Thursday, 13 October 1988 The House met at 10 a.m. The Clerk-I inform the House of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker. In accordance with standing order 14, the Chairman of Committees will take the chair as Acting Speaker. Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, I do. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PEACOCK —I might say by way of preface that I trust that Madam Speaker and those in the car with her are making a reasonable recovery. I am sure that my colleagues would agree with that. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —They are fine, thank you. Mr PEACOCK —At a meeting yesterday of the Joint House Committee, Madam Speaker's colleague, Senator Sibraa, alleged that I had made a complaint in this ongoing issue of the old aerobics class. On Tuesday, in the House, I said that I found such an allegation made elsewhere to be inexplicable. I may have found the answer. On Tuesday I said that I had mentioned to the manager that two members had complained to me but I took the matter no further. In fact, as I said in the House on Tuesday: Two members complained to me and I mentioned that to the manager. I took the matter no further. I did not; I would not; I have not; and I will not do anything about this sort of thing. It appears that this conversation with the manager about others was interpreted as a complaint by me. As I have said, it was not. The officer who reported to Senator Sibraa, evidently a Mr David Hood, never contacted me. Indeed, no one contacted me. He apparently interpreted my reporting of my colleagues' concerns as a formal objection from me. As I said, it was not and should never have been interpreted in this way. It is a pity that officers did not contact me as the alleged complainant, for the whole nonsense would never have occurred and they would have ascertained that I made no complaint at all. I reiterate: the officer's belief that I complained is ill-founded. 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 Baldwin (from 27 citizens), Mr N.A. Brown (from 69 citizens), Mr Robert Brown (from 27 citizens), Mr Donald Cameron (from 164 citizens), Mr Ewen Cameron (from 27 citizens), Mr Campbell (from 80 citizens), Mr Cohen (from 34 citizens), Mr Cowan (from 27 citizens), Ms Crawford (from 37 citizens), Mr Downer (from 27 citizens), Ms Fatin (from 52 citizens), Mr Fife (from 56 citizens), Mr Fitzgibbon (from 108 citizens), Mr Hand (from 27 citizens), Dr Hewson (from 111 citizens), Mr Hicks (from 63 citizens), Mr Hollis (from 82 citizens), Mr Jenkins (from 185 citizens), Mr Johns (from 119 citizens), Mr Barry Jones (from 108 citizens), Mr Jull (from 77 citizens), Mr Kerin (from 98 citizens), Mr Kerr (from 27 citizens), Mr Lamb (from 27 citizens), Mr MacKellar (from 27 citizens), Mr Leo McLeay (from 53 citizens), Mr Millar (from 82 citizens), Mr Peacock (from 67 citizens), Mr Pratt (from 244 citizens), Mr Reith (from 81 citizens), Mr Ian Robinson (from 27 citizens), Mr Rocher (from 27 citizens), Mr Shack (from 107 citizens), Mr Shipton (from 111 citizens), Mr Webster (from 152 citizens), Mr White (from 53 citizens) and Mr Wilson (from two 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 Mr Ewen Cameron (from 81 citizens), Mr Cunningham (from 30 citizens) and Mr McGauran (from 30 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 Ewen Cameron (from 104 citizens), Mr McGauran (from 72 citizens) and Mr White (from 139 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 Rumanian 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 Rumanian Government to abandon these horrific acts against the Rumanian Community and its minorities. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Duffy (from 77 citizens) and Mr Shipton (from four 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 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 Fife (from 15 citizens) and Mr Tim Fischer (from 382 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: 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 causes much family unhappiness and marriage breakdown, as well as being involved in some cases of child abuse and molestation. Television and radio have a persuasive effect on children and young people. Your petitioners therefore request the House to ban all advertising of alcohol on television and radio. by Mr Fife (from 40 citizens) and Mr Miles (from 137 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 Dr Harry Edwards (from 216 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 on 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 671 citizens) and Mr Pratt (from 40 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 99 citizens) and Mr Shack (from 73 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia 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 Shack (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens in Australia, draws to the attention of the House that the irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your petitioners therefore request 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 irradiation foods, as soon as one becomes available. by Mr Scott (from 66 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia assembled in Parliament. 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 64 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned draws attention to the House of the inequitable attack on pensioners of the Federal Government's proposed changes to the pension income test. The changes will penalise those who have genuinely attempted self-provision in retirement and will eventually produce more dependency on Governments in the future. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal. by Mr N.A. Brown (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of the members of the Country Women's Association of Victoria Inc. Benalla Branch in the Division of Indi draws to the attention of the House: That this organisation protests strongly about the sex, violence and murder being shown on our television screens. Your petitions therefore pray that the House be urged to prohibit the distribution of video tapes featuring sex, violence and obscene language. by Mr Ewen Cameron (from 28 citizens). To The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron (from 1,121 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 roadworks and that such funding arrangements provide for a clear and reliable method of distribution to local government. by Mr Ewen Cameron (from 253 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 Indi electorate 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, along with State Governments, to local road funding. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron (from 377 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 sheweth that: The subject of immigration is of deep concern, and supports the following significant community views placed before the Fitzgerald Committee on Immigration: (1) That Asians accounting for 40% of the total migrant intake is viewed with considerable concern by the Australian people; (2) The Anglo-Australian sense of superiority of their culture previously manifest in the policy of assimilation remains a significant factor in the community and should be taken into account as the wishes of the people on this important matter; (3) It is a matter of concern that 43% of one million of those residentially qualified migrants to take out citizenship have not done so; (4) It is a major recommendation that the Federal Government consult the Australia people by Referendum on the subject of Asian immigration, and then affirm its commitment to the immigration policies which conform to the general wishes of the majority of the people, and should be recognised by Government as such. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Protect our national identity, and preserve the Australian way of life. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan (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 to the attention of the House: (a) We have nothing against the Japanese people, or any other people, but we object to them attempting to make Australia an economic and financial colony of Japan, or that of any other nation. (b) We realise that the economics of nations is a global issue. However, we cannot allow ``predatory'' countries, such as Japan, control over our economic future in Australia. Japan already owns meatworks and large grazing areas of our rural land. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House: (i) will immediately introduce legislation so that freehold titles to Australian land and property can be held and transacted only by Australians by birth or naturalisation/citizenship. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cross (from 541 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 since 11th September, 1973 the Chilean people have been suffering under one of the cruellest and bloodiest dictatorships in Latin America. During these 15 years, the military rulers and their police have made torture, murder and disappearance a common practice. The Chilean military regime has violated all international standards for the respect of human rights, has prohibited freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of thought. It has violated international labour agreements, ignoring the rights of unions and organisations to represent workers in their just demand for better wages and conditions. Many Chileans are persecuted or exiled for their political beliefs, and political prisoners in Chilean jails can languish for months or years before their cases are heard. No elections have been held since 1973. Recently, Australian companies Bond Corporation, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and Ansett (part-owned by Rupert Murdoch) have invested in Chile, thereby helping to prop up the dictatorship and prolong the suffering of the Chilean people. We strongly condemn these unscrupulous capitalists that are trying to reap benefits from the Chilean people's tragedy. During 15 years of dictatorship, hundreds of thousands of people have become victims of the barbarity of the Pinochet regime, the most dramatic case being that which was perpetrated on the 2nd July, 1986 against two young people-Carmen Gloria Quintana and Rodrigo Rojas Denegri. They were detained by a military patrol, doused with gasoline, set on fire and later dumped on the outskirts of Santiago, Rodrigo Rojas died four days later and Carmen Gloria was left with shocking burns to 60% of her body. In April 1988, she will be in Australia on a speaking tour, to expose very clearly through her words and experiences the modus operandi of the Pinochet military dictatorship. In light of the above, your petitioners therefore respectfully urge the House to: 1. Intervene on behalf of the hundreds of political prisoners condemned to the prisons of the dictatorship, and particularly those condemned to death for their beliefs. 2. Exert diplomatic pressure on the Chilean military regime demanding the release of all political prisoners, the return to democratic elections and the respect of human rights. 3. Publicly condemn investment by Australian companies in Chile until democratic elections are held and human rights are respected. by Mr Cross (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 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 Dr Harry Edwards (from 51 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 29 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, request that the last line in each chorus of the National Song be altered from: Advance Australia Fair to God Bless Australia Fair. And Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher (from 19 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 Government's promise of 1983 to reduce the delay to only one month. 2. To increase the Pensioner Tax Rebate to $800 and index this rebate. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Johns (from 96 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors in the Division of Griffith draw to the attention of the House the increase in noise pollution and the subsequent effect on the quality of life of residents in certain southern suburbs of Brisbane, caused by the opening of the new Brisbane domestic airport. Your petitioners therefore request the House to take steps to minimise noise levels and alter aircraft flight paths to enable a return to the lifestyle previously enjoyed by the affected residents. by Mr Jull (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the House to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent (from 631 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60, cesium 137, cesium 134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted in Australia. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Parliament ban the importation of any radioactive substances or machinery for the purposes of food irradiation, disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in this country, and ban the irradiation of food in this country, and also ban the importation of food treated by irradiation. We also call upon the parliament to advise the Federal Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerr (from 37 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60, cesium 137, cesium 134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State governments. We call on the House to ban the importation of any radioactive substances, or machinery for the purposes of food irradiation; disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in this country; ban the irradiation of food in this country; and also ban the importation of food treated by irradiation. We also call upon the House to request the Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. by Mr Kerr (from 709 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that there is an immediate need for the review of all action bus fares throughout Canberra. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House reviews and lowers all Action bus fares in Canberra to the level of thirty cents for students and pensioners and sixty cents for all adults. The Citizens below feel that the recent substantial rise in bus fares (some as much as seven dollars) has greatly disadvantaged specific groups in the community and affected all commuters unnecessarily and your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 2,843 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 Tasmania draws to the attention of the House the concern of certain citizens at the possibility that the film `The Last Temptation of Christ' will be permitted to enter Australia for screening. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House rejects the entry into Australia of the film `The Last Temptation of Christ', which has been described as blasphemous by Christians in other countries. by Mr Miles (from 94 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of certain electors of the Division of Braddon draws the attention of the House to the proposal to close the Burnie Office of the Australian Electoral Commission. We believe: 1. That the proposed closure is not in the best interests of democracy. 2. That closure will further erode jobs in regional areas of Australia. 3. That we oppose the further centralisation of government services at the expense of rural and isolated communities. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will oppose the closure. by Mr Miles (from 61 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, in 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 the 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 Millar (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of the Division of Barker points out to 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter (from 949 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 Pratt (from 193 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of concerned citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House to the fact that residents in the Rosebud area, south of Arthur' Seat on the Mornington Peninsula, are disadvantaged by the lack of television reception due to inadequate telecommunications equipment in that area. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House request the Minister for Communications to take the necessary steps to restore and improve the standard of television reception in this area as a matter of urgency. by Mr Reith (from 100 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 and the river foreshore reserves from point direction to Chine Street should be declared `A' class reserve for conservation and passive recreation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. Retain the land at Buckland Hill in Commonwealth ownership and declare it `A' class reserve. 2. Make arrangements for a draft management plan to be drawn up by a biologist for public comment And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher (from 282 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the present Invermay Post Office serves a large number of residents in the Invermay area and its closure will cause great inconvenience and hardship to many. We therefore request that the Invermay Post Office be retained in its present state. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith (from 936 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Newnham Court Newsagency Post Office be retained to service the needs of a growing community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith (from 98 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Report of the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. Your petitioners humbly request the House to consider the hardship that will be endured by citizens who have come to Australia from countries in the Middle East in any shift away from the Family Reunion Program. We are concerned that recent changes to the points test for migrant selection already discriminates against people from non-English speaking backgrounds, and makes family reunions increasingly difficult to achieve. We urge the House to maintain a commitment to non-discriminatory selection criteria for migrants, and to the concept of a multi-cultural Australia. by Mr Uren (from 436 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker, House of Representatives and Parliament assembled. `Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.' Proverbs 14:34 Considering: 1. the loss of hope among the youth of the nation. 2. the breakdown of the family unit. 3. the increase of corruption in our society. 4. the increasing weight or our national debt. 5. the emerging divisions in our community. We petition to you: 1. encourage every Australian to see his/her responsibility to live uprightly before God and others; 2. encourage commitment in marriage and encourage fathers and mothers to love and cherish their children; 3. encourage the members of Parliament to live and legislate according to Biblical principles; 4. encourage business in Australia to pursue their transactions in generosity-without greed; 5. support the Christian Church in expressing the friendship of God, and in carrying out its practical responsibilities to the poor, needy and dispossessed. by calling a National Day of Prayer for Australia, to seek God's help to heal our land. We as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Webster (from four 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 174 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. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster (from 49 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 pensions. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the House take action to ensure this decision is revoked. by Mr Webster (from 85 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set no penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X rated videos, (and ER) and end the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia connections. Because 98% of Australians in other States have banned X rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and it's 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 Webster (from 29 citizens). Petitions received. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —On behalf of Madam Speaker, I present the report of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch delegation to the Thirty-third Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, held in Kuala Lumpur in September 1987. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.13) —It is a pleasure in this enlarged chamber to have so many more people in the galleries than we used to have in the old House. Mr Barry Jones —And fewer in the House. Mr LANGMORE —I am not sure about that. I think there are about the same number in the House as there used to be. One of the real delights of this new chamber is that so many more people can participate in Parliament by being present in the galleries. The Thirty-third Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, held in Kuala Lumpur in September 1987, was a most useful conference. It was only a discussion conference, but all the subjects discussed were important. There were five plenary sessions: one on the International Year of the Homeless which was under way at that time; a second was on world trade and protectionism; a third was on another world plague, acquired immune deficiency syndrome; a fourth was on the role of television in the media in promoting respect for parliament and the understanding of parliamentary democracy; and a fifth on safeguarding human rights which I had the honour to introduce to the conference. All of those sessions were of real value. Discussion was lively and conclusions were reached. There were panel discussions on a range of other subjects of importance to both industrialised and developing countries within the Commonwealth. I congratulate the organisers of that conference, particularly the chairman of the organising committee, Dato' Sharir bin Abdul Samad, who recently gained notoriety for resigning and re-standing for election in his electorate and for being resoundingly successful and therefore influencing the state of body politic in Malaysia. I particularly draw attention to the speech in this report by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Sir Shridath Ramphal, who made an outstanding speech referring to many aspects of Commonwealth activity, particularly to the state of the global economy. He referred to the danger of a global economic decline which appeared very likely in 1987. Since he made that speech there has been a rapid decline in some of the developing parts of the Commonwealth, despite the recovery in much of the industrialised countries of the West. I would like to dwell on that for a moment. Within Australia the extent of the decline in developing countries is not well understood. The 1980s have been a lost decade for development, but during the 1980s the Third World has experienced a depression more severe than even the Great Depression in the industrialised countries in the 1930s. Living standards have fallen by about 15 per cent in many parts of south Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Western countries were the principal cause of that depression. The contradictory monetarist policies, introduced at the end of the 1970s by conservative Western governments, depressed demand, reduced their commodity imports and commodity prices, and sharply increased interest rates. Developing countries, which had for the previous five years been deluged with recycled petrodollars, suddenly found themselves squeezed from every direction. Exports collapsed, interest payments multiplied and after August 1982 new lending stopped. Total resources, including aid, lending and trade credits to developing countries, fell from $US120 billion in 1980 to $US68 billion in 1986-nearly a halving in the total resource flows to developing countries over those six years. Net resource flows are now negative. The developing countries pay almost $35 billion a year to Western countries more than they receive. To cope, developing countries have been forced to impose austere domestic economic policies and to borrow from the International Monetary Fund, which imposes harsh conditionalities. The consequences have been economic decline, rising unemployment, escalating inflation and growing poverty. Not only have incomes fallen, but also services have deteriorated. In some places, both in the Commonwealth and outside, such as Brazil, where a decade ago there were primary schools and medical centres, no education or health care is now available. In such places people have lost hope. They no longer believe that their struggle for survival will make life for their children any better than it has been for them. The situation now is that 950 million people are estimated by the World Bank to be living in absolute poverty. By `absolute poverty' the World Bank means a condition of life so degraded by disease, illiteracy, malnutrition and squalor as to deny its victims basic human necessities. Absolute poverty was common before the depression of the 1980s but has become more widespread during the decade. About 350 million of those impoverished people live in south Asia, within our own region, another 280 million in the largely rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa, and about 80 million in Latin America. Many Australians, often those who have travelled to east Asian countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea, are impressed by the growth there, forgetting that elsewhere terrible poverty has been increasing, largely because of the policies of our allies, the United States, Japan and Western Europe. There is much that Australia can do about those terrible problems. Many of those alternative policies were discussed at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. They include increasing aid, reorienting our international financial policies and improving trading opportunities for the developing countries. Now is not the moment to go into those in detail. But I draw the attention of the House to the importance of Sir Shridath Ramphal's speech. He made another excellent speech at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference here in Canberra about three weeks ago. The problems he drew attention to are enormous. They require our closest attention. I hope that the House will give them attention. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.19) —As a delegate to the Thirty-third Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, held in Kuala Lumpur in September last year, I join my colleague the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) in congratulating the Malaysian branch for the excellent organisation of the conference and thanking it for the hospitality extended to our delegation. The pre-conference tours organised by the host country enabled the delegates to learn something about Malaysia and the friendliness and diversity of its people. They also enabled us to mix informally with our Malayan colleagues and members of parliament from regional legislatures. Further, I wish to thank our High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur, Gavan Hogue, and his staff who gave us every assistance during the conference. It is the first CPA conference that I have attended and I observed the easy and friendly tone of the meeting. While there was some criticism of the richer nations in the Commonwealth, the tone remained cordial. I took part in the debate concerning tariffs, world trade and the international debt situation, and of course I cannot but agree with the sentiments expressed by many Third World delegates that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are tools for the exploitation of the Third World by the developed industrialised countries. My colleague the honourable member for Fraser drew attention to the situation that exists today in the Third World countries so I shall not deal with that aspect of the conference. In hindsight, I am also very conscious of the expression of Malaysia's enthusiasm for parliamentary democracy by the CPA President, Dato Sharir, in his speech and I remember Dr Mahathir, the Malaysian Prime Minister, complaining in his address about the `carping criticism for being not democratic enough' directed by the rich countries toward's the poor, as though he was foreshadowing events which makes the above criticism very valid in the case of Mahathir's regime. Soon after the conference, on 28 October 1987, the Government of Dr Mahathir swooped on its opponents, rounding up and gaoling 90 persons under section 73 of the Internal Security Act. Those arrested were Government critics, social activists and conservationists who were involved in exposing poverty, governmental corruption and environmental vandalism. They included members of parliament from both the Government and opposition parties who had dared to criticise the Government, including the leader of the Opposition Democratic Action Party, Mr Lim Kit Siang, and his son, Mr Lim Guang Eng. Also arrested was the Democratic Action Party member of parliament and barrister, Mr Karpal Singh-a man known to Australians through his defence of Barlow and Chambers in their trial on drug charges. Dr Chandra Muzaffar, leader of the respected public interest group Aliran, and numerous other academics, trade union leaders, consumer rights activists and antinuclear and native rights lobbyists were also arrested. These arrests took place late at night, when Special Branch police swooped on these people's houses and dragged them from their beds. Many of the detainees have had to suffer appalling treatment in prison, including torture. The Malaysian Government has closed down three opposition newspapers-the Star, Sin Chew Jit Poh and Watan. The laws under which these arrests and newspaper closures have been made are an affront to democratic nations and have the aim of silencing the Opposition. Mahathir's action cannot be described as `not democratic enough' but as outright despotism and it is time that the Commonwealth nations, including Australia, condemned it in the strongest terms. Wherever human rights are violated we all have a duty to speak up and condemn the oppressors. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.24) —I welcome the opportunity to participate briefly in this discussion of the report of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch delegation to the Thirty-third Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, Kuala Lumpur, and to make some comments on behalf of the Opposition members of the delegation, that is, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and myself. I am sure the honourable member for Franklin would want to participate as well but, as members of the Parliament will know, he is currently suffering from laryngitis and unable to do so. I appreciated the role of the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) in leading the delegation. Clearly he had gone to some trouble to be well briefed and to participate in the debates. I felt that other members of the delegation would have had a more useful role to play had we too been as diligent as the honourable member for Fraser in our briefing. I have to say that I felt that in many ways our delegation was somewhat overshadowed by the United Kingdom delegation in the briefing its members had clearly been prepared to submit themselves to prior to participating in the conference. This was the first experience I had had of a CPA conference and I was very anxious to see just how the CPA functioned, particularly in view of the present involvement of its Secretary-General, Mr David Tonkin, who was formerly Premier of my home State, South Australia. As one who arrived just a shade cynical about the whole role of CPA conferences and as one who wondered whether conferences like this were little more than a parliamentary junket, I was converted from that cynical viewpoint to an appreciation of the purpose of the organisation and in fact to a sense of justification of what the CPA is about. Anyone who has participated in CPA conferences and seen the way in which diverse nations from around the Commonwealth come together, and particularly the way in which the CPA gives an opportunity for the black African nations to involve themselves as Commonwealth nations with other Commonwealth nations, will appreciate, as I did, the important role of the CPA in building bridges across what are cultural gaps. As a member of the delegation I was grateful to the CPA for its agenda and grateful to the Malaysian Government for its hospitality, for the way in which it made every one of us feel welcome, and for the way in which the conference was conducted so that all participants could feel they had made a real contribution to building a bridge between neighbours. In my concluding remarks I want once again to thank the honourable member for Fraser for his role in leading the delegation and for his participation. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.27) —I 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. On 19 August 1987 I wrote to Senator Richardson, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, and I would like to read from that letter: Dear Graham, I am writing to draw your attention to what I believe is an extremely serious environmental problem which will not be addressed unless funding for research is provided. . . . The catastrophic effects of any small change in temperature or decrease in the ozone layer could cause huge losses in primary industries and the coastal environment, i.e. flooding, change in climate, increase of up to one metre in sea levels around Australia, and if the ozone layer drops by 1%, an estimated increase of over 40,000 skin cancers in the US alone. These effects will not be felt by us but our children will suffer these problems. To cut research into this vital area of our very existence would be gross neglect of the future. It is a problem that may be rectified by modification of our present methods of releasing pollutants into the atmosphere, but that modification will come about only by research and education. Could you use your best endeavours to convince those who oppose spending on research of the importance of this matter. That was a letter I wrote over a year ago. On 19 September 1987 I asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, a question in relation to the greenhouse effect. The Minister said: Potentially, the greatest environmental disaster of all time. He was referring to the greenhouse effect. Then on 2 October 1987 I asked another question on chlorofluorocarbons. On 8 October 1987 in the debate on the Appropriation Bills I made a speech on chlorofluorocarbons. What I was trying to do over a year ago was to raise the profile of this issue. I am glad to say that scientists and many other people throughout the world have also raised it to such a height that people are starting to look at it and take a little notice of it. Last night some retired people who joined me for dinner talked about what could occur because of the greenhouse effect. I would like to quote from some newspaper cuttings which relate to weather effects in the last 12 months. We do not know whether they result from the greenhouse effect or whether they merely provide anecdotal evidence of various things which could lead up to it. I quote from the newspaper cuttings: Bangladesh is reaping a bitter monsoon of harvest. . . . two-thirds of the rice harvest has been lost, 21 million people are homeless, 1200 are dead, 30,000 in the capital of Dhaka are suffering from water-borne diseases and the repair bill for road and rail infrastructure will be at least $A200 million. Bangladesh is battling to save millions of people facing starvation and disease in the wake of floods that have claimed more than 500 lives. . . . . . . . . . 10 killed as fierce storm lashes NSW. Ten people were killed and many families fled their homes during 24 hours of fierce rain and winds in Sydney. The strong winds and heavy rain throughout most of Tuesday developed into a wild storm yesterday morning in which the roof of a Manly unit block was ripped off. Many families had lucky escapes. . . . . . . . . . . . Bangladesh-A Country Under Water. `I don't know why God should punish us like this,' sighed the weary President of Bangladesh, Hussain Mohammed Ershad, as he looked out a helicopter window at the devastation below. . . . three-quarters of Bangladesh-a country the size of Wisconsin crowded with 110 million people-lay under water after it and neighbouring India, Bhutan and Nepal were pelted by what may have been the heaviest monsoon rains in 70 years. This year's flood's follow a devastating inundation in 1987 and worse may be in store. . . . . . . . . . Sudan-Drowning in a River of Woe. For centuries the Nile has brought life to Sudan's impoverished inhabitants. But torrential thunderstorms this summer have turned the river into a killer. More than 8 inches of rain-twice the average for an entire year-fell on Sudan in 13 hours last month. The combination sent the river raging over its banks, killing nearly 100 people and leaving 1.5 million homeless. . . . . . . . . . Alarm at Indian's snow melt plan. Water management authorities in India have tried to melt the Himalayan snows by blackening them with charcoal after a third year of disastrous drought and late monsoons. . . . . . . . . . Floods kill more than 300. New Delhi, Wednesday: Fresh floods devastated many areas in northern India this week, killing more than 300 people and destroying crops and property. . . . nearly 300,000 people have been affected by the floods. . . . . . . . . . Big death toll predicted as US heat wave drags on. A heat wave has continued to fry the American Midwest with enervating 38-degree temperatures that one environmental expert said might claim thousands of victims by the end of summer. . . . . . . . . . Late last July, Victoria and Tasmania experienced 24 hours of gales, blizzards and driving rain which caused some flooding, damage to houses and widespread loss of electricity. Tullamarine airport recorded a wind gust of 92 km/h . . . In Bass Strait, the Abel Tasman faced 10m waves and was forced to `tread' water for an hour in gusts exceeding 128 km/h. . . . . . . . . . Flood-stricken Sudan threatened by locusts. . . . . . . . . . Fierce storm hits Canberra. A fierce storm ripped through Canberra last night, lifting roofs from two public buildings, uprooting trees and blowing yachts off their moorings on Lake Burley Griffin. . . . . . . . . . Stock, crop losses in big floods. Farmers around Horsham were last night bracing themselves for the biggest floods of the Wimmera River in more than 65 years. . . . . . . . . . New Yorkers lose their cool in longest, hottest summer. When the Empire State Building caught fire yesterday for the second time in a week, no one was surprised. Everyone in New York knows the world is coming to an end. A sense of impending doom has seeped into the souls of New Yorkers over the past month as the city has suffered the most relentlessly torrid summer in its history. . . . . . . . . . US back to dust bowl . . . . . . . . . The rising risk of superfloods . . . . . . . . . If the Warragamba Dam failed, the floodwaters of the Nepean River would destroy 20,000 houses that lie immediately beneath the dam . . . . . . . . . . . . Rising oceans will force islanders to flee As many as 300,000 people living on South Pacific and Indian Ocean islands may be forced to abandon their homes and seek refuge in countries such as Australia because of rising sea levels . . . . . . . . . . . . Boffins baffled as ocean warms up Something is pumping huge amounts of heat into the Indian Ocean. Scientists are baffled by the warm-up which is bringing southern Western Australia its wettest winter for years. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) has just passed me a note saying that he was in Boston in August when Harvard University was closed down for the first time in 352 years because of heat and pollution. These are some of the things that are happening. The same signs can be seen globally. Floods affected 5.2 million people in a year in the 1960s and 15.4 million people were affected in 1984. This year's count is still on. These are some of the things that are happening to our weather. Are they pointers to the greenhouse effect? I do not know. I am no scientist. I have no idea. But I do know that we are not spending enough money on research into this effect. The Government, the people, are not putting in enough money to find out what will happen in the future. Some of the little things which could happen are very important. For example, global warming could wipe out wildlife. I can hear everyone cry, `How could this happen?' At the moment small pockets of areas are set aside for endangered animals. If the climate changes in those areas and the types of plants that grow in them cannot grow there any more, those animals would have to shift out of that particular park. However, the face of Australia has shifted and changed. We do not have corridors for those animals to move, say, further north. There are houses, farms and roads, so those animals are locked into small areas. We could lose many, many species just because of the greenhouse effect. These simple little effects have not been looked at. What would happen if the sea rose a metre or so? How would it affect all our seashore? We do not know. One of the things we do know is that we are putting a lot of carbon and various gases into the air. It is not only the chemical companies and the petrol companies that are doing it; it is all of us. We use up air. We create carbon dioxide when we use our cars. The average car puts four times its own weight in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. A car that weighs a ton puts four tons of gases into the air. I do not know how much gas weighs in terms of volume. It is not very much, so four tons is a lot of gas. There is probably a ton of gas in this whole chamber. I do not know how much it would weigh. Perhaps the Minister could give me a more accurate idea. But it is not very much. Our cars, us, we are all contributing. We are all doing our bit to actually create the greenhouse effect. The amount of carbon dioxide released globally from coal, oil and gas burning is more than 200 billion tons annually. That is a huge amount of gas that is going into the atmosphere. What are we doing about it? We are just letting it happen. A table that was produced in 1980 gives approximate carbon emissions per person. In the United States the average emission of carbon per person per year is 5.7 tons. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, it is 3.4 tons; in Germany, 3.3 tons; in the United Kingdom, 2.9 tons; in Australia, about 2.7 tons. As to the developing countries, in Bolivia, it is 0.2 tons; in Venezuela it is 1.5 tons, and so on. These are the types of figures that are starting to come out and people are starting to look at them. We must reduce the amount of gases going into the atmosphere, and not just by 10 per cent or 15 per cent. Dr Pearman, who is a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientist, said that a 20 per cent reduction would not solve the problem, nor would a 50 per cent reduction. He went on to say: In the longer term, emissions must be cut by 75 to 80 per cent of their present levels merely to stabilise carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal, so I can assure honourable members that we are doing our bit to help pollute the world. The science writer for the Age newspaper, Graeme O'Neill, summed it up very well when he said: We are locked into a runaway experiment in remodelling our planet's climate, set in motion by our industrious grandfathers and given powerful impetus by the energy-hungry generations of the present century. Our grandchildren will live with its consequences. How can we, as individuals, do our little bit? Individuals can do a great deal. First of all, they can write to their local member of parliament and harangue him or her to look at the situation. They can send in petitions. A good one was handed in on 30 August headed `Kids against CFC'. It says: We, the children and Friends of St Francis Xavier school, Montmorency-would like all production and use of CFC to cease in Australia. Help us protect the Ozone layer. Those are the simple things that can be done and everyone can do them. We can change our lifestyle, use less energy, drive our cars less, use smaller engined motor cars, stop using CFCs and plant more trees, which is most important. The levy which I propose in this motion means that we would all be taxed, even if only a couple of dollars once a year. If 15 million people in Australia were taxed $2 each just for research into looking after our future, it would create a fund of about $30m. That would enable everyone to help solve this problem. There are many things I would like to say but, finally, it is important that we get our researchers to estimate the regional climatic changes in Australia. I wonder whether the scientific scrooges who control the money for research will heed a warning given by Sir Macfarlane Burnet, who said: We must plan for five years ahead and 20 years and 100 years. But because there are no votes in these projects 20 years into the future, let alone 100 years, I doubt whether we will see any money. All Australians must make certain that money for research is obtained and that it goes to all areas to find out exactly what is going on so that we and our children can live in a safe and pleasant place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is the motion seconded? Mr DUBOIS(St George)(10.43) —I second the motion and am pleased to support it in the House today. There has been much publicity recently about the greenhouse effect, but like all disasters, accidents and bad luck we think that it will affect others and not ourselves. We all live on this fragile planet so we will all be affected. It is a problem that can be traced to the developed nations and, as usual, it will be the people of the developing nations who will be its first victims. The greenhouse effect is a widely accepted theory that the earth's temperature will continue to rise and thus raise the sea level and produce other climatic changes. It is an effect of the increase in carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, commonly known as CFCs, and other trace gases in the atmosphere which form a blanket, or greenhouse, around the earth. This allows the sun's rays to penetrate but does not allow its heat to escape as easily. The result is global warming and, if the present trend continues, even with an increase of only a few degrees before next century this earth will face very serious problems. The earth's average temperature has rarely varied by more than one or two degrees over the past 10,000 years. If we-that is, the entire earth's population-take no action we can expect an increase in global mean temperatures of between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. A global heating of even 2.5 degrees Celsius would thus exceed any climatic changes that have occurred in the historical past, bearing in mind that the earth's average temperature during the most recent ice age was only about 5 degrees colder than it is now. This temperature rise is not expected to be sufficient to melt the ice cover of the Antarctic and the Arctic regions. However, the thermal expansion of the oceans would produce an estimated rise in sea levels between 200 millimetres and 1,400 millimetres, that is, between about eight inches and four feet eight inches. This would cause major problems for the third of the world's population which lives within 60 kilometres of a coastline. A great number of people may have to leave low-lying areas. Large areas of Bangladesh may disappear. The Maldives and Kirabati may become submerged. The developed nations are the culprits when it comes to the causes of this phenomenon. Human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels, coal, oil and gases which result in the discharge of waste carbon dioxide is a major contributing factor to this problem. Other trace gases which produce this greenhouse effect are methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, and ozone which are a natural constituent of the atmosphere. Because these trace gases are present in the atmosphere in only small amounts they will not produce as large a global warming effect as carbon dioxide. The reason we should all be concerned is that, 40 or 50 years hence, the combined effect of those other trace gases is likely to equal that of carbon dioxide alone, thus doubling the warming effect which will be caused by carbon dioxide. These higher temperatures will increase in the tropics but sub-tropical regions might become drier. Increased evaporation rates would lead to drier soils and the implications for Australia are devastating. The Kakadu National Park could well become a swamp and the drier parts of Australia could become a desert. One thing is certain: we need to carry out more scientific research into its effects. I was pleased to hear the Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Mr Neville Wran, state that the CSIRO would not cut back its research in this field. We must research Southern Hemisphere changes that would affect Australia. We also need a greater commitment from the private sector to play its part in research and developing coping strategies. Action to reduce emissions from these gases has barely begun. Australia has signed the Montreal protocol. The protocol is a minimum position only and we will go beyond that. I understand that legislation will be introduced to control the ozone depleting substances. Australia has participated in international scientific conferences. We have agreed to pool our research effort with New Zealand. We have organised conferences in Australia to increase public awareness of the greenhouse issue. I commend the Australian aerosol industry plan to reduce the use of that man-made substance, CFC, at a rate faster than that called for by the Montreal protocol. We must ensure that the production of CFCs is not transferred from developed countries like Australia to developing countries in the Third World. We must remember that this is a global problem and that there would be no benefit if the emission of CFCs was just transferred from one corner of the globe to another. We must reduce its production and ban its export if we want to reduce overall consumption and, thus, emission. There is little prospect of reducing methane release which is closely linked with agriculture, animal husbandry and mining. We can however take steps to reduce the level of carbon dioxide emissions. We need to develop energy policies that emphasise conservation and the use of fuels with the least greenhouse effect. Natural gas is better than coal; solar and wind energy are better again. Perhaps electricity produced by nuclear power plants is preferable to fossil fuel burning plants. We certainly must make a firm commitment to study these serious environmental threats posed by the greenhouse effect. All Australians should be aware of the effects on each and every one of us. I mentioned earlier the climatic changes. There is also the likelihood of an increase in skin cancer resulting from the increased level of rays coming through the depleted ozone layer. In a country with an already very high incidence of skin cancer this presents a very serious challenge indeed. Perhaps we should start glamourising covered bodies instead of exposed ones. But research costs money and a greater commitment in our existence must be made not only from governments but also from the non-government sector. An obvious source of additional funds is to levy the pollution, the polluters and the pollutants-the abuser pays principle. The Government can set standards and legislate but that must have the support of the community. It is only with the support of that community that these measures can succeed. We must all understand the alternative. Make no mistake, this is one of the most serious challenges we face. We can meet it. We have to change. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.50) —It has been made patently obvious by the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) and the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois), but it needs to be repeated, that today we are discussing what has become known as the greenhouse effect. I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for bringing this matter to the attention of the Parliament again. It is a very important topic and even a critical environmental policy challenge that we all need to look at very carefully. The honourable member for St George has mentioned things that I will be mentioning, as has the honourable member for Dunkley, and I am sure that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) also will be mentioning similar matters in the discussion this morning. `The greenhouse effect' is the name given to scientific scenarios which have been developed on the basis of certain environmental and climatic trends which have been emerging since the early 1980s, and I think there were some suspicions of them even before then. It is a shorthand way of describing the warming of the earth's atmosphere as a result of the steady increase in the level of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other gases such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). To put it simply, these gases are trapping more and more heat from the sun within the earth's atmosphere. They are acting as a sort of insulation and, very simply, that is the reason why we have this great concern about the warming of the surface of the earth, even by just a few degrees as I will mention in a moment. Early studies by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)-which is very much to the fore in this matter, as far as we in Australia are concerned anyway-of the possible impact on Australia of these trends by the year 2030 have suggested, and I will briefly go through these: a temperature rise of up to three degrees; a 50 per cent increase in rainfall in summer and a 20 per cent decrease in winter; large regional changes in soil moisture and water supplies and, therefore, agricultural capacity; tropical cyclones occurring further south and more frequently; a rising sea level; a receding snowline; and extremes of flood and drought. I want to offer seven basic premises which I believe should guide parliamentary and community discussions on the greenhouse effect. Firstly, we are dealing at the moment with early research and hypotheses and fairly primitive models. Not all scientists support the theory that we now call `the greenhouse effect'. I refer honourable members, for example, to the position and arguments of Dr Edward Bryant from the Wollongong University Geography Department. Nevertheless, while not conclusive, the greenhouse effect hypothesis is consistent with the evidence available and appears to reflect the majority view among scientists with expertise in this area. The prudent course of action, naturally, then is for the community, government and the international community to assume that the model or hypothesis is accurate and to take appropriate political and economic action. Secondly, there will be both regional winners and losers as weather patterns, and rainfall in particular, shift. Just as some areas of agricultural production will suffer, other areas will gain from new rainfall and temperature levels. Recently, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory painted a very vivid picture of how the Territory could benefit from the forecast changes. Thirdly, the environmental problems which confront us in this greenhouse effect are part of a complex, interdependent environmental challenge facing this country and the whole international community. The gases, including chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs-better known for their role in that other potentially disastrous problem, ozone depletion-also contribute to the greenhouse effect, and so does the problem of deforestation and the loss of rainforests in particular. Of course, the degradation of grasslands that is occurring to some extent in this country and certainly in other parts of the world is also contributing to this problem. People do not realise that grass probably plays a more significant part in the conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen than do the forests of the world. So, a realistic response to the greenhouse effect will involve a wholistic approach to environmental policy and societal readjustment. Fourthly, this environmental problem does not involve polluting companies creating problems for non-polluting citizens. It is not a matter of just regulating and sanctioning companies. We are all polluting culprits when it comes to the greenhouse effect. For example, whenever we use our cars rather than take public transport, or whenever we turn on lights or electrical appliances and leave them on unnecessarily we boost the level of fossil fuel pollution. All these things might sound minor on their own but, collectively, they contribute significantly to this problem. The problem is one of the standard of living in industrially developed nations. The key to political action, therefore, is to make all citizens realise their personal responsibility in the task of tackling environmental degradation. Here I make the point to my honourable colleagues that, unless individual citizens are caught up in the endeavour to change lifestyle and energy consumption, the problem will end up being dealt with by a reliance on non-fossil fuels, such as nuclear fuel, with all the environmental problems that that will pose. Fifthly, policy steps should be taken to tackle major producers of pollutants or problem gases such as CFCs. The response should not be taxes but requirements for companies to use the most efficient and clean technology available. Sixthly, such solutions will not be cheap and, realistically, the cost will have to be borne by all of us. If the public sector electricity producers have to use more expensive but cleaner equipment, taxes or charges will go up. If the private sector has to do the same, the costs will be passed on. That is as it should be, because one of the ways to bring the message home to the average appliance user or energy consumer is to make the price or charge reflect the real cost-the production costs, safeguard costs and the clean-up costs-of their lifestyles. Seventhly, the fundamental challenge we face is not environmental but political and educational. In the long term we will have to deal with new geopolitical realities, whether they be the decline of once productive regions, the need for population and infrastructure shifts, for example, from coast to centre, or the need to resettle whole Pacific island populations. I mention at this point the very real possibility that the populations of, for example, Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Maldives could find themselves facing sinking islands. Australia, as a Pacific neighbour, would then face an obligation to deal with a unique refugee problem. There would be political and educational problems, too, because the real task for us is to get the message through about what the challenge is and about the significant economic and lifestyle changes required corporately and individually. On the basis of those seven points, I support the motion. As the motion states, first we must recognise the problem and, secondly, we must urgently fund and maintain research into the greenhouse effect. I note here that the Government's cuts to CSIRO funding are totally counterproductive in this respect. Environmental and atmospheric research and staffing have been seriously affected by cuts to funding this year and in previous years. So, I support the call of the motion for more research support and I note that, in effect, it is an indirect criticism of the Government's shortsightedness in this area of environmental preventative action. Mr SMITH(Bass)(11.00) —Firstly, I congratulate the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) for his thoughtful summary of the problems of the greenhouse effect. One of his points was that there needed to be a greater emphasis on education both at the community level and at the political level. How true! Not many people are in the chamber today to hear a debate about the fundamental, the most important environmental problem of our world; not just of Australia, not just of Canberra, but of our world. I compliment the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table-I know he must be frustrated that he cannot participate in the debate about science this morning-for he is one who at least recognises the difficulties that we face with this problem. Education of political people on both sides of the chamber is very much lacking. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) needs to be commended for having brought this motion to the House. Much information is available on the greenhouse effect. It has been discussed on television programs and in the media. People now have a reasonable understanding of the extent of the problem. The difficulty for us in this chamber is in deciding what we, as the legislature, the people who are elected by the people of Australia to deal with problems, are going to do about it. These are the types of issues facing legislatures around the world. It is particularly vexing to note, as one of my colleagues mentioned, the result when a senior Minister in this Government went to Cabinet to ask for funds to do greater research into the greenhouse effect. What was the result? I have the newspaper cutting here, the headline of which reads `Greenhouse, research cash bid fails'. One million dollars was all that Senator Richardson asked for to try to coordinate our response to greenhouse research. The answer from Cabinet was no. If this community needs a demonstration of the lack of care and lack of vision about where we are going with this problem-and with many problems in the science area-that answer is indicative. It is a disgrace. I hope that very soon we will see it remedied. There is a growing wealth of opinion that clearly indicates that unless we start doing something about it we will be the losers. The bible on greenhouse and its associated problems and effects has been prepared by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the very body that has been attacked with funding cuts. It is an excellent book edited by Graham Pearman of the Division of Atmospherics in Melbourne which is headed by Dr Tucker. I know that those who have looked at this book-and I can see the Minister nodding his head-will know that it is a masterpiece. It has absolutely everything in it that people need to know about the greenhouse effect. If those listening to this debate take the opportunity to look at this book I am sure they will find it well worth while in trying to understand the policy dilemmas that we Australian legislators face in trying to determine in which direction we should go. Dr Pittock of the CSIRO stated recently: We're putting into the atmosphere far more than the natural systems which used to cleanse the atmosphere can cope with so that, for example, we're putting in roughly twice as much carbon dioxide as the oceans can remove every year. This must stop or the effect on our lifestyle and our future may well be catastrophic. The clock has struck, the warning has been delivered, and what are we going to do about it? In November last year I visited an interesting place in Australia, which I know the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business has visited, called Cape Grim in Tasmania's far north-west. At Cape Grim we have the foremost baseline air pollution monitoring station in the world. Because of the air that is flowing across the Indian Ocean and the readings taken from that station we have a fair indication of what chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the freons 11 and 12, are doing to the atmosphere. It is interesting to look at those readings. The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rose from 330 parts per million in 1976 to 347 parts per million in 1987 compared with pre-industrial levels estimated at 280 parts per million. The station predicts that by the year 2020 the concentration will be 400 parts per million. That indicates that there is a rapid increase in the level of carbon dioxide. We also know that the chlorofluorocarbons-the man made gases discovered by General-Motors in 1928 and which we now know deplete ozone and contribute to the greenhouse gases effect-are helping to deplete the ozone layer. There has been a build-up of those chemicals from 250 parts per million in 1978 to 425 parts per million in 1987, and it is growing. Those figures are very worrying. The trend is there. The results have been indicated by several of my colleagues. For Australia there will be a rise in the snowline. What happens to the ski tube to Mount Kosciusko? By the year 2020 will it be a train ride to nowhere? What about rainfall levels? They will be varied right around the nation. What about the rise in sea levels? It was indicated by the honourable member for Dunkley, I think, that the rise in sea levels would affect many of the Pacific islands. Has anyone given a thought to Brisbane Airport? Brisbane Airport in the year 2020, that $700m monolith, may well be knee deep in water. Has anyone given any thought to that? How many members of this House saw the article in the property pages of the Australian about the insurance industry's concern about the new building at Circular Quay in Sydney? The builders did not take into account the effects of rising sea levels in the year 2020 or before. Is it able to be insured? I ask honourable members to go to the book as it will tell them some of the problems we face. What are we doing in this Parliament? This is the first debate we have had of any substance about the ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect. This Government has turned its back on providing a minimal amount of funding to coordinate it. It has turned its back on the CSIRO. It has turned its back on the Atmospherics Division of the CSIRO in such a way that major and important work is not being carried out; work that needs to be carried out to indicate where we will go in the future and what policy responses may be available to us. It is quite clear that there is major concern about this problem. As I mentioned earlier, other legislatures are trying to cope with it. In the United States, Senator Wirth, a Democrat from Colorado who is on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced into the United States Congress a Bill to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide, which is the main cause of the greenhouse effect, by 20 per cent by the year 2000. That is one response. There has been a response proposed in this motion that I think is worthy of investigation, although at the end of the day I wonder whether that is the best way to go. Who will pay the levy? The producers, the manufacturers, the users? What about the importers? How do we apportion the levy? Why should Tasmania, which relies largely on hydroelectricity and which has banned some CFCs, pay as much as Victoria, the brown coal capital of Australia. Interestingly, the Tasmanian Parliament has taken an innovative step-the first in the world-and introduced a Bill called the Chlorofluorocarbon and other Ozone Depleting Substances Control Bill 1988 to limit the amount of CFCs going into the atmosphere. One might criticise it, but at the end of the day we have to recognise that at least one legislature has seen the wisdom in pursuing legislative responses to these problems. That is what we have to do. When is the Montreal Convention coming to this Parliament? It has been signed by the American Congress. It is supposed to come here to be ratified. Mr Barry Jones —It is not ratified by the Parliament. Mr SMITH —I understand that there is supposed to be legislation attached to it. Mr Chynoweth —We have signed it. Mr SMITH —We have signed it but we have not ratified it here by way of a unanimous motion, as has the United States Congress. Why cannot we do that? Mr Barry Jones —Because our treaties-- Mr SMITH-The Minister can explain, but it has not come here. There has been no legislation such as the Tasmanian legislation. It is about time that the Government took a far more positive step. It was only in March this year that we received more research that indicated that the ozone depletion in the northern hemisphere is taking place as it has done over Antarctica. There are alternatives to the use of chlorofluorocarbons and those honourable members in the chamber will see this gadget I have here. It works. It is not to kill the moths; it is air freshener. It is an Australian Life product called Mistlon and it is powered by a pump and not by hydrocarbons. That is the type of dispenser that we need to find in our supermarkets. The use of hydrocarbons as propellants in dispensers do not have to be relied on. The producer of this one apparently ran into some difficulty. This was sent to us by a community minded citizen called John Payne in Victoria for which we thank him. It highlights the problems we are facing. These are the alternatives we need to be pursuing. It is one of the policy options that we as a legislature can try to put into place by introducing legislation to bring about less use of and less reliance on hydrocarbons, CFCs, to provide the propellants for dispensers. In conclusion, I reiterate the importance of dealing with these issues in this chamber. Unless we do soon, we Australians will be left behind and the rest of the world will be in front. We will end up contributing mightily towards the depletion of ozone and the enhancement of greenhouse gases. All the options that are available to us-cleaner energy sources, such as nuclear-need to be considered seriously now. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(11.10) —I support the motion. I congratulate the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) on bringing this matter before the House. It is probably of second-most importance in terms of world concern, the first being pollution caused by the nuclear industry. In trying to tackle the problems of pollution and the greenhouse effect, we must not tolerate the simplistic argument that we should increase the nuclear industry as a solution. Unfortunately, some Opposition speakers failed to address the second half of the motion. It is one thing to be critical of the amount of funds the Government puts into research, but the heart of the second part of the motion is that we should be looking at ways of making the polluters pay for the research that is required and the solutions that are necessary to overcome the impact they have had on the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect in general. I have recently returned from a parliamentary delegation to the European parliamentary institutions. One of the things that stuck in my mind was the tremendous pollution problem that exists in Europe and the lack of action by different parliamentary groups to overcome it. I was most disappointed to find out, for instance, that the European commissioners have recently bowed to pressure from industry to the extent that they have not implemented the Montreal protocol in relation to chlorofluorocarbons-although they have an extended program to reduce CFCs-simply because European industry has argued that it could not meet the time frame. When one goes to Europe one sees the enormous problems caused by car pollution. In Italy, for instance, motor vehicles with an engine capacity of 50cc or less are not registered. There is a proliferation of cars that have no emission controls and run on leaded petrol, a problem which the Italian Government, and other governments in Europe which have the same problem, have yet to tackle properly. The reason that the Italian Government does not require these vehicles to be registered and has not required the fitting of pollution controls is that it is worried that this local industry will go out of business. That is a very short-sighted policy. Tremendous damage is being done by pollution to the marvellous historic buildings of Europe. Acid rain is depleting the Black Forest. Venice, which is famous for its canals, faces the enormous problem of rising seawater. The Italian Government is failing to tackle it. However, it is trying to solve the problem of pollution of historic sites. We visited the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation establishment in Brussels and were informed that its research department has been carrying out extensive work on developing films which can cover glass-to protect, for instance, stained glass windows. Yet it is not doing any research into overcoming the causes of the problem. Rather, it is saying, `We can live with the pollution if we can cover the buildings and prevent them from being damaged'. The effort being made in Europe is being misdirected. Because industry in Europe is a major polluter, it is depleting the ozone layer. We are the ones who are suffering to the greatest extent from the initial depletion of the ozone layer. We are suffering at first hand what the Europeans have yet to suffer themselves. We are more conscious of the problems because a hole is appearing in the ozone layer here. We are aware of the resultant health problems such as rising rates of skin cancer. In Europe the population and, in particular, the politicians have failed to recognise the seriousness of the problem. They are still allowing industry to create enormous pollution without properly tackling it. The motion should be applauded. We should be looking at ways of making those companies manufacturing the atmospheric pollutants pay for the research and the necessary solutions. It is one thing to argue that governments should be putting money into research. I think we should, and we are doing so. It is another thing to say that industry can be reckless about what it is doing, that it can continue to pollute the atmosphere, and not have to bear any responsibility for the solutions; that the taxpayers and others have to bear the responsibility for curing the problems that are caused by industry. There are alternatives to the use of gases such as CFCs, but the industry has been slow in coming to the fore. It has been mainly people outside the industry who have recommended alternatives. Industries think it is easy to keep using pollutants. They believe that they should still be able to profit from the marketing of those gases and not have to bear any of the cost of overcoming the problems. As I said, I thoroughly support the motion. I hope that the Government will take the initiative and impose levies on companies that continue to use pollutants, knowing that they are pollutants, and use that revenue for the purposes of research to help us overcome the problems that are being caused by the greenhouse effect. