Thursday, 20 October 1988 Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: That your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 Pharmaceutical drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme including the best available for the Treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-and place them for cost saving reasons only on a special list requiring Authority from a Canberra bureaucrat, and; That we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to seek permission from a bureaucrat in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Aldred (from 27 citizens), Mr Beale (from two citizens), Mr Braithwaite (from 162 citizens), Mr N.A. Brown (from 58 citizens), Mr Ian Cameron (from 27 citizens), Dr Charlesworth (from 81 citizens), Mr Courtice (from 54 citizens), Mr Fife (from 103 citizens), Mr Tim Fischer (from 86 citizens), Mr Goodluck (from 192 citizens), Mr Griffiths (from 26 citizens), Mr Steele Hall (from 136 citizens), Mr Hawke (from 106 citizens), Mr Hicks (from 54 citizens), Ms Jakobsen (from 56 citizens), Mr Jenkins (from 163 citizens), Mr Johns (from 136 citizens), Mr Jull (from 212 citizens), Mrs Kelly (from 134 citizens), Mr Lloyd (from 81 citizens), Mr MacKellar (from 133 citizens), Mr Martin (from 184 citizens), Mr Milton (from 27 citizens), Mr Moore (from 27 citizens), Mr Allan Morris (from 54 citizens), Mr Peter Morris (from 27 citizens), Mr Nehl (from 256 citizens), Mr Peacock (from two citizens), Mr Pratt (from 54 citizens), Mr Shack (from 27 citizens), Mr Sharp (from 79 citizens), Mr Snow (from 192 citizens), Mr Snowdon (from 27 citizens), Mr Tuckey (from 94 citizens), Mr White (from 84 citizens), and Dr Woods (from 74 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and all Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 potentially life saving pharmaceutical drugs-including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, and high cholesterol-and place them on a special list requiring Authority from a Health Department official in Canberra, and; That we believe that a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to waste valuable time referring a case to an official in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly ask that the House request 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 Nehl (from 462 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 Dr Blewett (from 88 citizens), Mr Dobie (from 164 citizens), Mr Nehl (from 166 citizens) and Mr Tuckey (from 56 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That your petitioners 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 therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will amend the proposed legislation to ensure that it will not apply retrospectively and that provision is made to protect savings against inflation. by Mr Lloyd (from 43 citizens), Mr McArthur (from 74 citizens) and Mr Pratt (from 230 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 petitoners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from two citizens) and Mr Carlton (from 27 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 Goodluck (from 234 citizens) and Mr Shack (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We pray that the House immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent (from 506 citizens) and Mr Milton (from nine citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned, are appalled that the Romanian Government plans the commencement of the destruction in September of 7000 villages, hundreds of thousands of peaceful homes and homesteads, thousands of churches, historic monuments and cemeteries. With this barbaric action millions of people will be disadvantaged, even sent to their death with these Totalitarian actions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give these matters earnest consideration and request the Romanian Government to abandon these horrific acts against the Romanian Community and its minorities. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from two citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from 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 Dr Blewett (from 116 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 129 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) the Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton (from 1,922 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that The Federal Government has reaped an unprecedented amount of revenue in taxation recently, over and above expectations: PAYE tax payers are losing one quarter and more of earnings through direct tax deductions: Sales taxes which are charged on a vast range of everyday goods and necessities add to the taxes already imposed on wage earners: The range of compulsory licences, fees, and charges imposed by governments and Statutory Authorities further erode family disposable incomes Your petitioners therefore pray that the House immediately reduce PAYE taxes and all Sales Tax by one third and hold all Government and Statutory Authority charges at the current level for a minimum four-year period. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 139 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 Tim Fischer (from 325 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 11 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House. To the increased number of aircraft movements at a private airstrip at Luskintyre, Lochinvar. Because of the airstrip's small area the aircraft have to pass low over people's houses, thus creating undue noise and an invasion of privacy. A large amount of time is spent by the Company in take-offs and landings and in performing aerobatics. This constant, monotonous droning is a source of great irritation to the peace of the area. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fitzgibbon (from one citizen). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in spite of many petitions and other communications, we are dismayed and disgusted at the lack of will on the part of the Parliament to restore to retired Commonwealth Public Servants and Defence Force Personnel, pension benchmarks which were affected by a two per cent discount as part of the budget brought down in 1986. Having regard to assurances given by the Government that the base will be restored, your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, act to ensure that this is done without further delay so as to remove the permanent and compounding effects of this discriminatory action taken under the guise of the entire community sharing the economic burden. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we oppose any mineral exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park, the Kakadu Conservation Zone, or the Alligator Rivers Region. Your petitioners ask that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Halt all mineral exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone by revoking current leases and licences and by incorporating the zone in Kakadu National Park and; Prevent proposed mining in Kakadu stages one and two by incorporating the Jabiluka and Koongarra project areas in the National Park and by proclaiming the whole park under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton (from 253 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Government's Australia card will be an attack on the civil liberties and privacy of all Australians, will not achieve the claimed results, will provide a boost to organised crime and will be an enormous burden to the private sector, especially small business, already snowed under with government charges, taxes and red tape. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to abandon legislation for any type of national identity system and work toward building a society based on trust not suspicion. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: The irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House: (1) Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. (2) Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. (3) Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. (4) Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 36 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: There is inadequate provision in the Constitution for national referenda and the people are therefore denied sufficient opportunity to oppose or introduce legislation of national importance or consequence. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: amend the Constitution to provide for the holding of national referenda in the following cases: (1) If four per cent of the electors petition the House of Representatives and/or the Senate with regard to proposed legislation. (2) If four per cent of the electors petition the House of Representatives and/or the Senate with regard to existing legislation. (3) If eight per cent of the electors petition the House of Representatives and/or the Senate with regard to introducing legislation proposed by the electors. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and all Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the activities of the Soviet Union in our region and in particular the South Pacific are detrimental to and threaten the security of our country. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government not to enter into a fishing agreement with the Soviet Union. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 286 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully draws to the attention of the House: to the retrospective changes proposed by the Hawke Labor Government to the pension income test. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House: reject the unfair and retrospective changes proposed to the treatment of capital growth investments under the proposed new income test for pensions. by Mr Ian Robinson (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their absolute opposition to the Privatisation and Deregulation of the Australian Telecommunications Industry. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House will take the necessary steps to ensure:- That Telecom's social responsibilities are preserved and extended and adequately funded. That the telephone service is accessible and affordable to all. The maintenance of public ownership and control of telecommunications services in Australia. That Telecom consumers' rights are respected by the establishment of mechanisms whereby their grievances can be adequately represented. Especially domestic, small business and socially disadvantaged people within the community. Also, your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will reject current proposals to: Impose State and Local charges and taxes on Telecom. Alter the legal status, employment conditions and organisation of Telecom from a public sector service provider to a commercial corporation. Take away Telecom's regulatory function and place this with a new body called Austel. Remove Telecom's ``Buy Australia'' policy, thus threatening local manufacturing. by Mr Scholes (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: Grave concern with the insufficient level of Government grants provided for carrying out improvements to the Canberra/Batemans Bay (MR51) Road. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your House will call upon the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to allow for and provide special substantial direct funding to carry out the necessary improvements to the road, and, further, call upon the New South Wales State Government to accept greater financial responsibility for the upgrading and maintenance of the said road. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Snow (from 104 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the Northern Territory draws to the attention of the House that they wish the principle of Free Further and Tertiary Education to continue. Your petitioners therefore request the House to oppose the imposition of a Tertiary Graduate Tax. by Mr Snowdon (from 244 citizens). Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Federal Parliament. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Northern Territory respectfully showeth concern at the situation facing the Kanak people of Kanaky (New Caledonia). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House: -support the right of the Kanak people to self determination and independence; -acknowledge the FLNKS as the legitimate representative of the Kanak people and acknowledge their refusal to recognise the April 24 elections in Kanaky (New Caledonia); -urge the French Government to abandon their current path, withdraw the military forces in Kanaky (New Caledonia) and enter into dialogue with the FLNKS to ensure a peaceful transition to Independence; and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Snowdon (from 138 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 Northern Territory Electorate respectfully showeth that: The sale of the T-Shirt entitled ``Ski The Slopes'' is racially divisive and not conducive to harmony in our multicultural society. Your petitioners therefore humble pray that the Australian Parliament take some action to prevent the shirt from being sold. and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Snowdon (from 97 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely extensively on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infra-structure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, Oppose any proposal to absorb road funds into General Revenue Assistance to either Local or State Governments; and Immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 172 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws the attention of the House to the public concern over the creation of human embryos for the specific purpose of fatal experimental research. The citizens are concerned that human life is deliberately being created with the premeditated intention to destroy it. They believe that this is a gross breach of the responsibility that each member of the human race has to another to ensure life is allowed to thrive and develop according to nature. Your petitioners therefore request that the House do all in its power to ban the creation of embryos for the specific purpose of life destroying research. by Dr Woods (from 249 citizens). Petitions received. