took today? The Governor rang me last night. He did not ask me what he should do about the rediscount rate. He told me that he was going to put up the rediscount rate by 0.3 per cent. He did not ask me; he told me. He advised me, as a courtesy, what he was going to do at 9 or 9.30 this morning. To what extent does that provide any evidence for this mad claim that somehow we are standing over the Governor of the Reserve Bank in order to keep interest rates down? The Opposition would need two factors to sustain that argument. First, it would need the complicity of the Governor-an independent statutory office-who until yesterday I have never heard traduced in this Parliament in the way he has been traduced by the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman for finance, the honourable member for Wentworth. Second, it would need some magical idea about his capacity to influence the markets if he wanted to keep interest rates down in the face of a rising market-if that is what is happening. They are the two ingredients. Of course neither of them exists, and the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware of the fact that neither of those ingredients exists. The Leader of the Opposition tries to manufacture an argument about monetary policy. What he probably recollects is what trouble interest rates were for him. I referred earlier to an article from 1982, the headline of which read `Interest Rates Beat Us-Howard'. The Leader of the Opposition knew that interest rates beat his Government. He knew his Government could do nothing about controlling them and he saw, in the period of the Fraser Government, interest rates grow from about 9 1/2 per cent to about 16 1/2 per cent. That was the time when interest rates blew out of control. That was the time when his Government and he, as Treasurer, were unable to do anything about them. He knows that this Government is not keeping up interest rates or trying to push them down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.40) —How sad it is that the speaker we have just heard, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) is the Acting Treasurer of Australia. What a pathetic week it has been. He began at the beginning of the week by telling us that interest rates were going down; the rest of the week he has been trying to explain to us that he did not really mean what he said. What makes it even worse is that we have even had the denial by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) regarding the Caucus meeting on Tuesday where there was a discussion about interest rates. Whatever the reality of what the Prime Minister actually said, there is no doubt that the substance of the opinion of Caucus members is that they believe that the Prime Minister thought that interest rates would go down. That is really what it is all about. It is about whether Australians will be affected because of the wrong policies of the Hawke Government. If we have heard the Acting Treasurer once, we have heard him about 30 times telling us how terrible we were in government. However, today we are discussing a matter of public importance, the terms of which are: The disastrous impact on family living standards of a further rise in interest rates. Did honourable members hear anything from him about the impact on living standards? He is not worried about people. This Government is so arrogant. He has walked out of this place now in high dudgeon because he has been an absolute disaster. We all know that. Mr Howard —He's had a bad week. Mr SINCLAIR —He has had an appalling week. We all know that he will never rise to anything in this place in the time that the Australian Labor Party is in government. We on this side of the House have been saying for months that the only way in which the Government will be able to look after ordinary Australians is if it passes on, as it should, the personal tax cuts to which every taxpayer in Australia is entitled and if, in order for that to be responsibly undertaken, it is prepared to examine critically and analytically the sorts of sums that are being spent by this Federal Government. The Government says that it does not know where to cut spending. We had a referendum on 3 September. I think the referendum cost the Australian taxpayer $37m. Mr Smith —More like $40m to $50m. Mr SINCLAIR —Just wait for it. It cost $3m for advertising and $6m for an unnecessary Australian Constitutional Commission. Then we had all the cost of the Australian Electoral Commission officers. It had more people on duty at polling booths than I have ever seen. There was somebody to greet me, somebody to shake my hand when I walked in, and somebody to farewell me. There was a whole array of people I had never seen before. Mr Howard —There were no Labor Party workers. Mr SINCLAIR —No. That is the faith they have. That is the faith the ordinary Australian has in the Labor Government, in the Acting Treasurer, in the Prime Minister and in the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who is over there swanning around somewhere between Berlin and capitals of Europe. The sad part about their arrogance and indifference is that Australians here are finding that the cost of this Government's policies is getting beyond their ability to afford any longer. I do not really believe that the Acting Treasurer tried to tell us that Bernie Fraser, who is Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, did not know what he was talking about. Although he has been talking about some discussion that he might have had with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, he must understand that we are not traducing the Reserve Bank, we are traducing the Government. It is the man for whom he acts, the Treasurer, who in 1984-and there has been no denial-interfered with interest rates. The honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), the shadow Minister for finance, was not giving some fairy story yesterday; he was quoting chapter and verse what happened in 1984 when that arrogant man who is currently Treasurer of Australia went into the Reserve Bank and told it what it was going to do with interest rates. Mr Howard —Look what happened to the Australian dollar. Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague the Leader of the Opposition said, remember what happened to the value of the Australian dollar as a result. There was no denial, today or yesterday, and nor has there been on any other occasion that exactly the same thing happened, as to the pressure applied by the Government on the Reserve Bank in the last Federal election. There has been no denial that exactly the same pressure was applied when Barrie Unsworth was trying, lamentably, to pretend that he could somehow or other protect and preserve the Labor cause in New South Wales. Why on earth should we believe the Government when it says this time, `We have not touched interest rates', when on three previous occasions it has been acknowledged that the Labor Party intervened in order to hold down interest rates? Never mind market forces. Never mind this business of what normally happens out there in the pressures of the ordinary market. This Government intervened to ensure that interest rates were held down. In case honourable members thought that something odd was going on, let us just look at what the Melbourne Herald said not yesterday, not a week ago, but today. A spokesman for the Reserve Bank is reported as follows: A spokesman for the Reserve Bank said the party's claims that the Federal Government was holding down interest rates until the Victorian election was over were ``certainly pre-election tactics'', but still accurate. Those claims are accurate. That comes out of the newspaper this afternoon. The Minister said that he had a discussion about this this morning. How could he have had a discussion with the Governor of the Reserve Bank this morning to deny something that came out this afternoon? Why did he not ring the Governor of the Reserve Bank after Question Time, while the Prime Minister was making his statement, and say: `A spokesman has said such and such happened. Is this right'? The Minister has not denied the statement that was made in this afternoon's newspaper. There has been no denial; all the Minister said was that he had a discussion with the Governor this morning. That was apparently the first time he had talked to the Governor of the Reserve Bank. What the devil has he been doing for the last week? We have been talking about interest rates all the week. The Government should take not just monetary action but also fiscal action to contain the level of interest rates in order to protect living standards of ordinary Australians. On the question of Victoria, I think it is time that the Acting Treasurer understood what is happening there. In rural Victoria about 15 farmers a week walk off the land. That is something like 780 a year. Mr O'Keefe —Ha, ha! Mr SINCLAIR —The honourable member may well laugh, but the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has quoted those figures. The honourable member may laugh about the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I know that figures do not matter very much to him-I can give him the arithmetic, but I would suggest that he look at the Lloyd report on the ABS. Not only that, but he also needs to understand that, during the term of the Cain Labor Government, the total area of agricultural activity land has fallen by about half a million hectares. That is a lot of land. Nearly 600,000 hectares of land fewer are being farmed in Victoria today and 15 farmers a week are leaving the land. The sad part about rural Victoria is this: I quote from the Department of Labour's monthly statistics, which show that the number of unemployed people outside Melbourne in 1982 totalled 25,100. In February 1988 that figure had risen to 47,800-an increase of 90 per cent in the unemployment rate of rural Victoria. Ballarat has 16.8 per cent unemployed. Tell those people out there, people who have been forced to walk off their farms because of the policy of the Federal Labor Government and the Cain Labor Government, that a rise in interest rates will not hurt them. Tell them that that will not matter next week because the Victorian election will be over and the market forces will be allowed to work. Earlier I asked the Acting Treasurer across the table whether he would guarantee that there would be no increase in interest rates next week and whether he would resign if there were. Other members should ask him whether he would give that assurance. You can bet your bottom dollar that interests rates will go up next week. Remember what the Melbourne Herald said tonight. It said that a Reserve Bank spokesman had said that interest rates were certainly being held down; it was a pre-election tactic, but still accurate. It is even more important to understand what Bernie Fraser said in Berlin. He said that the current account deficit, the level of external debt and the rate of inflation were all still much too high-and this is five weeks after the Budget. The Treasurer is over in Europe telling the Americans and the Europeans what to do and how to run their Budgets, but he forgets-as the honourable member for Wentworth said yesterday-that in the first two months of this financial year one-third of the projected current account deficit for 1988-89 was already in place. The reality is that, on that pitching and tossing ship which the Treasurer and the Acting Treasurer are sailing, things are getting pretty rough at the moment. The only way in which they are able to try to support the Premier of Victoria is by filling out the books. The Secretary to the Treasury has told us that monetary policy must be kept tight. Bernie Fraser continued: The Government . . . is quite prepared to make the necessary changes to policy settings-fiscal policy, wages policy and monetary policy-as circumstances change to permit further progress . . . Did honourable members hear that? Fiscal policy, wages policy and monetary policy. That means that in wages policy we are likely to find that the projected tax cuts are beginning to fade. Of course, we know that Bill Kelty supports them-only this week he described Australia as `an economic paradise' compared with other nations. Bernie Fraser is the guy to whom I would listen and I suggest that when the Acting Treasurer is talking to ordinary Australians he understands that this policy-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(4.50) —This debate this afternoon has focused on Victoria and I wish to add to it. The debate has been based on drivel thrown in here to try to distort the fact that, as the Acting Treasurer (Mr Dawkins) said, the Opposition has no policies and no solutions. Let me answer a few points made just now by the Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who talks about the effects in Victoria of proposed policies and changes. Let us talk first of all about the proposals brought forward in the current election campaign by the Victorian State Opposition. All the things that the Victorian Liberal Party claims that it will do-$600m worth-are unfunded. That should be measured against the claims made in this House by the shadow Treasurer (Mr Peacock) about the savings that would be made by cuts in Government expenditure. Where would these cuts come from? In Victoria Mr Kennett has made it clear where he thinks the cuts would be-7,000 jobs in the public transport sector. If the right honourable member for New England wants to talk about rural Victoria, he should take a look at what happens in country towns in Victoria and where the jobs are. Let us talk about the railways, the buses and transport generally-all public sector areas. Let us talk about the education sector, the Rural Water Commission and so on. These are the areas in which country Victorians are employed. These areas are funded by the Government Budget and they are where it is proposed that the cuts should come from. We came in here this afternoon to listen to this notion about the disastrous impact of a further rise in interest rates on family living standards, and the Opposition has talked up the proposal that somehow we would love to see these interest rates increased and anything that the Government is doing to try to keep them down is in some way sinister. Let us assume that the ordinary family is, in fact, affected and worried by interest rates. Mr Beale —They will be $56 a week worse off. Mr O'KEEFE —The honourable member for Deakin says they will be $56 a week worse off. I intend to talk about that and I ask him to stay in the House to hear the facts. No, he has gone, he is not interested, and that is the fact of the matter. It is all very well to wander around the chamber making comments like that, but he is not prepared to sit and work on policies and ideas. Interest rates affect the ordinary family in a number of ways-not just housing loan interest rates, but interest rates such as Bankcard. Whenever have we heard Opposition members come into this House and protest or complain about the banks charging 21, 22 or 23 per cent interest on Bankcard? When did they ever call those banks to the counter and tell them to get those interest rates down for ordinary Australians? Not once. I have never heard anything like that from them in this House. They have never focused on it. In Victoria, where the State Labor Government put in place prices peg legislation to try to control supermarket and other prices, there has been a demonstrated 6 per cent decrease in the rate of increase in prices. The same thing would be noted by my colleague who chairs the National Price Watch Task Force. Where there has been positive action by Labor governments to hold down prices, it has been effective. But what has happened in Victoria? The Liberal and National parties in opposition combined to use their numbers in the upper House to block Premier Cain's prices peg legislation. Opposition members are not one bit interested in holding down the prices that affect ordinary families-and that includes interest rates. Have we ever heard the Opposition come into this chamber and advocate that the ceiling on home loan interest rates should stay? Never have its members said that. They are happy to stand by and see the ceiling lifted. It will not be copped. It has not been copped. This Government has stood firm against the banks and maintained the ceiling on home loan interest rates, and it is going to stay. Let us talk a little about credibility. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) came in here and talked about tax cuts of $56 a week. That is what is needed in his terms to restore living standards. There is no question but that Australia has had to tighten the belt and take a cut in living standards. We all understand that. None of us has liked it, but it has had to be. But the Opposition comes in here and advocates cuts of $56 a week. To give every family a $10 a week tax cut would cost about $4 billion. To give a tax cut of $56 a week would cost about $17.5 billion. These are telephone book numbers. It is not fiscally responsible even to raise people's hopes that in some way a government can find $17 billion to do what the Opposition is talking about. The proposition was rejected at the last Federal election. The Opposition waved around these tax cuts, trying to buy Australia off with them. Australians understood that it was fairytale stuff, that it could not be, just as Mr Kennett's proposals for $600m of vote buying will be rejected next Saturday as something that just cannot be. Australians understand that just like the family budget has to be balanced, so does our Budget have to be balanced. Yesterday in Question Time we had the Opposition complaining that some of the Federal Budget surplus was used to pay off part of Australia's debt. I put it to honourable members that it does not matter whether it is the ordinary household or the economy as a whole: if one finally gets oneself back into the black, the first thing one does is to use some of that extra money to get rid of debts. There is not one Australian out there who would say to us that that should not be our top priority. It is only by reducing our debt that we can cut back the amount of repayments we have to make as a nation and, by doing so, stabilise our currency and gradually bring down interest rates. Responsible management of the economy is the way that interest rates in the long term will be brought down in this nation-not by running in here and saying, `Let us give $56 a week, $17.5 billion-worth, of tax cuts'. There is not a banker in the world to whom we are beholden who would not take his money right out of Australia tomorrow if he thought the Government was going to do that sort of stuff. It is fanciful. It cannot be. We had the Leader of the National Party talking in this debate about government intervention. Last time this kind of debate took place it was about what the value of the Australian dollar ought to be. When the Australian dollar was allowed to float in the market-place it fell in value-a 40 per cent depreciation-but from the point of view of the National Party and the farmers, it did not go far enough. Honourable members opposite did not care about the effect the devaluation had in certain areas. As far as they were concerned, all it was doing was giving them increased competitiveness for their products. They were not worried about the interest rate effect. They were in here screaming about a dirty float. They were in here screaming that anything that was being done to try to prevent the bottom falling out of the dollar was acting against their interests, irrespective of the interests of the rest of the economy. The situation has been managed. The country is back in the black. The Budget has been restored to a surplus. We are repaying our debts. We are on track with responsible policies. We are now turning ourselves to areas, such as Mr Cain has done in Victoria, of genuine price control. Genuine efforts are being made to help the ordinary family. What is being trotted out by the Liberal-National Party Opposition-block, block, block? Any attempt to help the ordinary family, any attempt to get prices down, is blocked. Now the Opposition puts forward the preposterous policy that the way to save money now is to slash 7,000 jobs in Victoria. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has just walked into the chamber. He is a Minister who understands that unemployment is the killer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Motion (by Mr Robert Brown) proposed: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 11 October 1988, at 2 p.m., unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(5.01) —The Opposition usually does not make a contribution when motions of this kind are moved, but I rise today as Manager of Opposition Business because of the very real concern that I have about the conduct of business during this session. The House will be aware that we rose on 3 June. Since then, a period of three months, the House has met for only 10 days. If the sitting pattern is maintained for the remainder of the year, by the end of December-a period of six months-the House will have met for 30 days or, in round figures, about one month in six. Last night we sat until after midnight. Members of the Opposition wanted to speak in the adjournment debate. Notwithstanding that I raised the matter with the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley), he did not permit the House to have an adjournment debate. If it is the Government's intention to complete the program that is before us today, we will certainly be here until well after midnight tonight. It is very early in the sitting period of this session. It is clear to me that the Government has a good deal of urgent legislation that it wants the House and the Senate to deal with. Clearly, the Australian Parliament needs to sit for a longer period. We are here to deal with the business of the nation and the legislation that is brought forward by the government of the day and also to give the opposition of the day an opportunity to speak on those matters and to raise other matters of public importance. Because of the reduction in the time that we sit-a change in the sitting pattern a few months ago reduced the fortnight sitting period by one day-the Opposition is losing one day for a matter of public importance. So the opportunity for Opposition members, and indeed Government members, to contribute during debates on legislation is being eroded and the opportunity for the Opposition to bring forward matters of public importance is being reduced. The real sin is what is taking place in Question Time at present. The House will be interested to know that in the first five years of the Fraser Government 5,555 question were asked. In the first five years of the Hawke Government, only 3,766 questions have been asked-a reduction of 1,789 questions. That is due to two factors: firstly, we are not sitting long enough; and, secondly, Ministers are taking far too long to answer questions. In the first five years of the Fraser Government period the average time taken to answer questions was 2.5 minutes, 2.9 minutes, 2.9 minutes, 3 minutes and 3.1 minutes. In the first five years of the Hawke Government the average time taken to answer questions has been 3.8 minutes, 4 minutes, 4.1 minutes, 4 minutes and 4.1 minutes. The Opposition will not oppose this motion because the sitting pattern has been made known for some time; but I appeal, through the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), to the Leader of the House to give urgent consideration to the arrangements for the House of Representatives. Better management techniques need to be employed and additional time needs to be made available. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.05) —I support the contribution by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) to the debate on the motion for the special adjournment of the House whereby the House will not sit next week. In doing so, I share his comments that the Opposition does not normally delay the House on these procedural motions, but the situation has become so serious with regard to the hours available to the Opposition and to the maintenance of parliamentary democracy in an effective form in Australia that I believe this matter should be addressed more fully. I will focus on two aspects. Firstly, last night we had a marathon consideration of legislation. It was a marathon for two reasons: we sat for a period of 14 hours from the commencement of the day's sitting; the legislation contained over 1,000 separate clauses and the Government moved hundreds of amendments to the legislation. To be fair, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicated to the Committee last night that this was part of a lengthy process because the legislation had been allowed to lie on the table during the winter recess. I accept that part of the process. I do not accept, however, that it is the proper procedure for this House, at about midnight on a long sitting day, to plough through a marathon consideration of legislation of such complexity in the manner in which we were forced to do last night-again, at the expense of having an adjournment debate. It is sausage machine legislation processing of the worst kind and something which we should not let occur lightly. As honourable members said during the debate on the motion regarding the naval salute to be held next Saturday, democracy in the world is a precious commodity. One has only to look at Burma to see just how precious democracy is. People there are seeking the right to hold a referendum and have multiparty elections. Hundreds if not thousands, of people are involved in bloodshed just to achieve that basic democratic procedure. The maintenance of our parliamentary democracy rests on having a vigorous, virile House of Representatives and Senate. That, of course, requires a lengthy, proper and dynamic Question Time and proper consideration of legislation by having more parliamentary sitting days. That is exactly related to this motion. The second aspect that I want to highlight-because I have thought about this motion for 10 days during the recent non-sitting period-is that, as I have moved around my electorate I have had various meetings with veterans, war widows and ex-service personnel who often raise issues and want to know why these cannot be raised in the House. They want to know why there is not more discussion of matters such as the HMAS Voyager veterans' circumstances and the like. When I begin to explain that is is due to a large extent to the lack of sitting days of the House, they become quite annoyed. I also highlight an extraordinary situation which has developed with regard to a very senior Minister in this House. The matter relates to the Opposition's ability to ask him questions without notice. The motion that is before the House also reflects on his ability to reply to questions on notice in terms of the number of Notice Papers which are printed in any given one-month period. In this month of September, in effect, there will only be four Notice Papers for the House of Representatives because there will only have been four sitting days of the House of Representatives in the calendar month September 1988. No fewer than 48 different questions remain unanswered on the Notice Paper by the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-that arrogant, out-of-touch Treasurer. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think it is obvious that the honourable member is straying somewhat from the matter at hand, which relates to the sittings of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The point of order is essentially valid, with the exception that it might be said that relevance was somewhat tenuous. It was inviting the attention of the Chair. I require the honourable member to be more relevant to the question that is before the House. Mr TIM FISCHER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I abide by your ruling. As I said, this was the second and final point that I wished to make. The House needs to sit in order for questions to be answered, be they questions on notice or questions without notice. In this regard, some questions listed in the current Notice Paper have remained unanswered for over a year. They are questions from Labor members to the Treasurer. It is an insult to Labor members, such as the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear)-who is in the same faction and is meant to be a good friend of the Treasurer-that the Treasurer will not even answer their questions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member has laboured the point sufficiently. In fact, all of the questions could be answered in one Notice Paper. I ask him now to become relevant to the question. Mr TIM FISCHER —I conclude by saying that there is a need for the House to sit more often to deal with the complexity of the legislation with which it is confronted and for the maintenance of vigorous parliamentary democracy in this country-a commodity which should not be taken for granted. Indeed. there is a need for the House not to adjourn for lengthy recesses. The House is not sitting next week. The last non-sitting period was slightly longer than usual because of the advent of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, which clearly required comprehensive and extensive staff and building resources in this new Parliament House. I acknowledge, in fairness to the Government, that it was a major international conference. However, the real reason that excuses are found to adjourn this House again and again is that the Government is not game enough to face this Opposition on the floor of this House. It is not game enough to face results such as those of the referendums held a couple of weeks ago. Every Minister's seat but one voted against the policy of the Government, which was seeking a Yes vote. There were resounding No votes across the nation to the four questions. That is something that the Government could not face. It has taken three weeks for it to calm down and have the courage to walk back to the treasury bench in this magnificent new Parliament house. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton-Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support)(5.12) —in reply-I will respond briefly to some of the comments that have been made in connection with this procedural motion to provide for the adjournment of the House until Tuesday, 11 October 1988. On all occasions there will be grounds for a reasonable degree of conjecture between governments and oppositions concerning what is appropriate in terms of the times of sitting of the House. Both the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) indicated that only on a few occasions has there been sufficient concern expressed by the Opposition to encourage it to take exception to the arrangements that have been made. Concern has been expressed previously. On this occasion the Opposition appears to be referring to the times when the Parliament sits. It calculates that time from the beginning of the winter recess. If one counts the days from the beginning of the winter recess and says that the Parliament has sat for a relatively short period in relation to the total period available, that makes the argument seem a little more effective and substantiates it a little more. By the end of this Budget session there will have been adequate time not only within the period of sittings but also during individual sitting days for members of the Opposition to be given more than adequate opportunities to pursue matters which they wish to pursue. The honourable member for Hume stated that the real sin is what is taking place during Question Time. I endorse that absolutely. The real sin is the deliberately disruptive tactics that have been adopted during Question Time, particularly those tactics which were adopted this morning. The strategy of the Opposition was obvious to members of the Government. If the Opposition can give the impression that the Parliament is not operating well, who is disadvantaged by that? Only the Government. Of course, that has been a strategy adopted by the coalition on frequent occasions. We know that it was the strategy that was deliberately adopted by the Opposition prior to 1975 and, clearly, the coalition is choosing to do the same thing again. Madam Speaker drew that to the attention of the Opposition this morning. There is no question but that had those tactics not been adopted and had that disruptive strategy not been put in place this morning, members of the Opposition would have had time for additional questions. So the real sin is what is taking place at Question Time. The honourable member for Farrer referred to the importance of democracy. I do not think there would be any member of this Parliament or certainly of the community who would subscribe to the suggestion that this Hawke Government has been anything less than one of the great defenders not only of democracy generally but also of the role of this institution, the rights of the Opposition and the rights of individual private members of this Parliament, in order to ensure that they are given the rights which their constituents correctly expect them to have and to enjoy. As I have said, the Hawke Government in particular has been a great guardian of democracy and the rights of members of this Parliament. It was also mentioned that last night was a marathon session to introduce a great deal of legislation. Of course it was. What was the reason for it? Mr Fife —Deal with the motion. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Just a moment. What was the reason for it? The Opposition has put one interpretation on it. Let me advise members opposite why all this legislation has been introduced at this stage. It has been introduced because it has been prepared, and that indicates that this Government is operating efficiently and effectively. It is getting the legislation together in time to make sure that it is introduced in the early part of the session. It will not all be disposed of quickly but it will be disposed of. This was the point that was made by the honourable member for Farrer. The point is that that legislation was introduced for a number of reasons. First of all, it was introduced because it was prepared, because the Government has everything in order and the Government's management of the business of the Parliament is quite clearly adequate. Another reason for so much legislation being introduced at one time was to ensure that the rights of the Opposition would be put firmly in place. That legislation is now on the table. It will not all be dealt with immediately. It will give members of the Opposition more than adequate opportunity to examine it, to determine their attitude to it and to determine their response to it. Although the Government has gone to the trouble of introducing the legislation to give members of the Opposition the opportunity to do that, we find that today, on a simple procedural matter, they take exception and try to place on that effective management of the business of the House by the Government an interpretation which is clearly incorrect. Everything that has happened so far indicates that the Government has things in order and that it is giving more than adequate consideration to the rights not only of this place as an institution but also of the Opposition in terms of its responsibilities and of individual members. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Madam Speaker has received advice from the Opposition Whip that he has nominated the honourable member for Macquarie, Mr Webster, to be a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in place of the honourable member for Wakefield, Mr Andrew. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received advice from the Government Whip and the National Party Whip that the honourable member for Newcastle, Mr Allan Morris, and the honourable member for Maranoa, Mr Ian Cameron, respectively have been nominated to serve on the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts for the purpose of the inquiry into tourism in the Antarctic. Motion (by Mr Robert Brown)-by leave-agreed to: That the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor) be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in place of the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) who has resigned. Motion (by Mr Robert Brown) agreed to: That the sessional order adopted by the House on 24 May 1988 relating to the duration of the ringing of the bells continue in effect for a further two sitting weeks after 29 September 1988. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(5.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill marks a new stage in social security administration in this country. It is a further plank to the Government's social justice priority of achieving equality of legal rights for all. The Bill will establish an informal, accessible, quick and free mechanism for social security claimants to secure their legal entitlements to pensions, benefits and allowances. The Bill is an integral component of developing a more rational and understandable system of decision making in social security. It provides for all levels of administrative review, both internal and external. There will be a provision for a review to be conducted by the Secretary to the Department of Social Security, by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) as the first tier of external review and then by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as the second tier of external review. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal has been operating since 1975 under ministerial direction. It has had no legislative foundation and has had no power to decide cases. Its function has been to recommend to the Secretary that a decision under review be either affirmed, varied or set aside. This Bill will provide the Social Security Appeals Tribunal with determinative powers and will make it a statutory tribunal with responsibility for the first level of external review. The absence of a legal power in the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to determine appeals has been seen as a deficiency in the social security review system. It has been the subject of comment by a number of observers, including the Administrative Review Council. The Administrative Review Council reported that the absence of determinative powers has exacerbated the problem of delay in processing appeals and accordingly has undermined the objective of minimising the time taken to finalise appeals. In report No. 21 of the structure and form of social security appeals, dated April 1984, the Council concluded that conferring a power of determination on the Social Security Appeals Tribunal would enhance its credibility and standing. It would also ensure its independence from the Department and would contribute to a reduction in the time taken to finalise appeals at the first level of the appeals structure. The primary objective of any system of review of administrative decisions should be to provide for the resolution of grievances by correct and authoritative decisions which command general confidence. To achieve this object the Social Security Appeals Tribunal must retain its flexible structure and the informal procedures it has developed in the past 12 years. Otherwise there is a danger that this Tribunal will duplicate the style of hearing now conducted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is not a desirable aim for the first tier of external review. This Bill is designed to ensure that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal retains its accessibility and informality while exercising its more extensive powers. The legislation will state the objective of review as being to provide a mechanism for review of decisions under the Social Security Act that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. The Tribunal is specifically directed to have regard to this objective in making hearings as informal as possible. The Tribunal will have the powers of the Secretary to the Department of Social Security to affirm, vary or set aside a decision. The Tribunal will be able to shorten the period during which the Department must make its submission to the Tribunal where there are cases of financial hardship. This will enable determination of the appeal as quickly as possible. As is presently the case, no legal costs will be met or awarded. The Tribunal will be able to meet reasonable travel and accommodation costs plus the cost of any medical examinations where those examinations are arranged by the Tribunal. The power of the Secretary to the Department of Social Security to reconsider a case at any time will also be retained. The existing informal character of Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) hearings will not be significantly altered under this restructured scheme. The Tribunal will not be bound by rules of evidence or notions of judicial procedure. Hearings will be conducted in private unless the presiding member at a hearing has decided otherwise after having regard to the need to protect the privacy of the parties and their wishes. Tribunal hearings will retain their existing features: usually they take the form of a discussion between the Tribunal panel and the appellant. Notwithstanding this, an appellant will be able to be represented at a hearing by any person. The Bill provides for the continuation of the current practice of receiving applications for review orally as well as in writing. Where an oral application is received the person who receives the application will be required to record its receipt in writing. Withdrawal of applications can also be made orally or in writing with a similar requirement to make a written record where an application is withdrawn orally. A feature of Australia's administrative review system is that administrative tribunals are called upon to apply Government policy on various matters. This occurs when the legislation that the Tribunal applies does not clearly dictate what decision should be arrived at in a particular case. In such cases Administrative Tribunals have long held that they will have regard to Government policy in deciding the issue. This Bill provides that where the Government desires to require the SSAT to take account of Government policy in this way it will be necessary to table the relevant policy in both Houses-guaranteeing full public accountability in the administration of Social Security. To ensure that the objectives of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal are achieved, the Tribunal will be organised and administered on a national basis. A full time National Convener will be responsible for the administration of the Tribunal and for ensuring uniformity and consistency of decision-making by members. The National Convener will also be responsible for the general management of the Tribunal. There will be a senior member in each State and a mix of full time and part time members. The Tribunal often requires background information about the operations of the Department of Social Security. To have a departmental representative appearing before the Tribunal may create an adversarial environment for the hearing of appeals. This is undesirable. Departmental officers will therefore continue to be appointed as members of the Tribunal. However, to ensure their independence from the Department they will be appointed to the statutory position of member of the Tribunal and will not be departmental officers for their period of appointment to the Tribunal. The Bill prohibits oral submissions by or representation of the Secretary and will thereby prevent the development of adversarial procedures. The current practice of three-member panels will continue. The national convener will have a discretion to add a medical member as required and to authorise panels consisting of fewer than three members in special circumstances. The national convener and senior members will be appointed by the Governor-General. The national convener will be appointed for up to five years and senior members will be appointed by the Minister for a period of up to three years. Because the SSAT deals with a number of applications in relation to age pension there will be no bar to members being appointed beyond the age of 65. This Bill will also include provisions regulating the operations of the Tribunal. The Department will be required to provide a statement setting out its findings, evidence and reasons for the decision under review together with supporting documents. This must be provided to the Tribunal within 28 days of receipt of notification of lodgment of an appeal. The national convener can ask the Secretary to provide the statement and documents earlier than the expiry of the 28-day deadline. The most likely situation where this will arise is where a person could experience financial hardship pending resolution of the appeal. When the Social Security Appeals Tribunal arrives at its decision it will be required to provide a statement setting out the findings referring to the evidence and giving the reasons for its decision. In the event of an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the Social Security Appeals Tribunal's reasons will become the statement required under section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. The Department of Social Security will still provide the relevant documentation to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In addition to the above requirements, the Tribunal will be required to act in accordance with substantial justice and merits according to the circumstances of the case and it will be empowered to obtain evidence on oath or to request the Secretary to serve a notice requiring a person to provide such relevant information or documents. This Bill marks an important step in development of the Department of Social Security's own decision making. It codifies and more precisely defines the Department's powers and duties to review decisions and establishes the office of `authorised review officer'. A determinative first tier external review tribunal will provide a greater contribution to administrative efficiency and effectiveness in achieving legislative policy objectives by providing consistent guidance in the proper exercise of statutory powers by departmental decision makers. To make the Social Security Appeals Tribunal responsible for its own decisions is consistent with this objective. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal currently reviews up to 12,000 cases a year. The first tier of external review is designed, given this caseload, to be informal and quick. There needs to be a mechanism of further administrative review for complex and difficult cases. This will be provided by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Both the Secretary to the Department of Social Security and persons who are affected by decisions of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review. I commend this Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Dr Hewson) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Robert Brown, and read a first time. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton-Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support)(5.