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(11.17) —I congratulate the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) for bringing this important motion before the House. Human activity over the last century or more has brought about massive changes on a global scale. Natural systems, including the atmosphere, land and sea, and even life on earth, are clearly being changed. For some 100 years we have known that carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere can cause a global warming. This greenhouse effect has become a matter for discussion and growing concern during the last two decades. Important questions include whether the predicted effects are occurring and, if so, whether they can be controlled or reversed. As the effects on earth are potentially dramatic, research must be undertaken immediately to determine the extent and ramifications of any changes. We understand that some of the changes may result in massive rises in sea-levels, changes in the distribution and the intensity of storms, changes in rainfall patterns and growth rates and changes in the distribution of plants. Any understanding of the possible effects and problems will require considerable primary research into the earth's climate. We need a database and accurate models to be developed so that the magnitude of the changes we are observing can be determined. We have to understand the vast differences between climates and the weather. There are many causes of climatic change other than the impact of the human on the environment. There is considerable evidence that solar output varies in a number of cyclical ways. Changes in the earth's orbit around the sun are able to affect the climate over time periods of 1,000 years or more. These effects, whilst generally local, may have up to a 10 per cent variation. Volcanic eruptions inject considerable amounts of aerosols such as dust and sulphur compounds into the atmosphere, which can affect global climate. The composition of the atmosphere itself has a considerable effect on climate, and many gases are active and absorb and irradiate both short and long wave lengths. The most important gases we are discussing are ozone, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), as well as water. Some are mainly internal to the natural system, as is water, while others, for example, CFCs, are man-made in origin and strictly external. The majority are naturally produced but have had their relative levels altered by man's activities-particularly ozone, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. The changes produced by man are the ones causing this Parliament concern and resulting in the warming that is taking place. The greenhouse effect, therefore, is a predicted global warming expected to result from an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere. This increased level of certain gases in the atmosphere allows sunlight to the earth's surface, but reduces the amount of radiation that escapes into space. The greenhouse effect becomes more serious with the dramatic increase in the use of fossil fuels as a source of heat and energy, and particularly this century, this is what has been happening. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing at a reasonably steady rate since reliable records began. There is a wide range of chemicals with a number of important and widespread application for human activity such as propellants in aerosols, mentioned by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), refrigerants, foam blowing agents and solvents. They are most dangerous due to their effect on the stratospheric ozone, but they also have a role as a greenhouse gas. CFCs, in particular, are extremely long-lived-up to 110 years-and therefore their build-up is a long term cause of concern. I have already referred to methane, which is a naturally occurring gas. Nitrous oxide is produced in considerable quantities by industrial processes. The two main sources of nitrous oxide are microbial breakdown of agricultural fertilisers and combustion processes. This gas is less well understood in the context of the greenhouse effect than other gases, but nitrous oxide clearly has the potential to be an important contributor to the problem. What does all this mean and what effect would a greenhouse gas-induced temperature rise have on Australia, particularly on agricultural industries? The changes would vary very much between regions. Some areas may be advantaged. Generally, however, it is believed that agricultural regions would be more disadvantaged. Implications for rainfall in south-eastern Australia are not clear, but we could expect an increase in rainfall especially during the summer months. It is expected that the maximum level of daily rainfall would probably increase. This would increase the intensity and frequency of flooding and have important ramifications for the design of dams and flood drainage systems. A particular problem could be that dams designed to cope with 100-year floods under previous climatic regions would no longer be safe at that level. Rainfall in south-western Australia would probably decrease, causing further increased problems with drought. We could expect an increase in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity. We could expect that higher temperatures would raise the equilibrium snowline by about 100 metres per degree. The predicted temperature rise would initially reduce the snow season in Australia and a relatively small rise could eliminate it completely. Any rise in sea levels would be a serious problem for Australia as so many Australians live in coastal regions. A rise could have a disproportionate effect on our nation. There could well be a number of effects on the biosphere. Those likely include increased growth of various plant species, but not necessarily crop species or the edible portion of plants. Due to increased efficiency of water use by plants in a high carbon dioxide environment, some would probably extend their range into more arid areas, as shown by the pinus radiata display in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) exhibition in Parliament House today. If restrictions on the production of greenhouse gases are put in place, there will be a significant constraint on Australia's coal and chemical industries. As a change to nuclear power would be one of the ways to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, the increased demand for uranium may well be to Australia's benefit. There are a number of other effects, including changes to the water table, possible increases in salinity and so forth. The result of the greenhouse effect on plants is difficult to predict. Problems arise because there are many factors involved and it is difficult to estimate the relative importance of each. In conclusion, the Chairman of the CSIRO, Mr Neville Wran, said in a recent address to the Australian Conservation Foundation: It could well be that if we go on burning fossil fuels in the absence of practical alternatives, the world will be forced to rely on nuclear energy . . . Many authorities have even been saying that 50 years out, we will be praying for nuclear energy. Of course, Mr Wran did not say in his address to the Foundation that the massive cutback in funds for the CSIRO and for general research and development programs throughout Australia is a tragedy for which this Government should be condemned, and such condemnation should be part of this motion. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(11.26) —In the few seconds available to me I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) on bringing forth this motion. It is an extremely important question that needs the fullest debate not only throughout Australia but also in the international forum. It is a problem of global and international dimensions caused by many factors that have been outlined in the debate. The two points to the motion should have the full agreement of the House. There is a need to continue the research because many aspects of this problem are not understood and if companies using the chemicals in question do not play their part in further discovery, they will have to pay because governments alone cannot be forced to put funds towards seeking solutions to this very important problem. We have to understand that temperature changes and changes in climate have occurred naturally and we are getting to know more about those natural occurrences. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member for Scullin will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(11.28) —I 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. The best way I can illustrate the current practice and policy of the Government with respect to veterans is by pointing out that the Government has made a response to a report of what is called the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee. In the last couple of years the new Act, the Veterans' Entitlements Act, has been established and the Government agreed to have that Act and its implementation monitored by the veteran community. That Monitoring Committee has now brought down its report and the Government has responded-and responded extremely generously. I would like to detail five areas in which there has been a recommendation from the Committee and the Government has responded positively. The first matter from the Committee concerned intermediate and special rate pensions. It was felt by the Committee that it was too much to ask that a pensioner should first have a 100 per cent general rate pension before he could become eligible for a special rate pension. The Government was not able to agree entirely with this recommendation by the Committee because it has been held since 1920 that a special rate pension should be granted because a veteran could not work. In other words, it was a workers compensation-type award, and frequently we are now finding that veterans have an entire working life, retire, and, despite their disablement, are not eligible for a special rate pension because they have completed a lifetime of work. Nevertheless we agree with the Committee that it may have been a little too harsh to expect a pensioner who was near retirement to be on a 100 per cent general rate of pension. It was agreed, and I think most generously, by the Government that we would lower the requirement for the general rate of pension to 70 per cent. That is, if a veteran received 70 per cent of the general rate of pension he would be eligible to be considered for the totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) pension or special rate pension. I think that is a most generous response by the Government to the report. Secondly, it has been a concern of the Committee that when a veteran is applying for a special rate pension or an intermediate rate pension often the board, whether it is the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, makes an assessment only on the day on which the veteran makes his application. An application may have been made two years prior to a board considering the matter and that two-year period has not been able to be considered, at least in the minds of some of the decision makers. I must admit that when I was on the board it was always my view that we could assess up to date. Nevertheless, the Government has recognised the possible problem here and has agreed with the Committee that, where a veteran makes application for a special rate of pension, where that rate is to be assessed the Board can consider the matter right up to the day of consideration. For instance, if a pensioner is nearing early retirement due to ill health he can place his application for TPI pension. If it is knocked back by the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans' Review Board seeks to review it some years later, the Board can assess all matters right up to date. Of course, if the TPI pension is granted then the grant will be made way back to the original date of application. Again, I think it is an excellent response by the Government to a real concern of the Committee. The third area of concern by the Committee is that there are pensioners who after retirement are not only 100 per cent disabled, according to the general rate of pension, but extremely disabled. They may be, in a sense, 150 per cent or 200 per cent disabled but are unable to receive a TPI pension because they are past retirement age. I reiterate for the veteran community that the TPI pension has always been acknowledged as recompense for a person being unable to work. Nevertheless, the Government realises that there are people beyond retirement age who are severely disabled. The Committee recommended that there should be introduced a halfway house-that is, a rate of pension beyond the general rate but not the TPI. It also recommended that there should be an extreme disablement adjustment rate which should be set at 150 per cent of the general rate. Again, the Government has accepted that recommendation and I believe it is a very generous decision. The fourth area of concern is the new guide to assessment of the rate of veterans' pensions. This guide was introduced some two years ago, from memory. There was some concern, mainly that the guide had been used to lower the assessment of veterans' incapacity. I reject that. Again, having worked on the Veterans' Review Board I can tell honourable members that under the old system where there was no guide, frequently the three members of the Board would get into a bidding situation. It was not unusual-and it was not with malintent-for the veterans' representative on the Board to suggest a fairly high rate of pension but for other members on the Board to recommend a lesser rate of pension. Inevitably there was a compromise. In other words, a bidding process went on. With the introduction of what we know as the guide to assessment of rates of veterans' pensions (GARP), there are now clear criteria by which we can make an assessment. So the bidding process is not nearly as important now. We can, with great finality, make a clear decision. The other important aspect here, of course, is that decisions are comparable across the States. They do not depend on the composition of the Board or on practices of the Board that may have grown up in particular States. GARP has brought to the whole determining process a sense of fairness between the States and between all panels of the Board that sit around Australia. We have gone from a position of a bidding process, which was no way to conduct a review of the merits of a veteran's incapacity, to one where we have a guide that is acceptable to all. There were several criticisms of the way the guide assessed incapacity and the Government has responded by rewriting the guide. There now is what we call GARP 2, the new guide which has just been released. I must say that I read a column by Ian Gollings, the Secretary of the Returned Services League, slating the Government for being a little tardy in not recognising the urgency of various matters in the veterans area and I found it somewhat negative and frankly uninspiring. The fact is that we received the report from the Committee in May and we have acted on the recommendations. Of some 58 recommendations, we have put 28 immediately into practice as of the last Budget, and have been outlining the five most important areas. The response has been swift and generous, and I want the veteran community to understand that. So much for the guide to the assessment of the rates of veterans' pensions. Lastly, the determining system as it now stands has been in operation for only three years and the most important new element is the Veterans' Review Board. The Committee was concerned that, for instance, at the primary level of determination-the Repatriation Commission-there was a fear that delays in assessments could be further cut back. The Committee acknowledged that there had already been substantial cutbacks in delays. The queue of people waiting to receive their decision has been knocked down enormously in the past few years and the Committee was generous enough to indicate that. Further, I might say that the Committee also sought at the Veterans' Review Board level the notion of a single member hearing, that is, rather than having three people on a panel, just have one. I must admit that, talking to veterans, they seem to have a fear of single member panels. I remind them that it was the Committee, and there were veterans on that Committee, which recommended single member panels. We found that the VRB has been using single member panels for 18 months or more and that has been a very useful method of cutting back the delays in hearings. I end my contribution by saying that the veterans' community in Australia deserves this Government's support. We have listened to the Monitoring Committee and we have responded swiftly and generously. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the motion seconded. Mr Sciacca —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.38) —The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) shows that he is not far behind the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when it comes to unmitigated gall. I concede that his response as a former bureaucrat had certain technical properties and charm. However, in moving this motion he maintained the arrogant tradition of this Government in blowing its own bags, usually because no-one else will. It is one thing to say, as is said in this motion, that the House acknowledges our debt to veterans and the need to compensate them for their sacrifices. That is common ground. It has, of course, bipartisan support. However, it is another matter entirely to marry a widely acknowledged debt of honour to veterans with self-serving claims to achievements by the Government, as the motion does. The sensitivity of the mover of the motion and his Government is to be found in the motion which, after the motherhood opening and self-congratulations, concludes with the following words: . . . providing for the welfare of veterans in times of restraint in public expenditure. There you have it: that is the cop-out. The sensitivity of the Government is encapsulated in the words `in times of restraint in public expenditure'. It has good reason to be sensitive. I can think of no other section of our community that has been more disadvantaged during the term of this Government than retirees and those approaching retirement. Mr Tim Fischer —Cutbacks after cutbacks. Mr ROCHER —Cutbacks upon cutbacks upon cutbacks. Included in that group are veterans. Is the Government serious in crowing about achievement in compensating veterans for our debt of honour to them? What sort of achievement was it to change the onus of proof, making it more difficult for veterans to claim for war-caused disabilities? This Government did that. What sort of achievement was it to make veterans' entitlements subject to an assets test with the deliberate intent of reducing veterans' entitlements? This Government did that. What sort of achievement was it to tighten the criteria affecting entitlement to the totally and permanently incapacitated pension? This Government did that. How can gross interference with war widows' pensions and medical benefits be said to be an achievement? What is so great about the debacle surrounding war service home loans? Does the House remember the massive chopping and changing after the 1987 Budget announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that the $25,000 maximum war service home loan was to be replaced by a $10,000 grant? That was some achievement, I do not think! A week after that announcement the loan entitlement was reinstated. A few months later, in December 1987, the $10,000 grant was scrapped. The maximum term of the loan was then reduced from 32 to 25 years. Some achievement! What sort of achievement in providing for the welfare of veterans are the events that I have just mentioned? What about the betrayal of servicemen's and servicewomen's organisations in 1985 when the first major inroads into veterans' and war widows' entitlements were mooted? Surely, it has not been forgotten that the solemn promise of the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs to consult with veterans' representatives was so blatantly broken. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 began the slide which now sees veterans' and war widows' entitlements greatly reduced and the qualifying criteria more stringent than ever before. To pretend otherwise is to practise blatant deceit. I ask the House to remember that these events came hard on the heels of one of the Prime Minister's most infamous broken promises. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know the one that I am talking about. Government members must cringe when we recall that statesmanlike pronouncement of the Prime Minister that his Government would not take money out of pensioners' cheques. It has continued to do just that ever since. No amount of smarmy words, such as those used in the motion that is before the House, will cause us to forget the series of betrayals foisted upon the aged and retirees; nor will we be persuaded to overlook the fact that veterans and war widows suffered as much and possibly more than most. It is a source of some concern that war widows do not even rate a mention in the motion. By that omission the mover of the motion and the Government of which he is a member again illustrate a sensitivity which is not born of achievement, as the motion would have us believe, but of lack of achievement, in providing for the welfare of war widows. War widows have been hit hard by this Government. Take as an example the $60 freeze on the social security component of a war widow's pension entitlement. Mr Tim Fischer —Ask the honourable member for Bass. Mr ROCHER —The honourable member for Bass understands that as well. On top of that, there is the further loss of benefits in the form of prescription drugs which were so recently removed from the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits list. These are just some of the matters which make it perfectly clear that what the Government has achieved is a reduction in benefits and entitlements for veterans and war widows. I would have thought that the Government would leave the subject well alone. After all, even the present Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) knows enough to keep silent. We never hear a peep from him in this House. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) must be particularly uncomfortable with the words of its Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, who, after the conclusion of World War II, when referring to his Party's then commitment to veterans, said: The careers of hundreds of thousands of young men have been interrupted and, in some instances, partially ruined. It is perfectly true that experience is gained, but that is not material to an ordinary civil vocation. On this Parliament rests the responsibility of seeing that the right thing shall be done. That was an entirely appropriate response to the sentiments expressed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Military Forces, Sir Thomas Blamey, who, at the end of hostilities in 1945, said: We are now to go to our homes having done our part in ensuring freedom for which we have fought for so long and successfully. How the once compassionately great ALP has slipped! In its treatment of veterans we can find no better evidence of how it has lost its way in government. It is a classic example. Further evidence of its stagnation, mindlessness and craven approach to retaining government was to be found in the 1988 Budget measure to count non-cash investment growth as part of the income test applied in determining pension and related entitlements. We all know that that part of the proposal to count growth over the past three years was scrapped-not for equity reasons or because it would have had a retrospective effect, but for the most blatant political reasons in the run-up to the Victorian State election. I summarise my reaction to this motion by breaking it up into three parts. The first part calls for the House to acknowledge the debt of the Australian community to veterans. I wholeheartedly do so, although I would want to include reference to our debt to war widows. They also served who endured the pain and uncertainty of not knowing how their loved ones who saw active service were faring. I reject the second part of the motion which calls on the House to note the achievements of this Government in providing for the welfare of veterans. Not one additional benefit has been granted by this Government during its almost six years in government, while countless entitlements have been removed or reduced. That is a mean and negative achievement, not one which confers credit on this Government. In regard to the third part of the motion, which mentions times of restraint in public expenditure, I simply repeat that that is a cop-out. It is rationalisation on the part of the mover and on the part of Government supporters for its failure to achieve improvements in the lot of war veterans and war widows. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(11.48) —I have much pleasure in seconding this motion. I will not bother wasting the precious time available to me by rebutting what has been said by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). In fact, for a person who supposedly wants to establish and reaffirm the debt that this country owes its veterans, he spent nine minutes on rubbishing the Government and trying to score some cheap political points, and one minute on looking at the motion. I congratulate the mover of the motion, my colleague from Queensland the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns). His motion is an excellent one. The evidence of that is the fact that prior to his election to this House he was a member of the Veterans' Review Board. Australia does owe a substantial debt to its veteran community. I refer to the veterans of all wars, including those of the Vietnam war. I will have something to say about that later. The contribution made by veterans and the debt that we owe them should never be forgotten. Veterans should receive the benefits that they so richly deserve. They should receive them by way of compensation, not, as some cynical, arrogant or ignorant people in the community may suggest, by some sort of handout. That is not the case. They are owed compensation and it should always be that way. This is the first occasion since my election to this House that I have had the opportunity of speaking on matters relating to veterans' affairs. It is an area which I have always held in high regard. In other words. I have held a very high regard for veterans ever since I was old enough to think. Over the past 14 months, this has been strengthened because of the various contacts that I have had with the community, particularly in my own electorate. In my electorate of Bowman, some 7,000 people receive some form of repatriation benefit. As a group, they number about 10 per cent of my total electorate, and they are certainly an important section of my community. They are regarded by me, and, I hope, by other members of the community, as such. Two excellent Returned Services League (RSL) clubs service the electorate of Bowman, one at Cleveland and another at Wynnum. The Wynnum RSL is probably one of the largest in Queensland. RSL clubs generally perform the function of a meeting place for veterans to visit in a social way and mix socially with members of the veteran community. I do not think there is anyone who is not moved every time he visits an RSL club when the ceremony for fallen comrades is performed. I am certainly still so moved and it is a great way of remembering those comrades who have fallen in wars. I was proud and honoured to be invited to several Anzac Day ceremonies that were conducted this year. Contrary to what my colleagues in the Opposition might expect, I hope to go to many of these ceremonies in future years. I am sure I will be just as proud standing there at dawn ceremonies as I was the last time. It would be very remiss of me on this first occasion that I have talked on veterans' affairs not to spend a little time in mentioning those people who give endless hours of their own time in assisting other veterans who need help. I refer to people who act as advocates for the RSL, advocates for veterans in the community. I have met a number of these people, as I am sure my colleagues have in other electorates and these people do a magnificent job. On this occasion I want specifically to mention the following people: Mr Stan MacPherson, Mr Tom Troy, Mr Bob Drevesen, Mr Robert Long and Mr Cec Medcraf. I have had a lot to do with these people over the last 14 months. They do everything they possibly can to help in preparing cases before veterans review boards and that sort of thing. Their dedication to the task not only of assisting other veterans who need some help in one way or another, but also in trying to maintain and improve the lot of veterans, is an inspiration, certainly to me, and, I am sure, to all of us. I say thank you from the bottom of my heart on behalf of those veterans who live in my electorate and I say thank you to all those people throughout the whole of Australia who carry out a similar job. In the last four or five minutes at my disposal I want to talk about the Vietnam veterans. Mr Smith —One. Mr SCIACCA —No, I have longer than that. During the last 14 months I have been very fortunate in being a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs, which, in effect, has looked at the benefits of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. I am not going to pre-empt what that report will say; it will come out very shortly. Australia owes a substantial debt to those people who served in the Vietnam war. I was very fortunate-or unfortunate, whatever one likes to call it-not to have my number pulled out. I was born on 13 June and those born on 12 June went. I was at that time, as I have always been, against the Vietnam war. I marched in demonstrations. But I would have gone. Because I was against the Vietnam war, I can only say this: those boys went for their country; they did what they were told to do-the way I would have done if I had to. In many ways, Australian society should be frankly ashamed of the way it treated its veterans, because, although they may not have won what has been described as a dirty, unwinnable war, nevertheless they were just as much heroes as those who returned from the wars that were won. I am extremely pleased to say that the welcome back march of a year ago was the turning point. We as a government have looked at that and we have generally tried to improve the benefits of Vietnam veterans. I hope that the report of the Committee will be acted upon by the Government and that some of the reforms which I am sure will be accepted by the majority of the Committee, will, in fact, be accepted. Angus House in Brisbane, for instance, was a pilot program of a half-way house for Vietnam veterans. It has worked extremely well. It has been magnificent in what it has been able to achieve. One of the best ways of assessing the house's worth is to look at the human side of it. Some people have commented as follows: `It saved my marriage'; `I did not realise anyone could be so helpful and friendly'. Most importantly, some people have said, `I have managed to stay out of hospital because of Angus House'. The Government has made available about $400,000 to try to do something about increasing this type of accommodation. It is a nonsense to say, as has been said in this House, that the Government has no thought or caring consideration for the veteran community. Quite the opposite! If I had time, I would talk about the fact that allocations to the Veterans' Affairs portfolio since 1983 have increased from $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion. I would say that a major program of public works totalling $109m over the past five years has continued the expansion, modernisation and improvement of the repatriation hospital system. I could go on. Sure, more could be done for the veterans. More could be done for everybody. But the fact is, we have been under tight economic restraints. I, for one, recognise the need to look after the veterans of our community and we will be vigilant to ensure that wherever possible these benefits are in no way eroded. I give the veterans my complete support. Australia as a nation owes them at least that. They have done their bit. It is now up to the Australian community and the Government, of whatever political persuasion, to do its bit. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The time allotted for the 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. Mr SMITH(Bass)(11.57) —I 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. This is perhaps a very historic day because this is the first debate we have had on science in this chamber in more than 12 months which has formally been designated as a debate on science. The debate occurs at a time when the science community, the Government and concerned members on both sides of this chamber are very worried about the direction in which science policy is going. My motion is in three parts. The first part states that we should recognise the importance of science and research to the future economic and social well-being of Australia. Indeed, this morning, when the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) was in the chamber, he came to me and said that he regretted very much that he could not be here because he, like me, has been frustrated with the approach that this Parliament, from both sides of the chamber, has taken to science. I hope this debate will focus attention on science in the minds of the media and of other members because it is about time that we recognised that science is indeed important. It has played a most important economic role in the community over many, many years and the decline of the flagship of science, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the CSIRO, and the treatment it has received in recent years is really an abysmal performance. During the Olympic Games I was vividly reminded of the differences between sport and science. The Olympics were watched by millions in Australia. None who watched could make the grade himself; few could even direct the events; but most understood enough about the events they watched to applaud where appropriate. How different is our understanding of science. Recent surveys have shown that few Australians, and that includes our leaders in business, government and trade unions, feel well informed about science and technology. Although we rate new technology as one of the most important means of solving problems, in our ignorance we do not think technological changes will change much in our own lives. How wrong we are. The findings of recent surveys help to explain why Australia's scientific and technological resources are underutilised, why Australian industry's capability in the area of research and development is among the poorest in the world and why government has seen little need to do anything about the situation. This in turn explains why we are now facing such serious economic problems. That is another difference between sport and science. How much the audience applauds the play should not affect the outcome of the event. In science the applause, or lack of it, does affect the outcome. Most Australians have positive attitudes to science-one only has to look at the popularity of television shows such as Quantum and Towards 2000 and the excellent Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program The Science Show, by Robyn Williams. But interestingly, we finally see that scientists themselves are beginning to take on the task of winning the political debate-and long overdue that is. However, it seems that few politicians are listening-although, Mr Deputy Speaker, you and certain other honourable members took the opportunity to visit yesterday the historic display in the House by the Division of Forest Products of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Indeed I saw the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Science at that display. It was interesting that those Ministers gave lip service by attending, but did they respond to the needs of that particular division? Do they realise that forestry is Australia's second biggest manufacturing industry, employs about 90,000 people and last year exported forest products worth about $428m? Yet forest products also accounted for $1.5 billion of our trade deficit, in a country which could easily be self-sufficient in forestry. There is much more that we could be doing. The Division is underfunded, as are so many divisions in the CSIRO. In an article that appeared yesterday in the Canberra Times, the frustration of many of our scientists was ably encapsulated in the remarks of one of the divisional assistant directors. He said: I feel there is a cloud of anxiety and shortsightedness descending over science, not only in forestry but also science as a whole. My concern is larger than concern for my division or for CSIRO. We have seen the general decline in morale of those involved in the pursuit of science. And we are seeing Australia's incapacity to capitalise on the wonderful minds of so many brilliant scientists who are living in uncertainty. This is an incredible loss to a nation like ours. That is an indictment of this chamber and of this Government. We have as our Minister for Science a man who is perhaps one of the most well-known proponents of science, but he has been a total failure. He has not won any of the political battles. It is all right to be erudite on science, but this chamber judges people on their ability to achieve policy goals. In the science policy area this Government has failed and failed dismally to the extent where we see our scientists, the best and the brightest in our community, standing up in revolt. It is interesting to see that the science community now plans to launch a popular front for the liberation of science next year. The Australian Science and Technology Information Service will offer journalists, politicians and educators ready access to more than 1,000 leading scientists and technologists. The support from the scientific research institutions, to the tune of more than $50,000 in a few weeks, is testament to the fact that something is dreadfully wrong with science and technology in Australia. This House needs to recognise, and behave as though it does recognise, the importance of science in the future economic and social well-being of Australia. The current economic ills facing Australia will not be overcome without much stronger leadership from government and a much greater commitment by industry to research and development in all sectors. Indeed, it was interesting that only this week the Australian Science and Technology Council issued its annual report, in which it said: Unless decisive action is taken to redress these problems our basic research effort will only be valuable as a cultural activity. All of a sudden the experts are telling us that science is headed towards being a useful cultural activity. There is no longer the linking and recognition of science as a basic underpinning of economic success. The CSIRO began in the 1920s when we were suffering similar balance of payments difficulties. In those days we turned to science and we set up the CSIRO. Now we turn our backs. This Government shows no vision. It has a leader who has no vision and it would appear that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has had no business experience whatsoever. One would wonder whether he has the capability to run a pie cart. What is happening to science? One only need look at another report that was released this week-that of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. That Committee, which had bipartisan membership, inquired into manufacturing industry revitalisation-a topic that is dear to all of us-and made the following recommendation: the Commonwealth Government's direct expenditure on R&, through the CSIRO and other agencies be maintained and, when possible, increased. Be maintained! There has been a 32 per cent cumulative decrease in funding to the CSIRO in five years. At present funding to the CSIRO is only 72 per cent of what it was in 1982-83. This is an abysmal performance. No wonder we have on our hands a revolt from the scientists. We as a parliament must respond-it is not just up to the Government. The other part of my motion says that the House: notes the rapid decline in support for science, including the CSIRO, by the Government and accepts an urgency to address the appalling situation. The decline in support for science is indicated primarily by the demise of the Department of Science. Now we have elements of science in about seven different Government departments and there is no champion for science in the bureaucracy and no focus for science to take issues to Cabinet. That is to be lamented. Comparatively speaking our international spending on science is lower than it was 20 years ago. Moreover, in relative terms Australia is far weaker than other nations because the others have recognised the importance of science and as a community we have not. The question now is: will the CSIRO, Australia's premier scientific organisation, become the captive of industry? Indeed, will industry, with its abysmal contribution to research and development in this country, be a willing participant in Senator Button's plans? If so, what sections of industry are most likely to contribute and what divisions are most likely to benefit? The Minister for Science has recently pointed out that most of the outside funding is tied to certain areas. It cannot be transferred to others. The Government is taking an enormous risk. Long range basic research is at risk. The most economically significant sectors of CSIRO-agriculture, mining, fisheries and the environment-are at risk. Dr Green, Director of the Institute of Natural Resources and Environment, has said that the environmental sciences will probably not attract big money from industry and neither are their research results likely to lead to new products or industries for Australia. But this research is vital to the protection and management of our unique resources in the future. An example of the work done by the Institute is research into the greenhouse effect, on which I have spoken already this morning, and the inability of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, to get from the Government even $1m to enhance that research. I think that the fallout from successive budgetary cuts to the CSIRO is there for all to see. Indeed, to have the officers of that organisation passing an unprecedented vote of no confidence in their executive, to see the directors of the different institutes writing to the Chairman of the CSIRO in the terms that they have, calling for greater recognition of their work is something that we have never seen before in this country and it should be a lesson to all of us that things are not well. The third part of my motion states that this House: acknowledges the contribution made to Australia's economic growth by the flagship of Australian science, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation . . . Each and every one of us can probably point to examples of what the CSIRO has done. Probably the most known achievement involves the range of discoveries which have helped the wool industry to survive intensive competition from synthetic fibres. These include self-twisting spinning, permanent creasing, shrink proofing and lightweight wools. The very successful application of research into the production, processing and marketing stages has meant that not only has wool survived, but it has also attracted record prices. Also we have seen the development of `siroscour' which has given the opportunity to develop further downstream processing of wool into clean wool ready for spinning. This has been achieved as a result of the work of the CSIRO. A development of significance in the mineral industry was the research that led to the development of optical and computing techniques for enhancing satellite images that are the most advanced in the world. This enabled our mineral industries to perceive the surface features of the earth's crust and better interpret the underlying mineralisation. I could cite many examples, but I am sure each and every one of us knows of examples because the CSIRO, with 7,000 personnel, is represented in nearly every part of Australia. Those who have not visited it should do so because the people there need all the support we can possibly give them. It would be a shame if this Government did not recognise the importance of the CSIRO and get off its bottom and start supporting it. I have been saying for some 18 months that we need to be supporting science and finally we had some light. The Minister for Science released a statement to say that an interdepartmental committee (IDC) had been set up. What does that committee do? That committee does what the other three inquiries did or were asked to do. It identifies ways in which we can support research and development. We know the answers. We know what needs to be done. People have been telling us for 12 months what needs to be done. We have been telling the Government and others have been telling the Government. The National Farmers Federation (NFF) told the Government yet again in an excellent speech last week that it needs to be supporting science and rural science. What do we get from the Minister? We get an IDC. Do it all again, Barry. To blame the bureaucrats is not good enough. The Government is there to lead and give vision and it is not doing that. This committee that is to report in November is asked under its terms of reference to identify key elements to link science and technology policy to government policies already formulated on structural adjustments for industry and education. There are so many committees that have told us what we have to do that the question now is: Is the Government going to fund the relevant research that needs to be done in such a way that it can be done? At present that is not the case. Australia has had a brain drain and major losses in the CSIRO. Dr Scott of the Division of Animal Production recently indicated that he is no longer prepared to head that Division. There are many other examples which I have quoted at length to this House. We are seeing scientists leaving in frustration. It may well be too late. All that has happened is that we are finally to get an inquiry, and not even a formal inquiry at that. It is just an interdepartmental inquiry. It is quoted in the press as being a victory for Minister Jones. He would have to be the Minister for Science who is the single biggest failure of this Government. He has achieved nothing for science. Science has gone backwards. His epitaph will be `the man who in this chamber presided over the demise of science'. We are seeing science galloping towards crisis in this country. Unless we take stock and do something quickly we will all be the losers. I have on many occasions suggested to the Minister that the best thing he could do for science is resign. If the Minister were to resign what would happen is this: he could draw attention finally to the plight of science because all other avenues have failed. I suggested to him that he might like to go and talk to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), as obviously several other Ministers have in recent days, and say to him, `Look, unless I get a fair cut for science I will cause a by-election'. Another by-election in Victoria, of course, would be of no joy to the Government because it would lose that as well. I believe we should start looking positively at ways to support science. I have suggested in my four point plan the following items that should be done immediately. Firstly, Neville Wran should be replaced. Neville Wran is a publicist; he is not a scientist. CSIRO's most successful years were when its head was a scientist, the very first, Sir David Rivett. If we go back to that formula we will get far more positive results and that should be done forthwith. Secondly, we should be allocating substantial funds to the CSIRO. Figures, of course, can be plucked out of the air. On my estimation, to maintain, to make up and to put the CSIRO in the place that it was in in 1982-83 we would need to provide somewhere in the vicinity of $50m this year. That is how far CSIRO has slipped. Thirdly, we need to re-establish the science department. There has to be a focus. Science has to be represented at Cabinet level. There is no focus any more. Barry Jones is Minister for Science in name only. All his time is taken up pursuing customs matters. He knows it, we know it, and the community knows it. More importantly, the science community knows it. Members of the science community have lost faith in this Government. Generally apolitical, they are the ones who are saying that this Government has failed them and they ask what the Government is going to do about it. Finally, we ought to put in place and start preparing a national science strategy for Australia linking our research and development needs and indicating the path ahead. We should show a little bit of vision for a change instead of looking over our shoulders and applauding ourselves from whence we have come. It is where we are going that we need to know about. It is what the science community needs to know about. This is a government that lacks vision. Is there anyone on the Government side of the House who has any vision of where science will and should go and the areas that we need to develop? Unless we start to hear something positive from the Government it will find that we will have the best and the brightest in this country leave. It has already had some leave but it will have many more stand in revolt. A Government that chooses to ignore deliberately the best and brightest advice in this country is a government that has become arrogant. It has become obsessed with obtaining and keeping power. It is no longer concerned about where this country is going. If we turn our backs on science as we are I think that all of us, especially those of us who are younger in this chamber and have more stake in the future about where we ought to be going as a nation, will be the ones who will carry the burden. This Government has failed us dramatically. It is not just the honourable member for Bass who is saying this, it is those people out in the community who are saying it. It will be interesting to hear how the Government responds. The only lamentable thing about this debate is that it took so long to get here and that the Minister for Science is precluded by the rules of the House from being called to account in the chamber and giving an explanation for his abysmal performance in what has been nothing more than the demise of science in our community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr Hawker —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr LEE(Dobell)(12.17) —I suppose I would agree with the comment that was made by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) towards the end of his speech when he said that the tragedy is that this debate has not occurred earlier. Since the honourable member for Bass was the shadow Minister for Science it is ironic that today he is not sitting on the front bench, given the fact that he was considered by many in the community who deal with science issues to have been a good shadow Minister. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who is at the table, said in this chamber the other day, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) must have shot the wrong Tasmanian when he sent the honourable member-- Mr Hand —They got the wrong telephone number and sacked the wrong bloke. Mr LEE —They got the wrong telephone number, as the Minister suggests. It is interesting to ask several questions. Why is this the first time that there has been an opportunity in the chamber to debate these very important issues? If the Opposition thought that these were as important as some people have suggested, why has the Opposition not been raising matters of public importance? Why has the Opposition not been seeking to encourage more debate in this chamber? I do not deny that the honourable member for Bass sought to use the procedures of the House on many occasions in grievance debates and on the adjournment to raise these issues. If it is such an important issue for the Opposition, why has the honourable member for Bass been such a lone voice in its ranks in seeking to raise these issues? Those are certainly some questions which I hope the new shadow Minister for science and energy, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), will try to address. I am sure that he will find great difficulty in seeking to match the performance of the honourable member for Bass. I just touch on some other points that the honourable member for Bass made. During his speech he mentioned that in the 1920s Australia decided to invest a large amount of money in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) because we were having some balance of payments difficulties. In fact, late last night I was watching a television program. It was interrupted by a program called Bicentennial Minutes, which is produced by Peter Luck. In that program there was a short one minute feature on the prickly pear plague in the 1920s. In fact, many of us would know that the CSIRO pioneered the way and introduced into Australia the cactoblastis cactorum moth to combat the prickly pear. Given the recent plague of bogong moths in this chamber, throughout this building, in my own electorate of Dobell in New South Wales, and also in Sydney, I suggest that there is perhaps an even greater need for CSIRO to look at a way to combat, if not the prickly pear, then the bogong moth. I would be interested to know whether the bogong moth descended from the cactoblastis cactorum. Mr Dobie —Probably on their mother's side. Mr LEE —That is possible. Let us not forget the fact that CSIRO has done a lot of good work in the years that it has been established. The honourable member for Bass quoted figures which demonstrated that CSIRO needs more money. I do not challenge that fact but let us not forget that the Government cannot foot the entire bill for Australia's research and development. In fact, in other countries the private sector carries much more of the load in funding research and development. At this stage, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard four tables which I will use to demonstrate this point. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- GROSS DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE OR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP (latest available year) Per cent United States ... 2.88 Japan ... 2.81 Sweden ... 2.79 United Kingdom ... 2.33 Australia ... 1.16 New Zealand ... 0.95 R &D FUNDS FROM BUSINESS ENTERPRISES AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP Per cent Japan ... 1.93 Sweden ... 1.75 United States ... 1.39 United Kingdom ... 1.07 Australia ... 0.36 New Zealand ... 0.18 R &D FUNDS FROM GOVERNMENT CIVIL AUTHORITIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP Per cent New Zealand ... 0.77 Australia ... 0.70 Sweden ... 0.66 Japan ... 0.57 United States ... 0.56 United Kingdom ... 0.33 R &D FUNDS FROM GOVERNMENT DEFENCE AUTHORITIES AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP Per cent United States ... 0.89 United Kingdom ... 0.68 Sweden ... 0.30 Australia ... 0.06 Japan ... 0.02 New Zealand ... 0.01 Source: Page 45, Science and Technology Statement 1987-88 prepared by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. Mr LEE —I thank the House. The first of these tables is a list of six countries whose gross domestic expenditure on research and development is expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product. Of course, the higher the figure the larger the amount of money these countries are spending on research and development. The United States of America spends 2.88 per cent of its gross domestic product on research and development. Japan spends 2.81 per cent. Australia has the relatively low figure of 1.16 per cent. That is the sort of figure that the honourable member for Bass used in claiming that Australia is not doing enough and, therefore, the Government should spend more money on the CSIRO. When we look at the research and development funds which are provided by business enterprises as a percentage of gross domestic product we see some very interesting figures. In Japan, which carries out a great deal of research and development, business enterprises provide 1.93 per cent of gross domestic product for research and development. In Australia, we have the embarrassingly low figure of only 0.36 per cent of our gross domestic product being provided by business for research and development. The third table shows the research and development funds provided by government civil authorities as a percentage of gross domestic product. Australia does surprisingly well in this area. New Zealand tops the poll with 0.77 per cent of gross domestic product. Australia is second, with 0.70 per cent of our gross domestic product being provided by the Government to organisations such as the CSIRO. Some people believe that the Japanese Government is funding large amounts of research and development, but Japan comes in with the relatively low figure of only 0.57 per cent of its gross domestic product being provided by the Government. At the bottom of the tree is Margaret Thatcher, the pin-up girl of the Opposition conservative parties. Her Government provides only 0.33 per cent of gross domestic product for research and development from civil sources. When we look at the government sector and the contribution which the Government of Australia is making towards science research and development, we see that Australia stands up to comparison with Western industrialised countries. That does not mean that the CSIRO does not need more money to carry out the important research which is necessary for our long term economic development. I think it is unfortunate that some people are seeking to suggest that it is the Government's fault that we are not spending more on research and development and that business enterprises do not have to do more. I hope that the Opposition will support the Government's attempts. I see the honourable member for Bass signifying his agreement by nodding his head, and I recognise that. I believe that the Government has to ensure that business carries a greater share of the load so that more research and development is carried out in Australia. The Government's historic decision to introduce 150 per cent tax deductibility for some areas of commercial research and development is a decision which I think will go down as one of the landmark decisions of government in this policy area of research and development. While some people have been critical of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), I think that decision is a real feather in his cap. In many ways it just goes to show that all of the years that he has spent seeking to raise the Australian people's understanding of science issues is finally bearing rewards. I pay tribute to him for those sorts of achievements. At one stage the honourable member for Bass got a bit carried away and made certain allegations that the Government is not spending enough on science because the Treasurer (Mr Keating) does not have a business background. I was not quite sure how that fitted into the argument. He even made the outrageous claim that the Treasurer could not run a pie cart. Perhaps the Treasurer is an interesting case study. He left school at 15 years of age, which I think was called third form in those days, and went back to complete his leaving certificate at night school. Then he proceeded to obtain an electrical engineering degree in part time study. Given that I am an electrical engineer, it is quite interesting for me to relate those details to the House. These days the Treasurer is accepted by everyone who has a good understanding of economic matters as one of this country's greatest Treasurer's. He has clocked up these achievements, having left school at 15 and taken the trouble to go back and conclude his learning at night. Perhaps those people in this House who have been able to prove that they can complete a law degree by writing lots of essays would have done better to have gone back to night school to do an engineering degree. I, as a fifth form student, had the honour of being selected to attend one of Professor Harry Messel's science foundation for physics courses at the University of Sydney. There we were privileged to receive lectures from a then unknown astronomer, Carl Sagan, who has since gone on to achieve fame and fortune on television, and also a great human being, Professor Julius Sumner Miller, who, for better or worse, is still appearing in Cadbury's television advertisements. I am not sure that that is something I would support. Like the Minister, Professor Julius Sumner Miller greatly encouraged an understanding of, and enthusiasm for, science. I certainly recall those efforts at the University of Sydney. Before completing my engineering degree and while doing a science degree at the University of New South Wales I remember sometimes not understanding why we had to study such esoteric subjects as quantum physics with quarks, electrons, neutrinos and all sorts of bizarre concepts which were totally theoretical. These days, Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I can turn on our computers in Parliament House to do a search on the Hansard database, but the little integrated circuit microchips that are doing those calculations would not work if people had not gained a thorough understanding of quantum physics and if Einstein had not made those great predictions and analyses in the early 1900s. I accept that often theoretical research which some people think is not cost effective can have unexpected spin-offs. That is why I do not argue that there should be no theoretical research. Theoretical research is important. However, Australia's great weakness in the past has been that some organisations, often the CSIRO, have made important discoveries and they have not been developed. Australian companies have not followed through and funded the economic development of these products. I suppose that the most common example quoted here is Interscan. Dr Paul Wild, the former Head of CSIRO, did a lot of work on it. In fact, Australia led the world in developing this system, which enables aeroplanes to land safely at international airports. Yet Australia let that great discovery slip through its fingers in many ways. I know that Minister Jones is very proud of the fact that he has been able to persuade the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer and other senior Ministers to establish a committee to review our science capacity. The honourable member for Bass was very critical and said it is yet another committee which will not come up with any results. I suspect that he might be surprised at the result that comes out. Mr Smith —I have been surprised a lot lately. Mr LEE —I acknowledge the interjection. Given that the committee is expected to produce a report by the end of November, we will be able to make judgments in the very near future. I hope that the Minister will be successful in persuading Cabinet that Australia needs to do more and that our economic circumstances will permit us to carry out more work in funding research and development. Finally, I wish to quote one figure for members of the conservative parties opposite who have sought to suggest that the Labor Government is the only one responsible for the downturn in research and development. There is an interesting figure on page 45 of the science and technology statement for 1987-88. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the shadow Minister who is at the table, was here when the Fraser Government was elected in 1975. In the Whitlam years of 1973 and 1974 the level of funding for research and development, as a percentage of gross domestic product, was 1.21 per cent. By the time the Fraser Government left office it had fallen to one per cent of gross domestic product. So I do not think that either side of politics is totally innocent in this matter. I would have thought that it would have been better for either side of politics to support a substantial increase in funding in this area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(12.30) —As Chairman of the Opposition's back bench committee on environment, recreation, sport and the arts, I rise here today to congratulate my New South Wales State Government colleagues on a recent environmental decision which they have made in my own backyard, and that is the decision not to proceed with a tombolo in Port Hacking. Honourable members from interstate and, indeed, from other parts of Sydney, and in fact the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) who has just spoken, would agree that Port Hacking is, without doubt, Sydney's most beautiful stretch of waterway, nestled as it is at the top of the Royal National Park, south of Sydney. I am sure the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), whose electorate also bounds the Port, will agree with me on this point, although some honourable members on my own side may have other ideas. Of course, the name of Port Hacking was elevated to even greater prominence recently when that magnificent rugby team of the same name won the Sydney rugby union premiership but that, of course, is another matter. Nevertheless, as one of its club's life members, I would be abrogating my duty if I did not take this nationwide opportunity of congratulating the team most heartily. But I return to the subject of the Port itself. Port Hacking has, for many years now, been subject to shoaling which has threatened both commercial and recreational pursuits on this beautifully situated waterway. For the information of members, in nautical terms a tombolo is, to quote the Macquarie Dictionary, `a spit of sand or shingle thrown up by the tide linking an island or rock with the mainland'. Under the direction of the previous Unsworth Labor Government, the New South Wales Department of Public Works produced a report recommending the construction of such a tombolo as a means of combating the shoaling problem. The tombolo was seen as a permanent fixture and, though it may have been a solution to the problem, it would have significantly changed the shape and very nature of the Port as we know it. Naturally, the future of Port Hacking has been the subject of much debate in my electorate since the tombolo idea was first mooted. This issue was raised when I was first elected to this Parliament in 1966. The debate as to what should happen is not new and has been going on for a long time. In fact, for those who are not aware, the problem is the result of a series of severe cyclonic storms which destroyed a natural sandbar across the front of the port more than 30 years ago. Last month the Greiner Government announced that the tombolo proposal would not proceed. This news has been well received by the local community and credit must go to the four local State Liberal members, Kerr, Phillips, C. Downy and Andrews, who have been active and responsible contributors to the debate on Port Hacking. The new Liberal Government's decision to withdraw the development application for the tombolo will also save taxpayers the considerable expense involved in the public inquiry that was to have taken place. At the same time, the commitment of the Greiner Government, and the four local Liberal members in particular, for immediate dredging of the estuary will be honoured. The Greiner Government will meet the full cost for the once-off dredging costs of the channel up to a maximum of $500,000. Sutherland Shire Council will be responsible for carrying out the work and seeking the necessary approvals. Although this may seem parochial, I raise this matter in this House because those of us who are interested in the environment should acknowledge the efforts of any party that tries to do something positive for the environment. The Greiner State Government has acted with due consideration to all the environmental concerns; it has listened to the people of the Sutherland Shire and acted accordingly. I regret to say that this is a change from the position of the previous Unsworth Labor Government, which sought to bulldoze through its ideas, whatever they were, on environmental matters with little or no debate, acting only with political expediency. The woodchip industry comes to mind during those long, dark Labor years. One could always tell there was a State election in the air. The Wran and Unsworth Labor governments would suddenly make great overtures about the need to dredge Port Hacking. What Labor did not and still does not recognise is that Port Hacking is a great natural resource, which has to be protected and preserved not only for our generation, but for future generations; not only for the people living around it, but for people living throughout Sydney, throughout Australia. If Port Hacking had had an industrial base perhaps the situation would have been different in that industrial pressure could have been brought to bear. It is because Port Hacking is and always has been a basically recreational facility, that previous governments, Labor and Liberal, have allowed it to become so neglected. The valiant attempt by my constituent, Mr Bob Killick, for example, to run a commercial pleasure cruising operation in Port Hacking was sadly terminated because of lack of navigable water. One can only hope that the enterprising Bob Killick will consider returning to Port Hacking to provide a very enjoyable and worthwhile service once this dredging operation is completed. So, again, congratulations to my four State colleagues, whom I have mentioned already, to Wal Murray, the New South Wales Minister for Public Works, to Environment Minister Tim Moore, who has long taken a great interest in the environmental problems of the Sutherland Shire, and to David Hay, the new Minister for Local Government and Planning. In August, David Hay made an official announcement that Kurnell Peninsula will be rezoned in a matter of weeks to stop any toxic industry being established there. This is a great victory not only for the Kurnell Action Committee, but also for the environmentally aware people of Sydney and Australia. Many honourable members have heard me speak before on the problems of the Kurnell Peninsula, on the battle by residents to prevent this birthplace of the nation from being turned into a toxic industrial wasteland. The previous Labor Government and the then Labor Environment Minister who now leads his Party, Mr Carr, gave every indication of doing nothing to stop the Peninsula becoming a wasteland. It was only with an election looming and public outrage over the future of Kurnell growing that the Unsworth Government backed off and tried a last minute change of attitude which was all too late. In contrast, the position of the Liberal-National coalition in New South Wales has been principled and consistent. It has now carried through with its commitment to replace the 4 (C) 4 zoning with general and light industrial zonings, and to require full environmental assessments for any major development proposals. In conclusion, it is interesting to note, in light of what I have been saying, that it was a Labor Minister, Pat Hills, who advocated Towra Point-part of the Kurnell Peninsula-as Sydney's second major airport way back in 1962. Many people forget this. Towra Point is a wetlands area which plays host to many rare birds and concern for its future was one of the major reasons the Kurnell Action Committee took its stand against toxic industry. I pay tribute to the role taken by the Whitlam Government in seeing that this area became a reserve. I congratulate the New South Wales Government which, in this year of our bicentennial celebrations, has shown a fine example of the active application of environmental responsibility. In the few minutes remaining to me I wish to refer to the tragic bushfires in my own electorate and in the electorate of my friend, the honourable member for Hughes. I pay tribute to the 13 bushfire brigades in the Sutherland Shire and the 650 members of this voluntary bushfire brigade. We think it is one of the best equipped bushfire brigades in the country. I pay tribute to the work being done by these people. I would be abrogating my personal regard for them if I did not mention now that we had two tragic accidents: one on 3 November 1980 when a bushfire claimed the lives of five members of our bushfire brigade; and another on 9 January 1983 when the Grays Point bushfire claimed three lives and seriously injured seven people. When we are looking at the headlines and watching these bushfires raging in the southern parts of Sydney, it does us well to remember that the members of the bushfire brigades are not gung ho people. They devote their lives, their time, their recreation time, to protect their own communities and their own districts. As I indicated, they do so at the cost not just of their time and effort but of their lives, as we have seen in two tragic accidents in the last several years. So I hope that honourable members, as they watch these bushfires on television-and they are continuing today-will give consideration, thought and remembrance to the brave people who have worked to save their own communities. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.40) —Simultaneously, a fortnight ago today attacks were launched on me and the Federal Government by Mr B. A. Santamaria in the Australian newspaper and by Mr Michael Barnard in the Age newspaper criticising my appointment as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). At the same time, in the News Weekly Magazine, recognised widely as the journal of the National Civic Council, Mr Santamaria made a more lengthy attack on me and set out what he described as my unorthodox curriculum vitae as a guardian of Australia's security. Both he and Mr Barnard then listed a series of activities in which I had participated over the past 10 years, the first one being two years before I was actually elected as the member for La Trobe. Whilst it could be viewed as somewhat sinister that these two well-known right wing reactionaries should publish a critique of my credentials for being a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO on the same day, it was also interesting that Alan Jones of radio 2UE in Sydney had his attention drawn to the list of my so-called dubious political activities and conducted a rather one-sided interview with me on air on his Monday morning program. After giving me little time to reply to his questions, he told his listeners that he was sure that Australians would find me a most unsatisfactory person to be a member of the Joint Committee. In some respects I am indebted to these three commentators, who have given some prominence to activities which I have been proud to be associated with over the years. Of course, it is a selective list, and if that was all I had done over the past 10 years I would not be very satisfied with the work I have undertaken on behalf of the Australian people as a whole and particularly for the people who live in my electorate of La Trobe. If a study is made of my activities listed by Mr Santamaria and Mr Barnard, it will be seen that they are all in support of the human rights of individuals or the peoples of subject nations; or in support of an independent foreign policy for Australia which would make us a far more worthwhile friend and ally. I would like to go through the list in more detail. In 1987, Christopher Boyce, who was convicted of releasing United States military secrets to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had been in solitary confinement for many years under inhumane conditions and was in considerable ill health. I called for his parole release. In 1981 Irish Republican Army hunger strikers were also protesting about inhumane prison conditions and I called for a proper recognition of their status and their rights. I stand by my statement that the Palestinians are being treated as prisoners in their own land and only the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is the true representative of the Palestine people. The brutal beating and killing of Palestinians by Israeli settlers can only be classified as zionist terrorism. It is inevitable that the Australian Government and indeed, Israel will eventually recognise the PLO, as has been done by many European governments. I also stand by my view that the 1983 United States invasion of Grenada was one of the black chapters in United States history. It was not a brutal dictatorship, but it was a communist country. Did this give the United States the right to invade the country without provocation? The presence in Angola of Cuban troops has prevented the takeover of that country by South African troops and the installation of a puppet South African government. Does anybody really believe that South Africa would install democracy in Angola for the black population of that country? Messrs Santamaria and Barnard appear to have forgotten that, prior to the Castro-led revolution in 1969, Cuba was controlled by the Batista dictatorship, which was one of the most fascist and bloody dictatorships of all Latin American countries at the time. Of course, I was willing to support the twenty-fifth anniversary of a revolution which has given the Cuban people reforms which have been unprecedented in Latin America. I wonder whether Mr Santamaria or Mr Barnard have ever visited countries in Latin America, as I have done, and made comparisons of the conditions of the people in, say, Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico and Venezuela. Before I end my comments on my human rights record, let me also point out that I have criticised the Soviet presence in Afghanistan and have supported the call for those people who wish to leave countries in eastern Europe and the USSR for political reasons to be able to gain refugee status. Let me now turn to my various actions in support of an independent foreign policy for Australia. I have proposed a policy which is independent of both the United States and the USSR but which recognises, as Messrs Santamaria and Barnard are unable to do because of their atrophied, cold war 1960s mentality, that the United States and the USSR are now talking to each other in terms, if not of friendship, at least grudging respect for the power of each country to destroy the world if they do not have a mutual accord. When I call for an end to United States military bases in Australia, for withdrawal from military ties with the Association of South East Asian Nations and an end to all military alliances-and not just with the United States-I am seeking an independent role for Australia in international affairs. At present we are a nuclear target because of our military alliances. In calling for an end to our military involvement I am seeking a release from the fear and insecurity which many Australians, particularly young Australians, feel in the world of the late twentieth century. Have Messrs Santamaria and Barnard ever read any of the letters of the young school children which express their fear of a nuclear war and their call for the United States and the USSR to have friendly relations? Obviously, our two self-appointed guardians of Australia's security are unaware that Australia has a cultural activities agreement with the USSR which promotes the friendly exchange between our two countries of dancers, musicians, actors, artists, students and academics. In fact, I owe Messrs Santamaria and Barnard a service, because since the publication of the two articles I have received many messages of congratulation and support on my stand on human rights and the denunciation of military alliances. Let me now turn to their objections to my proposal in 1983 that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation should be abolished. What I do believe is that if ASIO is carrying out its surveillance work in the same incompetent and inept manner as in the late 1970s and early 1980s when I wrote my 1983 submission to the royal commission conducted by Mr Justice Hope, then it should be abolished. The reason my parliamentary colleagues proposed to the Federal Government that I be a nominee for membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was that they had faith in my ability to exercise the necessary scrutiny of ASIO surveillance of Australian citizens; that I would ensure that ASIO is not subjecting to surveillance people such as socialists, advocates of constitutional change, ministers of religion espousing radical causes, civil rights activists and demonstrators. This was the situation in the late 1970s. In 1977 Mr Justice Hope stated: I am bound to record that I found ASIO's files in such disorder that in the time that has been made available to me I have been quite unable to establish the truth or otherwise of many of the particulars of matters alleged in evidence or raised with ASIO as the result of other inquiries. In my 1983 submission I stated to Mr Justice Hope that it must be of great concern to all Australians that ASIO has undertaken surveillance of a number of classes of loyal citizens whose only crime was that they were of perceived left political bent. I point out that democracy thrives on non-violent differences of opinion and attitudes and ASIO must be careful to avoid mistaking mere dissent or non-conformity for subversion. I also submitted that the conflict of ideas does not represent a threat to Australian society and the more open the individual relations of Australians with foreign powers, the easier it will be to compare and contrast and reject or accept political and economic ideas as part of inevitable evolutionary change in the Australian social fabric. This is the problem with Messrs Santamaria and Barnard. They are voices from the grave. They represent political thinking of the 1950s and the early 1960s, which is a lifetime away. Mr Scott —Santamaria dodged national service. Mr MILTON —That is an interesting point made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. One has only to look at the articles written by both men over the past year to see how they view the world in an unreal black and white picture, as either communist or non-communist. There is no in-between for such people. When the United States turns to diplomacy instead of military force with Nicaragua, El Salvador or Panama, Mr Barnard, as in an Age article of 28 June 1988, criticises the United States and refers to bungling and indecisions. This same correspondent in his articles savages peace and humanitarian activists and opponents of South African apartheid with impunity. Articles in the Age of 24 May 1988, 23 February 1988 and 10 November 1987 support South Africa. On 12 March, 19 March 1988 and 13 October 1987 he attacked the peace and humanitarian movement. All his articles are notable for shallow thinking and guilt by association. Any thorough and intelligent analyses of background and factual circumstances are discarded for ideological bigotry. Selective reporting and quotations are the order of the day. So it is for Mr Santamaria also. His articles in the Australian are notable for their invective against trade unions and what he perceives as the ever-present danger of communism. His political reactionary activities over the past 30 years and his hatred of the Australian Labor Party are well known to all Australians. What is appalling about the attack on me by these two reactionary correspondents from a past age is their charge that because I support individual human rights and the right of people to enjoy their own type of government free from outside interference, I am somehow disqualified to be a member of the Joint Committee. My record of objection to transgressions of human rights, whether here or overseas, puts me in a strong position to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Australians can be assured that I will be particularly vigilant in ensuring that ASIO does not subject Australian citizens to surveillance, just because they challenge the established order. ASIO has nothing to fear from my overseeing of its activities if it is performing its duties in a proper manner. It is an insult to my colleagues and me, and indeed this Parliament, to suggest that my appointment represents a threat to Australian security. One also wonders what organisation or group is keeping a list of certain of my political activities, and did so even before I became a member of parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(12.50) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government is currently considering ways of having a public education program, pursuant to the FitzGerald report, Immigration A Commitment to Australia. I want to suggest to the Government that that public education program should be even broader than it is now contemplating. It should cover the whole spectrum of issues that impinge upon people's understanding of the evolving Australian culture and our place in the world. I include amongst that issues such as foreign students, which we know to be beneficial to Australia, as well as to the students concerned, but many people in the country are not aware of that. Foreign investment is another contentious issue, about which I will say a little in a moment. And of course, the implications of the fact that we are in the Indian and Pacific oceans are not as readily understood by a lot of Australians as they should be. I think all of these factors impinge on people's perception of what an intake of migrants on a non-discriminatory basis really means. I have said enough about immigration and I do not intend to repeat that today, but I would commend to the House a speech by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) on Tuesday in the debate on the Treasury estimates, in which he questioned whether we should have unlimited foreign investment when it is so closely misunderstood. I would say that, while I see the virtue of having a free flow of people, ideas and capital, if in fact we are to jeopardise a free flow of the immigrants whom we want on a non-discriminatory basis by the rate and nature of foreign investment, then there may be an argument for even greater curbs on foreign investment than is now the case. There was a letter in the Australian Financial Review last week from Mr Peter Frankel, a well-known Australian businessman who won an export award last year, saying precisely that Mr Peter Isaacson, one of our few independent publishers in Australia of newspapers and magazines, is a very liberal man, if I may say so, in his whole approach and a very modern thinker-a progressive man in all respects. He said in his editorial in his Southern Cross newspaper on 28 September: In future, Australians will rue the fact that so many Australian buildings, so many Australian companies and so much Australian land have been sold to non-Australian people and companies. Profits from the sales are shared by a few but the loss of the land to overseas owners affects all Australians. Of course, what Mr Isaacson is saying there reflects a very widespread concern. It has been evident on the Gold Coast, but it is also throughout the community. In the South China Morning Post recently there was an advertisement which concerned your State, Mr Deputy Speaker: `Land available in Perth for redevelopment, subdivision and sale'. The heading on this advertisement seeking Hong Kong investment was `Australia up for grabs'. That has been circulating in my electorate. I am not sure who got hold of it and circulated it, but clearly there is a perception that Australia is being taken over, and that is one of the ingredients in the misunderstandings in the debate on immigration. Real estate prices in the community have risen and are now going beyond the reach of many Australian families, simply because overseas owners were buying properties until the recent restriction of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). They were often never even seeing the properties, let alone living in them, and selling them for a considerable capital gain. I think these are real factors in the apprehensions people have. I want to raise also, as part of the need for a public education campaign, the fact that in this Bicentenary we have been looking back a good deal. We have not been looking forward as much as we should have. The fact is that 40 years after World War II, the former colonies in the Indian and Pacific oceans are well-established, with new problems and new evolving relationships. We are the natural leader of the South Pacific, especially the micro-states, and without any paternalism we can in many ways be representing them in Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) conferences and in other forums that we attend around the world. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) has recently made a sweep through that region and that illustrates how belated this Government's action has been in respect of the South Pacific. We have not, with credibility, led and represented those states and we have not, therefore, made our contribution to the stability of the world because we have neglected our own backyard. In the Fraser Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Foreign Minister and many other Ministers visited our micro-state neighbours frequently. But in the wider Indian and Pacific regions, we should also be striving to forge close links with the nations of those regions. There are new and important bilateral relationships being formed all the time and we have to be part of them. I think a barrier to our doing that is the understandable feeling amongst many Australians that we are emotionally, culturally and even strategically part of the North Atlantic community. We still tend to see our two-ocean region through the eyes of nations of a third ocean. The best contribution which we can make to the Western Alliance is to play a positive role, to bring stability to the South Pacific and by understanding and being part of the north Pacific and the Indian Ocean region and sharing our perspectives of those regions with the Atlantic allies. The present Foreign Minister on the Channel 10 program Face to Face a couple of weeks ago actually said that north Asia is not in our geopolitical sphere of interest. He is very wrong indeed because the shifting relationships of North Asia impact directly upon us and upon our neighbours in South and South East Asia and in all parts of the Pacific. We must assess our national interest in north Asia as well as in the other regions in terms of what is going on between countries as to their politics, their diplomacy, their trade and what it is that we should be getting out of those changing relationships too. Last week I made a speech in Hobart to the Australian Institute of International Affairs, and I was quite critical of the Government in a number of foreign policy res-pects. But for my purposes today, I merely want to say that in recent years, both the present Government and the Fraser Government addressed many of the issues in our region of both the Indian and Pacific oceans: areas like Zimbabwe; South Africa; nuclear testing; the dumping of nuclear waste; self-determination of colonies in the region; fishing bases for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and tuna fishing by the United States of America; and the Kampuchean settlement. We addressed all of those issues in ways that were not necessarily those of the North Atlantic powers but to some extent, both governments have acted ahead of public opinion. Menzies and McEwen of course did that on the Japan trade agreement; Holt did that on the question of Asian immigration. But I believe if we are talking of a major public education program now, we must ensure that people realise it is not simply about the question of immigration; it is about Australia's part in the world and all aspects of the relationship that come from that. Only 10 per cent of Australian students do a second language at the higher school certificate (HSC) level. It is critical if we are really to play a part and understand other cultures that we acquire other languages. Languages of key economic importance are not even adequately represented in that 10 per cent at the HSC level and our economic competitors, of course, are putting much more into language skills than we are. Increasingly, companies are putting some money in but companies are also demanding that if people want promotion, they must have a second language. So many Australian adults are racing out to do crash courses at universities where they learn to speak but not to read another language. But we should be tackling it at the primary and secondary school levels much more than we are. Some progress is being made, but if the Government educates the public to understand the need, the public will sanction greater expenditure priority to be given to the area of language. At the moment, funds are just redistributed and expectations are not fully met. The Government has proclaimed that it is going to do all sorts of great things in the area of language training and inevitably it has disappointed people in many areas. It is not giving sufficient attention to the training of teachers, to the availability of library facilities and to the Saturday schools that cover so many important second and third languages to Australia. We will never understand our neighbours if we do not understand their language, and through their language their culture. We will never be successful in trade negotiations if we do not understand their temperament and their cultural viewpoints. We will never make a major contribution diplomatically by using our good offices as a middle power if we do not have language facilities. So I call very strongly upon the Government not only to have this wider public education program, but to educate for languages too. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(1.00) —I wish to take the opportunity provided to me today to draw the attention of the Parliament and the population at large to an illness which is little understood in the community and possibly even less understood in the medical profession, despite the fact that a significant proportion of its victims are themselves medical practitioners or their families. There is no known cure, except possibly time, for this illness, and no attributable cause. Its victims are frequently men and women of hardworking persuasion and lifestyle in the prime of their lives. The illness has a variety of names, which tends to exacerbate the confusion with which it is surrounded. The names themselves are evidence of the range of medical thinking on its nature and cause, as well as providing a clue to its arguably epidemic qualities and the propensity for geographically confined outbreaks. The disease is myalgic encephalomyelitis; ME for short. Benign myalgic encephalomyelitis is another name. Epidemic neuromyastenia, post-viral fatigue syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, Epstein-Barr syndrome, Icelandic disease, Royal Free disease, Tapanui flu, Lake Tahoe disease and yuppie flu are other names. While ME may not be the most medically correct term for the disease, it is certainly the one by which it is most commonly known. Recent literature tends to refer to it as post-viral fatigue syndrome on the basis that it frequently follows on the heels of another viral infection, such as glandular fever or hepatitis, or it can be called chronic fatigue syndrome on the basis that its symptoms are invariably those associated with extreme fatigue and that no consistent evidence exists to link the disease with viral illness. I first came across the consequences of this disease in 1984. When holidaying in the South Island of New Zealand I visited my cousin in Tapanui and was appalled to discover that she had fallen victim to an unknown fatigue which was causing her immense distress. As a 36-year-old mother of three young children, which would be enough to fatigue one in itself, she was normally noted for her good humour and energy and was undoubtedly accustomed to very hard work. She had been a nurse for most of her working life and was happily married to a farmer in a small community. The depression and lack of energy which plagued her was totally inexplicable to me. To see such a person struck down for no apparent reason in the prime of life was a great shock. There was certainly no suggestion of hypochondria or psychological disorder. In August this year I had the opportunity to see my cousin again. She has now recovered, but her husband, normally a fit hardworking farmer of pleasant disposition, has fallen victim to the same illness to the extent that he is now able to undertake the labour on his farm only spasmodically so as not to subject himself to a relapse. Furthermore, an older aunt by marriage is very ill with the disease and is hardly able to go out at all without exhausting herself and therefore risking a serious relapse. I determined to look further at this disease from a lay person's perspective, because of its obviously distressing effects to the sufferer and his or her family. Its quasi-epidemic quality intrigues me, and I believe if it is not viral it may be an immune system disorder which is exacerbated by environmental stresses. To assist interested members and others in the community I shall use my time today to outline a brief and possibly incomplete chronology of outbreaks of the disease, together with what seems to be the most relevant research on the subject. In 1955 an outbreak occurred at the Royal Free Hospital in London when 292 doctors, nurses and ancillary workers were struck down, hence the title Royal Free disease which appears in some subsequent research. Dr Melvin Ramsey, the then head of the hospital's infectious diseases unit, was convinced that it was a physical problem, probably of viral origin. In 1983 there was a large outbreak of this disease at Tapanui, which is where my cousin lives, in New Zealand. This was looked at by Dr Les Simpson, who is the senior research pathologist at the University of Otago. He described how the blood from Tapanui victims tended to filter more slowly than normal blood. In 1985 Drs Paul Cheney and Daniel Peterson documented an outbreak of the disease at Incline Village, Nevada, on the north shore of Lake Tahoe, which is a popular resort attracting thousands of visitors a year; hence obviously the use of the term Lake Tahoe syndrome. Cheney and Peterson perused the medical literature in search of a cause. They concluded that the most likely culprit was the Epstein-Barr virus, which I think has something to do with the herpes virus. The National Centre for Disease Control, however, did not endorse their findings. Subsequently blood samples from some of the Lake Tahoe patients were sent to the National Cancer Institute laboratory for analysis and Dr Robert Gallo discovered a new virus which he names HBLV, or the human B lymphotropic virus. It is another member of the herpes family and studies have shown that herpes viruses can be activated by stress. This might explain the prevalence of the disease amongst high achievers, hence the yuppie disease title. In 1986-87 outbreaks were documented in the Narrabeen areas of New South Wales by a local general practitioner, Dr Garnet Simpson. Dr Simpson believed that HBLV would prove to be the trigger virus which reactivated other types of herpes viruses lying dormant in cells in the immune and central nervous systems. The 1983 findings of Dr Les Simpson, however, were recently picked up by an Adelaide general practitioner, Dr Kathleen Maros, who had been struck by the prospect of the fatigue symptom being related to a red blood cell disorder and consequent reduction in the delivery of oxygen to the muscles, rather than a muscle disorder per se. Her interest in ME had arisen as a consequence of its being contracted by her son whilst on a visit to Europe. I know that the disease has been dogged by the suggestion that it is psychosomatic or hysterical in its nature; hence the medical practitioners' failure to give it due credence when people have presented with the problem. But I believe that this diagnosis is now well and truly on the way to being put aside. The point is that people who have this disease often are high achievers in their own right. They generally come from the middle age period of their life; they are often in small communities and it appears to have some epidemic quality. I would very much like to see the medical profession in Australia take this disease seriously and I am sure that there are people within their ranks, such as Dr Maros in South Australia, who are capable of isolating the problems involved in this disease and doing the nation and the world a service by finding out what the cause is. I do not think that this can happen without an environment of support for the people who are suffering from the disease and proper attention by the medical profession to their symptoms. Certainly I have had the matter drawn to my attention by a letter received from a person in Queensland, whom I imagine also wrote to other members of the House on the matter. I have no intention of letting it go at this. I want to follow it myself, again from a lay person's perspective, in order to ascertain as much as I can about it because of its worrying consequences for all the people in our society, especially if it is environmentally related. To conclude, I would very much like to acknowledge the assistance I have received from Dr Rod Panter of the legislative research section of the Parliamentary Library in assembling a variety of articles on this topic. Of those articles I have particularly drawn upon the Lancet extract of 4 June 88 called `What is myalgic encephalomyelitis', the British Medical Journal extract of 5 March 88 called `Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome-Time for a new approach', and a Time Australia article dated 21 September 87 entitled `Chronic Bug Fatigue'. I thank the House. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(1.10) —There is no more valuable asset to a trading and productive nation like Australia than an adequate and efficient road system. Earlier governments recognised this and gave a high priority to road construction and expansion to meet the needs of the motorist and resource industries. In my State of Victoria an excellent road system was developed, bringing reasonable and equitable access to the whole population. I remind the House that much of this work was carried out in times of limited technology and limited economic capacity but with a high level of commitment. However, in 1988 when we can blast men off to the moon and when this Government massively taxes road users to the tune of $7,000m annually, we find that there has been a 25 per cent reduction in road funding. Using gross non-farm product price deflation calculations, common road funds have declined from $1,127m in 1982-83 to $1,059.5m in 1988-89. The rape by the Hawke Government, aided and abetted by Premier Cain in Victoria, is so clearly identified when we see that in March 1983 a barrel of oil cost $38.69, on which 6.15c excise was added. In September 1988 the cost of a barrel of oil dropped to $17.44 and in the last few days has dropped even further to about $13. This Government through a system of indexation has increased excise to 21.53c. Every time motorists fill the tank of an average size car they pay almost $20 in tax; somewhere in the vicinity of $1,000 per year tax for every motorist in Australia. Then, of course, there are import duties, sales taxes or State charges such as licensing, registration, stamp duty and State petrol tax that owners must pay. This financial year fuel taxes will account for 9 per cent of Federal Government revenue. Last year these taxes represented the second largest source of Federal Government revenue after personal income tax. However, spending on roads accounts for only 1.6 per cent of Federal Government outlays. As costs for maintaining the existing overworked systems increase, funds for new and better roads decline. State road authorities themselves presently spend 60 per cent of works expenditure on maintenance alone. By the year 2000 they are expected to have to increase this figure to 80 per cent. Already more than half of our major roads have pavements at least 20 years old, which is their generally expected lifespan. This Government has recently reclassified such luxury items as jewellery, cosmetics, cameras and stereo equipment and reduced their sales tax to 20 per cent. Yet fuel attracts 150 per cent tax on its wholesale value. In this nation where we are so dependent on fuel it is taxed as a super luxury. When we consider the state of our roads and the demands expected in the near future, this contribution is a national scandal. For those of us who live in rural regions of Australia, producing large proportions of the States' income, the problems are threefold. Firstly, the Federal Government has initiated legislative changes which have forced grants commissions in each State to change their existing revenue-sharing formula. Each State grants commission must comply with more stringent Federal guidelines for the allocation of general revenue-sharing funds. The plight of rural shires as a result of these changes becomes acute and will limit their capacity to meet the level of their responsibilities, which includes roads. Secondly, the size of the overall allocation of road funds is already shown to be inadequate and declining. Third is the actual distribution of moneys available for roads. The method of distribution of these limited funds is not equitable, it is not just, and it is certainly not fair. Municipalities in the North Western Municipalities Association, which takes in all of my Mallee electorate and other parts of western Victoria, are seriously disadvantaged by the formula. With respect to weighted road length, population and the 10 per cent discounting factor for topography and rainfall, under this 10 per cent variation for topography and rainfall there are 13 councils that receive 10 per cent more than their basic entitlement and 10 councils, all members of the North Western Municipalities Association, that are penalised by 10 per cent. It is often argued that the 10 per cent variation is not a significant amount of money. No doubt the proponents of this policy would share the same feeling in regard to a salary cut. The member councils of the North Western Municipalities Association cover 30.7 per cent of the area of the State of Victoria. With the existence of low density population and low rainfall, it is therefore plausible that the region will be served and will have to be served by long lengths of gravel and earthen formations. These roads serve as a vital link in the provision of the infrastructure to rural industry. The rural properties within the North Western Municipalities Association in 1985-86 were responsible for producing 17.8 per cent of Victoria's gross agricultural production. This Hawke Government has therefore presided over four consecutive years of real road funding decline. It has consistently reneged on its pledge to index fully the hypothecated amount of fuel excise in the old Australian land transport program (ALTP). I am concerned that it will not keep its pledge under the new Australian centennial road development (ACRD) program to index a share of funds to the rate of inflation. Even if this does happen, the Government itself acknowledges that funding for local roads will be maintained only for the first three years of the program and if taken in conjunction with the cut in overall funds, it is clear that other important road categories will be squeezed. A recent report says reconstruction work on the existing major road network must be doubled by the year 2000 just to keep pace with the growing travel needs and demands of Australians. The Australian Roads Outlook Report prepared by the National Association of State Road Authorities puts into context the issue of road maintenance and road funding. Amongst the findings of the report was that 77 per cent of all domestic freight was moved by road, which highlights the overwhelming importance of road transport to both national and State economies. Australia's roads are a $100 billion asset-an asset which is ageing and therefore requires a higher level of funding upkeep in order to contain road user costs to acceptable levels. By the turn of the century road travel will increase by more than 50 per cent and the tonne/kilometre freight movement will nearly double. The number of passenger cars and stations wagons is expected to increase by 27 per cent to 10.2 million and, of course, the freight loading itself will increase by two-thirds. Better roads, therefore, are an immediate and basic need for private motorists and industry. Of course, there is the question of safety. Road crashes claimed 2,755 lives and injured 30,137 people last year. The Federal Government's own Office of Road Safety estimates that they cost Australia almost $5.7 billion in property damage, lost wages, hospital and rehabilitation costs last year. Crashes today are the single largest cause of death for all Australians under 45-not heart disease and not cancer. Since 1980 road crashes have claimed 24,700 lives in this country and a further 247,898 people have been injured. Mr Deputy Speaker, roads are not just a benefit to the productive sector. All kinds of people and groups benefit. Better roads save lives and reduce injuries. They ease the demands on the health system; they reduce labour, maintenance and fuel costs for business and individuals. They create jobs; they ease the burden of demands on the social security system; they stimulate tourism and, of course, better roads improve the environment. This Parliament, therefore, has a responsibility to address the major contemporary issues involving roads. The road system is wearing out more rapidly than anticipated under the strain of heavier vehicles and more traffic than ever before and will soon need to be completely redesigned and rebuilt. There is an urgent need to impress the Federal decision-makers that any cuts in road investment will very seriously inhibit Australia's economic interests. Victoria's share of the Federal road funds must be increased to a point where equity is reached between Victoria's contribution to the Federal Treasury and Victoria's justifiable road demands. Changes in the Australian economy are creating new road demands from an essentially mobile society which are not being met by a suitable and complementary level of road investment. There are many deficiencies in the road system which create heavy added cost to this society, affecting a wide range of programs from tourism to welfare and social communications to the infrastructure for new exports. There is a national disaster taking place before our eyes which, if not corrected, will return transportation and communications in this nation to the eighteenth century. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(1.20) —I enter this debate to raise the issue of consumer indebtedness, an issue which I believe is becoming one of national importance and heading to a point where one might say we have a credit crisis. I express personal concern at the practices of a number of credit providers, practices which in my opinion are causing poverty to tens of thousands of Australians in this country. I am concerned also that because of the moves for deregulation in the marketplace this in fact could become a crisis of such moment that we will have not a few thousand but hundreds of thousands of people affected, unless of course the responsibility can be put very clearly on the lenders. I know that consumers have responsibilities-they have very great responsibilities-but it is clear from the practices that are taking place that the lenders, the credit providers, have a special responsibility. It has been estimated that of the 10,000 bankruptcies that are occurring each year, around 70 per cent, are consumer related. They are non-business related, they are involving consumers and almost half of these are being caused because of over-commitment and because people are getting caught up and becoming the guarantors for loans of other people. It would appear that lenders are lending virtually to anyone. They do not care what the risk is. There is an instant credit arrangement in many stores which I will comment on briefly, but they are just prepared to lend to anyone. It is not a new problem; I accept that. It has been going on for a long, long time. I recall the `dare to be great' groups and the `pyramid' selling groups that would lend, either through banks or finance companies, to anyone to get in this `dare to be great' scheme that was simply selling people. But the problems are immense and we need to place on record the concern of this Parliament. I had a case brought to me of two adults in their middle twenties. They had an income of $469; they were buying land, and had no equity in it; they were buying a car, again without equity. They had four loans and a total indebtedness of $33,800. They were paying $192 a week or 40 per cent of their income, not counting their rent and other costs that they have. Another family of four, two adults and two children, had a weekly income of $303. Their total debt repayments per week were $156 and then they had to find money for rent. They had three finance company debts; they had two store credit cards. They owed something like $12,000. This is the sort of example that I think is indicative of what is taking place right across the nation. A young person of 25 years of age owed $7,000 but he had a car refinanced three times. Just imagine that-three times. His income was $150 per week. Another fellow of 22 years of age with an income of $260 had debts of over $7,000 and he was given a personal loan from a bank for a car. Another person of 21 years of age who was unemployed and whose only asset was a car worth about $1,000 owed over $5,000 but had a bank loan refinanced to buy a new car. Another person of the age of 20 was on unemployment benefits with an income of just over $180 per fortnight-per fortnight mind you, because this person was on unemployment benefits-owed $19,000 and has now gone into bankruptcy at 20 years of age. Another person of 18 years of age was working, lost a job and owes $7,000 just on credit cards. This is indicative of the problem that is right across this country, as I said. Another case concerns an 18-year-old, unemployed youth who was sold a $13,000 second-hand car on no deposit. His monthly repayments were $50 more than his monthly unemployment benefits. He did not have a licence. No identification was sought. He even put his age up to 19 at the time. He lied about working but no check was made and there was no deposit paid on the vehicle. Yet the finance company and the car firm got him into a car worth $13,000, even though he was unemployed. Another case involves a family of two people with three kids, three store credit cards, bank cards, two personal loans with a weekly income of $341, but repayments of $293 including their rent and they still had to buy food, clothing, electricity and so on. Recently they have been given a store credit card. Another couple purchased a home using building society finance. They had this home valued and a loan approved for $48,000. They paid no deposit and now after a domestic breakup the house has been revalued-and it is only 13 months later-at $27,000. It is sinister, it is evil and it is no wonder we have a crisis. There have been some in-depth studies carried out right across this country, particularly by the Australian Finance Counsellors Credit Reform Association. A campaign is being waged in Victoria by Tom Roper and others trying to come to grips with this problem. Our own Minister for Consumer Affairs, Senator Bolkus, is also endeavouring to awaken people to the indebtedness crisis but the responsibility must go back to those who are providing this credit. There is a need for this Parliament and for the States to come together and work, as their Ministers are trying to do, to bring down uniform credit laws, to bring about a system of tribunals where these issues can be fought out, also to ensure that there are guidelines and codes of conduct for those in the industry. As people realise, we have four major lending areas: the banks, the finance companies, the credit unions and also the building societies. I cite a recent case of a fellow in New South Wales on an invalid pension. He had been injured and he got a compensation payment. He used that to buy a house. He got into so much trouble with his debt that he went to a credit union. It gave him $15,000 to consolidate his debts and the repayments were more than the invalid pension he received. The credit union ultimately sold him up. Cases are coming to me in my role in consumer affairs of stores giving instant credit to young people in the stores. They go to the counter where they can get instant credit. There is no assessment of their performance or capacity to pay. All they need is proof of identity. They fill in a form and sometimes, I am told, and only sometimes, there is a phone check back on the person. It is no wonder that a recent survey carried out in Victoria showed that of all of the young people surveyed some 16 per cent had debts in excess of $12,000. We are talking about young people; we are talking about people 18 and 19 years of age. It is no wonder that the bankruptcies, and I take Victoria's figures as an example, in the 18 to 25-year age group have jumped from 10 per cent of all bankruptcies in 1984 to almost 17 per cent last year. Our youth in this country are being encouraged to borrow; they are being encouraged to borrow regardless of their capacity to pay. They have been encouraged to get into all sorts of credit cards. There are over 400 different credit cards available in this country and it is no wonder, again, that the consumer debt is now in excess of $23 billion; $23 billion is owed by the families across the nation. I support the moves for uniform credit laws. I support the tribunals that have been set up in a number of States. I believe there needs to be, however, a low cost tribunal structure similar to Victoria's to allow credit problems to be dealt with very quickly. We need to come to grips with the unjust loans that are being forced upon people-the unconscionable contracts. We need to ensure that people's rights are preserved. In Queensland a family went in and borrowed money at 21 per cent for a home but because they missed one payment, and were a week behind, that interest rate rose from 21 per cent to 31 per cent and stayed at 31 per cent. They are the sorts of activities that are taking place from some providers, some lenders in this nation. It is time that these lenders rethought their obligations; it is time they took upon themselves a proper duty to consider the capacity of consumers to pay. It is time we had clear codes of conduct that were accepted by all those players in the industry. It is time, also, that we targeted the schools because we have a generation coming through of people who are going to be borrowers and users of credit. I accept how credit can increase, improve and enhance one's quality of life, but it can turn a family to poverty. It can destroy families. It creates domestic problems that are unbelievable. Then there is a cost on the taxpayer, because when that family breakdown is there, there is a cost in the support systems that governments have to supply. There is a cost of debt recovery and 50 per cent of local court matters relate to recovery of debts. In Western Australia, I am told, it is higher. As honourable members know, in Western Australia people can actually go to gaol for debt. I am told again that in the last three years something like 120 people have gone to gaol for debt there. So there is a cost we are bearing in the court system, in the health system, in our efforts to try to support children caught up in poverty, trying to provide counselling services for people-a cost that has to be overcome; but we overcome it, I suggest, by attacking the problem. It is time that the lenders of this nation accepted their responsibility as credit providers. It is time that they accepted that we are going to face a national crisis unless they take on a new integrity in the lending practices that they pursue. We ought not to allow this to continue regardless of the values of having a move towards a deregulated marketplace. There must be protection for the borrowers' money, there must be protection for the users of credit and I would suggest there is a need for a national strategy and a national campaign to endeavour to solve this national crisis. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(1.30) —In today's grievance debate I wish to examine the question of the Australia-Britain relationship, as Britain goes further into Europe and also to reflect on Mrs Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, and her most successful bicentennial visit to Australia in August of this year. Mrs Thatcher said and did a number of things when she visited this Parliament and World Expo 88. In one of her speeches she said that Britain and Australia have followed divergent paths in the last 20 years and neither of us can neglect our geographic position. She said: We in Britain know that a large part of our future lies in Europe, not a united states of Europe but nonetheless, a Europe market by a steadily closer cooperation between separate nation states, each with their own history, traditions and interest. We agree with that but I think Australia has global interests, and whilst very much of our future lies in the dynamic Pacific rim of the Asian region of the world in terms of trade and economic activity, the world does get smaller every day; the trading world gets smaller every day, the real world gets smaller every day and I think we have to resuscitate our relationship with the United Kingdom. Margaret Thatcher's visit to Australia does offer the opportunity for us to do that. It provides Australia with the opportunity for a re-birth and a re-envigoration of the Australian-British relationship. Her visit could well herald and be the start of a new era in a new and vibrant relationship, reflecting the good things of the past but taking new things into the future. I would hope that Mrs Thatcher, as she examines the relationship with Australia-as I understand she undertook to do when she went back to the United Kingdom-could take steps and in fact, end the discrimination that exists against Australia in Britain in a number of fields. I hope that this discrimination can end as we grasp this new opportunity for Australia. I think Mrs Thatcher can do much to end the discrimination against us in Europe in the current agricultural policy and I will come to that. But I think that she can take action in England immediately to improve the relationship. I think her visit provides perhaps the last opportunity for Australia to put right the massive discrimination at the government level that does exist in Britain against Australia. When an Australian arrives in Britain for the first time, he goes through the `Alien Gate'. Mr Downer —It is disgraceful. Mr SHIPTON —It is, and I feel it when I go through the `Alien Gate', as I am sure all Australians do. Australians did not fight in two world wars for freedom and democracy, shoulder-by-shoulder with British soldiers, to be treated as aliens. I think it is unreasonable, unfair and I appeal to Mrs Thatcher to end this discrimination against Australians immediately. We get no credit for having fought side by side. I have recently visited the Somme, I have seen Australian war graves, I have been to Gallipoli. Australians laid down their lives for those same freedoms, but I think those Australians would turn in their graves as their sons, daughters and grandchildren are treated as aliens as they arrive in the United Kingdom. Mrs Thatcher is a plain-speaking person and it is time for plain speaking on both sides of this globe. Britain has to remedy these discriminations. Another discrimination is perhaps a small one in many respects, but I think it is massive in others, that Australian students who wish to study at British universities are virtually denied this opportunity. They must be sponsored, have rich parents, make great sacrifices or receive scholarships, because they have to pay three and four times the fees of British students, whereas students in the Common Market can enter British universities almost free. I think it is time for some plain and frank speaking, and I do not see why the German students in the Common Market should be favoured. Germany did lose the Second World War and it is time we raised some of the issues. Why should the sons, daughters and grandchildren of Australians who fought against Germany be denied access to United Kingdom tertiary institutions and the grandchildren of those against whom they fought have free access? I hope the world has changed, but I do not think it has changed for the better in that respect. The other massive discrimination is one I think Mrs Thatcher acknowledges and recognises and I congratulate her for that, because the United Kingdom, for historical reasons, is a party principal to that massive discrimination against Australia; that is, the Common Market itself and the common agricultural policy which is an aspect of the Common Market. It is very serious, as we move to see Europe, a united states of Europe when the single Act comes into effect at the end of 1992, virtually a united states of Europe, looking inward. Mrs Thatcher is the last hope that that single Act, that that European united states, will relate to the real world and the rest of the world. I refer to a speech she made at the College of Europe on 20 September this year, because I think it is very significant and it adds to what she said when she was in Australia. She said that the British have in a very special way contributed to Europe. She said that only miles from where she was speaking in Belgium lay the bodies of 120,000 British soldiers who died in the First World War. Had it not been for that willingness to fight and to die, Europe would have been united long before now, but not in liberty and not in justice. They were Australian troops, Mrs Thatcher, who lay down and died alongside those British soldiers for that freedom and democracy and are now finding that their country for which they fought and died is discriminated against in the United Kingdom. But Mrs Thatcher does give us hope opposite the single Act and opposite the common agricultural policy and the Common Market, because she says the European Community belongs to all its members and it must reflect the traditions and aspirations of those members. She is quite right when she says that Britain does not dream of some cosy isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe as part of the Community. But she says other things. She says: `The Community is not an end in itself, it is not an institutional device to be constantly modified according to the dictates of some abstract intellectual concept'. She acknowledges others, and this is particularly important. She says, `The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people, in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations'. Australia is one such nation that I suggest needs acknowledgment in the terms of Mrs Thatcher's recent speech in Europe. Australia is one of these nations. In that speech, I think, she very forcefully, very accurately, very correctly, set out a number of guiding principles in relation to Britain and Europe. I think we in Australia can congratulate her on that; we can endorse those guiding principles, because some of those guiding principles are very applicable and very important to Australia in the world today. She attacks the European bureaucracy. I have been to Brussels on two occasions and the frightening thing about the European Community is that there are bureaucrats living and working in Brussels who are responsible to no-one. There is no parliament, there is no Westminster system. There is a European Parliament, but all the European Parliament can do is refuse a budget or sack all the commissioners; acts that are not taken lightly. So it is powerless. This bureaucracy is growing up in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg controlling Europe, taking away powers from individual parliaments; taking away power from the House of Commons and all the other parliaments of Europe. Mrs Thatcher is the first leader to stand up and recognise that and she is criticised by those same bureaucrats for doing it, but in doing it she is to be congratulated, because she sees a Europe outward looking; one that is prosperous for itself, but in prospering takes into account the needs of other nations so that they can prosper also. Mrs Thatcher does provide us, that strong British leader, in Australia, with the last opportunity, I think, for a new hope for Australia in Europe and a great new opportunity. I say, let Australia accept Mrs Thatcher's offer. Let her be our Trojan Horse. Let us fight alongside her for rights for Australia in Europe. Let us take the step forward together, not only to a better relationship but for a better world. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(1.40) —When Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was Premier of Queensland he often tried to play up supposed differences between Queensland and the other States and between Queenslanders and the rest of Australians. He did this for political purposes, inasmuch as if Queensland was different, and the National Party was the guardian of this difference, he tried to claim some sort of State nationalism to gain support for the National Party. In this way Queenslanders were urged to equate the National Party with pride or at least consciousness of being a Queenslander. One device which the Premier used was to ignore the benefits which the other States adopt on 31 October each year when they go on to a system of daylight saving. Queensland, despite a trial period in 1971, has steadfastly refused in the years since that trial to adopt the system of daylight saving. On 31 October of this year, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania will again go on daylight saving time, while both Queensland and Western Australia will remain on pre-daylight saving time scales. The States which have adopted daylight saving are in very fine company. Some 57 countries around the world have adopted daylight saving. These nations include Canada, France, Germany, United Kingdom, parts of the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, parts of China, Argentina, Uruguay and even New Zealand. Now that Sir Joh is no longer Premier I think it is time for Queenslanders to think again about the issue of daylight saving. One month ago I launched a campaign to bring public focus onto this issue. I tried to outline to Queenslanders the benefits of adopting a system of daylight saving. Those benefits are both economic and in questions of quality of life. The economic issues, put simply, concern savings in power. It must be remembered that initially daylight saving was introduced in Australia at the time of the first and second world wars purely as a saving power measure. It has been estimated that Queenslanders could save at least several million dollars during the summer months in reduced lighting costs. This has been the experience of both New South Wales and Victoria. It is interesting to note that Queensland has the second highest energy consumption level per capita in Australia. There are considerable advantages to businesses and in direct economic gains for service industries, including sporting clubs and the tourist industry. It is interesting to note that Mr Keith Williams, a well-known tourist entrepreneur in Queensland, and certainly no friend of the Labor Party, has made a very strong statement in support of daylight saving. In fact, his resorts run on what he calls `island time' which is, in effect, daylight saving. For the rest of Queensland business there is considerable disruption as many Queensland businesses trade with the major centres in New South Wales and Victoria. An hour is lost each morning, an hour is lost each afternoon and there is confusion during the lunch break through which Queenslanders, in effect, are severely disadvantaged. This disadvantage to Queensland business has been recognised by the Queensland Chamber of Commerce. The President of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr Roger Bryce, again has made a very clear and firm statement that Queensland should adopt daylight saving. Most important, is the issue of family life and the benefits which daylight saving affords. What it basically means is that there are more usable daylight hours for families to spend together. That has significant benefits and I think that in itself is sufficient justification for at least putting to the Queensland public a referendum on this question. In response to the campaign I started, many thousands of Queenslanders have signed petitions which have been circulating throughout the State. Polls taken by media groups have shown extremely strong support for the concept. As I have indicated, many prominent Queenslanders have made a commitment and this includes the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson. Unfortunately the response of the new Queensland Premier has been to reject the suggestion out of hand. Privately he is understood to support it, but Mr Ahern cannot bring himself out of the shadow of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He is a prisoner of the most conservative elements in Queensland. He is prisoner of those people who have now opposed him. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay)-Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —I support Amnesty International's world awareness campaign regarding the deplorable record of political deaths and other human rights violations in Columbia. I do this, not only as a member of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International, but on behalf of the very active Sandringham Chapter of that body in my electorate. Two hundred people disappeared in 1985 after being seized by security forces in Columbia. Over 1,000 are still unaccounted for as at last November; 140 death squads have been publicly identified by the authorities in Columbia, but not one person has been convicted of a political killing. I support very strongly the call by Amnesty International for the Australian Government repeatedly to raise the matter in the United Nations, with the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, with the Organisation of American States and bilaterally with all governments which might have influence with the Columbian Government. We in Australia tend to overlook the importance of South and Central America to us. I think it is very important that there be the maximum public awareness in Australia of the atrocities being perpetrated in Columbia. We must do all that we can as a civilised country to bring pressure to bear on a government which demonstrably is uncivilised and betraying its citizens' welfare. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur) —Mr Deputy Speaker, events in Wollongong during the past week concern me greatly with the election of committee chairpeople and also the Deputy Mayor of Wollongong City Council. It concerns me because of what I perceive to be the growing alliance between the so-called Independents under Frank Arkell, the Lord Mayor, and the Liberal Party of New South Wales. That has been clearly demonstrated by two significant events; one, the appointment of the only Liberal Party alderman on Wollongong City Council to the second most influential chairmanship of a committee; second the appointment of my former opponent in the last election to the position of mall manager in the city of Wollongong. Quite clearly there are forces at work within Wollongong City Council and within the Lord Mayor's office that would have Liberal Party and prominent Liberal Party people appointed to positions in Wollongong City Council, either on its staff or within the organisation itself. It is quite interesting to note that, as I understand it, the particular person appointed as the mall manager has nominated to stand against one of our colleagues in the seat of Throsby in the forthcoming federal election in another 18 months time. I find the actions of the so-called Independent-controlled council reprehensible. If they are Liberals in disguise, they should come out and say so and not keep fooling the people. Mr PRATT(Adelaide) —Northfield High School is a remarkable example of initiative and achievement at work in my electorate of Adelaide. Back in the late 1970s a Commonwealth grant from the Liberal government of the day enabled the school to establish a specialist agricultural course. Under the current guidance of principal Ivan Hill, the agricultural course has been so successful that Northfield High has in fact a growing waiting list. The school's standing in the community is so high that it is staging the Australian Bicentennial sheep dog championships this weekend. I take this opportunity to congratulate Northfield High School, its council and students for the example they have set the community at large. Unfortunately limited resources allow Northfield High to run its course only to year 11. To extend the agricultural program to the matriculation level the school needs a further four hectares of land. As it happens, the school adjoins the Northfield Agricultural Research Establishment which is in the process of being shut down by the State Government. It is planned that more than 300 hectares of Adelaide's green belt will be turned over to housing development. Despite repeated lobbying, the Bannon Government has turned a deaf ear to pleas that four hectares require to be given to Northfield High School. Environment Minister, Don Hopgood, quick to accuse me of deceit when it was proved that there were drugs in our schools, has danced around the matter on a number of occasions. I stand in this House today to ask the Government to consider a special one-off grant of necessary funds to allow Northfield High to take advantage of this unique opportunity by buying the land from the Bannon Government. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I live in the City of Bathurst. Bathurst is the oldest inland country city in Australia, going back to 1815. It was actually declared a city in 1885 and it has had a very proud history of local government over that period of time. I was delighted, Mr Deputy Speaker, to learn several weeks ago that Bathurst has a new mayor; in fact the first woman to be a mayor in the City of Bathurst since the declaration of the City of Bathurst in 1885. I take the opportunity to mark the occasion and to place on record the contribution made by Alderman Ann Ashwood as the first woman to be elected to the mayoralty of the Council of the City of Bathurst. She has been on the Bathurst City Council since July 1978 and has been re-elected on several occasions since that time. She has chaired a number of committees and, I believe, given her experience on the Council, she will make a very fine mayor indeed for a city that has a very proud record in many aspects, particularly its service as far as local government is concerned. Mr TAYLOR(Groom) —I rise to voice my concern at the continuing waterfront trade union gangsterlike measures being taken during the present Australian port visits by warships of many nations for the bicentennial naval salute. In particular, I am concerned about actions taken over recent weeks in the ports of Newcastle and Port Kembla and this week in the port of Melbourne, where vessels from Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, the United States, France and Italy are involved. Ships of the Royal Navy and the United States Navy are being singled out for denial of port services because of their so-called nuclear capability, actions which not only must place at risk the well-being of those on board but also must question the credibility of the Hawke Government which invited them in the first place. It is therefore incumbent on the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and Victorian Premier Cain to overcome the unreasonable industrial actions in Melbourne now and for the Minister for Defence to seek assurances from Premiers Bannon and Dowding that such regrettable and internationally embarrassing situations are not repeated in South Australia and Western Australia in the coming weeks. Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst a very small but unduly vociferous minority would like to see such port visits discontinue, it is my judgment that the vast majority of thinking Australians welcome these as a measure of international cooperation and mutual understanding. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde) —I rise to pay tribute to two women within my electorate-Christine Hill and Helen Gordon-who have taken the opportunity to use the Nursing Mothers Association of Woodridge to offer programs of assertiveness and self-confidence training for women in the area. As honourable members may know, this area is severely disadvantaged and has very little State government infrastructure. It is a city of 130,000; it has no hospital, no public transport and very few services are offered. These two women have taken, through this Nursing Mothers Association, a giant step for the individuals involved. They have turned the Association into a support group. They offer personal support and also offer a central focus for the community whereby we, as a community, may give both parents and children in this group support and determination to develop a lifestyle which will make them independent in the long term. So it is important that we acknowledge the efforts of these two individuals because they are contributing very much to the community as a whole and ensuring that people who have, at some stage, become dependent on us are now living independent, worthwhile and meaningful lives. Mr PROSSER(Forrest) —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) will visit Indonesia next week during his South East Asian tour. I urge the Minister to raise the concerns of many ordinary Australians in regard to Indonesia's recent attitude towards this country. Indeed, the historical prominence of Australia in this region appears to be under challenge. But apart from the odd whimper we have not come to terms with the muscle flexing that characterises the Indonesians' attitude. Without doubt Indonesia is a very important neighbour with which we should have positive and amicable relations. But on what terms? To date the good neighbour attitude has been all one way. For example, the Indonesian Government's responses to a number of recent events have been of great concern. We have seen a procession of Indonesian fishermen blatantly poaching in Australian northern waters and landing on our shores. We have seen an attempt to smuggle illegal immigrants into Australia, and recently, the tragic shooting of a Queensland yachtsman, David Blenkinsop. In the latest incident the Indonesian authorities were prepared yet again to ignore Australia's concerns until the Federal Government finally got dinkum and demanded action. If we are serious about our role and our responsibilities, we have to reassert our leadership with strong and fair policies. Over the last years, Australia has supported Indonesia with development aid totalling more than $300m, with a further $80m this year. Mr Deputy Speaker, quite clearly respect cannot be bought. We have to earn it. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I wish to congratulate the Ocean Reef festival coordinating committee. Ocean Reef is a suburb within the city of Wanneroo-a very rapidly growing suburb-and on Sunday last it had its first festival. It was a well organised festival, and I think the leaders deserve praise, certainly from the local people. In particular I want to mention Rudi Steffens, who was chairman of the coordinating committee, as well as Eric Wilson, who is the president of the Ocean Reef Ratepayers Association. My own contribution to the festival was to take part in the distribution of prizes to a number of people whose gardens were adjudged the best in the area. I think this is always a worthwhile project, because we do need to cultivate community pride. By the award of certificates of merit and by the award of plaques we can so encourage our community. I wish them well. They propose to continue in the coming years and I am sure they will do well. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —The attention of this chamber and the electorate at large in recent days has focused on the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) being reduced to the status of lame duck leader through the efforts of both the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and rightly so. The fact that the Prime Minister of this country has been crippled and reduced to lame duck leadership status is of great interest, but he is not the only Minister of this Government who has been reduced to worthlessness. I refer to the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), for whom, I have to admit, I have a degree of affection. On a personal basis I have no argument with the Minister, but within the political and scientific communities he is held up as a laughing stock, the reason being that he cannot deliver for his constituency, namely, the scientific community. It is being cut and slashed on a daily basis, and what solution does the Minister offer that bedevilled community? It is simply this: another inquiry, an inquiry into research and development, which flies in the face of logic, almost defying belief, given the number of inquiries that have already been printed and distributed to government in recent days. The poor old Minister for Science has been rolled again. He will be rolled again and again in the future and, sadly, he has hinted in the past that he should resign as the ultimate statement of his failure to service science. I frankly think now is the time for him to fulfil that as a final gesture to the community he is supposed to represent. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh) —I wish to draw the Parliament's attention to an article in the British Medical Journal of 28 May 1988 regarding radiological problems. The article states that the National Radiological Protection Board of the United Kingdom has issued new guidelines on applying protection standards and has recommended individual radiation workers should not be exposed to more than an average of 15 millisieverts a year. This average is less than one-third of the current limit for effective dose equivalent in one year of 50 millisieverts. I wish to draw to the Parliament's attention the need for Australia to adopt a lower standard for exposure to radiation. Exposure to radiation levels has been dropping over a period of about 50 years, but it still leaves workers in the industries, particularly those in the uranium mining industry, exposed to the dangers that asbestos workers have suddenly found themselves caught up with. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being 2.00 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a, the time for members' statements has concluded. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Acting Speaker, before Question Time commences I want to raise with you a matter concerning the conduct of Question Time. Before I begin, on behalf of all members of the Opposition we certainly wish Madam Speaker a speedy return and trust that she has not suffered any injuries as a result of her accident last night. Yesterday during Question Time Madam Speaker ruled out of order two questions that I sought to put to the Acting Treasurer (Mr Dawkins) concerning his alleged approach to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) asking the Prime Minister to resign his leadership of the Government of Australia. I ask you, Mr Acting Speaker, whether it would be your disposition to rule in a similar fashion as the Speaker if those questions were again addressed to the Acting Treasurer today during Question Time. If it is your disposition to rule in the same manner as did Madam Speaker yesterday-and you, I gather, were present during Question Time yesterday, so you would be familiar both with the substance of the question and the nature of Madam Speaker's response-would you be good enough to inform me and the House of the circumstances under Standing Orders, as you see them, which prevent members from questioning Ministers on matters similar to those I raised yesterday? I put it to you that it is, to say the least, a matter of supreme public importance that a senior Minister in this Government should have asked the head of this Government to resign his position as the head of the Government and it passes our understanding how we are denied the opportunity of questioning the Minister regarding the accuracy of those reports. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —My understanding of the Standing Orders is that Ministers can be questioned on matters to do with their administration and matters for which they are responsible to the Parliament, not matters of a personal nature or conversations that they may have had outside of their area of responsibility to the Parliament. I would take the same view, as I recall the Speaker's view yesterday, that questions along the lines of those asked yesterday would not be in order. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.04) —Mr Acting Speaker, in light of your ruling I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the questioning by members of this House of the Acting Treasurer regarding the conversation he had with the Prime Minister in which he advised the Prime Minister that it was his view the Prime Minister should resign so that the Treasurer might take his place. I raise this as an important matter-- Mr Holding —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. The substance of this matter was raised by way of censure motion yesterday and the matter was resolved by a vote of the House. The procedure now being sought constitutes a reflection on a decision of the House; it is plainly out of order and I ask you so to rule. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. It is within the wish of the House, if it so desires, to suspend Standing Orders to deal with the matter. Mr SINCLAIR —In concurring with the ruling you have just given, Mr Acting Speaker, can I explain to the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding), whose knowledge and understanding of this Parliament is still so obviously inadequate, that we seek to ensure that the circumstances on which you have ruled and on which Madam Speaker has ruled are such that we can proceed to a line of questioning of the Acting Treasurer (Mr Dawkins) which we believe is important from the point of view of public knowledge. As you know, Sir, and you referred to it in your ruling, standing order 142 relates to the manner and form of questions that can be directed to Ministers. That standing order reads: Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible. It would have been possible for us to dissent from your ruling or in some way seek another interpretation, but we simply put it that there is no more important issue relating to public affairs, which is the first of the three areas about which questions may be directed. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is sitting there smirking. I wonder whether his colleagues are smirking to the same degree. The reason we must suspend Standing Orders is that the people in the gallery and those elsewhere in Australia want to know why the Acting Treasurer asked the Prime Minister to stand down. Did the campaign director for the Treasurer (Mr Keating) go along to the Prime Minister and say, `Look, we are all buddy pals together. We are all a happy band of brothers. We would like you to stay there.'? No, he did not. The reason Standing Orders must be suspended is that it is important that the people at large know why the Acting Treasurer said, `You, my friend, need to stand down'. The Prime Minister is the senior office-bearer in the Australian Parliament. Our Constitution requires that after an election the person who is in a position to command a majority in this Parliament go along to the Governor-General and say, `I am in a position to exercise a majority in the House of Representatives'. We are getting to the position where Old Silver cannot exercise that majority. `Hi ho, Silver', I said yesterday. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party-- Mr SINCLAIR —I withdraw the remark, Mr Acting Speaker. The Prime Minister has a concern that he can demonstrate to the Governor-General that he has a majority. With the campaign director for the Grim Reaper out there at work, there is a problem. The Prime Minister's majority is beginning to fail within Caucus. We know how the left wing regards the Prime Minister. We know that within the factions of the Australian Labor Party a few of those aspirants for power whose bark is more significant than their bite would love to be Ministers in that rather inept, incompetent group sitting behind the Prime Minister. Yesterday seven Ministers were absent during Question Time and today the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Treasurer-the power base of the Government-are away from the Parliament. We know the Treasurer is overseas; he has addressed the International Monetary Fund and is paying back a little bit of debt; meanwhile, back home the Australian taxpayer knows his gross indebtedness is growing. I wonder what will be the September balance of payments figure. Standing Orders must be suspended because we wish to ask the Acting Treasurer why he wants the Prime Minister to go. That is what it is all about. Members of the Government can laugh. We sat here all through yesterday without getting any answers. This is a pretty good headline in the Australian, and it poses the questions we want the answers to. It says: Perhaps Keating will go-maybe there will be another reshuffle-the only certainty is uncertainty. We want to ask the Acting Treasurer questions pertaining to his dinner meeting, about that Chinese meal. Did they use chopsticks? Were they talking about Old Silver, or the Grim Reaper; were they talking about the power play? Where does Simon Crean come into it? Whose seat is Simon Crean going to take over? Mr Kerin —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. What on earth has this to do with the matter before the House? This is a rerun of what was said yesterday. This is a nonsense and a disruption of Parliament. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SINCLAIR —You have ruled that there is no point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, and the people of Australia have a right to know the answers to these questions. That is what this is about. We want Standing Orders suspended so the Acting Treasurer can properly answer questions. We moved two motions yesterday. The Acting Treasurer has not responded to them. We asked two questions in this place yesterday. Both were ruled out of order. The Acting Treasurer has a responsibility to this place to say just why he did that. Can he read? We got it blown up. He is getting a bit old; he needs glasses. Can he read? `Why Dawkins and Hawke have split'. The article says: . . . he felt obliged to tell Hawke to his face what he was saying to others. I do not really think that anyone in the Australian public would doubt that that is really what it is about: `Why Dawkins and Hawke have split'. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I might draw everyone's attention to the fact that newspapers should not be read in the House. We will have some order in the House. Mr SINCLAIR —I know that the Government is embarrassed about the issue, and this is not a laughing matter. The people of Australia have a right to know. The Prime Minister laughs and carries on and pretends to be a friend. We believe that this is an important matter relating to public affairs. Mr Acting Speaker, you have advised the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) today that he cannot ask a question on the matter. We were advised yesterday by your colleague Madam Speaker on two occasions that questions were out of order. My colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) yesterday morning asked the Acting Treasurer to come into the House and make a statement telling us why he made those comments that were reported as a result of that dinnertime discussion between Paul Kelly and himself at a Chinese restaurant in the city. We moved for the suspension of Standing Orders yesterday afternoon. The Acting Treasurer responded. He did not deny the article. He confirmed the article. He confirmed that he wants the Prime Minister to go. There is little doubt that of all the prime matters relating to public affairs there is none more important than how long the lame duck Prime Minister is going to sit in that seat. There is no doubt that there is nothing more important. We know that the Grim Reaper, who is enjoying the perks and lurks of his journeys abroad, is going to come back and get the backing of the numbers. The reality is that this is an important matter relating to public affairs and the only way by which we can ask questions, the only way we can get an answer from the Acting Treasurer, is for the Standing Orders to be suspended. Instead of smiling, instead of trying to move away from answering the question, the Acting Treasurer can in fact respond. Why did he ask the man at the front to step down? Why does he no longer have any confidence in the Prime Minister? Why is he backing the Treasurer to take over his office? Is it just his personal ambition? Is it just that he wants to be Treasurer? Or does he really believe, as do most Australians, that the Prime Minister is no longer competent, that the Prime Minister no longer has the confidence of the members of this House? It is important that our Standing Orders permit the man who now seeks to interject to get on his feet and respond properly to questions we want to direct to him on important matters of public affairs. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(2.14) —I second the motion, Mr Acting Speaker. There are three components primarily to this Parliament, notwithstanding the views of many that it is a place of only Opposition and Government business. The third component just happens to be the people of Australia. The people of Australia have many rights in this place and the first right they have through their elected membership is the right to know. They are entitled to be reassured when issues are raised in our media and, as has occurred in this case, they have not been denied. Notwithstanding the opportunities offered yesterday morning to the Acting Treasurer (Mr Dawkins) by the Opposition, when we gave him the opportunity through suspension of Standing Orders to explain to us clearly his attitude to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and, more importantly, the opportunity to deny that such a meeting ever took place, to deny that he did not personally leak that information to the media and notwithstanding giving him the opportunity to come forward and give us an answer during a censure motion, he was about as forthcoming with information during that censure motion as he usually is with his tax accountant. He told us nothing. The issue for the people is to know whether or not the facts on the disruptions that have now been reported in the media are to be given to the people of Australia. In truth, that is a real problem. Let us get back to some of the other reasons why people need to know. It would be interesting if the back bench members of the Australian Labor Party were entitled to know. It was very clear from looking at their faces yesterday that the first they knew about it was when they looked at the newspaper and saw Paul Kelly's article. We have a Treasurer (Mr Keating) and an Acting Treasurer with arrogant disregard for their lame duck Prime Minister. They want him out. The people of Australia do not know what is going on and the opportunities that are available are being ignored. We might ask, if the Government is so confident, if this is not a real problem within its ranks, why it is that again the Opposition has to give the Acting Treasurer the opportunity to talk about it. Why is he so embarrassed? Why is he ducking the issue? He is ducking the issue because, fact No. 1, the Acting Treasurer on the twenty-ninth did go and tell his Prime Minister, `It is time you went'. Mr Gear —How do you know? Mr TUCKEY —I know quite simply because he has now had 24 hours to deny it, and we know how quickly he would deny it if he thought he had an ounce of opportunity of getting away with it. He knows very clearly. We had the Acting Treasurer telling us yesterday, `You don't believe everything you read in the newspapers'. Why did he not just stand up and say, `I didn't ever go to the Prime Minister'? Why did he not deny it, like the Treasurer, who completely disregarded reports of a very insulting telephone call between himself and Senator Richardson about our Prime Minister? Why? Because, firstly, it happened; and, secondly, they do not care. They do not care about the extent to which they embarrass the Prime Minister and they will go on doing it as part of a campaign to get rid of him. The point about all this is-- Mr Dawkins —Where is the proof? Mr TUCKEY —Did the Minister ask where the proof is? Mr Dawkins —Yes. Mr TUCKEY —Where is his denial? Why would he not do it? He came in here and denied that he was a tax cheat. He denied that he was a tax cheat time and again. He was pretty quick to do that. This time he will not deny it because it is true. It is true and he does not care. He has no respect for his Prime Minister-probably even less than does the Treasurer. He wants his job; he is determined to have it. More importantly, in speaking to this motion, the matter must be resolved in the public interest. Section 142 is clear. It says that the Minister is responsible for matters relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected. He clearly thought he was officially connected with the campaign to get rid of the Prime Minister. He went and told him to leave, and he is the self-appointed campaign manager for the Treasurer. As such we offer him the opportunity: Stand up like a man and take it. Or is he going to hide behind Standing Orders? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(2.19) —Mr Acting Speaker, we will of course not be suspending Standing and Sessional Orders for this ridiculous little motion the Opposition has got together. There is a leadership problem in this House but it is not addressed by the substance of the motion. It is not a leadership problem that arises out of the fact that, after a period of 5 1/2 years in office, we have on this side of the House the most popular, well respected and trusted Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that, historically, this country has had. The leadership problem, and this motion is a reflection of it, lies in the fact that on the Opposition side we have a leader who is out of control of his Party. Do not think that we do not know what goes on in the Opposition's parliamentary tactics meetings. We do. We know very well that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has opposed this line of activity-in this instance sensibly, almost uniquely-because he recognises how ridiculous he looks in this Parliament standing up here and moving what is effectively a dissent motion from Speaker's ruling yesterday, which is when he should have moved that dissent motion. All that the Opposition has done is to confess to the pathetic nature of its parliamentary tactics. The Opposition is absurd. It has been demonstrated to be absurd not only on this occasion but also in regard to all the other parliamentary tactics that it has designed to disrupt the proceedings of this House. The time has come for the Opposition to look seriously at whether its parliamentary tactics ought to be run by the competent people on its front bench, such as the official Manager of Opposition Business, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), or whether it wants this perambulating idiocy from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) to persist as the style of dealing with Opposition front bench business for time foreseeable; and it will be for a very long time indeed. It is absurd to hear the honourable member for O'Connor ask the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) whether he ought to make some public comments about what are alleged to have been his views about his Leader when we look at the published views of the honourable member for O'Connor about his Leader. He was asked by the Northern Advocate, that devastating journal of political investigation, whether he had any nice comment to make about his Leader. He first asked the journal, `Can we give this off the record?'. The Northern Advocate said that it would be on the record. When the honourable member learnt that it would be on the record he had nothing to say. That is helpful as far as the Opposition is concerned, because even though his opinion of his Leader is obviously totally contemptuous-which is why this motion is before us, against his Leader's advice-other members of the Opposition in leading positions are not quite so unforthcoming on the public record. Another thing that the Opposition might learn at its parliamentary tactics meetings is that when an Opposition member has something to raise in the House, he should make sure that he is a clean skin and that no-one on the other side of the House has anything to wave at the same time. If Opposition members had done a bit of reading this morning, instead of being involved in an Opposition tactics committee meeting, in their own little whirlpool of fatuousness, they might have taken time to read the views of the Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate (Senator Stone). What did he write today about the quality of conservative leadership in this country? I suppose that he has a view not only about the Leader of the Opposition but also about the Leader of the National Party of Australia. Senator Stone said: People today wish to vote conservative- that is a view with which we on this side of the House would not necessarily agree, but it is a lead-in that might be expected- However, they will not vote for parties which they perceive to be poorly led; in particular, they have no intention of exchanging any reasonably moderate Labor government for a Liberal, or Liberal-National alternative led by someone who, for whatever reason, commands no respect (as distinct, however, from popularity). He then qualified his remark slightly by saying: Thus the key lesson of Victoria is that you can't win with losers. Indeed, that is true. Mr Hawke —Who said that? Mr BEAZLEY —That was said by the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, a person who takes a leading position in the affairs of the coalition. How can the Leader of the National Party in this place bring forward this sort of proposition with these sorts of remarks hanging over his head? It is not just a problem for John Howard's leadership; it is a problem for the Leader of the National Party. What does he lead? His equivalent in the Senate is capable of writing something like that about conservative leadership in this country in which he referred not only to the Leader of the Opposition but also to the Leader of the National Party. He could not have been more specific: the Leader of the National Party is incompetent. That is what he has said. The Leader of the National Party is not only unpopular; he is incompetent. He is unprincipled and incompetent, yet he has the hide to suggest in this place that we have something to explain on the leadership issue. Mr Tuckey —Mick Young would have been into the jokes by now. Mr BEAZLEY —I do not have to be a Mick Young to deal with honourable members opposite. That is one thing that I have learnt pretty rapidly over the last few months. A former secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, on a recent radio program, stated: . . . I think it's unwise to consider the Coalition's problem of both parties is only a leadership problem. We think that it is fairly wise, but he thinks that it is a bit unwise to say that that is the only issue. He continued: It goes much deeper than that. There's a problem of leadership succession. There's a problem of front bench performance. There's a problem of backbench performance. There's a problem of party administration performance. There's very deep-seated problems and the discussion whether from Senator Chaney or anyone else about the leadership issue really confuses the real issue, which goes much more deeper than leadership. Indeed, it does, as the Opposition's parliamentary tactics today confirms. I ought to make one or two other points about the way in which the Opposition conducts its parliamentary tactics. Ever since it has given the honourable member for O'Connor a bit of a run in this place it has just put itself into one ridiculous position after another. This is only the latest formation. Honourable members opposite have had something to say about whether we answer enough questions. It made a complaint about whether parliamentary business was being allowed to proceed in a sensible, normal fashion. Let me point out a few statistics: in 1982-at the high point of the discussion of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, we, then in opposition, showed the then Government how an Opposition could operate, which the present Opposition has never managed to achieve in the 5 1/2 years in which it has been in that position-61 points of order were taken during Question Time. The reason that we did not have to rely on points of order was that we raised matters of substance which were very different from the matters raised by the present Opposition. Mr Tuckey —Dawkins on tax. Mr BEAZLEY —Last year, when the Leader of the National Party was in control of Opposition tactics, 144 points of order were taken during Question Time. Mr Tuckey —Total hypocrisy. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr BEAZLEY —A change of about three. The Opposition's tactics in this place have been disruptive, and nothing else. Why? The answer is simple: the Opposition has no policies and no leadership. The only resort for an opposition that cannot ask questions in this place, that cannot dispute matters in this place, is to try to disrupt the parliamentary proceedings. Consistently, over the last few months, honourable members opposite have challenged the Speaker's authority. They have consistently reflected on the Chair. What amazes me about the performance today, given their past record of disorderly behaviour, is that they did not take theopportunity to raise this as a matter of question-ing-- Mr Spender interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr BEAZLEY —As a matter of questioning the way in which the Speaker made her interpretation of those affairs yesterday. The fact that they have not done so gives a pretty fair indication of how far behind the game they are. They are absolutely absurd. Their tactics today have continued that absurdity. As I look at the glum faces of back bench Opposition members as they contemplate years and years in opposition ahead of them, we on this side of the House develop a certain degree of sympathy for their agony, but not enough for me to allow this ridiculous nonsense to continue. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Mr Sinclair —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is now 2.28 p.m. Has the time for the debate concluded? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The time for the debate has expired. I draw honourable members' attention to the fact that yesterday during a division some members moved from one seat to another. That is not only disruptive for the Whips but also disorderly. I just bring that to honourable members' attention to see that it does not happen again. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Adermann, A. E. McGauran, P. J.Aldred, K. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacpheeBeale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Moore, J. C.Brown, N. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Crawford, M. C. McHugh, J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. C. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W.Johns, G. T. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Acting Treasurer whether the real rate of return after tax on a savings bank account paying, say, 11 per cent interest, for a wage earner facing a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent is close to zero. Mr DAWKINS —I am fascinated by the question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Honourable members will recall that this is the man who is responsible for Opposition tax policy, which was promised in August, and then September, and still has not emerged. So far as his question is concerned, I shall be happy to look at it and give him the answer. Mr GRACE —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce inform the House what new initiatives the Government has taken to ensure that unnecessary existing business regulations are removed? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Fowler for his question. As announced in the Prime Minister's speech to the Business Council of Australia on Tuesday night, the Federal Government has introduced a major new initiative to ensure that unnecessary existing business regulation is removed. Business or professional associations, unions and interested groups or individual firms will be able to apply to have a case heard for review if there are regulations that they consider unreasonable. The initiative is essentially a request/response procedure. In the past we have introduced procedures which minimised both the introduction and the costs of new regulation. Already Cabinet has agreed that the Business Regulation Review Unit may require departments wishing to develop new regulations to produce a regulation impact statement. New regulations may contain sunset provisions and, wherever possible, laws must be expressed in simple English. In the past the Government has set its own priorities for the review of existing regulation. The new procedure will allow business and other interested groups to put forward their points of view. Guidelines elaborating on the requests will be developed by the Government in consultation with business associations and other concerned groups. It is expected that the submissions for review will identify the body of regulation concerned and the nature of the problem-for example, excessive complexity, overlap or duplication or administrative burden-quantify the costs imposed by the regulations concerned, indicate the extent of consultation on and support for the proposed review and, most important, propose solutions. Mr Beale —No one believes you. Mr BARRY JONES —But we actually do it. No government has done more than this Government to address the problems of business, to restructure the economy. It is interesting to go back to the period between November 1985 and March 1983 to find out what the mob opposite ever did about the economy. What did they do about restructuring? Mr Tuckey —Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. The section in Standing Orders relating to questions refers to government policy and is clearly put in there for the purpose of stopping Ministers making statements during Question Time and consequently avoiding the appropriate response from the Opposition. This is a gross waste of Question Time. I would ask you to follow the precedent set by previous Speakers and ask the Minister to bring his answer to a close and to use the appropriate forums of the Parliament. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BARRY JONES —This will of course mean a much greater degree of public scrutiny on the need for regulation. But it puts the onus where it ought to be-on business itself. Business cannot just moan and groan. Business has to be able to document what the problem is, make it specific and then put the case for the removal of regulation. Requests for such reviews will be coordinated by the Commonwealth's Business Regulation Review Unit. Those requests which are considered to be sufficiently substantiated will be forwarded to the responsible Minister, who then will be required to seek agreement from the Structural Adjustment Committee of Cabinet to any proposed response. A time limit of two months has been set for the initial response, which will be extended in the event of a detailed review being considered necessary. In conducting the reviews, the resources of independent agencies such as the Industries Assistance Commission, the Inter-State Commission or the various research bureaus may be employed. This procedure has advantages over earlier alternatives in being priority driven. But it puts the opportunity squarely in front of business. If business wants to take it up, it ought to take advantage of it. I repeat what I interpolated before: this Government has done more in its 5 1/2 years in office to create a more favourable business environment and to create the opportunity for business to reach its full potential than was ever done before. I cannot imagine what those opposite ever did in the 7 1/2 years they were in government. Their record in industrial restructuring and in strengthening the economy was pathetic. Mr MILES —I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Did the Minister have prior knowledge of the intention of the Secretary of his own Department to take action in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Aboriginal Development Commission against the Chairman and the General Manager of the ADC at the meeting of the Commission in Adelaide this week? Mr HAND —No. Mr LAVARCH —My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. What progress has there been in award restructuring, and what specific measures is the Government undertaking within its own programs to assist this process? Mr PETER MORRIS —Let me say at the outset that this program of award restructuring in workplace reform is one of the most important and fundamental initiatives ever undertaken by any Australian Government. The purpose of that program is to remove inefficiencies and inequities that have been created by existing award arrangements, to improve labour market flexibility and productivity and, essentially, to ensure that Australian products and Australian services become more competitive, both at home and abroad. I should quote to the House the progress that is being made. The objective in the metals industry is to reduce some 350 job classifications to about eight levels. This involves training and multiskilling for the work force and change in the workplace. But that change will take place with the involvement and participation of the employees themselves. In essence, what we want to achieve is a safer, more secure and satisfying work-place and jobs that have career paths for the employees involved. The reception that has been given to this program by industry and by the trade union movement has been, in my view, nothing less than enthusiastic. There has been a very good response. I have been surprised at the strength and support which have come in particular from leaders of industry and the manner in which they are progressing through the difficult negotiations that are involved in a change of this kind. I can say to the honourable member, who I note has taken an interest in this subject in the past, that, unlike the Opposition, we approach this matter on a tripartite basis. Industry, the work force and government are working together in cooperation to achieve change of a magnitude that has never happened in the workplace in this country before. It is the kind of change that is needed if this country is to become competitive, both at home and abroad. The three industries that stand out in this process are the metal trades, textiles, clothing and footwear industry and vehicle building. I am confident that the progress that is being made will bring significant results. A package which we have in place and which was announced earlier in the Budget Papers includes, in part, the new Industrial Relations Bill. In this respect I want to pay a tribute to my colleague the Minister for Transport and Communications, the former Minister for Industrial Relations. That Bill finally passed through the Senate last night after a long period of difficulty and I hope it will be in this place on Monday afternoon. It will then pass through this chamber. An amount of $3.9m has been allocated for the new workplace reform package. That package has as a key feature a workplace resources scheme, a work change support scheme and an industrial participation training scheme. In addition to that, a comprehensive workplace industrial relations survey is being undertaken to provide essential information in this area for the first time in the history of this country. So, overall, I can say to the honourable member that this legislation is the first of its kind, and this package is the most important that has ever been put forward in the process of industry reform by any government in this country. The objectives are going to be achieved because of the cooperative approach by this Government, by the industries themselves, by the work force and by the trade unions involved. 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- Director of Public Prosecutions-Annual Report 1987-88-section 33 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. Trade Practices Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Mr BEAZLEY —I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accord with the Standing and Sessional Orders of the House: Chlorofluorocarbon chemicals-from the member for La Trobe-75 petitioners Citizens' initiative and referendum-from the member for Swan-5 petitioners Citizens' initiative and referendum-from the member for Hughes-10 petitioners Country road funding-from the member for O'Connor-74 petitioners Food irradiation-from the member for Hindmarsh-17 petitioners Food irradiation-from the member for La Trobe-1,357 petitioners Freedom of education-from the member for Denison-3,006 petitioners Nuclear reactors-from the member for Hughes-153 petitioners Nursing homes-from the member for Menzies-18 petitioners Recent events in Burma-from the member for Swan-439 petitioners Romanian bulldozer programme-from the member for Swan-6,369 petitioners Mr CAMPBELL —In the absence of Madam Speaker I would like to ask you, Mr Acting Speaker, a question relating to Hansard. Is it true that Hansard in the Federal Parliament is the lowest paid of all Hansard staffs in Australia? Is it also true that this is creating a staffing crisis in Hansard which has led to Hansard reporters on workers compensation being forced back to work in this House? If these circumstances do prevail will you, Mr Acting Speaker, agree to look at it with Madam Speaker and determine what can be done to remedy this outrageous situation? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I will seek some advice on the issue and take the matter up with Madam Speaker who will respond to you in the short term I would imagine. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m on Thursday, 20 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 Monday, 17 October 1988. The report read as follows- Report relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 20 October 1988 Pursuant to sessional order 28d, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 20 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. Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted *1 MR PORTER: To move-That- (1) the Government's failed social and economic policies have caused widespread poverty among Australian families which will not be overcome by the Government's new family assistance package; and (2) the Government must reverse the record interest rates, high unemployment, high marginal tax rates, housing shortages, high rents and falling value of family allowances if it is to offer real assistance to Australian families. (Notice given 12 October 1988). 1 hr 25 mins *2 MR LAMB: To move-That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the way in which the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia occurred; (2) regrets that there are no proposals for an internationally supervised act of self-determination; (3) calls on the Government to maintain active support for all international initiatives to settle the East Timor problem, especially the efforts of the UN Secretary General; and (4) recognises that the territory of East Timor should be opened up to international relief and humanitarian organisations, to parliamentarians, trade unionists and other community groups to relieve concerns about human rights and safety. (Notice given 24 August 1988). 35 mins *3 MR MILTON: To move-That this House- (1) recognises the vital and creative role which public enterprise has provided in the development of Australia's economy and, in particular, the significant contributions made by the Commonwealth Bank, Telecom, Qantas and Australian Airlines; and (2) places on record its view that public ownership is an important and essential ingredient of economic policy. (Notice given 25 August 1988.) any remaining private Members business time *The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day 13 October 1988...LEO McLEAY Chairman Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The crippling effect of the Government's economic policies on Australians trying to buy their own homes. 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 DOWNER(Mayo)(2.53) —Members of this House know that housing is at the very essence of Australian society. The quality of housing, its price and its availability are fundamental measures of the living standards of the people of our country. Yet, last night, 50,000 people slept outside or in refuges. That is twice as many people as did in March 1983. Thousands more Australians today, this week, are unable to afford to buy their own homes or in some cases are threatening to sell their own homes because they can no longer afford the mortgage repayments on those houses. They cannot afford the growing burden of interest rates. This tragedy in the housing industry is another example of the way over the last 5 1/2 years the living standards of people in Australia have gradually fallen. Since March 1983 the higher home ownership costs in Australia have added in real terms a burden of $14 a week to the average family, that is, $14 a week on top of the $56 a week decline in real living standards that the Opposition has so accurately calculated. When we look at the statistics as to why there has been this enormous increase in the cost of housing in Australia we can see how truly tragic the story really is. The cost of buying a house in Australia has nearly doubled since 1983. In 1984 the average monthly home loan repayment was $335. In 1988 the average is $620-a massive increase. The real estate industry survey of home loan affordability once more tells the tragic story of what has happened to the living standards of home owners in this country. The average Australian family in 1983 was paying 18 per cent of household income for its home. In 1988 it is paying 28.4 per cent of that family income and in New South Wales the figure is an incredible 34.3 per cent of family income. That is a 58 per cent increase in costs taken as a proportion of household income over the last 5 1/2 years. We can see from those figures that living standards using housing as a measure have plunged since March 1983. The Commonwealth Bank-Housing Industry Association study of average annual family disposable income needed in order to get a home loan reveals some fascinating figures. The study estimated that the average family's disposable income is about $34,500 a year. Yet that family needs $39,500 a year to qualify for a loan for the average family house-an enormous difference and a demonstration again of how fewer and fewer people in this country are able to afford decent housing. Of course, these statistics do not come as a dramatic surprise to us on this side of the House. We have seen the way interest rates have risen. Home loan interest rates have risen in particular from 11 1/2 per cent when Labor came to power to 14 1/2 per cent. Indeed, in the case of some banks the figure is 15 per cent, particularly in the case of Citibank Ltd in Melbourne. We know there is continuing upward pressure today on home loan interest rates. We said before the Victorian election that after that election home loan interest rates would go up. The Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), who is at the table, said they would not. The next week the State Bank of South Australia and Citibank both increased their home loan interest rates. This morning on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news we heard that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which has so many home lenders, is considering increasing its home loan interest rates in the near future. Many building societies have said the same thing. Many economists and many financial institutions have said there is a real danger that home loan interest rates will rise even beyond their current level. If they rise by one per cent that will impose yet another burden, in this case of $45 a month, on the average home loan. The reason that interest rates have risen so much and the reason that home owners have been discriminated against by this Government is that interest rate management has been almost the sole instrument of its economic policy. It is very well if one is sitting in the executive wing of this grand building and dictating as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) does that interest rates might go up a bit in order to help us resolve our balance of payments problems. But it is not all right if you happen to be living in the suburbs of Australia trying to afford the mortgage repayments or, worse still, it is not all right for a young married couple desperately trying to buy their first home. One of the consequences, of course, of using interest rates as an instrument of economic policy and thereby forcing up costs to home owners, is that more people cannot afford to buy their own home and that leads to longer queues of the homeless. Today 600,000 people in Australia are simply without a home. The public housing waiting lists alone in this country have risen in the last five years from 120,000 to nearly 180,000 people. In Australia 160,000 people at the moment are living in caravan parks. Some of them live in them out of choice but most of them live in them because they cannot afford to buy their own home or because they cannot get into public housing as a result of the long waiting lists. As I have said already, 50,000 people just last night slept outside or in homeless refuges, which is twice as many as five years ago. If ever there was an indication of falling living standards, of a tragedy of living standards in this country, that is the clearest demonstration anybody could give. This, of course, does not apply to every member of the Australian Labor Party. It was revealed yesterday that one member of the Labor Party, Senator Devlin from Tasmania, is somebody who apparently is not suffering a housing problem. Senator Devlin has a household income of some $80,000 a year. That is his back bench salary as a member of the Senate. In addition to that, his wife has an income as a member of his electoral staff. Senator Devlin rents a Housing Department house for $74 a week in the town of Burnie. He pays $74 a week! How many people in Burnie are waiting for public housing? There are 400 people in Burnie wanting public housing. Senator Devlin is taking a house from one of those families. There are 900 people in north-west Tasmania waiting for public housing and Senator Devlin is taking a house or a unit from one of those families. It is a matter of shame for the Labor Party that one of its members should treat with such contempt those who do not have housing. Yet, the statistical record of the Government over the last 5 1/2 years just indicates how inevitably that must have been the case. The Labor Party has an almost ideological opposition to the concept of home ownership. It has an obsession against home ownership. Look at what it has done with its first home owners scheme, which is a scheme to help people purchase their first homes. We just have to look at the figures. In 1984-85 it spent $300m on the scheme; in 1988-89, $178m-a massive decline; and by 1990-91, only $146m. Providing less and less money for people who want to purchase their own homes, as interest rate burdens go up and as the cost of housing goes up, is the worst thing any government could possibly do. But we know just from looking at the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that this Government is not really serious about the whole philosophy of Australians owning their own homes. I really was not surprised to read some words of the Prime Minister in the Adelaide Advertiser of a couple of weeks ago. This is what was in the Advertiser: . . . faced with a recent report that 60 p.c. of Australians may soon be able to afford to buy their own home, 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. So the Prime Minister has just surrendered. He does not care. The Government will not bother any more about people owning their own homes. It is not part of the Labor Party's philosophy or ideology. It is trying to force more and more people into dependency, into public housing and into renting their own homes. It does not matter if they cannot buy them. That is why this Government is cutting out the first home owners scheme. That is why it does not care about using interest rates as its sole instrument of economic policy. That is why it does not care about the increasing proportion of people's income which is just being absorbed by high interest rates on their home loans and the high cost of housing. The consequence of it all is that this Government's housing policies and its approach to such a fundamental indicator of people's living standards have become little more than a shambles. I thought that Senator Walsh made an extraordinarily revealing remark back in June which once more confirmed what the Prime Minister said in the quote I read from the Advertiser. He said that Australia spends far too much money on housing. Actually, we spend less than the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average, but Senator Walsh does not care. This Government is saying, `Let us spend less money on housing. Let us get people out of their own homes. Let us make them dependent'. To give the Government its due, at least it has come up with one recent initiative. But will this initiative raise living standards or will it lower them? We discover that it will lower them. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) has announced that the Government has a new housing scheme whereby people will be able to get smaller houses on smaller blocks and they will be able to save $15,000 on the purchase of such houses. In other words, if we reduce the quality of housing people might be able to buy a house. That is the Government's latest policy. That is its latest offering, which we had last week. Lower living standards mean worse housing, and that is what this Government advocates. So, as costs and interest rates rise the Government's solution is to give people smaller houses on smaller blocks of land with less space and repeated statements that the Australian dream of owning one's own home with one's own backyard is something of the past. If ever there was an indication of how the living standards of ordinary Australians are falling, that approach from the Government, which confirms their feelings, is it. The Government's housing policy has become nothing more than a shambles, and the Government itself recognises this. It has had about 28 different housing policies in the last 5 1/2 years, which is quite a few, and the Minister is now reviewing all of the Government's housing policies. He would not be reviewing those housing policies if he thought that they were an enormous and overwhelming success. So, all sorts of left wing academics around Australia are being sent off to come up with new schemes which will somehow provide for more public housing. There will not be any solutions that will provide for an extension of home ownership such as the one the State Government in New South Wales is trying to offer; there will not be anything of that sort coming from Canberra. There will be more of the philosophy of dependency, more of the economics of higher interest rates, more of the economics of higher home purchase costs and nothing at all for the living standards of ordinary people. We have seen a whole series of disasters which have done so much damage to ordinary people. We saw the great negative gearing fiasco which led to a total collapse in the private rental market. People just were not prepared to build rental accommodation any more. To give the Government its due, it admitted that it was wrong; but the housing industry will say again and again that that decision by the Government in the first place to take away negative gearing had a catastrophic effect on that market. So did the capital gains tax. The industry will also tell honourable members of the devastating effect that that has had on the private rental market. It is picking up again; but it is not picking up as it should, because those statistics that I have read out already only confirm the failure of those policies-the 50,000 people who had to sleep out last night, the 600,000 people who have no home at all, the 180,000 people who are on the public housing waiting lists and all those Australians who are facing higher and higher costs even if they have been able to purchase their own homes. If ever there was an indicator, that is a clear indicator of living standards in this country plunging for everybody-with the sole exception of Senator Devlin from Tasmania. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(3.08) —The shadow Minister for housing, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), has expressed to this House his great concern for those on public housing waiting lists and the homeless in Australia today. Members of the Opposition are now telling us that public housing and rental accommodation should be cut for those with the lowest incomes in Australia who cannot afford to buy their own homes. The Opposition, when in government, did not have any scheme which was effective enough to cope with the need for crisis accommodation or the needs of those needing supported accommodation. Where was its crisis accommodation program? Where was its supported accommodation assistance program (SAAP)? They did not exist. The Opposition, when in government, had a whole lot of pilot programs which were scattered across the country. It had no real or substantial program such as the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement that has been operating in this country since it was brought in by this Government in 1984. Let us look at the record relating to home ownership. Home ownership in Australia was lower in the 1981 census than it was in the 1986 census. That is a national fact. And that was at a time of inordinately high growth in households. I will come back to that later. Under the previous coalition Government, first home buyers were assisted under the home deposit assistance scheme and a special tax rebate was available. Neither of those schemes was well targeted. Many people received assistance to buy their first home, but they did not need it. This Government introduced the first home owners scheme and it has been accepted, I believe, by honourable members on both sides of the House, by the industry, and certainly by the community as one of the great achievements in assisting people into home ownership. The first home owners scheme is far better targeted than anything that was created by honourable members opposite. Seventy per cent of beneficiaries have incomes below average weekly earnings. More than $1,300m has been approved since the inception of the first home owners scheme and that has assisted over 300,000 households. That is a considerable number of people. In fact, all the home ownership and housing assistance programs of this Government have assisted a total of about 1.4 million people which is equivalent to the whole of the population of SA, the home State of the honourable member for Mayo, or to the total population of the city of Perth. That is a considerable number of Australians who have been assisted into home ownership or into living in their own homes in Australia. The Opposition wants to chop it all to ribbons. We have a high level of home ownership in Australia because we now have, under the deregulatory financial policies of this Government, a very large supply of housing finance available. In the three months to June 1988, secured housing finance commitments by all significant lenders was $6.5 billion. In March 1986 when total regulation applied the figure was $1.9 billion. In terms of the number of dwelling commencements, the honourable member for Mayo was very keen to point out the problems in the industry. In 1982-83 when the coalition left government, how many commencements were there? There were 105,000. Over the period of this Government the figure has consistently been well over 120,000 or 130,000. The honourable member knows very well what the state of the industry is today, yet the honourable member is challenging us to believe that we are now in a state of crisis. How many commencements are expected for next year? Over 150,000 commencements are expected. So much for the crisis. What happened in the period in which the Opposition was in government? The number of commencements has risen from 105,000 to almost 150,000 since we have been in government. That is the difference. Mr Downer —Ask the welfare groups about the crisis. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member will not interject. He was heard in silence. He should extend the same courtesy to the Minister. Mr STAPLES —We have a better housing situation than was the case when the Opposition was in government because this Government has taken a total, across the board approach to housing. We have not just considered home ownership, which this Government totally supports, but we have looked right across the board at the public housing rental sector and at the private rental sector. We have also taken into consideration the first home owner who is at the point of interface between private rental and home ownership. No-one in this House can seriously challenge the overall success of those policies. The honourable member for Mayo expressed concern about public housing. Let us look at the Opposition's record in public housing. Let us look at its concern for working people on low incomes for pensioners and for social security beneficiaries. When the Opposition left government its expenditure on public housing, in real terms, amounted to $1.7 billion. We have increased that to $5.3 billion. In 1987-88 the Federal Government made a total commitment of $1.114 billion to the States and the Northern Territory for public housing. That is an increase of 40 per cent in real terms, not in inflated terms, on the measly $552m provided in 1982-83. Two hundred and twenty thousand households have been accommodated in public housing in the five years of this Government compared with the Opposition's record of, not a measly, rotten 220,000 or even 100,000 but 165,000. That is the Opposition's commitment to public housing. It is a farce. Opposition members talk about assisting people on lower incomes into home ownership. Let us look at the record again. They say that when they get back into government they will cut government spending. When they were in government 50,000 households on low incomes were provided with home loans. This Government has provided home loans to 72,000 households. How many houses did the Opposition assist with rental accommodation in its five years? It added 40,000. How many has this Government added? It has added 70,000. That is the difference and it is well and truly seen by the people out there. They know where first home ownership support comes from. They know where public housing support comes from. Those opposite, who bleat and carry on and shed crocodile tears for people on low incomes who need housing assistance, had their opportunity in government, but they blew it because they really do not care. We have the supported accommodation assistance program to help people who are homeless, to help young people and older people in housing crisis or in personal crisis and in need of shelter, to help women who are suffering from domestic violence or sexual abuse. What did the Opposition do when it was in government to show it cared about those people? Where was the supported accommodation assistance program? Where was the full crisis accommodation program? It was not there. Funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has grown to over $100m in 1987-88. Mr Downer —It is declining in real terms. Mr STAPLES —It is supporting people which is more than the honourable member's government did when it was in office. This Government's record in economic management is internationally recognised as remarkable. This Government has worked to improve the economic and financial conditions which will benefit home owners. That is the reality. People in public housing, people in need of crisis accommodation, people in private rental accommodation, people trying to get their first home, and people living in homes know very well-they elected us to government and have returned us to government at two subsequent elections-that they cannot trust the Opposition to put together policies. The Opposition cannot put together a tax policy; it cannot put together a health policy; it cannot put together a housing policy that people can trust. That is the difference. Mr Downer —We have put together a housing policy and the people trust it. Mr STAPLES —They do not trust it because the Opposition cannot add up. Its housing policy is just a simple wish list and a collection of pious intentions and words. Its repayment assistance proposal is vague to the point of being meaningless. We have to turn to the press for details rather than to the Opposition's policy document. How does the Opposition expect people on incomes of $15,000 to buy properties in Sydney or on the Gold Coast? Yet it says that they should be able to take out loans of up to 100 per cent of the value of the properties. The reality does not have a comprehensive approach to housing assistance or rental assistance. The Opposition will cut social security benefits. It will cut government spending. This Government has policies on social security, incomes support, employment, taxation and housing. These policies cannot be matched by honourable members opposite. Let us look at the facts. There is more to do with housing in this country than simply provide Commonwealth funding. If one reads the front pages of the Daily Telegraph or one of the other newspapers in Sydney one would think that there is a housing crisis, an affordability crisis, right across Australia. In some sections of Sydney and in some parts of the Gold Coast there are very expensive costs associated with going into housing. That is the reality. Mr Downer —Doesn't that worry you? Mr STAPLES —Of course that worries us. But there has been a lot of investment in property over the last couple of years for a variety of reasons and that has put tremendous stress on the availability of land, particularly in desirable areas and in a way as desirable as Sydney. It has put tremendous stress on property values in places such as the Gold Coast. We have to disaggregate the market, not simply rely upon one figure. That masks the national figures. National figures are masked by some of the affordability problems and the overheating problems that exist in Sydney and on the Gold Coast. Those problems need to be addressed by State and local governments as well. Mr Cadman —Duck the issue when it suits you. Mr STAPLES —No. The honourable member, who is also from Sydney, realises that the shortage of serviced land in Sydney puts pressures on costs. Mr Cadman —So you cut State Government budgets. Mr STAPLES —The honourable member would also realise, I am sure, that there are pressures on local governments in zoning regulations. When Opposition members stand up and talk about housing they expose their weakness. They do not understand the totality of the market. That was evident in the criticism from the honourable member for Mayo of the joint venture for more affordable housing. As we approach the twenty-first century, we have to look at-- Mr Downer —Lower living standards. Mr STAPLES —Not lower living standards. We have to look at the issues that are changing our society-changing lifestyles and needs. Many young people who are looking for accommodation-the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) would probably correct me-do not necessarily want the quarter-acre block. I am not quite sure what it is in metric. He told us the other day that there is not so great a need for the quarter-acre block for everyone in Australia. Mr Downer —But you are denying it to them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! I warn the honourable member for Mayo. Mr STAPLES —There is not a reduction in quality. There is not a reduction in standards. There are ways of finding more affordable housing of good standards, and ways to build houses better and cheaper. There are changing lifestyles. That is being demanded by the population. The issues surrounding, particularly with our ageing population, de-institutionalisation, and the effects of State and local government will be addressed in the housing review. The Opposition does not have the policies that will take it into government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(3.23) —All around Australia the very dogs are barking that this Government is totally out of touch with what the people of Australia are thinking. The Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) comes in here not like a barking dog, but like a little pussy cat, saying, `Miaow, miaow, miaow'. The Minister is also totally out of touch with the reality of the lives of ordinary Australians. He is out of touch with the 50,000 people sleeping in the streets. He is out of touch with the young Australians who cannot possibly buy their own homes. Regrettably, the Minister's response to this matter of public importance was weak and pathetic. He talked about the stale pastry of what happened under previous governments. He then went on, as is the standard procedure of his Government, to blow his own trumpet. He does that very well. He is not out of touch with that. Honourable members opposite come in here and endlessly blow their own trumpets about how they are the best at this and the greatest at that. The Minister is certainly the best at being out of touch with the ordinary people of Australia. There was no substance in the Minister's response. Yet he did say, `There is more to do with housing than Commonwealth funding'. That is why we are having this debate today. There is more to do with housing than Commonwealth funding. The terms of this matter of public importance are `The crippling effect of the Government's economic policies on Australians trying to buy their own home'. If we boil that down to the reality faced by ordinary Australians who want to own their own homes, it comes down to two factors: inflation and interest rates. I remind the House of what was said in the Australian Financial Review only last Monday under the headline `Pressure builds on home mortgages': The major banks are under pressure to review housing mortgage rates as Citibank Savings Ltd increases its mortgage rate to 15 per cent from today. According to ANZ Banking Group Ltd's general manager of retail banking, Mr Rupert Thomas, the bank was `conscious' of the upward pressure on interest rates. `If interest rate pressures hold next week there is strong likelihood that the bank will be forced to move our housing rate upwards,' he said. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) confirmed something that was said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio this morning about the strong possibility of interest rates going up once again. last week an article in the Sydney Morning Herald headed `Big slump in home sales blamed on dearer loans' stated: Climbing interest rates knocked the wind out of the New South Wales housing market in August with sales plummeting by 16 per cent . . . That is what is happening because of the Government's economic policies. Its economic policies have failed. They have undermined the confidence of the housing industry and of home buyers and have put housing beyond the reach of tens of thousands of Australians. They have put more people in the public housing queues than ever before. Existing Federal spending on housing programs has not resolved the housing crisis. In fact, it continues to grow. Housing related poverty has become a way of life for more than two million Australians, including 850,000 children. But the Minister and the rest of the Government would not be aware of that, because they are out of touch. The Hawke Government is totally out of touch with the reality of life for the Australians they seek to serve. We have had continual policy reversals and inadequate overall economic policy. The housing and construction industries are of great importance to Australia's economy and to the people who want to own their own homes. They account for over $20 billion of annual gross fixed capital expenditure. They employ almost half a million people directly and have significant multiplier effects. Residential housing construction contributes only 4 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product. But that does not mean that its importance is only 4 per cent. To a young couple without a house it is of 100 per cent importance. The Government does not realise that because it is out of touch. It does not care. As a result of Government policy over the last five years, thousands of young Australians have not been able to afford to buy their first homes. Labor has no-one but itself to blame for the chaos in the housing market with record numbers of people unable to purchase or rent accommodation. Mr Howard —The Minister has left the House before the debate has finished. Mr NEHL —I said earlier that he does not know and he does not care. He is out of touch. Mr Jull —He doesn't want to know. Mr NEHL —He does not. We have had five years of Old Silver's Government, five years of record high inflation and record high interest rates, together with Labor's capital gains tax and negative gearing reaping a harvest of spiralling house prices and skyrocketing rents. At least we convinced the Government to see the error of its ways with negative gearing. But as I said, it is totally out of touch. I want to talk about a specific example-the average price of a house in Sydney and what one had to pay for a loan to buy it when Labor came to office compared to what one has to pay now. Let us take an average priced house in Sydney and a loan over 25 years, which is reasonable, with a 25 per cent deposit. If a person got the money from a savings bank in March 1983, when Labor came to power, the interest rate was 12.5 per cent. In August 1988 the interest rate was 14.5 per cent. We have heard that it is likely to rise again. But more important than the interest rate-that is a mere percentage-are the people we are talking about. We are talking about Australians-real people. Let us put it into dollar terms. In March 1983 if one borrowed the money from a savings bank to buy that average-priced house in Sydney, the monthly repayment was $658. But now it is $1,411. That is what Labor's crippling economic policies have done to the people of Australia. This affects not only new home buyers, but also the people who bought houses when we had the great value, the great benefit, of a coalition government. Then they paid $658 a month. Now, after five years of hard Labor, after five years of a government totally out of touch with the people of Australia they pay $1,411. If one borrowed the money from a building society the story is much the same. The monthly repayment when Labor came to office was $721 a month. Now it is $1,350. So it does not matter whether one gets one's money from a savings bank or a building society. Under labor one pays nearly three times as much for an average house. Mr Jull —What about the extra taxes they have to fork out? Mr NEHL —As the honourable member says, there is the extra taxation. It has been demonstrated conclusively-and never once denied in this House-that for the average Australian to get back to where he was in terms of taxation in 1983, when Labor came to power it will take over $50 a week in tax cuts. The Government makes such a lot of fuss about its alleged care and concern about first home buyers, but it has cut the first home owners scheme every year since 1984-85. The Government cut it by $44m this year. In the past three years it has cut the first home owners scheme by $128m; yet it says it cares. It does not care. This Government is totally out of touch with the reality of the life of ordinary Australians who are trying to survive, let alone buy a house, under Labor. It is important that I state here and now that the Federal coalition, the Liberal Party and the National Party, recognises and supports the aspirations of all Australians to own their own homes. A home provides a stable family environment, a share in the nation's wealth and a source of personal security. In today's press we see that one out of three people is afraid to walk on the streets at night. A home is security and an investment. All Australian families deserve the right to own their own home. They will not get it from this Government because it is totally out of touch. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(3.31) —This is the first occasion on which I have been fortunate enough to debate a matter of public importance. I though we might at least get some sort of debate from the Opposition this time, but as usual we have another dramatic non-event-just like Question Time yesterday and just like Question Time today. Members of the Opposition are making a farce of parliamentary procedures. They are unable to debate the issues of the day in an appropriate manner, cognisant of the facts. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) has shown no understanding of this Government's economic policies. I suggest he talk to the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), because the honourable member for Wentworth has publicly acknowledged, as the honourable member for Mayo well knows, the capabilities of the front bench and therefore tacitly acknowledged the policies of this Government-and he is the shadow Minister for Finance. I suggest the honourable member for Mayo have a yarn with the honourable member for Wentworth after this debate; it might teach him a thing or two. As usual, what do we have from the Opposition? There is not one scintilla of evidence to support the claims which have been made by the Opposition. Let us examine for a moment housing starts. In 1982-83, the last year under the control of the previous Treasurer, there were 105,000 housing starts. Last year there were 140,000 and this year there is expected to be 155,000. It might seem incredible to the honourable member for Mayo but that is an increase of around 50 per cent. In August this year housing approvals were the highest for fifteen years. I know the honourable member for Mayo is not noted for his great intellectual capabilities but he might at least be able to understand those facts. So too might the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), who unfortunately has left the chamber. Mr Nehl —I have not. Mr SNOWDON —He is about to leave the chamber. He should come back and listen because he might learn something. I would like to ask the Opposition, which has been bleating about the inadequacy of Government policy, how these figures indicate that people cannot get into housing. They do not. In fact they demonstrate a marked improvement in the public's ability to obtain housing in this country, and that has been brought about by the Hawke Labor Government. The Opposition knows it and the community knows it. The Liberals do not understand how the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement works. It is not all for public housing-a large share is devoted to home ownership assistance. Last year Commonwealth State housing money totalled $2 billion and of this, $560m went to home purchase assistance. When that is invested in the more innovative schemes designed by the Victorian and New South Wales labor governments-and unfortunately there is no longer a labor Government in New South Wales-the amount available is boosted from $560 to $780m. It is pleasing to see that the people of Victoria have learnt the error of the ways of the people of New South Wales, and fortunately for them they will be able to take advantage of the positive housing policies implemented by the Victorian Labor Government. In 1988-89 Commonwealth-State housing approvals money will total $2 billion. The amount going to home purchases has increased to $600m and when that amount is added to the private funds available, a figure of $820m, we find that $1,420m is available for home purchases via the scheme. That is what the Liberals cannot comprehend. The honourable member for Mayo and the honourable member for Cowper come to this place and bleat about this Government's performance but they do not understand the policies. They do not understand the economic facts and they do not understand what is happening throughout Australia. They have no comprehension of reality, and that has been demonstrated time and again by the way they operate in this House. The Australian Labor Party, at both Federal and State levels, is about making the financial system work better, about economic efficiency and about using our dynamic economy to meet social objectives like housing. Unfortunately the Opposition has no comprehension of social justice. I will reiterate what social justice means to this Government and what our programs are aimed at alleviating. The four elements of a just and equitable society as seen by this Government are: equity and the distribution of economic resources-that is not understood by the Opposition; equality of civil, legal and industrial rights-not understood by the Opposition; fair and equal access to essential services such as housing, health and education-again not understood by the Opposition; and the opportunity for participation by all in personal development, community life and decision-making. We know what the Opposition thinks about that. It does not believe in consultation at any level of government. Labor is also concerned about the plight of people who are unable as yet to afford their own homes, through no fault of their own. We have increased assistance in the last Budget to private renters to give them a stake in the great Australian dream. Direct assistance is provided through the family allowance package-an innovation of this Government, a policy introduced by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). Low income families renting privately who are receiving family allowance supplement, parents on unemployment benefit and pensioners now receive up to $15 a week rent assistance. What did we have when the coalition parties were in power? When the maestro, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), was on the treasury bench in charge of the till, what did we have? We had absolutely nothing. This is the first time that rental assistance has been provided to working families on low incomes. Further changes to the Department of Social Security program announced in the 1988 Budget will also help reduce the incidence of housing related poverty in the private rental sector. The rental assistance program has been re-focused to recognise the higher housing costs faced by families with children, target assistance to those paying higher rents; and remove the inequities in assistance levels between pensioners and beneficiaries without children. Overall, the package will provide increases in rental assistance for more than 440,000 social security recipients. That should be justly applauded by the Opposition but it has not been. All that we hear is carping criticism. Do members of the Opposition have any policies? Not a one. In essence, rental assistance for pensioners, beneficiaries and family allowance supplement recipients will rise progressively to a maximum of $30 a week for large families by June 1990. By June 1990 pensioners and beneficiaries without children will have received a 100 per cent increase in the maximum rate of rental assistance since 1983, while those with children will have received an increase of 150 to 200 per cent. This Government's policy initiatives and agenda are aimed at setting preconditions and providing scope for interest rate reductions over time. We will meet these objectives. Our economic policies have already delivered a significant Budget surplus, for the first time in 35 years. What in the name of all the economic geniuses opposite were the coalition parties doing when they occupied the Treasury bench? Nothing but getting us deeper in debt. In 1983 they left us with a Budget deficit of $9.6m. We are fixing the fundamentals. By the June quarter next year, inflation will be down to 4 1/2 per cent. The Budget surplus has taken pressure off financial markets and has given us a zero public sector borrowing requirement. The Budget outlays will be reduced to 2 1/2 per cent of the economy next year. Just look at the Government's performance in job creation. It might seem astounding but this Government has created 1.1 million jobs since 1982-83. I would have thought that one of the basic ingredients of enabling people to afford public housing was to provide them with an income, to give them a job. The abysmal performance we saw when the Opposition was on the Treasury bench has been fixed up by this Government, and we will do better. The average number of unemployment beneficiaries during September 1988 was 448,118 compared with 463,721 in August 1988. Mr Nehl —You are supposed to be talking about housing. Mr SNOWDON —I would have thought that the honourable member for Cowper would have recognised that when people earn an income they are able to purchase more. It is a very fundamental lesson that he has yet to learn. If we give someone some money, when he earns an income he may well be able to purchase something. It is very difficult for the Opposition to understand, I know, and I would like to suggest that the honourable member for Cowper, along with the honourable member for Mayo and perhaps the honourable member for Bennelong, seek some instruction from someone who knows-perhaps the honourable member for Wentworth, who has obviously got some credibility, at least in terms of recognising the realities of this Government's performance. In September 1989 the average number of unemployment beneficiaries was 448,118. That is the lowest figure recorded in any month over the last six years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988 Governor-General Amendment Bill 1988 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(3.46) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 11 (1988) and Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 (1988). The tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1987 and the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 11 (1988), operative on and from 14 October 1988, introduces a tariff alteration in respect of certain spray heads used for various types of spray dispensers in the toiletries and household cleaner fields. The change to these goods of tariff subheading 9616.0.00 has taken place in order to restore assistance to local production of these goods, which was lost as a result of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on classification. The Industries Assistance Commission considered this matter in its final report on mining, construction and agricultural equipment and has recommended restoration of assistance, although at 10 per cent rather than the original rate of 15 per cent. The Government considered that restoration of this level, now down to 14 per cent and phasing to 10 per cent under the tariff rate reduction scheme, is more appropriate, especially as the local manufacturer produces similar goods, classified elsewhere in the tariff, which are now dutiable at 14 per cent when imported. This will avoid distortions in production and consumption as well as restoring the level of assistance intended by the Government. A new subheading, 9616.10.90, with a 14 per cent duty rate phasing to a long term rate of 10 per cent, is being implemented to distinguish spray bottle caps of a more general use from those of the more traditional scent and perfume dispensers which will retain a free rate of duty. Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 (1988), operative on and from 1 July 1988, amends the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 to continue an existing exemption from liability to pay coal export duty in respect of certain coal where that exempt coal is blended with other coal. Coal export duty is paid at the rate of $3.50 per tonne on exports of high quality coking coal extracted from a depth of less than 60 metres from open cut coal mines that were in production before 30 June 1980. Previous amendments to this Act in 1984 had conferred export duty free status on high quality coking coal from two mines, Moura and South Blackwater in Queensland, where that high quality coking coal was made up of a specific blend of open cut and underground coal for each mine. The 1984 amendments were framed in such a way that Moura and South Blackwater coal blends, which would be exempt from coal export duty if exported as single blends, lose the exemption if they are further blended with coal from other mines before export. This has limited the export potential as buyer's requirements may entail the blending of other coals with those of Moura and South Blackwater. The Government has therefore decided to alter the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act to provide that coal blends from the Moura and South Blackwater mines will not lose their exempt status by reason of being further blended with coal from other mines before export. Summaries of alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the benefit of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Debate resumed from 12 October, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Blunt had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) regrets that Qantas has been prevented from selling shares to Qantas employees and the Australian people to provide a capital increase to facilitate expansion of the airline to cope with increasing passengers and freight; and (2) notes that the Australian Taxation Office has issued a statement on debt defeasance, a procedure adopted by Qantas to finance the acquisition of new aircraft'. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(3.47) —The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill, about which we were speaking last night, authorises the Treasurer on behalf of the Commonwealth to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase of three Boeing 767-300 extended range aircraft. It is not controversial legislation and indeed is supported by honourable members on the other side of the House. It provided them with an opportunity to jump on the privatisation band wagon and, indeed, to put their views in that regard. An amendment was moved by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). The most salient point, and I suppose the major point made by the members of the Opposition, is that there is within Qantas a need for a massive capital injection. That is not something that is denied by honourable members on this side of the House. Indeed, one does not have to be top of the class to work out that that is the case. It is a point that is made very honestly and forthrightly by the Government and it has been made in a number of papers produced on this side of the House. I pointed out last night to members of the Opposition that their rhetoric now was not matched by their performance when they were in government. Indeed, between 1976 and 1983 when they had their hands on the levers, the state of Qantas was abysmal. There was certainly a need for capital injection. There was certainly a need for Qantas in that time to receive assistance. If they believed at that stage that the most appropriate course was for Qantas to be privatised, I wonder why they did not take that course of action. If they did not believe that, then certainly Qantas would have been benefited by a significant capital injection from Consolidated Revenue. They did not take that course of action. During that period, if we look at the figures, we find that between 1976 and 1983 in only one of those years did Qantas pay a dividend to the Government. Since we came to office there has been a significant capital injection into Qantas, and indeed in the four years of operating since then that capital investment has been repaid in the form of dividends, plus some. When one considers the outstanding performance by Qantas at the moment, I would imagine that in the next report one will see an even greater return to the Government for its support of Qantas. I asked this question yesterday: What did the Opposition do when Qantas was in that position during its time in government? It did nothing; it sat on its hands. The record of this great champion of private enterprise in respect of domestic aviation is even worse. During its time in government it left us with the regulated two-airline agreement which effectively imposed a straitjacket on competition in that industry. Once again it is this Government that has moved to remove that straightjacket and to provide for a more deregulated and competitive domestic airline industry. This Government has moved to provide a macro-environment in which Qantas can be successful. This Government has poured resources into tourist development and the promotion of Australia as a tourist destination. As a result, Qantas is reaping the benefits. Its success and its future prospects are clearly an indication of the success of the policies of this Government. Indeed, the need for a further capital injection is not denied by those on this side of the House but we will not be precipitated into making a hasty decision. We have already taken moves to improve further the competitiveness and functioning of Qantas. On 25 May the Government's proposals for the reshaping of Government business enterprises were released and new planning and accountability mechanisms were outlined. Certainly there will be a modification of the major strategic controls on Qantas. I refer to controls on its borrowings. Loan Council borrowing limits need to be re- examined and reshaped. There are controls on industrial relations issues. Qantas needs more autonomy in wage and employment proposals. Once again, the Government has taken initiatives in that area. Of course, the removal of simple day-to-day controls on the functioning of Qantas further streamline and revise the functioning of the airline in a micro-economic way. This Government has faced up to the issue. When one looks at the record of the Opposition, clearly the rhetoric of honourable members opposite last night was indicative of a group of people who failed when they had a chance to do something and who now, with hindsight, are trying to take a cheap shot at this Government. The new aeroplanes are important because they reflect an increasing need for Qantas to supply air passage on routes between New Zealand and Australia and Japan and Australia-demand for which is growing most rapidly. The new planes have a greater range, they are more fuel efficient, more comfortable and they can cut down flight times on those routes. Those are just part of the requirements for a modern and developing airline. Qantas has increasing competition. In 1948, soon after Qantas became a wholly Australian-owned company, five airlines were flying into Australia. There are now 33, including Qantas. That is an indication of the amount of competition which it faces. It is certainly an indication that Qantas needs to grow and improve. Certainly, Qantas needs new aircraft. To allow that to happen, there is a need for a further capital injection. When the Government feels that, given the wider economic circumstances, it is able to provide the necessary capital-or when it takes the view that, given those economic circumstances, Commonwealth ownership of the airline represents the best use of public funds-it will take that course of action. If the view of the Government is that there should be privatisation, the appropriate response will be made. I have previously expressed my view that floating a minority interest in Qantas is the most appropriate way in which to proceed at the moment. Certainly, it would lower the capital injections required by the Government. It would provide for stock exchange disciplines within Qantas, which would be important to its functioning. It would allow for remuneration packages which are related to its performance. Certainly, that is something that I believe is very important to the running of a successful business. One of the issues which was raised last night was employee participation. In my experience businesses in which the employees have a say and a stake function in a very effective and efficient way. Finally, I would like to comment on one or two matters that have been raised by honourable members opposite. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) suggested that this Government's action in not allowing Qantas to be privatised had forced it-his own words-to become involved in very sophisticated financial techniques to finance these aeroplanes. He suggested that he agreed with those techniques, but that in some way they were aberrant. I am not sure that it is possible for him to justify that view. The techniques used to finance these aircraft are used by a large number of airlines throughout the world. If Qantas is to compete with them, it would seem appropriate that it have access to the same financing techniques. The techniques have been used before in purchasing planes, and have been approved by the Australian Taxation Office. I doubt the veracity of the comments by the Opposition with respect to these techniques. In regard to aggregation, honourable members opposite believe that Qantas should move in that direction and that it is important for it to be involved in economies of scale. Yet they question the approach of Qantas to tendering for a stake in Air New Zealand. In July I spoke with officials of Cathay Pacific Airways in Hong Kong. They expressed a great deal of interest in Air New Zealand and in having part of the action in that area of the Pacific. It seems to me that if Qantas does not take this opportunity to extend its route and to rationalise its operation with Air New Zealand, we will have missed an opportunity and, as a result, Qantas may suffer in the long term. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), who will follow me in this debate, will present some interesting views. He always has much to say about Qantas. Indeed, in his speech on the adjournment last night he made one or two salient points in respect of planning by Qantas for increased passages to Australia this year. One must be very careful when one hears the airlines claim that they have passengers waiting in ports outside Australia. It is one of the negotiating tools used by those airlines to improve their position in negotiating future deals with respect to air travel into Australia. Certainly, those airlines would like to expand their routes and have the opportunity to fly into Australia more often. One must be careful about the sort of claims that are being made. I am only too aware of the fact that in the past some of those claims have been vastly exaggerated. This legislation has the support of honourable members on both sides of the House. As I have mentioned, when the Government feels that it is appropriate, I have no doubt that a decision will be made as to which direction Qantas should take. The Opposition's help is not required. It does not have any credentials, when one looks at its record, on aviation or on tourism. I reject its second reading amendment, and I am quite happy to support the legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Before I call the honourable member for Fadden, I might say that I am sure that the House welcomes the return of the honourable member for Perth from the Olympic Games. The honourable member might be aware that this House passed a motion expressing its appreciation to all Australian Olympic athletes for their efforts in representing this country. I am sure that both the Opposition, which moved that motion, and the Government welcome back the honourable member. I call the honourable member for Fadden. Mr JULL(Fadden)(3.59) —I welcome back the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth). I thank him for some of the comments that he has made. They were preliminary to a number of comments that I would like to make about the present situation in terms of airline regimes, not only in Australia but also overseas, and the role that Qantas Airways Ltd now sees for itself in terms of its initial takeover bid for 25 per cent of Air New Zealand. In fact, I shall try to bring to the attention of the House simply the fact that the development of aviation and tourism in this country is probably at its most critical point. The decisions that will be made by this Government and organisations such as Qantas over the next 12 or 18 months or so will determine whether we continue our tourist boom and whether we will continue to reap the rewards that tourism can provide to our economy and provide to this country in employment opportunities. Therefore, while this Bill may be involved only in the sale or leasing of three Qantas 767 300 series aircraft, I think the ramifications of this debate can be much more than that. It is an appropriate time to begin looking at some of the implications of the decisions now facing Qantas, and indeed, this Government over the next 12 months or so. I said it was a critical time because major changes are occurring in the international airlines of the world right now. Those changes have seen the amalgamation and the takeover of a number of airlines from the United States to the point that there are virtually five megacarriers operating out of the United States. That is a huge block because it incorporates some of the biggest airlines in the world. Already we are seeing a great deal of discussion between the countries of the European Community on rationalisations of various services within Europe. We have already seen a number of airlines from Europe make bids for carriers in other parts of the world, and a number of bids are going on at the moment for a number of South American carriers. What will basically happen in Europe is fairly obvious. There will be a huge block there to counter that American block. What we must determine in Australia now is whether we want to be part of the action, or will we see our national carrier perhaps decline to a small regional operator. That is really what it is all about. I can fully understand the desire of Qantas to try to get that 25 per cent shareholding in Air New Zealand. It is probably the right move from its point of view. I would have been concerned had British Airways managed to buy that percentage of Air New Zealand, because it would have given quite an interesting connection between that big conglomerate that will evolve out of Europe and this part of the world. Right now the Qantas people have to make that decision on whether they will lead the way to try to get either a South Pacific block or perhaps, even more importantly, a South East Asian block, because with the aggressive nature of the South East Asian carriers and carriers such as All Nippon and Japan Airlines now, there is a potential situation where that block could be evolved and it could squeeze us out. That is a very real concern. As I say, the decisions that will be made by Qantas over the next 18 months on its particular niche in the world are extremely important, but that is not to say that all things are well with Qantas at present. I am glad that the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) raised the matter of the financing of Qantas and the need for the injection of $600m into Qantas, because that is true. At the moment Qantas is talking of the need to have 52 aircraft within a few years' time. That is an additional 18 aircraft that Qantas wants to buy, and frankly, it does not have the money to do it. It is not incumbent on the taxpayers of Australia to reach deeply into their pockets to finance that expansion that must indeed happen to Qantas. I make no secret of the fact that it is now more than 10 years since I first suggested in the House the privatisation of Qantas if we wanted to see the airline grow and prosper and bring Australia into the forefront of aviation again. The argument is even more valid now than perhaps it was 10 years ago. The fact of the situation-I trust the Government realises this-is that in most Western countries now governments are in fact moving towards privatisation of their airlines. It has happened through Europe. There has been the most remarkable transformation of British Airways in the United Kingdom. We have now seen a number of the Asian carriers privatising their operations, and all for this reason: that the demands upon the airlines at the moment to re-equip and meet the increased growth in traffic are very real indeed. Not many countries can afford to continue to top up the tank of those airlines to give them enough money to expand. The interesting thing about the whole situation with Qantas is that the Qantas board and management are now begging to be privatised, because they know they cannot reach their full potential unless they have access to that money. I am sure members of the Government and the Ministry have had discussions with the board of directors and the managers of Qantas. I am sure they have been told the same story that I have been told: that unless something happens, Qantas is facing the situation of perhaps becoming a very small regional carrier and a regional carrier only. However, there is another reason why the privatisation of Qantas now and the rapid injection of capital into Qantas is absolutely critical. I mentioned last night, and it is worth mentioning again, that there is no doubt that 12 months ago there was a very real crisis on our hands and that crisis evolved because of the incredible demand for seats into Australia. Honourable members might remember that 12 months ago we were told it was purely seasonal, that the demand would go away, we would put on a couple of supplementary flights and everything would be hunky-dory; we would not have to worry any more. The situation became so critical that Qantas had to lease two aircraft in a hurry, one from Qatar and one from one of the Dutch companies, to handle the business. It is not true to say that the demands for seats into Australia were exaggerated by carriers who wanted a few extra landing rights, because what has happened throughout this bicentennial year, this year of World Expo 88, is that the seat situation has been very tight all year, and we are now reaching crisis point again. Unless someone from Qantas comes back and says I do not know what I am talking about, let me give the House a little information that has been leaked to me from Qantas. We all have our sources! The word has gone out that at the moment Qantas staff cannot take their holidays and expect to get staff concession tickets on Qantas aircraft. That is fine; if Qantas is attracting all those full first-class fares, that is great. That is what it is all about. But if the situation is not critical at present, why do Qantas staff travelling on company business have to travel on another airline? That is good economic sense too, because it frees up those seats to allow full paying passengers to come into Australia on Qantas and the concessional fares that have been paid for Qantas staff to go overseas are being used on other carriers that may have a few seats to spare. However, we are now really entering the crunch period, and my estimate is that between now and the end of January we will face a very similar situation to the one we faced last year when people just could not get seats into Australia. One of the sad things that has happened with Expo 88 is the fact that so many people who wanted to come into Australia could not get seats and therefore did not come. Despite that, Expo has broken all records and all expectations, and that is great. But perhaps we could have done a little better if we had been more flexible in the supply of seats right through this year. It is sad that the revised timetable that was brought about by this particular expansion only came into effect on 1 October. Indeed, we could have done with a lot more flights into Brisbane between April and October, but that did not happen. One of the things I mentioned last night was that although we have this tremendous growth of tourism in Australia, we must make sure that there is some sense of coordination between government departments, not only to make sure that we have enough airline seats but in fact that we have enough infrastructure to handle the tourists. If any condemnation is to be made about what has happened with the tourism boom, that condemnation should be on the Government because of its failure to provide infrastructure. There is no doubt that the situation existing at Sydney international airport is a disgrace. The aircraft numbers are up, the passenger numbers are up, and the present facility cannot handle them. Let us not forget that eight years ago in the Boeing Corporation report that was commissioned on the State of the growth of international air travel into Australia, we were told that that growth factor would be there. Nobody took any notice of it. Another Boeing report-a second report, issued earlier this year-says that in fact we are going to see that growth continue right through until the 1990s. Qantas has decided that once again perhaps that Boeing report is in fact conservative. So what are we going to do? Are we going to ignore all those reports again? Are all of these interdepartmental committees going to say, `Oh yes, there is a report; let us have a meeting', and then nothing happens? That in fact is what has happened in Australia during the last eight years while the tourist boom has been building up. We have really been caught in a situation where the international airport terminal in Sydney is inadequate, the terminal in Melbourne can probably handle the situation and the terminal at Brisbane is an absolute farce. The Brisbane terminal is still a tin shed despite the fact that the domestic terminal is magnificent. The international terminal at Brisbane cannot handle the traffic. Yet the Federal Airports Corporation is talking about extending the tin shed as an interim measure. Such a move will solve nothing. Some people believe that traffic into and out of Brisbane will decline after Expo. It might go down a few points but the traffic will continually build up. About two years down the track we are looking at an international Lions convention, with 33,000 people coming in and out of the terminal in one afternoon. But we are not really making any effort to solve these problems. The Cairns international airport is probably one of the most interesting examples of what can be achieved by non-government involvement in infrastructure. All of the pessimists around the place said that this arrangement would not work. But the Cairns airport is now busier than Perth or Adelaide with more and more international travellers coming in there. The Cairns Port Authority, which owns and operates the airport, has the capacity to make snap decisions. It is already building a new terminal and extending the runway so the airport can handle the traffic. But nothing is happening in Sydney, which is the major entry point to Australia. Obviously nothing is going to happen in Brisbane. Do we have to sit back and wait until the whole system collapses while the situation becomes more and more farcical? While ideologically some members of the Government might be concerned about privatisation, I must admit that I have no problems with it whatsoever. I believe that if we are to meet the demands that are going to be made on our international airline services, not only in terms of Qantas but in terms of the infrastructure, private involvement in the whole operation is the only way to go. What better way to go than to privatise completely the airport terminal operation, and not go through the interim step of having a Federal Airports Corporation. This has been done very successfully overseas. I think one of the great attractions is simply that it does not cost the Australian taxpayer one brass solitary cent. At the moment consortia in Queensland are saying, `Look, we will build you a new international terminal provided that we can build a hotel next door'. I think that is great. The experiences overseas is that private industry which has been involved in providing infrastructure has been very successful and profitable. As I say, the real attraction is that the pressure is taken off the taxpayers of Australia. Perhaps I am getting away a little from the substance of this Bill, which is about Qantas leasing three 767 aircraft. But more and more Bills such as this one will have to come into the House if Qantas is to almost double its fleet in the next 10 years to handle the number of international visitors coming to Australia. I just wonder how much longer the taxpayers of Australia will go guarantor for some of these loans. The crunch is certainly on in the international aviation scene at the moment, and the crunch is certainly on Qantas if it is to stay in business. My suggestion would be to members of the Government and members of the Ministry in particular including the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), who is at the table: let Qantas be able to do its thing and let us make sure that we stay in that international airline race. If an injection of $600m of capital is not made into Qantas very soon, if Qantas management does not have the capacity to be able to manage its operations properly, if it does not have the flexibility to be able to adjust to certain market situations, obviously we will be overtaken by events. The amalgamations, the takeovers and the emergence of the megacarriers are happening right now around the world. The American bloc is in place; the European bloc is almost in place. The Europeans are taking over the South Americans, and the Asian carriers are expanding at a very great rate. Huge developments are taking place in the Japanese arena. If we are not careful and if we do not give Qantas that flexibility and management capacity, we really may see Qantas turn into a small regional carrier. Despite all the criticisms that have been made in this place about Qantas, I am sure that the last thing we want to see is the demise of our airline. If we do not give Qantas a fair go, if we do not move down the road of privatisation, I am afraid that that is exactly what we will allow to happen to it. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(4.16) —Some members of this House concentrate on certain areas and their knowledge is of great benefit to us. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) is no exception. He assists both sides of the House in the work that he does on airlines and the aviation industry. We welcome that fact. One of the problems with his party is that it thinks it has the perfect answer to anything which comes up in relation to government enterprises-that is, sell them. This has not always been the case. One would hope that those opposite would do in practice what they have always done in government and generally maintain these enterprises. Privatisation is not always the answer. It was interesting yesterday to listen to the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) talk about the problems of Qantas Airways Ltd being solvable by selling the airline off. He indicated that it could be sold to pensioners or to Qantas stewards. This sounds a little bit like what happened to British Telecom in respect of which Mrs Thatcher said that every man will be a capitalist. Apparently she was to be the only woman capitalist. But her aim was for every Britisher to be a capitalist. What would happen if Qantas were privatised? The same as happened with British Telecom. Qantas would be sold to the little people, the little people would mostly sell to the big people and Qantas would no longer by the people's airline. Apart from some members like the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) and Senator Baume, the Opposition's attitude towards government enterprises is becoming almost fanatical. Although members of the Opposition are divided, the majority seem to favour privatisation. They work on a premise that people, through governments, should not own enterprises. We are told that we should get rid of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Today's Australian Financial Review reports that the Commonwealth Bank has made a substantial profit. But so what if the best competitor in banking in country towns is lost through privatisation? Members of the Opposition say, `Get rid of the lucrative parts of Australia Post and Telecom'. So what if that means loss of services in the country, more costly services to country people or higher taxes to all Australians so that these bodies can be maintained? They say, `Get rid of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation'. So what if it has made a profit for government in this last financial year and if jobs would be lost in Cooma? They say, `Get rid of Qantas'. So what if we lose the profits which are being used to strengthen the airline and adding to revenue? They are wrong. Privatisation may well be the opiate of the doctrinaire dries, but the prime aim we ought to have and the prime aim we ought to be looking at if we are to address the questions raised by the honourable member for Fadden is to develop enterprises, government or private, which are efficient and which can provide services at a reasonable cost to the consumer. Using that premise, taxpayers-the shareholders-can be called on for extra capital, as can happen in any business. If efficiency would be better served by having some, not necessarily all, private equity, that is another option that can be considered. If efficiency would be better served through equity trusts, that is another alternative that we can look at. But there is no real conclusive evidence to support claims that private enterprises are inherently more efficient than their public sector counterparts. The competitive environment in which the enterprise operates rather than the nature of the ownership of the enterprise is a more significant determinant of efficiency. The designation of Qantas as the sole Australian international carrier bestows clear advantages. The company faces aggressive competition on all its major routes. We need to ask what are the best ways of addressing it. It is not necessarily through privatisation. Nor is deregulation the answer unless it is paralleled by some regulation, particularly in the safety area. As we have seen in the United States of America there have been queries about safety, about cancelled flights and drastically reduced services as companies try to compete on price. We need to look very carefully at how we address the needs of our airlines in a big country. In some cases we need to provide services particularly in country areas where they may not be profitable but where they support important industries which comprise about half of our total exports. These questions need to be addressed. We need to look at the points which have been raised by the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), the honourable member for Fadden, and all other honourable members who have spoken in this debate. We have to be concerned about equity and borrowing. Borrowings and interest always have to be repaid irrespective of what the trading conditions are. It is interesting that in the four years to 1983 Qantas lost $112m. In that period it paid interest and lease costs of $180m. Lack of capital was the biggest cause of loss in those difficult trading years. A bigger Qantas poorly capitalised becomes very vulnerable to those losses. The profit in the 1986-87 financial year was $104m. Interest charges are now $150m, before loans, for the four Boeing 767 aircraft in 1988 and the four Boeing 747 aircraft in 1989. The directors have an obligation to conduct the company's affairs in a manner that will enable commitments to be met when they fall due. But, in a general downturn in economic conditions governments, of course, have wider problems and are not always necessarily ready to give a hand in supporting Qantas. To avoid general instability in Qantas and the sorts of things that the honourable member for Fadden was talking about last evening, for example, a decline in staff morale, a reduction in jobs, a decline in working conditions and a greater pressure on the airline generally, we need to look at the whole problem. We ought to be looking at what some of the airlines are doing. For instance, Air New Zealand Ltd has a debt equity ratio of 55 to 45; Singapore Airlines Ltd has a debt ratio of 58 to 42. Qantas has a debt ratio about 50 per cent higher-it is actually 79 to 21. We need to have a close look at the operation of our enterprises. That is what the Government has done. The principal factor necessary to maintain Qantas in public ownership is to give it a guaranteed injection of the necessary capital requirements essential to maintain its overall viability and to keep it competitive. If Qantas is to be kept in full public ownership the Government, in other words the shareholders-the taxpayers-must provide capital of the order of $600m over the next two years with further injections in the years beyond. The competitors of Qantas are increasingly large in scale and are moving extensively into new fields of technology, for example, a computerised reservation system. This heightens the importance of Qantas possessing up-to-date technology as it has greater flexibility and cost efficiency. It is extremely important as we look at the future of Qantas that we take into account this need for large amounts of capital. I have tried to point out that it would be futile for us to say, `Let Qantas borrow more'. If we look at its competitors we cannot afford to let Qantas borrow more. We have to tackle that problem head on. We need to look at the alternatives for Qantas. It probably does need more commercial freedom for the reasons we have been discussing. On the Government's transport and communications Caucus policy committee, the controls through the Loan Council, the superannuation ties of Qantas, the remuneration which is given by Qantas to its executives and employees, and to industrial relations generally, are all issues which are discussed. Mr Tim Fischer —What about staff share ownership? Mr SNOW —There may be no objection to staff share ownership. I see no real objection to it. It ought to be taken into account. I do not see the importance of privatising the airline holus-bolus. The best interests of a country like Australia are served by having an international airline which is at least half, preferably more, owned by the Government; in other words, by the people of the country. Qantas can respond to business opportunities by taking that attitude. We can relax the controls and take measures which will solve the equity shortage which has been properly identified to us by the Qantas board. There has been a great contribution to the development of aviation policies by this Government. It has caught up with some of the problems which arose due to the failure of the previous Government to take those attitudes into account. I welcome the appointment of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) as we come into this difficult stage of looking at a number of areas which confront our enterprise, including one within his own area of expertise, that is, industrial relations. I welcome the appointment of the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support (Mr Punch), who, along with the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), is taking a great interest in Badgerys Creek and the need to address that issue very quickly. I also welcome the appointment of the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), who has a grasp on some very important issues which the Government has to tackle in road transport, particularly in rail transport and the immense concerns that we have over shipping. The Government realises that in dealing with the aviation, telecommunications and broadcasting industries we have only just started on some very important issues in transport and communications which have to be solved. They will not be solved by conservative governments; they have shown us that. We have to do it without prejudice against private enterprise and government enterprise but in the interests of efficiency and consumers. So it is with great pleasure that I support this Bill which will finance the purchase of three Boeing 767-300s which are extended range aircraft. These will be delivered in October, November and December of this year. The Minister has already told us that these aircraft are the latest development of the Boeing 767 series and will give Qantas greater flexibility in meeting the requirements of the rapidly growing inbound tourist market. Qantas itself has pointed out that we can expect two million visitors from Asia over the next five years if we can straighten out the problems that the Opposition has given us in diminishing the respectability that Australia has in our rapidly growing Asian markets through its migration policy and its failure to declare properly its policies and attitudes. Qantas, which is training people to speak languages that are spoken in Asia so that more tourists will come to Australia, has said that the expected increase of two million in the number of tourists over the next five years is threatened by the lack of respect which is being shown by the Opposition to our migration policy. The measures that have been taken by the Government will enable Qantas to provide for first class passengers and 231 ordinary passengers compared with 208 previously. Primarily, these aircraft will be utilised on the Tasman and Japanese routes-two important markets for Qantas and Australia. I believe that the Opposition needs to consider its position on migration in relation to our economic interests, if it is not prepared to look at it from the point of view of other interests. Qantas has brought forward the delivery of these aircraft to meet the end of year peak demand for travel and it plans to operate 154 extra round trips this summer to accommodate the anticipated higher demand. Let us keep it that way. I am pleased to support the legislation. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.31) —In speaking to the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill, which is an important piece of legislation, I would like to make some brief comments about the speech just made by my neighbour the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). I will deal later in my address with his comments on immigration, which I thought were unfortunate. Suffice it to say at this time that the newly-industrialised countries of Asia should not judge Australians other than by taking into account their own performances across a range of key issues. It is time that we injected some reality into this debate. It is inevitable that Qantas Airways Ltd will be privatised. The Liberal and National Parties have shown some dynamic initiatives by moving to a policy position of 100 per cent privatised ownership of Qantas from the previous position of 49 per cent, whereas the Government is in a policy stalemate as it inches towards 49 per cent or even more. But the members of a famous troika-the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott)-are bringing about yet another left wing veto of progress along a sensible path towards privatising and re-energising Qantas. I think it is a pity that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro did not reject the position of his left wing troika colleagues on that policy issue. I hope there will be a bit more reality in this debate in the speeches of subsequent speakers because, I say again, it is inevitable that Qantas will be privatised. I am sure that the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) would not deny that. The question is one of timing and percentage. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro made the mistake of mentioning the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), who is the new Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support. He has done more than any other member of this House to create congestion in aviation in this country at the key gateway point of Sydney by his activities in blocking of the development at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport of a short take-off and landing runway, and he knows it. In fact, he advertises this in his electorate as a proud achievement. I will tell honourable members what his achievement is doing: it is forcing planes to stack up above Sydney suburbs. It is adding massively to the fuel burden costs of airline companies and, in turn, to the costs of the users of those companies. The ordinary man and woman on the street who wants to use aircraft or has to attend a funeral suddenly arising in Melbourne or Brisbane and wants to get out of Sydney has this add-on cost built into the air fare by the very action of the new Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support. It was a terrible signal for the aviation industry and the tourist industry when the Government appointed the honourable member for Barton as Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support. It is an appointment which the Government will rue whenever this matter comes up at tourist industry meetings around the place. Already many people are saying that they simply cannot work out why the honourable member for Barton was given a role relating to aviation, given his sabotaging of the logical development of Sydney's international airport. I turn now to the Bill. Last month I had the privilege of visiting Blackall and Longreach in central Queensland with a number of colleagues and of conducting a series of meetings with people in that part of the country. I also took the opportunity to inspect a replica of the original office of Qantas-that is, the original office of Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services. It was a small, one-room office with a little veranda which, frankly, would fit within the area encompassed by the table in the new House of Representatives. That is how tiny the office was. That is where Qantas started and that is where it has expanded from, albeit with the help of legislation and 101 changes along the path. I guess it is food for thought that, whilst Qantas has leapt forward and taken off from that starting point in Longreach and Winton in central Queensland, the people whose forefathers helped to sponsor Qantas-the pioneers of aviation in that part of our nation-still face massive problems with getting into towns such as Blackall, Longreach or Winton because of the deteriorating conditions of their roads. In one sense, Qantas has taken off from that region, but in 1988 many people are yet to have an all-weather road from their small business unit, otherwise known as a farm or station, to their nearest town, particularly in the Longreach area. This is affecting not only primary production but also tourist operations. I make the point that Qantas had very humble beginnings. Qantas has made enormous progress over the decades and we, as a nation, have a right to be proud of what it has achieved. I give full credit to Qantas for soldiering on as our national flag carrier, in many ways in a restricted manner because of the Government's failure to grasp the nettle and resolve the ownership conundrum to which other speakers have referred, particularly speakers on the coalition side of the House. In a sense, Qantas today is not dissimilar to a magnificent Rolls Royce motor car with a Ford Falcon gearbox. I am not being critical of Ford Falcon gearboxes; indeed, they are made in my electorate by Borg-Warner (Australia) Ltd and are of a very good standard. But it is a gearbox that is geared to the operation of a Ford Falcon and if we were to put it into a Rolls Royce we would have tremendous underperformance. In fact, I would venture to suggest that we would quickly have a motoring disaster. But that is exactly what is happening with Qantas because the Government is failing to recognise what is happening internationally with the massive enlargement of airlines which are in competition with Qantas-those five megacarriers in the United States of America. The Government is keeping Qantas restricted. It is keeping the ownership gearbox of Qantas in the dark ages, rather than taking the chance to leap forward with a positive initiative in line with the policy of the Liberal and National parties. The Government will pay a price for restricting the onward progress of Qantas at a crucial time of aviation development. In emphasising the importance of Qantas, it is so much a part of our economic activity that even in a country electorate like Farrer which has no international airport but which has a series of airports from Khancoban, Albury and Deniliquin to as far out as Wentworth there are many industries which rely on the performance of Qantas, both in respect of the tourist industry and in respect of air cargo, the export industries and related industries. I have a valid and deeply held interest in aviation policy, in particular with regard to providing the right basis for Qantas to sweep into the 1990s. This Government has failed to provide the right basis to sweep Qantas into the 1990s with the right ownership and the right capitalisation so that it can buy extra aircraft to allow it to take up the huge expansion in trade. I will now focus on another aspect related to this Qantas legislation. Clearly there is a need for this nation to continue to build its Asian connections in the cultural, political and economic sense. While I have been a member of Federal Parliament, by my own deed, determination and decision, I have decided to focus-to the extent that one can spend time on foreign affairs and trade relations-in particular on Thailand and its neighbours. Mr Cowan —It is certainly to your credit. Mr TIM FISCHER —I thank the honourable member for Lyne for his kindly comment. I remind the House that Thailand is a country of 56 million people. For the most recent three years its economic growth has coasted along at just a shade under 10 per cent. Thailand is a dynamic nation which will be the next major newly industrialised country (NIC) in our part of the world. Bangkok will become the next Hong Kong, the dynamic economic centre of South East Asia in the 1990s. Let us recognise that positively by seeing that Qantas fulfils the additional role it has carved out for itself in helping to spearhead Asian orientation of our nation. I commend Qantas for its incentives and activities with regard to language training. This country is languishing in terms of the ability of our younger generation to speak more than one language, namely English. That is partly an outcome of having no adjoining boundaries with other nations of different languages unlike in Europe, where in one afternoon train ride from say Paris to Amsterdam one will travel through two other countries with their own tongues. The ability to speak an additional language in Europe is almost second nature. That is certainly not the case here. It is something to be regretted. It is something that Qantas and other organisations with a similar role to play should and must do something about. I hope that Qantas will continue to expand its language incentives and training not only for its own employees but in a broader sense. I also commend Qantas for reorientating its flights to Asia. By the end of this month it will shift its famous QF1 flight from the very traditional route of Sydney, Singapore, Bahrain and Europe, to Sydney to Bangkok-the new emerging hub-and then non-stop to London. That was a very big decision. It involves massive logistical changes, but it recognises economic trends. From Sunday, 30 October, QF1 will be operating, every day of the year, the Sydney, Bangkok, London route rather than the more traditional kangaroo route. To be fair to Qantas, it is taking steps to reorientate more and more to Asia and re- orientate in particular more and more to Thailand. I welcome this. I say again that unless Australia takes on board an increasing Asian orientation in terms of its cultural, political and economic links, we will perish in the future. That should be done on the basis of mutual respect between the Asian nations and Australia and vice versa. In recent months there has been controversy in our relations with various Asian countries. As one who has fought in Asia I believe that should be seen in its proper context. I remind the House that there are many Australians buried on Asian soil; in Burma, in Bangladesh, in Thailand. That points to some of our links with Asia in World War I and World War II. But there are links more recent than that. Let us also be reminded that it was Australia, well ahead of many so-called Western nations, that backed Indonesia in its battle for independence from the Dutch in the late 1940s and early 1950s. So our bona fides in our region in a formal and in a historical sense are very good, but we have to do more. I appeal for a more mature approach, on a broader front, in considering our relations with Asia. Australia should not allow any one issue, negative or positive, to dominate our bilateral or multilateral relations with Asian nations or the Asian region. Australia should highlight its many good deeds in dealing with the region. We should highlight the positive contributions that we have made to the Asian region be they through private enterprise joint ventures, government overseas aid or the many other initiatives which we have taken. For its part Asia, particularly the newly industrialised countries of Asia, should not judge Australia on any one issue. The NICs of Asia should not judge Asia other than by taking into account their own performance across a wide range of issues. Asians should take fair account of Australia's achievements in the region over the years. Whilst we could and should have done more, real progress has been made to date and that cannot be ignored. As a relatively new member of Federal Parliament-although I note that over 40 members and senators have departed from Parliament since 1 December 1984 when I entered the Parliament-I am far more interested in Asia than in Europe or in North America. I take the opportunity, when speaking on this legislation, to remind the House, the Parliament and the nation that we must all be far more interested in Asia than in Europe or in North America if we are to survive in the cruel economic climate on the international front. It is extremely important that Qantas be given the resources, the ownership infrastructure and, above all, the capitalisation necessary to provide for its re-equipment and expansion so that it can move through to the 1990s in a positive and truly competitive way. Qantas does not have much time to sit back and think about it. It has to get moving. Let us take Thai Airways International Ltd. I know honourable members would not always read the Bangkok Business Post which is in the Parliamentary Library, but on Monday, 10 October, this week, it was reported: Thai International is expected to increase its flights between Thailand and Australia to eight a week when its 1989 summer timetable comes into effect to meet the growing traffic demand. It is noted in the same statement that Thai's average passenger load factor to and from Australia is 85 per cent and the airline's revenue in 1987 just for Thai-Australian routes was some $A75m. That is just one airline that operates to and from Australia. It is an extremely competitive airline. Due to the fluke of geography and the structure of passenger movement authorisations it has a tremendous add-on benefit of being able to operate from Australia to its home base and from its home base to Europe, and even to Japan and beyond. It is facing the chill winds of fierce competition, especially from the mega-airlines flying out of the United States reconstruction of aviation. We are fools if we do not provide the basis for Qantas to proceed into the next decade. We are missing the opportunity of doing just that in the legislation before the House. I commend to the House the amendment which has been ably moved by my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I particularly commend the first part of that amendment, which regrets that Qantas has been prevented from selling shares to Qantas employees and the Australian people to provide a capital increase to facilitate the expansion which is so necessary to help our tourist industry and to help the increasing requirements of air freight. Where other airlines have done this overseas, such as British Airways, the staff who have taken up shares-in this case British Airways employees-have been laughing all the way to the bank with massive growth in their portfolios, whether they have 22 shares, 40 shares or however small a number. This Government would deny Qantas employees, in this bicentennial year, the right to take up shares in Qantas. That is a negative approach, it is a disappointing approach but, above all, it is a dangerous approach because it denies Qantas the wherewithal to compete fairly and competitively with the other international aviation operators. It is denying Qantas the right to fulfil its important and vital charter. I support the amendment to the Bill before the House. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(4.51) —I would like to respond to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). He used some code words, particularly in his references to Asia. He mentioned the Asian countries with which we wish to deal, in which we see a great deal of potential, the newly emerging Asian countries. In particular he mentioned Thailand, and I support that part of his remarks. As I said, he used some code words. He said, `Do not judge us on any one issue'. The real meaning of those words was, `Do not judge us by the position of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, on immigration'. That is what that really meant-`We want to trade with you, we want to deal with you, but you are not good enough to emigrate to Australia'. The Opposition has shamelessly exaggerated the number of Asians who constitute part of the Australian population and the number who are likely to want to emigrate to Australia in future. I am sure that people in Asian countries will respond to those double standards when they see the speech by the honourable member for Farrer. The honourable member also asked why the Government would not give shares to Qantas employees. At the moment Qantas is wholly owned by the Government of Australia. Effectively, this means that every Australian is a shareholder of Qantas, whether employed by Qantas or not. Mr Moore —This is almost as bad as Keir Hardie. Mr PRICE —I hear the shadow Minister interjecting. His great contribution was that Qantas needs to be privatised. In the Opposition's contribution to this debate its members have talked about the loony ideologues on this side of the House. It does not matter what statutory authority, or what company fully owned by the Australian people one looks at, the Opposition's policy is to privatise it. I repeatedly sought from the honourable member for Farrer the reason he advocates 100 per cent privatisation of Qantas. The nearest he came to any sort of disclosure was to say that he wants to energise Qantas. The Government wants to place on record the tremendous contribution Qantas has made to civil aviation in this country, from its humble beginnings. I have a high regard for the employees of Qantas and the tremendous job they are doing earning export dollars for Australia. I am not here to knock Qantas-unlike members of the Opposition. They feel that Qantas needs a different structure, that if it were fully privatised it would do all sorts of things from a management point of view that it is not doing now, and that its performance would be lifted, presumably. Opposition members do not spell it out. They display a continuing double standard-`Qantas is great but we need to privatise it 100 per cent'. The people of Australia ought to be aware of what the real depth of the Opposition's concern was when Qantas suffered a severe downturn in the number of passengers carried. What did the Opposition do when it was in government in 1981-82 when there was a $112m loss by an under-capitalised Qantas? What were the effects on Qantas? The Government at the time did absolutely nothing. The Opposition will never want to privatise an organisation that is losing money. Its classic approach is always to privatise the profits and socialise the losses. That is the attraction for the Opposition. That approach has been consistent throughout. What was the effect on Qantas of the previous Government's inertia, its inactivity and its lack of concern about what was happening to Qantas when it suffered a downturn in traffic? The previous Government was quite happy to see 2,000 employees lose their jobs. What did the Government do for those 2,000 people? It did absolutely nothing. What happened to the organisation? Not only did it lose 2,000 of what must be its most precious resource-the people who work for it-but also it had to sell off major assets. It had to sell what is now the Sheraton Wentworth Hotel. That has gone. What happened concerning competition? Qantas voluntarily had to relinquish a capacity on the kangaroo route, which was absolutely devastating. Its competitors moved in straight away to take up that capacity. Yet Opposition members come in here and say, `We are concerned about the lack of capital. We want to privatise Qantas. That is the way it should go'. In 1981-82, Qantas had a far greater capital problem than it has now and the government of the day did absolutely nothing. That is the essential hypocrisy of Opposition members when they come into this chamber talking about their concern for Qantas. In these debates we have from time to time about statutory authorities I always think it is regrettable that there is not a greater understanding of what the Government has done with its statutory authorities such as Qantas. No government has been better informed about the current state of statutory authorities, about what the future holds for them, about what directions they need to take to maintain viability, than this Government. There has been a systematic and total review of all these authorities. The Opposition never did that. It has never been interested in good management or in watching over the welfare of these organisations. It has a single, one-line response to statutory authorities, and that is to privatise them. If there is an automatic pavlovian response by the Opposition, it is that they should be sold off. Sometimes I wonder whether the Opposition really cares about whether they are sold off to Australian shareholders or given away-as it gave our international shipping away-to foreign shareholders. That is one of the things we ought to be concerned about in considering Qantas. We certainly do not want civil aviation to go the same way as international shipping-where overwhelmingly the vast majority of all goods sold are transported by ships flying an overseas flag. That constitutes one of the biggest drains on our deficit in invisibles and services as far as exports are concerned. I want to run through a few statistics. Firstly, I shall demonstrate how well Qantas is going. I would like to compare prices in 1964 to those in 1987. The cost of a Sydney-London air fare has increased by 32 per cent in that period. On the other hand, the Australian consumer price index has increased by 457 per cent, a family car by 543 per cent and average weekly earnings by 759 per cent. So Qantas' prices have not risen in line with the CPI; they have been kept down. Another thing we ought to discuss in this debate is the nature of competition within the international airlines. Many people believe that it is open slather, but since 1945 international aviation has been commercially regulated by bilateral agreements between governments called air service agreements. We cannot just go and put on an extra 20 planes or schedule extra capacity on a route. It is all subject to negotiation and agreement between the governments. I shall give an example of where Australia is currently at a disadvantage. Because no international competition is allowed against domestic carriers in the United States, when a United States airline flies out of America into Australia the portion from America to Honolulu is considered to be domestic and the Honolulu-Australia end can be charged marginally. This is a significant disadvantage to Qantas, for example. It is a far from open deregulated environment. In case any person has taken up the cry of the Opposition, we ought to see what has happened in the United States of America. Over the past 10 years there have been about 38 mergers and takeovers and instead of there being 29 major carriers the number has been reduced to five megacarriers with enormous clout. As my good friend the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) was saying, international civil aviation is an area where we should be very careful about having extra Australian competitors on the scene. Regulating the number of Australian competitors serves Australia well. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard two tables, the first showing the export earnings of Qantas and the second its proposed aircraft purchases program. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 QANTAS AS A LEADING AUSTRALIAN EXPORTER Top 10 Export Industries by Export Sales in A$ 12 Months to 31 March 1988 Item $bn Coal ... 4.99 Wool ... 4.08 Qantas ... 3.03* Meat ... 2.29 Gold ... 2.02 Wheat ... 1.97 Petroleum (Incl. products) ... 1.97 Iron Ore ... 1.79 Non Ferrous Metals ... 1.75 Aluminium ... 1.70 * comprising total foreign earnings and spending by visitors flown in by Qantas. Table 2 QANTAS FLEET EXPANSION 1988-89-1992-93 Proposed Aircraft Purchases per annum * B747-400 B767-300ER 1988-89 ... Nil 4 1989-90 ... 6 1 1990-91 ... 5 1 1991-92 ... 4 1 1992-93 ... 5 1 TOTAL ... 20 8 * Indicative figures. Subject to Government approvals, aircraft substitutions and final commercial assessments closer to purchase periods. Note: Fleet composition by 1992-93 is expected to total 40 B747 and 15 B767 due to retirement of 5 B747 currently on lease. This compares to a fleet of 25 B747 and 7 B767 in 1987-88. Mr PRICE —Those figures are exciting. For example, the $3.7 billion of foreign exchange earned by tourism in 1986-87 exceeded the earnings from every single export item except coal and wool, and tourism is growing faster than every other industry and will bring in an estimated $4.4 billion in export revenue in 1987-88. Revenue from tourists is very high. Some 42 per cent of tourism flew to Australia on Qantas, providing in 1987 an estimated $1.4 billion from ticket sales and spending a further $1.3 billion while here. This is approximately 60 per cent of Australia's total tourist earnings. Qantas plays a critical role in trying to readjust our current account situation, and the continued strong growth of Qantas and the role it is playing are vital for Australia's future. The debt to equity ratio of Qantas has been mentioned and clearly the proposed aircraft acquisitions by Qantas, including about $6 billion over the next few years, will place a real strain on its capital balance. But, as I understand the situation, the debt to equity ratio of Qantas of approximately 80:20 is still significantly better than a number of our leading companies, for example, Elders IXL Ltd. The Government will come to grips with that challenge. Whilst international tourism is booming-there were projections of an increase of about 3 per cent but it is more closely allied to 10 per cent-the situation is okay. The Government needs to avoid a repeat of the situation that occurred in 1981-82 of which I am so critical. The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill does not do anything for Qantas other than give a guarantee by the Government for the purchase of three Boeing 767-300 extended range aircraft. This will significantly help Qantas, particularly on its key Tasman and Japanese routes. I am very pleased to support this Bill but, as I said earlier, I want to be on the record as saying that this Government has a proud record of caring and of being concerned about our statutory authorities. The previous Government speaker, my good friend the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), spoke about some of the changes the Government would be introducing in relation to Telecom Australia. We have made changes in terms of Qantas; we are making them in terms of Australia Post, Aussat Pty Ltd and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The record of this Government is one of action, not just words, and that ought to be contrasted with all the words we have heard from the shadow spokesman and from other Opposition members and with their inertia when Qantas really wanted help back in 1981-82. I support the legislation before the House. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(5.07) —The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill deals principally with the financial support given by the Government, by way of guarantee, to Qantas. The debate is wide ranging simply because of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), but it gives the opportunity to all honourable members to discuss the future of Qantas. I should like to pay tribute to Qantas. Like the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), a week ago I went to Longreach where in 1920 Qantas was founded. We were able to inspect the sales office there and the original hangar where the aircraft were housed. Honourable members should be proud in this bicentennial year to know that we have an Australian utility such as Qantas which has served the people of Australia flying on air routes throughout the world. We should also pay tribute to the safety record of Qantas. That airline has had very few crashes or accidents over the years and is recognised as one of the safest and most efficient airlines in the world. The growth of Qantas is an indication of its efficiency. The Opposition believes Australia is growing up now. We are in our bicentennial year. We have to compete with the rest of the world. We want tourists to come here and we want to share in the work and the profits that may devolve from this growing industry in Australia. We want Qantas to play its part. The Opposition does not rush in and say that all public utilities should be privatised. In the future it may be necessary for the public purse, for governments, to financially support the growing utilities that we have, but we must make sure that these public utilities are efficient in every way so that they can compete with the rest of the world. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), mentioned the Australian National Line (ANL). I remind the House that that line will require in excess of $33m over the next year or so to be anywhere near able to compete with the other shipping lines around Australia or anywhere else in the world. We have not been able to compete in shipping because the Australian National Line is not efficient. I do not know who would want to buy it if the Government decided to sell it, because it is a non-paying project. If ANL is to pay, it has to go into competition immediately and its operation has to change. We do not want to see Qantas reach a stage where, as Senator Gareth Evans said when he was the Minister for Transport and Communications, Qantas will be restricted in its ability to compete with other airlines throughout the world unless we are prepared to inject more capital into it. I remind honourable members that it was the Government-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), Senator Gareth Evans, Senator Button and other Ministers-which said that it would be necessary to privatise or partly privatise Qantas. The Government has already done this to Australian Airlines, made necessary because of the competitive boost required by that utility. It is interesting to look at the story of privatisation beyond the shores of Australia. In Europe today even the socialist countries have a program of privatisation for public utilities. In Britain the Government is privatising the steel industry, the mining industry, telecommunications. A year or so ago only 900,000 to 950,000 people owned shares in public companies in England. Today, because these companies have been privatised, over 9 million people have a say in their operation. It is expected that in three or four years 14 million Englishmen will have the opportunity of being able to take up shares in their own companies. Let us consider Australia. In our bicentennial year we should look back to the early days after the turn of the century when it was essential for governments to establish public enterprises throughout Australia. Nobody else could afford to do it. The necessary capital from overseas was not available to Australia. Perhaps overseas lenders did not have the confidence to invest in this country at that time. So the Australian Labor Party, the National Party of Australia, the Liberal Party of Australia-any of the political parties, both Commonwealth and State, that were responsible at that time-had to take the initiative and go out and establish the shipping lines, the railways and the airways in order to give people a service. It was important for the development of Australia that we should have good transport and communications throughout the country. It was therefore essential that government should initiate the establishment of these enterprises to provide services to industry and to people who wanted to travel around on holidays. We can be very proud not only of Qantas but of the railways and other public utilities that have achieved so much. Because of our manufacturing industries, because we produce food that the world requires, because we need to provide transport and communication services for our own people, it is essential that we ensure that those services have available to them the necessary capital to carry on. We are not saying that we want to sell all of Qantas to Australians or to people around the world-certainly nobody would want to do that-but at least the Government can sell out its 49 per cent. At least it can do what members of the Opposition have suggested in this debate and give the employees of Qantas an opportunity of purchasing shares in the company they are employed by and are so proud of. We see nothing wrong with that. It will be beyond the ability of government and the taxpayer in the years ahead to provide the necessary finance for companies such as Qantas to carry on. Why is it that some members of the Government say to the Prime Minister and the relevant Ministers, `No, you should not proceed with this; we want to protect a company whose shares are all owned by the people of Australia because it is government owned'? It is a tragedy when that kind of thing is said here. In other words, we might as well say that every industry in this country, every private enterprise, should be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by the Government. That is a philosophy that we as Australians are completely opposed to. Why can we not say that 49 per cent of the shares of Qantas ought to be sold to the people of Australia, not to people overseas? If one looks at the history of the Government whose members sit on the right of the Speaker, if one looks at the media interests of Australia, one will see that these people have opened up the flood gates. They have opened up the flood gates to those from whom they will get some reaction and perhaps some benefit. It is a great shame to see that happening in this country. Media interests-the written media, television, and radio-have opened the flood gates for certain takeovers which will put these enterprises into the hands of very few operators. There has been some protection, but basically that is what has happened and it has happened under the very government that today says, `No, the taxpayer is going to back this great company of ours, Qantas'. Let the Australian people back it. There are a lot of people in my electorate who would buy shares in Qantas if they had the opportunity. It has been well managed, it has been well controlled, it has been a good operator, and every Australian is proud of it. Australia has grown up, and today the Australian people, as with people in Britain, France, Spain, Germany and other parts of the Western world, want to have a share in their country's enterprises. I appeal to the Government to think about this. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) should not let the Left dictate what will happen with these important Australian enterprises. The Government has floated the dollar; it has done things that a lot of us support. It has done very worthy things so far as the future of Australia is concerned. To a very great degree it has looked at Australia as a country that has grown up. Maybe the Government is right about the media in these things, but it should not stop there. It should let the Australian people have these opportunities. Qantas has done well because it has had to compete around the world. The Government will not let Qantas fly within Australia, but after 1990, when the two-airline agreement goes out, it might give Qantas an opportunity to be the third airline in Australia. I personally would support that. The fare to travel from Perth to Sydney or Brisbane is absolutely ridiculous. One can fly to Auckland or Singapore for perhaps half that fare. I have not got the amounts at my fingertips but that is an illustration. I saw in the newspaper the other day that to go to Beijing for six nights and seven days costs $799. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) gave us an excellent speech this afternoon on the future of Thailand and the opportunities we have in the Asian area. Of course we have those opportunities, and the Opposition strongly supports them. Let us forget about immigration policies and the other things that we have talked about. The fact is that every Asian who has any common sense knows how we are thinking. We want to trade with them and be fair to them and they in turn would like to do the same with us. I am sure this will happen over the years ahead. Qantas requires $1 billion in the next few years. It has said that it will need to increase its aircraft from 31 to 50 over the next few years to compete adequately with other airlines throughout the world. As I said earlier, Senator Gareth Evans said that Qantas would be restricted if it were not allowed to do this. We do not want to be the ones to restrict it. I do not have time to say much about the tourist industry. Much has already been said about it. Every member of this Parliament supports that industry. We know that, in time, if it is not our No. 1 foreign currency earner, it will certainly be our No. 2 earner. We want to share Australia with the rest of the world. At the moment Qantas is responsible for bringing in 43 per cent of all people travelling to Australia. It has that market and it is providing that service. For goodness sake, do not let us hold it up. Let us look a little further afield. For years the Opposition has consistently drawn the Government's attention to the fact that we do not have a good fluid flow of aircraft into and out of the airport in the biggest city of Australia-that is, Sydney. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is becoming a disgrace to this country. Melbourne, Brisbane or any other capital city in Australia may have the facilities, but the fact is that most airlines want to fly into Sydney and go from Sydney to other parts of Australia. The facilities that are available are not adequate to handle the situation. Certainly, money is to be spent on the terminal. We welcome that; that is excellent. I commute through Sydney from the small country town of Taree on the north coast. Often, the aircraft is put in a holding pattern for a quarter of an hour and cannot land because of the amount of traffic. International flights face the same problem. If one commutes, one faces this problem. It will be years before this Government builds the new Sydney Airport. I know that it is acquiring land and that it has devised a program. There is a lot of money and planning involved in constructing that airport. There is chaos at Sydney Airport because planes cannot take off and land as they would wish in order to keep to their schedules. Mr Nehl —We need a third strip at Mascot. Mr COWAN —We need a third strip at Mascot, as the honourable member says. We need that strip urgently. It was on the drawing board when we were in government. It was going to cost $120m to construct. Had it been constructed, this chaos today would not have existed. It is a tragedy for this country and for Sydney. The City of Sydney is building itself up. It has Darling Harbour, the monorail and international hotels. Once the problem was that we could not accommodate people. In every capital city we now have accommodation for international conventions. As somebody said, 45,000 members of the Lions Club will converge on Australia next year. Australia wants a share of this convention market. Europe and America have been sharing it for years. People want to visit this country, so we have a great responsibility to provide facilities for them. Airlines should know when they fly into Sydney Airport that they can take off and land quickly, that their passengers can be processed through Customs and be met by people at the airport, or be able to continue their journey to somewhere else in the country. This Government has failed to provide the appropriate facilities for Sydney Airport to allow it to operate in the way in which it should operate. I could continue to talk about this legislation, but the fact remains that it involves a loan guarantee by the Government, by the taxpayer of Australia. Hundreds of thousands of Australians would welcome the opportunity to invest some of their capital in an enterprise that has proved itself and that Australians would like to see continue to grow. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.25) —The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1988 is very important. I am very pleased that so many members on this side of the House have participated in the debate. I congratulate the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) for his contribution. I also congratulate the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) and the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). The reason that we on this side of the House have contributed in such numbers to this debate is that we recognise that the debate is about Qantas Airways Ltd; Qantas is concerned with tourism; and tourism is very important for the future of this country, the future of our economy and the future of young Australians looking for a career. We on this side of the House are debating the future of our country. We are not just concerned with the future of Qantas. The reason that we are so concerned is that tourism is vitally important to the development of Australia. At present tourism is our fastest growing industry. It is our second largest export earner. In fact, it is very interesting to look at the specific items that Australia exports and see where tourism stands in relation to those items. In the last financial year we brought into this country, as income from overseas, in excess of $4 billion. That figure is greater than for any other export apart from coal. I predict that it will not be many years before tourism will be our biggest earner. It also happens to be our largest employer. Almost 500,000 Australians are employed in the tourism industry. It is interesting to look at the history of employment in the industry. In 1980 about 200,000 people were employed in the industry. By 1991 we can expect to see about 630,000 people employed in the tourism industry. It offers the greatest opportunity for growth in employment, for the creation of jobs for young Australians. The number of overseas visitors coming to this country is growing by about 27 per cent per annum. In 1984 Australia for the first time clocked up one million foreign visitors to its shores. In 1988 we will exceed the two million figure. We expect the figure to be about 2.2 million. By the end of the next decade about five million people from overseas will visit Australia each year. That represents a real challenge to airlines such as Qantas. Therefore, what the Parliament is debating today is important, because if Qantas is to meet that challenge it needs to have the financial wherewithal in order to come up with the goods, to bring those foreign tourists into Australia, so that we can create jobs and produce income for this country. It is also important that Qantas should have the wherewithal to meet those challenges today. Every tourist operator in Australia depends, either indirectly or directly, upon Qantas's success. The reason why Qantas is so important is that it has roughly half of the airline market into Australia. In the last few years the figure has been slightly under half, Qantas has enjoyed a protected share of the market, as it is the privileged national carrier of Australia. Because it is the national carrier it is in the best interests of every Australian to see that Qantas is able to do the job, to meet those challenges for the future. Unfortunately, last year at about this time Qantas was unable to meet the challenge of the huge growth in the number of overseas visitors. There was a tremendous shortage of seating capacity. At this time last year we debated in this House how terrible it was that many thousands of people who wanted to visit Australia could not get seats on aircraft into Australia, in order to enjoy Australia, spend their money and help to create some jobs in the process. Because of that, Qantas and other airlines have gone to great lengths to try to create extra capacity. Because of the foreign visitor growth rate of about 27 per cent per annum, one is looking at a tremendous demand for extra seats on flights into the country. In the last few days I have done a little ring around of major travel agents and airlines to discover how we are meeting the present demand for seats into this country. It appears we are just getting through by the skin of our teeth. Qantas has given directions to its staff not to travel overseas using their airline at present because it wants to put paying customers in those seats. It does not want to leave its employees overseas on holidays unable to come back because sufficient seats are not available for them. Of course this is just getting through by the skin of our teeth at present. A number of people within the industry are saying that when the next few weeks have gone by we will see the number of bookings increase to the point at which they will not be able to meet the full demand. This is very serious, because each 16 foreign visitors coming into Australia create one full-time position in this country. So for every 16 potential foreign visitors that our airlines cannot bring into this country, one Australian is put on the end of an unemployment queue. That is very sad because so many opportunities could be taken up if governments were prepared to meet that challenge. I was in Western Australia recently and the people of Perth say they have a tremendous number of people flying into Perth from overseas. About 36 flights a week are coming in from overseas. Each one of those flights is chock-a-block. It is almost impossible to get a seat. Therefore, the challenge this Government has and the challenge that airlines like Qantas have, is to grow as rapidly as Australia's tourist industry is growing. We must be sure that Qantas and other airlines have sufficient seats to bring people into Australia. Qantas has enjoyed a very special and privileged position with the Australian airline industry. Not only is it our national flag carrier, but also it has enjoyed tremendous protection through the Civil Aviation Department in the past, as it does now through the Civil Aviation Authority. The Civil Aviation Authority ensures that those countries which want to bring aircraft into Australia must give reciprocal rights. Quite often Qantas has been accused of being greedy in trying to get two flights into someone else's country for every flight that that country brings into Australia. It is important that Qantas and other airlines get a fair go, but it is also important that Qantas does not try to take more than Australia is giving to the other countries. So if we are to meet that challenge, this Government, the Civil Aviation Authority and Qantas must all work together to allow more airline capacity into Australia. In order for Qantas to achieve that challenge it must have huge injections of capital. We are not talking about $10m or $20m. We are not even talking about $200m or $300m. As the honourable member for Lyne mentioned, we are talking about $1,000m and more than that for the future. This Bill is looking at three 767 aircraft that will cost about $100m each. I understand that each 747 aircraft these days costs nearly $300m. Over the next few years, in order to meet the challenge of the growth in the tourism industry, Qantas has to nearly double its fleet of aircraft. How will it do it? Are we to be continually coming back into the House, month after month, passing Bills such as the one we are talking about today? I hope not. I hope that this Government recognises the reality of the situation and privatises Qantas. Instead of allowing Government money to be the principal source of revenue for the growth and expansion of Qantas, rather let it be private enterprise money and let private enterprise carry the growth and development of the tourism industry as well as the growth and development of Qantas as Australia's principal airline. As so many members on this side of the House have pointed out, privatisation is the only way to go. Privatisation of Qantas will allow it to grow as the challenge requires. Unfortunately, one of the great tragedies of Australia's tourism industry today is that this Government refuses to allow Qantas to be privatised. It flirted with the idea not so long ago. We saw major headlines across the national daily newspapers saying that Senator Gareth Evans, the then Minister for Transport and Communications, was proposing that Qantas and other Government utilities should be privatised. His arguments made a lot of sense to me and they made a lot of sense to people on this side of the House; but, unfortunately, the Government was not prepared to go down that line of argument. It was not prepared because it was still left with the crazy old loony Left. The loony Left is left over from the dark ages. It is an antiquity and archaic. Mr McGauran —They are dangerous. Mr SHARP —As the honourable member for Gippsland points out, they are dangerous to the future growth and development of this country. If young Australians are to have jobs and a future and if this nation is to have a high standard of living with a growing economy, we must go all out to make not only our tourism industry but also other industries grow at the maximum possible rate. The only way that will be achieved is by allowing the private sector to get in there and get on with the job, and getting governments out of the way because governments hold it back. The left wing of the Labor Party is holding back the growth and development of Qantas and the growth and development of the tourism industry. It is sad that the Left is still so dominant within the Labor Party. Its members are often heard to say today that they are a new image Labor Party, they are not like they were in the Whitlam and Calwell eras. I am afraid to say they have not changed their clothing that much. The blokes in the Labor Party must get rid of them and stop them from blocking sensible ideas like the privatising of Qantas. The only thing to be done with those people is to stick them in jars of formalin and put them into every museum in this country with a little card underneath which says, `These are the left-wing members of the Labor Party. They were created in the industrial revolution of years ago and they, like the dinosaurs of years gone by, outgrew their purpose in life and now you see them on display in the museums of Australia'. That is what must be done, because if the Government is to do the right thing for Australia, that is where the left wing of the Labor Party should be-in every museum of Australia. Mr Lloyd —Mr Cain has just formed a new government of left wingers in Victoria. Mr SHARP —As the Deputy Leader of the National Party points out, it is a sad day when the Left dominates the Victorian Government. If Qantas is to grow and develop, it must be privatised. We need privatisation because the airline industry around the world today is getting incredibly competitive. One has only to see the growth and development of the mega-airlines around the world to realise why it is so important that Qantas lose the shackles of government ownership and control and get out and compete with the rest of the world. Why is the New Zealand Government trying to sell off part of Air New Zealand? It realises that unless Air New Zealand can grow, and grow quickly, it will not survive. This is the picture which Qantas will face unless it is privatised. So, the whole tourism industry is being put at risk because this Government refuses to allow Qantas to be privatised. The whole tourism industry is being put at risk because 60 per cent of our foreign visitors arrive through Sydney International Airport. If honourable members have been through Sydney International Airport, as I am sure so many people have, they will have realised how inadequate a facility it is. As the honourable member for Lyne and other Opposition members have pointed out, we on the Liberal and National Party side of politics are prepared to build that additional runway at Sydney International Airport to allow that airport to handle the increased growth of traffic. People on the Labor side talk about Badgerys Creek. Badgerys Creek is a long way from being fully operational. It is painted as being some magical cure-all. It will be 20 years before Badgerys Creek is fully operational. I do not know how passengers who land at Badgerys Creek will get into the heart of the city. Where is the expressway? Where is the train system? How will they get in? No consideration is given to those sorts of problems. We are prepared to do what is necessary to overcome the immediate problems that Qantas and other airlines that fly into Sydney Airport face. It is not only an extra runway that is required; it is also new international terminal buildings. The best way to handle that is to give the private sector a chance to develop international terminals. If that is done, not only will Sydney International Airport improve its performance but airports like Darwin and Alice Springs and others around Australia will start to be able to cater to their customers rather than being shackled by governments. That is where we are being short changed. As the honourable member for Farrer pointed out, one of the saddest things is that the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) was appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as the junior Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support. While the honourable member for Barton has a pecuniary interest in halting the growth of Sydney International Airport then I am afraid that that airport will never grow. He has an interest because his electorate sits right around Mascot international airport. He is trying to ensure that his constituents are not upset by having extra aircraft using the airport. By holding back the proper growth of Mascot international airport, aircraft are being stacked up in the air. As a result people's lives are being put at risk for longer periods than they ought to be. Airlines are being forced to pay millions of dollars each year in extra fuel charges purely and simply because the honourable member for Barton is trying to protect a few lousy votes. That is the situation that the tourism industry and Qantas find themselves facing at present under this Labor Government. It is sad that this Government has very little interest in the tourism industry. I am sorry that the new Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson, does not take a greater interest in the tourism industry. He spends more time talking about the environment and those other politically advantageous areas in which he glorifies. I am afraid to say that as a result of that we are not seeing tourism being promoted as well as it should be. In the last 12 to 18 months we have seen the Labor Party continuing to put more taxes on tourism. The arrivals tax has been introduced, and what greater farce has there been than this tax? I note that the High Court of Australia has been dealing with this matter in the last few days. There has been talk of imposing a tax on airlines for the provision of anti-terrorist services and security at airports. The cost of air charges for airlines has gone up. It is interesting to see how genuine this Labor Government is in promoting tourism. The Government has increased charges to airlines in order to get more money out of them. This year it put up the cost of terminal navigation charges by 43.3 per cent. Charges for rescue fire services have gone up by 50 per cent this year. On-route navigation charges have gone up by 303 per cent so far this year. There has been an average rate of increase in additional airline charges through the Civil Aviation Authority of 161 per cent so far this year. That is the way this Government treats our airlines and the tourism industry. It considers them as nothing more than something to squeeze money out of. I am afraid to say that, in the process, this will add to the cost of bringing people to this country. These charges will, of course, make it harder and harder for foreign tourists to be able to afford to travel to Australia. There needs to be a change of government and a change of attitude if Sydney airport, our tourism industry and Qantas are to achieve real growth and development. I believe that the Liberal and National parties' tourism policy that I, as the Opposition spokesman launched the other day at the Australian Tourism Industry Association conference highlights the way in which the industry will properly grow under a new government. We are going to get rid of some of those bottlenecks. Indeed, we will get rid of all the bottlenecks. The Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) International Airport is probably the greatest example of what I am talking about. It is choking the proper development of the tourism industry in Australia today. The potential for growth exists if we have a government that is prepared to meet the challenges. I think the Bill before the House and the amendment that has been proposed by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) will at least give some short term relief to the problems that Qantas faces. It is terribly important that Qantas be allowed to grow. As I have said, the three extra 767 aircraft will cost $100m each. If we assume that this aircraft has a capacity of about 230 passengers, that the average usage is about 70 per cent per flight, that there are about 1 1/2 flights a day and that the average fare is about $1,000, each one of those aircraft will earn for Australia about $75m each year. That is an interesting figure because it indicates that these aircraft will very rapidly pay for themselves by earning income for Australia. So the tourism industry and Qantas are vital to the development and growth of Australia. We can see the financial gains and rewards that will be realised if Qantas is allowed to get on with the job by acquiring more capital to buy more aircraft. This will be a very cost-effective exercise for this country. Let us hope that the Bill and the amendment are passed by this House. Let us hope that we do not have to come back here and continue to debate loan Bills for Qantas. I hope, as do all members on this side of the House, that Qantas will be privatised and that it can go out into the marketplace and do what any other company in a competitive world should be able to do-compete without government shackles hanging around its ankles. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.45) —This very simple little piece of legislation, which gives a government guarantee to a Qantas Airways Ltd loan, has certainly sparked a wide ranging debate over quite a period. I do not think it is appropriate for me to address all of the issues that have been raised, but in summing up I would like to address a few of the key issues raised by honourable members during this debate. Of course, the major issue has been the capital structure of Qantas and the suggested need for further capital injection from one source or another. Opposition members have placed some importance on that issue. May I say at the outset that it hardly comes as news to the Government that the Opposition is telling it that there is some contentious issue about a capital injection for Qantas. We, of course, have been very much aware of the fact that Qantas will be faced with an enormous capital expenditure program over the next five years if it is to keep up with the growth in the market and remain a major player in the international air industry. If it is to maintain its place it will have to spend in the order of $6 billion on acquiring new aircraft over the course of the next five years. That is the enormous amount of money which is necessary to finance something like 28 aircraft. As has been mentioned, this will be virtually a doubling of the size of the Qantas fleet. Let me make a number of points in considering how Qantas will cope with dealing with this enormous capital program. Firstly, the Opposition has been critical of the capital structure of Qantas. Opposition spokesmen have pointed to the fact that Qantas has only $149m of paid up capital and said that this is a grossly inadequate amount. The Fraser Government did not do much to improve that situation. It put $25m into Qantas. When we came into office, Qantas had $89m in capital. In the first few months of Labor taking office, Qantas was given a capital injection of $60m, taking its capital up to $149m-a very substantial increase in its paid up capital. Obviously this was a considerable improvement to its capital structure, which had been grossly neglected by the previous Government. So it ill becomes the Opposition to be lecturing us about looking after the capital structure of Qantas when it was quite clearly so grossly neglected by the previous Government. As I said, we have recognised the need, given the enormity of the capital outlay program for Qantas over the course of the next few years, for that program to be responsibly financed. No-one in the Government has considered that we can simply say to Qantas, `Well, you will have to borrow all that money', because that would then give the airline a debt to equity ratio which would be commercially undesirable and place the future of the organisation at some risk if there were a rapid downturn in the market. So Qantas needs to have adequate interest cover and an appropriate debt to equity ratio which will ensure that the company can survive if times of downturn should arise. There is no doubt that there will have to be considerable borrowings to finance the program. Some use will also have to be made of the capital reserves of the organisation. There is considerable scope for doing this at times when profits are high and retained profits are considerable. However, there may still be a need for further capital injection. This is a matter which is under intensive consideration by the Government at present. It is absolutely not true to suggest that the issue is being neglected. As I said, it is under intensive consideration and we will ensure that, one way or another, Qantas is able responsibly to meet its financing problem. That will be done in a way which will ensure that Qantas is able to meet its capital expenditure requirements in a commercial way. In other words, there will not be a delay in decision-making which will mean that Qantas will be unable to purchase aircraft because of a lack of decision by government. Nor is it true that, as has been suggested by at least one speaker during the course of this debate, Qantas is already being held back by Government inaction in enabling the company to acquire further aircraft. There is no truth in that whatever. Qantas is able to acquire the aircraft that it perceives it needs at present and is doing so. Of course, the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill is part of this. Another issue which has been raised in the course of debate and in the second reading amendment is employee share ownership in Qantas. The issue of employee share ownership in public companies, that is, government owned companies, is obviously one which raises a considerable number of issues. It is one which the Government is giving consideration to. It will have possible application to Qantas and to other government companies which will enable additions to capital and also to performance improvement which we perceive as possible in the private sector. Indeed, in my previous ministerial role as the Minister for Industrial Relations, I was strongly concerned to promote employee share ownership as part of an employee participation expansion in this country. I can see very considerable benefits in that form of participation applying also to government business enterprises of which Qantas is the major part. However, we need to overcome a number of practical problems in relation to that and they are all under consideration at present. Another issue which was raised with some importance is debt defeasance. There has been a suggestion both in this House and by way of press release today that the Government is trying to hide something in relation to the financing arrangements for Qantas aircraft by way of the leasing arrangements which have been undertaken. It is indeed public knowledge. It does not require this debate to make it public. It has been public knowledge for some time now. Indeed, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) in the course of debate referred to a newspaper article which was months old and which covered this issue in some detail. It is the case that there have been a number of leasing transactions by Qantas which have used the so-called debt defeasance approach. They have been used on three previous occasions. It is intended that they will be used again in relation to the aircraft which are the subject of this legislation. I want to assure the House that on each of the three previous occasions that the debt defeasance approach was used through Japan it was cleared with the Australian Taxation Office. There is no suggestion of some underhand tax avoidance approach by Qantas. Everything that has been done has been done with the knowledge and approval of the Australian Taxation Office. There is no suggestion that something hidden or nasty has been done. On the contrary, it has been done in an open manner. Qantas was assured by the Tax Office that it was not in breach of the Australian tax law. Debt defeasance cheapens the financing arrangements for Qantas. There is a considerable reduction in financing costs by adopting this approach. It is an approach which is adopted by other airlines around the world, by private companies and public authorities in Australia. We have the situation of public companies or government authorities and Federal Government bodies such as Qantas using this approach. It is used quite widely by international airlines. Most honourable members in the debate have said that they do not oppose the legislation. Indeed, they supported Qantas using this approach as they assumed that was the approach that was used by other airlines. I can assure them that that is the case. Therefore, Qantas in terms of its competitive position is simply adopting a practice which is widely used by its competitors. The other issue raised was a recent tax ruling on 15 September in relation to debt defeasance which it was suggested might have changed the ball game. I assure the honourable member for Richmond, who raised this matter, that it does no such thing. The defeasance practices which were the subject of the ruling of 15 September do not apply to the defeasance approach used by Qantas either in this instance or in any other in the past. There is no concern that the rules of the game may have changed and that Qantas may now be in breach. It is not. The ruling of 15 September is not relevant to the actions of Qantas. I now move very quickly to a couple of other issues which relate firstly to Sydney Airport. It has been suggested by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) that we have done nothing to address the problem for international passengers at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. That is a particularly unfortunate statement as we have just announced a $240m expansion of the international terminal in Sydney. It is a rather dramatic expansion enabling a considerable increase in the number of gates and a vast increase in the amount of traffic through the international terminal. The situation of Sydney Airport traffic generally has been raised by some honourable members in the debate, but I do not think that this is really the place to discuss this. I simply say that the Government, unlike the previous Government, has bitten the bullet and decided that we should have a second Sydney airport and that that airport should be at Badgerys Creek. The Government has set in place a program of land acquisition for that airport. It has done this over the last two or three years. That program of land acquisition will continue. There is in place a clear strategy for meeting the future concerns of aviation in the Sydney basin. Mr Peacock —Have you bought the land yet? Mr WILLIS —If the honourable member had been listening he would have heard. Mr Peacock —I wanted to check. Did you say you had bought the land? Mr WILLIS —If the honourable member for Kooyong does not want to listen to what I am saying and wants to chat while I am addressing that point he can do without the information until he reads the Hansard. Once we have a report from the New South Wales task force which has been set up to investigate the aviation needs of the Sydney basin-it will report back to us shortly-we will be in a position to further assess the rate of progress at Badgerys Creek. In relation to the Brisbane International Airport which has also been the subject of discussion in this debate, the Government, of course, through the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC), has announced that it will immediately commence the planning of an international terminal for the Brisbane Airport. The Corporation has commissioned a firm of architects to undertake the development of the conceptual design. It has indicated that subject to appropriate approvals the terminal is expected to be completed by 1993. In the meantime, it has approved an almost $5m expansion of the existing terminal to look after the growth in traffic in Brisbane over that five-year period. Of course, the timing and financing of new international terminal facilities are matters for the commercial judgment of the Federal Airports Corporation. In that respect it is worth noting that there have been claims by the Queensland Premier, Mr Ahern, and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, that there are commercial developers who are willing to develop a new international terminal within 18 months. The Government has established the FAC for the specific purpose of developing and operating airport facilities on a commercial basis. The Corporation's legislation gives it wide-ranging powers to do just that. If there are private developers who have genuine proposals for expediting the development of a new terminal complex, they should be putting those plans to the Corporation for its consideration. If there is such a proposal around, let us hear about it. Let us not just have political statements being made by the Premier of Queensland or the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Let their private developers who have such ideas and proposals put them to the Federal Airports Corporation. If they do that, the Corporation will assess their suitability and decide what to do in respect of the development of the Brisbane Airport. If there is a really feasible approach around, it will be properly considered by the FAC. In relation to capacity shortages-a matter that has been raised by a number of speakers-we are concerned to ensure that we meet the enormous growth in demand of traffic to Australia from other countries. As part of the recognition by the rest of the world of the enormous growth and recovery of the Australian economy and the desirability now of Australia as a place to visit, we have had this tremendous growth in our tourism industry. As I have said, in effect it is a recognition of the success of this Government by the rest of the world in seeing Australia now as a highly desirable place to visit, and we are experiencing a tremendous rate of growth in tourism. That, in turn, is placing considerable stress on our tourism infrastructure, including our airline system and our airports. In relation to the airlines, there is an enormous demand for available seats. In that respect we have been approving a lot of supplementary flights over and above scheduled services. So, there is a considerable increase in the number of flights into Australia which are being approved for the peak period of the next few months-between September and February. In recent months there has been approval of applications from foreign carriers for 66 supplementary flights to operate over the current peak season and there will probably be a lot more of those, particularly in the December-January period. Our own carrier, Qantas Airways Ltd, has leased two additional Boeing 747 aircraft and, at this stage, it has plans to operate in excess of 190 supplementary services between September this year and February next year. It will monitor bookings and see whether it might even propose further increases. Hong Kong has been a particular source of difficulty. The problem there is that Cathay Pacific has rights to Australia but Australia is lacking in rights to fly through Hong Kong to north Asia or to Europe. That is a difficulty that has brought about some restriction on the number of scheduled services. However, whilst we are sorting that out, there has been approval for supplementary flights. Cathay Pacific has applied for, and has had approved, 12 supplementary flights from August through to the end of November. Today it has also applied for a further 26 supplementary flights for the period December to February, and that application is almost certain to be approved. Qantas has had seven flights approved for operation to the end of October and has applied for a further supplementary flight to operate over the holiday period from the beginning of December; but, to my knowledge, that has not yet been approved by the Hong Kong authorities. So, I simply assure the House that we are taking the necessary steps to try to ensure that there is adequate seating capacity between Australia and the rest of the world, and particularly in Hong Kong where the problem has been most acute. Finally, we reject the second reading amendment out of hand for the reasons that I have given in the course of my summing-up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 concurrently with the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill [No. 2] 1988. There being no objection, it is so ordered. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(6.07) —The Bills we are debating tonight are the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988 and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill [No. 2] 1988. The coalition parties will not be opposing this legislation. These Bills follow decisions made in the Budget, but for those who listened only to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the changes will be something of a mystery. Behind the Treasurer's rhetorical claims of a magnificent fiscal achievement lies the reality. Of course, we all heard that the beer excise was reduced. However, the Treasurer neglected to mention that sales tax will now be levied at a rate of 20 per cent on all goods used to wrap or secure products for marketing, delivery and household use; that is, everything from cardboard boxes to plastic wrap to masking tape. Containers for marketing biscuits, snack goods and ice-creams are now to be taxed at 10 per cent; muesli bars and similar health food bars are hit; while for those who prefer thick shakes and ice-cream mixes there will be a new 10 per cent sales tax. All prepackaged coffee, chocolate and malt-flavoured milk drinks with less than 95 per cent milk content will now be taxed at the rate of 20 per cent. I am reading out all these items because no Government Minister is prepared to say this to the public. Instead, the increases are buried away in the Budget Papers. The Government has tried to keep the increases quite, just as it has quietly increased sales taxes year after year. They increased by 19 per cent last financial year; by 10 per cent the year before that; and by 15 per cent the year before that. Those figures represent significant real growth above the inflation rate. Bluntly put, they represent taxation by stealth. If one does not drink much beer or indulge oneself extravagantly with the use of cosmetics, one will lose from this Budget. The Treasurer has certainly proved himself adept in one key area of economic policy-the raising of taxes. He is the biggest taxing Treasurer since the Second World War. Living standards have been hit, and hit hard, by this Government. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and I have said many a time before, Labor has savaged Australian living standards. A family on average weekly earnings, with a dependent spouse and two children, would need a minimum tax cut in July 1989 of $56 per week to restore household income to its March 1983 level. Under Labor's mismanagement, inflation last financial year was 7.1 per cent, nearly double the average for our major trading partners. Youth unemployment remains at around 19 per cent. Over 2.6 million people now live below the poverty line, and of that number 20 per cent are children. Sixty thousand people now live on the verge of homelessness and 40,000 sleep in the open or in refuges. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the share of gross income held by the top 10 per cent of the population has increased while the average income of middle income groups has fallen in real terms, particularly for young workers and older groups. Tragically, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) highlighted the Government's penchant for statistical misrepresentation in a speech made last week. In trying to attack our claim that living standards have fallen, the Senator used an aggregate statistic-real household disposable income per capita-in an attempt to argue that the living standard had risen. He neglected to mention that the increases in this aggregate measure have been largely due to growth in capital-sourced incomes, including those earned by Labor's rich mates. The honourable senator's paranoia about the standard of living seems to have clouded his judgment. One simply cannot bring the incomes of the very rich into a statistic that one is using to display the living standards of lower to middle income Australians. The Hawke Ministry seems to be as supersensitive about the question of living standards as its lame duck Prime Minister is about the leadership question. While the Budget surplus is $5.5 billion, it has been overwhelmingly achieved by increases in taxation. Over and above the sales tax changes we are debating today, an extra $5.7 billion in income tax is being collected from individuals. That is a 13.6 per cent increase and it is even higher than the 10 per cent growth of the previous year. We have one more year of tax bracket creep. The Treasurer claims that bracket creep is offset this year by revenue cuts. If so, where are the offsets for the total of $7 billion in bracket creep estimated to have been collected by the Government since 1985-86? That has not been offset. However, the problem with the taxation system does not simply stem from the level of taxation. The administration of taxation is also a major concern. In the area of sales tax the Opposition has given a commitment to reform and rationalise the existing ramshackle indirect tax system. There is a whole range of inequities and anomalies, and just plain bad, inefficient administration that has to be remedied. Having said that, I note that the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill [No. 2] will exempt from tax plain soy milk currently taxable at the 20 per cent rate, and will reduce from 20 per cent to 10 per cent the sales tax on flavoured soy milk. It has been a hard campaign by various members of the Opposition such as the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred), and various community groups, to have these changes introduced. I commend the Government for finally doing so. The Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill will amend the sale value provisions of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1), so that where a manufacturer sells goods only by retail or retails goods only through an agent the sale value for tax purposes is based on the manufacturer's own costs and profit. The proposed changes are aimed to simplify and rationalise one part of the sales tax system. They are designed to stop some manufacturers gaining an undue advantage from the sales tax laws. On face value there is nothing objectionable about these changes. Let us hope, however, that the Government gets them right. We should all remember the fiasco of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) the week before last when he brought in 280 amendments to his corporations legislation only four months after the original Bills were introduced. Some of the most damaging problems with the indirect tax system remain, however, in its administration. The people who suffer are the 800,000 or so small businesses around the country and, of course, the 16 million consumers. Let us look at some specific examples. The recent House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology conducted an inquiry into the problems of small business. The submissions from various industry bodies were very similar on the question of sales tax. The Australian Chamber of Commerce noted that the major complaint was where, and I quote: . . . businesses are required to pay sales tax before funds are actually collected from debtors. Sales tax must be paid on the twenty-first day of the following month. However, payments from debtors usually occur some thirty to ninety days after goods or services are delivered. This sales tax provision forces many small businesses, especially those with a small overdraft, to fund short falls by taking out bank loans. This diversion of funds reduces business investment and increases the operating costs. The same grievance was registered by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia-COSBOA as it is called-by ASBA, the Australian Small Business Association, the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, and others. The Australian Chamber of Manufactures went on to list other problems such as the complex administration, the high compliance costs, the simple problem of businesses being inadequately informed of Australian Taxation Office rulings, and the very slow appeal procedures for disputing Tax Office rulings. As it says, the only way in which the problems associated with sales tax can be dealt with is through a comprehensive review. But, of course, reviews of the taxation system by this Government always seem to fall short of expectations. Every review of tax it has conducted has included some tinkering with the existing system; almost inevitably some new tax; and, therefore, also inevitably, a higher taxation burden on the Australian people. The latest evidence of absolute disorder in the Government ranks is over the question of tax cuts for next year-`the biggest tax cut in the history of this country' in the words of one of Labor's de facto Cabinet members, Bill Kelty. The supposed linchpin of the Government's economic policy-the wage-tax trade-off-appears to be a shambles. The Treasurer, who does not want wage rises and still says everything is up for negotiation, is squared off against the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who says there will obviously be wage rises and tax cuts. Of course, the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris) says, `No matter what the Treasurer says, the tax cuts are inevitable on 1 July next year'. The Prime Minister called in all his economic Ministers the other day to clear up this confusion. The Prime Minister seems to be having a little problem. He wants to talk about taxes and they want to talk about his resignation. It is a pity for him that the Governor-General's vacancy has already been filled. The fact is, as Paul Kelly reported in the Australian newspaper yesterday, and I quote: Nobody knows where the Hawke economic team is going from here. But the good old days are over. The super-optimists who think everybody can kiss and make up are in a condition of super-delusion. The fragility of our balance of payments position certainly has implications for next year's tax cut. The Treasurer was reported as saying in Berlin only two weeks ago that next year's tax cut would go ahead, even if Australia's trade performance suffered as a result of slower world growth. In addition, in this House on 25 August he said that the tax cut would be funded from the Budget surplus. In short, the Treasurer is intent on providing next July's tax cut without cutting government spending. That would mean an increase in private sector demand with no offsetting decline in public sector demand. The effect on our already precarious balance of payments would be untenable. This tired, confused Government simply cannot get the broader questions of tax policy right, nor can it adequately address the specific questions of sales tax reform. I therefore foreshadow the Opposition's second reading amendment. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(6.21) —Despite the interference from the bogong moths that have invaded the chamber, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), with his usual theatrical flair, has put on one of his sterling drive-time special efforts. But perhaps it is a bit unfair to criticise him further. He has had a troubled week with his image problem. I noted that towards the end of his speech he wished to raise questions of leadership. Obviously, he is still in a quandary about the leadership on the conservative side of politics, not only in the Federal sphere but also-that hoary little annual that comes up-the leadership in Victoria. He often talks about ordinary Australians. Now that Jeff Kennett has failed yet again, ordinary Victorians are once more raising the question of whether it would be appropriate for the honourable member for Kooyong-however it might be arranged-to go down to Victoria and help the Liberal Party with its troubles. I will not dwell on that proposal any longer. Suffice it to say that the legislation before us sets out to address some of the anomalies that are apparent in our present sales tax legislation. The explanatory memorandum that has been circulated with this legislation, the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill and the Sales Tax (Exemption and Classifications) Amendment Bill [No. 2], illustrates a number of those anomalies. The honourable member for Kooyong made special mention of the Government's decision on soy milk. It will be seen in the explanatory memorandum that that is compared to the present treatment of plain milk. The proposals put forward in this legislation address that anomaly. It is interesting to look at some of the other anomalies that are addressed in this legislation. Let us consider fish food for the use of fish breeders. The present sales tax law provides exemption for food for livestock, poultry and birds where the people who are using it are engaged in the business of breeding such stock. Of course, pet food for domestic dogs and cats is taxable. In recent years the fish farming industry has quite rightly said that it is unfair that the food it uses for fish is not exempted. So in this proposition that anomaly is addressed. Another anomaly that has been addressed is personal care products, some of which attract the higher tax rate of 30 per cent. They are now deleted from the schedule and therefore will attract the general rate of 20 per cent. Another instance is photographs and photographic materials. Materials such as film, paper and mounts are presently taxable at the 30 per cent rate, whereas negatives, transparencies and film strips are taxed at the general rate. It is proposed to apply the 20 per cent rate to developing and the 30 per cent rate to printing. This Bill provides for consistency in the way we deal with these materials. One of the chief aspects of this legislation which, because of the nature of the product involved, has gained a great deal of press is the treatment of beer. In the Budget speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) referred to inflation as Australia's number one economic disease. Reductions in the excise applied to beer are part of the strategy aimed at maintaining the downward trend in the consumer price index (CPI). As a result of the Budget, under this legislation a 20 per cent sales tax will apply to locally produced beer, which constitutes 95 per cent of the market. This makes it consistent with imported beers and all other forms of alcoholic beverage which are levied at 20 per cent sales tax. Effectively this removes an advantage enjoyed by two local brewers-the Bond Corporation and Carlton and United Breweries-over imported beer, which was previously subject to sales tax in addition to customs duty. This proposal is very much about competition. It is important to see this action as part of the Government's general policy that Australian companies should stand on their own feet without the aid of import protection. The revenue from the introduction of this sales tax, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum, will be $330m in 1988-89. It is important, however, to also see this change in the context of a simultaneous reduction in the level of excise applicable to beer. The overall effect of this reform should see a reduction in excise revenue of $730m in 1988-89. In other words, there will be a net reduction in indirect taxes relating to beer of $400m in 1988-89, which, as the Treasurer indicated on Budget night, should see the price of a carton of low alcohol beer fall by about $5.50 a carton and the price of a carton of full strength beer fall by $2.20. These details were clearly outlined in the Budget statements. The predictions of per carton price decreases were soundly based on a survey of retail outlets and information provided by brewers. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 August, Mr Bill Widerberg, executive director of Bond Brewing, stated that he was `delighted': This is the first time in a lifetime that excise has been reduced . . . It was time the Government aligned its tax policy with its health policy, giving a break to low alcohol beer, especially after brewers made an effort to come up with low-alcohol beers which serve a need in the community. Since the Budget, unfortunately, there have been attempts to cloud the issue and to mislead and misinform the public in regard to these changes to the indirect taxation of beer. The facts are clear. There has been an advantage to the producer and the retailer which should be passed on to the consumer. Prior to the Budget it is estimated that the producer's price, including all Federal tax, for a carton of full strength beer was $15.69 and the price to the retailer, once State tax and freight were considered, was $17.49. With a retail mark-up of 20 per cent, the price to the consumer was $20.99. For a carton of low alcohol beer the pre-Budget prices were: producer's price, $14.72; price to retailer, $14.96, and, with a 36 per cent average retail mark-up, the price to the consumer, $20.35. After the Budget, the producer's price of full strength beer fell to $14.02 and the low alcohol beer to $10.61 per carton, and the price to the retailer fell to $15.66 for full strength beer and $10.84 for low alcohol beer. Assuming a constant level of retail mark-up between the pre-Budget prices and the post-Budget prices, the price of beer to the consumer should have fallen to $18.79 for full strength beer and $14.75 for low alcohol beer. Have these cuts been passed on to the consumer? The ball is firmly in the court of the retailers. There is certainly no justification for an increase in the level of mark-up. This is particularly the case, given that in the past beer prices have increased at a faster rate than both the CPI and automatic increases in excise. Since the introduction of the automatic indexation of excise, in the September quarter of 1984, excise has risen by 29 per cent. Over the same period the CPI has increased by 34 per cent and the retail price of beer has increased by 38 per cent. In his Budget Speech, the Treasurer stated that the Prices Surveillance Authority would be charged with the close scrutiny of these prices. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr JENKINS —We are debating cognately the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill [No. 2] 1988 and the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1988. Before the dinner break I indicated that in part the Bills attempt to straighten out a number of anomalies in the application of sales tax. As the explanatory memorandum to the Bills indicates, there will be a net revenue loss of some $6.6m in this financial year and $7m in a full year as a result of those measures. Also, these Bills include the provision to place a sales tax on beer, as announced in the Budget. It should be remembered, of course, that with the decrease in beer excise the net loss from the proposal in a full year would be some $445m. In passing I also indicate to the House that I believe honourable members would be well advised to read the explanation of the broad framework of the sales tax law that is included in the explanatory memorandum. I believe it is a good summary of the sales tax legislation. Immediately before the break I was speaking about how retailers had carried out their requirement to pass on the decrease in taxes on beer. I had indicated that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget had stated that the Prices Surveillance Authority would be keeping an eye on the price falls. In early September Hylda Rolfe, the Prices Surveillance Authority chairperson, stated that beer price falls had further to go before a complete flow-on to consumers was achieved. A survey by the Victorian Government released in mid-September showed quite clearly that the benefits of excise cuts were not being passed on to consumers. The survey showed that the price of a dozen standard bottles varied from $15.90 to $24.05. It showed further that 6 per cent of the 370 hotels surveyed were charging above pre-Budget prices and that 33 per cent charged more than the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) recommended price of $20.65, which in any case was well above the price indicated by the Treasurer's figures. The Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs at that time, Mr Spyker, has argued quite correctly that in the light of the Budget changes the AHA recommended price itself is still $2 too high. The survey indicated that consumers were being ripped off; that changes aimed at reducing the consumer price index (CPI) were being used to line the pockets of some entrepreneurs in the industry. In passing, Mr Spyker should be congratulated not only on being re-elected but also on being appointed Minister for Community Services in the Victorian Cabinet. Peter Spyker is a very hardworking Minister of the Cain Government and a very hardworking local member who has continued to deliver to Labor what is really a marginal seat. Although there was some scepticism about this campaign of the Victorian Government in the run-up to the State election, it appears that the message has hit home. At least I can say that of my electorate. A survey of 10 liquor outlets, eight licensed grocers and two hotels in the Scullin electorate conducted today showed that the price of a dozen bottles of full strength beer ranged from $17.50 to $18.99, well below the AHA recommended price. There is only one instance where the price is above the $18.65 forecast in the Budget, as I outlined before the break. The price of low alcohol beer ranged from $14.89 to $17.00. In each case the price was above the forecast fall to $14.75 but also well below the pre-Budget average price of $20.35. While there is obviously room for further falls in the price of low alcohol beer, it seems that in Scullin, at least, the benefits of Budget reform to the indirect taxation of beer are being passed on to the consumer. It is to be hoped that Scullin is not the exception to the rule and I understand that my colleague the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb), in his capacity as the Victorian coordinator of the national price watch network, will be making some comments on investigations that he has evidenced and the overall aspects of beer pricing in Victoria. The reform of the indirect taxation regime relating to beer is the centrepiece of an overall reduction of indirect taxes in the Budget of over $400m. It is estimated that these changes should reduce the CPI by half a percentage point. This will lend further weight to an expected inflation outcome in 1989 of about 4.5 per cent. It is part of a strategy of economic management which has seen a prospective deficit of $9.6 billion inherited from the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Fraser Government in 1983 transformed under a Labor government into a $5.5 billion surplus. It is part of a strategy which has seen unprecedented job growth. It is part of a strategy that has seen the double digit unemployment and inflation rates that epitomised the failure of the Howard-Fraser Administration brought under control at the same time. It is pathetic to listen to the economic gibberish of those opposite. They complain about bracket creep and about the artificial reduction in the CPI. There was nothing artificial about the 11.5 per cent peak in the inflation rate under Mr Howard in 1982-83. For the first time in 20 years this Government has inflation locked into low single figures. The Opposition talks about the need for immediate tax cuts. The people of Australia know who has delivered genuine tax cuts. What were the marginal tax rates when those opposite left office? What was the company tax rate? On the one hand they complain about taxation by stealth and at the same time, when the Government delivers more than $400m in cuts to indirect taxation, they claim that this is an attempt to lower the CPI artificially. The contents of their hidden agenda are almost too frightening to contemplate but we would undoubtedly find a consumption tax or a poll tax in there somewhere in combination with horrendous spending cuts. The Opposition stands condemned that, despite promises to the contrary, it is yet to deliver its tax policy. It is something that has been long awaited by the Australian public. After five years in opposition it is one of the important policies that the Opposition should address itself to and put forward so that it can be debated in the public arena to the fullest. The second reading amendment that has been foreshadowed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), is really inconsequential. It is higgledy-piggledy and the same trite sort of condemnation that is always rolled out by the Opposition when talking about tax matters. It is undoubted that when the Government gets down and puts its income tax relief package in place, real, genuine income tax cuts will be delivered to, to use the words often used by the honourable member for Kooyong, ordinary Australians. I think that it is clear and has been foreshadowed and indicated that those cuts will be delivered to low income earners and that there will be appropriate targeting when those measures are announced. In the context of this present Government's overall efforts in the taxation area I have pleasure in commending the two Bills before us to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(8.10) —The Budget package of changes to Australia's complex sales tax legislation is yet another exercise in deceit by this Hawke-Keating Labor Government. It promotes the ideals of centrification and nationalisation of the sales tax system but its real effects have a great deal more to do with the perceptions of the inflation rate than reforming indirect tax law. This effort to remove so-called anomalies will only create further difficulties for small businesses and others, who will shoulder once again the burden of some of the increases contained in this legislation. If we are to believe the financial impact statement in the explanatory memorandum, the net result of these changes will be a very slight reduction in revenue. However, I want to remind the House that the Budget estimates an overall increase in sales tax revenue of 14.4 per cent during this financial year. Sales tax will represent about 10 per cent of all revenue. The measures proposed in this legislation are merely designed to redistribute what is a very large real increase in total sales tax revenue. Despite forecasts of lower inflation we see further large growth in sales tax this year. That follows the huge 18.9 per cent increase in the financial year 1987-88. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has spoken a lot about inflation, describing it as `Australia's number one economic disease'. I agree with his diagnosis but I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will forgive me for doubting the Treasurer's sincerity. If it is a disease he is the carrier. Since coming to office in 1983 the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) has presided over inflation rates which have consistently trebled those of Australia's major trading partners. He has willingly lapped up the revenue benefits from inflation in terms of bracket creep, unindexed income tax brackets and indexed indirect taxes and excises. Yet suddenly all of this has become a disease. If only the Treasurer had recognised the symptoms a few years ago, Australians would not now need the bitter medicine he prescribes. Even now the best that the Treasurer can do to tackle inflation is to play sly tricks with the sales tax legislation to attempt to engineer a reduction in the consumer price index, which is of course only a statistical measure of the real inflationary pressures in the economy. Even this cynical fiddling with indirect tax does not actually represent a reduction in tax for the coming year. The Treasurer will have to make do with a mere $1,083m in extra consumption tax revenue instead of an extra $1.4 billion, which would have been the case without these amendments. So much for the tax cutting credentials of the Government. The sales tax exercise of this year is a mirror of the deliberate deceit wrought by company tax changes in the mini-Budget and the promised income tax cuts next year. Over time, the corporate taxation changes will actually produce greater revenue whilst the promises of income tax relief can do little more than return a fraction of the taxation harvest reaped over the past five years. Some of the origins of the taxation mess being foisted upon taxpayers go back to the ill-considered tax summit of 1985. It will be remembered that the Treasurer then favoured proposals for a broadly based consumption tax, which became known as tax option C. In fact, his priority was torpedoed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in a back-room deal with the power brokers and the bureaucrats of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Ever since 1985, the Treasurer, with the concurrence of the now lame duck Prime Minister, has gradually expanded the wholesale sales tax system by broadening its base and producing a massive increase in revenue. This was aptly described by one columnist as `introducing consumption taxes by stealth'. If one believes in a consumption tax, as the Treasurer obviously did, then it is quite within the bounds of reasonable behaviour for the Government to announce a policy decision to extend the sales tax system, with an eventual introduction of similar taxes on services, effectively giving Australia a consumption tax based on the mess of our existing indirect tax system. The Government should have the honesty to be open about this. I would argue that, even if consumption taxes were considered desirable, the existing legislation, based on at least 18 separate Acts of parliament, is an entirely undesirable foundation on which to surreptitiously build. Of course, the honourable member for Blaxland, the would-be Prime Minister, does not have the intestinal fortitude to acknowledge his support for the extensive restructuring of Australia's indirect tax system. He is willing to announce the result of his policy decision which makes it effectively a `consumption tax by stealth'. His administration of Australia's tax system has seen threats, deceit and stealth used to maximise revenue. All too often, legislation is poorly and too quickly drafted with a myriad of amendments being constantly brought before this House to fix up past mistakes. This puts an impossible burden on both those taxpayers and tax advisers wishing to comply with legislation as well as on the officers of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) seeking to enforce the Government's taxation mess. A tax system which constantly requires legal and professional advice before ordinary taxpayers and small businesses can even voluntarily comply needs a major overhaul. Nowhere are these administrative burdens greater than in the mess which comprises sales tax legislation. The Business Review Weekly observed that `sales tax has become the sneakiest weapon in Treasurer Paul Keating's arsenal'. It went on to observe that `sales tax is one area where courts are ruling mostly in favour of the taxpayer'. True though that observation is, it is made meaningless by sections of this legislation which change the law to reassert the legally incorrect position taken by the Commissioner of Taxation in the first place. The stance of the Commissioner seems to be: if you cannot win according to the rules as they are, then you change the rules. This arrogance is reflected in the legislation before us tonight, which gives even greater discretionary power to the Commissioner. The Estee Lauder case dealt with the difficulties of determining a wholesale value for sales tax purposes, when the manufacturer was also involved in retailing its products. Obviously the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) had provided some, albeit inadequate, guidelines as to how this should be done. The sales tax payer had some protection from the whims of the Australian Tax Office. These guidelines are now to be removed while other measures lessen the chances of broad application of the provisions of the Estee Lauder case. The wholesale value of goods will be deemed to be the price which the manufacturer could have expected to sell the goods for, if it were also a wholesaler. This will now be determined largely at the discretion of the ATO. However, anyone who understood the pricing decisions of firms would be able to point out what a difficult task that would be. As one expert in the field said in correspondence to me, the proposed law will cause more heartache and substantial cost to many sales tax payers. I might add that this legislation makes life doubly difficult for the ATO itself because it must bear the odium of people legitimately objecting to its educated guesses at wholesale prices. Yet again, the Government and the Treasurer have demonstrated through legislation that they do not understand what is a free market or a market-determined price. In the absence of a wholesale market, it is impossible to deem a wholesale price. The idea of deeming a price is as much a nonsense as the mercantilist notions of a just price which Adam Smith dispensed with a long time ago. I now turn to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2), which introduces the changes to sales tax rates described as removing anomalies. It is these changes which, combined with other legislation, effectively reduce the price of beer and low alcohol beers and reduces the rate of sales tax on many cosmetics. However, the legislation will also increase the rate of tax on a range of items previously treated as tax exempt. Revenue from these changes will contribute to the continuing sales tax windfalls which the Government expects in the coming year and will lay the foundations for further imposts at the Government's whim. As we have come to expect from this Hawke-Keating Government, the so-called anomalies corrected in this legislation are mostly anomalies created by the Government when increasing sales tax rates earlier. The only anomalies which we see corrected are those in which previous figures were not wide enough to cover everything which the Government intended. For instance, only recently a sales tax on snack foods was introduced. The Government is now extending the same rate of tax to containers for those foods-all, it claims, to remove an anomaly which would not have existed if not for the original tax increase. Similarly, sales tax on all bags and wrappings is being extended in a way which will produce significant costs for those providing a service to the public. For obvious reasons the Treasurer has not bothered to give us an estimate of the effects of these changes on the consumer price index, but the very direct costs of those changes to thousands upon thousands of small businesses across Australia is clear to all who take the time to look. It has been a consistent pattern that revenue estimates of tax changes under this Government have underestimated the burdens of those new taxes. I suggest that all of the changes to sales tax on packaging will produce a good deal more revenue than we have been told. These changes will affect virtually all industries and will represent yet another convenient windfall for the Government. While revenue producing anomalies are supposedly being cleared up, the sales tax system remains a scandalous dog's breakfast. This is true in regard to enforcement provisions in the legislation, as well as the continuing anomalies which this legislation does not touch. Many of those anomalies are a feature of a sales tax fiddle which often differentiates between ostensibly similar items on the grounds of use. For example, batteries are subject to all four rates of sales tax. Small `button' batteries for use in hearing aids are tax exempt, while very similar batteries for watches or other electronic items are subject to the 30 per cent tax rate. In the case of 1.5 to 6 volt batteries, they are taxed at the 10 per cent concessional rate, while common batteries such as the 7 volt Eveready battery are taxed at the standard 20 per cent rate. To my mind, these are glaring anomalies which will be a great nuisance to the wholesalers of batteries. The criterion of use is not applied consistently. Imported mineral water is taxed at the standard rate of 20 per cent, but other drinks attract a 10 per cent tax. Cakes are tax exempt, although some biscuits are taxed at the 10 per cent rate. Yet the use of all of these drinks, cakes and biscuits is obviously very similar; without question, all of the items end up in the same anatomical place. The total sales tax impost, far from evening out the treatment of similar goods, has been used to confer privilege, protection and advantage on the producers of some goods. The new measures in these Bills do little to alter what is a fundamental problem in the current wholesale tax regime. The other area of difficulty is in the administration of the sales tax legislation. I have raised this matter many times in the context of our income tax system, where enforcement has been draconian. The sales tax area, which is an inherently more difficult part of the tax law, is also complicated by what appears to be a consistently poor record of interpreting the legislation by the Commissioner of Taxation. The difficulties that the Australian Taxation Office is having in the courts must arise from either poor legislation or poor judgment on the part of the Australian Taxation Office. The Treasurer has a responsibility to ensure that the problems of administering legislation in practice are cleared up. However, that is not achieved by giving the Tax Commissioner even greater discretionary power. It is when discretion can be exercised that taxpayers have no guidance as to how they should act before the event. The ATO is likely to face both justified antipathy and unnecessary legal problems. Cricket umpires have a general rule of thumb that, when in doubt, a batsman should be given not out. You know that only too well, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sometimes in the run of the game this causes conflict, but the fielding side at least has a second chance; the batsman does not. If only the Tax Office had a similar attitude, it would have a lot more credibility and support. Instead, we see legislation and practice to the effect that the benefit of the doubt should go to the Tax Commissioner and his discretion. In cases of genuine doubt the Australian Taxation Office serves as its own umpire and, like the fielding team, rules in favour of itself. It is only when such matters go to court or to the various review panels, which all cost the taxpayer a good deal of money, that those rulings are challenged. Wherever possible, clear legislation is abundantly preferable to the ad hoc discretionary powers which this Government constantly distributes to increasingly powerful bureaucrats. Legislation can achieve only very limited benefits. When legislation tries to deal with ambitious schemes outside its competence-the competence of either the Government or the Australian Taxation Office-it is usually ineffective and very often disastrous. The Government's Medicare mistake, which regulates the thousands of separate relationships between doctors, patients, hospitals and other health care providers, is just one example of ambitious legislation which cannot work. Sales tax legislation is equally ambitious, seeking as it does to categorise virtually all types of goods available on the market into three tax rates, or into a tax exempt category. In attempting this it is inevitable that endless anomalies will appear, and they do. To pretend that the 10 or so specific changes in these Bills are a significant step towards rationalising the so-called sales tax system is plainly ridiculous. This legislation is a cynical attempt to manipulate the recorded inflation rate by tampering with beer prices. The Treasurer admits that quite openly. However, behind that is the picture of a huge growth in sales tax revenue which has led people to suggest that the Treasurer is well down the path towards a universal de facto consumption tax. The ultimate test of how far we are down the road to a consumption tax by stealth will be the extension of wholesale tax to areas which have traditionally been considered services. In its administration of existing legislation there are some indications that the Tax Office is already preparing the ground for the taxation of services through the sales tax system. Those signs are not merely confined to its utterances on some of the administrative procedures that it adopts. It is also suggested by the surveys being undertaken, at the behest of the Australian Taxation Office, by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We all know that the fringe benefits tax was an outcome of the 1984 household expenditure survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We can expect something along the lines of a sales tax on services if the ATO and the Treasurer have their way. If this occurs we will be burdened not only by a universal consumption tax but also by an unworkable consumption tax, based on inappropriate legislative foundations. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(8.29) —We heard from the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) a strong complaint-a complaint levelled at the Government-that somehow we were artificially reducing the consumer price index (CPI), that is, the cost of living. What he did not say, and what he should have said, was that there has actually been a drop in the cost of living, a drop in the CPI, due to the measure taken by this Government, including changes to sales tax. It is not simply a matter of tampering with beer prices, as the honourable member put it. It is a matter of actually reducing prices of beer. I will come back to that later tonight and give some details of how in my own area, due to the Government's reduction in excise, tempered by the imposition of sales tax on beer, and the scrutiny of the national prices network, there has been a reduction in revenue to the Government passed on to the consumer through actual reduction in beer prices. The thing that really irks the honourable member for Curtin is that when the Opposition tried to reduce inflation, it did it at the expense of workers' jobs. The only formula it knew was to trade off unemployment for a reduction in the cost of living. It failed on both counts. When the Government of the honourable member for Curtin left office in 1983, the inflation rate was 10.3 per cent. We have reduced that successfully to just over 7 per cent. Over the same time, unemployment has gone down 3 percentage points. There is the crux of the difference between the Opposition when it was in government and this Government. We have managed to do what hardly any other country in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has been able to do. That is, to rein in, to curb inflation and at the same time increase employment. The facts are there if honourable members want to dispute them further. Let us go back slowly and educate honourable members on what the role of sales tax is about. Of course, it is a significant item of Government revenue and if applied savagely, other than marginally, it can affect the demand for a particular product. Of course, its degree of impost, whether it be zero or up to 30 per cent, reflects the community's preferences and needs for a particular consumer item. Sales tax, as was correctly pointed out by the honourable member for Curtin, is the third highest revenue earner for the Government after tax on pay as you earn earnings, including Medicare, and the prescribed payments system, which make up 54 per cent of collections; company tax is 13.6 per cent, particularly when the fringe benefits tax and withholding tax is included; and in third place is sales tax at 10 per cent. Last year the growth in sales tax was 19 per cent. Before getting carried away with that increase, it should be realised that nearly 7 per cent of that was due to the withdrawal of sales tax exemption to Commonwealth commercial authorities. In other words, now they have to pay their way just like other private sector enterprises. Therefore, there is a significant amount. Deduct the usual level of inflation around 7 per cent, and the rest can be explained in growth in consumption and demand due to increased employment and increased spending power across the community. So I am not particularly perturbed that it was a 19 per cent increase. It takes the pressure off other areas of tax collections. In the financial year we have just entered, we expect it to rise 14.4 per cent. Although that is above the level of inflation, it should be realised that it is due to an expanding economy; it is due to a healthy economy. We should not be perturbed by that. It is due to a stronger than anticipated consumer demand. However, with the reduction in tariffs that this Government has brought about and the removal of the 2 per cent import duty, the sales tax collection will grow more slowly than it did before. In other words, what the Government has introduced in these two Bills is part of its comprehensive anti-inflationary strategy. We can expect that to nestle down to about 5 per cent over the coming 12 months. We need to compare sales tax with what the honourable member for Curtin was advocating and going gung ho for-a consumption tax. The `bribe' that is dangled in front of the electorate-that $56 a week reduction in tax for the average weekly earner-has to be financed from somewhere. If we are to have a so-called 52 per cent fall in average weekly earnings, which I pointed out was the greatest source of Government revenue, if we are to find this $23 billion, then one of three things will happen. First of all, there will be a huge drop in Government services. The calculations are that if the Opposition were, in Government, to carry out its bribe-and heaven help us if it did-it would have to reduce Government services by 26 per cent. More than a quarter of essential Government services would have to be reduced to finance that reckless bribe or the Budget deficit would blow out. Of course, that did not worry them in the past. When they left government, it had swollen out to almost $10 billion. But this Government, through careful and responsible economic management, has turned around the Budget deficit to a $5 billion surplus. Or the Opposition could finance those reductions in income tax through bringing in the dreaded consumption tax. What would be the results of bringing in the dreaded consumption tax? First of all, there would be less tax equity. It is not a progressive tax. Although Opposition members might argue that those who spend more will pay more, what they forget to add is that when the small amount comes from a small income it is far harder for a family to bear than a larger amount from a huge income. We do not have tax equity with consumption tax. That is one of the reasons why this Government rejected it. It would also bring about a big boost to inflation. Across the Tasman Sea, New Zealand's experiment with a consumption tax has brought about 19 per cent inflation. In the United Kingdom the value added tax brought about a similar jump in inflation. It was not just a one-off impact either, but one which took many years to dissipate. We then point out perhaps one of the most adverse features of a consumption tax, which is that it applies to all goods. The honourable member for Curtin tried to convince this chamber that there was no difference between a consumption tax and a wholesale sales tax; that somehow it was a consumption tax by stealth. Nothing could be further from the truth, because wholesale tax is selectively applied, as I said at the beginning of this speech, to reflect the community's needs and preferences, but a consumption tax is applied across the board without regard to essential services and needs such as food and clothing. Every service and every product would bear this iniquitous tax on consumption if it should ever be brought in. That is why this Government rejected it. It is not just for a happy deal with the trade unions that it was rejected. It was rejected because the community had rejected it. In public opinion poll after public opinion poll the community expressed its horror at the idea of the Opposition's consumption tax and argued effectively against it through pensioner organisations and the Australian Council of Social Service. So let us have it out in the open. Be honest. How would the Opposition finance its bribe, this $56 a week on average earnings? How would it finance a halving of personal income tax? It would do it through the back door. It would bring in that sneaky, inequitable dreaded consumption tax. The latest changes introduced by this Government to the wholesale sales tax is to reduce inequities and anomalies and to rationalise the scales. One would have thought that maybe it should have been got right the first time-except that, we must point out, we do not live in a static commercial world. We live in a dynamic commercial world where preferences, tastes, sales leaders and the whole commercial activity are constantly under dynamic change. Therefore, a responsible government is there to review the impact of sales taxes and to adjust them according to consumer preferences, uses and needs. It is not a matter of chopping and changing. It is a matter of responsible government. I mention just a few instances raised in my electorate. First of all, there is the 20 per cent sales tax on delivery wrappers of all types, the courier bags and so on, and caught up in this are now supermarket bags. It is very hard to know what the difference is between a plastic bag and one of the flimsy supermarket bags that are handed out. The complaint was that we have included household plastic wraps and so on that are used to wrap up kids' lunches. We have not included them at the same rate. We have included them at 10 per cent for the very good reason that the Commissioner of Taxation is not in a position to determine the final use of a product. While some household wrappings are manufactured for the purpose of wrapping lunches, they end up being used in other ways and should attract a 20 per cent sales tax. So here we have an effective and responsible compromise. The sales tax in the photographic area was 30 per cent on films and papers and 20 per cent on negatives and film strips. Now all of these items will be taxed at 20 per cent. This will reduce the anomalies and differences which were very hard to discern. I should point out that with modern printing techniques it is becoming more difficult to distinguish between photography, printing and photocopying. Printing and photocopying materials now are to be taxed at the same rate. We have recognised the dynamic change in technology, and have changed the sales tax accordingly. Personal care products such as shampoo, body powder, cosmetics and deodorants carried a 30 per cent sales tax whereas soaps, toothpaste and shaving creams were taxed at 20 per cent. For the life of me, I fail to see the differences. These products really cannot be treated as luxuries. Some are health items. Powders are used for excessive sweating. Cosmetics are used not only for beautifying but can give a person with some minor scars or disfigurement self-confidence. So this Government has quite rightly said, `Let us reduce all of the sales taxes to the same level of 20 per cent'. Accordingly, the cost of living has been reduced for these every day items. The previous Government imposed a 20 per cent sales tax on soya milk because of the Liberal's inability to argue with their coalition partners, the National Party, which said that there must be some protection for dairy milk. That Government did not have any regard for people who may be forced to drink soya milk because of allergy problems. This Government had removed that 20 per cent impost from soya milk. In the case of flavoured soya milk, the sales tax has been reduced to 10 per cent. I compliment the Government on that. I return to the question of beer prices. We have imposed a tax of 20 per cent on beer containing more than 1.15 per cent of alcohol measured by volume. That is more than offset by a reduction in excise. The net loss in the trade-off to the Government has been some $435m. The estimated drop in savings should all be passed on to the consumer. The savings are 16c for a can of light beer and 6c for standard beer; 34c for a bottle of light beer and 14c for standard; 14c for a 285 millilitre pot of light beer and 6c for standard. Prices should have fallen. But over recent years it has been reported to me, and the Government is aware of it, that wholesalers or retailers in the brewery area have taken advantage of excise increases to raise the price of their products and have then blamed the total price increase on the Government. Let us turn that round on its head. By their own logic, they should pass on to the consumer the whole drop in the price. It was pleasing in the first instance, straight after the Budget, to hear the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) recommend to its members that the full extent of the price drop be passed on to consumers. The Association apparently realised that its members could not have it both ways. But that did not last long. Beer prices have been closely monitored across Victoria over the last month or so by the national prices network, of which I am a Victorian coordinator, to ensure that the Federal Government's Budget cut in beer excise was actually directly passed on to the consumer. All Victorian prices action groups under the national price watch network have been surveying a range of beer products in hotels, bottle shops, licensed supermarkets and other outlets. The Victorian Minister responsible for prices, Mr Spyker, also surveyed prices under the Victorian Government's prices peg. I am pleased to report that he has retained his portfolio which he has carried out effectively. He has successfully held a range of items down to a 6 per cent increase in price. But he found out that the recommendation of the Australian Hotels Association was not fully complied with. In fact the AHA should have recommended a drop in the price of a carton of ordinary beer of $2.20 but recommended only $1.68. In regard to the price of light beer, which should have fallen $5.50, the AHA recommended a fall of just $4.08. It went back on its world, its recommendation that it said it would implement immediately after the Budget. Goodwill does not last long. We find in the survey that was carried out three weeks ago that 6 per cent of hotels are still charging pre-Budget prices and that 29 per cent are charging up to 10 per cent over the recommended AHA price; But, fortunately, 44 per cent of hotels are charging up to 10 per cent below the AHA price; 18 per cent up to 17 1/2 per cent less; and 3 per cent bravely have gone out in an attempt to capture more of the market by reducing the recommended price by more than 17 1/2 per cent. I am pleased to report that in my own electorate, where the national prices network has been extremely active and successful, the Bayswater, Rowville, Ferntree Gully, Mitcham and Nunawading hotels have been less than 12 1/2 per cent below the recommended price. The Dorset Gardens at Croydon and Daisy's at Ringwood have been, significantly, among the leading hotels to reduce their prices. Our survey will be completed next week and we will have more to report to the public. But competition is necessary if the Government's reductions are to be passed on to the public. We cannot guarantee lower prices-we do not have price control at the Federal level. We can reduce sales tax but, ultimately, it is up to competition and organisations such as the national prices network and the Victorian Government's prices peg to ensure that lower prices get to the people. I believe that the national prices network has provided an invaluable service to Victorian consumers in encouraging competition between retail outlets. I want to place on record my thanks and congratulations to the price surveyors-the pensioners who have come forward to help us out with our surveys. The honourable member for Curtin said that small businesses were going to have to suffer a little because of the changes in sales tax. Quite the opposite is the case. Let us take one small business-that of fish farms. The Government has decided to remove the 20 per cent sales tax on food which is used for fish breeding and for fish farmed commercially. I happen to have three or four fish farms in my electorate. One can understand that there is a ready market in Melbourne for fish grown in the clear oxygenated streams in the catchment areas outside of Melbourne. I speak here of Tommy Finn's Trout Farm at Warburton, the Australian Rainbow Trout Farm at Macclesfield and the Buxton Trout Farm at Buxton. Of course, just out of my electorate of McEwen is the Thornton Trout Farm. The Buxton Trout Farm consumes 80 tonnes of fish food at $790 a tonne. At a conversion rate of 1.6-that is, 50 tonnes of fish produced for every 80 tonnes of food-the removal of the sales tax means that that farm alone will save $12,500 in farm inputs. That is what this Government has been all about-reducing the cost of producing farm products. The Thornton farm, with an output of 400 tonnes, will save $100,000 through this move by the Government. We get cheaper fish and a lower cholesterol diet. In one fell swoop, by changing the sales tax, we get a healthier community and a cheaper product. This is not a beer led recovery; it is not a fish led recovery. What the Government has carried out is a proper review of sales tax in a dynamic commercial world. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.49) —Tonight we are dealing with two sales tax amendment Bills-the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill [No. 2]. Both of these Bills contribute in the overall sense to additional revenue for the Government. It is quite interesting that they are the result of advice given to the Parliament in the May economic statement. That, of course, was one of the better exercises in creative accounting. We had a much trumpeted, much publicised tax cut for paper shufflers in big business. At the same time, we had a removal of the accelerated depreciation conditions applicable to manufacturers, farmers and all the producers in our community. When we look at year 3 when that all settles down we find the loss to Government revenue by way of the tax cuts is $1,700m. It is a gain to Government revenue from the removal of the accelerated depreciation provisions of $1,650m. In that case if he is lucky, the consumer-the Australian people-is $50m in front. That is some big saving. Of course, in terms of the sales tax measures it is no where near compensation. The honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) made a lot of the arguments for equity and rationalisation et cetera. I am a little fed up with his Government's arguments about equity. Every new tax we have introduced is for the purpose of equity, to overcome an anomaly, to close a loop hole and it frequently does those things. But, we never see the money going back to the people. The Government takes it in fringe benefits tax. It does not give it back in real tax cuts. The Government lowers some marginal rates after, of course, people have all stepped up into a new tax bracket and their personal tax rate does not alter. I had this brought home to me in a very significant fashion the other day in a five-line letter to the editor. I had been on television and radio complaining bitterly on behalf of the one-time Labor constituency, those typical wage earners who earned gross about $300 a week. I want to know how those people managed because I know that I would have great difficulty at that level. A lady wrote to the West Australian asking, `When is Mr Tuckey going to wake up that it is not $300 a week; it is $300 a fortnight'. Of course, she is right. I have written back and apologised to her through the newspaper saying that I have chosen to talk gross. The person who has to use the spending powers is talking net, whether she be a welfare recipient or the wife of a husband earning money at about that level. Of course, people have this massive tax slug taken from them and to this we add all of these additional consumption taxes that we are debating tonight. She is right; she is lucky to have $150 a week to spend. The Government might wonder why it is those people are deserting it in droves. The Government is doing it to them. Of course, while the Government avoids the argument that it made originally it forgets that the tax on an item for consumption is an equal tax, numerically and nominally between the poorest consumer and the richest in most terms. I admit that the very rich will pay more consumption tax on a Rolls Royce than others on their Holden but on the basics that we consume each day it does not apply. Let us look at what has happened to taxation in five years of a Labor Government. The last Fraser Budget collected some $44,000m in revenue. The Budget presented to this Parliament this year by the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-his latest economic miracle-raises $88,000m. That has doubled in five years. There is no evidence of the doubling of gross domestic product, the doubling of the population or the doubling of exports in that time. If we take the comparison of last year's Budget to this year's Budget, dividing the population of Australia, man, woman and child, into the gross revenue collections we find in the Government's own Budget Papers that this year the per capita taxation levied on Australians is $5,317. This is not wage earners, not profit makers. Every Australian man, woman and child is up this year for $5,317. It is up from last year's figure of $5,042, which is a jump of about $275 per capita-$1,100 per family of four. It is not a bad effort in one year. As I have said to this Parliament before how good a Budget administrator has one got to be to balance the books or to go into surplus when one has control of the turnover and when one can just say, `Please sir, I want some more'? In the case of our arrogant Treasurer one should delete the word please. The point is that one of the great imposts of this Budget in terms of increased taxation is sales tax. The last time I looked at the monthly projections for income of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) I recollect that sales tax collection last year were up over estimate about 20 per cent. The actual collections therefore that are recorded in this year's Budget Papers represent a substantial increase over what the Government expected to raise last year. It raised $7.576 billion in sales tax alone and it was not enough. The Government had to get more. So this year the Government is raising $8.651 billion. Of course, when we work that out per capita-consumption taxes are only paid by people-we find that last year the Government took $462.10 from each and every Australian man, woman and child. That was nearly $1,800 per four-unit family. This year the Government proposes to pay $519.67. It is a huge burden; it is a burden the people cannot afford. But it is the only solution to this Government's sort of economic management. It is interesting because we are told that if we let up on the tax regime people will spend more. The Government's other great economic problem is the fact that Australia as a nation is overspending thousands of millions of dollars a month more than it sells to the rest of the world. This is not withstanding all of the lift in commodity prices last year. We remember the Government's tears of woe, how it blamed the rest of the world when all of its budgeting went astray because commodity prices fell. But now that commodity prices are up again has it affected Australia's overseas indebtedness or its trade deficit? No sir, it is still going up. It did not drop last year on predictions notwithstanding the huge increase in the income to this nation that we received. As we say, `You cannot rewrite history in this place; it is all on the record'. The record says what the Government projected. It projected $11.5 billion at the beginning of the year. The Government did not take into account the increase in commodity prices. At the end of the year what was the Government's total trade deficit? It was $11.5 billion. It got extra money; it did the Government no good. The Government presumes, of course, that if it gives the people of Australia a bit of extra money through tax cuts that they will spend it on imported goods. It presupposed they may not save it for their old age and assist us with our foreign indebtedness. The Government does not know that but it is a pretty good excuse for not giving people the money. A lot has been made in this debate about this brilliant and generous move to reduce the price of beer. If the Government were genuinely determined to help the people of Australia and if only the beer drinkers, I could support it in that. We all know what the Government is about. It is a cynical move to reduce the consumer price index (CPI) in almost an artificial way. But the Government cannot tell me why it picked on beer. I went and got the documentation to have a look at the consumer price index. In the broad categories it covers food, clothing, household equipment and operation, transportation, tobacco and alcohol, health and personal care, recreation and education. The thing that jumps out at me in all of this is transportation, personal and public. What do modes of transport consume in very larger quantities-they consume fuel. What does the Government get one of its biggest tax levies from? Fuel. Fifteen per cent of the total gross domestic product of this country-$1 in $7-is spent on transport. Why did the Government not cut the tax burden on fuel? Why did it not give everybody a go? Let me tell honourable members opposite what is so cynical about the Government's dropping of the CPI. Hopefully, the Government can boast about it. The Treasurer can go off to another International Monetary Fund conference and boast. I suppose honourable members noticed when the television cameras zoomed around at the last conference that he was talking to about 20 people. He had as large an audience at that international conference as I have in this House. When he goes overseas he lectures Americans and others about the effects his policies have had on inflation. But if inflation drops, so does the amount of the increase in pensions because pensions are indexed to the CPI. It is too bad for the non-drinking pensioner who chooses to go out at weekends in his motor car to see his grandchildren; there is no help for him. He will get less money if the CPI is down as it will hold down his pension, but this Government does not give him any help with his fuel or with the sales tax on his tyres. Mr Fife —It is deliberately dropping the standard of living. Mr TUCKEY —This Government will bring down the standard of living of pensioners by this deliberate move. Unless the pensioner is a person who spends his whole pension on beer, he will be behind on the arrangement. It has to be understood that that is the decision of this Government. It is not much help to the people. I guess that the Government will keep blaming small business because things have not worked out. The Government will keep blaming small business for inflation. It will have its price watch committees. The Government will pay people, as does the Government in Western Australia, $40,000 or $50,000 a year to run this price watch farce. If the Government wants to know how much small businesses, grocers and others, are making it should go and look in their garages. It should count the Rolls Royces and the Jaguars. It will find that they are not there. Those people are not profiteering on the community; the Government is profiteering on the community. The only price watch we need in this place is on this Government and the massive tax burden that it is imposing on the people. I wish to raise some other matters relating to my electorate, including the huge confusion that exists in the present requirements relating to tax exempt status for rural producers. To be quite honest, the situation has become a farce and it has become quite difficult. The problems are legion and nobody knows where to turn. Little by little suppliers have discovered, as the law has always provided, that they are the taxpayers. The Australian Taxation Office is not interested in pursuing the purchaser; it is too difficult to find him. The law says that the wholesaler is the taxpayer. It is his obligation to collect the tax and it is too bad for him if he makes a mistake. It is too bad for him if he gets a document or a certificate signed and it is wrong. We have a law that states that a person making a false declaration can be prosecuted. It just never happens. People have been sent broke by trusting bad advice. Furthermore, the opportunity for a simple appeal to, say, a board of review on a determination is non-existent. A person can go to a board of review on the rate of tax paid but that person cannot go and debate at that simple level whether an item should be exempt. All these ridiculous things are occurring. Recently the National Farmers Federation put out a booklet which is excellent and helpful. In embarrassment, the Tax Office thought that it should also put one out but, of course, it is misleading mainly by omission. One of the more obvious examples happens to occur on page 13 of that document, which states: There is no exemption for oils, greases and other lubricants purchased for use in agricultural industry. But we find that there are exceptions. People can still buy certain tax exempt oils under the law. I would have thought that it would have been reasonable for the Commissioner of Taxation to have advised farmers when that booklet was eventually put out. But that is not all. Let us look at some of the suggestions the Tax Office has made. A farmer might wish to buy a chainsaw and he writes in for tax exemption because he is going to use it in agriculture. What do we find the Tax Office saying? It states: There are only two very rare occasions when chainsaws are exempt from sales tax. The first is when they are used exclusively or principally for the manufacture of goods which are exempt from sales tax, for example if they are used exclusively or principally to produce fence posts for sale or personal use. The other occasion is when they are used to a substantial extent to clear land. These experts, sitting in their ivory towers in the city, go on to state: It is very unlikely that the major use for chainsaws would be for these purposes as most chainsaws are put to a variety of uses like cutting firewood for domestic use or lopping and pruning trees. The only time a person lops or prunes a tree on a farm is when he cuts it off a fence after the wind has blown it there, and that is an agricultural pursuit. The people in this place who represent rural electorates would know the extent to which farmers today cut down their trees for firewood. They have gas stoves and generally some of those benefits of life. When a farmer wants a chainsaw he needs it for agricultural purposes and he should be entitled to the exemption provided by the law. But the reality is that we have these tax rulings. We have given so much discretion to the Tax Commissioner that he does not worry too much about the law; he just worries about how he feels each day of the week. In some of the documentation that I have is a letter which makes me shudder every time I read it. The letter has the beaut new logo of the Tax Office on it. What makes me shudder is that written across the bottom in quarter-inch letters are the words `Taxes-Building a better Australia'. Does anyone in this place believe that? Do they believe that the way to make the nation grow is by taking a bigger and bigger percentage from the people of Australia-those who might invest money in such a way as to enable us to overcome our international indebtedness? `Taxes-Building a better Australia'! This is the ethos that has been built by this Treasurer, who has handed over all power to the bureaucracy. I have always argued that the role of a politician is to be the insulation between the people and the bureaucracy. This Government has handed the Australian people to the bureaucrats and the Tax Office now has the courage to put things like that on its correspondence. It is printed on every letter that one gets from the Tax Office today. Let me give a few more examples. People in my State are unfortunate in that when they want a truck they have to bring it all the way from the eastern States and it is not tax exempt unless it is kept on a farm, which is most unusual. It is usual for those trucks to be delivered by the manufacturer. They arrive in Western Australia with a freight component of thousands of dollars and it, too, is liable for sales tax. That is a distinct disadvantage for the people living in my State. It is wrong. It should not happen in those circumstances. If wholesale tax is involved the freight should not be included from that point. Recently Mr Ivan Gale contacted me and said that he wanted to improve his productivity by weighing his fleeces and linking that weighing process to a computer. The weighing device would be free of sales tax but the computer that will be linked to it would not. But if he were a dairy farmer it would be. What is the sense in all of that? Mr Stan Lewis, another farmer in Western Australia, is fighting a very good fight through the Western Australian Farmers Federation to try to run down some of these things. We still have things for which we have to fill in forms. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(9.09) —Although I heard only part of the debate there are a number of things that I should say. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who has just spoken in this House talked about tax generally and about this Government's stance. It is a typical trait of any tory political party, whether it be here, in Britain or in the United States, to attempt to label the progressive party, which the Opposition opposes, as the inventors of tax. We are seeing Vice-President Bush trying to do it to Governor Dukakis at the moment. We are seeing it here again tonight. The Liberal Party speaks with all these platitudes and critiques as though the Australian Labor Party invented tax and there was no taxation in this country, direct or indirect, before we won power in 1983. That is the line that comes from the Liberal Party. That is the most precocious load of rot that every tory administration in the western world attempts to paint. It will not work because everybody in this country knows that the Liberal Party and the National Party do not like the fact that the present tax regime is closing up the rorts-one rort after another-and not so that the ordinary blue collar workers, who the honourable member for O'Connor supposedly represents and is so concerned about, are disadvantaged. The ordinary wage and salary earners of this country do not have much discretion about how much tax they pay. The have to pay their way in this country the way they have always had to pay their way. We believe that that should be equal for every Australian. All Australians should pay their fair share of tax. That is why honourable members opposite do not like the fringe benefits tax; that is why they do not like the capital gains tax; that is why they do not like the curtailment of entertainment expenses in the tax regime. They do not like it because it cuts out rorts. In the next breath they have the absolute hypocrisy to stroll up and down the parliamentary floor saying, `Why don't you cut this tax or that tax'. We on this side would like to know the answer to one simple question. We hear plenty of criticism from honourable members opposite, but where is their tax policy? Andrew came out of the swimming pool for five minutes with his serious profile the other day, saying, `The Liberal Party should release its tax policy well before the next election'. How long ago did he say that? We still have not heard anything. When will we have a tax policy from the Opposition, Andrew? When will we have an indirect tax policy? When will we have a direct tax policy? Mr Dobie —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister could refer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition by his correct title and not by his Christian name. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) -It does seem strange when people refer to an honourable member by his Christian name. The Minister will address his comments through the Chair. Mr PUNCH —Only the Christian souls, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find Opposition members totally hypocritical. They do not like an even tax regime. They do not like a situation in which their arch supporters cannot meander in and out of taxation. That is what they do not like. They proclaim their rage at Bills such as the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill [No. 2], which we are debating tonight, supposedly on behalf of the ordinary wage and salary earners, saying, `It is in the interest of their standard of living'. Where do honourable member opposite stand in relation to their standard of living? I will tell the House where they stand. Opposition members have opposed the vast majority of the last 20 or so national wage cases. Indirect tax is insignificant compared to the wage rises that they have opposed, yet they supposedly support the wage and salary earners of this country. They seek to smash trade unions and the legitimate rights of individuals to wage rises, but they supposedly represent wage and salary earners. The honourable member for O'Connor stood up on behalf of the ordinary Aussie battler five minutes ago. It was not that long ago that the honourable member for O'Connor was the shadow health spokesman trying to smash Medicare. What would that mean to the average wage and salary earner and his family? It would mean a minimum of $22 a week. When we talk about the attitude of the Opposition and that of the Government to taxation and who pays it compared with who used to pay it; to wages and salaries; to the legitimacy of trade unions in the industrial field to negotiate on behalf of wage and salary earners; and to Medicare, Opposition members come a bad last when it comes to the interests of wage and salary earners. So why do they not cut this absolute hypocrisy that we have heard yet again tonight on these sales tax Bills? The honourable member for O'Connor mentioned the effect of sales tax on pensioners. He gave the example of a pensioner who did not drink and who drove a car. I will give him a more pertinent statistic. When his Party was in government the pension was worth 22 per cent of average weekly earnings; now it is worth about 24 1/2 per cent and we are committed to getting it up. Pensions in this country are worth more in real terms than they were under you and you know it. If you want to talk about the home and community care package-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will address his remarks through the Chair. Mr PUNCH —Mr Deputy Speaker, if he wants to talk about the home and community care program, about carer's pensions, or a whole range of other issues I can say where pensioners have come out better, and it is under us and not under those honourable members opposite. All the rhetoric under the sun they have got about the sales tax Bills will not hide the facts. That is their problem. The honourable member for O'Connor talked about a family earning $300 a week. Somehow, through some arithmetic-arithmetic that compares with the Opposition's tax package at the last election-we heard that this family had only $150 a week to spend and that it was the Government's fault. That is a tax rate of about 50 per cent. Just off the top of my head I would say that the tax rate for that family would be closer to 15 per cent. In addition, the honourable member ought to know that under us that family would have full family assistance; if it were renting it would have rent assistance; if the wife were not working it would get the spouse rebate and the kids would be beneficiaries of Austudy. A family of three earning under $335 a week gets the equivalent of a $106 a week wage increase under us. Those opposite proclaim to be the great guardians for wage and salary earners. They are pretty good with the rhetoric, but the reason they will not put out a tax policy is that they know it will not add up and they know that their figures will pale into insignificance next to what we have done. Mr Peacock —Where is your tax policy? Mr PUNCH —I will tell the Deputy Leader of the Opposition where our tax policy is. The top marginal tax rate is 49 per cent under us. Under the Cabinet in which he was a leading member it was 60 per cent. As well as the 60 : 49 comparison the total regime reflected very poorly on the conservatives in this country who are supposedly the parties of low tax. Mr Peacock —We are. Mr PUNCH —Yes-low tax to your mates. It is optional taxation. What you do not like is that this Government has brought about an end to a whole range of tax loopholes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will address his remarks through the Chair and I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to remain silent. I also ask the Minister to ignore the interjections. It ought to be understood that the honourable member for O'Connor was heard in silence when he was making his speech. Mr Peacock —I will shut up. Mr PUNCH —I have just got something that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has never got from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: an offer to shut up. The Opposition, in debating these Bills tonight, claims that the Government is increasing indirect taxation collections. I hate to let the facts get in the road of a good story but, as has been pointed out by my colleague the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins), the measures contained in these Bills, taken in conjunction with the reduction in the beer excise, actually reduce the amount of tax to be collected in respect of the items covered. I know that Opposition members can only understand words of one syllable, so let me simplify the matter for them. Tax collections on these items go down, not up under these Bills. The amendment proposed by the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill has been criticised as providing the Commissioner of Taxation with greater discretion. The amendment is not a discretion. It recognises that costs vary between manufacturers. It will mean that the sale value on which sales tax is imposed represents the actual costs and profit of the manufacturer-not an arbitrary figure determined by the Commissioner. In any event, if a taxpayer is dissatisfied with a decision by the Commissioner, there are appropriate appeal and review avenues open to him which are not altered by anything in this Bill. The proposed amendment will remove identified anomalies and inconsistencies in the sales tax law. The parties opposite are the parties of anomalies and inconsistencies in tax law. They ran this country for 30 of the 33 years before we gained power in 1983. We inherited a tax system from them after all that time that was full of anomalies and inconsistencies, and we are still trying to clean them up. The difference between us and them is that not only do we have the will; we have the moral courage to do what they never had the guts to do. These Bills do not increase overall taxation. On the contrary, they reduce tax collections on these items. They do not extend the operation of the sales tax law to services, and they certainly do not foreshadow a consumption tax. Most importantly, these Bills will contribute to a reduction in inflation. I do not want to embarrass the honourable member for Kooyong yet again but I think it has to be said that the inflation rate today is marginally different-to be charitable-to what it was when his Leader, then the Treasurer, left office in 1983. There is one killer disease which ravaged this country through the 1970s and the early 1980s which afflicts wage and salary earners, particularly those on lower incomes and those on government benefits, such as pensioners whom those opposite are supposedly so concerned about, and that is inflation. We have got inflation down while also pulling down tax rates. The problem with honourable members opposite is that they do not like us achieving results. This is a good result. They know that it is a good result. I urge the House to support the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Punch) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(9.24) —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: (1) notes that this Government has presided over an increasingly inefficient and inequitable indirect tax system that abounds with anomalies and inconsistencies; (2) calls into question the Government's misguided priorities in increasing sales tax on a number of products, especially on packaging materials, when Australians are already suffering from the highest tax burden in the peace-time history of Australia; and (3) calls on the Government to undertake a thorough review of the sales tax and indirect tax system in an endeavour to relieve the burden on long-suffering taxpayers and furnish a system that will increase the incentive to save and invest in Australia'. This amendment mirrors the remarks I made in my speech during the second reading debate on the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Amendment Bill so I will not debate the actual amendment now. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Punch) read a third time. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(9.26) —by leave-I move: That this House- (1) expresses its best wishes to all the members of Australia's Paralympic team who are about to commence their Paralympic Games in Seoul; and (2) congratulates all the members of the team on their dedication and determination in the knowledge that they will make every Australian proud of them. Just a few days ago in this House, the House unanimously carried a motion congratulating the members of our Australian Olympic team in Seoul. They had brought great credit to this country. They had won a number of medals-certainly for many people in excess of expectations. They were at the time, and have subsequently proven to be, great ambassadors for our country. We are very proud of them. Another Olympic Games is about to occur, the Paralympics, taking place very shortly in Seoul. Australia will once again be represented by a major contingent. The members of our Paralympic team have in many ways overcome difficulties far greater than anyone else who has ever participated in the Olympics to be able to wear the Australian colours of green and gold. Their achievement is a tremendous one. They set an example to every Australian. On this occasion the House takes the opportunity to wish them all the best in their competition over the next few days. We know that they will win a number of medals but, most importantly, we know that they will bring great credit upon themselves, their families, their friends and their nation. We wish them good luck. We are going to be very proud of them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(9.28) —It gives me pleasure to second the motion moved by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). This side of the House also expresses its best wishes to the members of Australia's Paralympic team. There are 178 athletes and 56 officials in Seoul for these Games. There are approximately 40 countries participating in 15 different sports. We have blind people, people in wheelchairs, amputees and people with cerebal palsy all participating and representing Australia in the Games. It may be of interest to the public to know the effort these people have put in to support themselves in sport. The Australian Confederation of Sport for the Disabled established the 1988 Paralympics appeal in 1987 to raise the required funds to send the Australian team to both the winter and summer Paralympics. The appeal target was $2m, and the appeal was very successful. The Federal Government made a strong contribution to that appeal of $125,000 in 1987-88. The athletes have used the national sports program at the Australian Institute of Sport to assist them in their preparation for these Games. It gives me great pleasure to support this motion, particularly because of two young people who come from my electorate and in fact from the town in which I live, Warragul. A young lad named Craig Sayers is competing over there in both basketball and the long distance wheelchair track event, and his sister Joanne is also part of the delegation as one of the team's two nurses. These young people will do Australia proud and we wish them all the best. If they can come back to Australia having put in equal effort and gained as much success as our olympic team in Seoul recently, we will all be very proud of them. I fully support the motion. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(9.31) —I am personally very pleased to be able to speak in this debate. I speak in two capacities, firstly as chairman of the Opposition sports committee and secondly as someone who has attended similar games and sporting events for the disabled over the last 25 years. At a moment like this we should be reminded that these activities started in Stoke Mandeville, in England. That gave a tremendous impetus to those who were physically disabled showing that they could compete internationally as well as nationally. I also pay tribute to the work that was done in the lead up by the people involved in the rehabilitation unit at the Prince Henry Hospital in Sydney. Dr George Burniston, CMG, OBE, who created that great unit, was part of the movement to see that these sports should be played in competition, first of all at a municipal level, and then a State level and a national level. For some years now we have had the interesting and fascinating situation of there being a `paralympics'. The House should bear in mind at this stage that we now have three major olympic sports functions-the Olympic Games themselves, which provide inspiration for all; the paralympics which are for the physically disabled; and, in recent years, the special olympics which are basically for the mentally disabled. Each inspires the others. Anybody who regularly goes to these games and sees such things as the wheelchair basketball matches will understand how inspired these people are at their individual level by the achievements of our people who compete at the Olympic Games. I am very pleased to inform the House that my dinner guest tonight, and he is sitting in the gallery, was Mr Phil Smyth. He captained our successful basketball team which showed that basketball in Australia is now up among the giants. Getting into the top four countries in the world is a tremendous achievement for Phil, for Adrian Hurley and for all the team and I can assure the House, attending as I do the wheelchair basketball matches, that those people who partake in those matches receive inspiration from the success of the olympic athletes. We wish the people who are playing in those games great success. To see these people striving not for their own satisfaction but in the hope that it will inspire other disabled people back home is something we should be very proud of and conscious of in this place. Whereas the olympic sports people achieve, inspire their country, the paralympic people go away and when they return their inspiration is to the physically disabled, who become disabled very often in adult life, helping them to realise that there is a life for them beyond the confines very often of wheelchairs. Tonight I wish them success. I hope, more importantly, that they enjoy themselves and that when they come back to Australia, whether they come with medals or not, they will prove to be an inspiration to that vast number of disabled people we have in our country. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.35) —I am pleased to join with my colleagues the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) in supporting this motion. It is an appropriate motion to be moved in this House and I am sure the general spirit in which this motion is being debated would please those who are listening to this debate. It is interesting to observe that the mascot for this Eighth International Paralympic Games is two bears with their arms around each other, running with legs tied together to indicate the degree of cooperation and support that is required in olympics such as this. There will be 888 competitions covering the sports that my colleague the honourable member for McMillan has mentioned, and Australia is represented in many of those sports-sports such as basketball, swimming, soccer, table tennis, judo, weightlifting and fencing. It is also appropriate to say that the paralympic team is short of some funds and it has made some acknowledgment that the corporate sector to this stage has been a little slow in providing support. It is worth noting that in this discussion. We ought to emphasise what has just been indicated by the honourable member for Cook-that the inspiration they provide is inspiration for others in the community who are disabled. That is a very important element. I note the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is acknowledging that. It is significant, when we look at the wide range of sports covered, that we realise that with great human commitment it is possible for people to achieve a huge number of things despite certain physical handicaps, and it is significant that this is occurring. As we saw with out own olympians recently in Seoul, and I note that the honourable member for Cook has indicated the role of Phil Smyth, these people produce enormous inspiration for others in the community who perhaps due to lesser circumstances have not been able to achieve such heights. Similarly they provide that level of inspiration for disabled athletes. For those of us here who from time to time tend to see things in negative terms, it is perhaps a timely reminder that those people have to see everything in positive terms to make this level of achievement and commitment possible. To conclude, I note that a message will be sent tomorrow to our paralympic athletes by our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and our Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), and that will convey very much the spirit that this motion conveys-that we wish them well, we wish them enjoyment and we certainly admire their ability and determination against all odds. I am sure they provide a great inspiration for all of us in the community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —It is not normally the task of the Chair to take part in debates, but I express my personal feelings on this matter by saying I take particular pleasure in putting the question that the motion be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 1 September, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(9.38) —The Bill we are debating is the States Grants (General Revenue) Bill 1988. The Opposition will not be opposing the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to put in place the Commonwealth general revenue assistance arrangements with the States and the Northern Territory for 1988-89 following the expiry of the State Grants (General Revenue) Act 1985. As a result it will implement the decisions taken at the May 1988 Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting. The payments of $12,400m provided for in the Bill account for about 15 per cent of estimated Commonwealth Budget outlays for 1988-89. That, of course, is very large expenditure. Add to this payments under the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act and specific purpose payments, and payments to the States account for around 30 per cent of Budget outlays. We are told about that figure very clearly in the Budget Papers. What is not quite as obvious from those papers is that the Commonwealth Government has been cutting its Budget payments to States quite progressively over the term of its office while at the same time it has not seen fit to match the extent of those cuts with reductions in its own purpose payments. A brief calculation from figures in Budget Paper No. 1 will show that well over 70 per cent of the reduction in outlays this year is accounted for by general purpose payments to the States. In fact, general purpose assistance will decline by about 4.6 per cent in real terms in 1988-89 following a real decline of 5.1 per cent in 1987-88. Those figures, of course, do not include the expenditure cuts in a myriad of specific purpose payments to the States which are hidden throughout the general functional headings of the Budget Papers tables. I am not criticising the Government for the reductions in payments to the States. I am criticising the Government, however, for the hypocrisy it has shown in demanding spending restraint from all other levels of government while at the same time not matching the bid it asks the States to accept. I shall therefore be moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill at the conclusion of my speech. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) give pious sermons to the States at the Premiers Conference on the need for expenditure reductions to meet the country's economic difficulties. But sermonising is not action. They are prepared to ask the States to pull back outlays but they are happier to be easy on themselves. It is just this sort of lax attitude that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has been frightened by. As he told us last year, `We are on the road to Argentina'. Alongside that road is a sign that points to Labor's debt-to the $88 billion net foreign debt which this Government has given us. That foreign debt has quadrupled during Labor's time in office. As the ever helpful Senator Walsh commented this year, just prior to the Budget: `The Opposition can quite legitimately argue that the pace of adjustment might be faster'. However, the Government cannot force the pace of adjustment because, in the same senator's words, it lacks the `political courage' to cut spending. This Government is tiring. It is suffering badly from fatigue, as can be seen in its performance in this place every day and in its gyrations on economic policy, both from within the economic Ministries and particularly by the Prime Minister himself. In such tiring governments it is typical to see sniping between leaders and would-be leaders as their minds wander from their jobs and concentrate on their own personal ambitions. They forget about Australians and they forget about those struggling. They just look after themselves and look after their mates. That sums up the way in which this Government governs today. Political operatives', political party members' snouts are in the trough. Average Australians are ignored while they look after their own. A caricature of the Labor politician today is of a snout in the trough, the left hand in the till, and the right hand in the cookie jar. They are all looking after themselves. That is summed up by what has been going on this week-the division, the personal ambition being played out, while the grand tours are going on. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) directed the attention of the Parliament to this matter. I can tell honourable members, having served in a fair number of governments and Ministries through the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, that when Ministers wanted to go on overseas trips Liberal Prime Ministers would demand that, save and except for, say, the Foreign Minister and, say, a Treasurer attending a one-off function, they had to be here when the Parliament was sitting. Not with this Government. It is the taxpayers' money; it is the gravy train. They just get on it and they use it. Off they go, with hardly a person here to answer questions. There has been the most inadequate performance by Ministers; snout in the trough and hand in the till. As I say, it is typical to see the sniping between leaders and would-be leaders as they pursue their own personal animosities. The Budget, which is a significant proportion of what we are debating here now-oft forgotten by so many people in Australia now, seven weeks after it was brought down-has simply failed Australia. It is well to recall what the Australian Financial Review editorial said about the Budget, and I will quote elements of it: . . . in short, the economic foundations of this Budget may be built on quick sand and even a slight fall in commodity prices could send the whole scenario into disarray. It then went on: There is an eerie feeling of tightrope walking about the whole strategy. How correct. The evidence that this is so includes the fact that net exports are expected to make a negative contribution to gross domestic product yet again in 1988-89, the fact that imports of capital goods as a share of total imports fell again in 1987-88, and the fact that investment in mining and manufacturing is projected to show little, if any, real growth in 1988-89. The current account deficit is unbeliev- able. The current account deficits recorded in July and August highlighted the extreme vulnerability of the Australian economy today to any downturn in commodity prices. In the first two months of this financial year Australia notched up a current account deficit of almost $3 billion. The Treasurer predicated the Budget on a current account deficit of $9.5 billion. Almost a third of that has been achieved already in two months. One-sixth of the financial year has notched up one-third of what was predicated as the current account deficit for the whole year. The Government's Budget strategy is based on continued strength in commodity prices. However, the recent decline of 17 per cent in the State Bank of Victoria commodity price index since 10 June hardly augurs well. One reaches the conclusion, regrettably, that the Government's Budget strategy is unravelling. The fact is that instead of cutting expenditure to get the house in order, to get the $5.5 billion Budget surplus, the Treasurer has simply raised taxes yet again: get the surplus by more and more revenue rather than by cutting expenditure and putting the economic house in order. The Treasurer's own Budget papers show that this is the highest taxing Government the country has known. An extra $5.7 billion in income tax has been collected from individuals. That is a 13.6 per cent increase. It is even higher than the 10 per cent growth of the previous year. The share of individual taxes in total tax revenue has now jumped to over 54 per cent. The harsh reality is that, as the very poor are properly looked after by welfare, as they ought to be, at the other end of the spectrum the rich have become the super rich. In the middle are the lower and middle income earners, who under this Government are just being squeezed out. Government members know, because of their surveys, quite apart from their personal dealings as they move around this nation, that one of the major contributing factors to the massive swings against them in by-election after by-election is that their constituencies can see that they have sold them out. The long term consequence for Australia will be a shattering of the near egalitarian society that we had. It was never completely egalitarian, but until recently the country was made up of a very significant band of middle income earners. Those people's conditions are not improving if one asks them what they have left at the end of the day. The Government has allowed those who had money to amass fortunes beyond belief. The consequences for this nation down the line are very significant. I am not a socialist. I do not believe in concentrating on the redistribution of income. I also do not believe in creating a society in which a small group of people can so advantage themselves in a short period because of the regulatory mechanisms with which the Government plays. The Government has fiddled with regulations. It has put them down, changed them, imposed them and taken them away. It has created an unfair society in which the great bulk of people, at the end of each week, because of high rates of taxation and high interest rates, are finding it extraordinarily difficult to get by. I would like to say that the massive swings in the recent by-election were for other reasons. Sure, we have been attracting a lot of support, but the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has been the first to admit that Labor's arrogant attitude, its inability to come to terms with the needs of average Australians and the reduction of their living standards, has caused people to say, `We, as blue collar workers, as former supporters of yours, will turn away from you'. There has been some short term gain in political donations for the Government, but long term harm has been structured into the community; not because the Government has advocated that people who invest, work hard and do well ought to reap the benefits but because it has fiddled with the mechanisms of government and allowed people to capitalise on that. I see, at the end of the term of this Government, a vastly different Australia from the one that it inherited when it was first elected. I have absolutely no doubt that, as a consequence, with the chardonnay socialists being seen increasingly for what they are-essentially, as rip-off merchants for their rich mates, essentially squeezing those who never even aspire to make fortunes but who just want to improve the lot of themselves and their families-people will turn on the Government in droves. When Oxley, one of the Government's 12 safest seats in the nation, experienced the swing that occurred last weekend, members of the Government, instead of having looks of smug indifference on their faces as we talk about the hurt of Australian people today, should engage in what contributes to human beings becoming a little better-a degree of introspection; stepping back and looking at these matters-but they will not do so. One would think that the Government would have learnt its lesson after it nearly lost Mick Young's seat. Have a look at the nature of the seat of Port Adelaide. My God, there had never been such a swing to the Liberal Party. We also picked up the seat of Adelaide. One would think that by now the message would be starting to be contemplated. But no; we have just had continuing greed, the infighting has wound up and the Acting Treasurer (Mr Dawkins) has been exposed as seeking to bring down the Prime Minister. A personal play of ambition has been going on. I am not a despairing type, but I have thought from time to time that the conscience of those members of the Australian Labor Party who, in the past, found loathsome the concept that some people could cream it off others would strike them and that they would seek to make it easier for that great bulk of Australians who are now finding it tough. But no; the same old message is there. Honourable members know what it is; we hear it every day. The Government says that it is the greatest government in the history of the nation. The Government is made up of mugs because they are starting to believe it. It is not true, and no one else believes it, but they are starting to believe the public relations slogans themselves. Once they start to believe the slick message, they are in trouble. They then start to create the impression that the Opposition is nothing but a divided house. The irony of it all! When the Treasurer is telling the Prime Minister not just to go but to go now; the Acting Treasurer is telling the Prime Minister to go and to go now; the Finance Minister, the other crucial element amongst the economic portfolios, is wringing his hands and telling his colleagues that he wants to quit, one can see that, whilst people in this community are suffering, all that Government members can do is play with their public relations slogans and give voice to their personal animosities and ambitions. All the time, as I have said, the low and middle income earners are being poleaxed by what is nothing but a Labor tax rip-off. It is the highest taxing Government in the history of the nation. This Budget will be looked upon as one of the great disappointments of the bicentennial year. There have been a few of those, because of the way in which the Government has tried to play the bicentennial year. Boy, have there been a few disappointments! I do not know what the bicentenary has done for the fairly normal person living at home with his wife and family, other than to increase his taxes. If one is not a fairly normal person, there might have been some engagements or parties to attend. But there has been nothing in this bicentenary but more taxes for the normal, average Australian who has been poleaxed by taxes and who is trying to look after his kids and his wife. It has been some year for the average Australian trying to get ahead! An estimated $7 billion has been ripped from Australians through what is called bracket creep, or tax creep, since 1985-86. The Government smugly tells us that it is one of the greatest governments in the history of the nation, yet it has ripped off $7 billion by people moving, through the inflationary mechanisms in their wages and salaries, into higher tax brackets. The Treasurer, the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris) have all given the nation differing views over the last week alone on how, when and why we should get tax cuts next year. If we get them, it will be typical of the Government to say that those Australians who get the tax cuts ought to be grateful. I have a bit of news for the Government: Australians will not be grateful. They are demanding them now, despite the fact that the Treasurer says that Australians do not want tax cuts now. They are demanding them now, they need them now and they deserve them now. An advertisement for a Victorian bank, the State Bank, talks about how a person ought to have a bit of control over his money. It has a nice little line. A wife turns to her husband, wanting to know how the money is earning interest and whether they can get it out. I do not mind telling this anecdote because it sums up what I want to say. She turns to him and says, `It's your money, Ralph'. The Government should remember, when it tries to make Australians grateful for the tax cuts, that it is not its money. It is just not its money. Every man and woman who earns income in this nation, it is their money. So do not come in here with sanctimonious statements that Australians ought to be grateful for the tax cuts they have not yet been given or the nature of which has not been determined, because it is not its money. The more the Government thought of that concept and recognised that more and more has been taken from Australians in the time this Government has been in office, the more support the Government may get in the community rather than the diminishing support it has been getting in by-election after by-election. Mr Snowdon —And in Victoria. Mr PEACOCK —I am talking about the Federal Government but now that the honourable member mentions Victoria, I might remind him that yet again in that election the majority of Victorians did not vote for Labor. I congratulate Labor members, as a Party, on winning the election but if they want to talk about majority support-they are yet another minority government because they did not get the majority of votes in Victoria. So do not start that nonsense. I turn now to a few other points that the Bill prompts me to discuss. One of the consequences of the undue emphasis of this Government on cutting expenditure to the States has been the large reductions in capital purpose payments. Generally, capital infrastructure expenditure was only 4.4 per cent of total Budget expenditure in 1987-88. That compared with 95.6 per cent for current outlays. This is in contrast with capital outlays sharing over 9 per cent of expenditure in the last year of the Fraser Government. It also compared with 19 per cent back in 1975-76, although the spreading of functions of budget to government-owned enterprises may have accounted for a large part of the decrease since then. Nevertheless, the general trend away from infrastructure expenditure is worrying. The Commonwealth Government should take the lead in restructuring the priorities if the necessary structural adjustment in the economy is to take place. Another point I wish to raise is one that was mentioned in the Minister's second reading speech on the Bill. Consequent upon the Government's decision to remove the payroll tax exemption for certain Commonwealth business enterprises from 1 July 1988, 90 per cent of the additional revenue available to each State and the Northern Territory from this source is to be recouped by an additional reduction in their financial assistance grant. I acknowledge that the levying of payroll tax will put authorities like Telecom and Australia Post in an analogous position to private sector enterprises and will therefore tend to contribute to their efficient operation. However, I do note the pleasant little bonus for the Commonwealth-that is, that the removal of the payroll tax exemption for certain Commonwealth business enterprises has been used by the Commonwealth as a means of reducing payments to States. Therefore, total Commonwealth Budget expenditures are seen to decrease. Notwithstanding this, however, it is expected that the business authorities will boost their prices and charges so that taxpayers, as consumers, will hardly win from the changes. In fact, we heard only yesterday that the charges for some Telecom services will be rising. Lastly, I simply want to raise again a point I made in last year's debate, I think, on the States Grants Bills. I noted that during the calamitous days of Mr Whitlam-and there is more than a whiff of Whitlam in the air again today-the Commonwealth assumed a right to intervene in all manner of activities once seen as solely the province of the States. In health, in education, in road building and innumerable other activities, the Commonwealth has established huge bureaucracies. Last year I gave an example that while the Queensland Health Department's 6,700 or so staff operated the State's entire public hospital and health system, prior to last year's portfolio reorganisation the Commonwealth Department of Health employed some 4,100 public servants, not one of whom, according to the State Government, provides any direct health service to patients. Mr Nehl —Shameful! Mr PEACOCK —Absolutely shameful. Just build them up and have them there bleeding the taxpayers, because once again this Government does not worry about the utilisation- Mr Nehl —It is out of touch. Mr PEACOCK —This Government is arrogant, out of touch and has no idea about the average Australian. Basically, nothing has changed on the figures that I gave since I said that last year. There is certainly a case for the Commonwealth to review its activities and avoid costly duplication with State functions. It is more appropriate for States, which employ the teachers, the nurses and the road builders, to be allowed to take the responsibility of conducting their own programs. This does not mean I am advocating a wholesale removal of Commonwealth funding to States. For example, in many cases block grants would be more efficient than Commonwealth meddling in State affairs. Finally, the Bill highlights the Government's hypocrisy in calling for belt tightening across the community. Contrary to the Government, we maintain that it is possible to address living standards at the same time as addressing our external economic troubles. Integral to our policy is the need for personal tax cuts. Earlier in my speech I dwelt on the absolute need for the overwhelming majority of Australians to get tax cuts to stop the decay in the living standards of so many low to middle income earning Australians. The expenditure cuts can be made to fund those tax cuts. Unlike the Government, we will deliver genuine tax cuts. We have given the shape of our tax policy. Honourable members all know the direction in which we are heading. All we hear from the Government are different sounds as to whether there will in fact be any tax cuts at all. The Prime Minister is saying there will be a wage increase and a tax cut. The Treasurer is saying there will be no wage increase but there will be a tax cut. The Finance Minister, Senator Walsh, is threatening not to allow either of them anyhow. There is total confusion; but the higher rates remain. Unlike the Government, we will deliver genuine tax cuts because those tax cuts are essential to the task of restoring the living standards of Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) this government's prospective 1988-89 budget surplus is mostly based on increased taxation, and over 70 per cent of the expenditure cuts in budget outlays comes from reduced payments to state governments; (2) this government has been found wanting in the need to bear its share of expenditure restraint by cutting its own direct expenditure; and (3) the arrangements outlined in the Bill reflect policies that discourage the incentive to invest and work productively and therefore facilitate the restructuring of the Australian economy to address the nation's net foreign debt of some $88 billion.'. Mr McGauran —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.08) —Given the theatrical heights which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) reached during that delivery, I am a little disappointed that there was not a better audience amongst the Opposition benches. However, given the hour, I am sure that many hundreds of thousands of Australians out there are listening to the arguments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition tonight. When I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that Australia used to be a fairly egalitarian society a few years ago, I suspected he was suggesting to the house that Australia was a fairly egalitarian society when he was in the Fraser Cabinet and when he was helping to make the decisions which affected Australia's economy. He thought that Australia was a fairly egalitarian society during the Fraser years, a fairly egalitarian society when the pensioners were receiving only 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. He thinks Australia was a fairly egalitarian society when the Government of which he was a member drove Australia into its worst recession since the 1930s. He thought Australia was a fairly egalitarian society when there was a wages blow-out for which the Cabinet in which he served was responsible. They simply decided to take no further role in the setting of wages. They abandoned their economic responsibility to the people of Australia and, as a result, we had the recession of 1982. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition claims that that was a period when he thought Australia had a fairly egalitarian society. When we had a massive number of Australians thrown onto the unemployment scrap heap, he thought that was a fairly egalitarian society. He thought we had a fairly egalitarian society when people on the top rate of income tax were paying over 60c in the dollar. Given that the honourable member for Kooyong comes from the toffy-nosed area of Melbourne, I can perhaps understand that from his background life in the Fraser years was fairly egalitarian. But I can tell him that the people in my electorate, the pensioners who now receive not 22 per cent of average weekly earnings as they did in the Fraser years but 24 1/2 per cent today, know that Australia is-- An interjection having been made from the gallery- Mr LEE —I do not think the honourable member should interject from the public gallery. I think Australia has a more egalitarian society. I would make the point that perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is totally out of touch. Mr Snowdon —As he has been for a long time. Mr LEE —As he has been for many years. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment tonight in which he claimed that over 70 per cent of the reduction in expenditure in this Budget comes from reduced payments to State governments. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to claim that he was not against those reductions in assistance to the State governments. He simply said that the Federal Government should have cut Federal outlays as hard as it had cut State outlays. I find that hard to reconcile with the performance of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition during this Government's period of office. Who was it who campaigned around Australia against the assets test? Who was it who went around Australia whipping up a scare campaign, saying that pensioners would have the gold in their teeth valued and that they would lose their pensions? It was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Who was it who went around Australia saying that the changes that we made to the Veterans' Entitlements Act were wrong, that we should not cut back in the veterans affairs area and that this Government was cutting government expenditure back too hard? It was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Who are the honourable members running around Australia today saying that our Government has cut road funding too much? People such as the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) are doing this. Mr Ian Cameron —That is right. Mr LEE —The honourable member interjects and says, `That is right'. I would not be surprised if the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) thinks that we should be providing bigger subsidies for dairy farmers. He has a smile on his face but refuses to acknowledge the claim. I am sure that back in his own electorate he is telling all the dairy farmers that they deserve more assistance from the Federal Government. That is just typical of the Opposition's hypocrisy. Members of the Opposition come into this House one day claiming that they are the responsible economic managers, that they are the people who want to cut back government spending so that they can reduce taxation, yet when they are out in their electorates they show the other side of their split personalities and say to people, `Yes, we will deliver you more grants for road funding; yes, we will give you more assistance for health care; yes, we will give you a full pension even if you are a millionaire'. Really, they have zero credibility. Although the Deputy Leader of the Opposition now claims to be an expert on economics and reads the speeches that someone has prepared for him in the back rooms, he simply does not understand the realities of economic life in Australia today. It has been this Government that has taken the tough decisions on Australia's economy. The people opposite did not take the difficult decision to float the Australian dollar when they were in government, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was part of the Cabinet. The people opposite were not in power when this Government took the historic decision to free up the banking sector. They were not in power when this Government reduced tariffs so that our manufacturing industry could be leaner and more efficient. The people opposite were not in power when this Government introduced its historic changes to ensure the Australian economy is reformed and is able to compete on the world market. It is sometimes interesting to compare the performance of Liberal and National Party governments at the State level. I represent an electorate in New South Wales. Of course, we now have a Liberal-National Party Government in New South Wales. I can assure honourable members that the New South Wales Government headed by Mr Greiner and Mr Murray is not going very well. Of course Mr Greiner, who was elected on a dry economic policy, has sought to establish his economic credentials by cutting expenditure everywhere. Yet we have already seen that he has gone weak at the knees, the same as Phillip Lynch did in the early 1970s. Mr Greiner was going to introduce a $50 fee for all the children who travelled more than several kilometres on private buses. What happened? He went to water. Mr Greiner was going to make all of these rapid changes. Mr Martin —He should have backed down. Mr LEE —I admit, as the honourable member suggests, he should have backed down. But the point I am making is that history shows that the Liberal and National parties have never been able to follow through on any Budget cuts. They always back down. They have no backbone at all. Perhaps we should think back to what happened under the razor gang which was formed by the last Liberal-National Party Government. In 1976 that Government had a majority in both Houses of Parliament. But what did it do? It sent Phillip Lynch away with a group of public servants to come up with all the areas that it wanted to cut back. Phillip Lynch came back with a massive program of expenditure cuts-not $5,000m, not $1,000m but a measly $600m. After the weak-kneed Liberal and National Party backbenchers had gone to the Ministers and said, `You cannot make these cuts because this will affect my electorate; you cannot touch the subsidies that are given to my farmers; you cannot hurt my friends who are in business', less than $200m worth of savings were left from the Lynch razor gang recommendations. So the record of honourable members opposite when in government is that they cannot hold the line. Whenever there is any community opposition to savings measures which they seek to introduce, they back down. What has been the performance of this Government? We have had to make some pretty tough decisions, some of which have not been easy for people such as me and other Government backbenchers to defend. But we have been prepared to explain the Government's position to the community. I believe that there is support out there in the community for governments that take tough decisions which are in the long term economic interests of Australia. There are people opposite who seek to be all things to all people. I know that the Australian people when next given the chance to pass judgment on those opposite will repeat the judgment that they made just over one year ago. Mr Ian Cameron —Last weekend in Oxley. Mr LEE —The honourable member says, `What about last weekend's judgment in Oxley?'. I admit that there was a big swing in Oxley. But I ask him to think about the election result in Victoria. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that his side of politics received a majority of the votes and therefore it should have won. I would seek to explain to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that in Australia we have a system of voting called preferential voting. Because someone votes for the National Party, that does not necessarily mean that he is going to give his second preference to the Liberal Party. In fact, honourable members opposite might be interested to learn that often there is a leakage of around 10 per cent of the National Party's preferences to the Australian Labor Party. That means that when we look at the two-party preferred vote, the Liberal and National parties did not get a majority in Victoria. The Labor Party had a majority of the two-party preferred vote. Honourable members opposite do not understand the voting system. It is hard to believe that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was almost Prime Minister of Australia. The point I would make in this debate on general revenue assistance grants to the States is that some reforms have been introduced in these measures which are being considered by the Parliament tonight. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has announced that we are abolishing the payroll exemption for certain government business enterprises. That will result in the States receiving an extra $178m. I believe that that will put those government business enterprises on a more private enterprise footing. That is something which I thought would have had the support of honourable members opposite. In addition, the Government has announced that in future funding to the States for the provision of public hospital services will be reformed. We have had indications from the current New South Wales State Minister for Health, Mr Peter Collins, who I hope gets a move in the near future, that he will be seeking to encourage an expansion of the private hospital sector at the expense of the public hospital sector. Mr Martin —Outrageous! What has he done in Bulli and Kiama? Mr LEE —The honourable member says that he is already closing down maternity wards at Bulli and at Kiama. I am concerned that perhaps the New South Wales Liberal-National Party Government has a hidden agenda. Mr McGauran —To clean up the mess you left them. Mr LEE —I will tell the honourable member what it is about. It is about shutting down public hospital beds. That is what they are doing. I can imagine what the honourable member's view would be if the Victorian Cain Labor Government shut down public hospital beds in his electorate. He would be screaming. Let me tell him what the Liberal Government is doing in New South Wales. It has shut down half the beds in Wyong hospital, which services a large part of my electorate, and it has granted approval for a new private hospital to open at Berkeley Vale. This is all part of the New South Wales Government's policy of encouraging the growth of the private hospital sector at the expense of the public hospital sector in New South Wales, which has an excellent reputation of providing top service to Australians. I am concerned that if there is an expansion in the private hospital sector at the expense of district hospital beds, people in my electorate will be forced to use private hospital beds against their will. That will mean that they will be forced to pay the extra fees and exorbitant charges which often occur in private hospitals. What the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) has done is place a minimum floor on the number of patients who are treated at public hospitals in each of the States. Therefore if the New South Wales Liberal Government seeks to wind back the public hospital sector that will result in a reduction in a Federal grant that is provided to New South Wales to provide its public hospital sector. That is something which I totally support. In addition, I mention one other action which the New South Wales Government has taken. I raised this two days ago in the debate on the estimates for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The New South Wales Government receives more than $27m to provide a legal aid service to the people of New South Wales. Included in that $27m is half a million dollars to provide a legal aid service to veterans and their dependants irrespective of means. In New South Wales veterans, war widows and their dependants have always had the right to obtain legal advice in matters such as appearances before the Veterans' Review Board, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia. What has happened under the New South Wales Liberal and National Party Government in its typical anti-veteran attitude is that it has introduced a means test for advice through the Legal Aid Commission in New South Wales. It still demands to receive the extra half million dollars from the Federal Government but it is not providing the service that this Government is funding it to provide. I will be calling on all of the veterans in New South Wales to lobby the New South Wales Liberal and National Party Government to overturn the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission and to restore to New South Wales veterans their right to obtain legal aid on matters such as appearances before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These matters are so complex that veterans and war widows have a right to legal aid. When the veterans in my electorate realise what the Liberal and National Party Government of New South Wales has done they will take their retribution out at the ballot box at the next chance they get. I am very pleased to be able to support the legislation which is before the House. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.23) —Obviously I have a sterling speech to make. I am hoping that the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) will not adjourn the debate but let me finish. This is a very important debate tonight. It has been pretty heavy going as it is one of the main financial arrangements the Commonwealth makes with the rest of the States. Under our federated system, of course, we bring the States to heel every 12 months. All of the Premiers have to come to Canberra and have funds dealt out to them under the arrangements of the Act which replaces the States Grants General Revenue Act 1985. This amount of money is taken out of our taxes, both indirect and direct. It amounts to $12.4 billion, which is quite a slice-15 per cent-out of the total taxation revenue which is now running at the horrific figure of $83 billion. It is a record, of course. We have never seen in this nation so much taxation collected by any government in our whole history. We have seen excessive taxes placed on the people. We have been talking tonight and commenting on the Oxley by-election result. Obviously, that must bring home to roost to the Australian Labor Party the reaction of the general populace in Australia and particularly in Queensland, which is the State that I represent in this House-Maranoa is in the great State of Queensland-where we have seen people tell the Government of this because there was a 12 per cent swing in that electorate against the Government. The Government nearly lost the seat. It was one of the safest seats which was vacated by our incoming Governor-General-God help Australia. He was at one stage the Leader of the Labor Party and Leader of the Opposition. He is, of course, one Bill Hayden. He held that seat for 25-odd years. When he departed we saw this massive swing, which was a massive kick in the pants for the present Labor Government. We have seen the increase in taxation that is involved. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has put a global borrowing limit on the States. This is another form of restriction and centralisation that the Commonwealth is imposing on the States. In actual fact, the people of all the States in Australia should realise that if States borrow over the limit which the Treasurer has imposed they will get less grants next year. The States want to be sure that they do not borrow over their limit. Otherwise they will not be compensated or recompensed on a per head of population basis by the Commonwealth. The other thing that has changed slowly but surely since this Labor Government has been in office is that the criterion has been changed back to a pure population basis. The same thing has happened with local government. Under the general purpose grants in local government the Government has done the same thing. We see that this country does not govern as a national government should. It does not see that areas of Australia get some extra funding to help them in their development of this great nation. We are stagnating under this Labor Government. The Australian nation is coming to a screaming halt. We are seeing that the money is now being poured back into-- Mr Martin —Turn it up. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is true. The honourable member should give us the Government's balance of payments figures for the last three years. The honourable member should give us the Government's borrowings overseas figure for the last five years. The honourable member should tell me what the Government's current balance of payments figure is. The honourable member should tell me how much work we are doing as a nation at present. It is a disgrace. Financially it is one of the worst governments in the world at present. It is an absolute disgrace. We are running at horrific monthly trade deficit figures. It is the worst in our history. We have never seen such a performance as we are seeing now under this Hawke Government. It is absolutely disgraceful. It is a $12m a year debt. We cannot even get off our butts to do enough work to balance our books. Yet honourable members opposite sit over there and tell us what we should be doing. The only way they keep going is by borrowing funds. They borrow billions of dollars again. They borrow a million dollars a day just to keep themselves sitting on those benches. It is a disgrace. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) should sit in his seat properly if he is going to interject. I will now get back to the Bill. As a good, hardworking Australian it concerns me that we are paying this amount of taxation. We see another new indirect taxation measure. We have had the management of Telecom Australia in here today telling us how it will tighten its belt and move its manager out of Roma to centralise things. It does this with the encouragement of this socialist Government. That is all it wants. It wants centralisation. It wants to split Telecom up into three sectors and there is complaint about a bit of cross-subsidisation. We will see this Government come down hard on all of the people of inland Australia who try to get a telephone. Most Australians in inland Australia do not have a telephone yet. We are working towards that so that hopefully by 1992 they will have one. The Government has stretched out that figure by imposing sales tax on Telecom; by imposing payroll taxes on Telecom. The absurd situation now is that Telecom will be forced to pay taxation. Can honourable members believe that? They will have to pay company tax on their profits: talk about creeping socialism and creeping taxation. When Telecom was initially set up it did not cost the Australian public anything. Australia Post was the same. It was paid for out of Consolidated Revenue and we now see it as a taxing arm of the Commonwealth Government. Telecom, Australia Post, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Federal Port Authority, the National Railways, the Pipeline Authority are now being asked to pay payroll tax by this Government. The Government is collecting by stealth $179m a year from this indirect taxation. That is all it is. We have seen this happen from the time that this Labor Government came to office. What is it doing now to the State rural disaster scheme? What did it do in the Budget? It is now charging the States 4 per cent interest on the grants that it gives them. From the time that fund was set up the States were not expected to pay any interest. Now they are paying 4 per cent. It is another form of indirect taxation. There is no doubt in my mind that the rest of the Australian population-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(10.30) —I have already spoken twice this week in the House on matters to do with veterans. It seems to me that, despite however many facts I give to the House, we are continually berated by the Opposition in its attempt to belittle the very good works that this Government does for veterans. So, I will take the House through the Opposition's policies for veterans and show how inadequate they are and how they fall short of current government programs. Firstly, the coalition platform states in this general area: the commitment of the Liberal and National Parties is to provide to the Veteran the greatest understanding, recognition and support- here we go- that responsible government can afford. That is equivocal at best. We are in government doing it, spending the money, putting the money in the pockets of veterans, and all honourable members opposite can say is `that responsible government can afford'. In other words, it is an opt-out clause. I do not think veterans ought to trust in the Opposition's promises. Secondly, as I said earlier today, we have taken up many of the recommendations of the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee. We have already moved to accept 28 of the recommendations and we are about to put those into practice. Again the Opposition is almost silent on those recommendations. Again there is no action. Mr Tim Fischer —Rubbish! We adopted the EDA. Mr JOHNS —Yes, and we put it into practice. The third point to do with the Veterans' Entitlements Act is that the Opposition has this suspicion that there has been a tightening-up of the criteria for the totally and permanently incapacitated pension which attempts to play on the fear that there is in the veteran community that somehow we have tightened up on the TPI. By contrast, we have made it clear, as a result of recommendations of the monitoring committee, that we will now accept that, where a veteran has 70 per cent general incapacity, we can look at the question of TPI. That is a marvellous breakthrough. Let us have a look at a fourth policy-disability pensions and other benefits. We have adopted the notion of an extreme disability adjustment. Again the Opposition has accepted that. Good on it! But the fact is that that is the plum, the very guts, of its policy. We have already done it, thank you very much. We have wiped the Opposition out of the ring. A fifth Opposition policy states: The Liberal and National Parties will abolish the statutory patient contribution on nursing home care for World War I and T&I Veterans. In other words, the Opposition seeks to distinguish between World War I and TPI veterans. We do not distinguish between them. We have to have it either for all or for none. I believe that it ought to be equitable. Prior to 1 January 1988, the Repatriation Commission accepted financial responsibility for the patient contribution of those beneficiaries specifically admitted to nursing homes as a result of war-caused disabilities. We now take on the charging of board and lodging, but we most definitely leave those veterans well off. In a sixth Opposition policy, on service pensions, there is an unequivocal statement that it will regard service pensions just like any other pensions and, where we impose an income and assets test, it appears that the Opposition will also impose at least a modified assets test and, of course, it certainly will not state the actual money value of its assets test. So, again we have to take it on trust that no assets or incomes test will be imposed by the Opposition should it-God forbid!-come to power. A seventh Opposition policy on defence service home loans, states: The Liberal and National Parties will ensure that the transfer of the Defence Service Home Loan Corporation to the private sector . . . is completed and does not disadvantage those already holding a mortgage. Bad luck, too late, we have done it. We are looking after the veterans again. Finally, the shadow spokesman has given a commitment to the Returned Services League that repatriation hospitals would not be taken into the general system of hospitals, at least until the end of the next coalition government. Were that to occur, that would be in about 1992. The fact is that we have promised we will not do that until at least 1995. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.35) —I rise tonight to reject the comments made by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns). It is interesting that he finds the need to get up and dissect the coalition's veterans' affairs policy. The reason is that that policy is being well accepted in the veterans constituency and the war widows constituency right around Australia, because it is all about a fair go for veterans after three years of cutbacks and complex changes imposed by this Federal Labor Government. Let me spell out some of those cutbacks and complex changes. How can we justify, for example, the decision in the May 1985 mini-Budget which imposed a $300 limit on several categories of dental treatment, with no consumer price index adjustment, with the result that a number of veterans have suffered directly in terms of their dental health care and have been denied that dental care to which they are truly entitled? That is just one cutback. What about the halving of the country travel allowance by the stroke of a pen, from some 27c a kilometre to 11c a kilometre with just a slight upward adjustment since 1985? Again that is a real cutback on veterans. As my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) has pointed out, they are just two of the many cutbacks imposed since May 1985 which have hit hard at the veterans, the war widows, the ex-Service personnel and indeed the serving personnel ahead of their retirement. I will track back through some of the other cutbacks to refresh the memory of the honourable member. Look at the 2 per cent cutback on Defence Force retirement benefits pensions, the one the Government said it would fix up. It still has not fixed it up, not even in the most recent Budget. What we have had over the last three years and five months is a range of cutbacks and a range of complex changes which are bitterly resented by the veterans. One has only to meet with the Returned Services League, with war widows organisations, with the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council and other organisations to get the real thinking of these people. That is why the Liberal and National parties came out with a policy entitled `A fair go for veterans', one which provided a series of initiatives which it ill becomes the honourable member to rubbish, because those initiatives are in accord with and arise from discussions with veterans' organisations, and are in accord with and arise from in part, in fact in anticipation of, the report of the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee. During the winter recess I finalised, and shadow Cabinet and a joint party meeting approved, the veterans' affairs policy. I launched that during the winter recess, to very strong acclaim I might add from a wide cross-section of veteran office bearers. A month later came the independent Monitoring Committee report which was in accord with, and picked up, our policy centrepiece of the extreme disablement adjustment, which has subsequently been picked up in the Budget. So our policy was the catalyst for the introduction of the extreme disablement adjustment, and it is merely a step along the path to rectifying that totally and permanently incapacitated pension anomaly which this same Labor Government created in the May 1985 mini-Budget. I totally reject what the honourable member for Petrie has told the House tonight. I believe our policy represents a very careful, constructive and responsible alternative to the approach of the Federal Labor Party over the last three years in particular, and one which is welcomed by veterans at large right across Australia. The Government made the announcement this week about `Westpacing' the defence service home loans scheme. It said, `Wait until we spell out the details and ramifications associated with that announcement next week'. In making that announcement the Government failed to provide portability to all existing loan holders-another centrepiece of the alternative coalition policy on veterans' affairs. Clearly, the honourable member for Petrie has failed in making out his case here tonight. We are all about a fair go for those who have served their country in time of war. I take this opportunity to salute and to wish well all those veterans who are gathering in Melbourne for the Vietnam veterans international reunion which is being held this weekend. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.40) —I hope that any veterans who read this debate-none of them would be listening-will turn back a few pages of the Hansard to read the speech made earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). The Deputy Leader was not saying that we need to spend more on veterans; he was criticising this Government for not cutting Federal expenditure enough. I wonder why the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs claims that this Government has done all these terrible things to veterans. I would be interested to know whether the shadow Minister obtained a commitment from his shadow Cabinet, when he was drawing up the policy, as to whether a coalition government would restore all of these allegedly terrible cutbacks which our Government has implemented. The shadow Minister listed a whole series of changes which he says were wrong. I will not bother to repeat the claims that he has made. Is he suggesting to this House that a future Liberal-National Party government would overturn the changes that were made in the May 1985 mini-Budget? He studiously seeks to ignore my comments because he knows as well as I do that no future Liberal-National Party government would reverse those decisions. The truth is that the Liberals and Nationals voted in the Senate for those changes in 1985. Yet they run around the country seeking to whip up a frenzy amongst veterans when their own senators voted for those changes in May 1985. The shadow Minister knows that he cannot give veterans a commitment that there will be any change because people such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will ensure that there is no money for veterans. In fact, veterans will be pretty lucky if there is any Department of Veterans' Affairs under a future Liberal-National Party government. Mr Tim Fischer —Rubbish! Mr LEE —Well, I wish he would tell us whether he can give veterans a commitment that the decisions, which he has complained about tonight will be reversed. Now he turns his back to me because he knows he cannot give that guarantee. He cannot tell veterans that there will be any change at all in all those decisions which he listed tonight if there is a future Liberal-National party government. Yet he has the hide to claim that his policy, which was released during the winter break, was the catalyst to this Government's adoption of the extreme disability allowance (EDA). Mr Tim Fischer —That is right. Mr LEE —He interjects and claims that the Opposition was responsible for the adoption of the EDA. Why does the honourable member not get off his backside and talk to his colleagues in the New South Wales Liberal and National Party Government and get them to change the decision they made in July this year to take away from New South Wales veterans their right to legal aid? I would have thought that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) was interested in the rights of veterans in his electorate to obtain legal advice when appearing before repatriation bodies. He probably is not aware that the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales has taken away from veterans in his electorate their right to legal advice when they are appearing before the Veterans Review Board, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court. The Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales has taken upon itself the decision to take away from veterans that automatic right to obtain legal aid. In New South Wales the Legal Aid Commission has decided to impose a means test on veterans. New South Wales veterans have always had an automatic right to obtain legal aid in the past. I would have thought that if the honourable member for Farrer thinks that his policy was responsible for our Government adopting the EDA allowance, he could use a little of the magic catalyst he has in his pockets to get his Liberal and National Party colleagues in New South Wales to overturn the decision to take away from veterans the right to obtain legal aid. What is an even more important question is what has happened to the money, because the New South Wales State Liberal and National Party Government has received more than $27.5m to provide legal aid to New South Wales citizens, including $500,000 for New South Wales veterans to give them the automatic right to this legal aid. I put the question to the shadow Minister: if the Federal Parliament is allocating $500,000 to his friends in New South Wales to give this legal aid to veterans and now they are no longer receiving it, where has the money gone? What has happened to that $500,000 which should be providing New South Wales veterans with that legal advice? The silence on the other side of the chamber is the real thing that I hope my veterans understand. Mr TAYLOR(Groom)(10.45) —Despite the late hour, I would like to raise a matter which needs urgent attention from a number of authorities if we are to avoid a national embarrassment. But before I do, can I assure those on the other side of this place that we, in government late next year and early in 1990, at least can assure the Australian people that we will retain a discrete Department of Veterans' Affairs rather than move the way the Government is obviously moving under the social security umbrella. The Lions International convention to be held in Brisbane in mid-1991 will create the biggest international traffic peak in the history of Australian air travel, including the present World Expo, where tourist levels have been spread over six months. It is anticipated that 45,000 international attendees from 150 countries will arrive in and depart from Brisbane over seven days from 16 June of that year, with a daily peak of about 15,000 delegates. Economic benefits will flow across the nation and $100m would be a conservative estimate of the overseas funds inflow for that period. However, the key to the success of that convention will undoubtedly be the ability of Brisbane International Airport to handle the projected levels of passenger travel. In 1987 in Taipei 35,000 Lions delegates were handled, albeit with substantial difficulties, by Taiwanese authorities using 22 available airport gates; whereas earlier this year in Denver about the same number of Lions delegates were handled by United States authorities with few problems through the 100-plus gates available at that airport. Regrettably, under present international air terminal arrangements in Brisbane an expected 50 per cent increase in delegates on the Colorado level-that is, from 30,000 to 45,000-will need to be catered for through Brisbane's six gates. I think it is worth repeating those figures, Mr Deputy President: In Taipei, 35,000-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The title of the person in the chair here is Deputy Speaker and not Deputy President. Mr TAYLOR —I apologise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not mind being called many things, but Deputy President is a title I think someone in this House would object to. Mr TAYLOR —I apologise. In Taipei, 35,000 through 22 gates, with problems; in Colorado, 30,000 to 35,000 through 100-plus gates, with minor problems only; and in Brisbane, potentially 45,000 through six gates only, with obviously adverse results. It will therefore call for something more substantive than Australian ingenuity to correct a drastically inadequate situation unless early action is taken on the construction of a new international terminal at Eagle Farm. I urge all three levels of government involved-the Atkinson Brisbane City Council, the Ahern State Government, and the Hawke Federal Government-to resolve any differences quickly if Australia in general and Brisbane in particular are not to suffer a major international reputation reversal from the highly favourable tourist climate that is being generated by the people of Brisbane and the Expo of 1988. Why can we not bury the party political hatchets for once in this matter, and why can we not in the broader national interest exercise a measure of good old fashioned bipartisan support for what is clearly a national need? Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.50) —Mr Acting Speaker-- Mr McGauran —Who is this idiot? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland shall not interject. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Gippsland has a long way to go. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for Calwell might not respond to the interjections. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I want to talk about some of the factors involved in the magnificent result of the Victorian election, which was handsomely won by the Australian Labor Party. It was an excellent result. Mr McGauran —It was a result for the Socialist Left. Dr THEOPHANOUS —It was a result for the Labor Party. It was a win in the difficult economic circumstances faced by this country. A number of the honourable members opposite, including the honourable member for Gippsland and the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) were saying before the Victorian election that the Opposition was guaranteed of a sweeping victory. The Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, Mr Kennett, was suggesting that he was going to win enough seats to govern in his own right-15 seats. In the end the Opposition picked up only one seat. Even that was lucky. We nearly picked up the seat of Berwick. One of the things we must ask is why there was not a swing to the Opposition in the so-called marginal electorates in Victoria. Mr McGauran —Because you bought them off. Dr THEOPHANOUS —We bought them off according to the honourable member for Gippsland, who would not know what he was talking about because he does not live in Melbourne and he does not know about the situation in the Melbourne metropolitan area. One of the reasons why there was not a swing to the Opposition in the marginal electorates in Victoria was that the Labor Party picked up a significant number of votes from certain ethnic communities in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne which had never voted for the Labor Party before. The reason the Labor Party picked up those votes, which made up for some votes that might have been lost by the Labor Party, is the Federal Opposition's disgraceful performance in relation to its immigration policy. Mr McGauran —How do you know that, Andrew? Dr THEOPHANOUS —This is not just my view; it is the view of a number of senior people in the Labor Party. There is no doubt about it. A significant group of people-I am referring particularly to people from Asian backgrounds-clearly voted against the Liberal Party because they were absolutely disgusted by the discriminatory attitude adopted by the Federal Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) on immigration. There is no question about it. This was a significant factor in Labor's win. It is evident from the responses recorded at polling booths during election time and from the number of people from these backgrounds who came and talked to our people. In fact, many people of Asian background worked for the Labor Party for the first time in the Victorian election and played a significant role in convincing their communities that their only future in this country is with the Australian Labor Party-which is true. I remind the House that the Federal Leader of the Opposition has not changed the discriminatory policy which was adopted by the Liberal Party or its offending clauses. It continues to reject multiculturalism, the most important philosophy in terms of the cultural unity of this country that has been adopted in the last 20 to 30 years. While the Liberal Party persists with this policy it will lose votes across the board, not only from the Asian communities, but from all the ethnic communities. Amongst the people who have come to this country from all migrant backgrounds there is definitely a backlash against the Liberal and National parties. In my view, it was the policy of the Federal Leader of the Opposition on multiculturalism and immigration which lost the Opposition the election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.55) —We will certainly address the points raised by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) both on immigration and the impact of the socialist left on Victorian politics at a later and much more appropriate time. Tonight I take this opportunity to warmly and sincerely congratulate Phillip Honeywood, the successful Liberal candidate for the electorate of Warrandyte at the recent Victorian State election. He is a fine candidate. At 10.30 tomorrow morning the declaration of the poll will take place and Phillip will officially become the new member for Warrandyte. The seat of Warrandyte crosses the boundaries of two Federal electorates-Casey and Streeton. The majority of the electorate, however, comes within the borders of Casey. It covers, in whole or in part, the most important areas of Chirnside Park, Croydon, Croydon North, Mooroolbark, Park Orchards, Ringwood North, Warrandyte, Warranwood and Wonga Park. Phillip and I share more than the important and challenging responsibility of representing many of the same constituents in the State and Federal parliaments respectively. In December 1984 when I defeated Peter Steedman in Casey, it was the only Victorian lower House seat to be won from the Government at that election, and it was the first time the seat had not been held by the government of the day. When Phillip Honeywood defeated Lou Hill on 1 October, he achieved the same `double'. What is more, he achieved it with a swing of 3 per cent to the Liberal Party. Phillip won this vital marginal seat because he deserved to do so. There is absolutely no question of a victory by default in the case of Warrandyte. The voters were well aware of the issues and of the qualities of the respective candidates. They recognised Phillip to be a dedicated, intelligent, mature and sincere young man, committed to the ideals and philosophies of the Liberal Party and to providing active and effective representation for an area which is-to use the in term-hurting badly under the socialist left-controlled Cain Administration. That Administration is likely to perpetrate even more unnecessary depredations on the Victorian people. On 1 October 1988 when the electors of Warrandyte chose this energetic and enthusiastic young family man to represent them as their Legislative Assembly member in the Victorian Parliament, they chose wisely and well. Phillip is more than adequately equipped to handle his new responsibilities. He has considerable experience as an employee relations and industrial relations officer with a leading company. He could best be described as a `people person' who genuinely cares about others and is anxious to share and understand their problems and concerns and to assist them in practical and constructive ways. He puts great emphasis on traditional standards and moral values-something that is sadly lacking on the Government benches both in Victoria and Canberra. He and his delightful wife, Gabrielle, are expecting their first child within the next few days; so they will be embarking on two significant and exciting challenges in a very short space of time. The first is political life. The second is far more important, far more demanding and-I speak from considerable experience-far more rewarding in every way. That, of course, is parenthood. I am sure that members on both sides of the House will join me and all his Federal and State colleagues in wishing Phillip Honeywood a bright and rewarding career in politics. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.58) —In reply to some of the issues raised by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), I should on behalf of the Opposition warn the people of Victoria that they are now saddled with a socialist left-dominated government. Those opposite should not try to pretend that it is not dominated by the socialist left. We on this side can count as accurately as those opposite. A few leading lights of the socialist left faction in this place have been gloating about their victory in Victoria and in asides in corridors and in interjections across the floor of this chamber they are at pains to stress their strength, and indeed their control, of the Government down in Victoria. If only the true nature of a future Cain Government had been revealed to the voters of Victoria before they went to the poll on 1 October, the result would have been very different. But it was skilfully-a better word is probably `cunningly'-deliberately and dishonestly covered up to show the dominance of the left faction; so much so that it is the only State in Australia which has a Labor Government dominated in both Cabinet and caucus by the socialist left faction. It has waited a long time for such dominance and to be able to pull the strings of government, to make the Premier jump through the hoops at will. It will now call in the chips. It has been patient enough, and now is the time for reckoning. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. next Monday. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 12 October 1988: Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Order-1988-No. 7-Marine, Part 2. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 24 September 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1107) Dr Klugman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: Has the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, 245 Castlereagh Street, Sydney, received any direct or indirect grants of Commonwealth money during any year since 1985; if so, are the articles of association and annual reports available for public inspection. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Public Interest Advocacy Centre Ltd has received direct Commonwealth grants as follows: 1985-$15,825 1986-$17,091 1987-$29,068 1988-$31,103 (2) The Public Interest Advocacy Centre has informed my Department that its Articles of Association and its First Report (covering the period 1982-1987) are available for public inspection at the Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales. (Question No. 1119) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) Has the distribution of grants to organisations under the Disability Services Act been running behind schedule; if so, (a) why and (b) to what extent. (2) Are grants to the North Queensland Society for Crippled Children behind schedule; if so, (a) why and (b) by what sum. (3) How does his Department envisage that organisations dependent upon these grants cope with late payments. (4) Does he propose to provide additional financial grants to cover interest costs on overdrafts and loans made necessary by the late payment of operating grants. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A small number of 1988-89 Disability Services Program grants are yet to be finalised, because the required contracts are still being negotiated with service provider organisations, or due to a delay in the return of signed contracts by organisations. July 1988 payments were delayed in the case of those nursing homes for disabled persons that transferred to the Disability Services Program, with effect from 1 July 1988. There was also a delay until 14 July in the payment of the July-September quarter grants to existing Disability Services Program services in North Queensland due to a payment system malfunction. This is regretted. I fully appreciate the cash flow situation of grant recipients. Every effort is made by my Department to release grant monies on the earliest possible date. The exceptional breakdown which occurred in this instance was rectified as soon as possible, and no delay is expected in future payments. (2) (a) and (b) The North Queensland Society for Crippled Children was one of the organisations affected by the delay, which involved a sum of $96,970 in relation to the Society's nursing home and $79,543 in relation to other services. (3) and (4) Many organisations operate overdraft facilities in the normal course of their business, and it is not the practice to invite supplementary claims for overdraft costs which may be incurred pending receipt of grant monies. In any event, those costs may not be due exclusively to the timing of the payment of grants, as has been explained in (1) above. It should also be noted that the grants involved were of a prospective nature-that is, they were advances in anticipation of outlays, rather than reimbursements due in respect of previously incurred expenditure. (Question No. 1178) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: (1) How many officers of his Department are located overseas and are attached to (a) Australian missions to countries and (b) multilateral or international agencies. (2) How many officers of his Department are outposted to other departments and agencies in Canberra. (3) Is there an officer, or are there officers, specifically outposted to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence; if so, during 1988 has that officer, or have those officers, made specific recommendations or reports back to his Department, recommending against certain applications for migration to this country. (4) Has that officer, or have those officers, made specific recommendations or reports warning against certain categories of migration, based on criminal record factors and highlighting various schemes utilised to obtain immigration approval to this country. (5) Has his Department failed to take action with regard to those specific individual and general recommendations or reports during 1988. (6) Has the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence made recommendations to his Department concerning the matters referred to in parts (3) and (4), quite apart from the individual officer or officers outposted to that Bureau. Mr Holding —The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) 119 as at 1 September 1988 (b) Nil (2) One (3) Yes, one; no (4) No (5) Not applicable (6) No