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.07) —I 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. In 1983 the Australian Labor Party was elected on the promise of an improvement in social and economic conditions in this nation. After six Budgets and four mini-Budgets, the devastating truth is that we are all paying more tax than ever before and yet the level of poverty and homelessness is higher than at any time since the depression. The massive increase in tax revenue has not been used to help the less well off in our community but rather it has been scandalously wasted. Prior to the election, Labor pretended to be interested in the poor and under-privileged, but once in office it forgot its grass roots and has concentrated instead on looking after its rich mates and its colleagues. I hear some scoffs from members of the Government benches. Perhaps they might like to talk to the Federal Secretary, Mr Bob Hogg. He even complained the other day about too many Labor Party members of Parliament and ex-Keating-Hawke Government Ministers having their snouts in the trough. So its own Federal Secretary is claiming that the Government has too many of its colleagues with their snouts in the trough. Hogg was right. Labor has grossly abused its position of power. It is patently obvious that the Hawke-Keating Government will continue to mouth platitudes about the plight of middle and low income families, but it will actually do absolutely nothing. It is intent on ripping off the taxpayer and using the money to suit its own party political objectives. The $46m shamefully wasted on the referendums is just one recent example. That was a blatantly partisan attempt to change the Constitution to suit its own purposes-but the public was not fooled. Not only were all of the proposals rejected, but in three out of four of them the Government suffered the biggest voter backlash since Federation. Every by-election this year has reinforced the message-the electorate has had enough; Labor's policies have failed-but from the blank look on Ministers' faces, they have not yet got the message. The concern expressed in the motion I have moved today is about the catastrophic impact Labor's policies have had on the less well off in our society. There is agreement among social commentators today that the indicators for measuring and describing poverty have risen over the last five years. It is generally agreed that more than two million Australians now live below the poverty line. Of even greater concern is the increase in child poverty under the Labor Government. It was this factor, I am sure, that caused the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to make that historic commitment that he would fix child poverty by the mid-1990s. Of course, since the election he has proceeded to back-pedal from that promise at 100 miles per hour. Today Australia has the second highest rate of child poverty of all comparable Organisation for Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. What a record! And the Treasurer (Mr Keating) says that he is bringing home the bacon! Authors Saunders and Whiteford, in their evaluation last year of the Government's child poverty initiatives, stated: To be blunt about things, child poverty in Australia has reached unacceptable levels and is a disgrace, both nationally and internationally. That is from a report on the Government's child poverty initiatives. One in every five Australian children now live in poverty. That is 825,000 children-165,000 or 20 per cent more than when Labor came to office in 1983. The last coalition Government introduced the family allowance as a targeted benefit to assist families with the high cost of raising children. But this Government has allowed the value of that payment to be eroded by 30 per cent. Instead of spending millions of dollars on the taxpayer-funded media machine pumping out misleading information about how wonderful the Government is, the Prime Minister would do the nation a service by focusing on and addressing some of the real problems his Government has created. A Department of Community Services and Health study reported this year that at least 700,000 households-that is nearly 1 1/2 million Australians-have been forced into what it calls housing poverty. That is because under the Government's high interest rate policy, together with the reduction in home purchase assistance, families are being forced to make huge sacrifices in food, clothing, transportation, education, health care and other essentials just to pay for a roof over their heads. More families are in poverty because of housing costs and Labor's high interest rate policy has put more than ever before on queues for public housing. Though not a recent outcome of poverty in Australia the extent of homelessness is growing in seriousness and magnitude. The Sydney City Mission estimates that Australia's homeless now number 40,000-with a further 40,000 so called street kids. The face of Australia's homeless is changing. The unshaven face of the old man is giving way to families with young children, teenage boys and girls, young men and young women in the prime of adulthood from all walks of life. Last year the Sydney City Mission beat buses picked up 22,000 people and the mission itself is turning away on average 39 homeless families and 100 homeless young people each month. One of the areas where the flaws in the Government's economic policy are hitting hardest is the area of unemployment. Unemployment figures have recently begun to decline but other cruel and more damaging changes in the unemployed population are beginning to appear. Since Labor has come to office the average length of time spent unemployed has grown from 33 weeks to 51 weeks. The lengthening duration of unemployment and the increase in the number of long-term unemployed not only is a large social cost to the nation but also affects economic efficiency. The greater the duration of unemployment the lower the probability of regaining employment; work skills of the unemployed atrophy quickly, and this creates a demand for retraining and job experience programs. But the Government's employment and training programs are all hype and no action-jobs, employment and training, Priority One: Young Australia, Jobstart, Go For It and I am sure honourable members have heard of many more. They are great for public relations but the situation is getting worse. The stark reality is that almost one in five young Australians cannot find work. In addition, increases in unemployment have affected families with children the most. Between 1980 and 1985 the number of children in families affected by unemployment increased by 80 per cent. Too many children are suffering under Labor. The Government's wages and tax policy has also contributed to the increase in poverty. While wages may have kept pace with inflation in the past six years, the amount of personal income tax paid by workers has doubled. Low-income earners in particular are being taxed into poverty. By the time Mr Keating's long promised tax cuts arrive, that is, if they arrive, in July next year, the worker on average weekly earnings will need a tax cut of $56 per week just to restore his real income to the level it was when Labor came to power in March 1983. The Government itself has identified some of the problems it has created. In this year's Budget it stated: Studies show that low income families who rent housing in the private market are the least well off of all groups and that high housing costs are a major cause of poverty, particularly poverty among children. So said the Government in the Budget. Of course, it is the Treasurer's policies which have pushed up the housing costs of which he is now complaining. Nevertheless, the Government stated the obvious. In response, it has said that it will increase rent assistance paid to low income privately renting families. `Commendable', I hear honourable members say. But in an act of the worst political cynicism, the Government has delayed these increases until June 1989. Why June 1989? The Government has delayed the increases not because that is when the assistance is needed but rather to suit its political agenda. In other words, the increases are timed purely to curry favour with the voters in the lead-up to the next election. Everything is going to happen in June 1989. The Government has doubled our taxes. We are going to get a tax break-not now, but in June 1989. The Government has increased housing costs and put more people into poverty. People cannot afford to pay their rent. The Government says, `Oh, we will increase your rent assistance'. When asked when, the Government says, `Oh, not now-June 1989'. It is odds-on that there will be an election in August or September 1989. The truth of the matter is that the Government's social policies have failed the nation. The facts speak for themselves. After five years of hard Labor we have more people in poverty, more children in poverty, record queues for housing and record queues for hospital beds. Much of the blame for the growth in poverty lies with the Treasurer, because, despite all the hype he carries on with, it is clear that the economy is not doing well and standards of living are falling while taxes are growing. International indicators show that we as a nation are way behind the eight ball. Our inflation rate is almost treble that of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average-that is something to crow about! Our interest rates are the third highest of all OECD countries. To make matters worse, the Government has failed to confront the problem of Australia's productivity, which has long been a matter of concern but which now seems to be deteriorating further, both absolutely and relatively to overseas. The OECD forecasts a further decline in our total factor and labour measures of productivity. Measures to boost investment and more efficient resource allocation such as lower taxes, reform of the labour market and more competition in transport and communications are necessary to raise productivity. But they are changes which this Government will not introduce because it is in the pockets of the unions, and the unions will resist the changes. As a nation we pay dearly for the fact that this Government is hostage to the unions. The unions get away with murder. Labor's special relationship with the unions has resulted in a 32 per cent increase in working days lost in the last four years. Economic recovery, a higher standard of living and less poverty will only come through significant industrial restructuring involving reorganisation, plant upgrading and substantial changes in the labour market, including the total removal of restrictive work practices. What is the Government doing about that? Nothing! What is the consequence? An article in today's Australian states: Australian investment abroad has grown dramatically over the past five years, at the same time as the Federal Government has encouraged increased foreign investment here. Figures produced by the Australian Trade Commission (Austrade) show that investment in the United States quadrupled in the five-year period while investment in the United Kingdom grew by 740 per cent. Why are our companies going overseas to invest? Why are they not investing here? Let me point to one obvious reason. The United Kingdom and the United States of America are two countries which, unlike our nation, are not union controlled. They are investing where they can see some benefit for their investment, together with an increasing productivity and a good return, which they cannot see in this country under this Government. It is not just the Soviet Union that needs perestroika. Australia does too. Labor's socialist policy has failed the nation. Middle and lower income earners of this nation are worse off now than they were five years ago when Labor came to power, and there has been a depressing increase in the number of adults and children in poverty. Labor's social and economic policies have not only failed but also increased the level of poverty and held back our economic growth. It is high time the Government faced up to the reality that a change in direction is urgently required. If it does not do it, the electors at the next election will take the necessary action. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Dr Woods —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.27) —Mr Acting Speaker, I am not sure why the Opposition moves these motions unless it is just to try to show a sympathetic face to the electorate that it certainly does not show when it is in government. It just seems to me an incredible waste of time to hear the destructive sorts of comments that have been made on the other side about a government which is so earnestly and successfully trying to help those who are in poverty in Australia. We are in touch with the electorate. One of the most important things that have been done in the last few years is the setting up of the social security review which has allowed Bettina Cass to assess accurately what the problems are, especially amongst the poor in Australia, to evaluate what best can be done and to set priorities in that area for this Government. This Government has effectively, stage by stage, been trying to address those problems where they occur. It seems to me that, whenever the Opposition advances a case like this, it is, as I said, just to show that rather false sympathetic face or to indulge in its usual scare tactics campaign. I made a list earlier of all the scare tactics that the Opposition has indulged in over the last few years and I have decided now not to repeat them. I think the electorate is well aware of the sorts of crazy stories that have been put about by the Opposition. I will mention the most recent one. As a result of our attempts to equalise investment income consequences for pensioners, we were told from the other side-and it was spread across the newspapers-that hundreds of thousands of pensioners were going to lose their pensions. This was a total misrepresentation which bore absolutely no relationship to the truth but which had age pensioners ringing our electorate offices in tears and, of course, scared stiff. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has now started the union scare tactic again this morning. In any event, of course, there is poverty in Australia. Poverty in Australia has been rising since the 1970s. When we came to government it was at its worst and there were more inequities in the Australian society then than at any other time. It was the worst period for the poor in Australia. What had those in government then done about it? Absolutely nothing. What programs did they have for the social wage for those in need? Absolutely nothing. What programs did they have for those in work on low incomes? Again, absolutely nothing. Let me inform honourable members exactly what the poverty line was when we came to government. A single beneficiary with one child in March 1983 was $23.60 a week below the Henderson poverty line. In June 1988, poverty was not eradicated in Australia but that same single beneficiary with one child was $11.20 a week above the poverty line. In March 1983, when we came to government, a beneficiary couple with two children was $26.30 per week below the poverty line. That is how the Opposition left them. In June 1988 that same beneficiary couple with two children was $20.15 per week above the poverty line. The most important thing we have done in government has been to assess the problems, estimate what can best be done to overcome them, and then set priorities. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) pointed out yesterday in answer to a question, those priorities have meant that, firstly, we have directed our attention to getting people back to work. No-one on a very low income or those in poverty benefit in a society where people are not at work. We have done a great deal to get people back to work; 1,060,000 jobs have been created. How much better off are those people now than when the Opposition was in government and they did not have a job? They now have the security of a job. They are paying taxes. They are off the social security lists. That is the greatest step in overcoming poverty in Australia that any government can achieve. The most effective and successful method for overcoming poverty is to get family breadwinners back to work. Our second priority is to repair the safety net, to look at those people that the Bettina Cass review has covered, including the unemployed, children in low income families, the young, the aged, sole parents, find out what their needs are and address them. The greatest need that has been discovered relates to children in low income families. Our programs to eliminate child poverty are well on target. Our third priority is to address living standards. That is what we are about. I cannot understand the sorts of things that have been said by honourable members opposite. When the Opposition talks about the living standards of an average family it always has one sort of family in mind. It always assumes that that family is, as Ross Gittins pointed our in his article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 15 October, paying `private hospital insurance costing at least $10.70 a week'. One of the things this Government has done to eliminate poverty is to bring in Medicare, which the Opposition is absolutely dedicated to destroying. The New South Wales Government is helping it to do that. The New South Wales Government has just admitted that the doctors going on strike in hospitals were responsible for the long waiting lists. It is going to spend $12m to get them back to work. A survey carried out recently by Ian McCauley, an economist with the Consumers Health Forum of Australia, and reported this week shows that private health insurance is an administratively wasteful luxury. The report says that more than one-quarter of contributors are not even sure why they have taken out private cover or why they have continued it since the introduction of Medicare. I will tell honourable members why they are doing it: the Opposition has scared them stiff. That is where some of their money is going. It is totally wasted money. The article says that, in terms of equity and economic efficiency, private insurance runs a poor third place to public insurance and direct market transactions; that is just paying the doctors. Let me briefly address the situation concerning housing, which is referred to in the motion of the honourable member for Barker. Nothing is dearer to my heart than addressing in some way the problems of those who cannot afford accommodation, particularly in the major cities and in my city of Sydney. We are getting people back to work. The great majority of the jobs is in the cities. That is where the people want to live. There simply is not enough land available. That is one of the major reasons for the accommodation problems in Australia. The Housing Industry Association has just appealed to State governments to release more land. I wish the State governments would do something about rents. The only people to win in the high rental crisis are the real estate agents, the speculators and the speculative investors. There is a lot to be done in the housing area. None of the Opposition's program has ever tried to address the problem. I will conclude by quoting Ross Gittins's article on living standards. He said: . . . one million people who didn't have a job then- that is, when we came to government- but have one now, would have enjoyed a big increase in living standards. He went on to say that many of those one million people were married women, which suggests that many families are getting over the gap in their living standards by having two incomes. He said: The point is that what we've seen is the Government's principle of ``restraint with equity'' at work. That is, workers have exercised wage restraint, with our encouragement. The other side of that means more people back in the work force and, therefore, the burden of restraint will be shared more fairly. Dr WOODS(Lowe)(10.36) —It is with great sadness that I rise to talk about the family assistance package and the state of poverty among the young in our country at present. I was amazed to hear the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) claim that the Australian Labor Party is in touch with the electorate. Just ask the people of Oxley, the people who voted in the referendum or in the Port Adelaide and Adelaide by-elections whether they think that the Labor Party is in touch with any part of the electorate, let alone the poor in our society. The honourable member claimed that the Labor Government's main achievement was the Bettina Cass review. I accept that. Certainly, the review has been worthwhile and valuable. However, the Government has done nothing effective to counteract poverty, particularly child poverty. The honourable member accused us of engaging in scare tactics. In doing so she was clearly supporting the attacks by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on pensioners' incomes. Of course pensioners were distressed. Would honourable members not be distressed in such a situation? There is an old saying about lies, damn lies and statistics. The honourable member for Phillip has used statistics selectively. I will look at some of the real facts in a moment. She claims to support Medicare. Medicare is another tax on the people of Australia, forcing them to pay twice over for their health care rather than just once. She quoted from a Socialist Left report which, to be kind, did not indulge in any consultation procedures with both sides of the fence; it looked at only one side of the spectrum. The Government's family assistance package fails to address the problems of poverty among Australian families. It came into effect in December last year and was aimed at providing income support to families on pensions and social security benefits and working families with low incomes. It was aimed particularly at assisting low income families in private rental housing. While its aims may be admirable, the reality is that its effectiveness has been persistently thwarted by the counterproductive-to put it politely-economic and social policies of the Keating-Hawke Government. As an income support package it has neither addressed the fundamental causes of poverty nor attempted to address the problems that many poverty stricken families that we see from day to day have in terms of access to other resources. Let us look for a moment at the statistics which the honourable member for Phillip seems to have quoted selectively. Since the Hawke Government came to power there has been a 25 per cent increase in the number of children living in poverty. At present 20 per cent of Australian children live below the poverty line. By way of comparison, in Canada the figure is 9.6 per cent and in Germany it is 8.2 per cent. Even taking into account the expected family package changes coming into effect in December, researchers Helen Brownlee and Anthony King estimated that 372,500 children would be living in poverty after housing costs had been taken into account. The cost of housing is one of the major causes of Australians living below the poverty line. From June 1983-the year in which Labor came to power-to the June quarter this year there was a 58.9 per cent increase in rental charges for private housing. One might say that that is due to private entrepreneurs. In fact, the honourable member for Phillip did say that. Therefore, let us look at government-owned dwellings. For government-owned dwellings the position is even worse. In the same period there was an increase of 63.9 per cent. In that period the consumer price index rose by 43.5 per cent. I point out that that is three times the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average. What about applications for public housing? Since June 1983 there has been a rise from 123,700 applications for housing to 195,370 applications as at June this year. We know what has happened to mortgage rates under the Hawke Government. Based on Sydney housing prices-they are more expensive but they are still representative in terms of the increase-in 1983 the median price was $80,000 and, on average, 52 per cent of average weekly earnings went towards paying the mortgage. Now we find that the median price has gone from $80,000 to $142,000 and, more importantly, the average mortgage payment has gone to 74.8 per cent of average weekly earnings. Long term unemployment was mentioned earlier. When the Government came to power the average duration was about 30 weeks. Now it is closer to 60 weeks. One of the real eye openers illustrating the failure to combat poverty is the average wage and the real disposable income changes based, for example, on a single income family with a dependent spouse and a couple of kids. In 1983 the average wage was $17,000, while for 1987-88 it was $24,000. Despite this apparent increase, real disposable income, after taking into account inflation and those terrible tax rates, dropped from $21,000 in 1982-83 to $20,000 in 1987-actually dropped. All this damage which was done to the living standards of ordinary Australian workers could not possibly be balanced by the measly increase in the family allowance supplement of $2 a week announced in the Budget. The family allowance supplement is going up to $24 a week. It is increasing by $3 a week for children aged 13 to 15 years. A great increase, $3 a week! It is pitiful when looked at in terms of the reality of market prices at present. Peter Saunders and Peter Whitford in their report entitled Ending Child Poverty: an assessment of the Government's family package stated that the only way that even indexation of payments to equal 15 per cent of the married rate for up to 13-year-olds would reduce poverty would be if the poverty line itself should fall due to declines in real per capita disposable income. We know how likely that is to happen. All the welfare agencies are unanimous in this regard. The 1985 Commission of Inquiry into Poverty noted: Inequalities of income and wealth reinforce and are reinforced by inequalities of education, health services, housing, employment and access to legal processes. It is this Government which is attacking the worst off in our society-the very people it is supposed to be championing. According to the Australian Council of Social Service, by the end of this year the effective 7 per cent inflation rate-which is what it will be-will mean that the supplement would have to increase by $1.55 to keep it at the real level. Therefore, the maximum real increase in payments to children under 13 years was the grand sum of about 45c per week. By the end of this financial year, family allowances will have fallen to two-thirds of their value at the time of the last increase, in November 1987. A family currently receiving $22 for one child should be receiving $33 now to have retained its real value. Of course, the loss of $10 escalates with each additional child. According to the Youth Affairs Council of Australia, the Government's August Budget has made it clear that young people are not a part of the social justice strategy and the employment training and housing assistance announced in the Budget did not help them. There were no increased opportunities for Australia's 100,000 unemployed. Programs for the long term unemployed-one of our main problems at present-basically ignore people under the age of 21 years. It is ludicrous to think that the family assistance package could in any way lessen the impact of the tax increase. It has been clearly pointed out that we would need an increase of $56 a week by 1 July next year just to restore incomes to what they were when this Government came to power. The Government will grab an additional 13.6 per cent in tax this year-in real terms-that is $5.7 billion. This is over and above the tax increase of 10 per cent last year. Individual taxpayers contribute 54 per cent of the revenue base compared to 52 per cent previously. In the space of three years the Government tax take from individuals has risen by more than 25 per cent in nominal terms. The Government is going to increase sales tax collections by 14.4 per cent this year-almost three times the forecast inflation rate. The sales tax rise of $1 billion this year will lift the Hawke Government's consumption tax-that is what it is-to $8.6 billion, which is 2 1/2 times higher than it was under the Fraser Government. But we must remember that this Government promised not to introduce a consumption tax. Further, I note that the sales tax take actually makes up 10 per cent of total government revenue, compared with 6 per cent under the Fraser Government. It is really affecting the kids, who are the ones who pay in this regard. I refer to those products which most kids like, such as orange juice, ice cream, flavoured milk and snack foods, which have been taxed for the first time by this Government. The Prime Minister's election campaign promise that by 1990 no Australian child would live in poverty has already been exposed for the farcical rhetoric it obviously was. He was forced to retract the statement less than a year later when he said, `How can I say that no child will live in poverty?' Even though the family assistance supplement has now been indexed, the Social Welfare Research Centre still believes that this will not be enough to remove all children from poverty by 1990. That is clearly the honest answer to the situation. The only people who benefit under this Government are, firstly, the rich mates who get the verbal wink and nod and are looked after, who have made themselves even richer at the expense of the poor in our society and, secondly, the unions, which are lining their own pockets with their restrictive practices and which are the main reason why productivity in this country is not able to be increased. There are a number of good, responsible unions that contribute to society in general and their members in particular, but they are very much a minority. If we do not fix up the problems which we are facing now, this country will keep on going down hill. The people who are suffering most under this Government are the ones who can least afford it-the worst off in our society, the poor and the underprivileged. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.45) —Obviously the Government totally disagrees with this motion and will not accept it. Before I defend our position, I would like to pick up a couple of points made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lowe (Dr Woods). In his closing remarks he talked about the tax regime, but he did not mention the fringe benefits tax or the capital gains tax, a few of the taxes we have brought in to make the tax system in this country decent and which those on his side of the House opposed all the way down the line. Of course, he did not mention what the Opposition was going to do with the upgraded tax file number, another innovation that this Government is bringing in to make sure that those people who do not pay tax, the so-called rich mates that we have got, will pay more tax. The Opposition fought the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the end of entertainment allowances all the way. Whom did those taxes hit? They did not hit the pensioners, sport; they hit the people with the rich mates. The honourable member talked about unions. Who was it who put up with the Builders Labourers Federation for seven years and did not do anything about it despite all the thuggery which went on? It was the Liberal Party. It was left to this Government to get rid of it. When the Opposition wants to talk about unions, it should look at its own record. The fact is that when it came to the crunch, it did nothing; it sat on its hands. Let me go to the motion before us. It is absolutely preposterous. The previous speaker spoke about the changes in the Government's policy and the effect they had on lifting people above the Henderson poverty line. But let us look at the family allowance supplement. The family allowance supplement for a family on average weekly earnings, with two adults and four children, two between the ages of 13 and 15, and renting privately, equals $41.50 a week. That is what this Government is giving a low income family that does not have its own home, and it is equivalent to a pay rise of $70.60. Let me give another example. The family allowance supplement for a family with three children, between the ages of nought and 12 and once again renting privately, some of the poorest people in our community, on 75 per cent of average weekly earnings, would be $67.60 a week, which is equivalent to a pay rise of $96.90. No wonder Bill Kelty was moved to say that the progress made under this Government would have taken at least 50 years for the trade unions to achieve. Yet the Opposition stands up in here today and talks about low family living standards. When we look at our record the simple fact is that we have looked after our traditional base and those people on low incomes. What would be the effect of the Opposition's policies? We will never find an Opposition spokesman, back bencher or party hack getting up in here and telling us what the Opposition is going to do. The reason the Opposition will not tell us is that, if the truth ever hit the light of day, it would lose even more seats in the next election. I want to quote from a paper prepared by the Legislative Research Service of the Parliament. These are not Australian Labor Party figures or the shonky $56 that the Opposition talks about; they were not arrived at through the same sort of arithmetic that the Opposition used to put its tax policy together last year. As I said, I am relying here on the Legislative Research Service of the Parliament. It has taken into account a number of assumptions in looking at the living standards and at the Opposition's wages policy. I will not read out all of those assumptions, but they are in line with the objective of the research. The results state: The above calculations, which build on material prepared by the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, show that the implementation of the Opposition's stated attitudes policies to the national wages cases between March 1983 and June 1988 would have led to a fall in living standards-- A fall in living standards, and these are the people who moved this motion today. Mr Cadman —Ah! Mr GEAR —That is right, the Opposition moved this motion today. Let us see how good the Opposition would have been by looking at its stated policies and press releases. If the Opposition was in government this is what would have happened to living standards: the paper mentions a fall of $132 a week for a single income family with a dependent spouse and two dependent children, where the income earner was a male full time employee on average weekly earnings. That is what the Opposition would have done. It would have ripped $132 a week out of that family's pockets. Mr Porter —Tell us the productivity assumption. Mr GEAR —They are not my figures. No wonder the Opposition is whingeing. It does not like the truth. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member for Barker has already spoken in the debate. Mr GEAR —Be couth. Let me have a go. I am telling honourable members what the Opposition would do. I know it embarrasses him but he has to listen to it. Mr Cadman —No wonder your price watch thing has gone mad. Mr GEAR —I will talk about price watch with the honourable member later. The Legislative Research Service goes on to say that a bloke with two kids would lose $132 under the Opposition. If we look at a two income household-mum and dad working with two dependent children-we see that under the Liberal Government they would lose $212. Yet honourable members opposite stand up here and try to tell us that living standards have gone down under this Government. The simple fact is that they have not. For people on low incomes they have actually gone up under this Government. I pity them if the Liberals ever get into government because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has told reporters that he will slash taxes. He will do this by cutting $15,000m of government revenue. If I were part of a family on low income getting the family assistance supplement, I would start to wonder where that money was coming from. We know where it will not come from because the Opposition looks after its mates in the Melbourne Club-all those people who have stuck by it all these years, God knows why. But certainly, if the Opposition is to take $15,000m out of spending, it will hit the people on very low incomes. Let us look at a few other things that the Government has done not only to lift living standards now but also to guarantee that in the future they will continue to rise. When looking at education one sees that under the Liberal Party the retention rate in our secondary schools was 36 per cent-as my colleague pointed out, one of the lowest in the world. Shame! Honourable members opposite should be ashamed. We now have over 50 per cent of young people finishing school. In the early 1990s we will have 65 per cent finishing school. I know that the honourable member for Barker finished secondary school. It was a private school and it was all paid for. But the simple fact is that people on low incomes, who were not getting through schools and were not able to make use of the education system to advance themselves, are doing it now. We will lift that figure to 65 per cent. In actual fact, we will double the Opposition's pathetic record. In the next three years we will put 40,000 new places in our universities. They can only come from one place. Only one group is presently under-represented in our higher education institutions and that is the people from working class families. The Toorak, North Shore and Peppermint Grove families of this world always get their kids into university. Mr Porter —That is why you have put fees on, is it? Mr GEAR —The honourable member opposite talks about fees. What is his position on fees? Once again we would not know. The fact is that the contribution that will be made by students will allow 40,000 more of them in. We think that is equitable. Mr Porter —No, it is not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will not interject. Mr GEAR —That is okay, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is more to be pitied than scorned. Let us look at health. Medicare saves the average family $21 a week and the Opposition would help the doctors' union destroy it. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Lowe, had the gall to talk about taxation. For seven years the top tax rate stood at 60c in the dollar. The whole time that the current Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer the top tax rate was 60c in the dollar; it is now 49c in the dollar. The Leader of the Opposition was happy to have 48c in the dollar. That was not good enough for us; we took it down to 40c in the dollar. More importantly-for people on low incomes-the lowest tax rate under the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer was 30c in the dollar; it is currently sitting at 24c. When one looks at the record on taxation, as on many other issues, one sees that this Government has delivered. It does not talk about cutting taxes; it actually does it. The `gunnas' over there-`we're gunna do this, we're gunna do that'-never get around to it. They are world beaters in Opposition, but put them on this side of the House and all of a sudden they drop the footy. They cannot go on with it. I conclude by saying that under this Government the living standards of the poorest of Australians have been lifted substantially. The future living standards for Australians have been enhanced by the policies we have introduced, such as the massive restructuring that is currently taking place in industry, in the awards, in unions, and across the education spectrum. Over time, the living standards of Australians will be very much better as a result of their good choice in electing this Government three times. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.54) —It has been very interesting indeed to listen to earlier speakers from the Government side in this debate. I am rather dismayed by their attitudes and the line they have taken. As one of the previous Opposition speakers said, `There are lies, damned lies and statistics'. Of course, this was first said by Benjamin Disraeli. What we have seen coming from the Government benches is just one example after another of the truth of that statement. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) spoke about the tax file number and implied that we were in the wrong for being somewhat hesitant. All I can say on that is that the people of Australia do not want an identity card; they do not want a back door Bill of Rights; they do not want a back door identity card introduced by a tax file number. We, on this side of the House, are totally dedicated to the proposition that tax fraud and tax cheating must be eliminated but we are not prepared to do that at the cost of personal liberty. The honourable member for Canning also spoke about the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. He said that these had no adverse impact on pensioners or the poor. How wrong he is. It is just another illustration of how out of touch the members and Ministers of this Government are with the ordinary Australians. The fringe benefits tax affects the price of every product sold in this country, and the price paid by every pensioner and every person in this country. The honourable member for Canning said that this Government was looking after its traditional base. The evidence from right around Australia speaks for itself. The traditional base of the Labor Party has had enough. That was demonstrated in the by-elections in Oxley, Groom, Adelaide and Port Adelaide; the New South Wales election; and on 3 September when the four referenda questions were totally thrown out not by Liberal Party or National Party voters but by Labor Party voters who had had enough and were fed up. They know that the silvertail Government of Old Silver is out of touch with the people of Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Cowper will address members by their proper titles. That applies to all honourable members in the chamber. Mr NEHL —I will certainly continue to do so. The honourable member for Canning also spoke about taxation. He tried to indulge in an exhibition of pride in what his Government has done with taxation but the whole of Australia-in fact, the whole world-knows that this is the highest taxing government this country has ever had. We all know that. We are talking about the family package and child poverty. We all know that famous statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that no Australian child will be living in poverty by 1990. I will let the Government know, because it has obviously forgotten it, that 1990 is only 14 months away. The people of Australia know that but I do not think the Government knows it. It still has approximately 400,000 children living in poverty. But the Prime Minister says that, by 1990-14 months to go-it will have been eliminated. An article in the ASW Impact of May 1988 states: But what is clear so far is that the package- that is, the family package- has gone a little less than half way to meet the Prime Minister's goal of eliminating the need for children to live in poverty. Unfortunately and regrettably there is no way that that goal will be achieved in that time by this Government. I do not believe it really cares. The honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) spoke with the usual pride of the Government about the number of jobs it created. I can accept that it will take that sort of action but the reality is that jobs are self-generating and that the economic policies are important for getting jobs in place. So the Government can take that pride. It has forgotten, because it is out of touch, that unemployment is still stuck at between 7 1/2 per cent and 7.8 per cent and that there are still 10 unemployed people for every job vacancy in this country. Worse still, when we consider the situation of the men and women in this country who are long term unemployed, we see that the mean duration for that unemployed period was 33 weeks in 1982 before Labor came to office and is now 66 weeks. So for a long term unemployed person the average is 66 weeks. That is very unfortunate indeed. I find it interesting that Government members come into this chamber and talk about taxation rates. How is it that the workers' friend Government has reduced company tax for its big mates-not its little mates-to 39 per cent and the top rate for individual personal tax is still 49 per cent? It does not ring true. There has been a lot of talk about tax cuts, but when are they coming? For a whole year tax cuts have been floated like balloons; they have gone up and down like kites. Yet, in reality, the people of Australia are being hit harder by insidious back door taxation the whole time. Stamps and telephone charges are just two of the things that affect ordinary people, people living in poverty and pensioners. Even though Telecom Australia announced on 12 October an operating profit for 1987-88 of $777m, which was almost double the result for 1986-87, local telephone calls will go up another cent to 21c from 1 November. That followed a 2c local call charge increase last year. Directory assistance fees will be increased from 21c to 63c; and so it goes on. Australia Post has just whacked up the cost of local postage stamps by 2c-from 37c to 39c. These are little things that affect every Australian, especially every pensioner; yet the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that more competitive pressure will be applied to the operations of the Australian Telecommunications Commission to `provide better and cheaper services to business and consumers'. That was only in the May 1988 mini-Budget speech. I will quote him again-`provide better and cheaper services to business and consumers'. But the consumers are not getting any better service and they are not getting any cheaper service either. I think it is significant that total sales tax revenue in 1988-89 will increase by 14.4 per cent to $1,083m. A sales tax is imposed on the goods that people buy and the inflation rate, which is sending up the prices of ordinary, everyday products all the time, is having an impact on the pensioners and poor people of Australia. This Government-the Government of Mr Hawke and Mr Keating -is out of touch with what is happening to ordinary people in Australia. Road funding has been slashed. Everybody in local government knows that the funding for local government has been slashed as well. The honourable member for Phillip made some references to the Opposition indulging in scare tactics. We do not have to scare anybody. The people of Australia who see what is being done to them by the Hawke-Keating Government are scared in their own right. They do not need us to scare them. The honourable member for Phillip mentioned scare tactics on pensioners. Honourable members should consider for one second what happened before the Victorian election. We had the imposition of retrospectivity in terms of investments by pensioners, and they were right to be scared about that. In a blatant, cynical political exercise just before the Victorian election, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Government backed away from it. If the Victorian election had not been held, they would not have done so. But it was a cynical and blatant exercise in political pork-barrelling just to try to win votes. We on this side of the House do not have to scare people. The people of Australia know what is happening and, as will be found out at the next Federal election, the people of Australia will speak up, saying, `Goodbye, Mr Hawke'. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde)(11.06) —I rise to oppose the motion and suggest that much of what we have heard here today is simply a continuation of scaremongering. The Opposition has failed to provide any strategy or overall policy as an alternative to what is currently being done by the Government. As honourable members will be well aware, the Government has in place a social justice strategy which underpins all these programs. Member of the Opposition have just failed to look at that strategy in any way and see it as a total policy program. Hence, when they start singling out a piece of a program here and there, they make some very invalid assumptions. The honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) has already referred to the Bettina Cass reviews. In those reviews Bettina Cass has targeted those groups in our community which, we acknowledge, sadly have been the poorest but which have been best met through the programs which we, as a Government, have developed specifically to target their needs. One of those programs is the family assistance package. That is very definitely part of a social justice strategy in which we have seen the fringe benefits tax redistributed to the needy families in our community. Who shouted loudly about fringe benefits tax? Who screamed when their money was to be taken away and given to families? Of course it was members of the Opposition. They know that money for families and money for the poor must come from somewhere. They say that it should not come out of their pockets. We, as a Government, are committed to that. We see family needs first and so we pursued the family assistance package. Honourable members should ask those who receive $40 or $50 a week for their families about what difference it has made to their lives and the lives of their children. I can cite numbers of cases from my own electorate office. I meet people every day who tell me about the kind of difference and the relief which the provision of that amount of money has made. We are also attempting to tackle children and families in poverty through the Child Support Bill. One of the most shameful social problems in this country has been the putting of children into poverty through family separation. We know that the majority of the supporting parent families are led by women. Women and children are being placed into poverty not only through marital breakup but also through the failure of their spouses to contribute to the support of their children. For too long 75 per cent of those people who have had maintenance orders brought down against them in the Family Court have failed to pay. They have simply walked away from their obligations. That is why many of our children and families are in poverty. What has this Government done? It has taken a very large step to ensure that the people who have children are made responsible for their maintenance. Hence, we have seen the introduction of the Child Support Bill and the Child Support Agency this year, in June, and its expansion into stage 2. It is obvious that many of our children and many of our families will benefit from that. We are hopeful that, through adequate maintenance repayments, the very vicious cycle of poverty will be avoided. Another reality in Australia in 1988 for those who are poor is the need for employment. We know that many of our poorest people are those who are unemployed. This Government has been responsible for the creation of over a million jobs. It has also been responsible, in conjunction with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, for planning a long term strategy for the development of the manufacturing industry in Australia through the Australia Reconstructed program. The Opposition does not like the fact that this Government can work with unions, can get something done and be constructive, and that together we can go ahead and develop industry in this country. That is what brings about changes for families. That is what brings about the creation of a million jobs, not the kinds of destructive confrontationist programs which the Opposition implemented in government. Other major labour market programs currently within the community through the traineeship programs and other training programs are also cooperative. Industry training councils; the Government, through its Department of Employment, Education and Training and the Commonwealth Employment Service offices; and private enterprise combine to offer realistic skills training for the unemployed, and then offer them employment in markets and areas where there are skill shortages. All of those families and individuals are helped by those labour market programs. The cooperation of industry and government yet again brings this about and acknowledges that we need to work together to overcome the problems of poverty and the lack of skills training in the community. Not once have we heard the Opposition address such a problem. Members of the Opposition are not interested in working with unions or in working with the Business Council of Australia. The Business Council has already made a commitment to attempt to restructure industry and to talk about retraining. The Opposition is not interested in that. The Government cooperates and works together to ensure that the goals we have to remove children from poverty by 1990 can be realistically attained. Another way in which this is happening is through the education system. The House has heard the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) talk about school retention rates. How else will we have a skilled and trained work force if our school children do not stay on at school? They are the very children who are doomed to poverty and to unemployment if they are not trained properly. One way of keeping them at school is our Austudy payment of $50 a week. Are members of the Opposition going to tell me that any family in this country will turn down $50 a week for its children to stay on at school years 11 and 12? Nonsense! That is what reducing poverty in this country and in families is about-ensuring that everybody, not just the rich and not just those children whose parents can pay, can stay on at school, have the benefits of education and not be doomed to unemployment. As honourable members may realise, the Austudy amount will rise to $80 a week from 1 January. Any family would welcome such moneys to enable it to ensure that its children have an opportunity to participate in the wealth and resources of this country. The program for 1989 will ensure that a further 48,000 students will receive Austudy payments. That is real money, cash in hand, to enable families to ensure that their children can participate in school programs. It is nonsense to suggest that this Government is not concerned with families and with youth. One of the other ways in which we have seen an expansion of programs and opportunities is the expansion of higher education. The honourable member for Canning has already talked about an expansion of 40,000 places in tertiary education. Who in the past did not have an opportunity to participate in those places? It was the children from working class families because their parents could not afford it and the available places were always automatically taken by those who could afford it. We will have not only an expansion of places but also an expansion of income which will enable people to participate in the education programs and to move into a much expanded work force-those million jobs we have talked about. They will be assisted by the kinds of payments that are made to families, the family assistance supplement and the child support. People have talked about the need for housing. In my own electorate the housing situation is desperate. However, I remind the House that public housing in this country is the prerogative of State governments and one needs to look at the work they have been doing. In my own area the State Government has failed miserably to provide a public housing sector which adequately meets our needs. Let us be very sure about where the responsibility for government lies and where the responsibility for care of families and families in poverty is. Let us remember that this Government has a commitment, through its social justice strategy, to ensure that the needs of all families and all children will be met, that redistribution of income will occur and that all will be able to participate in the resources and the values of this country. All families and children will be raised out of poverty and opportunity will not be the prerogative of the rich. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(11.15) —We are debating this morning a motion by my colleague the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) which in part states: . . . 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 . . . It is to that part of the motion that I want to focus my attention in the minutes available to me in this debate. Australian families face a hostile economic environment and a hostile tax and social security environment. Indeed, those who would have Australia's families face that environment and decide not to have families. The crisis confronting this country is sometimes described as being a consequence of the ageing of the population. That ageing is coming about today largely because of the hostile environment which confronts families or those who would have children if they believed they could give those children a fair start in life, if they believed they could economically afford to maintain them. To illustrate the point, I draw attention to the fact that if the fertility rates or birth rates applicable in Australia in 1966 had continued until 1986, Australia's population today would be 18.5 million instead of 16 million. Our aged population would be 9 per cent of our population instead of 10.5 per cent. This change in our birth rate, this dramatic decline in the number of children being born, is a consequence of the inadequacies of the Government's tax and social security policies as they impact upon families. I shall illustrate again the dramatic consequences which could face this country by drawing on an illustration I gave in a speech earlier this week. I took that illustration from West Germany. West Germany today is on a course that yields fewer than 1.3 children per woman in the course of her lifetime. Recent demographic projections show that if that rate continues, it will reduce the West German population from 60 million to 50 million by the year 2000 and down to 16 million by the end of the next century. That is a drop in population over 120 years from 60 million to 16 million. That is the implication facing this country and we must ask ourselves why it is that young Australian couples who would wish to have children are choosing not to do so. One of the significant reasons for that is the hostile economic environment created by this Government. Since this Government came to office it has failed to index the family allowance; it has failed to index the spouse rebate; and Australian families have been confronted with very high interest rates. Government speakers have said that the Government introduced the family assistance supplement. That is true. That is helping those in need. However, it is resulting in the Government's becoming blind to the real needs of Australian families as a whole. Of course we must help families in need but if they are helped in a way which puts even greater pressure on families in general, more of the families in general will become families in need and more of the families will have fewer children than they would otherwise have had and we will face an ageing population and a social security crisis as a consequence of the added cost of providing for retirees. I believe the Opposition parties are quite right in bringing to the attention of this House the crisis that is facing Australian families. It is a crisis that results from the fact that through the social security system and the tax system we make totally inadequate provision for children-for all children, not just the children who are in poor families. We claim that we have a taxation system that has as one of its underlying principles the capacity to pay. What we have not done is properly define the concept of capacity to pay. It appears that the Labor Party believes that capacity to pay is a function of income, and only a function of income. It believes that if a person has a higher income, he should pay more tax-more cents in the dollar, and cents in respect of all those additional dollars. That is a progressive tax system. It has a lot of disadvantages. It takes away incentives as people move from one tax bracket to another; as Australian families on average weekly earnings have moved, because of the inadequacies of the present Government, from a 30c rate to a 40c rate. When the Labor Party came to office 5 1/2 years ago the average weekly earner was paying a marginal tax rate of 30c in the dollar because average weekly earnings were less than $19,500. That was the point at which the tax rate rose from 30c in the dollar to 40c. Has that threshold been altered? No. The Government has used bracket creep. As wages rose, the level at which the 40c rate was levied was maintained as it was in money terms. We find today that the great majority of the full time work force are now paying a marginal rate of tax of 40c in the dollar whereas when Labor came to office they were paying 30c in the dollar. A large proportion of members in the full time work force are supporting families. A large proportion of those families are single-income families. As a consequence of the failure to index the tax-free threshold and to adjust the threshold at which a taxpayer moves from 30c in the dollar to 40c, single-income families on average weekly earnings are now paying substantially more than $10 a week more in tax than are two-income families with the same household income. Furthermore, I emphasise again that single-income families have received no adjustment in the family allowances to which they have been entitled. The same money amount is being paid as was being paid when Labor came to office. In these circumstances, how can Labor argue that it is concerned about Australian families, that it is concerned about the future of our overall population? In fact, the Labor Party's approach to the average Australian family is to treat the children as though they were the indulgence of parents; to treat the children as playthings; to treat the children as consumption goods-to be paid for by the family that chooses to have them. I do not believe that any taxation policy that merely selects income as the criterion for determining capacity to pay is equitable or fair. It is my view that a taxation system properly reflects capacity to pay only when it takes into account not only the income of the household in which the taxpayer is living as well as that person's individual income, but also the cost of supporting those who are dependent upon that income-the dependent spouse or dependent children. The tax system should make an allowance to taxpayers for the support of dependants no less than the allowance that the public sector would provide for those dependants if the taxpayer defaulted or, for some other reason, ceased to take responsibility for those children or for that dependent spouse. For to do otherwise is to have a tax and social security system that will inevitably influence social behaviour. The Labor Party then comes along and says `Look, we have made some reforms in the maintenance collection area'. That is true, and to some extent the Labor Party should be commended for doing so. But it has made those reforms in such a way as to penalise the intact family while assisting the separated family. The formula that the Labor Government is going to apply means that the average Australian intact family, which is getting a modest, meagre or mean allowance for the support of children through the family allowance system, will go on paying higher taxes while the children of the principal income earner of the separated family, the non-custodial parent, with an income in excess of $34,000, will still receive additional benefits. His children will be getting additional benefits over and above the benefits that would be paid to an intact family supporting the same number of children. So, I think that the whole taxation system needs to be reviewed. The concept of capacity to pay needs to be analysed. This Government has punished Australian families. It has pretended it is doing something by assisting those who have not been able to cope because of the punishment meted out by a hostile tax and social security system linked in with an economic environment which has caused the price of the family home, whether in the rental area or as a consequence of high interests rates, to rise. I believe that the Liberal and National parties are absolutely justified in drawing the attention of this House to the desperate plight of Australian families. We are correct in urging that the Government take some action. I am sure that when the Liberal and National parties' policies in this area are fully developed, they will take account of the needs of Australian families. It is my hope that they will propose substantial and radical reform to acknowledge the fact that children are people, that children are the future of the nation. We do not want to be subject to the charge of ignoring the views that have been put to us. What kind of a spirit is there in a society that does not even have the gumption or interest to reproduce itself. I believe that Australians do have that gumption, interest and concern. Increasingly, that concern is being reflected by people recognising that the existing family allowance supplement scheme is totally inadequate, that the taxation system is totally unfair to Australian families and to taxpayers who are supporting dependants. There needs to be a substantial increase in the spouse rebate and substantial increases in the family allowances for all families. Those who may be regarded as income rich families today can tomorrow easily be the income poor whom the system then has to assist. It would be much better if we, as a community, recognised that children are people, that children supported by private citizens, by Australian families, need as much support through tax relief and cash family allowances as they would receive if they were abandoned or, as a consequence of family breakdown, were looked after by a supporting parent with no other source of income who was dependent upon the public sector. The Australian Labor Party has failed Australian families and its policies make it quite clear that it does not have any vision for the needs of those families or of the needs of the future of the nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. 