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I take great pleasure in introducing the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill to the House. Honourable members will have seen from a quick glance at this Bill that its basic purpose is to provide for a new Federal road funding program from 1 January 1989, to replace both of the Government's current programs. However, a closer reading reveals that the Bill contains important new initiatives which distinguish it from previous roads programs. To a greater extent than any of its predecessors, the Australian centennial roads development (ACRD) program looks to the economic future of Australia. As its title implies, this legislation will set the direction of road funding towards the year 2001-the centenary of our Federation. Currently, the Government's economic agenda is focusing closely on the need for structural adjustment of our major industries. The improvement of our land transport sector is an integral part of this structural adjustment process. Cheaper, safer and more efficient transport can only mean greater success in our attempts to make our industries more competitive. The clear message for all levels of government is that land transport development needs to blend more closely with economic policy. If Australia is to continue to improve its economic performance we cannot afford to ignore this. In the area of roads funding, this requirement is absolutely essential. Roads play a pivotal role in Australia's transport system. About half of all freight transport takes place on roads and if we exclude low value bulk commodities the figure is over 80 per cent. In addition, over 97 per cent of passenger travel is by road. Given these statistics, it is important that we take a long hard look at roads development. With all levels of government coming to grips with the need for economic restraint it is imperative that scarce roads infrastructure be effectively targeted. Only in this way can we ensure the sorts of economic and social benefits we are aiming for. Of course, much has already been achieved by this Government in the roads sphere. Despite the tough economic climate that has prevailed over the last few years, we have managed to establish an impressive record on the road funding front. Over the six Hawke Government budgets since 1983, we have allocated more than $7 billion to road funding, an increase in real terms of 21 per cent over the last six Budgets of the Fraser Administration. More importantly, we have made effective and sensible use of these funds. In 1985, for example, we introduced the Australian land transport program (ALTP). This program broke new ground by presenting a more comprehensive approach to land transport funding with money provided from a share of fuel excise. We have also witnessed the rapid development of our national highway system. This impressive network serves a vital role for the economic and social roads needs of this nation. More and more Australians are remarking on the progress we have made on the national highway. Over recent years we have achieved significant upgrading of the important Sydney to Melbourne link as well as completion of sealing on the Adelaide to Darwin and Brisbane to Darwin sections. These developments are not only providing safer and more efficient transport but are going a long way to bringing our communities closer together. This Government is proud of its roads achievement to date. But it also realises that much more has to be done. The Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill takes a realistic approach to our roads objectives. The program that it enacts will ensure that we not only look to the roads demands of the future but also provide for the maintenance of our existing roads asset. The new arrangements will replace both of our current Federal road funding programs. Most members will be aware that the Australian bicentennial road development (ABRD) program expires at the end of this year. While the Australian land transport program was not due to finish until mid-1990, it makes administrative sense to have one single program in place from 1989. The Bill itself is the culmination of a detailed government review earlier this year of Federal road funding arrangements. This review consulted with all major interest groups, including State and local government, major road transport bodies and motorist organisations. What was uppermost in mind when conducting the review and subsequently framing this legislation was the need to have careful regard to the relationship between road funding and economic policy. It is a mistake to consider road funding in isolation from the general economy. As I outlined earlier, one of the Government's principal economic considerations at the present time is the implementation of a process of structural adjustment designed to make our key export and import-competing industries more efficient and competitive and so improve longer term security. Federal roads investment can make a major contribution to this process of structural adjustment. But, having said this, the other important economic factor to keep in mind is the pressing need for expenditure restraint. The halcyon times of the 1950s and 1960s are over. We all need to face the fact that funding available for roads development is limited. The new ACRD program clearly reflects these economic considerations. Firstly, funds are to be concentrated on roads of national economic significance. In particular, the Bill provides for a new category of what are to be called `national arterials', designed to improve road access for our major industries. The second principal aim of the Bill is to get better value for every dollar spent on roads. To this end, the program provides for revised administrative arrangements based on a quality assurance approach and reduced Federal involvement. The States will assume greater responsibility and accountability for ensuring projects are completed on budget and to an appropriate standard. These arrangements will guarantee efficiency in the delivery of the new road program. Let me first turn to roads of national economic importance. Up until now, the national highway system has provided significant assistance to economic growth by making freight movements faster, cheaper and safer. Funding for this category will continue under the new program so that its benefits can be preserved. However, we need to realise that the national highway is predominantly an inter-capital link. It does not encompass the major feeder routes into and out of these capital cities, nor does it include connections to some of our important manufacturing and primary production centres. What we need to do, therefore, is build on the achievements of the national highway. For this reason we have introduced the new national arterial category. National arterials will encompass roads which can be shown specifically to enhance the domestic and export competitiveness of Australian industry. To this end, the category will fund projects on key routes linking areas of production with ports, airports, freight forwarding centres, rail freight terminals and termini of key arterial roads. These new routes will also provide interstate and international travellers with easier access to tourist areas. One important proviso to the inclusion of projects in the new national arterial category is the requirement that all routes have an advantageous benefit-cost ratio. While everyone may not be happy with this approach, it is nevertheless one of the best single indicators of the economic merit of projects. It also goes hand in hand with the overriding need to obtain more value from fewer resources. Over the last few months State and Territory governments have been undertaking the process of identifying candidate routes in consultation with Federal officials. The introduction of the national arterial category marks a great leap forward for roads development in Australia. Together with the national highway system, it gives a clear statement of our national road funding objectives. In addition to this emphasis on roads of national economic significance, the program also continues a base level of assistance for State arterial and local roads. Local road funding has fared particularly well under the new program with funding being maintained in real terms in 1988-89 at $268.5m, excluding the $4m allocated to Australian Capital Territory local roads. This represents more than a $15m increase over the 1987-88 expenditure and clearly reflects this Government's continuing commitment to assisting local government to meet its road responsibilities. Now let me turn to the funding provisions of the Bill as set out in part II. The Government announced in this year's May economic statement that Federal assistance for roads in 1988-89 would be set at $1,215m. While this represents a slight fall on the previous year's level, the Government has guaranteed that the 1988-89 figure will be maintained in real terms over 1989-90 and 1990-91. Unlike the Opposition, we have been prepared to set out our funding commitment to roads over the next few years. Members will have noted that for the first time the Australian Capital Territory is to be incorporated into Federal road funding arrangements. The announced 1988-89 funding level of $1,215m does not include the ACT funding requirement. Total funding in 1988-89 under the three road programs will be $1,221.5m, including that $6.5m for the ACT. The funding mechanisms under this Bill are similar to current arrangements. As with the ABRD and ALTP before it, revenue for this new program will be paid into a special trust fund operating from 1 January 1989 to the completion of the program on 31 December 1993. Funds will be raised by earmarking a proportion of net receipts from excise levied on motor spirit and diesel. To guarantee the integrity of this revenue, the Bill provides for the amount of excise receipts to be specifically designated as a road user charge. This will enable road users to identify clearly the amount of exercise that is devoted to roads. The initial excise charge rate operating under the program will be 4.95 per litre. The rate will be indexed to movements in the implicit price deflator for gross non-farm product for the second and third years of the program. The Bill also provides for two other important types of charge rate adjustments. The first of these seeks to overcome any transitional funding problems that may arise in 1988-89 by ensuring that the guaranteed funding level of $1,221.5m will actually be available for expenditure. A further adjustment gives legislative backing to the Government's guarantee that the 1988-89 funding level will be maintained in real terms over the following two financial years. Considered together, these adjustments guarantee a secure funding environment for governments and others involved in finding the money for roads. Funding provided under the program will be available for both construction and maintenance work on national highways, State arterials and local roads. National arterial funding will be restricted to construction purposes only. As with current arrangements, the program adopts a comprehensive approach to land transport funding. Accordingly, the Bill continues the arrangement whereby a proportion of arterial funds, both national and State, may be redirected to either urban public transport projects or capital projects associated with the operation of interstate mainline railways. The level of funding available for urban public transport and rail projects will be approximately the same as was available under current programs. An amount of $6m will be also available for payment to organisations associated with road safety activities and land transport research. Details of specific State allocations for designated categories are provided within the Bill for State arterials and local roads. Allocations for national highways, national arterials and road safety and research are to be based on national priorities and will therefore be a matter for ministerial determination. In accordance with this latter provision we have announced that funding in 1988-89 will be set at $484.9m for national highways and $160m for national arterials. States and the Northern Territory have been advised of their individual allocations for these categories. Over subsequent years of the program, the proportion of funding directed to national arterials will increase, reflecting the growing significance of this category. State and category allocations are set out in sections 16 and 17 and schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill and are divided into two distinct time periods. The first of these relates to the 1988-89 financial year with allocations shown as money amounts. Separating out this period will simplify administration during the transitional period as it involves the closure of the ABRD and ALTP trust funds and the commencement of the ACRD fund. It also provides States with assured cash allocations for 1988-89 prior to receipt of final revenues into the ABRD and ALTP funds. The second period covers the remainder of the program from 1 July 1989 with State and category allocations for State arterials and local roads. Maximum percentages have been set for amounts payable under these categories in 1988-89. Before continuing let me make a few comments about prescribed allocations under the Bill. In the case of arterial funding, honourable members will note that assistance for State arterials in 1988-89 has been set at $298.1m, including the Australian Capital Territory. While this figure on its own may seem a little low it does not mean that the share of arterial funding has fallen. To obtain the full arterial picture, the allocation for State arterials needs to be taken in conjunction with that for national arterials. Seen from this perspective, the proportion of funding directed to arterial roads has increased marginally over 1987-88 expenditure and represents about 37 per cent of total funding. The major difference is a heavier emphasis on those arterial roads which are more closely related to national economic objectives. As applies under current Federal road funding arrangements, the distribution of local road funds by a State to local authorities will be determined on the basis of approved principles. These principles, which take account of such factors as population and road length, are agreed between the States and relevant local government associations. From the Federal Government's viewpoint, these arrangements have been working well to date. Finally in relation to funding matters, the Bill allows for ministerial approval of transfers of money between certain categories. As with current arrangements this will ensure a degree of flexibility within the program. I now move on to parts III and IV of the Bill, which deal with administrative arrangements. As I outlined earlier, the administrative arrangements described in this Bill and relevant notes on administration represent a significant change from previous programs. In framing these arrangements our main goal was to achieve improved administrative efficiency and so ensure maximum value for each Federal road dollar. In keeping with this objective, new arrangements make a clear distinction between administrative requirements for national roads and those for State and local roads. This Government has consistently held the view that State arterial and local roads are a State and local government responsibility and it should be left to these governments to determine their own expenditure priorities. Under the new program there is to be minimal Federal involvement in the administration of funding for these roads. In the case of national highways and national arterial roads, however, it is imperative to have an administrative system in place which will ensure national standards and objectives are being met on time and within budget. Under the new program, an important element of this approach will be the introduction of a quality assurance system. States have acknowledged the need to employ quality assurance systems and the spirit of cooperation between the States and Federal government on their development has been very good. In essence, the quality assurance approach will enable the Federal Government to satisfy itself that the practices and procedures employed by State and Territory authorities and contractors are efficient from a planning, engineering, administrative and financial perspective. Once this system of quality control is set up periodic assessments will be used to ensure that State and Territory systems continue to perform satisfactorily. A prime element of the quality systems approach will be the introduction of pavement management systems by the States for national highways. This will enable a predictable system of road restoration to be established and ensure that we are spending our roads dollar in the right place at the right time. Quality assurance will allow State road authorities to adopt a more businesslike approach to road construction. Indeed, in some cases States have already pursued this approach of their own accord. Quality assurance is simply one more step towards the Bill's aim of achieving more for less. Having explained the basic framework of the revised administrative arrangements, let me briefly outline the remaining significant provisions within the Bill. In accordance with the objectives I have just described, project approval requirements will focus principally on national highways and national arterials, and will not be necessary for expenditure on State arterial or local roads. Arrangements are being developed in cooperation with the States to improve cost estimation procedures and minimise cost overruns. Project approval will continue to apply to both mainline railway projects and urban public transport projects. In the case of mainline railways, funding will be dependent on the project being able to yield significant benefits based on improvements in the capacity, quality or efficiency of operations. Urban public transport projects will aim to reduce traffic on arterial roads in urban areas. Tendering requirements will apply to the construction of national highways and national arterials and will now be extended to include major rehabilitation works on national highways. For tendering purposes, major rehabilitation works will cover off those works estimated to cost in excess of $2m. Where appropriate, tendering will also apply to mainline railway and urban public transport projects. Administrative measures are also being put in place in relation to tendering procedures to reduce the scope for litigation over the final cost of projects. The program will maintain the requirement that State and Territory governments together with local authorities acknowledge Federal assistance for programs and projects. The Bill also prevents States from levying tolls on national highways or national arterial roads without written ministerial consent. Finally, the Bill makes provision for the closing of the existing trust fund under ABRD and ALTP by 30 April 1989. No excise payments will be made into these funds after 31 December 1988 and special transitional arrangements will apply to money paid out of these funds between 1 January and 30 April 1989. In closing let me reiterate that the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill is the right response for the economic times of today. It is a balanced and responsible approach to the question of road funding which dovetails neatly with the Government's overall economic strategy. Like all good money managers we have carefully considered our objectives and priorities and then chosen sound investments to match. Initiatives such as the introduction of national arterials and the establishment of quality systems are integral elements of this roads investment package designed to make the roads dollar work harder. There is no doubt that the Government's investments will pay handsome dividends. Not only will these efforts assist our export and import competing industries but there will also be significant benefits for the truckie, the farmer, the motorist-in fact all roads users. The current reassessment of Federal road funding forms part of the Government's wider agenda for restructuring in all sectors of the transport industry-road, rail, sea and air. Together these reforms are helping to develop a more efficient, more competitive industry to the betterment of Australia's overall economic performance. In the long run, this will mean greater benefits for all Australians. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum relating to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.55) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: CSIRO North Ryde laboratories, site redevelopment, stage 1. The proposed public work involves the first stage or a longer term capital works program to construct new laboratory facilities, refurbish existing buildings, demolish inefficient and unsafe buildings and upgrade mechanical services, site entry, internal roads and car parks at North Ryde. The North Ryde complex is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) principal research centre in New South Wales. It currently accommodates some 700 staff and is the national headquarters for the Divisions of Biotechnology, Coal Technology, and Food Processing and a principal centre for the Division of Exploration Geoscience. The site also accommodates parts of other divisions. Works included in this reference comprise a new three-storey gene technology laboratory building, a new computer and administration building, additions to the library-conference centre and refurbishment of an existing laboratory building for the Division of Biotechnology. They also include a new three-storey geophysics laboratory building for the Division of Exploration Geoscience, the first stage of a central chilled water installation for the Divisions of Exploration Geoscience and Coal Technology, and refurbishment-modification of part of two buildings to be occupied by the Division of Coal Technology. The scope of work further includes demolition of some obsolete and sub-standard buildings, relocation of some existing roads and services, and upgrading of parks and landscaping. The work accords with the master development plan prepared for the site by the Hawke Labor Government in 1984. This proposes a series of precincts, which are ultimately to be accessed off a new internal spine road. Such an arrangement will reduce the number of site access points and improve traffic safety. The redevelopment proposals are essential to permit increased research into topics of vital national importance. Biotechnology is currently one or the fastest growing industries amongst developed nations. It is estimated that, by the year 2000, the world's biotechnology market will be worth more than $US100 billion. CSIRO has already significantly assisted the establishment of new Australian companies in the fields of gene technology and hybrid cell production and the potential for new products and processes of practical use to humanity is enormous. Likewise, increased research in the fields of exploration geoscience and coal technology is vital to Australia's export income. Mineral exports, including coal, were worth about $16 billion in 1986-87 and mining companies spent $556m on exploration in that year. The Division of Exploration Geoscience is researching improved techniques for locating mineral deposits and for reducing the time and cost of exploration. The Division of Coal Technology supports the efficient, economic and environmentally acceptable use of coal in Australia, where it is the principal source of power generation, and assists the coal export market which is essential to our economy. The proposal is of sufficient urgency for CSIRO, which is pursuing sources of off-budget funding, to require concurrent documentation. Subject to a favourable recommendation by the Public Works Committee, we plan to commence site works in February 1989 with a view to the completion of the total project by June 1991. The estimated cost of the works is $18.5m at August 1988 prices. I table the plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(6.00) —As shadow Minister for science I have more than a passing interest in the motion before the House for the referral to the Public Works Committee of the project relating to the construction of a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) laboratory at North Ryde. The Opposition is becoming increasingly concerned-indeed, it is no overstatement to say gravely concerned-at the treatment of CSIRO under this Government. Sadly, in the past five years there has been a 32 per cent cumulative cutback in funding for CSIRO, which puts in jeopardy a whole number of research programs currently undertaken by CSIRO and future projects. There are a great many examples of specific projects which have been affected by this cutback. We know that the morale of scientists in a number of divisions has plummeted. There has been something of a brain drain with scientists leaving CSIRO. The latest has been Dr Trevor Scott, Chief of the Animal Production Division of CSIRO, who is stepping down from his position because of cutbacks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! I would remind the honourable member that this is a narrow motion involving a reference to the Public Works Committee. It does not give cause for a debate on the CSIRO. I ask the honourable member to keep his comments relevant to the issue before the House. Mr McGAURAN —I was interested to hear that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) regards this proposal as an important redevelopment of the CSIRO laboratories. However, I wish that he and the Government would show a more general concern for CSIRO. These laboratories will be of great value to CSIRO as part of a whole number of other reforms that need to be undertaken by CSIRO. I do not wish to test the limits of your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not a matter of my patience. It is a matter of what is covered by the Standing Orders. Mr McGAURAN —Rather than stretch the Standing Orders of the House, I shall draw my remarks quickly to a close. Suffice it to say, in summary, that in the past the Opposition has taken up, and will take up in future, the cause of CSIRO, the flagship of the science community in Australia, and will push very strongly for an increase in the funding of its depleted stocks. Failure to do so will only hurt Australian industry and the Australian standard of living. Our export industries can remain competitive only with the injection of proper research, new methods of production and of handling, et cetera. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance. I ask the Minister to take back to Cabinet the message delivered by the Opposition in regard to CSIRO. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(6.05) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new Communications and Recruit Schools at HMAS Cerberus, Cribb Point, Victoria. The proposed work is to provide new communications and recruit schools at HMAS Cerberus, 70 kilometres south-east of Melbourne. This proposal is the second phase of the staged redevelopment of substandard facilities at HMAS Cerberus, which is one of the principal training establishments for Royal Australian Navy personnel. In 1986 the House gave approval for the construction of the first phase of the redevelopment. This phase included a new seamanship school, a new wharf, a marina and a boat ramp. The marina and the boat ramp are now in operation, with the wharf and seamanship school to be completed by mid-1989. This current proposal is the provision of new facilities of the communications and recruit schools. Subsequent phases of redevelopment are envisaged, and planning is already under way. These future proposals will involve the upgrading of accommodation blocks and galleys and the provision of a new cookery school. At present the communications school provides over 50 courses, ranging from the traditional morse and flags through to complex electronic equipment training and cryptography. The recruit school offers a 12-week basic training course for new Royal Australian Navy personnel, as well as shorter courses for Royal Australian Navy reserve recruits. The communications and recruit training activities are currently conducted in a number of facilities located on the base. These facilities, some of which date from the 1930s, are unsatisfactory for the training activities of both schools and generally do not provide an environment consistent with modern training methods and equipment. In this proposal most of these existing facilities will be demolished to allow for the construction of the new works. The communications and recruit schools' functions will be temporarily relocated to enable training programs to continue during this construction period. The works proposed for the new communications school are for a two-storey building and an adjacent outdoor visual training area. The facilities to be provided include both general purpose classrooms and special purpose technical rooms fitted with communication equipment; lecture theatre and library; administration and instructors' offices; and stores and amenities. The recruit school proposal involves two new buildings: an administrative-instructional building with an adjacent, partially covered parade ground; and a recruit amenities and functions building, including a canteen, recreation centre and amenities. The estimated cost of this proposal is $15.950m at April 1988 prices, comprising $9.8m for the communications school and $6.15m for the recruit school. Subject to parliamentary approval of the proposed work, it is intended to call the first tenders in early 1989. The facilities are planned to be completed and occupied by both schools by the end of 1991. I table selected plans of the proposed work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(6.08) —The Opposition welcomes the fact that HMAS Cerberus is to be refurbished. Many of the facilities there are out of date and primitive. However, the Government does not realise that, if it addressed some of its energy and resources to keeping people in the Services, it would not have to spend so much money on facilities such as Cerberus and on training recruits. This year the cost of providing services and training recruits in the Services will come to about $10,000m-another record. I am getting a very hard eye from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will move one. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —I am listening closely to the remarks of the honourable member. Mr West —But the honourable member makes remarks that are not relevant and then comes back to them. Mr WHITE —I will not hold the Minister personally responsible, but he is part of the Government and must accept the point that, as his Government spends millions of dollars each year on training recruits because it is losing so many people from the Services, obviously it has to spend money on updating the bases. I hope the Government intends making an early decision on HMAS Nirimba because sooner or later, as I understand the Government's proposal, either Nirimba or Cerberus has to close, combining the two training schools. Leaving it in limbo as it is now is a most unsatisfactory position. The Opposition welcomes the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(6.12) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of the National Biological Standards Laboratory, Symonston, Australian Capital Territory. The proposed public work involves the construction of a single complex to combine, on the one site, the many dispersed facilities that currently comprise the entity referred to as the National Biological Standards Laboratory (NBSL). These facilities currently exist in no less than 18 separate buildings, spread over nine locations in Canberra and two in Melbourne. In the majority of cases, the facilities are cramped, in poor condition, and no longer appropriate for the important functions performed. The NBSL comprises three branches of the therapeutics division of the Department of Community Services and Health. These are the biological laboratories branch, the pharmaceutical laboratories branch and the medical devices and dental products branch. The therapeutics division administers the Government's therapeutic goods program, which seeks to safeguard the Australian community in relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of therapeutic goods. The program has several components: evaluation of pharmaceuticals, biologicals and therapeutic devices; laboratory analysis of therapeutic goods; inspection of Australian therapeutic goods manufacturers; monitoring the effectiveness of drugs and devices; development of standards for therapeutic goods; national therapeutic goods register; specialised advice, training and education; monitoring drug information; and import and export controls. The relevance of these functions is very evident. In 1986-87, 36.4 per cent of manufacturers inspected by NBSL were assessed as having less than acceptable levels of compliance with the codes of good manufacturing practice. Over the same period approximately 10 per cent of samples analysed by NBSL failed to comply with specifications and in the first eight months of this year alone, there have been 45 recalls of various medicines and 45 recalls of medical devices. Each year some 40 to 50 new prescription drugs are evaluated and approved for marketing. These add to the 18,000 or so medicines on the Australian market, together with a similar number of medical devices. The works covered by this reference comprise a single laboratory building of approximately 17,900 square metres to accommodate 220 staff, and completion of the conversion of an existing building. This building was originally opened in 1975 to permit the testing of brucella vaccine but is no longer required for that purpose. The laboratory building is generally a two-storey structure, in the form of two linear wings linked at the centre by an enclosed common space. It is sited so as to make use of preparatory siteworks undertaken in 1980-81 for a previous, larger proposal. That proposal which was referred to the Public Works Committee in 1979 and subsequently approved by Parliament, was deferred as a cost cutting measure in 1981. The new building will include biological, chemical and engineering laboratories, as well as staff amenities, library, workshops, storage areas and office accommodation for associated administrative and scientific support staff. The building will incorporate all the complex services normally associated with laboratories and will include specific features to prevent the escape of contaminants and to prevent external contamination of specific `clean' areas. The project will also include the provision of a standby generating plant of sufficient capacity to maintain essential services. Externally, the building will be set well back on the site and the proposed landscaping is intended to allow the site to merge with the existing woodland to the west. The project is of sufficient urgency for the Department of Community Services and Health to have sought, and received, approval for concurrent documentation. The estimated cost of the proposal is $51.4m at July 1988 prices and, subject to favourable consideration by the Public Works Committee and Parliament, it is proposed to commence conversion of the existing brucella building in April 1989. Total completion of the works is expected in late 1992. I table the plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(6.17) —The referral by the Government to the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works of the proposal to construct a national biological standards laboratory in the Australian Capital Territory is an all too rare example of the Government's interest in, let alone commitment to, science. Since the Department of Science was abolished 18 months ago and its responsibilities hived off to four separate ministries, there has been little or no evidence of any coordination of unity or purpose amongst those four ministries. The down-playing of the importance of science by the Government of is tremendous concern to the Opposition. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have served in this Parliament for so long and with such great distinction that you will know that previous Ministers for Science included two former Prime Ministers-the Hon. John Gorton and the Hon. Malcolm Fraser. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —I call the honourable member to order and refer him back to the motion before the House. Mr McGAURAN —I should have known, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you have been in this place far too long to think that a little flattery might sway you from your duty under the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It comes all too seldom, but it still does not sway me. Mr McGAURAN —You are far too modest, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I say that it is an indication of the commitment of the coalition parties to the field of science that we have had in all our terms of office for as long as anyone can remember a separate Ministry of Science and a separate Minister for Science with the status and authority needed to push the cause of scientists in this country. It may well be that the construction of a national biological standards laboratory will be found by the Public Works Committee to be an essential requirement. On the evidence provided by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) it does seem that this is indeed so. After all, the present facilities seem to be spread amongst no less than 18 separate buildings over nine locations in Canberra and two in Melbourne. If only the Government were so concerned with other aspects of science. The science community generally has run down under this Government. We are cutting our own throats by losing the competitive edge. There are very good economic reasons why a government's commitment to science should remain firm and resolute and should continue into the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(6.21) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin. The proposed work now before the House is for the redevelopment of base facilities and the provision of replacement housing at HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin. HMAS Coonawarra is located on the Stuart Highway, 11 kilometres east of Darwin. The role of the base is to provide the basic support functions for all aspects of naval operations in the northern area of Australia. The existing base facilities already provide insufficient on-base accommodation. With an increase in personnel, with the proposed stationing of additional Fremantle class patrol boats in Darwin from the end of this year, the modification and extension of accommodation and support facilities is necessary. Many of the existing base facilities were built during the 1960s and do not comply with the current Department of Defence scales and standards of accommodation. A number of the existing on-base houses are not constructed to cyclone standards, are presently located in a high noise area and do not meet the 1982 interim services scales and standards. A study carried out by my Department recommended that 53 houses were uneconomic to upgrade and repair and should be replaced with new housing. Eight other houses in good condition and built to cyclone standards will be relocated. The proposed work at HMAS Coonawarra includes: New accommodation blocks for junior sailors and for officers; a new physical fitness centre and pavilion and new assembly hall; extensions to the existing administration building and the provision of new civilian staff facilities; the upgrading of various buildings for junior and senior sailors' accommodation and messing and galley facilities; the provision of 53 new houses and the relocation of eight existing houses. This housing will be provided by the Defence Housing Authority. The Public Works Committee in its report has, I am pleased to say, recommended that construction of these base facilities and housing should proceed. However, the Committee also recommended that several issues be addressed further. Discussions have since been held between my Department's Australian Construction Services, the Department of Defence and the Defence Housing Authority regarding these points. I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Committee that in line with its recommendations the Defence Housing Authority will provide it with details of the proposed house designs for HMAS Coonawarra as soon as this information is available. The Authority is consulting with the Committee to discuss appropriate mechanisms for providing housing evidence at future hearings. The Department of Defence has agreed to reassess the proposed central food preparation system, taking into account wider issues and the views of base personnel. The Committee will be advised of the outcome of this reassessment. With respect to the Committee's recommendation that a number of issues be referred to the Defence Force Standards of Accommodation Committee, not all of the issues raised are within the ambit of that Committee's responsibility. However the Department of Defence has advised that it is examining all of these issues, namely, the provision of child-care facilities, undercover car parking, air-conditioning and also an air-conditioning electricity costs subsidy for defence houses in Darwin. The Department will advise the Committee of the outcomes. The estimated cost of the proposal as recommended by the Committee is $25.2m at January 1988 prices. This estimate comprises $19.2m for the base development and $6.0m for the replacement houses. This figure equates to $26.5m at September 1988 prices. Subject to the approval of the House to proceed, it is intended that construction of the base facilities will commence in early 1989 and be completed by mid 1992. There will be an on-site work force of some 100 people during the peak construction period. The housing is to be provided separately by the Defence Housing Authority and will be tendered progressively in groups. Construction of the first group of houses is expected to commence in early 1989, with completion of all the replacement housing planned for mid-1991. I would very much like to thank the Public Works Committee for the support that it has given to this proposal. I commend the motion to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(6.26) —The Opposition welcomes this long overdue improvement to the facilities at Coonawarra. Coonawarra is a very important base in northern Australia. I was there last week. The way the men and women of the Royal Australian Navy have maintained this base is a great tribute to them. It is one of the most attractive bases I have seen and is very well maintained. Although it may be deviating a little from the subject, I think it is worth noting that, wherever the Services have real estate and facilities to look after, they do so. Where they have handed land back to various authorities-particularly in some areas around the Sydney foreshore-the land has degenerated. In most places communities welcome the presence of servicemen in their area because they are very good managers. Many of the facilities at Coonawarra are old and outdated. As the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) has said, many of the old fibro houses were far below the scales and standards that have been set. It is an absolute disgrace that people have been asked to live in those houses. The reality is-and the Government has not yet realised it; it spends millions of dollars on retraining people, as I have said before-that if we want to retain good men and women in the Services we have to provide them with modern facilities, we have to pay them properly, we have to look after them, and we have to house them properly. There is no other way to go about it. If we want to keep losing record numbers of our service men and women, we will underrate them and not provide them with proper facilities. Yesterday the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) came in here and made a fool of herself about some paint and gardening issues, which is relevant to what we are talking about here. She took seriously a press release that I put out, the implication of which was that soldiers, sailors and airmen and airwomen are getting sick and tired of working long hours and living in poor facilities, such as the facilities at Coonawarra. They buy their own paint to make their barracks habitable and pay contractors to cut the grass because they are working an average of 55 hours a week. It is no wonder that they are leaving the Services in droves. If the Government continues its priorities towards equipment and neglects the facilities and pay and conditions of service personnel, it will keep on achieving record levels of wastage. There are two other matters I want to refer to in relation to Coonawarra. One is the centralised messing problem. As I understand it, the matter is in abeyance; it is to be looked at. I strongly recommend that the Government not proceed-I think the Public Works Committee has also commented on this matter-with the centralised food preparation proposed for Coonawarra. It will not work. It has been tried in other places. It is a disaster for the separate messes to which the food has to be taken. In every place that I know of where it has been tried it has been abandoned. The other matter is air-conditioning. Gradually the quarters in Darwin are being provided with air-conditioning. It is an ongoing program which will take some time to complete. I urge the Minister and the Government, for God's sake, to provide air-conditioning from the start in the new quarters it is building at Coonawarra. Most people in the north now have air-conditioning. The Government is reinforcing the notion that servicemen are second-class citizens if it does not provide them with air-conditioning. At the same time, I urge the Government quickly to resolve the question of whether to provide a supplement to help pay for the cost of electricity which the air-conditioners obviously consume. Air-conditioning is necessary in the north. They have it at Tindal. They get an allowance. They should get it in Darwin. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(8.00) —Let me say in this, my first speech as the shadow Minister for housing, that the Opposition will not oppose the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988. This piece of legislation reflects the 12 May Loan Council decisions agreed to between the Commonwealth and the States. It provides for capital grants to the States and the Northern Territory of $310.5m, by way of an interest-free loan and for loans with an interest rate of 4 1/2 per cent, repayable over 53 years, of $310.5m-the same amount as for the capital grants. I note that the capital grants are not earmarked, but I also note that the concessional loans at the 4 1/2 per cent interest rate must be used for the purposes of public housing. It is that aspect of this piece of legislation which is not entirely consistent with the position that we on this side of the House have taken in relation to the issue of housing. In order to make some real assessment of the credibility of this piece of legislation-and, indeed, the value of this Loan Council agreement between the Commonwealth and the States-one must start by looking at the state of the housing industry in Australia and determine, therefore, whether this legislation will help to alleviate some of the problems which exist within that industry. Let me concede right from the beginning that housing activity, in terms of building commencement at the moment, is extremely strong. If one looks at the Indicative Planning Council estimates which were leaked in the Australian Financial Review the other day, one can see that during this financial year there are likely to between 150,000 and 160,000 housing commencements, which is a very substantial number. But what this demonstrates is a very dramatic upturn following the very depressed position that the housing industry was in not long ago. Those honourable members who may have had the honour and privilege of attending the Royal Adelaide Show, as I do every year, will have seen something which is called the Mad Mouse-perhaps South Australia's best known big dipper. It provides a great ride for children, and, let me say, for members of parliament and shadow Ministers. Let me also say that the way in which our housing industry has been going is almost identical to the rides taken by children and adults on the Mad Mouse at the Royal Adelaide Show. Mr Punch —So you haven't grown up? Mr DOWNER —I will pick up that interjection from the youngest member of the Ministry so that it will be contained in the Hansard record-the man who has definitely not grown up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member should not respond to interjections. Mr DOWNER —No, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the interjection should not have been made in the first place. In 1985 there was a dramatic plunge in the housing industry. In 1984-85 there were 153,000 commencements, which reflected the success in 1982 of the support provided to the housing industry by the Fraser Government in a difficult time. In 1985-86 there was an 11.1 per cent decline in housing commencements and in 1986-87 a further 14.5 per cent decline. Of course, there has been a substantial rise since then, in the 1988-89 financial year. But honourable members should remember that the housing industry was plunged into that abyss, and the consequence of what was called in Britain at one time stop-go policies has been an enormous amount of stress and strain on the industry as a whole. To run an industry in such a dramatic way is, I submit, not a successful or constructive way to run that industry. Let us look at what has caused these stop-go policies. The Opposition concedes that in any market there are natural cyclical factors but these have been severely exacerbated by a series of Government policies. There has been the issue of interest rate gyrations. I will come back to that issue a little later. There have also been 23 major changes to the housing policies of this Government. If one makes 23 changes to one's housing policies, of course there will be problems and difficulties for the industry. Indeed, understandably, the industry will wonder what the Government is about when it comes to housing policies generally. The problems have involved a period of depression, which I have described, and a period now that has been described-and it has been conceded-by people as distinguished as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as a stage of overheating. Overheating means that today in the housing industry there are very severe labour shortages. Subcontract rates at the moment are estimated by the Master Builders Association to be increasing by over 20 per cent a year in markets like Sydney, Brisbane and Perth. It means in Western Australia, for example, that building costs are increasing by approximately 2 per cent a month. Of course, the consequence is that fewer and fewer people are able to afford the more and more expensive houses that are being built in the private sector. I turn to the difficult issue of interest rates. The Government's economic policy has been dominated by using monetary policy as the chief instrument. It has decided not to address the whole series of structural adjustment changes that need to be made in macro-economic policy and industrial relations. It has decided to rely almost exclusively on monetary policy to try to ensure that the economic parameters are not too far out of equilibrium. Of course, they are well out of equilibrium. One of the consequences today is that we are living in a period of rising interest rates. In June this year housing interest rates rose from 13.5 per cent to 14.5 per cent. It is almost certain that housing interest rates will now rise to 15.5 per cent as soon as the Victorian election is out of the way. We know from Question Time, from public debate and from what has been revealed in the Melbourne Herald today, that the Federal Government has leant on the Reserve Bank of Australia to persuade the Reserve Bank to hold down interest rates until after the Victorian election. That means that after the Victorian election interests rates, including home loan interest rates, are to rise, which in the building society sector will almost certainly mean a rise of one per cent. The consequences are enormous for people living in their own homes who are paying off mortgages. The consequences are also enormous for people who may, for example, be newly married and want to move into their own home-a perfectly understandable and Australian aspiration but one which will not be attainable because of the enormous rise in home loan interest rates in the course of this year. One has only to look at the problems facing people living in their own homes in Victoria to see the dimensions of the issue. For example, in Warrandyte in the city of Melbourne an average loan for people living in that area in 1985-86 was just over $44,000 and their average repayment was $568 a month. If one looks at comparable figure in 1987-88, one will see that the average loan is very nearly $61,000 and the average repayment is $780 a month. If one produces the same figures for Mentone, one will see that in 1985-86 the average loan was $40,000 and the average repayment was $538 a month. In 1987-88 the average loan was $65,000 and the average repayment was $806 a month. In other words, in Victoria, when this Government came to power 17 per cent of family income was spent on home loan mortgage repayments. Today the figure is 28 per cent and those home loan interest rates will almost certainly go up at a cost of about $40 a month for people living in their own homes in Victoria. We already know from reports that have come from the Commonwealth Bank in Victoria that interest rates are expected to rise in the next week or so. We know, as I have suggested, that if interest rates go up by one per cent, as they surely will for home owners, that will cost the typical home owner over $9 a week or $40 a month. On top of these quite crippling rises in home loan interest rates in Victoria, we can see that there has also been an enormous escalation in housing prices generally. If we take the much spoken of marginal electorate of Bentleigh, which appears from time to time in analyses of how the Victorian election is likely to go, we see that in 1985 the average house price was $70,000 whereas in 1988 it is $120,000. How can we expect people who live in that part of Melbourne and who aspire to owning their own homes to be able to cope with house prices that have increased by an incredible 70 per cent over the last three years; or in Warrandyte where house prices have increased by a lesser but substantial figure-40 per cent-in the last three years; or in Mentone where they have increased by some 56 per cent in the same period? Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see what I am driving at. The fact is that home ownership is becoming for Australians much more of a dream than a reality. More and more young Australians particularly-and they are the future of this country-are finding it simply impossible, firstly, to afford to buy a house and, secondly, even if they could buy the house, to maintain the enormous repayments that high interest rates have brought on those people. When people like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) say that the Government is out of touch with ordinary Australians, that could never be truer than in the area of housing. The Government's single instrument of economic policy is monetary policy: to push up interest rates when things go wrong. Standing here in the Parliament and talking about that is one thing. Sitting in the Treasurer's grand office in the executive wing at the rear of this building is one thing. But for the people out there in Warrandyte, in Bentleigh, or in Mentone to suffer the consequences of that policy is altogether another. The social dislocation, the problems within the family, and the difficulties for people not being able to get their own homes at all are the consequences of that being the only economic policy that the Government appears to be pursuing. Of course, one of the other consequences of this policy is to place increasing pressure on public housing waiting lists. More than 170,000 people in Australia now are waiting to go on public housing waiting lists. Some of those people will wait for two or even three years before they get a house. In my State of South Australia 45,000 people are on housing trust waiting lists just waiting to get into public housing. One of the reasons that those waiting lists are so enormously long is that people simply cannot afford to go into the private sector. When we look at what the Government's housing policy is really about, we see that the one thing the Government's policy does not do is support the whole principle of home ownership. There was an extraordinarily interesting report in the Adelaide Advertiser last Saturday which related to some words that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) used in an interview following his revelation that he had written to various State governments asking those governments to release more land to stop the spiralling of land prices. This is what the article says: . . . faced with a recent report that 60 p.c. of Australians may soon be unable to afford to buy their own home- is that not a devastating figure just in itself?- Mr Hawke added his support to those who argue increasing housing prices and interest rates could see Australia finally joining a worldwide trend in which most people rent their homes. According to the report in the Adelaide Advertiser, the Prime Minister supports a system in our country under which we will no longer have home ownership. These are the exact words that the article reports the Prime Minister as using: It may be the case that as you go into the future that people will want to make different decisions, different priorities and allocate more of their income to non-residential purposes. What a concession from somebody who claims to be the leader of a country-that we may as well give up on the aspiration of home ownership! It may not matter to the Australian Labor Party, but it matters to the overwhelming majority of people in this country. If people are not convinced by the words of the Prime Minister, the leader of the Government, albeit a lame duck leader soon to be overtaken by the Treasurer of the country, they have to look over the period of the Hawke Government being in office to see how the emphasis in Federal Government policies in relation to housing has moved from the private sector to the public sector. When I use the words `private sector' I am talking about helping people to purchase their own homes. In 1983-84, 67 per cent of Commonwealth funds spent on housing was spent on public housing and 31 per cent was spent on private housing. But in 1986-87 that figure was 77 per cent on public housing and only 22 per cent on private housing. If we look at this year's Budget figures we see that the percentage spent on public housing has increased further and the percentage spent on private housing has decreased further. These policies are unAustralian in the sense that they do not help people to obtain their own homes. They do not help Australians to achieve what is so often described as the Australian dream-the dream of having pride in owning one's very own house. It is also a policy which I believe to be economically wrong, because the real difficulty we face in the housing area is the difficulty for low income people and, worse still, people who live in poverty of obtaining a house of their own or even affording rental accommodation. This policy that the Government has pursued has been grossly inefficient-indeed, negligent-in meeting those aspirations. It does not target all the people-it targets some of them-who are in very real need. It is probably not a very popular thing to say, but it was said in the report of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty that some people who live in public housing would no longer necessarily qualify to live in public housing. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of people in Australia who live in dire poverty and who cannot get into public housing. Those people are ignored by the policies and that, in itself, is an inhumane and inefficient way of running a government program. The policies are inequitable. In 1987 a study done by Yates and Flood estimated that the subsidy for those living in public housing was about $1,795 per dwelling. That is all well and good, but the subsidy for those people below the poverty line living in private rental accommodation was just $295. It is fair enough to subsidise people who are living in poverty in public housing, but why is it that they get about seven or eight times as much as those people who live in private rental accommodation? Twice as many non-owner households in Australia live in poverty as the public housing stock can support, yet the Government is doing absolutely nothing constructive for those people living in that state or poverty. Let us look at the efficiency of these sorts of policies. A South Australian study conducted in 1984 by Pugh and Catt showed that, for every $1m spent on housing, 162 households can be assisted by governments constructing public housing, which means that, for every $1m spent, 162 households are supported. However, 280 households could be assisted if support was given to those who rent within the private sector. In this country we have a government that has increased the emphasis on what those statistics prove is an inefficient way of distributing support for people living in poverty by emphasising public housing at the expense of the private sector. When one looks at what has happened to rents in Australia-particularly in cities like Sydney, but also in Melbourne and even in Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane-one can see why there is so much poverty amongst those who rely on the private sector rental market. The Government has exacerbated the problem, one should remember, by introducing the capital gains tax, with its policy of high interest rates in order to try to manage the economy-it became less attractive for people to invest to provide rental property-and by its ill-judged policy on negative gearing which, to its credit, the Government recognised was wrong and decided to reverse. Those three things-the capital gains tax, high interest rates and interest rates as the sole instrument of Government policy, and the terrible negative gearing fiasco-have attacked the private sector rental market. As a consequence, costs have been pushed up, particularly for those people who live below the poverty line and who are struggling to exist in the private rental market. Obviously in Australia there is a need for some public housing; no-one on this side of the House is arguing anything to the contrary. However, there is evidence of a need to transfer the emphasis from near exclusive contributions to public housing to providing much more support for home ownership and to providing much more support for the private sector rental market. Our policy, which was announced by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) some three or four weeks ago, provides an excellent solution for addressing these very real-not just economic or statistical, but also human-problems. Our policy provides for cost of mortgage insurance so that lenders will provide a loan of 100 per cent of fair valuation of an eligible purchaser's first home. That will enable more people to buy their first home, a home of their own. Why has the Labor Government dedicated itself to reducing support year by year for the first home owners scheme, thereby reducing support for people who want to own their own home? We will do the reverse: we will increase that support. We will also ensure that in this country we have an effective private sector rental market, that we have proper private rental sector support, particularly for those people living in poverty, in order that that market can help to fulfil efficiently our great housing needs in Australia. On Saturday I think we will find in the Victorian election that there will be a very strong reaction to the sorts of housing policies that have been initiated here in Canberra and fulfilled in Melbourne by the Cain Labor Government. Those policies are supported by both the Federal and Victorian governments, which are dedicated to an ideological crusade to provide more support for public housing and less support for home ownership and the private sector rental market. People will react to that because they are finding it increasingly difficult to buy their own home and they are finding it increasingly difficult to hang on to their own home. Indeed, if interest rates rise, as I believe they will next week after the Victorian election, many people in Melbourne and throughout Victoria will simply be forced to sell their homes because they can no longer afford the enormous cost of meeting their monthly mortgage commitments. They will be forced out of their homes and back onto the public sector housing lists. If the Federal Government was not dominated by a Treasurer committed only to an interest rate driven economic policy and to providing public sector housing but instead was dedicated to the private sector, those problems could be resolved, and they should be resolved in the interests of compassion and to provide care and support particularly for those people who live in difficult circumstances. In conclusion, I repeat that on this side of the House we do not oppose the Bill but, once more, we highlight-and will continue to highlight during debate in both Houses-our very real concern that the Government's housing policies have caused much greater hardship than should be the case in this country, if only the Government's policies were not ideologically driven. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(8.26) —I listened with interest to the comments of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), delivering his first speech as the shadow Minister for housing. It was interesting to listen to him, and no doubt what he has now placed on the record will be watched in the future to see whether he changes some of his positions and, if so, how quickly he changes them. He mentioned some figures which I will comment on before dealing with the main points of my contribution. He talked about the number of houses that are being built at the present time and referred to a projection of up to 160,000 in 12 months. I remind the honourable member for Mayo that one of the reasons this Government was given responsibility of the treasury bench was that at that time Australia was building only 105,000 houses and there was an extreme problem with the housing industry with respect to severe unemployment and lack of activity. So it is somewhat surprising to hear the honourable member for Mayo using figures in his speech because we lifted building activity to 153,000 new home starts in 1984-85. At that time we also had harsh economic conditions to deal with throughout the country, but we were able to weather that and at the same time keep employment at its correct level. We did not create a great pool of unemployment as an economic measure. In fact, if the honourable member for Mayo, as the shadow spokesperson for housing, talks to anyone involved in the building industry he will be told that it is buoyant at the moment and, in fact, a little overheated. In some parts of the country there are problems because there are not enough serviced blocks, which is contrary to his claim that we are not doing enough for the private sector. The purpose of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill, which we are now debating, is to authorise payments in 1988-89 arising out of arrangements agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States. There are interest free capital grants to the States, including the Northern Territory, and funds which the States and Northern Territory may nominate as being for the purpose of the public housing. These are provided as loans on the same concessional terms and conditions as set out in the Commonwealth-State housing agreement. So the money is available. It is the State governments that have to decide what they will do with those funds. The $621m payable to the States and the Northern Territory under this Bill in 1988-89 will be distributed in the line with the shares applying to the State governments' Loan Council programs and general purpose capital assistance to the Northern Territory in 1987-88. As Victoria is receiving a lot of attention this week because of Saturday's election, I will provide a few details on how this legislation will affect Victoria and how the Victorian Government responds to the policies of the Federal Government. The total Commonwealth and State funds for public housing in Victoria in 1988-89 will be almost $353 million. I will be interested to hear from the honourable member for Mayo whether he can guarantee that the conservative side of politics would make funds available for the public housing sector, as he claims should be done, at a rate in excess of what the Victorian State Government is doing. In fact, the Victorian Government has indicated that 100 per cent of available nominated funds will be applied to public housing-that is where the money is definitely going-along with additional capital grants. These funds will provide an estimated 4,000 home loans for people building their own homes and 2,750 new public housing units to low income households. So compared with 1987-88 there has been a rise from 2,218 to 4,000 and a rise from 2,738 in 1988 to 2,750. There is a substantial improvement, an ongoing improvement, under the Cain Labor Government in Victoria. Let me come to where these funds are coming from. They come from the following sources: the Commonwealth-State housing grants agreement, $164.48m; the nominated Loan Council borrowings, $71.477m; State funds, which include additional capital grants, $51.023m; internal revolving funds, $32.993m; and others, that is non-public joint venture funds, $32.772m, making a total of $352.745m. As I have said, the Cain Government has indicated it will be nominating 100 per cent of its concessional Loan Council borrowings for public housing and will also apply all of the additional Loan Council capital grants to public housing. The Victorian State Budget incorporated a range of new initiatives in home purchase assistance, including $200m provided under the home opportunity loans scheme through Victorian housing bonds, a series of mortgage backed securities. Three thousand loans will be available under this program in 1988-89. There will be $62.5m provided for 1,000 loans to low income households through the capital indexed loan scheme. Home renovation loans will be provided to 320 households for repairs required for health and safety reasons or preventive maintenance. Initiatives in public rental housing include additional funding to the common equity rental cooperative program. The Victorian Government has allocated $6.3m to that program and additional funds will also be sought from the Victorian housing bonds. This is a very important program, particularly in my part of the world. This expansion will provide an additional 80 to 90 houses for 10 cooperatives providing funds to those seeking a home of their own. A total of 2,750 new public housing units will be provided in Victoria in 1988-89, thus reaching the State Government's target of 12,000 extra units in the past four years. The target that the Government promised at the latest election has been honoured and the Cain Government will be going into the next election with promises that it can deliver. Let me now turn to my local area and the State seats of Narracan and Morwell. These areas have extensive public housing stock. Housing has been a major issue in the Victorian State election campaign. The candidate for Narracan, Neil Young, very quickly established his credentials as a competent representative of his area. During the campaign, he quickly realised by the normal processes of a candidate-he was door knocking in the area-that there was a need for active involvement in presenting the needs of some of the people in those areas to the Ministry of Housing. He was able to actively pursue the difficulties which were occurring in the tendering process in relation to a heater installation program financed by some of the money that we are allocating here. I will just give a little background on that. As honourable members know, the area that I come from, McMillan, is in Gippsland and at times can get very cold. Promises have been made by the Ministry of Housing that heaters would be installed progressively in that area. All of a sudden we found a bit of a hiccup in the system which Neil Young, as the candidate, very quickly picked up as people were explaining to him that they had been promised the heaters and they were a little slow coming. A check was carried out-normal procedure by a good representative-and he quickly discovered that the tendering processes for spending the money-- Mr Downer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. This funding is not used by the Victorian Government for the purchase of heaters and therefore I would submit that the honourable member ought to return to the subject matter of this Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The Chair will tolerate a brief excursion into irrelevancy but I would ask the honourable member for McMillan to refine his remarks. Mr CUNNINGHAM —The Bill certainly deals with housing and the funding of housing and I would think that heaters are a part of that. Any Bill that goes through this House deals with people and it is people that I am talking about. Representation of people in this area is very important. As I was saying, Mr Young was able to move quickly to look at the tendering process and raise it with the Ministry of Housing. He found a hiccup there that could be resolved, and within two weeks we found that the heaters were being installed again; the contract had been let. His success within that housing estate is evident and now gas heaters have been almost completely installed. That issue of representation has become crucial in this week's election. The question that needs to be asked is: should a parliamentary representative at times lead from the front or should he or she wait in the wings until he or she is called? In Narracan we have had several years of representation from behind. Neil Young, when appropriate, I believe-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member for McMillan might be rather taxing the question of relevance. Mr CUNNINGHAM —With such an extensive housing program at Federal and State level, as Federal member for the area, I will certainly welcome the support of the Cain Government in that area after Saturday's election. I firmly believe that the people of that area appreciate that a Labor government and the programs that we are talking about here tonight will provide housing for people in need and provide the climate in which people who wish to do so can obtain their own homes or rent homes at a reasonable price, which is something they certainly would not be able to do if our opponents were even given an opportunity. The Victorian Government also announced a scheme to refurbish and upgrade the housing stock in our area. It is a program that I think is very commendable and one that has to be ongoing as the area has housing that was established 30 and 40 years ago and certainly needs upgrading. I am sure that after Saturday our area will have good representatives who can go to the Government and, through good representations, get a fair share of the money that we are making available in this legislation. We need representatives who know what politics is about and are prepared to go out and get that money. The money is available but representatives must make sure that their people get their fair share of it. I am sure it will happen in my area. The honourable member for Mayo also talked about interest rates. That seems to be a major issue with the Opposition at the moment. Mr Downer —It is an issue with people. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I never heard the honourable member for Mayo mention the Opposition's policy on what it intends to do. Of course, it intends to abolish the ceiling on interest rates. Many people who are now getting interest rates of 13 1/2 per cent would certainly see their interest rates rise under a Liberal government. The honourable member complained about capital gains tax. In this day and age we still have members of the Opposition trying to tell this Parliament and the people of Australia that there is a section of the community that should be allowed to have a capital gains profit, free of tax. What is it about the Opposition? I thought the new member on the front bench, the honourable member for Mayo, might have brought a new light to the position. He is young, as he says, and he has a lot to learn. He is parroting the same old arguments. Is he prepared to stand up here and tell us that he is actively campaigning on the basis that people may take a share of profit in this nation by way of capital gain but that that profit should be the only profit that does not contribute by way of taxation to the services that have to be provided by government? He came to the table tonight and in his very first speech as Opposition housing spokesman said that he supported the system whereby a section of the community who earn profit by way of capital gain should not have to pay tax on that profit. I thought that position was history. Legislation passed by this House provides that profits made by way of capital gains are taxed as profits. Earning capital gains is a reasonable way of making a living. I have no objection to any person who makes capital gain. It is quite fair and above board; there is nothing illegal in it. I am asking the honourable member whether he believes that people in the housing industry and the land industry who make a profit in the form of a capital gain should not pay tax on that profit? The Opposition wants to take capital gains tax away. It is a ridiculous and crazy argument for the honourable member to be raising here tonight. It gives me great pleasure to support the Bill. I am pleased to see that the Opposition supports the Bill and I can assure the honourable member for Mayo that after Saturday this policy will be fully put into operation in Victoria by a Cain Labor government. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.40) —The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill provides further funding for the continuation of this Government's failed housing policy. The cost of houses, the level of mortgage repayments and rents are all significantly influenced by the Government's general economic policy, and they are influenced also by specifically targeted housing policies. I want first to review the impact of this Government's general economic policy on housing. Everyone will recall that on election to government the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), flush with success, went on a spending spree which drove up inflation, pushed up interest rates and blew out the deficit. The breaking of the 1982-83 drought and increased Government spending at the same time resulted initially in a surge of economic activity, but in no time the high deficit and the resultant high interest rates started to bite. Nowhere was this felt more than in the level of housing activity. Except for the 1982-83 drought year, the number of housing starts in 1986-87 was the lowest since the Whitlam era of 1974-75. The Treasurer's response to the blow-out in the deficit was to increase tax. The capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax, a wine tax and a citrus tax as well as other indirect taxes, plus the automatic half-yearly increases in alcohol and tobacco taxes, were all introduced to up the tax take. Having engineered this mammoth tax hike to pay for his Budget deficit, the Treasurer is now making a big man of himself by claiming he has single-handedly turned the deficit into a surplus. We know the Treasurer has more front than the new Parliament House but this claim, so quickly taken up by the media, is patently false. It is the taxpayer, not the Treasurer, who has fixed the deficit. The hard pressed Australian taxpayer has been called upon to fund the Keating generated problem. The massive increase in taxes imposed by the Treasurer is graphically illustrated by the fact that average income earners need a tax cut of $56 a week by 1 July next year to return them to the level of real income they earned before Labor came to power. What is the Treasurer's legacy? Our inflation rate is double that of our major Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development trading partners, and interest rates are higher now than when he took over. They are higher now than when the Hawke Government came to office. In July 1983 the savings bank housing loan interest rate was 12 1/2 per cent; today it is 14 1/2 per cent and likely to go even higher next week, after the Victorian election. What are the other legacies that the Treasurer has left us? We have high unemployment, with nearly 20 per cent youth unemployment; massive overseas debt; declining real wages, reflecting our poor productivity; and outrageously high taxes which are to go even higher. For example, wage and salary earners will pay 14 per cent, or $4.3 billion, more this year than last in tax. Perhaps nowhere is the disastrous impact of Labor's policies more evident than in the area of housing: more families than ever before are on queues for public housing; housing is further beyond the reach of ordinary Australians than at any time in the last five years; and the demand for crisis accommodation has never been greater. The impact of the Treasurer's high inflation, high interest rate and high taxing policies have put an unbearable burden on our community, especially on young families in the process of buying or wanting to buy a home. Not only are the Government's general economic policies pushing housing beyond the reach of young home buyers but in addition Labor's housing policy is actually prejudiced against home ownership. It is this attack on home ownership which is generating so many problems for young Australian families. The first home owners scheme (FHOS), together with its predecessors the home deposit scheme and the home savings grant scheme, used to be the cornerstone of the Federal Government's promotion of home ownership. But all that has now changed because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have set about dismantling the scheme. Since 1984-85 Labor has cut first home owners scheme funding every year. That process continued in this Budget, with a further cut of 20 per cent, or $44m. The total reduction in the past three years is $128m, or 42 per cent. The Forward Estimates project a continuation of this process so that by 1991, Labor will have cut the scheme by 75 per cent in real terms. At a time when home prices are increasing dramatically, as outlined by my colleague the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), interest rates are still 3 per cent higher than they were three years ago and going up and houses are less affordable than they have ever been, the Government has decided to exacerbate the situation by gutting the first home owners scheme. It just shows the depth of Labor's contempt for the struggling young families seeking to buy their first home. There are two forms of assistance available under the first home owners scheme-a lump sum to help with the deposit, and a five-year subsidy to help with mortgage repayments. Most applicants for first home owner assistance are looking for help in raising the deposit needed to qualify for a home loan. That is why more than 80 per cent of successful applicants choose the option which awards the highest lump sum benefit. But the maximum lump sum has been cut by 30 per cent by Labor while the price of houses has increased by 25 per cent over the same period. In other words, as the size of the deposit required has grown under Labor the assistance to needy families has been cut. Subsidies for mortgage repayments have also been cut by 35 per cent, even though interest rates on home loans have increased from 11.5 per cent to 14.5 per cent in the same period. In other words, as repayments have risen Labor has cut repayment assistance for needy families. The Government justifies its emasculation of the first home owners scheme by claiming that interest rates were coming down, but they are higher now than when it came to office and are predicted to go higher. The Treasurer keeps saying they will trend down, but they keep going up. This year's Budget was supposed to put downward pressure on interest rates, but what has happened? I refer to page one of today's Australian Financial Review, which states: Another bad monthly trade result has increased the pressure for higher interest rates and almost certainly put the Hawke Government's balance of payments forecast for 1988-89 out of reach. The 90-day bank bill rate rose to 13.95 per cent yesterday-its highest level for 15 months-following the release of the $1.391 billion August current account deficit. Labor also claims that cuts to FHOS funding are justified by the buoyancy in the housing market but the Indicative Planning Council has consistently pointed out that for some years under Labor new housing starts have fallen well below demand. This has led to an enormous pent up demand which is forcing up house prices, making home ownership less affordable than it has been at any time in the last five years. The current resurgence in housing starts from the almost record low level of 1986-87 just reflects the extent of pent up demand in the community. But the number of starts is still way below that needed to house our young families. Those families have been sidelined from the home purchase market by Labor's two-way squeeze: higher taxes on their income, reducing their disposable income and the Government's high interest rate policy pushing up home loan repayments. The survey on home ownership affordability by the Commonwealth Bank and the Housing Industry Association shows that the average annual disposable income of the average Australian family is now $5,000 below the disposable income needed to qualify for a loan to purchase the average home. Under Treasurer Keating, as the deposit gap has increased with rising house prices, deposit gap assistance for the needy has been reduced; as interest rates have increased, mortgage repayment assistance has been reduced. The plain truth of the matter is that Labor has abandoned Australia's young home buyers in favour of increasing the level of expensive government-owned housing. Labor had to choose between home ownership and government ownership, and as good socialists they have chosen to fund government housing and cut home purchase assistance. Since 1984-85 Labor has consistently cut the percentage of funds available for home purchase assistance programs, concentrating instead on expensive government housing. We reject the Government's failed housing policy and, as my colleague indicated, on 16 August I released the coalition's imaginative, innovative, aggressive pro-home ownership policy. That policy has been warmly welcomed by the public, and the building and finance industries. I was delighted with the enthusiastic response the policy received. For example, the Housing Industry Association said: The Federal coalition housing policy is a bold and innovative response to mounting housing affordability problems. The new policy formulated by the Shadow Minister for Housing and Public Administration, Mr James Porter, is a timely acknowledgement that housing is a joint responsibility to be shared by the Federal and State Governments. At the recent New South Wales election the voters overwhelmingly rejected Labor's housing policy and the Greiner Government, through Housing Minister, Joe Schipp, is now seeking to redress Labor's failed housing policy. On 28 July, Joe Schipp answered the pleas of New South Welshmen by announcing the biggest State Government home lending package in Australia's history, aimed at putting at least 11,000 families into their own homes-not into government homes but into their own homes. The New South Wales Government will release a record $600m for home loans over the next 12 months to help struggling families move out of the rental cycle. Our housing policy will build on that initiative by giving more home purchase assistance to low income earners to give many of them their first opportunity ever to get onto the home ownership ladder. The voters in Victoria can do the same on 5 October. A Kennett Liberal government is committed to an unashamedly pro-home ownership policy which will fill the void created by this Federal Government's decimation of the first home owners scheme. The housing record of this Government is dismal. There are more than a quarter of a million people waiting for housing assistance. I note that the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) is now silent, whereas earlier he sought to intervene in my speech. What is he doing for the 250,000 people he has put on the housing waiting list? He is doing absolutely nothing. The Prime Minister keeps making noises that would have us believe his Government is committed to home ownership, but its record gives the lie to that claim. The waiting time for public housing under Labor is an average of four to five years. The point is that queues for public housing have everything to do with funding for the first home owners scheme. Of course, if one cuts home ownership assistance and increases the cost of buying a home, then the queues for public housing will grow and the pressure on the private rental market will grow and rents will rise. That is exactly what Labor's housing policy has done. Instead of providing a small amount of assistance to help those most in need into their own home, the Government has concentrated on building fully funded public housing where the taxpayer pays the maintenance and in over 60 per cent of the cases subsidises the rent as well. Labor governments, State and Federal, under the leadership of the Federal Government have done for the public housing system what this Government has done for our public hospital system: it has made an art form of the queue. Whether one needs assistance or not is no longer the issue-join the queue, because this Government thinks there is something noble about taking one's share of the social wage. It is only a matter of time before the senior portfolio Minister for Housing, the Minister for queues and disclosure of confidential information, Dr Blewett, starts calling public housing queues `booking lists', constructed to increase the efficiency of State housing authorities. The result of Labor's housing policies has been to produce a legacy of housing poverty and homelessness around the country. Even those from whom this Government might traditionally expect support for its housing policies are deserting the ranks of Government supporters in this regard. The Australian Council of Social Service pointed out in a recent submission to the Government: Overall the Commonwealth Government's present housing policies are equitable and do not address the serious problem that an increasing number of Australian families will never own their own home and will always have to pay high rents for what will usually be less than satisfactory accommodation. That is the position under this Government's housing policy. The coalition has the answers. We offer a new deal for low income first home buyers. For many of those who because of their economic circumstances could only ever hope for rental in public housing under this Government, we offer the opportunity to choose between home ownership and public housing. Our policy is targeted to those most in need-those Labor has forgotten in its deals with its rich mates. We will substantially restructure the housing budget to concentrate more of the available funds on home purchase assistance. As outlined by my colleague, our goal is to break the twin barriers to home ownership for low income families, the deposit gap and the unaffordability of mortgage repayments. If implemented today, and if picked up by the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), as it should be, the policy would result in a boost in home ownership assistance of at least $300m by redirecting funds within the current $1,360m Commonwealth budget for the first home owners scheme and State housing programs. Our scheme will be implemented in full cooperation with State governments. This will ensure that regional differences in housing prices and affordability are taken into account. Many States are running low start home loan schemes and our initiatives will provide a welcome boost to those programs. The administration of the scheme will be through the existing State mechanisms. We will not be establishing a new Federal bureaucracy to handle the program. Our innovative approach will assist our attack on Labor's long public housing queues by giving those people greater opportunities to take up the home ownership option. Home ownership assistance is a much more cost effective way of providing assistance than expensive totally taxpayer funded public housing. Our policy is based on the firm belief that most low income Australians would prefer to own their own homes and that home ownership represents the best social and economic solution to the housing crisis. Home ownership provides not only a stable family environment, but a share in the nation's wealth and a source of personal security. Our policy will give many low income families their first real chance to share in the nation's housing wealth. It will assist in restoring to first home buyers the chance which has been denied them by Labor-that is, a start toward home ownership. The policy will work hand in glove with the new Kennett government housing policy because we have consulted at length to ensure that Victorian home buyers get a better deal under Liberal governments, State and Federal, than they have received from Labor. Labor has forgotten middle and lower income Australians and only a Liberal government will give them the new deal they deserve. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.00) —The object of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988 is to appropriate the capital grant component of the States' Loan Council program and to set out the terms and conditions under which the remaining 50 per cent of the program will be provided to the States. In other words, this Bill authorises payment of interest free capital grants to the States, including the Northern Territory, of $310,504,000 and amounts the States may nominate up to the same maximum amount of $310,504,000 as being for the purpose of public housing which are provided as loans on concessional terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth-State housing agreement. The Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris), said in his second reading speech in this House on 23 August 1988: This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and the funds available for expenditure on public housing. Above all this Bill deals not only with public housing and works, and the issues surrounding those particularly important aspects of Government policy, but also with the borrowings by the Federal and State governments. I would like to speak principally to that issue tonight. Borrowings by the Commonwealth and State governments and their local and semi-government authorities are determined, with minor exceptions, within the Australian Loan Council. The Loan Council was established pursuant to the Financial Agreement of 1927 which was ratified in the Commonwealth Parliament through the Financial Agreement Act 1928. Under the terms of the Financial Agreement, the Commonwealth agreed to undertake all borrowing on behalf of State governments but not including their authorities. Commonwealth securities were to be issued to cover such borrowings, and the borrowings would be on-passed to the States on the same terms and conditions upon which the Commonwealth was able to raise funds in the market. The rationale behind this was to prevent the States and the Commonwealth from outbidding each other in capital markets. A loophole was perceived in the early 1930s, for the States could get around Loan Council control of borrowings by setting up authorities which could borrow outside of Loan Council guidelines. In 1936, therefore, a gentlemen's agreement was entered into which enabled Loan Council to approve the borrowing programs of such authorities. Of course once approved, those authorities then went about raising their own funds, issuing their own securities, and so forth. As a result there are two parallel streams within Loan Council: one relating to the borrowings of the States and another relating to the borrowing programs of the various Commonwealth and State local and semi-governmental authorities. Although the States' voting powers on Loan Council would enable them to outvote the Commonwealth, in practice the Commonwealth holds the whiphand in Loan Council meetings not only because it holds the purse strings generally, as far as States grants are concerned, but also because it is prepared to underwrite the approved Loan Council borrowing programs of the States. The Commonwealth currently supports its offer of an aggregate State borrowing program by agreeing, firstly, to provide from its own resources the balance of loan moneys not forthcoming from public issues in Australia or overseas; secondly, to leave to the States the proceeds of all public loan raisings in Australia to the extent required to fund their new issue and conversion programs; thirdly, to make periodic advance payments-these are made weekly-to the States in respect of their agreed program entitlements; and, fourthly, to arrange, to the maximum extent possible, for the redemption of maturing State debt that cannot be met from State sinking funds. Over the last decade or two there have been changes in the Loan Council treatment of both the States' Loan Council programs and statutory authorities' programs. First, I refer to the States' Loan Council programs. During the late 1960s, it was noted that the levels of State debt were becoming very high, and the Commonwealth resolved to do something about this. In 1971, it was decided that, once a States' Loan Council borrowing program was determined, a portion of the program would be provided in the form of interest-free, non-repayable grants. Between 1971 and 1987-88, this proportion was set at, or around, one-third of the program. The remaining two-thirds of the program, therefore, represented true borrowing. This consisted mainly of moneys borrowed on behalf of the States by the Commonwealth and on-lent to them on the same terms and conditions as the Commonwealth was able to raise them. In 1982, however, it was decided that the States could nominate a portion of the loan component of their program-that is the two-thirds component-for public housing. Any amount so nominated would thus be provided on the same terms and conditions as would apply to advances from the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement-that is the States would have to match the Federal funds, but the funds received would be provided at very concessional rates in terms of interest and period of repayment. For example, advances nominated for public housing have been repayable over 53 years at an interest rate of 4.5 per cent. This was thus very attractive to the States and it is not surprising that several States nominated all of their entitlements for public housing. In fact, in 1987-88 all States nominated their loan component for housing purposes, and all indications are that the same thing will happen in 1988-89. The States' loan programs today are thus completely unlike those which were envisaged when the Financial Agreement was entered into. In 1987-88, one-third of the program was provided in the form of grants and the remaining two-thirds were all nominated for public housing, leaving no real or traditional borrowing program as such in existence. A similar situation appears likely in 1988-89, except that in this year the grant component will rise from one-third to one-half. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has encouraged the States to spend the increase in their capital grants of $103,500,000 on public housing. Since the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are not signatories to the Financial Agreement, they are not granted voting status on Loan Council and have to be content with being represented as `authorities of the Commonwealth'. There is no provision made in this Bill for payments to the Australian Capital Territory. So while an attempt is made to treat these Territories in a similar fashion to the States, at present they present an anomaly for the Loan Council. If the present arrangements continue, the question obviously arises as to what the rationale is for attempting to continue with the Loan Council in its present form, at least as far as the States' Loan Council program is concerned. This is an issue that affects every Premier in the Commonwealth. I now refer to the State and Commonwealth authorities borrowing program. The question of the State authorities' program is really outside the ambit of the present Bill which concerns itself only with the payment of the grant component and the loan component of the States' program. Nevertheless, as the question of the relevance of the Loan Council is under discussion, in this debate, I believe I should comment on this matter. As I stated earlier, the States quickly learned that they could circumvent the Financial Agreement by setting up authorities to perform public functions. This led to the introduction of a gentlemen's agreement in 1936-which I referred to earlier-whereby Loan Council would approve a borrowing program for such authorities. Throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, the State authorities developed many ways of circumventing Loan Council borrowing limits through leveraged leasing, buy-back arrangements and such like. This was no doubt in response to the Federal Government restraint of State government borrowing programs. In 1984 the Hawke Government abandoned the gentlemen's agreement and replaced it with what is called the global borrowing approach which was designed to take into account all forms of State authority activities which incurred liability whether in the form of conventional borrowings or less conventional financing arrangements. The Commonwealth has held a firm grip on such borrowings by State and Commonwealth authorities. This has been questioned of late not only in this Parliament but also at every Premiers Conference, and by Premiers around this country constantly. Several commentators have wondered why commercial authorities such as Qantas Airways Ltd or Australian Airlines should not be allowed to undertake borrowings on a purely commercial basis, unconstrained by the artificial restraints imposed by Loan Council. In fact, even as early as the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System in 1981, it was suggested that a commercial authority should be exempt from Loan Council control and for a short time thereafter the electricity authorities were such an exemption. They are no longer exempt, as is the case in Queensland. As I said earlier in the debate, several commentators have argued that for the sake of the Commonwealth trying to apply a blanket control over the total level of public sector borrowing, distortions may be introduced in the process of achieving appropriate resource allocations. I believe that this Bill seeks to produce an appropriate resource allocation in the public interest and deals with works and public housing. The Hawke Government has devoted literally hundreds of millions of dollars to the provision of public housing in this country. Low cost rental accommodation, so much in demand right around the country among low income groups, never ceases to have its queues shortened. Wherever one goes in this country-every provincial city and every capital city-the need for low cost rental accommodation is ever present. Indeed, with the changing mix of the socio-economic groupings in this country, particularly with reference to single mothers and their children, the need for low cost rental accommodation is ever apparent to the providers of those facilities and indeed, every Federal member constantly gets requests for assistance in obtaining low cost rental accommodation. As the Minister Assisting the Treasurer said in his second reading speech, this Bill is a major advance in the provision of funds for the States for public housing and other works, but principally for public housing because of the generous interest rates that apply in those circumstances. Indeed, as the shadow Minister for housing, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), mentioned in his speech, this Bill is receiving the support of the Opposition. Other speakers mentioned the deregulation of home interest rates, the extension of the first home owners scheme and the need for better access to finance for private home buyers. This Bill relates to the borrowings of the States with respect to public housing and works and I have tried to confine my remarks to those issues tonight. But overall this Bill represents another example of the Hawke Government's determination to achieve reconstruction, reconciliation and assistance to all sections of the people of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Punch) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. (Quorum formed) Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. (Quorum formed) Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(9.24) —The National Guarantee Fund (Members of Participating Exchanges) Levy Bill provides for contributions to be made by various members of the stock exchanges to the National Guarantee Fund. Mr Gayler —Be careful of this one, Lionel. Mr MOORE —I would not like to have the guarantee of the honourable member up for inspection. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that an adequate contribution is made by members of the stock exchanges to cover defalcation by those members. In the past this has been a fairly light contribution because of the record stock exchanges have had. The investment of the funds held by the various exchanges has been beneficial in terms of the size of the fund. I hope that in the administration of this fund some consideration will be given to generating its size, in other words its investment potential, so that in the future when calls are made on the fund-which could be substantial if these Bills succeed-they will be fully guaranteed. Sizeable claims have been built up in the course of the legislation that has been put forward. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.26) —in reply-I acknowledge what the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has said. It is a matter of some significance. I am aware of a recent report that claims have been made. This probably arose, for example, out of what was called the October crash. It is a matter that would need to be looked at. The funds might need to be substantially increased if one looks at it from the point of view that there could be massive claims. But, as I understand it, the levy will be at a rate deemed to be in accordance with what the exchange members would feel to be adequate to guarantee that they would look after the interests of the investing public. I am aware that the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities is always anxious to know how much money is in the fund. I think the last reports indicated that there had to be some supplementation. I am not too sure whether that is accurate. In fairness to the National Companies and Securities Commission, it is a matter that will always be under surveillance. I would not think that that would be altered under any new arrangements. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(9.28) —The question of membership of a futures exchange and the question of the contribution of funds are much the same question. I make two observations. Firstly, the swings in the futures market on margin trading are enormous. There have been some spectacular gains and losses in this area. I am aware of one proprietary company in Sydney which, in the last October crash, dealing on its own account as a proprietary company, wrote off $53m. With those sorts of margins around, I hope that particular attention will be paid to the fidelity funds within the futures exchange itself, which is a far bigger area than the stock exchange. The second matter applies to membership of a futures exchange. We spoke yesterday about the history of the Sydney Futures Exchange. It started off in a minor way through the greasy wool futures market and developed from that into what is today the Sydney Futures Exchange. I noted as the Bills were going through that there had been an attempt to write into the legislation that the Sydney Futures Exchange was the only futures exchange for Australia. If that position is to prevail, I hope that in consideration of membership of the Futures Exchange in Sydney the test is a more critical test than that which applies to the stock exchanges, there being a number of stock exchanges around Australia. There is a desire behind the legislation to make membership of the futures exchange available only to incorporated bodies. As a consequence of those developments, I hope that, for constitutional reasons, some attention will be paid by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the question of membership. A monopoly position has been created by way of legislation for the Sydney Futures Exchange. Bodies are required to be incorporated, except in a limited area when people deal on their own account. Because of that I think that the Attorney needs to take a special look at that issue. He has created a monopoly. He has almost insisted on incorporation as a membership criterion, except when an individual is dealing on his own account. That is extraordinarily restrictive in terms of competition, especially when it is lined up against the stock exchange set-ups in Australia. Because of that there is a very special responsibility to ensure that this area does not become excessively closed to competition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(9.34) —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 draws attention to sections of the bill which give effect to the lifting of the corporate veil and regrets that there was not adequate consultation on this matter'. I want to emphasise a couple of points in relation to close corporations. I indicated in a speech I made yesterday that we would not oppose the Close Corporations Bill but that I had reservations about the workings of the close corporations. There are a number of aspects which I feel need to be considered. I want to draw people's attention at this point to the workings of the corporations. Honourable members would be aware that in an existing proprietary company the liability sits with that entity; it is an entity within itself. I also indicated last night that most business corporations, in dealing with a proprietary company, were apt to take some personal guarantees in relation to performance or any debt that might be incurred. This Bill lifts the corporate veil in so far as it writes into the law a large number of provisions which directly go behind the corporate entity. This is one of the longstanding matters relating to company law. One of the reasons for setting up a corporation is to establish a totally separate entity. I am concerned that implementation at this point could well lead to other areas. As I said in the second reading amendment that I have moved, it is most important that appropriate consultation be held in this area. I will quote from a speech delivered yesterday by one of the 36 faceless men. Purely by chance, he has appeared out of the woodwork. Yesterday Mr Beerworth made a speech about consultation and other matters. I will refer to that speech because he was one of the people who were asked to advise the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). He has serious doubts about the constitutional position relating to these matters. He stated: Supporters of the legislation carefully play down the constitutional difficulties involved to the point where I think they have convinced themselves that there is no problem. There is a problem, and it remains one of the central reasons why the legislation and the way in which the Government has proceeded are controversial. Apart from the concerns of the constitutional position there are other aspects. In regard to the Commonwealth approach and public reaction, he stated: It is instructive to recall why the Attorney-General first decided to get involved on an exclusive Commonwealth basis. My distinct recollection is that following a major news story that billions were being laundered overseas because the NCSC was deprived of funds, he pointed out that the States in fact made a substantial profit of the order of $70m in corporate fees and that the fault, if there was any, lay with the administration. From that small acorn has grown a forest of this legislation. His original rationale was to improve and unify the administration of the companies and securities laws throughout the country. I understand that he had various discussions with the States which he regarded as unsatisfactory. One can only assume that he decided to go it alone because the States were apparently unprepared to hand over what he regarded as adequate power and administrative authority. The appropriate constitutional opinion was produced and a consultative committee was established. Let me identify the reasons why there has been a substantial negative reaction. The first reason relates to the ambit of jurisdiction that the Commonwealth proposes to unilaterally and exclusively take over in the whole field of companies and securities law. This is why the debate has changed from Labor States versus Liberal States to a pure Commonwealth versus States rights debate. For my own part I do not see why the Commonwealth must necessarily involve itself in the incorporation and regulation of many hundreds of thousands of proprietary companies which have no national significance whatsoever but do have a close identification with a particular State. I believe strongly that the Commonwealth should have the sole jurisdiction over the genuinely national companies, but these only number a few thousand. I think they are a sensible demarcation point in this area. Secondly, my own concerns are strongest in the area of constitutional law. I frankly regard it as close to irresponsible- this is being said by a member of the Government's committee- for the Commonwealth to attempt to take over such an important part of corporate and commercial life when its power to do so is unclear. Mr Lionel Bowen —What part does he think should not be taken over? Mr MOORE —He states: I frankly regard it as close to irresponsible for the Commonwealth to attempt to take over such an important part of corporate and commercial life when its power is so unclear. Mr Lionel Bowen —What is he talking about? Mr MOORE —He is talking about company law. The statement goes on and he talks about his own involvement in consultation. We have heard a lot about consultation. This is what one of the 36 faceless men, one of the hand picked boys who have been involved in all this, has said: The fourth area for complaint relates to consultation. I worked in Canberra for three years and I practised law for twenty. I must tell you that my heart sinks whenever a government promises consultation because that word does not have any dictionary meaning in government circles. Consultation there means the appearance of consultation or the establishment of a procedure- do honourable members remember those consultative committees?- designed to suggest consultation. I have no doubt that individual ministers who talk sincerely about consultation mean what they say at the time they say it. The problem is that they are not personally involved and the consultative process is delegated away. In this case the Attorney asked prominent identities to form a small steering committee- now we are getting close to it- and also asked other individuals, some representatives or relative organisations to form a wider consultative group. I was invited to join the consultative committee and it may be instructive if I relay my experience to you. The whole committee met together once only in December last year for about three hours. We were given some simple proposals for reform and told that we would be broken down into subcommittees. Little happened for three months and I volunteered to serve on two of the subcommittees-the legal and security subcommittees. The security subcommittee has met twice. On the first occasion we had no idea that the draft legislation would be shortly forthcoming and we had no idea of its form or likely content other than that some of the issues on the discussion paper would be dealt with. We amiably decided to form a series of subcommittees to handle the real work. I was unable to attend the first meeting of the legal committee but have attended all others. It has met more consistently but at an early stage we were told that we would not consider any detail or individual sections of the legislation because the amount involved was simply too vast. Hear, hear!, I say. The statement continues: I thought that was an extraordinary approach for a bunch of prominent lawyers. A few days before the Bills were introduced we discussed key policy issues and made solemn recommendations knowing that the Minister had already made up his mind and that the presses were running. This is what has come from one of the members of the steering committee, one of the Attorney-General's guys who put up all this stuff. Here he is walking right away from it. He continues: The consultative committee was asked to meet in separate segments in Sydney and Melbourne a few days before the legislation was introduced. At that point we were given a briefing for the first time by the Attorney-General's Department but it was obviously impossible for us to comment intelligently and we had no serious input into the legislative process. He must also have had about 280 amendments dumped on him. Maybe he had the whole book. He continues: I relate the foregoing not by way of criticism of the individuals. To the contrary. The problem resides in the nature of the exercise. The simple fact is that the Attorney-General's Department is anxious to carry out the wishes of the Attorney-General and the parliamentary timetable and the availability of the parliamentary counsel to do the extra drafting became far more important than any proper process of consultation. The process overtakes the product. We saw last night how the process overtook the product. We had 280 amendments pushed through the House. Even the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), could not handle that. Mr Hand —Is this the new John Moore? Have you lifted your game, John? Good performance! Mr MOORE —The honourable member will lift his game in the left wing in Victoria soon. He will have the Treasurer (Mr Keating) down there looking after him and that will fix everyone up. The statement continues: In my view I do not think the establishment of a consultative committee was a cynical exercise but membership of it constrained a number of individuals from speaking publicly against the proposals and the process for fear of offending the Attorney-General or members of the steering committee. Mr Lionel Bowen —That is not right. Mr MOORE —The Attorney-General says that that cannot be right. Mr Beerworth is only one of the 36 faceless men. He is one of the Attorney-General's boys and he has totally repudiated every claim the Attorney-General has made about consultation and the advice coming through. Everything that the Attorney-General has said happened he says did not happen. Mr Lionel Bowen —That is not right. Mr MOORE —I will read it again. Mr Lionel Bowen —Other people have complained about this. Mr MOORE —I know. I have had quite a number of people complaining to me but I have not had Beerworth on the phone about this. This speech was made yesterday. Mr Lionel Bowen —Where was it given? Mr MOORE —It was given in Melbourne. Mr Lionel Bowen —That is interesting. Was this to the merchant bankers? Mr MOORE —No. Mr Lionel Bowen —He represents the Merchant Bankers Association. Mr MOORE —No, he does not. He is a director of Wardleys. The merchant banker guy is a man named Hall. Mr Lionel Bowen —No, Beerworth. Mr MOORE —When I first met Beerworth he was with Stephen Jacques. Mr Lionel Bowen —He used to be in the Department. Mr MOORE —Yes. Years ago he used to be on Murphy's staff. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. J. D. M. Dobie) —Order! The honourable member should address himself to the Chair. Mr MOORE —The speech continues: In my view there has been little genuine consultation to date and I doubt there would be but for the establishment of the Senate committee. That is quite a revelation. That is a total rejection of the Attorney-General's position. A member of the steering committee is saying that there has been no genuine consultation to date and he does not think that there ever would be unless there was a parliamentary committee. Hear, hear! That is exactly the position that we have taken in regard to this matter. The whole package should be referred to a parliamentary committee so that all Australians can be consulted and know what is going on, not just the 36 faceless men. Even a member of that steering committee says that it did not even meet or know what was going on. Let me quote a couple of other points Mr Beerworth makes which totally vindicate the stand of the Opposition. He said: Finally there is the question of the substance of the legislation. There is little point in a speech of this nature talking about the substance. I agree with many of the innovative changes made in the legislation but the attempt to draft in plain English style has created many problems and I fear that there will be many unintended consequences. Who else said that yesterday? Strange as it might seem, I did. I used exactly the same words and I did not even know that Mr Beerworth was making his speech. Mr Lionel Bowen —You got it today. Mr MOORE —I got it today and I felt very good about it because all of a sudden I proved that what the Attorney-General was saying was not true. He continues: The establishment of a Senate committee will at least give everybody a proper opportunity of carefully reviewing the legislation. My major plea to the Attorney-General is that he arrange for two documents to enable an intelligent debate. Firstly, a bold print edition of the Bill showing where the 250 amendments have been made to the original Bill and- we are up to 280 amendments so he has missed 30 of those; he should have been here last night- a comprehensive schedule of the changes from the existing legislation into the proposed legislation. Purely by chance he comes up with what I recommended yesterday-the ideal Commonwealth-State scheme. Mr Beerworth says: I have said I would give the Commonwealth exclusive power over most of the companies and securities if I were drafting the Constitution today. But I am not. We have to live with the reality that we do have a separation of powers between the States and the Commonwealth. I regard it as undesirable for the Commonwealth to attempt to grab exclusive jurisdiction through the use of every available constitutional ploy. I seem to remember saying that. It is a maze of points. He continues: There is no doubt that section 51 of the Constitution was not intended to give the Commonwealth exclusive power in this area. If it does succeed in taking exclusive power it will only be because it has relied tenuously and technically on powers never intended to be used to support corporate legislation including those relating to banking, post, telegraph, etc. If I had no doubt about the constitutional power involved, I would unreservedly support what the Commonwealth is doing, but I have very grave doubts and I believe the present approach is reckless. That is not bad from one of the Attorney-General's boys, one of the 36. He said that it is reckless. Mr Lionel Bowen —At least I picked him. Mr MOORE —Well, we should make the Attorney-General a selector for the Australian cricket team, if he can pick them as well as this. The statement continues: You will note that the proposed Senate Committee has been carefully excluded from commenting on constitutional matters. Now we are getting close to the matter. He must know a bit more than I do about that situation. He must know something: there must be a leak out about what will happen in the Senate. That statement continues: I think that should be the major duty. The detailed substance of the legislation can easily be settled since I think there is a very real problem. Mr Leo McLeay —Why don't you make a speech of your own? Mr MOORE —I am just repeating what I said last night; I am surprised that the honourable member does not recall it. Mr Leo McLeay —It was boring then. Mr MOORE —If it was boring then, I am surprised that the honourable member is present to hear it again; he must have thought it was pretty good. The statement goes on: I think the alternative should be explored. For some reason the Attorney-General's Department and the press have been instructed or conditioned to sneer whenever one proposes some form of sharing of jurisdiction between the Commonwealth and the States. Hear, hear! That is what has been going on. Elements of the press have run the Attorney-General's case exclusively with a dedication to this area that I have not even seen from members of the Australian Labor Party. The statement continues: I find the attitude puzzling. We do have a Federal system- I seem to recall saying that last night- If that is necessary to revisit the whole system of companies and securities law and regulations, why not involve both parties? To me, the starting point is to consider the companies and activities over which the Commonwealth has a legitimate interest. These are what I call genuine national companies. I think an appropriate scheme would be as follows: and I seem to remember saying that last night, strange as it might seem- (1) The Commonwealth have exclusive legislative and administrative jurisdiction over listed companies, prospectuses, takeovers- strange about all that- (2) States to retain jurisdiction over corporations and other companies; (3) The States to pass complementary legislation to remove any constitutional doubt. That is exactly what I was talking about last night. This is purely by chance. I will make a few closing comments, because I do not want to hold up the House for too long. I find it most informative that one of the Attorney-General's people has come out with a statement in precisely the same terms as what I said yesterday. The statement continues: Regrettably, we appear to be on an absolute collision course between the Commonwealth and the States, with the Commonwealth unable to accept that there really are major constitutional problems which will cause enormous expense, uncertainty and inconvenience for business. I am very much afraid that the Commonwealth has taken the same approach in relation to these issues as it took in relation to the constitutional amendments (the referendum). It has rushed them on- hear, hear!- misdescribed them, over-promoted them and has been surprised by the public reaction. I do not think that I need go any further than that when I can turn up evidence like that from one of the Attorney-General's own 36 faceless men to the cause. Every point raised in the debate by the Opposition yesterday has been wholly substantiated by one of the Attorney's appointees. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon J. D. M. Dobie) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Ewen Cameron —I second the amendment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.55) —I welcome what my colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has said, because I do know Mr Beerworth but I did not know before now that he was so concerned. The honourable member will notice that I at least appointed Mr Beerworth to the Companies and Securities Consultative Group. I do not mind what Mr Beerworth has said, but it is a bit unusual that I should hear what he has said from my worthy opponent because it was said yesterday. The Consultative Group has been in operation for some time, and Mr Beerworth is not the first person to say that there is a lot wrong with the scheme. In fact, I recall Mr Bartels opposing the scheme, and he is a member of the Group. I do not want it thought that we put in the Group people who were going to do just whatever it was that the Attorney-General wanted. That was never the situation. The idea was to have in the Group people who represented the business community. I accept what Mr Beerworth has said, but I make the point that when I first met Mr Beerworth, he said: `Look, I represent the Australian Merchant Bankers Association. I would like to come along to the Ministerial Council because the Association feels that there should be Federal law in this matter. I used to work in the Attorney-General's Department and I know a lot about it.' I said, `That's fine.' I arranged for the President and other members of the Merchant Bankers Association to meet the Ministerial Council-which is not easy to do-on the basis that they might put forward a proposition with respect to Federal law. I say that because there is no misunderstanding as to my views. I encourage Mr Beerworth to keep talking in the way that he has because he is constructive even though he objects to the way that the Group has performed. It has been working very hard towards the concept of Federal legislation. Mr Moore —He says that it's dead meat. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the first I have heard of that. I would have thought that he might have been able to indicate that earlier, but I will let that pass so that I can make my point. We are in this area of Federal legislation because a Senate committee brought down a report which, as Mr Beerworth would know, relied on an opinion from Sir Maurice Byers which it used and unanimously-which means that it was agreed to by all members of the committee, including Liberal senators-recommended Federal legislation. I did not come out and say that I was going to do it: it was done by the Senate committee. I understand that until now the Liberal Party of Australia opposed the whole concept of any Federal position. Is that right? Mr Moore —Yes. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The whole concept of any Federal law, seemed to be the honourable member's point. Last night the honourable member put forward a scheme which would be called a split scheme. Mr Moore —Yes, a very minor one. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thought that that was the position last year, and it came from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) by way of an interjection when I was speaking. In fairness to the honourable member for Ryan, he was not present on that occasion. Following that, the honourable member for Ryan said, `That is not our policy; we are against the lot'. In fact, the Opposition's printed policy is that it is not in favour of any Federal law. Mr Moore —That is quite right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Thank you. The position is that last December I put a split scheme to the States. Mr Moore —And they rejected it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Mr Moore —It wasn't the split scheme that I was talking about last night. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are talking about any split scheme in terms of the States. I put it to the States: `What about a split proposition?', and they said, `No way; no split proposition. We will not have a bar of it.' The honourable member admits that it might have been done now, but it was done last December. Obviously Mr Beerworth did not know that it was done-that is the point. I have tried for a long while to get the message across to the Senate that, if we are to get some Federal control of the legislation which should be accountable to Parliament, we do not want to take over the concept that the States feel that they have the right and the privilege to do it, namely, exempt proprietary companies trading within State boundaries. I never suggested that with respect to the split scheme. I started to talk about the issues on the basis of negotiation, but the States said, `No way, we are not in this.' Mr Moore —This was a discussion in Ministerial Council. It was never public. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —My word it was public, and I have said it before. It has been said here in Parliament and everywhere else. I must say that I at least tried to talk about something that the Leader of the Opposition told me might be the subject of bipartisanship in this area. That was the purpose of this, I say to the honourable member with the greatest sincerity. I am not trying to create a division. The fact is that we have no parliamentary scrutiny, no parliamentary accountability of this legislation in any parliament in Australia. That is the weakness in the scheme. I do not mind Mr Beerworth being critical; I think he is entitled to be critical. But it should not be assumed that there has not been any attempt to split the legal position. The States will not have it. I was encouraged to do it because the Leader of the Opposition suggested it last year. I do not think Mr Beerworth knew that. If he did, he would not have been so critical. At least an attempt was made. At all times, I have tried to get parliamentary accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. It is expected that there will be a High Court challenge to this law. I think that needs to happen. In fairness to the honourable member for Ryan, it is also known that the Commonwealth has what is deemed to be reasonably substantial power in this area. Maybe that is the issue that ought to be unravelled. It is clear in the Constitution that we have some power. The question is: what is it? Maybe it is not up to incorporation; maybe it is post-incorporation. With a court challenge, at least we will know where the power is. That is the point I have been trying to come to some arrangement on with the States. If we are talking about a national stock exchange and national law that will suit the business community, or the larger sections of it, why can we not deliver it to them on a fair basis? I have always said that and I have said to Mr Peacocke in New South Wales, `Look, if the business community does not want this, that's the end of it'. Maybe that will be the end of it if the legislation goes to a committee. I think the honourable member will find that the question at issue has always been: how is it going to be possible to assist the business community if it has to rely on the six States to agree all the time as to what they want? I am not going to delay the House but I welcome what the honourable gentleman has fairly said: there is criticism. I want to make it clear that at least a genuine attempt was made to get a split scheme, and it was made in the way I said. Mr Beerworth obviously did not know that. Mr Beerworth would know that I was the first to introduce him and the members of the Australian Merchant Bankers Association to the Ministerial Council on the basis that it suggested Federal law. He knows that. Mr Moore —He said that the personal approach was reckless. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know what he means by the personal approach. The only people who made the personal approach were members of his own executive to the Ministerial Council. They were the only people who ever approached the Ministerial Council. Members of the Ministerial Council, my State colleagues included, do not want to have any bar of a scheme under which they are going to lose their funds. They have a profit of $75m. Those in Melbourne do not want to lose the prestige of having their headquarters in Melbourne, those in Perth do not want to think that everything is going to move out of Perth, those in Brisbane feel that the whole lot ought to be concentrated in Brisbane and those in Adelaide want to sit safely in the middle. That is fine. The business community happens to be saying, `Listen, we have got to talk about international markets and we have got to talk about international investment in Australia' and it is not very satisfied with a scheme that is dependent on six or seven parliaments. Can we not get some intelligent arrangement whereby the stock exchanges and the securities industry-in other words, the major securities aspect of big business investment-are under one control and subject to parliamentary scrutiny? That is the point at issue. I do not mind this criticism-it is not new. The position is very clear. I have been going to Ministerial Council meetings every three months and we are going to have another one on 1 November in the hope of some chance of coming to an arrangement. I would welcome that, if it could happen. We just cannot go on with this charade that we have got a scheme providing for some legal accountability to a parliament where honourable members can stand up and move an amendment or oppose a proposition when at the present time honourable members are neutered on that position. The scheme does not allow them to do that. The scheme was prepared outside our Parliament. It can never be amended by a parliament because if that were to happen the scheme would therefore be defeated. When the Ministerial Council, which is like a committee of Ministers across Australia, sit down and says, `That is it', no parliament can alter it. That is the weakness. The point that ought to be made very clearly is this: I think there is an opportunity to come to some settlement in this matter. It has been such a long process. In fact, I welcomed the honourable gentleman's comments last night that perhaps we can come to some agreement. It is very clear that when we go to the High Court, if we do not win the lot-there is good reason to think we will-we will win 90 per cent. Mr Moore —No, not a hope. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We will see what happens. Whatever is being done stems from a Senate committee unamimously suggesting that there be Federal law in this area. Mr Moore —They were concerned about parliamentary responsibility. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, the point is that it recommended that. It has resiled from it, which is not surprising for the Liberal Party of Australia. Members of the Liberal Party on the committee have resiled from it since. Certainly the States, across all party lines, do not want to lose their income. I offered a proposition to the States. I said I just wanted a Federal law that the Parliament could alter if it wanted to, that I was prepared to show it to them in advance, and that I was prepared to report their views to this Parliament. Some of them were attracted to that. Some of them said, `Very well, that's good. We'll do that, on condition that if two of us veto what you propose to do you can't do it'. I said, `That's no way to run the situation. We cannot have a veto on this basis. I am prepared to discuss it. I am prepared to convey your views about it but we cannot have a condition that if two of you veto it it cannot be done. It is a matter for Federal Parliament as to whether it is vetoed or not. I will give you back seven-eighths of the revenue and you can run the scheme under Federal law'. That was the latest offer. That was the arrangement. Mr Moore —They turned it down. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They turned it down because they want to carry on with the present arrangements. Interestingly, apparently the honourable member thinks there is a chance to do something. Last night was the first time I ever heard it from him. I think he must have changed his mind. The honourable member said that last night Mr Beerworth was talking about the very thing. The only way to get to some arrangements whereby there can be Federal law in its own right is for the States to basically agree. He knows they do not agree. I do not know what the honourable member was saying. This legislation will go to the Senate. I understand the Senate wants it to go to a committee so that it can get the views of the business community. That is why I thought we could have got the amendments through a little quicker last night. I indicated that at the outset of the debate. If the committee takes it around Australia and Australia does not want it, that will be the end of it. What is the point of this Parliament worrying about passing a law on behalf of six States when the Parliament itself cannot do anything about it? It would be very simple for the six States to sit down and pass the same laws simultaneously. We just do not count. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 130-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clauses 130a to 130c. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.10) —I move: (1) After clause 130, page 56, insert the following new Division in Part 18: ``Division 1A-Review by Administrative Appeals Tribunal of certain decisions'' Interpretation ``130a. In this Division: `decision' has the same meaning as in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Applications for review ``130b. Subject to this Division, applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision made under this Act by: (a) the Minister; or (b) the Commission. Excluded decisions ``130c. Section 130b does not apply in relation to: (a) a decision in respect of which any provision in the nature of an appeal or review is expressly provided by this Act; (b) a decision that is declared by this Act to be conclusive or final or is embodied in a document declared by this Act to be conclusive evidence of an act, matter or thing; (c) a decision made by the Commission in the performance of a function, or in the exercise of a power, under Division 8 of Part 5.6 of the Corporations Act as that Division applies by virtue of section 114 of this Act; or (d) a decision by the Commission to refuse to exercise a power under that Division as so applying.''. There are five amendments to the Close Corporations Bill, and for convenience I shall speak to them all now. I will not go through them in detail because I think they are self-explanatory. The amendments provide for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review certain decisions of the Australian Securities Commission and the Minister. They remove the provision dealing with the jurisdiction of the courts, as this matter is now dealt with in new part 12a of the Australian Securities Commission Bill, which we have passed. The amendments also make it clear that the right of the Australian Securities Commission to begin proceedings for offences against the Bill does not in any way prejudice the statutory powers and functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Proposed new clauses agreed to. Clauses 131 to 136-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 137 negatived. Clauses 138 to 141-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 142 (Proceedings, how taken). Amendment (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: (3) Clause 142, page 65, line 9, omit ``only''. Amendment (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: (4) Clause 142, page 65, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(3) Nothing in this section affects the operation of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983.''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 143 agreed to. Clause 144 negatived. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.14) —I wish briefly to allude to clauses 88 to 92 of the Close Corporations Bill. I could not catch up with the numbers as they went through the committee stage. These clauses permit a close corporation to acquire and cancel its own shares, subject to a procedure involving a written declaration of solvency signed by a decisive number of members. I draw attention to those clauses because for some time now the business community has been seeking to have buy-backs introduced into company law generally in Australia. It is well known that it has been put to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities on a number of occasions, and it is well known that it has been resisted by the Federal Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). Mr Lionel Bowen —No, that is not right. Mr MOORE —That is what I have been told. If we are introducing such a substantial change as this-which, incidentally, we do not support-why cannot share buy-backs also be introduced in the legislation? The principle is in the Close Corporations Bill; why not extend it to share buy-backs? Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.16) —in reply-I appreciate the comments of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). I generally accept his view. The question of buy-backs came to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities all of a sudden, and that obviously came about because the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) naturally wanted to clear its decks of some shareholders it did not want. Buy-backs had not been mentioned before that. We said that was fine, but that if we were going to have buy-backs what about having a meeting of shareholders; what about having a meeting of creditors, because the company was trying to reduce its capital; and what about developing a much simpler system for capital reductions than having to go off to court all the time. There are three issues, and they have not been answered yet. It is not as though we are trying to delay action. We are talking about good law. The honourable member would not want buy-backs that did not have the approval of creditors, who might feel they could be in trouble. He would not want buy-backs that the shareholders did not agree with. One of the problems we have at the moment, which I think arose in the BHP case-though I am not criticising that company in particular-is that directors can park a number of shares in a proprietary company, which is causing some concern. They can then give directions as to how those particular shares may be used in voting. In other words, such action may be used to protect themselves from takeover. I do not say that has happened, but I think the practice of parking shares in a small company is a bad one. I do not mind good law; I always favour it. I know the honourable member did not have much time in which to make his remarks, but I just want to put on record a couple of points concerning the liability of close corporations. Last night the honourable member was justified in being critical because he felt that small business had not been consulted. I have a letter here dated 15 July from the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia in full support of the close corporations proposal. Mr Moore —In principle. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. It says this: Be in no doubt that we based our studies to date . . . the small business sector . . . strongly supports your initiative. We trust that national uniformity of this legislation will lead to simplicity and reduced costs and therefore to greater access and understanding of the law by smaller parties. You will also be aware of our particular interest in the Close Corporation Bill and the promise it holds for simple, low cost access by the presently self-employed to equity in the area of superannuation deductibility. So I have to say that the proposal is fully supported. The honourable member also said there were some problems about lifting the corporate veil. Of course, the Close Corporations Bills is a recommendation from the Companies and Securities Law Reform Committee. It has been in the stocks since about 1985. I, with respect, am the first to pick it up. One might ask why the States have not. It might have something to do with the fees they may no longer be able to get if we bring in this sort of small business corporate affair. When we were talking about liability the honourable member said he felt that companies were perhaps getting away with not having proper accounts. There is an obligation on them to lodge a certificate of compliance and, if they do not do that, they run the risk of personal liability. It is increased on that basis. It is a fair counter-position, and on that basis I do not see why the honourable member is so concerned about their bearing the sanction of personal liability because they have not complied with the certificate of compliance. The point I make is that it reduces their costs. It is only for the small business community, which welcomes it. It has come from the Law Reform Committee. We can solve the buy-backs problem at the next Ministerial Council meeting if there can just be a draft proposal to do things I suggest and with which I do not think the honourable members disagrees. I think that ought to be done. Mr Moore —I thought the NCSC had done it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it has not done it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 11 October 1988, at 2.30 p.m., instead of at 2 p.m. as previously ordered, unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time. (Budget Debate ) Debate resumed from 27 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.23) —In discussing the Appropriation Bill (No. 1), we need only to confirm that the documents before us make the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the highest taxing Treasurer in Australia's history. Much has been made of the surplus that this Budget brings forth, but the surplus only arises because the Treasurer has used the mechanism of higher taxes to create that surplus. Not only has he used higher taxes, but also he has used what I might loosely call concealed taxes. He has widened and deepened the indirect tax base to an extraordinary extent. He has used concealed taxes by a variety of mechanisms-for example, the airport departure tax. That tax has been reduced from $20 to $10, and on the surface that appears to be a reduction in taxes. But in fact what the Treasurer has done is to require the newly created Civil Aviation Authority to recover the original $20. So the net effect is that the collection of taxes has increased by $10. This is what I might call concealed taxes, and they go a long way to create the surplus about which the Treasurer has had much to say. But the surplus is necessary because of our extraordinary level of debt. For example, our overseas debt is now edging towards $100 billion-that is, $25,000 for each Australian family. From the first two months of this financial year, our overseas debt has increased by $3 billion. I got a bit of a laugh when I saw the photograph in the papers the other day showing the Treasurer repaying a few hundred thousand dollars of Swiss loans at the same time as back here our overseas debt in the month that he has been away has risen by $1.5 billion. This Government has failed on inflation, it has failed on interest rates and it has failed on debt. It has failed on inflation because our inflation rate is still running at about twice that of our international trading competitors. It has failed on interest rates because, as we heard today, the Government is all over the place on interest rates. It simply does not know what interest rates will do, and it is trying to talk down interest rates when interest rates are on the way up. This has a great deal of relevance for Victorian families because the day after tomorrow those Victorian families, seeing the prospect of additional housing repayments before them, will have a chance to pass judgment on what this Government has done with interest rates. This Government has also failed on debt, as our international debt continues to rise. No matter how much the Treasurer talks about having a domestic surplus, the fact remains that our net overseas debt continues to edge towards $100 billion. That is an incredible burden that this Government is placing on average Australian families. This arrogant, out of touch Government has lost touch completely with the Australian people. The Government's strategy is very much affected by the debts and the borrowings and the strange commercial practices of some States. What this Government does, depends to some degree on what the States do. In Victoria, for example, we have seen the State debt grow exponentially as the Cain Government has tried to borrow its way to prosperity, leaving future generations to pay the bill. We have the bizarre business practices of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC). That Corporation and its Minister, Mr Fordham, seem to specialise in lending money to their old mates. We see the rather dubious practices in Victoria and Western Australia of certain government authorities. We have heard a lot about the dubious role of Mr Fordham in the floating of the public company Wallace International. We have heard about the role of the Premier, Mr Cain, in this murky affair. He has tried to slip away and leave Mr Fordham to carry the blame, but the Premier cannot escape from this financial scandal because it is entirely relevant to the policies that this Federal Government has to adopt. The Premier cannot escape from this financial scandal. He knows Wallace International, a firm that borrowed millions from his Government. He knows Mr Bruce Wallace, the chairman of Wallace International, the man whose firm lost $6m, most of it public funds, in the year to June. The Victorian Premier cannot place all the blame for the Wallace International fiasco on his Deputy Premier, Mr Fordham. Both Mr Cain and Mr Fordham are friends of Mr Wallace. Mr Cain even officially opened a new business for Bruce Wallace in Melbourne's northern suburbs earlier this year. This was after the Victorian Government had donated $15m to Mr Wallace's other business enterprises. The Victorian Economic Development Corporation knew only too well that entrepreneur Bruce Wallace was a friend of the Premier and the Deputy Premier. It is no wonder that the VEDC lent money to the Wallace enterprises. The VEDC was only too aware that Bruce Wallace was a mate of the Deputy Premier and of the Premier. If one wants investment funds for dubious projects in Victoria one just has to join Premier John Cain's old mates club. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Staples-Madam Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr BEALE —Mr Cain and Mr Fordham have turned the old mates system into a gold medal event. The floating of Wallace International on the stock exchanges has become a national scandal. Most of the millions raised in the float has disappeared. The Victorian Government has no hope of recovering its investment. Wallace International lost $6m in its first few months of operation. The people of Victoria have the right to ask Mr Cain where this money went. The fact is starkly clear: Mr Cain and Mr Fordham have used the VEDC to lend public funds to their friends and acquaintances. Another associate of the Victorian Government is also a director of Wallace International. Dr Morris Barr also happens to be the Premier's right-hand man in London. Dr Barr is the joint chairman of the Victorian Government's advisory committee in the United Kingdom. The Victorian Government is running an outrageous old mates system. That is not the end of the Wallace International story, which is having an effect on the economic policies needed to be adopted by this Government. We have Mr Robert Edge, the Managing Director of Wallace International. He comes from the large accounting firm Ernst and Whinney. Madam Speaker, guess who prepared the investigating accountants report for the Wallace International float? Guess who wrote the report on financial projections for the Wallace prospectus? It was Ernst and Whinney. It estimated that Wallace would make a net profit of $850,000 by last June. In the event, Wallace lost $6m. Or should I say: the voters of Victoria lost $6m. This sad and sorry affair of Wallace International has caused this Government to adopt economic policies that are contrary to the best interests of Victorians and other Australians. When Victorians go to the polls the day after next, I am confident that what they will do is not only reject the old mates system instituted by Mr Cain and Mr Fordham with Wallace International and the VEDC in Victoria, but also reject the economic policies of this arrogant, complacent and out of touch Government. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(10.34) —I would like to comment on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89. As part of a budgetary strategy, the Department of Defence four years ago declared the Bundaberg Rifle Range surplus to its requirements. It offered the rifle clubs in occupation the first opportunity to buy the range at Commonwealth valuation. It took into account advice from the Bundaberg City Council, particularly from the town planning section. If the clubs had rejected the offer, the Queensland Government would have been offered the site. If it had rejected it, the land would then be offered to the Bundaberg City Council. In 1987 the land was valued at $270,000. Later, the Bundaberg City Council released its strategic town plan showing the future arrangements for the area. The rifle range was described as being for `industry, recreation and non-committed uses' rather than `special uses' as it is presently. The area abuts an industrial estate and has a very narrow frontage. A valuation report carried out suggested that the portion of land termed `non-committed' interested the Council as a site for a future rubbish dump. The clubs indicated that at $270,000 they may have been able to secure the property from the Federal Government. It had been the Government's concern that the future of the rifle clubs be assured in any sale of the property. The Queensland Department of Industrial Development had expressed interest in purchasing the property. The State Government had indicated a willingness to make available an alternative site for the club. This intention was unknown to the club trustees. I have been advised that the club approached businesses urging them to provide the finance so they could purchase the land to enable them to stay on it. The trustees were advised by their solicitors, Baker and O'Brien, of Bundaberg, that businessmen had difficulty in accepting the site as a good investment. Mr Jackson, one of the trustees, then approached Mr Craig Pressler of Bundaberg who displayed a confidence in the site apparently not shared by other businessmen. Alderman Barritt said at the last city council meeting that no-one knew about the sale and that he was tired of the same six people being in on all the deals. I believe that Alderman Barritt should provide details of any information he has. I have received the report of the President of the Bundaberg Chamber of Commerce which claimed that most members knew very little about the town plan and how it would affect them. Even now they claim they have been denied access to it by the city engineer. The town planner is no better. I have a copy of a solicitor's letter dealing with another land matter in which it is alleged that the town planner misled the council. There were attempts by the previous council to prevent an elected alderman carrying out his elected duties on the town planning committee. Against this background the strategic town plan was pushed through the city council at a meeting held a week before the council elections in March this year. In the same week, members of the rifle club approached the town planning chairman, mayoral candidate and head of Bundaberg's Development Board, Mr Stan Lohse, to see whether they could continue to use the land for a rifle range. Mr Lohse left these people with the distinct impression that they could not stay on the land. They were not advised that the State Government would assist them to find an alternative site if the Department of Industrial Development (DID) acquired the land. Mr Lohse as the Bundaberg Development Board Chairman should have been aware of this. At one time the Bundaberg Development Board was the local agent for the DID in Bundaberg. The club members were left with the distinct impression that they had nowhere else to go. They were concerned they would have no finance to relocate. On 14 March they had an option agreement with Craig Pressler for the sale of the land at $370,000. Section 7 of the agreement was for a further payment of $120,000 for use in relocating their sporting facilities. The club was to have use of the land until 30 June 1989. From the profit of the land sale $50,000 was to go to the Large Bore Club and $50,000 was to go to the Small Bore Club again mainly for relocation purposes. On 20 April 1988, the firm, Rapid Companies Pty Ltd, applied for reservation of the name Eskrose Pty Ltd. By 18 May shares were allotted to Rapid Companies Pty Ltd. By 20 June the registered office of Eskrose Pty Ltd was transferred to Schoch Schoch and Hancock of the sixth floor, Wide Bay Capricorn House, in Bundaberg. Among the directors of Eskrose were Craig Robert Pressler and John Pressler. On 23 June Craig Pressler applied to change the name Eskrose Pty Ltd to Pressler Properties Pty Ltd. I have been advised by one of the trustees that before June they received a call from their solicitors urging them to come into the office, requesting them to shred all minutes of their meetings, rewrite their minutes and shred letters written to them on 6 May, 8 June and 27 June, and copies of the original contract agreement. In addition, I was told that the solicitors were urging them to sign a contract which listed the sale price the same as the purchase price. The trustees refused to do so and the contract was written with the profit showing. The most extraordinary episode occurred on 6 July, when Craig Pressler wrote to the Small Bore Club saying, `I am happy to support your club and by way of donation, I enclose cheques to the value of $120,000'. The cheques were lodged in the Small Bore Rifle Club trust donation account on 13 July in the Wide Bay Capricorn Building Society. This is a very generous amount and fits exactly the figure set out in the options agreement. The more amazing aspect is that Mr Pressler is not a member of the club and, to my knowledge, never has belonged to the club. It does appear that the $120,000 is an extension of payment for the property and as such appears to be a device for attempting to walk around stamp duty obligations to the State Government. Accordingly, I will be writing to the Queensland Minister for Justice to carry out a full investigation of this matter to ascertain whether there has been an attempt to defraud the State of stamp duty payments. This matters deserves the thorough scrutiny of the Queensland fraud squad. Why has Mr Pressler gone to so much trouble to secure a rifle range from the club? There appear to be a number of coincidences in this matter. Mr Lohse was the town planning chairman who attempted to deny the present mayor the chance to attend town planning meetings. Mr Lohse was also a member of the hospital board which prevented Mayor Boreham from carrying out his aldermanic duties on terms which were very fair to the hospital. Mr Lohse is head of the Wide Bay Capricorn Building Society, whose building is now the registered address for Eskrose Pty Ltd, which purchased the rifle range. Mr Lohse was head of the development board which could have played such a positive role in helping to re-site the rifle clubs. Mr Lohse's development board has recently bypassed the Council and sought State Government approval for the building of a railway spur line which conveniently crosses the rifle range site. If approved, this railway line will add to the value of the land purchased. Nowhere in the valuation report carried out by the Department is any mention made of this railway proposal. Mr Lohse also owns the land which abuts the rifle range and the value of his land will appreciate along with the value of the rifle range site. The other coincidence was the sudden resignation last week of Bundaberg's town planning chairman, Mr Aaron, and predictably there are moves for Mr Lohse to be nominated for the Council. Mr Lohse stood down from the aldermanic position to contest the mayoralty in this year's Council elections. He ran a campaign estimated to cost more than $40,000 for a mayoral position which earns $18,500 a year. Another coincidence has been the consistent pressure to financially cripple the mayor. The previous mayor was able to boost his salary by serving on various State government boards. He served on the Wide Bay Burnett Electricity Board and the Harbour Board. In spite of the fact that he is mayor of the largest city in the region, Mr Boreham was bypassed for a position on the board. Alderman Brown, the man who helped to stymie Mr Boreham's ability to attend town planning meetings, was reappointed to the Harbour Board. Recently when a long serving member of the Fire Board was dumped, rather than give the position to the mayor, the National Party gave the position to the former member for Hinkler. Mayor Boreham has had the courage to stay there. He has been the victim of a vicious campaign to remove him. One wonders what someone hopes to gain by these moves. The National Party in Bundaberg attempted, in its usual way, to infer that I was covering up something in this business. When my office became aware of public concern about this matter my staff immediately contacted the Department of Administrative Services in Brisbane. In addition, I took this matter directly to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West). An inquiry was launched immediately. Members from the Department were sent to Bundaberg where they met the Bundaberg City Council aldermen and me. Yet two nights later the Bundaberg City Council demanded that I investigate the matter even though they had met the people who were carrying out the investigation. Yesterday Senator Boswell alleged in the Senate that the land was worth $4m. Senator Boswell should table the land valuation from which he was quoting. I understand that as a result of my seeing Mr West this matter will be referred to the Australian Federal Police. I welcome that move. Queensland's Local Government Minister, Mr Randall, should now legislate to ensure that all people in local government elected positions and the administrative positions in local government should submit a pecuniary interest statement before standing for election or taking up those positions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. The CHAIRMAN —In accordance with standing order 226, the Committee will first consider Schedule 3 of the Bill. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care) —I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and grouping shown in the following schedule, which has been circulated to honourable members: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Department of Finance Department of the Treasury Advance to the Minister for Finance * * * * together Attorney-General's Department Department of Transport and Communications Department of Employment, Education and Training Department of Aboriginal Affairs * * together Department of Defence Department of Primary Industries and Energy Department of Social Security Department of Administrative Services Department of Community Services and Health Department of Veterans' Affairs * * together Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce Department of Industrial Relations * * together Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs The consideration of the items in groups of departments has met the convenience of the Committee in past years. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Committee that the proposed order for consideration of departments' Estimates has been discussed with the Opposition, which has raised no objection to what has been proposed. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the Minister? That being the case, I shall allow that course to be followed. Progress reported. Motion (by Mr Staples) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(10.46) —Australia has opened its doors in 1988 to thousands of overseas visitors-welcome participants in our big bicentennial birthday party. The north-west of Western Australia has had its share of visitors too, but they have arrived by less conventional means and with less honourable intentions. The incidence of fishing vessels-mainly from Indonesia-operating illegally in the Australian economic fishing zone is alarming. Earlier this month the issue took on greater significance. An Indonesian fishing boat carrying 14 illegal immigrants was apprehended near Cockatoo Island. On top of illegal fishing, the smuggling incident poses serious questions about surveillance of Australia's extensive northern coastline. More than that, it raises questions about our system of justice and the deterrent factor that is an inherent part of our system. It raises questions about the lack of strong government action and policy and it poses the moral dilemma of Australia's international humanitarian obligations versus the need for a tougher response to illegal incursions. Clearly, the `softly, softly' approach has not worked. In fact, it has been as good as an invitation for illegal fishermen, particularly from Indonesia. These people are prepared to run the gauntlet firstly of our surveillance system and then of our courts. The evidence is in the 20 Indonesian fishing vessels apprehended to date this year. In fact, only yesterday yet another boat was detained in the north-west of Western Australia. The evidence is substantiated further by new evidence showing that crewmen are returning to Australia on a number of occasions. Crewmen who have already made the trip south are prized for their knowledge of the Australian coastline and surveillance operations. More recently illegal immigrants have thought the odds good enough to pay an Indonesian fisherman to smuggle them into this country. That is the response to our weak-kneed policies. Quite honestly, at the moment Australia is a soft touch. If we believe that we have something worth protecting we should be more determined in the way we go about it. Then we will earn the respect from these people. Let us not be fooled by these fishermen. We are not talking about slow, wind powered vessels that sail south along predictable routes and are easily detected by our coastal surveillance system. Motorised boats enable poachers to make hit and run raids on the valuable trochus and clam shell grounds with less risk of detection and apprehension. I am pleased that the Coastal Surveillance Unit is now the responsibility of the Australian Customs Service. But that is just the beginning. We have failed to support the surveillance effort with sufficient resources. The allocation of those resources has not been efficient of effective. The issue came to a head in July this year when the skipper of a Broome Customs boat resigned because of the condition of his vessel. His startling admission that to his knowledge five Indonesian boats had escaped capture because the Customs vessel was too slow highlights the extent of the problem facing our Customs officers. They have the difficult task of policing thousands of kilometres of remote coastline with limited resources and inadequate facilities. Even now Customs does not have an overall coordination role in coastal surveillance, which is clearly a barrier to the effectiveness of the service. This issue does not end there. Our generosity is overwhelming. For instance, we provide legal assistance at our expense. Yet in Western Australia last year 3,000 eligible people were denied legal aid due to a shortage of funds. Then, at the end of the day, the penalties handed down by the courts fall well short of the mark. Not one illegal fisherman has been goaled in recent years, even though that option is available to the courts. Our benevolence even extends to repatriating offenders, not only to Indonesia but also virtually to the doorsteps of their villages-at considerable expense to the Australian taxpayer. Quite clearly the illegal fishing issue must be closely examined. There is no easy solution. But a package of measures should include an improvement in detection and apprehension. We need to strengthen the deterrent factor by increasing penalties to include, say, a mandatory six months gaol sentence. The legal aid question should be reviewed to ensure that assistance is not given to foreigners at the expense of Australian citizens and residents. A reciprocal legal aid agreement should be developed between Australia and Indonesia for the payment of legal costs by the country concerned. Clearly, Indonesia equally has a responsibility in this matter. Ironically, these illegal Indonesian fishermen have done us a favour in exposing the deficiencies and inadequacies of our system. Those deficiencies must be addressed urgently. Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(10.50) —I want to raise one of the pettiest and most stupid episodes I have ever seen involving a major political figure. Yesterday in Geelong the Victorian Leader of the Opposition attacked the Victorian Minister for Sport and Recreation for spending two days in Seoul promoting Melbourne's case for the Olympic Games. It is election week for Victoria and no-one would seriously expect the Victorian Premier to have been in Seoul. In order to fulfil obligations to promote Victoria's and Melbourne's case, Mr Trezise left on Saturday night on a 25-hour flight to Seoul and is back in Geelong today. He spent two days in Seoul doing what I would have thought every Victorian would have accepted as being a responsibility of the State Government. Mr Lee —Nick Greiner was there. Mr SCHOLES —Mr Greiner is there. Representatives of Queensland are there. I hope that at the end of the day one of the Australian cities is successful. Naturally, as a Victorian I would like to see Melbourne as the successful city. Mr Kennett, in one of the cheapest and nastiest little political episodes I have ever seen, accused Mr Trezise of being absent from his electorate for four days for this purpose. Mr Trezise has been the member for Geelong for just on 25 years. His electors know exactly what his capabilities are. They do not really need a scramble in the last four days by Mr Trezise to justify himself. I know that Mr Kennett does. The facts are that Victoria is making, and would benefit enormously from, a bid for Melbourne to obtain the Olympic Games. The sorts of complaints we hear from international tourists about international flights going to Melbourne would be offset by the enormity of the publicity. The International Olympic Committee is in Seoul, as is the world press. That is the only place where Victoria's claims can be pressed. They cannot be pressed next month or next year. It has to be done now while the Games are on. I suggest to all those who are supporting Victoria's bid for the Games that they should tell Mr Kennett that his big mouth is not helping Victoria. It will not help Victoria. His actions yesterday, in a petty little political exercise were absolutely stupid and irresponsible. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.53) —In tonight's adjournment debate, I wish to raise further matters of concern about the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC). The VEDC has lent $3.9m to the Australian Kentia Palms Corporation (AKPC). The directors of this company were initially Mr Michael Loftus, Mr Anthony Starr and Mr Daryl Lindsay Washington, who later sold shares to Mr Bruce Matheson. During 1982-1986, AKPC marketed to Australian and overseas investors a scheme involving palms. AKPC is a 50 per cent owned subsidiary of Horticultural Holdings Ltd (HHL) of 27 Rathdowne Street, Carlton, and is the managing company of Kentia Palms, which is based in Bowen, Queensland. HHL is an unlisted public company, incorporated in Victoria, and allegedly has a paid-up capital of $10m. The directors of HHL are Mr Michael Loftus and his brother Anthony, Mr Gary Delbridge and Mr Shaun Kenan, plus two other directors representing the VEDC-the VEDC Chairman, Mr Max Currie, and Mr David Efron. Sixty-one per cent is owned by Michael and Anthony Loftus, with the remainder being owned by the VEDC. The advantage of VEDC involvement is in establishing export credentials in far eastern markets to facilitate government contacts in those markets. Both Loftus brothers were solicitors with Minter Simpson. Anthony Starr is the owner-manager of Poole Park Plantations of New South Wales, which initially supplied Kentia palms to AKPC. The scheme involved the purchase of palm seedlings from the company by investors, together with payment of rental and management fees. The seedlings mature three years after and profits are divided equally between investors in AKPC. It takes three years for Kentia palms to grow three feet. The palms were to become the property of the investor and were to be planted in Howea, 35 kilometres west of Bowen, Queensland. Both Loftus and Washington supplied a management agreement with personal guarantees to investors. The House might now be aware from an article published in the Bulletin on 13 September last that this whole operation is now the subject of a major fraud inquiry. As a result of that fraud inquiry, a police report was sent by the Queensland Police to the Victoria Police on 7 September 1988 for further investigation into allegations of fraud from investors in Victoria. This report has been sat on since its arrival at Victoria Police headquarters. I would like to ask two questions in relation to that report which, as I said, has been sitting there and has not been acted on. Firstly, why has this report not been acted on? Is it sitting there because it has been stopped by the Victorian State Government from being pursued by the Victoria Police until after Saturday's State election? Secondly, is it a fact that the withholding of action on this report and the withholding of the report itself from police action is to protect the two members of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation who are directors acting on behalf of the VEDC? Some very unpleasant circumstances surround this whole exercise. One has to be very cynical about the fact that such a major report, completed by the Queensland Police and sent to the Victoria Police for further action and investigation, is still sitting there, with no action having been taken on it. The Victorian Government has some very serious questions to answer in relation to the lack of action on this report. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.57) —Contrary to his previous assertions, the Leader of the Liberal Party Opposition in the Victorian Parliament, Mr Jeff Kennett, has now admitted that he would be unable to govern in Victoria without joining a coalition government with the National Party. Such coalitions have been disastrous for the Victorian people in the past, and so it would prove again. The Victorian electors must be aware of the instability such an alliance would bring to the economy of the State of Victoria. The economic performance of the Cain Labor Government on all the measures of prosperity has far exceeded the records of all other State governments in Australia. Victoria has had the lowest unemployment rate of any State for 63 months in a row. Since April 1983, 286,000 new jobs have been created, about 85 per cent of these having been in the private sector. Youth unemployment is lower than in any other State. In the State seat of Knox, which is partly in my Federal electorate, the unemployment rate is less than 4 per cent and employers are finding it difficult to fill some of their job vacancies. Private investment in Victoria has grown at more than double the rate for the rest of Australia and the growth in exports has been 22 per cent faster than for the rest of Australia since 1982-83. All these facts make it very clear that the Victorian people would be wise to consider very carefully whether they are prepared to put at risk the future propersity of Victoria by supporting a Liberal-National Party coalition. Prior to 1983 Victorian Liberal-National Party governments represented chronic political instability, managerial inefficiency, distorted financial priorities, rural impoverishment, a lack of urban planning and constant industrial unrest. The Liberal Party has promised lower taxes and smaller government, whereas the National Party would spend more money on public works and services in country areas, regardless of the cost to taxpayers. It is ironic that the Leader of the National Party, Mr Ross-Edwards, is constantly denouncing so-called socialist governments and yet advocates strong marketing authorities which constantly interfere in the marketplace, preventing the free play of market forces. Let me quote from an article by Claude Forell, which appeared in the Age on 21 September 1988, to show that it is not only Victorian Federal parliamentarians who are worried about the prospect of a Liberal-National Party coalition government in Victoria. Claude Forell writes: There are significant differences between the Liberals and Nationals on conservation and national parks (giving the Nationals the conservation portfolio they covet would be like putting a dingo in charge of a sheep pen) . . . Like a possum, the National Party is tolerable in its natural habitat, such as up a gum tree or on the parliamentary cross-benches. But you wouldn't want it running wild in your home or in your state government. While I am on my feet I would like to mention another matter which was referred to by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) yesterday-the attacks which Opposition Liberal Party State parliamentarians have been making on the Public Service in Victoria-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 11 October 1988, at 2.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Scholes to move- That this House is of the opinion that attempts by the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria to undermine Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games are unacceptable and extremely short-sighted. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 September 1988: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1988- No. 13-Quarterly and annual surveys of expenditure by public financial enterprises on fixed assets. No. 14-Quarterly survey of international shipping operations. No. 15-Survey of international airline operations. No. 16-Survey of principal transport enterprises. No. 17-Survey of foreign investment. No. 18-Consumer Price Index (CPI). No. 19-Monthly collection of prices of materials used in the construction of buildings. No. 20-Monthly collection of export prices. No. 21-Monthly collection of prices of articles produced by manufacturing industry. No. 22-Monthly collection of prices of materials used by manufacturing industry. No. 23-Monthly survey of housing finance for owner occupation. No. 24-Quarterly survey of government financial transactions. No. 25-Survey of building activity. No. 26-Survey of interstate road freight movement. No. 27-Census of mining establishments and enterprises. No. 28-Mineral and petroleum exploration. No. 29-Census of sand, gravel and quarry production, Queensland. No. 30-Census of manufacturers' stocks of selected commodities. No. 31-Survey of sales and stocks of new agricultural machinery. No. 32-Survey of monthly and quarterly manufacturing production. No. 33-Survey of sales of new construction machinery and selected attachments. No. 34-Survey of sales and stocks of new tractors. No. 35-Survey of forest products, Tasmania. No. 36-South Australian timber statistics. No. 37-Census of Queensland slaughterhouses. No. 38-Interstate exports, Tasmania. No. 39-Sales of Australian wine by winemakers. No. 40-Retail business survey. No. 41-Census of manufacturing establishments and enterprises. No. 42-Survey of interest and royalties 1987-88. No. 43-Survey of new capital expenditure. No. 44-Survey of stocks and sales. No. 45-Survey of metallurgical refining, Tasmania. No. 46-Interstate trade, Western Australia. No. 47-Survey of tourist accommodation. No. 48-Labour force survey. No. 49-Survey of job vacancies and overtime. No. 50-Household expenditure survey. No. 51-Census of health and welfare establishments, Queensland. No. 52-Collection of statistics on industrial disputes. No. 53-Agricultural census. No. 54-Monthly collection of statistics on apples and pears in cool stores. No. 55-Census of livestock slaughtering establishments. No. 56-Wool brokers and dealers receivals and stocks collection. No. 57-Survey of business registrations. Explanatory statement to proposals 13 to 57 of 1988. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination listing fees for the purposes of the following ordinances-1988- No. 19-ACT Institute of Technical and Further Education. No. 20-Motor Traffic. Housing Assistance Ordinance-Variation pursuant to section 12-No. 1, dated 9 August 1988. Taxation (Administration) Ordinance-Determination for the purposes of Payroll Tax Ordinance-1988-No. 1. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 85) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 17 September 1987: (1) How did the sudden creation of the new Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (PMCCI) to replace the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd in November 1985 facilitate the Prime Minister's orderly closure, given his statement of 11 September 1985, which confirmed that the Commonwealth would not support an uneconomic mining operation on Christmas Island and that this decision would not be influenced by any prospects for alternative industries. (2) How did the working party conclude in December 1985 that a new operation basis for the mine will result in continued economic mining operations. (3) Why does the Government maintain that it is subsidising mining when the former Minister, in August 1986, said that the Government's financial support is tied to the continued use of the Australian National Line (ANL) Shipping. (4) What action is he undertaking about allegations that the Government was misled in 1986 about the significance of the Western Shore Terrace deposits to continued mining. (5) What action is he undertaking to clarify the confusion about reserves of phosphate and future production potential. (6) Has the Christmas Island Arbitrator certified the recent Industrial Agreement, as sought by the former Minister. (7) Has the Government authorised the recent contracts between PMCCI and ANL, and the Australian Phosphate Corporation and Japanese customers. (8) Has the Government renegotiated the 1983 Phosphate Supply Agreement with New Zealand. (9) Is he able to say whether the New Zealand Government has expressed its concern or intention in relation to future phosphate supplies. (10) Was the resettlement element of the voluntary redundancy package announced by the former Minister in December 1986 confined to employees who left the Island. (11) How many mainland-based employees applied for the above package. (12) How many mainland-based employees were selected. (13) Did termination payments to mainland employees include the resettlement element. (14) Are the financial and social costs of all the above redundancies and the current unstable situation facing the mining operation reasonable and consistent with the Prime Minister's announcement of an orderly closure. (15) What action is the Government taking about the current situation. Mr Punch —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The creation of the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (PMCI) gave the Government direct control in managing the wind down of mining operations. (2) It concluded that economic mining operations could only continue if the scale of operations was reduced and if those operations were restructured so as to minimise overheads. (3) In December 1985 the Government endorsed continuation of the Christmas Island mining operation while profitable. By early 1986 it became evident, because of a complex combination of factors, (including unacceptably high fixed costs and shipping arrangements between the Australian Phosphate Corporation (APC) and the Australian National Line (ANL) over which it had no control) that PMCI was commercially non-viable and facing closedown. The Government agreed to pay PMCI a $4.5m direct subsidy to enable it to continue to operate on the basis that it restructured to trade profitably. As a consequence, in the course of this significant restructuring exercise, PMCI prepared a revised Corporate Strategy covering the triennium 1987-89 which projected a $4.2m operating loss over that period. In accepting that Strategy the Government agreed to underwrite those projected losses conditional upon PMCI putting in place new shipping and marketing contracts and negotiating a binding industrial agreement with the Union of Christmas Island Workers to guarantee industrial stability during the period. In developing the shipping element of its revised Corporate Strategy, PMCI continued to be bound by the Coasting Trading provisions of the Navigation Act which required it to use Australian licensed vessels for the transport of phosphate rock to mainland ports. Accordingly, PMCI approached a number of major Australian shipping operators before selecting ANL to provide the service. (4) On the advice of the Christmas Island Assembly, supported by the Union of Christmas Island Workers and environmental groups, the Government agreed not to mine the Western Shore Terrace. The loss of access to this field on the PMCI Corporate Strategy was assessed by the PMCI's mining engineers and these findings were subsequently verified by an independent consultant. Its unavailability effectively reduced available ore reserves and consequently a revised mining strategy was developed by PMCI and endorsed by the Government. Clearly the Government was not misled and therefore no action was necessary. (5) The Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics was requested on 1 May 1987, to conduct a phosphate resource assessment. With the Government's decision to wind up the mining operation finalisation of the study was considered unnecessary. Should mining proceed privately at some future time, it would be for the private mining company to assess the reserves of phosphate. (6) No. (7) In November 1986 the Government agreed to a revised corporate strategy for PMCI which included the putting in place of shipping and marketing contracts. PMCI subsequently entered into contracts with the Australian Phosphate Corporation, the Australian National Line, the New Zealand Phosphate Company, Malaysian and Japanese customers. (8) No. (9) The New Zealand Government was officially advised of the liquidation of PMCI. Any future mining on Christmas Island would be subject to the provisions of the Treaty and prospective mine developers have been so advised. (10) Payment of the resettlement benefit was contingent upon eligible employees demonstrating a genuine intention to resettle off the Island. (11) None. (12) None. (13) No. PMCI did not pay resettlement benefits to the six mainland employees who successfully applied to PMCI for voluntary redundancy. However, for reason of equity, PMCI paid the former mainland employees an overaward benefit similar in magnitude to the resettlement benefit paid to redundant Island workers. (14) It is considered that the closure of the Government owned mine was done in an orderly way and that the costs involved were reasonable and consistent with the Government's objectives as announced by the Prime Minister. (15) The Government appointed a Liquidator on 11 November 1987 who chose 31 December 1987 as the date to close the Government mining operation. Redundancy payments were made to Island residents whose jobs were lost and generous resettlement payments were made to those who chose to resettle on the mainland. The Government is now involved in developing employment opportunities on the Island including a possible private mining operation and fishing and tourism ventures. Negotiations on these issues are progressing well. (Question No. 86) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: What amounts have superannuation and life assurance funds which receive tax concessions invested overseas in each year since 1983. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Bureau of Statistics published in April 1988 the final results of its surveys of superannuation funds (self-administered and administered by life insurance companies) for 1984-85. Total assets held overseas by self-administered public sector and private sector superannuation funds were $828 million in 1984-85. (The corresponding figure for life insurance company administered funds is not available.) Comparable figures are not available for 1983-84 or for years later than 1984-85. The Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner has advised that aggregate information on the overseas investments of superannuation funds and life insurance companies' statutory funds are not presently available from returns submitted to the Commission. However, it is proposed that enhanced statistical information will be provided from these sources as soon as it is possible to do so. In this regard, it is expected that some information on the overseas investments of superannuation funds lodging returns with the Insurance and Superannuation Commission will be published next year. (Question No. 615) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 February 1988: (1) What grants have been made by the Government to the Timber Workers' Union of Australia (Tasmanian Branch) during (a) 1985-86, (b) 1986-87 and (c) 1987-88. (2) Under which programs have grants been made. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) None. This answer relates to the department and authorities under my portfolio responsibility. (Question No. 667) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What was the total budgeted expenditure in 1987-88 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister for (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What has been the actual expenditure to date in 1987-88 on each area referred to in part (1). (3) Is it estimated that expenditure on these areas in 1987-88 will be under or over budget; if so, by what sum will it be under or over budget and what is the reason for the discrepancy. (4) What has been the expenditure by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister on (a) job advertising and (b) other advertising. (5) What major advertising projects, campaigns or information campaigns have been undertaken, are being undertaken or are being planned, and in each case, (a) what was the cost of each project, (b) who undertook the project, (c) how were they selected, (d) were public tenders called and (e) which firms were invited to tender. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Total budgeted expenditure in 1987-88. (a) $479,250 (b) $351,000 (c) NIL (2) Actual expenditure for the Industrial Relations portfolio from 24 July 1987 (when the Department was created) to 30 June 1988 (a) $340,981 (b) $216,191 (c) NIL (3) Actual expenditure was under budget because of lower than anticipated levels of recruitment advertising. (4) (a) $123,344 (b) $217,638 (5) None. (Question No. 869) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 13 April 1988: What research currently under way within the CSIRO is likely to be of direct use to developing countries. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A large part of CSIRO's research is of direct relevance to developing countries. Activities designed to adapt and apply this research to local problems in developing countries are supported by the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and various international development assistance agencies such as Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), World Bank, Asian Development Bank and United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Examples of relevant projects are: -the use of satellite imagery to facilitate land capability studies; CSIRO's research on remote sensing, originally initiated to meet Australian needs, has found valuable applications in the Asia/Pacific and African regions where countries are also interested in improving their knowledge of the capability of their land to meet various development needs. The Papua New Guinea Government, for instance, has for many years relied on CSIRO to assist in their land use surveys. This work is now extending into the use of satellite remote sensing techniques. -the use of computer models of animal tick populations for devising biological control strategies for Africa; The tick research group at the CSIRO Long Pocket Laboratories in Brisbane has considerable experience in research on tick ecology and in developing computer models that simulate the population dynamics of any tick species infesting domestic animals anywhere in the world. The group has updated the Australian models to African ticks and tickborne diseases and is currently undertaking experimental trials in several African countries south of the Sahara. The trials will lead to the implementation of biological strategies that should substantially reduce the quantities of chemicals needed for tick control. -the adaption of various grain storage techniques for use in South-east Asia; This project, undertaken by the CSIRO Division of Entomology in collaboration with sister institutions in Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, aims at determining the applicability of plastic covers for use in the storage of food and feed grain in warehouses and in the open. It will also determine the design and size of enclosures, maximum permissible moisture contents and storage periods for various grains. -the use of on-stream analysis techniques for mines in South-east Asia; This project, undertaken by the CSIRO Division of Mineral and Process Engineering, involved the transfer of Australian technology in on-stream analysis and control of mineral concentrations to the minerals industries in countries in the Asian and Pacific regions. The mineral industries in those countries are now very aware of the potential value of on-stream analysis and control. As a result, five Australian-manufactured radioisotope on-stream analysis systems are now installed, with another four on order. -the epidemiology and control of gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants in the South Pacific; This project has a three year budget of $0.383m and is funded by ACIAR. Parasite infestations, causing herd losses up to 50%, are a major constraint to the expansion of goat farming in the South Pacific. A project designed to develop a management plan that requires the minimal use of drugs is being developed from field studies in Fiji. -control of the giant sensitive plant Mimosa pigra; This project has a three year budget of $0.641m and is funded by ACIAR. The giant sensitive plant of central and south America has become a serious weed in the Northern Territory and is threatening parts of South-east Asia and Africa. The project involves research in Thailand and Australia and aims at developing strategies for controlling the weed in different ecological and climatic conditions. -seeds of Australian trees for developing countries; A number of regions in developing countries suffer serious shortages of fuelwood for cooking and timber for construction purposes. A project with a three-year budget of $0.200m and funded by AIDAB and ACIAR involves the collection, storage and dispatch to developing countries of seeds of Australian trees such as eucalypts. CSIRO also trains forestry technicians from developing countries and provides advice on such matters as the selection and establishment of Australian trees. -Asia/Pacific regional metrology program; This project has a three-year budget of $0.300m and is funded by AIDAB. Some 16 countries in the Asian and Pacific regions are receiving assistance from CSIRO to establish or upgrade their national standards laboratories. These laboratories maintain physical standards and calibration and measurement facilities needed by industry. Also, CSIRO trains overseas meteorologists and provides advice to laboratories in the region. -Australia-China poultry project; This five-year project has a total budget of $4.15m and is funded by AIDAB. It aims at increasing China's capacity for intensive poultry production by establishing a facility to produce a national nucleus of specific pathogen-free (SPF) poultry at Harbin and by assisting in the development of a centre for diagnosing poultry diseases at Tianjin. Eggs from the SPF facility will be used for vaccine production and research. CSIRO will assist in the design and supervise the construction of laboratory buildings, provide equipment and train staff. (Question No. 872) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 13 April 1988: (1) What were the total costs of health care in Australia in each year since 1980. (2) What have been the total Medicare costs in Australia since the inception of the scheme. (3) What sum has been collected by the Medicare levy in each year since its inception. (4) What percentage of the Medicare costs have been covered by the levy in each year since its inception. (5) What has been the cost of the shortfall between Medicare costs and the Medicare levy in each year since its inception. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Total health care costs in Australia, public and private, and including capital as well as recurrent expenditure, were: Year Total costs $m 1979-80 ... 9,078 1980-81 ... 10,232 1981-82 ... 11,746 1982-83 ... 13,196 1983-84 ... 14,862 1984-85 ... 16,428 1985-86 ... 18,173 (2) Total Medicare costs include the costs of medical benefits, grants to the States and Territories, payments to private hospitals, Commonwealth contributions to the Reinsurance Trust Fund, cost of Medicare teaching hospitals program and administrative and capital expenses. The costs in Australia since the inception of the scheme have been: Year Medicare costs $m 1983-84 ... 1,988.9 (commenced 1 February 1984) 1984-85 ... 3,448.7 1985-86 ... 3,916.5 1986-87 ... 4,125.8 (3) Revenue collected by the Medicare levy in each year since its inception has been: Year Medicare levy $m 1983-84 ... 365 (commenced 1 February 1984) 1984-85 ... 1,223 1985-86 ... 1,335 1986-87 ... 1,715 (4) and (5) As the Medicare levy was only ever intended to cover the additional costs of the Medicare program rather than the entire costs of the Commonwealth's contribution to health funding, answers to questions (4) and (5) would be meaningless. The Commonwealth and the States continued to underwrite the costs of health care from general revenue as they did under the pre-Medicare health insurance arrangements. The additional costs of Medicare entitled all Australians to free accommodation and treatment in a public hospital, equal access to Medicare benefits for medical services and significantly reduced the cost of private insurance. (Question No. 896) Mr Beale asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 20 April 1988: (1) What tenders have been called by the Minister's Department since April, 1987. (2) What were the tendering process details. (3) What contracts which were let by the Minister's Department did not go to tender. (4) For each contract that was let without tender, (a) what was the value of the contract, (b) to whom was it let, and (c) why did it not go to tender. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) As at 1 May 1988, the following tenders had been called since April 1987 by the Transport, Communications and Aviation elements of the Department: (a) Transport Supply and installation of Marine Radar equipment. Hire and maintenance of indoor plants. Supply and delivery of Dual Band Racons. Supply and delivery of Aluminium crates. Oil Spill Control Boom. Active Weir type Oil Recovery Units. Oil Pollution Service Craft. Disc type Oil Recovery Units. Low Pressure Pneumatic Fenders. Supply and delivery of Oil Spill Recovery Barge and Tanks. Detailed treatment and script for `Out and About' video. (ii) Communications Consultancy services for a study on desktop publishing. Consultancy services to study the electro magnetic spectrum management implications and international satellite applications of spread spectrum technology for use in radio systems. Consultancy services to assess and report on Spectrum Value and Pricing. Consultancy services for a study of Revenue Projections. Consultancy services for a study of the availability of quality programming. Consultancy services to provide input to a review of broadcasting legislation being conducted within the Department. Consultancy services to provide software to enable an ADP based system to be installed to consolidate existing Station Management Section functions to be carried out with a much higher degree of efficiency. Consultancy services to examine the requirements and arrangements for technical regulation of telecommunications in Australia. (iii) Aviation Supply of Fireman's Ropes. Supply of 10kw Uninterruptable Power Supplies. Supply of 2 inch Branchpipe valves for Fire Trucks. Cleaning at Canberra Airport. Supply of High Accuracy Frequency Standard. Supply of Protocol Converters. Supply of Flight Service Consoles (3 Yr PC). Supply of VHF Omni Range Beacon Antennas. Supply of 250kw Standby Generating Sets. Supply of Life Jackets (3 Yr PC). Supply of Route Surveillance and Terminal Area Radar System. Supply of Heliboc Cardboard Containers (3 Yr PC). Extension of Radar Sensing Network. Supply of Helmet/Headset Kits (3 Yr PC). Collection/Transport/Delivery of Surface Parcels. Supply of Precision Test Receiver. Supply of Low Intensity Elevated Runway Lights. Supply of Medium Speed Data Modems. Supply of 6 Person Liferafts. Supply of Electron Tubes. Supply of 15 Person Liferafts. Supply of Ultrasonic Test Equipment. Supply of Mower/Slasher. Supply of Security Patrols at Canberra Airport. Supply of Search and Rescue Datum Buoys. Supply of Network Analyser and Microwave Sweeper. Supply of Non Directional Beacon Transmitters. Supply of Fire Fighting Nozzles. Supply of Image Analysis System. Supply of Fire Truck Spares. Supply of Instrumentation tape Record/Reproduce Unit. Supply of Portable Cutting and Spreading Equipment. Supply of Slow Scan Television System. Supply of `Eclipse S140' System for use with Radar Displays. Supply of Horizontal Milling Machine. Duty Free/Tax Free Shop Concession, Townsville Airport. Cleaning of Departmental Buildings, Proserpine Airport. Supply of Test Equipment. Supply of General Purpose Centre Lathe. Supply of Garbage Compactor Unit for New Brisbane International Airport. Removal of Industrial Waste, Brisbane. Giftshop/News/Food/Liquor Concession, Mackay Airport. Supply of Lighting equipment. Power Supplies. Supply of Electron tube. Supply of Colour filters. Supply of Aircraft Assistance Lamps. Supply of Series Isolating Transformers. Supply of Inset runway lights. Supply of Departmental facilities at Katoomba. Supply of Departmental facilities at Tamworth. Supply of Departmental facilities at Norfolk Island. Supply of Departmental facilities at Mt. Canobolas. Supply of Departmental facilities at West Maitland. Supply of Departmental facilities at Camden. Supply of Departmental facilities at Woronora. Supply of Departmental facilities at Llandilo. Supply of Departmental facilities at Wagga Wagga. Supply of Truck Winch System. Food and Beverage Concession Sydney Airport (FAC requirement). Mowing of lawns around Departmental facilities Tamworth Airport. Mowing of lawns around Departmental facilities Newcastle Airport. Baggage and Trolley Concessions Sydney Airport (FAC requirement). Supply of Electronic test equipment. Resealing and Asphalting of Roadways at Moorabbin Airport. Provision of Overhaul Support Facilities and Overhaul of Engines Installed in Departmental Aircraft. Cleaning of `George and George' Boilers at Melbourne Airport. Hire of a Stationary Compactor and Disposal of Waste at Melbourne Airport. Provision of a Nightwatching Security Service at DTC Training Schools. Cleaning of Fire Station and Control Tower Windows at Melbourne and Essendon Airports. Cleaning of Henty House at 499 Little Collins Street, Melbourne. Maintenance of Garden Areas at Melbourne Airport. Maintenance Support and Provision of Associated Material Services for Departmental Aircraft. Supply of Bitumen Cutback and Asphalt to Melbourne, Essendon and Moorabbin Airports. Supply of Photographic Slides. Chemist Shop Concession at Melbourne Airport. Short Term `Dry' Hire of HS125 Series 700B or BAE125 Series 800 Aircraft. Sale of Abandoned Vehicle at Melbourne Airport. Supply of Glaverbel Stopray Purple 40/27 or similar Double Glazed Units for Terminal Building Melbourne Airport. Supply of Firemans Jackboots. Supply of Bitumen Cutback to Melbourne, Essendon and Moorabbin Airports. Hire of airport Maintenance Plant at Launceston Airport. Supply of Spraying of Bitumen Emulsion and Bitumen Cutback to Tasmanian Airports. Supply of Containers and Disposal of Waste at Melbourne, Essendon and Moorabbin Airports. Reseal of Apron at Moorabbin Airport. Overlay of Taxiway and Roadway at Essendon Airport. Cleaning of Henty House at 499 Little Collins Street, Melbourne. Supply of Glaverbel, Stopray Purple 40/27 or similar to Double Glazed Units for Terminal Building Melbourne Airport. Re-roofing to Terminal Buildings at Mangalore Airport. Minor Building Works at Melbourne, Essendon and Moorabbin Airports at City Area. Departmental Telephone Facilities PABX Replacement and Facilities Rationalisation. Supply and Fitment of a Truck Loading Crane Winch and Tray Body to a Hino GT 175 Cab/Chassis. Supply of a Logic Analyser and Transit Case. Supply of Containers and Disposal of Waste at Melbourne and Essendon Airports. Commercial Development of Area 29 at Adelaide Airport. Cleaning of Buildings at Alice Springs Airport. Cleaning of Buildings at Mt Gambier Airport. Supply of Battery Operated Forklift. Cleaning of Buildings at Broken Hill Airport. Supply of High Speed Precision Lathe. Cleaning of Buildings at Netley. Period Contract-Building Maintenance Services in Darwin. Cleaning of Buildings at Whyalla Airport. Sale of Tractor at Mt Gambier. Cleaning of Regional Supply Offices. Supply of Electrical Conduit. Cleaning of Regional Workshops. Sale of Generating Set at Tindal Airport. Repainting of Radar Tower at Adelaide Airport. Sale of Surplus Equipment at Broken Hill. Supply and Install a PABX at Adelaide Airport. Operation of Business and Export Park at Adelaide Airport. Resealing of Runways, Taxiways and Aprons at Alice Springs Airport. Supply of Electrical Switchboard. Supply of Forklift Truck. Supply of Airport Lighting Cable. Period Contract for Supply of Pavement Marking Paint. Supply of Electrical Conduit. Cleaning at Port Hedland Airport. Cleaning of Regional Workshops. Supply of Rock Base. Supply of Hardiflex Runway markers. Supply of Spectrum Analyser. Supply of Coaxial Cable. Supply of Test Equipment. Supply of Spectrum Analyser. (2) The following tendering processes were followed: (i) Transport Tendering process is in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Purchasing Manual, issued by the Department of Administrative Services. This is supplemented by the Department of Transport and Communications Supply Manual. (ii) Communications Tendering action and the arrangement of contracts for Communications capital equipment and works was arranged by DAS. The tendering processes for the engagement of consultants by the (former) Department of Communications were governed by ``Departmental Guidelines'' which incorporated the legislative requirements of the Audit Act 1901 and the associated procedures set out in the Finance Manual and the DOLGAS Purchasing Manual. Responses were considered against the consultancy specification and approval for the expenditure of funds granted by the appropriate delegate. (iii) Aviation Offers received were registered after the advertised closing time in accordance with strict procedures outlined in the Commonwealth Government Purchasing Manual. The user area then recommended the lowest price, technically suitable offer for acceptance. Acceptance of offers was approved by a delegate/tender board, as appropriate. (3) and (4) The following contracts did not go to tender: (i) Transport (3) Dry dock and repairs to Marine Vessel ``Cape Morton''. (4) (a) $157,764.00 (b) Tropical Reef Shipyard Pty Ltd (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued by the Department in order to confine tenders to all possible docks in eastern and southern areas of Australia on the grounds of urgency. Repositioning of the vessel beyond that area would not have been economically feasible. Thirteen companies were invited to tender. (3) Packaging of Road Safety ``Out and About'' kits. (4) (a) $43,852.50 (b) Kwika Mail. (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued by the Department on the grounds of urgency. The kits were expected to be distributed to schools for the commencement of the school year. Six companies were invited to tender. (3) Interim Contract for Littoral Coastal Surveillance. (4) (a) $11,600,000 est. (b) Skywest Aviation Pty Ltd (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued on the grounds of sole source of supply able to provide the required aircraft in the immediate time frame required. (3) Evaluation of ``Out and About'' Campaign. (4) (a) $40,908. (b) Axia Marketing and Research. (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued on the grounds of sole source of expertise. (3) Redevelopment of the Motor Vehicle Certification System (4) (a) $235,000. (b) Aspect Computing Pty Ltd. (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued to confine tenders to the companies who had the appropriate knowledge and level of professional expertise to produce the quality of system within the required time frame. (3) Production of Safety of Older Pedestrians-Part 2. (4) (a) $95,000. (b) National Recording Studios. (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued on the grounds of urgency and sole source of expertise. (3) In-Depth Crash Analysis Studies. (4) (a) $26,850. (b) Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide. (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued on the grounds of sole source of expertise. (3) Oil Spill Trajectory Model-OSSM 10. (4) (a) $61,900. (b) Victorian Institute of Marine Science. (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued on the grounds of sole source of expertise. (3) Production of ``Right Attitude'' Video. (4) (a) $80,000. (b) Kestrel Film &Video. (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued on the grounds of sole source of expertise. (3) National Testing Procedures for Commercial Drivers Licences. (4) (a) $33,543. (b) National Road Transport Industry Training Committee. (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued on the grounds of sole source of expertise. (3) Occupant Restraint Survey II. (4) (a) $61,063. (b) Ove Aprup &Partners. (c) A Certificate of Exemption was issued on the grounds of sole source of expertise. (3) Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. (4) (a) $29,000. (b) R. J. Nairn and Partners Pty Ltd. (c) Engaged as sole source of expertise. (3) Assist RIC-Secondment of a Union Official. (4) (a) $26,000. (b) Australian Railways Union. (c) Engaged as sole source of expertise. (3) Fatigue Research. (4) (a) $165,125. (b) Monash University Accident Research Centre. (c) Engaged as sole source of expertise. (3) School Based Road Safety Education Review. (4) (a) $99,000. (b) Commonwealth Curriculum Development Centre, Department of Employment, Education and Training. (c) Commonwealth Government Department. Note: The following consultancy contracts did not go to tender as they were explicit categories of work which are exempt from the public tendering processes under Finance Regulation 52aa (2). (3) Study for the Railway Industry Council. (4) (a) $100,000. (b) Travers Morgan Pty Ltd. (3) Provision of Outplacement Counselling Services to Displaced SES Officers. (4) (a) $82,665. (b) Davidson and Axmith. (3) Conduct Feasibility Study for Anthropometric Surveys of Australian Population. (4) (a) $28,090. (b) Dr P. Henke, Rehabilitation Department, St George Hospital. (3) Pay Television Policy Review. (4) (a) $49,005. (b) Horan, Wall and Walker. (3) Assessment of Damages-Coastal Surveillance. (4) (a) $20,000. (b) Price Waterhouse. (ii) Communications (3) Consultancy services to undertake an information needs analysis of the Department's records management activity. (4) (a) $22,400.00. (b) Doll Martin Associates. (c) The study of the records management activity was a natural progression from the Corporate Information Needs Analysis (CINA) conducted by Doll Martin. That study identified records management as an issue of major interest to all parts of the Department as a prime subject for further examination. The Department therefore engaged Doll Martin to undertake a study, specifically of the records management activity, using the CINA methodology and drawing on the initial CINA study findings. (3) Consultancy services to provide details on Cross-media Ownership. (4) (a) $21,259.11. (b) Coopers and Lybrand. (c) This consultancy was to acquire further information following a consultancy on the same subject, and that was originally let by tender to this firm. (3) Consultancy services to study cross-polarisation discrimination performance of VHF television antennas. (4) (a) $33,000.00. (b) CSIRO. (c) In order to maintain standardisation and consistency, the same organisation that carried out the same measurements on UHF antennas the previous year for the Department was engaged. (3) Consultancy services to undertake Phase III of a study of active deflectors and adjacent channel translators for UHF broadcasting services. (4) (a) $45,584.90. (b) Trippett Allan and Associates. (c) This consultancy was the third phase of a study that was undertaken by this consultant, and that was originally let by tender. (3) Consultancy services to provide professional services associated with the development of the DTC Program Management Structure. (4) (a) $36,000.00. (b) Arthur Young Services. (c) There was an urgent need for the newly created Department to develop strategic planning documentation, and there were insufficient resources available within the Department to undertake the assignment within the required timeframe. Exempt from the requirement to obtain quotations or publicly invite tenders under Finance Regulation 52aa (2). (3) Consultancy services on the systems and standards to be employed in operating and maintaining Commonwealth transmitting stations. (4) (a) Pounds sterling 32,308 plus reimbursement of costs for internal travel, accommodation meals, incidentals and secretarial services. (b) IBA Consultancy Services (UK). (c) The organisation was ideally (and probably uniquely) placed to provide Australia with advice that was both professional and independent, in relation to the on-going provision, operation and maintenance of the Commonwealth transmitting network. The organisation has a fairly large professional staff, whose responsibilities closely parallel the combined responsibilities of DTC's National Broadcasting Branch and the Telecom Broadcasting Directorate. The IBA operate a transmission network that has much in common with the Commonwealth transmission network. The IBA has relatively recently been through the massive exercise of fully modernising its existing transmission network, as well as adding the hardware for an additional television transmission throughout England. The entire IBA television network operates on UHF channels with all stations remotely controlled and unmanned. (iii) Aviation (3) Supply of Travelling Wave Tubes. (4) (a) $79,440.00. (b) NEC (Aust.). (c) Compatibility required with existing equipment. Supplier is also sole suitable source. (3) Audiometric Testing (4) (a) $30,002.00. (b) Shepherd Foundation. (c) the Contractor is the only organisation equipped to carry out this type of audiometric testing. (3) Supply of Aircraft Assistance Lamps. (4) (a) $34,140.00. (b) DNT Industries. (c) Only known source able to supply within required timescale. (3) Supply of Aviation Workbenches. (4) (a) $26,326.00. (b) Lamson Engineering. (c) Urgency. Offers confined to 3 companies after the market had already been tested. (3) Supply of Spares for RVR Equipment. (4) (a) $46,466.00. (b) Elecma (France). (c) Compatibility with existing equipment required. Supplier is the sole suitable source. (3) Modification of TASCS Software. (4) (a) $90,900. (b) Email Ltd. (c) The contractor is the only known source of expertise required. (3) Hire of Bell 222 helicopters. (4) (a) $21,000.00. (b) Helicopter Aviation Services. (c) Offers confined to 2 companies as there are only 2 companies in Australia with this helicopter type. (3) Maintenance of Toshiba Photocopiers. (4) (a) $30,000.00. (b) Toshiba (Aust.). (c) The contractor is the only known source of appropriate expertise and spare parts for this type of photocopier. (3) Maintenance of Oce Photocopiers. (4) (a) $21,300.00. (b) OCE (Aust.). (c) The contractor is the only known source of spare parts and appropriate expertise to service this type of photocopier. (3) GCN Terminal Installations. (4) (a) $21,506.00. (b) Raine and Horne. (c) There was legal obligation in the lease agreement for the building to place order with building owner who subsequently sub-contracted. (3) Lease of RX1090 Photocopier. (4) (a) $259,290.00. (b) Rank Xerox. (c) This company is the only supplier of this model of photocopier. (3) Supply and installation of Telephones. (4) (a) $33,500.00. (b) Telecom Australia. (c) Sole Source. (3) Supply of Siemens Printer Spares. (4) (a) $333,110.00. (b) Siemens Ltd. (c) Compatibility with existing equipment required. Supplier is also sole suitable source. (3) Supply of Accessories for Inverted Metallograph. (4) (a) $28,866.00. (b) HD Scientific Supplies. (c) Compatibility with existing equipment required. Supplier is sole source. (3) Maintenance of Xerox photocopiers. (4) (a) $65,000.00. (b) Rank Xerox. (c) The contractor is the only Supplier with appropriate expertise and necessary spare parts to maintain Xerox photocopiers. (3) Maintenance of Intergraph CADD. (4) (a) $31,894.00. (b) Intergraph Corp. (c) Sole source of technical expertise and spare parts to maintain the equipment. (3) Subscription to ESDV Engineering Data. (4) (a) $24,550.00. (b) Acel Libraries. (c) Supplier is the sole Australian agent for this specialist publication. (3) Supply of Rescue/Firefighting Vehicles. (4) (a) $880,545.00. (b) Austral. (c) Standardisation with existing equipment was required. (3) Supply of Facsimile Machines. (4) (a) $34,175.00. (b) Rank Xerox. (c) Contractors equipment was the only one having specific required technical features. (3) Hire of B737-300 Aircraft. (4) (a) $61,416.00. (b) Ansett Airlines. (c) Sole source in Australia. (3) Supply of Rescue Platforms for Botany Bay. (4) (a) $70,000.00. (b) Eastern Aero Marine (USA). (c) All previous suppliers of this equipment were checked but only the selected contractor could meet technical requirements for this urgent requirement. (3) Supply of Distress Flares. (4) (a) $20,088.00. (b) Ansett Technologies. (c) Offers confined to 2 companies after the market had already been tested. (3) Supply of Aircraft Assistance Lamps. (4) (a) $55,296.00. (b) GEC Australia. (c) Offers confined to 2 companies because they are only two known sources. (3) Renewal of License Agreements. (4) (a) $24,350.00. (b) SAS Software. (c) Sole Source. (3) Supply of Visual Display Terminals. (4) (a) $20,900.00. (b) AWA Ltd. (c) Standardisation with existing equipment was required. (3) Supply of Tractor complete with Flail Mower. (4) (a) $84,000.00. (b) LJR Machinery Pty Ltd. (c) The purchase was made by exercising an option in an existing contract. (3) Strategy Plan for Melbourne International Terminal. (4) (a) $67,000.00. (b) Becca Orr Pty Ltd. (c) The company had the necessary technical expertise from previous work to best provide the service. (3) Equipment Maintenance. (4) (a) $47,660.00. (b) Scitec. (c) Only contractor with appropriate technical expertise and spare parts to maintain subject equipment. (3) Supply of Tektronix Workstation. (4) (a) $40,762.00. (b) Tektronix. (c) Inquiries confined to the 2 known suppliers of required equipment. Lowest quote accepted. (3) Supply of General Purpose Printers. (4) (a) $102,190.00. (b) Toshiba (Aust.). (c) Market already tested 3 months ago against a DAS period panel contract. (3) Supply of Solar Panels. (4) (a) $40,205.00. (b) Solarex Pty Ltd. (c) Standardisation with existing equipment was required. (3) Supply of Electron Tubes. (4) (a) $194,050.00. (b) Alcatel (Aust.). (c) The electron tubes were required urgently to keep equipment operational. Supplier only known source. (3) Search and Rescue Training. (4) (a) $27,449.00. (b) Lincoln Airways, SA Police Air- wing, NSCA. (c) Only 3 sources, all of which participated. (3) Training Course for CSO. (4) (a) $55,000.00. (b) CCAE. (c) The Canberra College of Advanced Education is the only faculty in the ACT to run this type of course. (3) Supply of Regulators and Spares for SGS. (4) (a) $23,126.00. (b) Solarex Pty Ltd. (c) Compatibility with existing equipment was required. (3) Hire of Transportable Building for Temporary Lounge at Alice Springs Airport. (4) (a) $129,000.00. (b) Richard Stevens Hire. (c) All known suppliers of subject service were asked by telephone if they were interested. Those interested were sent quote forms. Two firms replied and the lower offer was selected. This was an urgent security requirement. (3) Supply of Heavy Duty Contacts. (4) (a) $30,620.00. (b) GEC Heavy Engineering Division. (c) Compatibility with existing equipment was required. (3) Supply of Aircraft Assistance Lamps. (4) (a) $76,491.96. (b) Citicorp Aviation. (c) Follow on order. (3) Supply of Natural Gas. (4) (a) $245,000.00. (b) AGL Sydney Ltd. (c) Sole source. (3) Supply of Regulators. (4) (a) $154,600.00. (b) Thycon System. (c) Compatibility with regulators bought previously (on a public tender basis) was required. (3) Supply of Visual Display Terminals. (4) (a) $32,610.00. (b) AWA Pty Ltd. (c) An option was exercised to purchase additional units against a publicly tendered contract. (3) Supply of Autoprinter Machine. (4) (a) $21,630.00. (b) Remington Office Machines. (c) Operational urgency and compatibility requirement with associated equipment. (3) Supply of Furniture. (4) (a) $32,243.00. (b) Sebel Furniture. (c) Sole Australian manufacturer of public seating technically suitable for airport terminals. (3) Supply of Portable Buildings. (4) (a) $56,753.00. (b) Boral Portable. (c) Lowest suitable offer from the companies approached for a quotation. (3) Supply/Installation of a PABX in Australia House (Brisbane). (4) (a) $170,925.84. (b) Ericsson Information Systems. (c) The equipment needed to be compatible with existing systems. (3) Supply of Data Cabling. (4) (a) $39,583.00. (b) Bifone Pty Ltd. (c) Compatibility required with existing equipment. (3) Supply of Electricity Power Meters. (4) (a) $48,908.20. (b) Email Metering Division. (c) Sole Australian manufacturer of technically acceptable power meters. (3) Relocation of the Regional headquarters to Australia House (Brisbane). (4) (a) $42,914.00. (b) Ansett Wridgeway. (c) Urgency; four companies were approached and Ansett Wridgeway submitted the lowest offer. (3) Cleaning of Departmental Aircraft. (4) (a) $23,104.99. (b) Aircraft Detailing and Services Pty Ltd. (c) Sole qualified provider of this type of service at Brisbane Airport. (3) Resealing Roads/Carparks (Mt Isa). (4) (a) $25,802.00. (b) Pavex Construction Pty Ltd (c) Sole contractor for this type of work in Mt Isa. (3) Air Traffic Control Automated Radar Display Systems. (4) (a) $119,925.00. (b) Mintec Systems Pty Ltd. (c) A Request for Quotation (RFQ) was issued to two selected firms and the more suitable offer was chosen. (3) Maintenance Organisations. (4) (a) $46,540.00. (b) C3 Pty Ltd. (c) An RFQ was issued to 15 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) Finance System. (4) (a) $267,200.00. (b) Price Waterhouse Urwick. (c) An RFQ was issued to 63 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) General Computer Network. (4) (a) $95,512.00. (b) Disc International Pty Ltd. (c) An RFQ was issued to 3 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) ADP Project Management Section. (4) (a) $87,300.00. (b) Disc International Pty Ltd. (c) An RFQ was issued to 3 firms known to have suitable personnel available at that time and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) ADP User Support Centre. (4) (a) $62,370.00. (b) Disc International Pty Ltd. (c) An RFQ was issued to 4 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) Licensing, Aircraft, Registration and Publications Distribution (LARP). (4) (a) $64,437.00. (b) Apollo Gem Pty Ltd (c) The invitation was confined to the previous satisfactory supplier on the basis of the level of familiarity and skill acquired in the previous contract. (3) Licensing, Aircraft, Registration and Publications Distribution (LARP). (4) (a) $46,464.00. (b) Computer People Pty Ltd. (c) The invitation was confined to the previous satisfactory supplier on the basis of the level of familiarity and skill acquired in the previous contract. (3) Licensing, Aircraft, Registration and Publications Distribution (LARP). (4) (a) $91,714.00. (b) Liveware Computer Services. (c) The invitation was confined to the previous satisfactory supplier on the basis of the level of familiarity and skill acquired in the previous contract. (3) Audio Visual Services. (4) (a) $40,920.00. (b) Pretty Pictures. (c) An RFQ was issued to 2 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) Departmental Publications. (4) (a) $28,656.00. (b) Computer Power Pty Ltd. (c) An RFQ was issued to 4 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) Aviation Firefighters. (4) (a) $20,000.00. (b) Brain Behaviour Research Institute. (c) The invitation was confined to 1 firm on the basis that this firm was mutually acceptable to both the Department and the relevant union, and the firm was judged to be capable of undertaking the study satisfactorily. (3) Agricultural Pilots. (4) (a) $39,250.00. (b) Nicholas Clark and Associates. (c) An RFQ was issued to 8 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) Conflict Alert Systems. (4) (a) $234,824.00. (b) The Mitre Corporation. (c) The invitation was confined to 1 firm on basis that no Australian based firm was judged to have appropriate expertise. The Mitre Corporation had acquired relevant expertise over a period of years, and was independent of manufacturers of Conflict Alert/Minimum Safe Altitude Warning systems and could be expected to give advice free of commercial influence. (3) Air Traffic Control Automated Radar Display System. (4) (a) $31,200.00. (b) Technisearch Limited. (c) An RFQ was issued to 3 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) Lease Negotiations. (4) (a) $25,869.00. (b) Mr J. H. Rowland, former Deputy Secretary, Department of Transport. (c) The invitation was confined to 1 individual on the basis of the specialised nature of the task, and that person's relevant knowledge and experience. (3) Airways System. (4) (a) $101,800.00. (b) Arthur Andersen and Co. (c) An RFQ was issued to 3 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) Air Traffic Control Services. (4) (a) $20,200.00. (b) Crosstech Pty Ltd. (c) The invitation was confined to 1 firm which was understood to have performed satisfactorily in previous studies of a similar character. (3) International Aviation Rights. (4) (a) $165,225.00. (b) Price Waterhouse Urwick. (c) An RFQ was issued to 6 firms and 3 firms responded. The successful firm offered the most suitably qualified team. (3) Civil Aviation Authority. (4) (a) $75,000.00. (b) PA Consulting Services. (c) An RFQ was issued to 4 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) Air Traffic Control Services. (4) (a) $75,400.00. (b) Arthur Young Services. (c) An RFQ was issued to 6 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) General Computer Network. (4) (a) $42,750.00. (b) Disc International Pty Ltd. (c) An RFQ was issued to 8 firms and the most suitable offer was selected. (3) Finance Management Information System. (4) (a) $55,778.00. (b) Computer People Pty Ltd. (c) The invitation was confined to 1 firm on the basis that one of the firm's employees (Mr Finklestein) was already contracted to the Department under another consultancy and was known to possess the required high quality skills and knowledge necessary to satisfy the Department's requirements. (3) Assets Register. (4) (a) $121,950.00. (b) Duesburys. (c) The invitation was confined to 1 firm because of the need for early commencement of the study, and because the firm already held relevant data through earlier involvement in related tasks. (3) Melbourne International Terminal. (4) (a) $67,000.00. (b) Becca Orr Pty Ltd. (c) The invitation was confined to this company as it had already done planning studies on Melbourne Airport therefore had the necessary level of familiarity and expertise to complete the task within the time scale allocated. (3) Air Safety. (4) (a) $47,000.00 (estimated). (b) Mr C. Watt, former senior airline pilot. (c) Mr Watt was selected by the then Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support after consideration had been given to several persons with experience at a senior level in the aviation industry. (3) Air Safety. (4) (a) $81,000.00 (estimated). (b) Mr I. Bidmeade, legal consultant. (c) Mr Bidmeade, who has had prior experience in the review of complex regulatory frameworks, was selected by the then Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. (Question No. 949) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 26 April 1988: (1) Who is or are conducting the review of the public library system in Australia which the Prime Minister promised in his election statement on 23 June 1987. (2) When is the review due to be presented to the Government. (3) When did the Government last consider recommendations by the 1975-76 Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries. Mr Punch —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The proposed review of the public library system in Australia has been deferred pending completion of a number of other reviews which are currently in progress in my Department. (3) The recommendations to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries were last considered in entirety in 1981 when the report of the interdepartmental working group on Policy on Assistance to Public Libraries was tabled in the House of Representatives by the Minister on 24 September 1981. The Government of that day endorsed the main recommendations of the working group report, namely: that the Commonwealth should not provide special funds to the States for public library services that library services for the handicapped at national level be further developed that the Commonwealth should play a role in nationwide co-operation and co-ordination of library services. These recommendations have been implemented. (Question No. 980) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 17 May 1988: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 579 (Hansard, 17 March 1988, page 1098) regarding allegations of impropriety on the part of members of the Transport Workers' Union of Australia and TNT Ltd, why did he not investigate the allegations referred to in parts (1) to (3) of that question to see whether they were accurate. (2) Will he now take immediate steps to find out whether those statements referred to in question No. 579 are accurate. (3) Will he request the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General to release the further information which has since been given to him regarding the allegations; if so, when. (4) If he will not request those Ministers to do so, why not. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The honourable member should be aware that it is not the responsibility of the Minister for Industrial Relations to undertake investigations into possible breaches of the general criminal law. As I explained in my answer to question No. 579, I referred the allegations in this case to the Attorney-General, the then Special Minister of State and to the Commissioner of Taxation for examination and such action as they considered appropriate. I was advised by the Ministers concerned that there appeared to be no breaches of Commonwealth law. I have also been advised that inquiries by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) into one matter were not able to proceed in the absence of a particular witness. (2) As the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State did not consider further action by the Commonwealth to be necessary, I do not regard it as appropriate for me to reopen the matter. (3) The further information to which I referred in my answer to question No. 579 was provided to me by the honourable member. It comprised a photocopy of what appeared to be a complementary air travel pass issued by the Ansett Airline company to a Mr and Mrs H. Quinn on 6 May 1985. As I stated in my answer, I also referred this to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Justice has advised me that AFP inquiries reveal that the Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Transport Workers' Union, Mr H. Quinn, and his wife flew from Sydney to Hobart return on a ticket issued free of charge by Ansett Airlines. The Minister further advised me that the New South Wales airport manager for Ansett Airlines informed the AFP that the ticket was issued as a promotional exercise to introduce frequent Ansett air travellers to a new aircraft which was then commencing service with Ansett. Free travel was offered to other persons apart from Mr and Mrs Quinn. The Minister informed me that free accommodation was not offered to Mr and Mrs Quinn. The Minister has advised me that no further inquiries will be made by the AFP into the matter. As responsibility for this matter is with the Minister for Justice, no response was necessary from the Attorney-General. (4) See my answer to question (3) above. (Question No. 1018) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: (1) Subsequent to 1 July 1987, for how many officers has the Minister's Department provided written advice of the kind specified in paragraph 6 (b) of the Australian Public Service Redeployment (Redundancy) Award 1987 to the relevant unions that those officers were redundant or potentially redundant. (2) How many officers have been invited to submit elections of retrenchment by the Secretary of the Minister's Department. (3) How many officers within or formerly within the Minister's Department have received formal advice that they are excess to capacity. (4) How many notices to excess officers required under subsection 76w (1) has the Secretary of the Minister's Department issued in the case of notices of (a) reduction in classification with consent, (b) reduction in classification without consent, (c) retirement with consent and (d) retirement without consent. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Within the Department of Industrial Relations which was created on 24 July 1987, as at 24 August 1988: (1) Written advice has been provided to unions with respect to sixteen (16) officers. (2) Invitations for voluntary retrenchment were offered to five (5) officers. (3) Formal notification of excess status has been provided to ten (10) officers. (4) (a) There have been no notices of reduction in classification with consent (b) Similarly there have been no notices of reduction in classification without consent (c) Three (3) officers have received notices of retirement with consent (d) There have been no notices of retirement without consent. (Question No. 1020) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: (1) Subsequent to 1 July 1987, for how many officers has the Minister's Department provided written advice of the kind specified in paragraph 6 (b) of the Australian Public Service Redeployment (Redundancy) Award 1987 to the relevant unions that those officers were redundant or potentially redundant. (2) How many officers have been invited to submit elections of retrenchment by the Secretary of the Minister's Department. (3) How many officers within or formerly within the Minister's Department have received formal advice that they are excess to capacity. (4) How many notices to excess officers required under subsection 76w (1) has the Secretary of the Minister's Department issued in the case of notices of (a) reduction in classification with consent, (b) reduction in classification without consent, (c) retirement with consent and (d) retirement without consent. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 2317 (2) 1424 (3) 124 (4) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) 923. (d) Nil. 501 were redeployed within Department of Defence or engaged by Aerospace Technologies of Australia (ASTA) and Australian Marine Engineering Corporation (AMEC). (Question No. 580) Mr Macphee asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) What is the average tax paid by the richest 200 Australians named in Business Review Weekly's 1987 list. (2) Has his attention been drawn to the minute paper of May 1985 marked for the attention of Mr E. A. Evans, which circulated within his Department which sampled 4 persons named in the 1984 Business Review Weekly list of rich Australians and which was entitled `Taxpayer Profiles/Horror Stories'; if not, why not. (3) Did he request the sample; if so, for what purpose. (4) Did the 4 persons who were sampled have a combined wealth estimated at $200 million, yet only declared combined taxable income of $100,000; if so, what factors caused this. (5) If their estimated income was correct, what amount does he estimate that each taxpayer would pay in tax if they were PAYE taxpayers. (6) Does he regard such a situation outlined in the minute paper as fair and equitable and consistent with the Government's policy of preventing tax avoidance and evasion and closing tax loopholes. (7) Has he taken or does he intend to take any action in regard to the 4 examples contained in the minute either specifically in regard to the 4 cases or generally to other taxpayers in the top 200 in 1984. (8) Will he request the Australian Taxation Office to conduct a similar survey for each year since 1984. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commissioner of Taxation advises that he has not specifically tabulated details of income tax paid by persons mentioned in the Business Review Weekly's 1987 list. Even if this had been done, I believe that it would be improper to publish such information as it could result in misleading inferences being drawn regarding named persons. In particular, named individuals could be incorrectly ascribed the average characteristics of the group. (2) Yes. The minute provided tax profiles of a number of unidentified individuals for the 1982-83 income year. Whether it included any individuals named in the 1984 Business Review Weekly list of wealthy Australians was not stated and cannot be confirmed as the identities of individuals were not disclosed. (3) The information contained in the minute was requested, in the context of the 1985 review of the taxation system, to provide an indication of the possible extent of tax sheltering activities. Similar information was subsequently published in the Draft White Paper. (4) Yes; the group of four was described as such. Factors responsible for the situations described were not enunciated but would have related to the use of tax shelters generally available in the 1982-83 income year. (5) Any taxpayer, including a PAYE taxpayer, would have paid the same amount of tax as the persons referred to in the minute had they used the same tax minimisation devices. (6) No. As indicated above the information contained in the minute related to the 1982-83 income year and, therefore, reflected the shortcomings, weaknesses and inequities of the taxation system allowed to develop prior to this Government's taking office. (7) Yes. The Government has addressed a number of tax shelters allowed to develop prior to its taking office and exploited mostly by higher income earners, such as fringe benefits, capital gains, entertainment deductability and offshore company earnings. Further areas for sheltering taxable income have been addressed in the measures announced in the May 1988 Economic Statement, including limiting the deductability of pre-paid expenses and reducing the tax concessions available for investing in new films. In addition, the penalty provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act have been updated, the tax file number system is being introduced and the Commissioner of Taxation has been provided with additional staff to assist his efforts in combating tax avoidance and evasion. By closing loopholes, broadening the tax base and strengthening compliance with the tax laws, significant reductions in marginal income tax rates have been possible, further reducing the incentive to avoid and evade income tax. In regard to the specific cases contained in the minute, I have no knowledge of the taxpayers to which the information relates. (8) No. (Question No. 620) Mr Hunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 February 1988: (1) What would be the estimated cost to the Government of re-introducing the Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme and income tax averaging provisions which existed prior to March 1983. (2) How is the estimated cost calculated. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has decided to introduce an Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme from 1 July 1989. It is estimated that the scheme will cost the revenue $20m in 1989-90 and $40m in subsequent years. The cost to revenue of the income tax averaging provisions that applied prior to the 1983-84 income year is estimated at $10m in a full year. (2) The estimate of the cost of the Income Equalisation Deposits scheme is based on the ratio of deposits to gross business receipts of primary producers under an earlier scheme. This ratio has been applied against the projected 1988-89 incomes of primary producers. (Question No. 764) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) What was the (a) actual and (b) estimated expenditure for the National Media Liaison Office in (i) 1986-87 and (ii) 1987-88. (2) How many offices are operated by the service. (3) What are the staff numbers and grades in each office. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (i) 1986-87...$ (a) actual expenditure- salaries/travel...626,661 administrative expenses...465,528* (b) estimated expenditure...1,077,000 * Expended by the former Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism which had responsibility for administrative expenses during 1986-87. (ii) 1987-88...$ (a) actual expenditure to 31 May 1988...1,038,590 (b) estimated expenditure to 30 June 1988- salaries...641,900 administrative expenses...** ** The National Media Liaison Service and the Ministerial Media Group have a combined estimate of $526,000 for administrative expenses for 1987-88. (2) Nine. (3) Canberra: Journalist, Grade A2 Journalist, Grade A1 Assistant Private Secretary Research Officer Secretary/Typist Administrative Assistant Each office in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart: Journalist, Grade A2 Secretary/Typist Each office in Darwin and Townsville: Journalist, Grade A1 Secretary/Typist Each of the positions was occupied as at 31 May 1988. (Question No. 901) Mr Blunt asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 April 1988: (1) Who are the members of the Constitutional Commission and how were they selected. (2) Who is the secretary of the Constitutional Commission and how was he or she selected and appointed. (3) What is the responsibility and authority of the secretary of the Constitutional Commission. (4) What has been the Government's financial contribution to the Constitutional Commission in each financial year since its establishment. (5) Does the Constitutional Commission have a public relations and promotions program; if so, (a) what is it and (b) what is the funding allocation for each financial year for this activity. (6) How many articles and press releases concerning the public relations and promotions program of the Commission have been distributed to the Australian media and will he provide copies of each item. (7) Are the views expressed by the secretary of the Constitutional Commission in articles and press statements (a) the views of the Commission, (b) scrutinised by the Commission and (c) endorsed by the Government; if not, why not. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Where relevant, the information in the following answers has been provided by the Constitutional Commission. (1) The members of the Commission were: Sir Maurice Byers, C.B.E., Q.C., Former Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth (Chairman) The Hon. Sir Rupert Hamer, K.C.M.G., Former Premier of Victoria The Hon. E. G. Whitlam, A.C., Q.C., Former Prime Minister Professor Enid Campbell, O.B.E., Faculty of Law, Monash University Professor Leslie Zines, Faculty of Law, Australian National University The Hon. Mr Justice Toohey, A.O., then a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, was a member of the Commission until 31 December 1986 when he resigned to take up his appointment as a Justice of the High Court of Australia. The Commissioners were invited to participate on the Commission because of their expertise, experience or distinguished involvement in public affairs. (2) Mr I. G. Cunliffe was Secretary to the Constitutional Commission. The position of Secretary to the Constitutional Commission was a Senior Executive Service position in the Australian Public Service. Mr Cunliffe was appointed to that position in 1986 by the Public Service Board on the recommendation of the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department following a selection process in accordance with the usual procedures for appointments to the Senior Executive Service. (3) The Secretary to the Constitutional Commission was a Senior Executive Service Level 4 position in the Australian Public Service. The position headed the Commission's Secretariat, which was an outposted part of the Attorney-General's Department located in Sydney. The Secretary was responsible, in consultation with the Chairman of the Commission, for the activities of the Secretariat. The Secretary held delegations pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, Public Service Act and Audit Act commensurate with the status of a senior office in the Australian Public Service. (4) The Commission has been entirely funded by the Federal Government: Expenditure for the 1985/86 financial year... $536,051 Expenditure for the 1986/87 financial year... $2,308,000 Expenditure for the 1987/88 financial year... $2,183,666 Appropriation for the 1988/89 financial year... $342,000 Rent (approximate) from February 1986 to June 1988... $595,000 (5) The Constitutional Commission's terms of reference, inter alia, required it, to: (i) seek the views of the public and business, trade unions and financial institutions; (ii) hold public hearings and sponsor public meetings to ascertain the views of interested organisations, groups and individuals on constitutional reform; and (iii) stimulate public discussion and awareness of constitutional issues by circulating draft proposals and putting forward initiatives and views on constitutional reform. The Commission responded to these requirements by: conducting 92 public hearings in 27 locations throughout Australia attracting more than 4,000 submissions from the public and interested groups printing 205,000 copies of the Constitution for free distribution launching the Issues Papers (in 1986) and Reports (in 1987) of the five Advisory Committees to the Commission maintaining a mailing list of, as at July 1988, 42,000 persons and organisations preparing, printing and distributing free of charge 13 Background papers, 5 Information Bulletins, a discussion kit for use by schools, 160,000 copies of a booklet summarising the Reports of the five Advisory Committees, and 80,000 copies of a booklet summarising the First Report of the Constitutional Commission providing speakers (drawn from the Commission, Advisory Committees or Commission staff) to address numerous meetings or seminars at service clubs, schools, community groups and organisations giving interviews to the press, radio and television throughout Australia submitting articles for publication to newspapers and magazines conducting a national essay competition on the topic `Australia's Constitution: What it means to us in 1988'. The Commission's expenditure, for the 1985/86, 1986/87 and 1987/88 financial years, and appropriation for the 1988/89 financial year, for public relations and promotion activities was: 1985/86: $85,000 1986/87: $368,000 1987/88: $545,000 1988/89: nil The above figures do not include mailing or printing costs. (6) Seven articles and forty-three media releases were prepared and distributed by the Commission. Copies can be obtained by writing to: The Constitutional Commission PO Box E2 ST JAMES NSW 2000 (7) (a) Views expressed by Mr Cunliffe in his capacity as Secretary of the Constitutional Commission were expressed on behalf of the Commission. (b) The articles and press statements of the Secretary were not scrutinised by the Commission prior to publication as the Secretary had the authority of the Commission to write in the terms in which he had written. Copies of all articles and press statements made by the Secretary were provided to the Commission for their information. (c) The Government had no formal procedure for considering the Secretary's views for purposes of endorsement or otherwise. The Government's response to the Commission's work has been and will be given in relation to its Reports. (Question No. 979) Mr Macphee asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 May 1988: (1) Why has he been unable to provide an answer to question No. 580 which was placed on the Notice Paper on 10 December 1987 and dealt with apparent gross underestimation of taxable income by 4 persons named in the 1984 Business Review Weekly list of rich Australians. (2) Does he expect a similar delay in answering question No. 824 relating to taxation fraud involving a stallion scheme which allowed an individual to claim almost $900 000 as a tax deduction, whilst there has been a nil return of income. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The delay in answering question number 580 was due to the fact that at the time the question was asked, Treasury officers were heavily involved in the more pressing task of the Business Tax Review. (See today's Hansard for answer.) (2) The answer to question number 824 was published in Hansard on 22 August 1988 at pages 123-4. (Question No. 1073) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What week-end conferences, including management meetings and team-building exercises, and involving overnight accommodation, have been conducted out of Canberra for staff of the Minister's Department for the year ending 31 May 1988. (2) When and where were the meetings held. (3) How many days were involved (4) What was the agenda for each meeting. (5) Who attended each meeting from the Minister's Department and from outside the Minister's Department. (6) What was the total cost to the Minister's Department (7) What were the itemised costs, including transportations, accommodation speakers, food and drink costs. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question for each conference is as follows: (1) (a) Residential Manager Development Course (b) Corporate Planning Conference (c) Freight Conference (d) Marketing Workshop (e) Executive Development Course (f) Management Branch Planning Conference (2) (a) 20 March to 29 March, 1988 DAS Conference Room 21st Level, Rialto Building, 525 Collins Street, Melbourne (b) 24 to 26 July, 1987 Blythwood Grange Conference Centre, Ballarat, Vic. (c) 24 to 25 October, 1987 Oaklands, NSW (d) 23 to 25 October, 1987 Kooralbyn Valley, Queensland (e) (i) 5 to 6 December, 1987 Muresk Agricultural College, York, WA (e) (ii) 21 to 22 May, 1988 Muresk Agricultural College, York, WA (f) 16 to 19 July, 1987 Cobram-Barooga Golf Club, Vic. (3) (a) Nine days (b) Two and a half days (c) Two days (d) Two and a half days (e) Two days for each participant, being the weekend component of a complete fortnight's package (f) Three days (4) (a) Overview, Personal Appraisal of Management Competence, Communicating Within Large Organisations, Team Building, Managing Change Effectively, Negotiation Skills, Public Enterprise and Public Policy, Workplace Plans-Distractions and/or Priorities, the Client's and other Perspectives of the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), What Business Are We In, Management, Performance, Measurement, Marketing, Delivery of Services (b) Introduction to Strategic Planning, External and Internal Environment Assessment, Developing Strategic Objectives, Developing a Marketing Plan, Team Building, Syndicate Groups (c) Objectives, National Freight Position, Syndicate Work (d) Marketing, Environment, Identification of Markets, Product Positioning, Competitive Strategies, Development of Marketing Plan (e) Weekend live in elements of a standard high level executive development training package (f) Corporate Strategy, Forward Program, Management Services (Overview/Organisation), Section Summaries, Productivity Gains, Management Services Systems, Strategies, Syndicate Groups. (5) (a) Thirty-seven DAS personnel, seven lecturers from other organisations, four outside training consultants. (b) Sixteen DAS personnel, one outside training consultant. (c) Fourteen DAS personnel, one outside training consultant. (d) Fifteen DAS personnel, one outside training consultant. (e) (i) One DAS person (ii) One DAS person Other attendees for both courses were from other Commonwealth Departments, State and Local Government and the private sector. (f) Fourteen DAS personnel. (6) (a) Total Cost-$29,649 (b) Total Cost-$6,927 (d) Total Cost-$4,281 (e) Total Cost: (i) $1,400 (ii) $1,550 (f) Total Cost-$3,908 (7) Details have not been provided in relation to (7) above in light of the disproportionate resources involved in itemising that information. (Question No. 1110) Mr Hunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: When may I expect an answer to be provided to question No. 620 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 18 February 1988. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The reply to question No. 620 has been provided today. (Question No. 1151) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the anomalous situation in which aged pensioners are placed when their spouse dies and the consequential additional 12 weeks pension benefit they receive increases their total income to a point above the 1987-88 pensioner tax rebate threshold of $6,142. (2) Will the Minister take action to remove the anomaly which, despite the increase in the threshold in 1988-89, will continue, particularly in those instances in which the spouse dies early in the financial year. (3) What action can be taken to exempt this additional payment on the death of the spouse from being accessible for tax. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) As announced in the 1988-89 Budget, special temporary allowance will be exempt from tax from 1988-89. (Question No. 660) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What was the total budgeted expenditure in 1987-88 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister for (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What has been the actual expenditure to date in 1987-88 on each area referred to in part (1). (3) Is it estimated that expenditure on these areas in 1987-88 will be under or over budget; if so, by what sum will it be under or over budget and what is the reason for the discrepancy. (4) What has been the expenditure by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister on (a) job advertising and (b) other advertising. (5) What major advertising projects, campaigns or information campaigns have been undertaken or are being planned, and in each case (a) what was the cost of each project, (b) who undertook the project, (c) how were they selected, (d) were public tenders called and (e) which firms were invited to tender. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet There are no specific budgets for these items. In 1987-88 the Department spent $62,204 on job advertising in the Commonwealth Gazette and the press. Some program monies (Office of the Status of Women and Office of Multicultural Affairs) have been utilised on public relations and opinion research. Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) (1-2) There are no budgets specifically for these items but OMA has utilised program monies for advertising, public relations and opinion research as follows: (a) $23,151 (b) $170,798 (c) $458,300 (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) Included in the Departmental budget (see above). (b) $23,151 (5) None. Office of the Status of Women (OSW) (1-3) OSW had a one line appropriation of 1,154,000 for 1987/88 and has no separate entry for advertising, public relations or opinion research in its notional breakup of that sum. However to 30 June 1988, OSW spent; $6,508 on advertising (excluding job advertising) on general promotion of Womens Information Services:- Tasmania $3,521 Queensland $2,987 $6,250 on an information survey conducted by the Family Planning Association of NSW for the National Women's Consultative Council in the 1986/87 financial year. $133,000 on an attitudinal survey and $8,000 for a communication strategy for the Domestic Violence Education Program. (4) (a) Included in the Departmental budget (see above). (b) See answer to (1)-(3) above. (5) None. Portfolio Agencies Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA) The ABA has advised: (1) (a) $7.923m (b) $2.683m (c) $75,000 (2) As at 30 June 1988: (a) $7.574m (b) $1.954m (c) $75,000 (3) Expenditure was $1.078m under budget. (4) Total expenditure for 1986/87 and 1987/88: (a) $50,000 (b) $10.0m (5) (a) Total cost during 1986-87 and 1987-88 is in the order of 10.0m. (b) MOJO/MDA were awarded the principal advertising contact. (c) Public tender. (d) Yes. (e) Fifty-two expressions of interest were received. Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) (1) ASTEC does not budget separately for advertising, public relations or opinion research. Any expenditure on these items comes from office requisites. (2) Expenditure on advertising to 30 June 1988 was $8,417. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) Not applicable. (b) Nil. (5) Not applicable. Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (1) The total budgeted expenditure for 1987-88 was $15,600 for advertising only. (2) Expenditure on advertising to 30 June 1988 was $12,534. (3) Expenditure was $3,166 under budget. (4) (a) $1,960 (b) $10,574 (5) Not applicable. Office of the Economic Planning Advisory Council (1) The total budgeted expenditure for 1987/88 was $5,000 for advertising only. (2) Expenditure on advertising to 30 June 1988 was $3,182. (3) Expenditure on advertising for 1987-88 was under budget by $1,818. Generally, expenditure on the Office's advertising allocation depends on the number of staff that leave the Office through resignation or promotion. With this fact in mind, the estimate for advertising is always less than exact. (4) (a) $3,182 (b) nil. (5) Not applicable. Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General (1) (a &b) Due to the low expenditure in these areas no specific amounts were budgeted for in 1987/88 for this item, while the budget for public relations (booklets relating to the Australian Honours System) was $15,200 (c) Not applicable. (2) Expenditure on advertising to 30 June 1988 was $2,106 and public relations (booklets relating to the Australian Honours System) $13,000. (3) Expenditure for public relations was $2,200 under budget. (4) (a) $2,106 (b) nil (5) Not applicable. Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (1-5) nil Merit Protection and Review Agency (1) $7,000 for advertising only. (2) Expenditure on advertising to 30 June 1988 was $6,522. (3) Expenditure was $478 under budget. (4) (a) $6,522 (b) nil (5) Not applicable. Office of National Assessments (ONA) (1) $40,000 for advertising only. (2) Expenditure on advertising to 30 June 1988 was $38,201. (3) Expenditure was $1,799 under budget. (4) (a) $38,201 (b) nil (5) Not applicable. Public Service Commission (PSC) (1) $210,440 for advertising only. (2) Expenditure on advertising to 30 June 1988 was $185,290. (3) Under budget by $25,150. The requirement for high profile SES advertising was less than anticipated because of the high number of displaced SES officers placed. Expenditure on recruitment campaign advertising was incurred by the former Public Service Board ($64,229), not the PSC since the PSC is not involved in the operational aspects of the recruitment. (4) (a) $185,290 (b) nil (5) All advertising related to the Service wide recruitment campaigns. (Question No. 692) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Which firms or organisations have undertaken public relations campaigns on behalf of the Minister's Department. (2) How was each firm or organisation selected? (3) Were public tenders called; if not, (a) why not and (b) what other procedure has been adopted for inviting firms to quote? (4) Which firms or organisations undertook research projects and in each instance (a) what was the cost of each project and (b) how long did it take to complete? (5) Will the Minister provide copies of the results of each survey and details of the questions asked? (6) How were firms selected for this research work? (7) Was there a public tender; if not, why not? Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) (1) In 1987-88 the OMA commissioned Professional Public Relations of Canberra Pty Ltd (PPR) to assist it in the development and implementation of its community education projects, public information and publication strategies, and in the planning and co-ordination of integrated multicultural policy promotion and information strategies. (2) Submissions were invited from public relations firms registered with the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). The selection was made by a committee comprising officers of OMA and DAS. (3) No. (a) The selection process was undertaken in consultation with DAS and in accordance with Section 52aa (2) of the Finance Regulations which exempts the services of public relations agents from the requirement to publicly invite tenders. (b) See answer to (2) above. (4) In 1987-88 no firms were engaged to undertake research for public relations campaigns purposes. Social Impacts P/L, however, was commissioned by OMA to conduct a series of group discussions to explore issues for inclusion into the Survey of Attitudes, Perceptions and Experiences of Multiculturalism. (5) The report by Social Impacts P/L is available upon request. (6) The selection was made by a committee of officials from relevant departments. (7) No. Expressions of interest were invited through public advertisements to undertake preliminary work in preparation of the Survey. Social Impacts P/L was selected from the responses for related exploratory work. Office of the Status of Women (1-3) Nil (4) Three companies were contracted to undertake research projects; they were: Elliot and Shanahan (a) $95,000 (b) 6 Months Public Policy Research (a) $37,500 (b) 4 Months Burson Marstellar (a) $8,000 (b) 2 Weeks (5) Yes. (6-7) A list of firms was supplied by the Department of Administrative Services; these firms were then invited to submit quotes. (Question No. 708) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What was the total expenditure in 1986-87 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister, for (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What were the major items in the advertising budget? (3) What were the major public relations initiatives? (4) What subjects were covered by the opinion research? Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (1) (a) $45,344 (b) Not applicable. (c) The National Women's Consultative Council conducted a survey on Sexually Transmitted Diseases. This was done through the Family Planning Association of NSW and paid for in the 1987-88 financial year ($6,250). (2) Advertisement of job vacancies. (3) Not applicable. (4) See (1)(c). Portfolio Agencies Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA) The ABA has advised: (1) (a) $2.02m (b) $110,000 (c) $50,000 (2) Development of corporate advertising campaign, media advertising, production of videos, research, posters and brochures. (3) Project launches. (4) Attitudes to the Bicentenary and attendance at and public acceptance of planned bicentennial events. Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) (1) $3,341 for advertising only. (2) Advertisement of job vacancies. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (1) $1,183 for advertising only. (2) There were no major items. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. Office of the Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) (1) $11,713 for advertising only. (2) The major items consisted of advertisement of job vacancies in the national press. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General (1) $184 for advertising only and $4,800 for public relations (booklets relating to the Australian Honours System) (2) Advertisement of job vacancies. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (1-4) Nil Merit Protection and Review Agency (1) $1,493 for advertising only. (2) Advertisement of job vacancies. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. Office of National Assessments (ONA) (1) $21,155 for advertising only. (2) Advertisement of job vacancies. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. Public Service Commission (1) $336,669 for advertising only by the former Public Service Board. (2) The spending related to service wide SES vacancies and to recruitment campaigns on a service wide basis. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 724) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Was (a) Mr P. Adams, (b) Mr J. Singleton, (c) Mr R. Cameron or ANOP or (d) any company, organisation, joint venture, partnership or other structure in which these persons have a beneficial interest, employed, engaged or otherwise remunerated or compensated by the Minister's Department or any instrumentality or organisation responsible to the Minister in (i) 1986-87 and (ii) 1987-88? (2) What was the nature of the work undertaken. (3) How was it decided to allocate this work. (4) What was the total cost. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that MOJO/MDA and John Singleton were engaged by the Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA) in 1986-87. MOJO/MDA was also engaged by the ABA in 1987-88. The ABA has not used any companies associated with Mr R. Cameron or ANOP. Some of the State and Territory Council offices of the ABA also employed advertising agencies and these included Mattringly Advertising in Victoria which is owned by MOJO/MDA. The South Australian State office has used MDA Barr Cawrse Advertising which is also affiliated with MOJO/MDA. (2) MOJO/MDA holds the principal advertising account for the ABA. MOJO/MDA's work with the ABA covered media advertising, posters, billboards and the like. John Singleton was used on one project, `Unsung Heroes and Heroines'. The ABA also commissioned Corporate Communications for a number of small projects. (3) The main contract was given to MOJO/MDA after extensive consultation by the ABA with other government advertisers and the Government Information Co-ordination Branch of the Australian Government Advertising Service. A public tender was let for the principal advertising contract. Fifty-two expressions of interest were received for the ABA contract. (4) Total cost in the period 1986-87 and 1987-88 was $10.0m. (Question No. 1033) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 24 May 1988: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 587 (Hansard, 17 May 1988, page 2496), how many firms were invited to make submissions for the consultancy contract for the Australian Pavilion at Expo 88. (2) When was the firm Ken Bennett and Associates selected. (3) When did that firm complete its work under the contract. (4) Was the firm paid an hourly rate for the work it did under the contract or was some other basis used to calculate the payment of $19,356.10 made to it; if so, what basis was used. (5) Is the Minister able to say what State Government participation in Expo '88 was obtained as a result of negotiations undertaken by the firm. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Three. (2) The firm Ken Bennett and Associates was selected on 23 December 1986 and commenced work under a three month contract on 12 January 1987. (3) The firm completed its work under the contract on 10 April 1987. (4) Payment was made at the rate of $8,000 per month, based on three days full-time work per week and in accordance with claims lodged by Ken Bennett and Associates. (5) When Ken Bennett and Associates commenced work, only Queensland had agreed to participate in Expo 88. Subsequently this firm, on behalf of the Commonwealth, undertook negotiations with State and Territory Governments to obtain their participation. A comprehensive prospectus document aimed at encouraging other States and Territories to participate was also prepared, in conjunction with the office of the Expo Authority. The document highlighted the benefits of participating and was disseminated to a wide range of key personnel in each State and Territory. All States and Territories subsequently accepted invitations to participate in Expo 88. (Question No. 1059) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: (1) Has the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) conducted any research into the effects of Japanese tourism on (a) employment in the Australian tourist industry and (b) the effects on small business in Australia; if so, what are the results of this research. (2) If the ATC has not conducted this research, is research on this matter planned for the near future. (3) Has his attention been drawn to allegations that Japanese tour companies are demanding that tourist shops in Australia pay commissions in order to obtain patronage by the tour companies. (4) Is the ATC investigating these allegations; if not, why not. (5) What is the Government's position in regard to alleged intimidation by Japanese tour companies which threaten to redirect tourist traffic if commission is not paid to the company. Mr Punch —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) (a) and (b) No. It is not the responsibility of the ATC to undertake such research. (2) The effects of tourism are constantly monitored by my Department. Research into the effects of Japanese tourism is currently being undertaken in the Department in conjunction with the Bureau of Tourism Research. (3) Yes. (4) No. It is not the responsibility of the ATC to carry out such investigations. The Committee of Inquiry into Tourism Shopping established to enquire into all issues relevant to expenditure patterns, attitudinal aspects and the provision of shopping facilities for international visitors is looking at this matter. The Committee's report is expected to be available shortly and will then be considered by the Government. (5) The Government would be concerned if the allegations referred to were substantiated. (Question No. 669) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 February 1988: (1) What was the total budgeted expenditure in 1987-88 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister, for (a) advertising; (b) public relations; and (c) opinion research (2) What has been the actual expenditure to date in 1987-88 on each area referred to in part (1). (3) Is it estimated that expenditure on these areas in 1987-88 will be under or over budget, if so, by what sum will it be under or over budget and what is the reason for the discrepancy. (4) What has been the expenditure by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister on: (a) job advertising; and (b) other advertising. (5) What major advertising projects campaigns or information campaigns have been undertaken, are being undertaken or are being planned, and in each case, (a) what was the cost of each project, (b) who undertook the project, (c) how were they selected, (d) were public tenders called, and (e) which firms were invited to tender. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The appropriation for advertising under Division 230.01.17 in the 1987-88 Budget was $10,897.000 (includes elements of 1 (b) and 1 (c) below). (b) $979,000 (c) $60,000 (2) Total actual expenditure to 30 June 1988 was: (a) Advertising-$10,784,000 (including elements of expenditure in 1 (b) below) (b) Public relations-$989,000 (c) Opinion research-$77,000 (3) At the time it was assessed that the total expenditure of the 1987-88 budget would be achieved. Subsequently, 99% of total appropriations were achieved. (4) Total actual expenditure to 30 June 1988 was: (a) Job Advertising: $9,949,610 (b) Other Advertising: $834,390 (5) The following major advertising projects campaigns and information campaigns have been undertaken, are being undertaken and are planned: (A) Army Reserve Advertising (a) $2,545,000 (b) Creative Oasis (c) The standard procedure of selection is based on invitations to submit competitive proposals. On some occasions an agency may be directly appointed based on: its known record insufficient time to call for competitive bids proposed advertising budget is very small; or a particular expertise is required and is known to be possessed by a particular agency. (d) No (e) Thompson White &Partners/Creative Oasis (became Creative Oasis) Paterson and Partners Weston Cersdrey and Dailey Doyle, Dane Bernbach (B) Air Force Advertising (a) $1,882,000 (b) Connaghan May Ayer (c) As per 5 (A) (c) (d) No (e) Paton (became Connaghan May Ayer) Hayes Cowcher Dailey Ingale Mukerjee Grey (C) Navy Advertising (a) $1,940,000 (b) Silver Partnership (c) As per 5 (A) (c) (d) No (e) Magnus, Nankervis and Curd Scali, McCabe &Stoves (became Silver Partnership) Fortune (D) Army General Entry Advertising (a) $1,629,000 (b) Creative Oasis (c) As per 5 (A) (c) (d) No (e) Thompson White &Partners/Creative Oasis (became Creative Oasis) Paterson and Partners Weston Cersdrey and Dailey Doyle, Dane and Bernbach (E) Army Officer Entry Advertising (a) $600,000 (b) Ball Partnership (c) As per 5 (A) (c) (d) No (e) Ball Partnership Creative Oasis SSC and B Lintus Yarred, Perry Paton (F) Defence Academy Advertising (a) $538,000 (b) Clemengers (c) As per 5 (A) (c) (d) No (e) John Clemenger Doyle Dane and Associates Leo Burnett Ian McDonald Holt and Associates (G) Civil press advertising (a) $627,000 (b) Department of Defence civil personnel authorities (c) Processed in accordance with existing period contract arrangements with Neville Jeffress Aust. Pty Ltd (d) No (e) Not applicable. (Question No. 701) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Which firms or organisations have undertaken public relations campaigns on behalf of the Minister's Department. (2) How was each firm or organisation selected. (3) Were public tenders called; if not, (a) why not and (b) what other procedure has been adopted for inviting firms to quote. (4) Which firms or organisations undertook research projects, and in each instance, (a) what was the cost of each project and (b) how long did it take to complete. (5) Will the Minister provide copies of the results of each survey and details of the questions asked. (6) How were firms selected for this research work. (7) Was there a public tender; if not, why not. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) No firm has undertaken a public relations campaign funded by my Department. However, I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question on Notice No. 669 which refers to Australian Defence Force and Departmental recruitment advertising campaigns. (4) The Institute of Multicultural Affairs, University of Wollongong undertook market research into the attitudes of women and certain ethnic groups to defence. (a) $77,000 (b) 3 months to 30 June (4 months in total) (5) The individuals surveyed were asked questions relating to their personal and demographic details, their perception, opinion of and attitude to defence related issues, their awareness of Australian Defence Force practices and issues and their sources of information on the Australian Defence Force. Details of the questions asked will be contained in the results of the survey which are expected to be available in late August. (6) Seven organisations were invited to submit competitive proposals for the research activity. Six responded and were assessed on the basis of their submissions. (7) No. Competitive proposals were invited. (Question No. 717) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What was the total expenditure in 1986-87 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister, for (a) advertising; (b) public relations; and (c) opinion research (2) What were the major items in the advertising budget. (3) What were the major public relations initiatives. (4) What subjects were covered by the opinion research. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Total expenditure in 1986-87 for advertising was $10,698,305 (includes elements of 1 (b) and 1 (c) below). (b) $1,466,949. (c) $165,086. (2) (a) Recruitment advertising for ADF Regulars, Reserves as well als civilian staff-$10,027,000. (b) Tenders for equipment and services-$145,646. (c) Committee for Employer Support for the Reserve Forces to promote employer support to the Army Reserve-$41,8000. (d) Job advertising and promotion of factory products for the commercial market in the Office of Defence Production-$30,483. (e) Patents, licence, offset guidelines to private industry and matters relating to Australian industry assistance-$29,386. (3) (a) RAN 75th Anniversary. (b) Dibb public information tour involving a comprehensive schedule of public and private briefings designed to reach a broad cross-section of the public, the media and Australian Defence Force personnel. (c) 1987 Defence White Paper public information program. (d) Public information on exercise Kangaroo 86 as part of a campaign of reporting of military operations. (4) (a) Major opinion poll on community attitudes to Defence in Australia. To provide information and assistance to Defence management in ongoing activities-$81,000. (b) Preliminary survey to establish areas of questioning for the major opinion poll on attitudes to Defence in Australia-$28,343. (c) A study of the awareness of advertising for the Army Reserve and attitude towards it-$24,583. (d) To gather information on the perceptions of members of the communities in the Jervis Bay region who may be affected by the proposed relocation of naval facilities and associated environmental studies-21,000. (f) To assess public support for persons who intended to disrupt the Navy's 75th Anniversary celebrations on Sydney Harbour because of the presence of nuclear armed warships in the flotilla-$2,400. (Question No. 761) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) Why was the gear and scientific equipment aboard the Nella Dan not removed immediately after the vessel was grounded. (2) What lost gear and scientific equipment was owned by the (a) Antarctic Division and (b) owners of the Nella Dan. (3) What is the estimated cost of the losses of gear and scientific equipment and who is responsible for the losses. (4) When will the result of the marine inquiry be made public. (5) If the result of the marine inquiry is not to be made public, why not. (6) What costs were incurred by the Government in connection with the Nella Dan grounding at Macquarie Island. (7) Who were the members of the tender assessment board who awarded the replacement contract for the Nella Dan. (8) What are the terms and conditions of the contract for the replacement of the Nella Dan. (9) What is the cost of the charter of the temporary Antarctic supply vessel Lady Franklin. (10) Is the Government considering another temporary supply vessel to replace the Lady Franklin. Mr Punch —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) As soon as weather conditions allowed the equipment which could be removed, some 5 to 6 tonnes, was taken ashore by volunteers working in very difficult conditions. The equipment had to be manually removed as no power was available to operate the ship's main lifting gear. Items of scientific equipment left on board were either too large to be manually handled, or were fitted below decks and could only have been removed in dock. Prior to the order to abandon ship by the Salvage Master, some additional gear and marine diesel oil were removed when the salvage team arrived with an emergency generator and salvage equipment. (2) and (3) All scientific equipment lost was owned by the Commonwealth and has a replacement value of about $400 000. The question of responsibility for the losses is being examined by the Attorney-General's Department. (4) and (5) The report of the investigation into the grounding of the Nella Dan, which was undertaken by the Department of Transport and Communications, was made public on 30 May 1988. (6) Costs incurred by the Commonwealth in connection with the grounding related to the diversion of Icebird and to communication costs. These are estimated at about $100 000. The hire of a replacement vessel was achieved within the original budget for Nella Dan. (7), (8), (9) and (10) The Nella Dan was replaced by the Lady Franklin, which conducted one voyage in the 1987/88 season. The Secretary of the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories issued a Certificate of Exemption from the tendering process to allow the charter of the Lady Franklin at short notice following the grounding. The cost of the charter was $1.58 million. The charter was based on a standard Baltime Charter. A charter has been executed for the hire of the Lady Franklin again in the 1988/89 season. (Question No. 784) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: Is he able to say which 20 countries have the largest ratio of outstanding external debt to GDP; if so, what are the (a) debt/GDP ratios for each country, and (b) total value of each of their debts. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There are many problems inherent in making external debt comparisons across countries, including problems of definition, coverage and timeliness of both debt and GNP data; the fact that gross figures ignore any offset in the form of domestically held foreign assets, which is effectively `negative debt'; and the difficulty that simple indicators such as the ratio of debt to GNP do not adequately take into account the capacity of an economy to service and repay outstanding foreign borrowings. Nevertheless, relative debt burdens are assessed by a number of organisations, including the World Bank. The following table, drawn from the Bank's 1987-88 World Debt Tables, provides data for the 20 countries having the largest ratios of outstanding external debt to GNP at the end of 1986: TWENTY COUNTRIES HAVING LARGEST RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING EXTERNAL DEBT TO GNP AS AT END 1986 Ratio of total external debt to GNP Total external debt(1) (per cent) $USm Zambia (P) ... 356.5 5,299.8 Guyana ... 274.5 1,130.8 Nicaragua (E) ... 236.3 6,370.1 Mauritania ... 234.6 1,761.1 Yemen, Peoples Democratic Republic of (E)... 202.8 2,059.2 Jamaica (P) ... 197.3 3,882.2 Guinea-Bissau (P) ... 190.1 306.9 Congo ... 178.1 3,534.1 Sao Tome &Principe ... 174.1 75.2 Gambia, The ... 158.1 273.0 *Chile (P) ... 138.8 20,740.8 Liberia ... 128.8 1,303.1 *Morocco ... 126.7(2) 17,825.7(2) *Ivory Coast ... 122.7 10,865.1 Maldives (P) ... 121.2 69.8 *Bolivia (E) ... 118.8 4,619.1 Costa Rica (P) ... 118.7 4,453.0 Zaire (E) ... 116.5(2) 6,534.3(2) Madagascar ... 116.2 2,898.9 Sudan (E) ... 113.6 8,271.9 Source: World Bank World Debt Tables, 1987-88 edition, Volume II. The Bank notes that, while every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the statistics, quality and coverage may vary between debtors and may also vary for the same debtor from year to year. (1) Total external debt is defined as the sum of public long-term debt, private non-guaranteed long-term debt, short-term debt, and the use of IMF credit. (2) Not including private, non-guaranteed debt. * Countries included in the group of 15 heavily-indebted middle-income countries targeted by the `Baker Plan'. The other countries in this group are Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. (P) Preliminary data, including an element of estimation by World Bank staff. (E) Estimated data, involving a significant element of estimation by World Bank staff. (Question No. 785) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: Is he able to say which countries in the Asia/Western Pacific region have substantial external debts; if so, what is the (a) value of their debts, (b) ratio of their debts to GDP and (c) ratio of their debt servicing obligations to exports. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following table, drawn from the 1987-88 edition of the World Bank's World Debt Tables, shows those developing countries in the Asia/Western Pacific region with substantial external debts. It should be read with the following qualifications in mind. There are many problems inherent in making external debt comparisons between countries. Apart from questions of definition, statistical coverage and reliability of data, the use of gross debt figures ignores any offset in the form of domestically held foreign assets, which is effectively `negative debt'. In addition, simple indicators such as the ratios of debt to GNP and debt-service to exports do not adequately take into account the capacity of an economy to service and repay outstanding foreign borrowings. Factors such as the structures and flexibility of the economy, the use made of the borrowed funds and the political and financial stability of the country are important in assessing its external debt situation in relation to other debtor nations. Debt-service ratios which take account of the effects of rescheduling are not directly comparable with the ratios of non-rescheduling countries. COUNTRIES OF THE ASIA/WESTERN PACIFIC REGION WITH SUBSTANTIAL EXTERNAL DEBTS(1) As at end 1986 Total external debt (2) (Gross) Ratio of total external debt to GNP Ratio of total debt service to exports of goods and services (3) ($US millions) (per cent) (per cent) Maldives (P) 69.8 121.2 9 (4) Papua New Guinea (E) 2,304.2 95.6 36 Philippines (E) 28,172.5 93.6 21 Malaysia(5) (P) 19,649.8 76.2 20 Western Samoa 75.3 68.4 24 Solomon Islands (E) 75.3 64.8 3 (4) Sri Lanka 4,119.5 64.4 15 (4) Indonesia 42,089.5 58.5 35 Bangladesh 7,867.9 50.6 25 Korea, (6)Republic of 45,108.4 47.4 24 Burma 3,766.3 45.2 55 Thailand 17,958.6 44.7 26 Vanuatu (E) 119.9 n.a. 46 Source: World Bank World Debt Tables, 1987-88 edition (Volume II). (P) Preliminary data, including an element of estimation by World Bank staff. (E) Estimated data, involving a significant element of estimation by World Bank staff. (1) Countries with debt to GNP ratios greater than 40 per cent are classified for purposes of this table as having 'substantial external debts'. This is an arbitrary measure which does not necessarily mean that the countries concerned are experiencing debt difficulties. The table does not include some countries that may have debt to GNP ratios exceeding 40 per cent but for which reliable data are not publicly available. (2) Total external debt is defined as the sum of public long-time debt, private non-guaranteed long-time debt, short-term debt, and the use of IMF credit. (3) The ratio of total debt service to exports is the ratio of total actual repayments of principal (i.e. after rescheduling, where relevant) and payments of interest, to exports of goods and services. (4) 1985 figure (1986 figure unavailable). (5) Long term debt only. (6) Korea reduced its external debt by about $US10 billion in 1987. (Question No. 1027) Mr MacKellar asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: (1) Has the International Monetary Fund established an Enhanced Structural Adjustment facility; if so, when was it established and what is its purpose. (2) What is the relationship between the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility and the already existing Structural Adjustment Facility. (3) What countries will have access to the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility and what terms and conditions will be applied to loans to recipient countries. (4) Is Australia contributing funds to the new Facility, if so, what is the (a) total sum and (b) payment disbursement arrangements. (5) Is he able to say what other countries are contributing funds and what are their individual contributions. (6) Would the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility be more appropriately administered by the World Bank. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) was established in December 1987 to increase the resources available through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for lending on highly concessional terms to low-income countries facing protracted balance of payments difficulties. (2) The ESAF supplements resources available under the IMF's Structural Adjustment Facility (SAF). The ESAF's objectives, basis procedures and financial conditions generally parallel those of the SAF. One major difference is the level of access; access to the SAF for each eligible IMF member is a uniform limit of 63.5 per cent of the IMF quota for that member; access under the ESAF is determined for individual countries on the basis of their balance of payments need and the strength of their adjustment effort; maximum aggregate access during the three-year period of the arrangement is expected to be 250 per cent of quota, with provision for higher access in exception cases. (3) Eligible countries for loans from the ESAF and SAF are those eligible for International Development Assistance funds (ie, the very poor countries, the majority of which are in sub-Saharan Africa). ESAF SAF loans are at the highly concessional rate of 1/2 of one per cent per annum on the outstanding balance, payable semi-annually; repayments are made in ten equal semi-annual instalments, commencing 5 1/2 years and ending 10 years after the date of disbursement. (4) Australia has not contributed funds to ESAF. (5) It is the IMF's policy not to release information on individual contributions to ESAF, except where requested by the contributing member. Japan and France have publicly announced contributions to the Loan Account of ESAP of SDR 2.2 to 2.5 billion and SDR 0.8 billion respectively. The United Kingdom has announced a grant to the Interest Subsidy Account sufficient to finance ESAF loans to the value of SDR 1 billion (ie, the grant enables SDR 1 billion in market interest rate loans provided to the Loan Account to be on-lent to ESAF borrowers at the concessional rate of 0.5 per cent). In aggregate, agreed contributions to the Loan Account of ESAF presently total between SDR 5.3 and 5.6 billion. (6) The ESAF is based on the SAF which is specifically an IMF facility; the SAF resources came from the repayment of loans made from the IMF's Trust Fund which was established with the proceeds of the sale of some of the IMF's gold. The ESAF is primarily directed at correcting protracted balance of payments difficulties that are a prime concern of the IMF's activities. (Question No. 1098) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) How many of the eligible Australian Defence Force (ADF) pilots who have accepted the Defence Force Pilot Retention Bonus, as at 31 May 1988, are qualified to fly (a) only non jet-propelled aircraft and (b) jet-propelled aircraft. (2) What are the relevant details for each of the 3 ADF Services expressed in actual numbers and percentages. Mrs Kelly —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 41. (b) 120. (2) - Non-jet propelled aircraft Jet propelled aircraft (a) Navy ... 2 (6%) 32 (94%) (b) Army ... 39 (93%) 3 (7%) (c) Air Force ... nil 85 (100%) (Question No. 15) Mr Reith asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Is it an effect of the capital gains tax that in many circumstances the proceeds of the sale of the principal residence of many taxpayers will be subject in whole or in part to the tax. (2) Is the capital gains tax applicable on principal residences (a) when the principal residence is used for gaining or producing assessable income, (b) when certain expenses associated with maintaining the principal residence are claimed as business deductions for tax purposes, (c) on the sale of the garden shed, storeroom or other structure, (d) on a principal residence prior to its occupation, (e) on vacant land, when (i) the house constructed on the land is not occupied within 4 years of the purchase of the land and (ii) the house constructed on the land is not occupied for a period of 12 months, (f) on that part of the land, upon which a principal residence is situated, which exceeds 2 ha, (g) upon the creation of (i) de facto and (ii) de jure easements, (h) upon the compulsory acquisition of part of the land upon which the principal residence is situated, (i) where a taxpayer does not have a title, a lease or shares in the title holder of his or her principal residence, (j) where a taxpayer who, whilst selling a principal residence and buying a replacement principal residence, owns 2 residences for longer than 3 months, (k) where a taxpayer is in the situation described in part (j) but where the principal residence to be sold is rented out from the date of purchase of the replacement principal residence, (l) where the principal residence is an asset of a discretionary trust, (m) where the principal residence remains unoccupied due to the necessity to undertake renovations or where the land purchased has situated on it an old home which is to be demolished prior to construction of a new home and (n) where, upon resuming occupation of a principal residence after a temporary absence of less than 4 years, a taxpayer omits to notify the Tax Commissioner of the re-occupation; if not, why not. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A person's sole or principal residence is not subject to the capital gains tax when sold, unless the dwelling has not been used only as the family sole or principal residence for the entire period of ownership. If a dwelling has been used for purposes other than as the person's residence, some capital gains tax may be payable where a gain has been made on the disposal of the dwelling but only to the extent that the dwelling had been used for those other purposes. (2) (a) and (b) If a residence, or part of it, is used to gain or produce assessable income, an appropriate part of any capital gain or capital loss on its disposal falls within the capital gains and losses rules. For example, this will occur where a part of a residence is used as a place of business such as a doctor's surgery, a lawyer's professional office or a shop. This treatment provides consistency between a person with business premises away from his or her principal residence and another person whose residence is also used as business premises. Where a person uses a study in a principal residence merely because it is not convenient for the work to be done at the taxpayer's normal place of work (in which case income tax deductions are not allowed for expenses such as mortgage interest), the residence is not regarded as being used to gain or produce assessable income. Where a person has made an election in accordance with the temporary absence provisions (see answer to (2) (e)), the receipt of assessable income from letting the dwelling because of the temporary absence is also disregarded for capital gains tax purposes. (2) (c) The principal residence exemption applies to a garden shed, storeroom or other structure unless sold separately from the rest of the dwelling. Where a person acquired the residence and structure after 19 September 1985, even if sold separately the structure would usually be a personal-use asset. A gain on a personal-use asset is excluded from the capital gains tax rules if sold for $5,000 or less. Further, given that such structures normally depreciate in value taxpayers are highly unlikely to realise a capital gain on their disposal. (2) (d) A dwelling will be treated as the sole or principal residence of a person during the often short period between acquisition and actual occupation of the dwelling, where no other dwelling is the sole or principal residence of the person or his or her dependants during this time. Where a person owns two residences concurrently because a new dwelling is acquired before a previous one is disposed of, both can be treated as the sole or principal residence of the person for up to 3 months. (2) (e) The principal residence exemption extends to situations where a person acquires land and subsequently constructs a dwelling on that land. Subject to certain conditions the exemption is available during the time prior to actual occupancy of the dwelling. Exemption will apply for up to 4 years (not including a period when the taxpayer or his or her spouse owned another sole or principal residence), if: there was no dwelling on the land when acquired; a dwelling was built after the land was acquired; and the person moved into the dwelling as soon as practicable and continued to use it as his or her sole or principal residence for at least 12 months. If the dwelling does not remain the person's sole or principal residence for at least 12 months, the exemption applies only while it is the sole or principal residence. An important qualification to this rule applies where the temporary absence provisions are satisfied. (A person who leaves his or her principal residence temporarily may elect that the dwelling be treated as if it continued to be his or her residence during the period of absence. This may be the case, for example, where the person moves house because of a temporary job transfer, study abroad or an extended holiday abroad. The dwelling is treated as the person's principal residence during the temporary absence if he or she moves back into the dwelling within 4 years of leaving it. Any other dwelling of the taxpayer is ineligible for the sole or principal residence exemption during the period covered by the election.) (2) (f) The exemption from capital gains tax available in respect of a person's sole or principal residence extends to land surrounding the dwelling: that is used mainly for private or domestic purposes in association with the dwelling; and including the land on which the dwelling stands, does not exceed 2 hectares. Where the total area is greater than 2 hectares, land comprising 2 hectares attracts the exemption. (2) (g) The grant of an easement may involve a part disposal of the land to which the easement relates. Accordingly, the grant of an easement can-depending on the circumstances of the particular case-result in some capital gains tax being payable. (2) (h) If land abutting a person's principal residence is sold separately from the dwelling, the land is not excluded from the capital gains tax rules. The cost base for the land sold is based on a proportion of the cost of acquiring all the land and any other allowable costs. The retained land and dwelling continue to be eligible for the principal residence exemption. If land is compulsorily acquired by a government or authority of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory and the taxpayer acquires a replacement asset, rollover relief-that is, deferral of capital gains tax liability-is available at the option of the taxpayer. An amendment by the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1988 extends this concession to a situation where a government or government authority has given notice of its intention to acquire an asset, but the asset is transferred to the authority by voluntary agreement, rather than by the compulsory acquisition processes. This amendment will apply from 20 September 1985. (2) (i) It is not clear how a potential capital gain to a taxpayer could eventuate in a case where the taxpayer does not have title to his or her principal residence nor a lease or shares in the title holder of the residence. (2) (j) and (k) When a person acquires a replacement principal residence and disposes of the former residence after that acquisition, special rules under which both dwellings may be treated as the person's sole or principal residence apply for a period of up to 3 months ending on the disposal of the former residence. The rules are concessional in that a dwelling which is not in fact being used as a sole or principal residence is treated for up to 3 months as if it were being used for that purpose. If the two dwellings are simultaneously owned for longer than 3 months some capital gains tax may be payable on the eventual disposal of the former residence. The special rules do not apply if the former residence is rented out after the dwelling ceases to be the sole or principal residence of the taxpayer. (2) (1) The principal residence exemption is available to a natural person or to a trustee of a deceased estate, but is not available where a dwelling is owned by the trustee of a discretionary trust. (2) (m) As outlined in the answer to question (2) (e), the capital gains tax provisions allow a person to elect, in respect of a dwelling which temporarily ceases to be his or her principal residence, for the dwelling to be treated as the principal residence during the temporary absence, provided that the absence does not exceed 4 years. Where taxpayers undertake renovations to a principal residence or its demolition and rebuilding, in circumstances in which they must live elsewhere during that period, they can elect to use the temporary absence provisions to ensure that the exemption continues during that period. In certain circumstances, where vacant land (but not land with an existing dwelling) is acquired after 19 September 1985 and a dwelling is built on it, the principal residence exemption may extend over the period the land was held (see answer to (2) (e)). (2) (n) A person who wishes to invoke the temporary absence rules is required to notify the Commissioner of Taxation in writing by the date of lodgment of the income tax return for the income year in which the dwelling once again becomes his or her principal residence. (Question No. 216) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: (1) Why did the Government release media statements on its plans for superannuation. (2) Why was there a delay before the legislation was presented to Parliament. (3) How long was the delay. (4) Why are appeals to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner deemed to be lost after 21 days if the Commissioner does not take any action. (5) When will the regulations governing superannuation schemes be made. (6) Why has there been a delay in preparing the regulations. (7) Has the industry been consulted during preparation of the regulations; if so, who has been consulted and when were they consulted. (8) If the industry has not been consulted, why not. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I made public announcements in my press releases of 11 June, 30 July and 22 December 1986 on the Government's plans to establish operational standards for occupational superannuation funds in order to encourage the development of superannuation funds as a source of genuine retirement income, to enhance the provision of information by superannuation funds to their members, and to provide greater opportunities for participation by member representatives in the control of funds. The Government proposed these arrangements for occupational superannuation funds against the background of the emerging strong growth of superannuation fund contributions and incomes and the consequential increasingly large amount of tax concessions being directed to superannuation. The Government took the view that there was a need to apply a range of operating standards to superannuation funds to help ensure that the taxation concessions were directed at genuine retirement income provision. Superannuation funds and approved deposit funds are required to meet these standards in order to be eligible for relevant taxation concessions. (2) The delay in introducing into Parliament the Government's occupational superannuation legislative package, after the initial 11 June 1986 announcement of the operating standards, was due to the time needed to formulate and draft the complex legislation involved. This reflected the lengthy process of consultation that took place between the Government, the superannuation industry and relevant professional organisations and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to ensure that the legislation would be effective and practicable. The dissolution of Parliament prior to the election held in mid-July 1987 was another factor affecting timing of passage of the legislation. (3) The time elapsing between the first announcement on 11 June 1986 of the operating standards for superannuation funds and the initial introduction of the Bills in the Parliament on 14 May 1987 was eleven months but the Bills were reintroduced, following the election, on 18 September 1987. (4) It is not correct to say that appeals are deemed to be lost after 21 days if the Commissioner does not take any action. Rather, the effect of subsection 16 (4) of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987 is that the original decision of the Commissioner is deemed to be confirmed by the Commissioner if, upon expiration of 21 days after receipt of the request for re-consideration of a decision, the Commissioner has not acted to confirm, revoke or vary that decision. If under these provisions a decision were to be deemed to be confirmed, there would, of course, be a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As is the case with similar long-standing review machinery in the Insurance Act and Life Insurance Act, subsection 16 (4) of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act provides a safeguard in the unlikely event of an administrator attempting to unreasonably delay resort to the appeal process by delaying a response to a request for reconsideration of a decision. In practice I see no reason to assume that a Commissioner would be tardy in dealing with these requests. In this regard it is relevant that the prospect of ready access to an independent hearing through the Tribunal provides an incentive for the Commissioner to deal promptly and reasonably with any requests under section 16 of the Act for reconsideration of the Commissioner's decision. I should add that the operation of the appeal provisions in the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987 will be closely monitored. If in the light of experience it is found that the appeal provisions do not prove to be adequate or workable, the Government will review them and, if necessary, modify them. (5) The Occupational Superannuation Standards Regulations, which gave legislative force to the Government's announced operating standards, were gazetted on 22 December 1987. They will be supplemented in due course by a second stage of regulations which will be largely concerned with transferring into the Occupational Superannuation Standards Regulations a number of existing requirements in the Income Tax Assessment Act prior to their removal from that Act by Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 4) 1987. Drafting of these second stage regulations is expected to be completed later this year. Pending completion of these regulations, the relevant taxation rulings and guidelines remain in force. (6) See (5) above. For the most part the initial regulations under the Act were drafted during the period leading up to passage of the Act and there was no undue delay in their preparation. They were gazetted on the day after the Act commenced to operate and this was less than two months after the Act had received Royal Assent. (7) Yes. A very significant contribution was made by various industry representatives, particularly representatives of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Institute of Actuaries of Australia and the Life Underwriters Association of Australia, at various stages during the process of drafting the detailed regulations and the development of the annual return form. The members of the Superannuation Consultative Committee, a number of individuals and representatives of professional organisations and businesses also provided valuable assistance in the development of the regulations. (8) See (7) above. (Question No. 878) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 14 April 1988: (1) What is the total amount of uranium that has been exported from Australia and what sum, expressed in 1988 dollars, has this added to our export income. (2) How much uranium has been exported for each year since 1980, expressed in (a) tonnes and (b) 1988 dollars. (3) How many sites are there in Australia where uranium has been discovered in significant quantities and what are their names, locations and estimates of their reserves. (4) How many of these sites are mined and which sites are they. (5) Why is uranium mining restricted to these sites. (6) How were the sites that are mined chosen over the unmined sites. (7) In view of extra uranium fuel estimated to be needed by 1995 onwards, will the number of sites that are allowed to be mined be increased. (8) Is the yellowcake Australia exports enriched to a level of approximately 0.71%. (9) Will further enrichment in Australia to the level of approximately 3%, as used in nuclear reactors for electricity production, be considered; if not, what are the reasons for restricting the enrichment process to only the yellowcake stage. (10) What would the approximate value-added sum be in percentage terms to Australia of enriching uranium ore from the yellowcake stage to the 3% stage. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) During the period 1954 to 1971 Australia exported 7,048 tonnes of uranium concentrates valued at $164 million. Using 1971/72 as a base year this would be worth around $765 million in 1988 values. A further 27,748 tonnes valued at $2,289 million were exported in the period 1976-77 to 1986-87 following the resumption of uranium mining in 1976. Quantity and values exported during this period are given in the following table: Uranium Exports Year Tonnes Value $m 1988 Value $m 1976-77 ... 749 26.9 67 1977-78 ... 1,452 87.0 198 1978-79 ... 1,163 81.3 171 1979-80 ... 1,210 98.0 187 1980-81 ... 1,513 118.1 204 1981-82 ... 2,777 203.0 317 1982-83 ... 4,431 353.9 500 1983-84 ... 3,424 318.9 422 1984-85 ... 3,441 317.4 397 1985-86 ... 3,224 295.9 340 1986-87 ... 4,363 388.9 411 TOTAL ... 27,747 2,289.3 3,214 (3) There are many sites in Australia where reserves of uranium have been identified. The Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics has available for purchase a publication entitled ``Australian Uranium Resources'' which gives a wealth of information on this subject. For the information of the Member for Parkes, the following table gives details of the more well known deposits: Name of uranium deposit Location (State) Proved and probable resources (tonnes U308) Ranger ... NT 108,300 Nabarlek ... NT (a) Koongarra ... NT 15,600 Jabiluka ... NT 207,400 Lake Way ... WA 3,300 Yeelirrie ... WA 52,500 Kintyre ... WA 15,000 Mulga Rock ... WA 15,300 Olympic Dam ... SA 360,000 Beverley ... SA 16,200 Honeymoon ... SA 3,390 Ben Lomond ... Qld 4,758 Rum Jungle ... NT production ceased Mary Kathleen ... Qld production ceased (a) Initial reserves of 12,000 tonnes U3O8 mined and stockpiled in 1979 (4) Of the sites listed in 3 above, production ceased at Rum Jungle and Mary Kathleen in 1971 and 1982 respectively. Production of uranium is continuing at Ranger and from stockpiled ore at Nabarlek in the Northern Territory. Commercial production commenced at Olympic Dam in August 1988. (5), (6) and (7) The number and location of uranium production sites in Australia are governed by the Government's uranium policy. That policy provides that the mining and export of uranium will continue but only from the Ranger, Nabarlek and Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs) mines. (8) and (9) Processing of uranium in Australia is confined to the production of yellowcake (U3O8) which is a mining and milling process not regarded as part of the uranium enrichment cycle. Further stages of the nuclear fuel cycle are prohibited by Government policy. (10) The added value of enriching uranium ore is about 100% if yellowcake is processed and enriched to 3 per cent U235. (Question No. 927) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: (1) When was the concept introduced of a public service position being identified as requiring an ability to communicate with Aboriginals or a knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal culture. (2) On what criteria is such a position identified. (3) How do the selection and recruitment procedures for such positions differ from normal Public Service procedures. (4) Is he able to say how many such positions were identified in the Australian Public Service each year since the concept was introduced and (a) of these, how many were filled by (i) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or (ii) people who met the criteria for an identified position, (b) in which Department and statutory authorities were the identified positions and (c) what proportion of positions did these positions represent within the Australian Public Service. (5) What is the rate at which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are recruited to identified positions when they become available. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The concept of an ``identified position'' was introduced into the Australian Public Service in 1973. (2) Such positions are identified after consideration is given to the functions and related work programs undertaken by an agency. For example, positions that involve contact with Aboriginal and Islander people as the sole or major client group or require a sensitivity toward the culture of Aboriginal and Islander people. (3) For positions at base-levels special recruitment campaigns are held. For positions above base level selection is the same as for other APS officers, (ie on merit). (4) No. However, we have been informed by the Public Service Commission that as at 1/10/86, 1421 positions had been identified. (a) (1) As at 1/10/86, 445 Aboriginal (2) As at 1/10/86, 530 Non-Aboriginal (b) Aboriginal Affairs Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service National Museum of Australia Attorney-General's Human Rights Commission Former Department of Community Services Former Department of Education Commonwealth Schools Commission Former Department of Employment and In dustrial Relations Former Department of Foreign Affairs Former Department of Health Former Department of Housing and Construction Former Public Service Board Social Security Australian Electoral Commission Former Department of Territories Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Taxation Office (c) We have been informed by the Public Service Commission that this information is not available. (5) We have been informed by the Public Service Commission that this information is not available. (Question No. 929) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: (1) What was the expenditure by his Department and authorities under his control on public relations in (a) 1985-86 and (b) 1986-87. (2) What was the nature or subject of the public relations expenditure. (3) Was outside assistance obtained for public relations; if so, what payments were made and why was the assistance sought. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The expenditure on public relations was as follows: (a) 1985-86 (b) 1986-87 Department of Aboriginal Affairs $254,300 $263,000 Aboriginal Development Commission $91,284 $104,277 Aboriginal Hostels Limited $32,000 $25,000 Although the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964 gives the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (AIAS) a broad role in the publication of material on Aboriginals, details of expenditure on publications by the AIAS have not been included on the basis that the material is regarded as being of an academic nature. (2) Public relations expenditure for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was for publications including booklets and posters, video productions, displays and exhibitions, and media monitoring. Expenditure by the Aboriginal Development Commission was for publications, video production, sponsorship, photographic work, posters, advertising and public functions. Expenditure by Aboriginal Hostels Limited was for publications and photographic material. (3) No outside assistance was obtained for public relations by Aboriginal Hostels Limited. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs paid $11,077 (1985/86), $10,533 (1986/87) and the Aboriginal Development Commission paid $4,880 (1986/87) to Monitair to provide a media monitoring service. (Question No. 930) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: (1) What was the expenditure by Aboriginal organisations within his portfolio on advertising (other than classified newspaper advertising) in (a) 1985-86 and (b) 1986-87, broken down by individual subject or program. (2) What was the title and purpose of each advertising campaign. (3) Who (a) initiated and (b) conducted each campaign. (4) What was the basis of remuneration for each campaign. (5) Was the assistance of the (a) Information Co-ordination Branch or (b) Australian Government Advertising Service sought. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No advertising campaigns were conducted by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aboriginal Development Commission or Aboriginal Hostels Limited. Assistance was not sought from the Information Co-ordination Branch or the Australian Government Advertising Service. (Question No. 936) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1987: (1) How many enterprises have received loans from the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) since its establishment. (2) Of these enterprises, how many (a) currently operate, (b) have been voluntarily wound up and (c) have been liquidated. (3) Of the enterprises currently operating, how many (a) operate at a profit, (b) operate at a loss and (c) operate on a non-profit basis. (4) How many enterprises are currently owned, either partly or wholly by the ADC. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Aboriginal Development Commission has provided the following information: (1) The Commission has provided grants or loans to 462 enterprises from the time it was established to 31 December 1987. (2) Of the 462 enterprises funded: (a) 354 still operate (b) 96 have been voluntarily wound up (c) 12 have been liquidated (3) Of the 354 enterprises still operating: (a) 147 are operating profitably (b) 133 are operating at a loss (c) 74 were funded as social enterprises For the purpose of this question, profitable is defined as: for grant funded enterprises-financial self sufficiency for loan funded enterprises-ability to meet the loan payment schedule (4) The ADC currently owns 5 enterprises. (Question No. 1005) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 May 1988: (1) Has Mr Mansell, or a partnership or a company in which Mr Mansell has a beneficial interest, (a) held a contract to supply services to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Council and (b) had a similar contract in previous years; if so (i) what sums has Mr Mansell or the partnership or company received and (ii) what services has he or the partnership or company performed under the contract. (2) Has Mr G. Foley been paid a retainer by the Redfern Aboriginal Legal Service; if so (a) in what year or years did he receive payments and (b) what was the sum paid in each year or years. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information supplied to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre and the Aboriginal Legal Service, Redfern, is: (1) There is no organisation called the Tasmanian Aboriginal Council. The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre receives grants from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to enable it to provide legal services to Aboriginal people, organisations and communities. The Centre has a contract with a law firm in which Mr M. Mansell has a beneficial interest to provide these legal services. The grants to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre in 1986/87 and 1987/88 included the amounts of $51,196 and $51,936 respectively relating to the contract with the law firm. (2) The Aboriginal Legal Service, Redfern has informed me that it has never paid a retainer to Mr G. Foley. (Question No. 1021) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: (1) Subsequent to 1 July 1987, for how many officers has the Minister's Department provided written advice of the kind specified in paragraph 6 (b) of the Australian Public Service Redeployment (Redundancy) Award 1987 to the relevant unions that those officers were redundant or potentially redundant. (2) How many officers have been invited to submit elections of retrenchment by the Secretary of the Minister's Department. (3) How many officers within or formerly within the Minister's Department have received formal advice that they are excess to capacity. (4) How many notices to excess officers required under subsection 76w (1) has the Secretary of the Minister's Department issued in the case of notices of (a) reduction in classification with consent, (b) reduction in classification without consent, (c) retirement with consent and (d) retirement without consent. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Forty officers. (2) Thirty eight officers. (3) Thirty eight officers. (4) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) Thirty eight officers. (d) Nil. (Question No. 1056) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: (1) What are the names and locations of all tertiary institutions which undertake nurses' education in Australia. (2) What is the length and type of each course offered at each institution. (3) What entry qualifications are required for nurses to enter the courses at each institution. (4) How many employees are employed at each institution to provide nurse education. (5) What is the present drop-out rate of students at each course. (6) How many places have been available at each institution for nurses' training since the program's inception. (7) How many nurses have been admitted to each course each year since the courses were established. (8) How many nurses have so far graduated from those courses for each year in each institution. (9) What is the retention rate of those graduates after they enter the hospital system. (10) What has been the cost each year of those courses to the Government and what is the average cost of each graduate. (11) What is the approximate shortfall of nurses needed in each State and what plans are under way to overcome that shortfall, including the provision of additional tertiary institutions providing training. (12) Are there any nurses' education facilities proposed for far western NSW. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information provided relates to basic nurse undergraduate courses funded under the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer) Act 1985. (1) The names and locations of all tertiary institutions which undertake nurses' education under the transfer program are as follows: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (ACT): Canberra College of Advanced Education, Canberra, ACT NORTHERN TERRITORY (NT): Darwin Institute of Technology, Darwin, NT SOUTH AUSTRALIA (SA): South Australian Institute of Technology, SA South Australian College of Advanced Education, SA TASMANIA (TAS): Tasmanian State Institute of Technology, Tas VICTORIA (VIC): Ballarat College of Advanced Education, Vic. Bendigo College of Advanced Education, Vic. Chisholm Institute of Technology, Vic. Deakin University Footscray Institute of Technology, Vic. Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, Vic. Institute of Catholic Education, Vic. Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences, Vic. Phillip Institute of Technology, Vic. Victoria College Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education, Vic. WESTERN AUSTRALIA (WA): Curtin University of Technology, WA WA College of Advanced Education, WA NEW SOUTH WALES (NSW): Armidale College of Advanced Education Catholic College Cumberland College of Health Sciences Hawkesbury Agricultural College Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education Macarthur Institute of Higher Education Mitchell College of Advanced Education Nepean College of Advanced Education Hunter Institute of Higher Education Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education Sydney College of Advanced Education University of Technology, Sydney University of Wollongong QUEENSLAND: The Queensland Minister for Health signed an agreement on 21 July 1988 with the Commonwealth for her State to participate in the program. Detailed information is not yet available. (2) Basic nurse education courses of three years duration are offered at each institution involved in the scheme. These courses lead to the award of an undergraduate diploma which provides an initial qualification in relation to nursing. (3) Entry qualifications are the same as those generally required for tertiary level diploma courses, i.e. Year 12 Certificate or equivalent. Provision is also made for mature age entry to courses. (4) Detailed information is not available either on a Statewide basis, or on an individual institution basis in relation to the number of employees involved in providing nurse education under the program. This is for two reasons: (a) In some States/Territories the program is in its infancy and a full complement of staff has not yet been engaged (b) The nursing diploma course is interdisciplinary in nature and many of the lectures are delivered on a part time, often ad hoc basis by staff who are permanently attached to other departments. (5) The honourable member's use of the term ``drop-out rate'' is unclear. If he is referring to the attrition rate of student nurses in the tertiary courses, according to my Department's 1987 survey of the 1985-86 students, there is a overall attrition rate of 32 per cent for all basic nursing courses in Australia. It should be noted that these figures do not reflect inter and intra institutional transfer as well as students who delay the completion of their courses. My Department is presently undertaking a further attrition rate survey for the 1986 and 1987 students, the result of which will be available in the 1988-89 financial year. (6) It is not possible to provide accurate figures on an individual institution basis. Allocation of places to the States has been made on a Statewide basis and the States, which are primarily responsible for the operation of the program, make the decision on numbers allocated to each institution in their State. Figures given below are therefore on a State basis only. They represent those places agreed by the Commonwealth for funding under the nurse transfer for the years 1985 to 1988: 1985 1986 1987 1988 NSW 650 1270 2030 2953 ACT Nil 62 171 200 NT Nil Nil 30 57 QLD Nil Nil Nil Nil SA 61 360 717 1065 TAS Nil Nil 50 165 VIC 110 725 1530 2275 WA 150 450 649 728 N.B. Queensland's allocation of places will not commence until 1990. By the end of 1993 this Government will have assisted in the funding of 18,000 places for students in basic nurse education courses throughout Australia. (7) The following information represents the total number of basic nursing students funded, to date, under the transfer of nurse education program: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (ACT): Canberra College of Advanced Education, 1985-nil, 1986-62, 1987-126, 1988-180 NORTHERN TERRITORY (NT): Darwin Institute of Technology, 1985-nil, 1986-nil, 1987-19, 1988-49 SOUTH AUSTRALIA (SA): South Australian Institute of Technology, 1985-nil, 1986-nil, 1987-nil, 1988-42 South Australian College of Advanced Education, 1985-61, 1986-166, 1987-360, 1988-630 TASMANIA (TAS): Tasmanian State Institute of Technology, 1985-nil, 1986-nil, 1987-50, 1988-165 VICTORIA (VIC): Ballarat College of Advanced Education, 1985-nil, 1986-80, 1987-162, 1988-219 Bendigo College of Advanced Education, 1985-nil, 1986-nil, 1987-145, 1988-145 Chisholm Institute of Technology, 1985-nil, 1986-nil, 1987-90, 1988-216 Deakin University, 1985-nil, 1986-nil, 1987-nil, 1988-100 Footscray Institute of Technology, 1985-25, 1986-160, 1987-245, 1988-314, Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, 1985-nil, 1986-80, 1987-165, 1988-150 Institute of Catholic Education, 1985-nil, 1986-100, 1987-203, 1988-299 Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences, 1985-45, 1986-110, 1987-183, 1988-216 Phillip Institute of Technology, 1985-40, 1986-125, 1987-197, 1988-211 Victoria College, 1985-nil, 1986-nil, 1987-nil, 1988-98 Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education, 1985-nil, 1986-70, 1987-138, 1988-174 WESTERN AUSTRALIA (WA): Curtin University of Technology, 1985-115, 1986-266, 1987-319, 1988-349 WA College of Advanced Education, 1985-35, 1986-175, 1987-330, 1988-379 NEW SOUTH WALES (NSW): Data for funding under the transfer of nurse education is not available, since this is not disaggregated on an individual institution basis. (8) As the program commenced in 1985, it was not until late 1987 that the first nurses graduated. Information on the number of graduates is only just beginning to be received from the appropriate State Government departments, and it is expected to take several months before an accurate picture emerges. (9) As the first students have only recently graduated under the program, information is not yet available on the numbers of graduates entering the hospital system. Meaningful data on retention rates is not expected to be available for some considerable time. (10) The following are grants to States under the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985: 1985-$532,126 1986-$3,589,052 (Includes Course Development Grants totalling $1.1m) 1987-$5,572,713 (Includes Course Development Grants totalling $740,000) 1988-$4,136,850 to date (Includes Course Development Grant to Queensland of $500,000) Average cost of the Commonwealth's share for each graduate is $5,700 in real terms for a three year course (based on indexed figure of $475.12 per quarter for the quarter ending 30 June 1988 excluding AUSTUDY. (11) As the nurse transfer program is in its beginning phase, detailed information is not yet available in this area. (12) In order to provide appropriate training for students in CAEs under the program, courses are restricted to those institutions offering studies in applied science; at present this effectively excludes CAEs and similar institutions in far western New South Wales. (Question No. 1120) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) Under the provisions of the Disability Services Act, are organisations providing a number of services expected to establish separate administrative structures or committees to run each and every service; if so why. (2) Has his Department assessed the impact of cost and the diversion of resources on the organisations; if so, is that assessment available. (3) If there has been no assessment made, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) One of the key objectives of the Disability Services Act (DSA) is to ensure that a person's life is not dominated by one service-providing organisation. Organisations can meet this objective in many ways. Whether organisations group their administrative functions across a number of services is a question for their own management to decide. Administrative overheads will be a component incorporated in any funding formula developed under the DSA. Funding under the Act relates to the provision of specified individual services, and so each eligible service funded under Section 10 of the Act will attract an administrative component. Administrative expenditure must be acquitted in respect of the individual service for which it was granted. (2) and (3) Given that administrative arrangements are for each organisation to decide, the assessment of costs and comparison of alternatives is a matter for the organisation. Examination of the issues that arise in assisting multi-service organisations under the DSA has been included in the terms of reference of a Working Group established to discuss the transfer of services from Section 13 to Section 10 of the Act. ACROD and AAMR representatives have been invited to join the Working Group, as well as consumer representatives and the Disability Advisory Council of Australia. (Question No. 1121) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: Does the Government compensate fully for increases in wage costs arising from National Wage Case decisions when funding organisations providing services for disabled persons; if not, why not and how is it envisaged the shortfall will be made up. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The financial assistance provided by my Department under the Disability Services Program, towards the costs of provision of services for people with disabilities, is by means of annual block grants paid in quarterly instalments, in advance. A large component of grants under the Program is in the form of assistance towards the cost of staff remuneration. However, there is no direct salary subsidy as such. Salary subsidies were paid to organisations funded under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 prior to 1 July 1987, before the introduction of the Disability Services Act 1986. With effect from 1988-89, Disability Services Program grants are indexed from the beginning of the financial year, in accordance with expected movements in general economic indicators. Assistance in relation to the carry over costs of the previous year's National Wage Case, as well as the prospective costs to service providers of the National Wage Case in the year ahead is thus incorporated in the annual block grant amount, with effect from 1 July 1988. The grants do not require adjustment as each increase occurs. Full compensation for increases would only occur in those (relatively few) services which are 100% funded under the Disability Services Program block grant arrangements. In general, however, assistance under the Program will cover only a proportion of the full cost, and any shortfalls would be made up from sources other than the Program. (Question No. 1122) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) Has his Department funded a series of demonstration projects under the Disability Services Act; if so, (a) what was the nature of these and (b) what was the aim of funding them. (2) For each project, (a) what was its title, (b) who was responsible for its administration and (c) what was the level of funding. (3) Has an assessment of these projects been prepared; if so, will he make copies available. (4) If he will not make copies of an assessment available, why not. (5) Was the level of funding for these projects 100%; if not, what was the level of funding. (6) Is it envisaged that these projects will continue; if so, what will be the level of Commonwealth contribution and is this an increase or decrease in real terms on the previous level of funding. (7) If any or all of the projects are not to continue, why not. (8) If there is a shortfall of Government funding for these projects, is it envisaged that the shortfall will be made up by the organisation itself. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1985, my Department has funded 117 demonstration projects nationally under the Disability Services Program. They are funded outside the Disability Services Act. (a) These projects have spanned most of the service types covered by the Act-namely, accommodation support, supported employment, competitive employment training and placement, advocacy, respite care, independent living training, information services and recreation-as well as activities such as staff training, research and production of resource materials. (b) The aim of funding these projects was to illustrate to service providers and to people with disabilities the types of services which are achieveable through new and innovative forms of service delivery. (2) As there have been 117 demonstration projects, I have not listed the details sought for each project. However, in July 1988, Mr Blunt was provided with a copy of the Phase Two evaluation report, which included such details for 30 demonstration projects. He will also receive a copy of the Phase One evaluation report, expected shortly, which will cover a further 61 projects. Since 1985-86, the Government has committed about $38 million for demonstration projects. (3) Ninety one of the demonstration projects were operating in late 1987 when an evaluation of them was conducted. Phase One of the evaluation was conducted, using a standardised methodology, by a consultant who is currently completing his report, while Phase Two of the evaluation was conducted by my Department on projects for which the standardised methodology was not appropriate. (The 26 other demonstration projects were not evaluated because they were either subsumed by another project or their approval was revoked, or they were for specific, one-off activities. Consequently, these projects were no longer in existence when the evaluation occurred.) Copies of the Phase Two evaluation report are available, and as mentioned above, a copy has been made available to Mr Blunt. (4) See (3) above. (5) Demonstration projects generally received 100% funding from my Department for the period of the demonstration. This level of funding was given without any guarantees that it would continue beyond the demonstration phase, even if the projects were suitable for ongoing funding under the Disability Services Act. A few demonstration projects have never required 100% Commonwealth funding because they had other sources of income. Where no other funding source is available or possible (eg for some advocacy services), 100% funding has been provided to ensure the increased range of services continues. (6) Of the 91 demonstration projects evaluated, I envisage that 85 projects will continue. The level of funding to be provided in 1988-89 has been negotiated with each project. Increases in real terms on the previous level of funding have not generally been possible. (7) Six projects ceased to receive demonstration project funding in January 1988 for one or more of the following reasons: the project was time limited and so was completed; it was found in the evaluation that funding should cease; and/or the service had decided to terminate the project. (8) If there is a shortfall of Government funding for the continuing projects, organisations can pursue other sources of income (for example, State Governments, fund raising or commercial activities). (Question No. 1159) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: How many Aboriginal persons are there in Australia under the criteria used by the Government to determine whether or not a person is Aboriginal. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: At the last Housing and Population Census conducted in 1986 by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the following numbers of persons were identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders:- Males Females Total New South Wales 29,267 29,744 59,011 Victoria 6,192 6,419 12,611 Queensland 30,460 30,808 61,268 Western Australia 18,866 18,923 37,789 South Australia 6,955 7,336 14,291 Tasmania 3,391 3,325 6,716 Northern Territory 16,916 17,823 34,739 Australian Capital Territory 608 612 1,220 Australia 112,655 114,990 227,645 (Question No. 406) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: Has the ``Nardoola'' property in the Moree district been sold on behalf of the Aboriginal Development Commission or his Department; if so, (a) was it sold by tender, (b) how many tenders were received, (c) who was the successful tenderer, (d) what was the successful tender price, (e) was the highest tender which was received accepted; it not, why not and (f) what was the total loss incurred on the property from the time of purchase until its sale. Mr Hand —The Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) has provided me with the following information in response to the honourable member's question: No. The Commission was negotiating sale of the property by tender but has now withdrawn it from sale. (Question No. 728) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Was (a) Mr P. Adams, (b) Mr J. Singleton, (c) Mr R. Cameron or ANOP or (d) any company, organisation, joint venture, partnership or other structure in which these persons have a beneficial interest, employed, engaged or otherwise remunerated or compensated by the Minister's Department or any instrumentality or organisation responsible to the Minister in (i) 1986-87 and (ii) 1987-88. (2) What was the nature of the work undertaken. (3) How was it decided to allocate this work. (4) What was the total cost. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 1. (a) (i) yes; (ii) no; (b) (i) no; (ii) no; (c) (i) yes; (ii) no; (d) (i) no; (ii) no. 2. Advertising (Monahan, Dayman and Adams) and research (Australian National Opinion Polls) for the Taxation Reform Campaign. 3. Australian National Opinion Polls was selected by the Departments of Administrative Services, Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Prime Minister and Cabinet in March 1985. In October 1986 Australian National Opinion Polls was requested to do further research. Monahan, Dayman &Adams was selected by open tender to handle all Commonwealth Government non-press advertising. 4. I understand that the Minister for Administrative Services has answered this question. PRICES SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION INSURANCE AND SUPERANNUATION COMMISSION INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN MINT AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS 1. (a-d) No. 2-4. Not applicable. THE RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA 1. (a-c) No. (d) The bank does not have information on shares beneficially held by the individuals named or by Australian National Opinion Polls. 2-4. Not applicable. COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION Information is not available regarding the Commonwealth Banking Corporation as the Bank is in open competition with other banks operating in Australia. The disclosure of information about the Corporation's marketing activities could be commercially sensitive and might disadvantage the Bank if made public. AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE 1. (a) (i) yes; (ii) yes; (b) (i) no; (ii) no; (c) (i) no; (ii) no; (d) (i) no; (ii) no. 2. As the Government's master advertising placement agency, Monahan, Dayman &Adams was responsible for placement of all ATO advertising. This was the only work undertaken by that organisation on behalf of the ATO. 3. Monahan, Dayman &Adams was chosen by open tender to handle all Commonwealth Government non-press advertising. 4. I understand that the Minister for Administrative Services has answered this question. (Question No. 802) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 March 1988: (1) What assets are owned in the electoral division of Parkes by his department or authorities under his control? (2) When were these assets acquired? (3) What was the cost of each acquisition? (4) What is the present value of each asset? Mr Hand —I have been provided with the following information in response to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs owns four staff houses in the division of Parkes, and some items of office furniture and equipment at its Dubbo and Bourke Regional Offices. These staff houses are located in Bourke at 57 Tudor Street, 5A Short Street, 12 Yambacoona Street and 80 Tudor Street. Of the other authorities within my portfolio, the Aboriginal Development Commission owns the Coonamble orchard property (Dennewan Ltd), the Peak Hill pastoral property (Warramunga) and the Warren property, which is used as a social facility; Aboriginal Hostels Limited owns the Orana Haven Hostel in Brewarrina and the properties at 25 and 121 Cobra Street, Dubbo. (2) Coonamble...: 1978 Peak Hill...: 1980 Warren...: 1978 Orana Haven...: 1980 25 Cobra Street...: 1977 121 Cobra Street...: 1979 57 Tudor Street...: 1986 5A Short Street...: 1981 12 Yambacoona Street...: 1979 80 Tudor Street...: 1979 (3) Coonamble...: $75,287 Peak Hill...: $172,635 Warren...: $12,513 Orana Haven...: $122 000 25 Cobra Street...: $116,000 121 Cobra Street...: $97,000 57 Tudor Street...: $85,000 5A Short Street...: $59,000 12 Yambacoona Street...: $32,000 80 Tudor Street...: $32,000 (4) Coonamble...: $200,000 (estimated) Peak Hill...: $400,000 (estimated) Warren...: $50,000 (estimated) Orana Haven...: $288,000 25 Cobra Street...: $180,000 121 Cobra Street...: $75,000 57 Tudor Street...: $85,000 (estimated) 5A Short Street...: $55,000 (estimated) 12 Yambacoona Street...: $28,000 (estimated) 80 Tudor Street...: $28,000 (estimated) (Question No. 985) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 May 1988: (a) What arms and arms related equipment have been exported from Australia to Israel, and (b) imported from Israel in each year since 1970 and what has been the value of the sales each year. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) No permission has been given for the export of arms or arms-related equipment from Australia to Israel, However 5,000 brass discs, used in the manufacture of cartridge cases, were sold to Israel in 1987. (b) Records held before 1977 list no instances of arms or arms related equipment being imported from Israel from 1970 to 1976, but are incomplete as a consequence of changes to administrative arrangements at the time. Subsequent records are fully comprehensive and indicate that ammunition and related parts, aircraft spares and some minor capital items e.g. night vision goggles and vehicle compass systems were imported. The value of these support items per year was as follows: Year Value 1988 Nil to date 1987 $6,849,255 1986 $1,994,142 1985 $1,016,496 1984 $1, 313,412 1983 $290 1982 $2,135,000 1981 NIL 1980 NIL 1979 $1,209,000 1978 NIL 1977 $634,000 (Question No. 986) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 May 1988: (1) To which countries in the Middle East has Dart Defence Industries (known until June 1985 as Australian Training Aids (ATA)) sold target training aids. (2) Do these countries include Iran but not Iraq. (3) Are Dart's target training aids classified as arms; if not, why not. (4) Are the target training aids covered by the embargo on the sale of arms to Iran and Iraq. (5) What types of training aids has Dart or ATA sold to Iran in each year since 1980 and what was the total value of its sales in each year. (6) What other sales of arms or arms-related equipment have been made to Iran by government factories or by companies, including Hawker de Havilland, in each year since 1980 and what was the total value of these sales in each year. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australian Training Aids, subsequently known as Dart Defence Industries has sold target training aids to Bahrain, Jordan, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Iran. (2) Yes. (3) As Dart target training aids are non-lethal they are not classified as arms but are considered arms-related equipment for the purposes of defence export controls. (4) In accordance with the Government policy of prohibiting the sale of arms or arms-related equipment to belligerent countries, no sales of Dart training aids have been permitted to Iran and Iraq after the outbreak of hostilities in 1980. (5) See answer to question 4. (6) No Australian Government factory or company has been given permission to export arms or arms-related equipment to Iran since 1980. (Question No. 987) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 May 1988: (1) Does Dart Defence Industries sell to the US Department of Defence and also to a security institution of the US Government. (2) What types of target training aids are being sold by Dart to the US. (3) Is he able to say whether any of these aids are being sent to Israel. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Infantry and Target training aids. (3) The Department of Defence has no record of Dart equipment sold to US agencies being diverted to Israel. A condition of sale was that the US Government would not divert or re-export the equipment to another end-user without seeking Australian Government approval; no such approval has been sought or given. (Question No. 1047) Mr Prosser asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: (1) How many first day covers did Australia Post distribute as philatelic mementos of the opening of the new Parliament House. (2) Which groups and individuals received this memento and why. (3) What was the total cost, including administrative costs, of this exercise. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) 225. (2) All Members of Parliament (224) and Mr Brian Sadgrove, the stamp designer (1) received the first day covers as a memento of the occasion. (3) Australia Post has advised that the total cost, including administrative costs, of this exercise was approximately $130. (Question No. 1097) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) What measures have been undertaken by the Government to safeguard the Type 471 Submarine Construction Program against possible defence exports bans out of Sweden. (2) Has the Government been in contact with the Swedish government to determine the extent of possible disruption to the Submarine Construction Program, if an export sanction is applied in any form by the Swedish Government against defence equipment or technology; if so, what has been the extent and the result of such contact. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Formal government-to-government understandings exist with Sweden covering on-going supply support of items sourced from Sweden for the Type 471 Submarine Construction Program. (2) The Government has maintained frequent contact with the Swedish Government on Submarine related matters and is satisfied with assurances, given at government-to-government level, that any changes to Swedish export laws relating to defence equipment or technology will not affect the Submarine Program. In addition, the very high levels of local content (70% for the submarines themselves) should confer commensurate capacity to supply, repair and maintain the RAN's new submarines in this country. (Question No. 1150) Mr Wright asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the anomalous situation in which aged pensioners are placed when their spouse dies and the consequential additional 12 weeks pension benefit they receive increases their total income to a point above the 1987-88 pensioner tax rebate threshold of $6142. (2) Will the Minister take action to remove the anomaly which, despite the increase in the threshold in 1988-89, will continue, particularly in those instances in which the spouse dies early in the financial year. (3) What action can be taken to exempt this additional payment on the death of the spouse from being assessable for tax. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) As announced in the 1988-89 Budget, special temporary allowance will be exempt from tax from 1988-89. (Question No. 1174) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: Is he able to bring up-to-date the information which he provided on accident compensation in the answer to my question No. 573 (Hansard, 10 December 1987, page 3307). Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On the basis of figures provided in the Office of the Insurance Commissioner's publication ``Selected Statistics on the General Insurance Industry for the year ended 30 June 1987'', the updated figures for 1986-87 are: Workers Compen- sation Compul- sory Third Party $m $m Direct Premiums 2735.2 1423.0 Benefits (including legal, hospital and medical costs) 2286.3 1429.1 Administration expenses and commissions 298.1 80.2 The following legal and medical costs are estimated using the same method used to answer previous questions on notice on this subject. However, there are some indications that legal and medical costs may have risen at a faster rate than the rise in benefits; if this is so, the following figures may be an underestimate. Workers Compen- sation Compul- sory Third Party $m $m Legal (excluding solicitor/client costs) 208.1 238.7 Hospital and medical 416.1 208.7 The percentage increases on premiums between 1985-86 and 1986-87 were: Workers Compen- sation Compul- sory Third Party % % Direct premiums -4.40 -2.57 Earned premiums -5.48 0.51 (2) Since December 1987 the following events have occurred: In New South Wales the workers' compensation scheme (Workcover) and the transport accident compensation scheme (Transcover) are both under review. Extensive house-keeping amendments were made to the Victorian workers compensation (Workcare) and transport accident legislation. Queensland increased the lump sum amounts payable under the workers' compensation legislation and extended the table of specified injuries for which a lump sum may be paid. Western Australia has announced that it will implement changes to its workers' compensation system as a result of a review by the Tripartite Labour Consultative Council. There will be a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and a crack down on employers evading their insurance obligations. In accordance with the recommendation of a consultant's review of Australian Capital Territory workers' compensation, major changes will be deferred until an assessment can be made of New South Wales Workcover and Victorian Workcare. A data base of Australian Capital Territory premiums and claims payments is being established from the 1987-88 financial year. The Commonwealth Government has recently established a Commission for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation of Commonwealth Employees (COMCARE). This Commission will administer the new workers' compensation arrangements for the Commonwealth's own employees from 1 December 1988. (Question No. 1118) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) Has his Department conducted a census of disability services; if so, when was the last census conducted. (2) Has a report been released; if not, why not and when will the report be released. (3) Has his Department utilised information obtained from the census survey in implementing policy under the Disability Services Act; if so, (a) what information has been utilised and (b) was this information made available to other interested parties and if it was not, why not. (4) Was a financial strategy paper prepared as part of the Government's program for the transition of sheltered workshops under the Disability Services Act; if so, (a) when was the paper prepared, (b) to whom was it circulated, (c) were comments made by those to whom it was circulated and (d) will he make a copy of it available. (5) Is it proposed to revise the paper incorporating the results of consultations and comments received; if so, when will the paper be available. (6) If it is not proposed to revise the paper, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A census of all services funded under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 was conducted in September 1986. There have been no other censuses to date. (2) McNair Anderson and Associates was contracted to undertake the design and field work phase of the census. A report comprising a statistical compendium of results is in preparation and is now expected to be available no later than October 1988. Staffing constraints have unavoidably delayed the production of a report. (3) Yes. The 1986 census is the only comprehensive source of benchmark information on clients, staff and service operations for the Disability Services Program. Census data has been extensively used by my Department for planning purposes. Information tables from the census are available and provided when the information sought is readily available. The final report will be mailed to all Commonwealth funded disability services and their parent organisations, as well as all relevant peak bodies. In addition, copies will be available on request to other interested parties. (4) Yes. A financing strategy paper was prepared to provide a basis from which service providers will be able to establish the ongoing contribution which would be provided by the Commonwealth. This did not relate solely to the transition of sheltered workshops. (a) The paper was prepared in February 1988. (b) Approximately 1600 copies of the paper were circulated throughout Australia to service providers, people with disabilities and their parents and advocates, and other funding agencies as appropriate. (c) Numerous, generally constructive, comments were made on the paper both during consultations held throughout Australia in April and May 1988 and in written submissions. (d) Copies of the paper are still available and can be obtained from my Department. A copy of the paper has already been made available to Mr Blunt. (5) and (6) All comments received have been analysed and the paper is currently being revised. Options will be discussed with a representative group of service providers and consumers in mid-September 1988. The paper will be forwarded to peak bodies and industry representatives for further consideration and discussion before any decisions are made on its implementation. It is anticipated that the revised paper will be available in mid-October 1988. (Question No. 1091) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) Is a New Zealand treatment for providing fire blight disease free certification being tested by the Bureau of Rural Science; if so, (a) what results are available from these tests, (b) when will the tests be completed, (c) what are the details of the testing procedures and (d) what procedure and timing will be involved in allowing New Zealand certified disease free apples into Australia. (2) What tests are being conducted by the Bureau of Rural Science in relation to fire blight in apple seeds in view of a report in the September 1987 edition of the South African journal Sagtevrugteboer that fire blight (Erwinia amylovora) has been found in pear seed imported from California. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Bureau of Rural Resources is not testing a New Zealand treatment for providing fire blight disease free certification. The Bureau has recently completed a scientific and technical assessment of a New Zealand draft protocol for the importation of New Zealand apples into Australia. This protocol was rejected because the proposed distance between orchards certified for export, and other orchards could be as little as 0.5 kilometres. (2) The Bureau of Rural Resources is not presently conducting tests on fire blight in apple seed. South African scientists have suggested that the pear seed imported from California was most probably inadvertently contaminated with Erwinia amylovora. This issue is still being investigated.