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. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr HEWSON —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr HEWSON —I seek to add to a personal explanation which I gave yesterday in the House in relation to an attack on me in the Senate by Senator Walsh. Having read the Hansard copy, I see that I said: I resigned my directorship and all links with Macquarie Bank Ltd effective on 6 October last year and I notified the registrar of members' interests under the normal parliamentary procedure in relation to that resignation. I am concerned that that statement might be misunderstood. What I sought to emphasise was that I had observed the normal parliamentary procedure in relation to my personal interests. As my first statement of members' interests was dated 12 October 1987 and received on 13 October 1987, some seven days after I had resigned as a director of Macquarie Bank Ltd, there was no need to declare in that statement the Macquarie Bank directorship or that it had been terminated. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(11.32) —I move: That this House recognises- (1) that the question of human rights is a legitimate international concern, transcending national boundaries and rejects attempts to describe a concern for abuses of human rights as interference in the internal affairs of other states; and (2) the contribution made by Amnesty International in defending human rights around the world. Mr Deputy Speaker, my motion will be seconded in due course by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). I might say, before I begin to comment on the substantive terms of the motion before the House, that this motion is being moved as private members' business. It is a credit to the Parliament that, since the adoption of revised Standing Orders, there is increased opportunity for back bench members to bring private business before the House. It is a very welcome development and one which we ought to develop further in the years ahead, because I believe-and I am confident that the other speakers participating in the debate on this motion share the view-that Parliament needs to roll back the power of the Executive and to make this forum and this place more vital and fundamental to the workings of parliamentary democracy. Mr Deputy Speaker, having said that, I turn my attention to the motion before honourable members. What it first of all seeks to do is to restate what is, in my view and the view, I am sure, of my fellow speakers, a quite undeniable proposition. That is that no longer can any country claim that issues of human rights are not of international concern. The Australian Parliament has, of course, long taken an interest in human rights concerns. In the course of my informal remarks, I shall draw attention to some of the experiences of Australian members of Parliament in defending the cause of human rights. We have in this Parliament an institution which is by world standards regrettably unique. I refer to the Parliamentary group of Amnesty International. That group has among its members almost two-thirds of the members of the Australian Parliament. It operates without regard to ideology and includes among its members representatives of all the political parties represented in the Australian Parliament as well as the independents and has as its patrons the holders of the offices of Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the National Party and Leader of the Australian Democrats. Importantly, that organisation has sought by its work to influence the Executive Government of the country into changing its policies with respect to the defence of human rights. I am very proud to record that the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, his successor, Senator Gareth Evans, and the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), have all agreed to give support to the work of the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International in a very tangible way and in a way which falls squarely within the substance of the motion that I have moved today. What the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International does is take up every single case of urgent action called on by Amnesty International in London. That means that, wherever Amnesty is concerned about an imminent execution, about the persecution, gaoling and potential torture of someone merely because of racial origin, his ethnic beliefs or his political beliefs, it sends out a message to the world calling on people who are supporters of Amnesty to apply pressure to those errant governments responsible for that inhumane treatment of our fellow human beings. What we are doing in Australia is sending that information to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade under the hand of the Chairman and Secretary of the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty. That Department then takes up every single case of urgent action that is put to it by the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty. I ask honourable members to think of the implications for the world if that model of action were followed in other countries. What it means is that Australian diplomatic representatives are knocking on doors and are taking up in a very direct and hands-on way those violations of human rights as they appear around the world. That is unprecedented-unprecedented-in the history of the world. What I say is that it provides a model for action for other governments. At the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, which was held in Canberra only a few weeks ago, a special session was devoted to the work of the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International. I am pleased to report that there were very positive signs from a number of parliamentarians from a range of governments, but particularly New Zealand, which indicated some hope that New Zealand might be able to be moved towards adopting a similar approach. Now, if that happens and if we spread that model for action, what we will have is a coordinated and bipartisan approach from a whole range of countries around the world applying that diplomatic pressure on those errant governments and, I believe, effectively able to secure the release of prisoners of conscience. Mr Deputy Speaker, as members of parliament, my colleagues and I are privileged people. We are privileged because we get the opportunity to travel, to represent our Parliament and sometimes our Government in foreign countries. We can see at first hand what political repression really means. Until one has seen what occurs in a number of countries, until one really starts to understand the misery, the repression and discrimination that people feel, one cannot really be an effective campaigner for human rights. Indeed, we from Australia perhaps can never understand the brutality of repression as do those who are the direct subject of repression. Let me recount a couple of experiences that I have been able to observe and which have influenced my life. Firstly, as a representative of the Australian Parliament in a parliamentary delegation to the Soviet Union in 1986, together with representatives of the Opposition parties, led by Madam Speaker, I and others in that delegation had an opportunity to meet with the only people, so far as I am aware, in the Soviet Union who demonstrated in support of a moratorium on nuclear reactor construction following the tragic Chernobyl accident. Their only crime was to have a peaceful protest in opposition to further reactors until there was a broad inquiry. Some of them were gaoled because they simply took up that concern. I was able to see the incredible courage of those people who were prepared to put their necks on the line and suffered greatly as a result. Recently I had an opportunity to visit Singapore and Malaysia, again on a parliamentary delegation. I attended the Parliament in Malaysia and was privileged to stand beside the seat of my friend Karpal Singh, who is currently in detention under the Malaysian Internal Security Act. That is an experience I will remember all my life. He is one of dozens of people, prisoners of conscience, who are imprisoned by the Malaysian Government. Their only crime, according to Amnesty International, was to dissent from the views of the government of the day. The case of Malaysia is being raised not to single out Malaysia, because it is one of over half the countries in the world that violate the principles of Amnesty International, but for two reasons: firstly, because it is one of our regional neighbours and for that reason we ought to take a special interest in it; and secondly, because Malaysia dares to say that principles and concerns about human rights are purely a matter of the domestic concern of the Malaysian Government. I say to Malaysia that that is an absolutely untenable proposition. People in Malaysia who are rotting in Malaysian gaols as prisoners of conscience are a global concern. I say to Malaysia that the pressure will not stop until such time as those prisoners of conscience are released. I now turn my attention to the broader question of the role of Amnesty International. I would not want it to be thought that Amnesty International is about parliamentarians. It is not. Amnesty International is about mobilising people around the world to show active support for their fellow human beings. Amnesty is based on local groups which write letters expressing concern about the continued detention of prisoners of conscience. If two-thirds of the members of the Australian Parliament, ranging across the political spectrum, can give their support to that cause I say to the people of Australia, `We as a nation of citizens can do a lot more to mobilise and support the cause of human rights'. Regrettably, Amnesty International in Australia is a relatively small organisation. It is growing, it has a great deal of support in some quarters, but it could increase its work and its effectiveness a hundredfold if all the people listening to this parliamentary broadcast who have a commitment to principles of justice joined Amnesty International and gave their support to the principles of that very great organisation. If people want to learn more about Amnesty International they should look at the most recent edition of Time magazine, dated 17 October, where there is a cover story about the work of Amnesty. It talks about the global tour of a number of the world's great pop and rock stars, who are travelling the world singing the praises of Amnesty International and trying to motivate people to give support to that organisation. I call on people in Australia to mobilise and give their support to the work of Amnesty. There are two other things I wish to say in this debate. Firstly, although Amnesty does not concern itself with human rights in the country in which a group operates, I as a parliamentarian, speaking in my private capacity, am not so constrained. For that reason I wish to say that if Australia tells the rest of the world that issues of human rights are a global concern then we too must acknowledge that the human rights of Aboriginal Australians are equally of international concern. I believe it is to the credit of successive national governments of all political parties that they have been prepared to answer to the world for the human rights of Aboriginal and Islander Australians. I know that Aboriginal representatives, with the tacit support, or at worst acquiescence, of successive governments have taken the case of injustice to United Nations forums and no doubt will continue to do so. I say in relation to this matter, and I have said it before, that the world is watching us just as much as we are committed to raising concerns of human rights in other parts of the world. Secondly, I want to raise in this debate about human rights something that is entirely unrehearsed and for which I am not at all prepared but which, in all the circumstances, I believe is a very appropriate matter to raise in the course of this debate. I will soon be followed by the honourable member for Dundas. In relation to human rights questions the issue of discrimination is of the essence. It is absolutely central to concerns about violations of human rights around the world. In this chamber the honourable member for Dundas displayed enormous personal and political courage in taking a stand in relation to matters of discrimination. He deserves the recognition and support not only of the Parliament but of his fellow Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is the motion seconded? Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.47) —I second the motion, and it is with a great deal of pleasure on my part that I do so. I am somewhat embarrassed by the comments of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), who preceded me. Very often people comment outside the Parliament about how infrequently they hear debates in which there is general agreement on both sides of the Parliament and commendation of people on the other side from the side upon which the speaker sits. I thank the honourable member for Hughes for his personal comments relating to me. It perhaps inhibits me somewhat in terms of the comments that I was about to make about him. In a real sense people might think that we got together and had a unity ticket to work out what nice things we would say about each other. It is totally unrehearsed and the remarks he made were unexpected. It ought to be noted, in relation to the debate we are having about human rights and the comments that were made about the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International, that the honourable member for Hughes failed to mention that he is the Chairman of the Parliamentary of Amnesty International Group. He is one whose activities I greatly admire and respect. Again, I offer my personal commendation to him today in moving this motion and giving me the opportunity to second it. I hope in due course that the Parliament passes it. The motion deals with two matters, the first being the question of human rights. It makes the point that it is a legitimate international concern which transcends national boundaries and that we as a parliament should reject attempts to describe the concern for abuses of human rights as an interference in the internal affairs of other states. Those of us who have an interest in human rights questions know that all too frequently it is assumed that countries can determine the way in which their populations will be dealt with without being judged by the international community. I do not think there is any basis upon which a country can determine of itself, without international sanction, a framework of law or a framework without law which denies to individuals within that country basic and fundamental human rights which have been described in international documents, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I do not think there is any basis upon which governments can simply thumb their nose at the rest of the world and say, `You have no capacity to influence the circumstances, the course of events, in our country'. One of the organisations which have made a great impact and which the motion commends is Amnesty International. It is appropriate in this debate to put on record what the Amnesty statute says about human rights. It is appropriate to do so in this year which is the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I will read the objectives of Amnesty so that those who are listening to this debate and those who read about it will know what it is concerned about: OBJECT 1. CONSIDERING that every person has the right freely to hold and to express his or her convictions and the obligation to extend a like freedom to others, the object of AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL shall be to secure throughout the world the observance of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by: (a) irrespective of political considerations working towards the release of and providing assistance to persons who in violation of the aforesaid provisions are imprisoned, detained or otherwise physically restricted by reason of their political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs or by reason of their ethnic origin, sex, colour or language, provided that they have not used or advocated violence- those people are referred to as `prisoners of conscience'- (b) opposing by all appropriate means the detention of any prisoners of conscience or any political prisoners without trial within a reasonable time or any trial procedures relating to such prisoners that do not conform to internationally recognized norms; (c) opposing by all appropriate means the imposition and infliction of death penalties and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners or other detained or restricted persons whether or not they have used or advocated violence. In Australia we make assumptions about the freedoms that we enjoy but, at the time we are celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in an enormous number of countries people are imprisoned, people die by state imposed penalty and others have their lives taken illegally. Since the founding of Amnesty International there have been about 30,000 individual prisoners of conscience. Amnesty has been able to close some 27,352 of those files. Currently there are 3,126 cases open, including 711 added since 1 January this year. Amnesty International is a small organisation. It has grown since 1961 when a gentleman by the name of Peter Benenson read about the sentencing of two Portuguese students whose crime had been to drink a toast to freedom in the darkest days of the Salazar regime. Realising that throughout the world there were thousands of people similarly imprisoned and tortured, he took up this matter. With some colleagues he published an advertisement in a London newspaper drawing attention to the fate of eight men imprisoned for their beliefs-the forgotten prisoners. Those eight included Agostino Neto, a poet who was to become the first President of independent Angola; Ashton James, an American minister and civil rights campaigner; Peter Duncan-perhaps the Minister for Employment and Education Services knew that I was about to say his name, but it was another Peter Duncan-a South African anti-apartheid activist; and Cardinal Mindszenty, the Catholic Primate of Hungary. That was the quality of the prisoners to whom Peter Benenson drew attention. An organisation that started off in 1962 with a budget of $17,000 has ballooned now to an organisation with a budget of $43m. The most remarkable fact about that budget is that it is not contributed to by governments. In other words, even if the Australian Government determined that it would make a grant to that organisation, it would not receive it. Seventy per cent of its funds come from individual contributions-a $25 fee which half the members of this Parliament pay. The remainder comes from international foundations and institutions. The organisation won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. It now has an organisational membership of some 700,000 people in over 150 countries. This most commendable organisation is one with which members of this Parliament are associated and, I think, keenly associated. I belong and contribute to it fully and actively because I believe in what it is about. I do so proudly as an Australian member of parliament in the knowledge that few issues are ever raised about human rights questions in Australia. If substantial issues were to arise about Australia I could not, in all honesty, be associated with the organisation. To those who are listening to this debate, to those who will read about it and therefore learn of this motion, I commend Amnesty International to them. In commending this motion to the Parliament I encourage the Australian community at large to associate with it and to work for its objectives. In doing so it is working for fundamental human rights, regardless of people's political views-whether their views are of the Right or the Left-and for the basic and fundamental freedoms which ordinary human beings ought to be able to enjoy, as we in this country enjoy. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(11.57) —I feel privileged to follow the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) in this debate. The words `freedom' and `democracy' flow easily from the tongue. We accept those principles readily in Australia, but they are much more difficult to achieve in practice. They are under great threat at all times, especially in totalitarian regimes. Immediately after the Second World War there was great enthusiasm for an end to barbarianism. As has been pointed out, this year we celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After the Second World War we wrote into international law a new principle. It was that the individual human being has the right to be protected by the international community. And so it was that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights-a 30-article document-was endorsed thoroughly, although not always observed, by all the 159 members of the United Nations. We must recognise that there has been great progress in codifying standards of human rights in international instruments such as, as I have said, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 40 years ago; the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol of 1966; and the Convention against Torture, Other Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Reams and reams of paper mean nothing. It must be a matter of res non verba-deeds not words. Yet, as Amnesty International reported in its 1988 annual report, which was launched in Sydney two weeks ago by Justice Elizabeth Evatt, many governments continue to deny their citizens fundamental rights and treat demands for them as subversive. According to the report, 135 countries were guilty of human rights abuses last year-the highest number in 27 years of existence of Amnesty International. The report stated: In at least half the countries of the world people are locked away for speaking their minds, often after trials that are no more than a sham. In at least a third of the world's nations, men, women and even children are tortured. In scores of countries, governments pursue their goals by kidnapping and murdering their own citizens. This should not be taken lightly. We should keep in mind that even democracies where respect for the rule of law is taken for granted can run into trouble. It is not just the Romanias, Chiles, Cubas and South Africas of this world that need monitoring. We need to look at ourselves. No country should be able to avoid scrutiny. The situation is dismal. There is still a long way to go. Some member states of the United Nations have not yet demonstrated their commitment to the international protection of human rights by acceding to the covenants that would bind them in law to protect the rights they claim to respect. Among these countries are two permanent members of the Security Council, the United States and the People's Republic of China. Only 39 states have ratified the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which allows individuals to have complaints heard by the Human Rights Committee. Among those countries which have not ratified the protocol are states whose nationals are currently serving as members of the Human Rights Committee, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom. Here in Australia we have not carried through our legal responsibilities. When this Government attempted to codify the rights in a Bill of Rights, the Opposition organised against it and gunned it down. This is a bipartisan debate so I will not go any further, except to point out that it is a matter of bipartisanship abroad but not at home. It should be noted that recently the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia advised us that he had changed his mind and that there was a strong case for and value in enshrining these universal rights in law in Australia. Recently we had a referendum in this country. One of the questions put to the people was on religious freedom. That was defeated. We must ask ourselves and our community whether we are fair dinkum or whether the rules that we ascribe to and support internationally are for other countries only and not for home. The greatest weapon that the international community has is to publicise instances of violations of human rights to expose the guilty governments to the glare of international publicity. Compared with 40 years ago, we now have world-wide coverage by television. This has given the public first hand pictures, unheard of when the United Nations Declaration first came about. Publicity and work by relief agencies in human rights have exposed violations. What has been the response from governments around the world? Even the most repressive regimes are sensitive to criticism. Sometimes they modify their behaviour towards particular political prisoners. However, sadly, the most usual response by these governments is to become more secretive, to close the information channels and to attack those people who criticise them by accusing them of acting against the national interest. Amnesty International is hated by some governments for exposing violations. These governments accuse the organisation of being blatantly interfering. As the honourable member for Dundas pointed out, the record of Amnesty International is extremely sound. It has stuck to a policy of impartiality. No action can be taken by an Amnesty International group in its own country. Amnesty International adopts prisoners from communist, non-communist and non-aligned countries. There are no partisan politics in Amnesty International because it is based on a belief in universal human rights. Jack Healey, the executive director of Amnesty International in the United States and the mastermind behind the organisation's Human Rights Now! tour, summed it up well when he said that the work of Amnesty International is one of building moral outrage. He speaks for the ordinary person when he says: We want a world without torture, without killings . . . the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is our Magna Carta. It is not just a piece of paper; it's a fighting instrument. To governments we simply say, `behave, implement this document, restore a world of justice. If you don't we the non-violent are coming'. That Amnesty International tour is about raising consciousness. It will be coming to Australia. As the honourable member for Dundas pointed out, Peter Benenson started Amnesty International in the early 1960s and 15 years later this growing organisation was able to boast that it had become so effective in its contribution towards political freedoms that it was awarded the Nobel Prize. A further 12 years later Amnesty International can claim a membership of 700,000 in more than 150 countries. As the honourable member for Hughes pointed out, we have a branch of Amnesty International in this Parliament. It is a unique branch-a parliamentary group. I am very proud to be a founder member and founding secretary of that branch. Still, we are the only parliamentary group. I hope that the efforts made by the honourable member for Hughes at the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference come good. I want to relate an incident when the honourable member for Dundas and I approached the Soviet Embassy here in Canberra on behalf of Amnesty International. We were making representations on behalf of a detained Ukrainian Roman Catholic priest who had been incarcerated simply for organising religious ceremonies. The response to our petition was that the priest's activities were seen as an anti-government, subversive act. The response was a rejection of Amnesty International as unreliable and our claims as bordering on misrepresentation. Our action was found to be offensive. It was seen as interfering. We were told, `You would not like it to happen in your country, would you.' Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(12.07) —I 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. A myth which has been allowed to gain the status of a truth in Australia since the late 1940s is that public enterprise is inferior to private enterprise and that those people who work in public enterprise are less productive and lack the initiative of private enterprise employees. In a mixed economy system such as that of Australia neither the public sector nor the private sector should be considered as inferior to the other because each is dependent upon the other and each has an important role to play in our economic system. The fact is, of course, that the public sector is not inferior to the private sector and, as my motion recognises, significant contributions have been made by, for example, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Telecom Australia, Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines in the development of Australia's economy. Let me deal first with the contribution to the national economy made by the Commonwealth Bank since it was established by the Fisher Labor Government in 1911. Over the years the bank's business activities were considerably weakened by directors with a private sector mentality, but the Curtin Labor Government's 1945 Banking Act gave the bank the opportunity to be more competitive and to help stabilise the Australian economy. As has been pointed out in the excellent publication by the H. V. Evatt Research Centre entitled The Capital Funding of Public Enterprise, the Commonwealth Bank, in underwriting the original loans for Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and General Motors-Holden's Ltd, played a crucial role in the early development of Australian manufacturing industry. The bank also became the largest savings bank and the largest institutional lender for housing. Large sums were lent to local government and to other public corporations for the provision of essential services such as roads, electricity, and sewerage. Most importantly, as well as performing such a primary role in economic development, the bank also ensured that wages and working conditions of its employees were improved to the extent that the private banks found difficulty in gaining their own work force. With financial deregulation, with the introduction of new electronic procedures and with the staffing structures of the banks undergoing rapid change, the need for a central government bank which is prepared to lead the banks in combining efficiency with social responsibility becomes more vital than ever. In 1987 the bank had assets of over $43 billion and employed 38,000 staff in 1,270 branches. Let me quote from the H. V. Evatt Research Centre publication to indicate the recent substantial profit record of the Commonwealth Bank: 3. The Commonwealth Bank has made a handsome contribution to government revenue over the last few years. In the last two years it and its subsidiaries have returned by dividend an amount totalling $160 million to the Federal Budget. It has also expanded its capital base as a result of its profitable operations (as opposed to equity injections) by approximately $260 million over the same period. This record has been achieved with the bank continuing to fulfil its role of assisting in the development of the economy by providing considerable loan support to the business and rural sector and lending and providing financial services in areas of social need such as housing and social security recipients. The provision of these services, apart from housing loans, is frequently not undertaken by the private banking system. I turn now to the contribution to the economy made by Telecom. As one who has often ironically congratulated our founding fathers on producing 90 years ago a constitution which is so rigid that it continues to uphold conservative values of power and privilege, I can at least genuinely congratulate them on their foresight over Australian communications services. The Constitution gives the Commonwealth Government power in relation to postal, telegraph, telephone and other communication services. As a result of this power the Postmaster-General's Department was created to control the Australian Post Office. In 1975 legislation was approved by the Federal Parliament transferring the telecommunications functions of the former Postmaster-General's Department to the Australian Telecommunications Commission or Telecom. It is particularly gratifying to note that since I first proposed support for Telecom in a notice of motion to the House the Government has made it clear that the ownership of Telecom is no longer an issue. Mr Hand —A victory? Mr MILTON —As the Minister states, it was a victory for the Government. Mr Hand —It is very influential. Mr MILTON —It is an extremely influential body. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated on 5 September 1987 that `it would not be appropriate in Australia to sell those government business enterprises which operate as national monopolies-I refer in particular to Telecom and Australia Post'. Telecom's contribution to the economy means that it is the largest commercial enterprise in Australia and whilst some Australians complain about the costs of our telephones the plain fact is that, whereas the consumer price index increased by 164 per cent between 1976 and 1987, the cost of Telecom's services increased by only 36 per cent. Thus in real terms there was a reduction of 48 per cent in the cost of Telecom's services. Telecom services in Australia are among the cheapest and most efficient in the world. In the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and New Zealand telephone services are far more expensive. Telecom employs more than 90,000 people and all profits are reinvested in order to maintain and develop the telecommunications system. Over the past 10 years the Telecom network has expanded by 75 per cent while the staff has increased by only 3 per cent. Telecom is a highly profitable enterprise and, as can be seen from the figures I have related to the House, it has played an important role over the past 12 years in helping in the development of Australia's economy. Qantas is another government business enterprise which has a strong reputation for efficiency and initiative. The company was originally privately established in 1920 as Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services. In 1946 and 1947 the Commonwealth Government became the owner of Qantas and provided capital increases over the years as Qantas grew to become one of the best airlines in the world. Last year Qantas employed some 14,400 people and made a record profit before tax of $104.3m. A total of 3,021,000 passengers were carried during the year and the company has an international reputation as a reliable, safe and efficient air transport carrier. Again the H. V. Evatt Research Centre publication is worth quoting: In addition to its contribution to the positive international perceptions of Australia, Qantas also acts as a major promoter of tourism to Australia. In this and other respects, it also acts as a major earner of foreign exchange revenue. In terms of foreign policy, Qantas has been instrumental in opening up certain routes which have been deemed to be meritorious while it has closed down its operations to other destinations for the reverse reasons. In addition, the transportation resources of Qantas are readily available for use by the armed forces of the Australian government in times of threat to national security. It is far from clear that these roles could be played as easily or as willingly by a privately owned international airline in Australia. Qantas is subject to strict regulatory control by the Commonwealth Government in the form of regulatory guidelines. These guidelines cover the airline's policies on industrial relations and superannuation, purchasing and expenditure, and its borrowing and investment plans. Despite the obvious disadvantage which such restrictions place on Qantas in comparison with privately owned competitor airlines our international carrier is undoubtedly providing essential and efficient support in the development of the Australian economy. Finally, I turn to Australian Airlines. It is unfortunate that in this debate I do not have the time to go into detail on the attributes of the four public enterprises I have listed as examples of the importance of public ownership as an ingredient of economic policy. Australian Airlines was established in 1945 by the Chifley Labor Government as a fully government owned enterprise. It is more relevant to note in the context of this debate that almost from the outset Australian Airlines was so highly profitable that in 1952 the Menzies Government introduced the two airlines agreement in order to protect a virtually bankrupt private airline. The agreement not only sheltered the re-constituted private Ansett/Australian National but also regulated Australian Airlines from effectively competing against Ansett ANA Airlines. Australian Airlines, or Trans Australia Airlines, as it was then known, was in consequence negatively controlled in relation to the purchasing of equipment, lack of government contracts, restrictions on routes and an inadequate access to capital with heavy dividend payments to the Government. Over the years various amendments have been made to the original Airlines Agreement Act but the net effect has been a continuation of the original restrictions which prevented the airline from effectively competing against the private airlines. Most serious was the failure of the Commonwealth Government to provide any new capital for 20 years up to 1981-82. During this period Australian Airlines continued to make good profits, but the Government insisted on a heavy dividend payout, thus restricting the ability of the public airline to use retained profits for its capital asset requirements and forcing it to rely on an inordinate amount of debt finance. Without a doubt the airlines agreement has helped to establish Ansett Airlines of Australia as an equal competitor to Australian Airlines, in both efficiency and quality of service. However, neither airline can claim that it is superior to the other on the basis of productive criteria. In 1986-87 the airline carried more than 5 million passengers and had a turnover of $878m with a work force of some 9,600, including those employed by subsidiary companies. Bearing in mind its long standing high performance, technical expertise and safety record, there is no doubt that Australian Airlines has made an important and significant contribution to the development of the Australian economy. Whilst I have indicated the performance record of four of the leading public enterprises in Australia, which bears out the important role of public ownership in the continuing development of the Australian economy, I wish in the final stages of my speech to turn to some general observations and matters of concern. There has been considerable talk amongst Opposition members of a need to sell off some or all of many of Australia's public enterprises. There has even been some support for what has become know as privatisation of the public sector from people in the Australian Labor Party, although fortunately their voices are somewhat muted these days. In my description of the performances under public ownership of four of Australia's leading business enterprises it is very clear that they have provided immense benefits for both the general Australian public and the Australian economy. What benefits would the privatisation of such successful government enterprises produce for Australia? Apart from satisfying the ideological bias of members on the opposite side of this House that private is better than public, I would put to the Australian people that privatisation not only would be a disaster, but also would be a crime because public corporations belong to the people and should not be sold off to the business mates of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions in support of public enterprises but one thing is very clear, and that is that the selling off to private interests of public enterprises will not assist the development of the Australian economy. The closest example we have of the disastrous results of privatisation is the situation in Britain, under the Conservative Government of Mrs Thatcher. I had intended to give examples to the House, but I want the honourable member following me to have more time to speak, so I will leave out those examples. I have referred previously to the H. V. Evatt Research Centre publication The Capital Funding of Public Enterprise, and I recommend it as essential reading for those who wish to understand the fallaciousness of the arguments in favour of privatisation. One of the most fallacious of those arguments is that the Commonwealth Government cannot continue to exercise financial constraint while, at the same time, providing the necessary capital finance for public enterprises. As the H. V. Evatt Research Centre publication shows, many of the Commonwealth Government's macro-economic policy objectives have caused the specific micro-economic problems faced by public enterprises; such as a lack of capital, unfair regulation, and restrictive management practices. Let me quote from page 69 of the publication: First, the argument that capital based expansion conflicts with fiscal probity is not well based, although it bears upon a number of issues. First, it is not clear that public investment in infrastructural services `crowds out' a similar (or lesser) quantity of private investment . . . Indeed, it is probably the reverse of what is actually the case. Public investment facilitates and encourages certain classes of productive investment. It is a necessary pre-requisite. Secondly, the contribution of the major Commonwealth public enterprises to the Commonwealth's total borrowing requirement is not very significant. In the final analysis, the most important reasons why public ownership is so vital an ingredient of economic policy is that it has important ramifications for the social fabric of Australian society. I would like to end my comments by quoting from a speech I made in the old Parliament House in the 1987 Appropriations debate. In a sense, my comments today are an extension of that speech. I quote: As part of a democratic socialist philosphy there were three underlying practical aims for the adoption of public enterprise policies by the ALP in the 1920s. Those aims are as relevant today as they were when they were adopted in the 1920s. First was the need to supply public services to the people when private enterprise was not prepared to risk its capital because it could not see an immediate capital or profit gain. Second was the aim that public enterprise, by providing good quality products and services, with satisfactory working conditions and wages for its employees, could prevent exploitation by private corporations monopolising the market. Third was the aim that the profits of public enterprises could be used to supplement government revenue and enable a reduction in overall taxation. I ask honourable members to support the motion moved in my name as it represents the only rational economic and social recourse for a country with a mixed economy such as exists in Australia. Mr Johns —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr COBB(Parkes)(12.22) —In the pitifully small amount of time left to debate this motion, I say that it is nothing more nor less than a last ditch stand by the left wing to try to stop the inevitable process of privatisation in this country. The wording of this motion is so obviously farcical that the whole motion is rendered ludicrous. It talks about such things as the vital and creative role which public enterprises provide to Australia. I hardly think the word `creative' is appropriate. It goes on to state: that public ownership is an important and essential ingredient of Government economic policy. How public ownership becomes an essential ingredient is beyond me. The whole world is rapidly coming to realise that the less governments interfere in the lives of people, and the less governments own the assets of a country and run institutions which provide services to the people, the better it is for the country and the people who inhabit it. There is a realisation nowadays that if a government owns something everyone owns it but, in fact, nobody owns it. As a result of that, it is not looked after as well, there is no incentive to do better, things become very inflexible, and most importantly, the services to consumers are worse than if they were privately owned. One only has to visit a communist country to see this. If one walks down the streets of those countries to try to buy something, one has a job to find anything. If one does find anything, the service is appalling and the quality of the article is usually much less than that in free enterprise countries. Of course, in communist countries all enterprises are government owned. That is why we on this side of the House reject those things. If a country has a high proportion of its ownership in government hands and a low proportion in private hands, then the standard of living of people in the country is inevitably low. If the reverse applies, the standard of living of the average citizen is much higher. One has only to compare the standard of living of the average citizen in the United States with that of one in Russia, and the standard of living of the average citizen in West Germany with that of one in Bangladesh. There is a very tight correlation between public and private ownership. The standard of living of people cannot be denied. Governments and people all around the world are coming to recognise this. In recent years Thatcher has led a revival of it. I am pleased to say that even the communist countries such as China and Russia are moving in this direction. It was only mentioned in the media in the last few days that Gorbachev in Russia is thinking of turning ownership of land back to the people who should own it and run it, namely, the people of Russia. That is a very welcome development. Of course, in Australia also there is a movement. When we first talked about privatisation, the coalition was ridiculed. In May 1988, even the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said: . . . is simply vandalism of Australia's great public authorities. In July of that year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: Privatisation is a one-off fire sale, a sale of the century, of your assets-the assets of the people of Australia. They will transfer them into the hands of a privileged few to the cost of every one of us. Later, in November of that year, he said: They know, as everyone who thinks about the issue of privatisation knows, that it would mean higher prices, higher costs, higher taxes and higher fares. But the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have had second thoughts and are now amongst the strongest advocates of privatisation in Australia. I am delighted to see that they have taken the coalition's advice in that area. They want to do it, as we want to do it, because ownership of assets in private hands is more efficient-the enterprises become more responsive to the wishes of the consumers-it breaks down monopolies and, most importantly, it returns the ownership, the control, from the bureaucracy and the government to the individual. We on this side of the House trust the people to own assets. We have confidence in them that they will do it well and will do a better job. That has often been demonstrated all around the world. Privatisation is an inevitable process. It cannot be stopped and it is welcomed by the majority of the people. No longer will profit be a dirty word. After all, profit made legally in competition with others can only happen if one serves the consumers well. If profit occurs, it allows further employment; it allows expansion; it allows provision of new services to the benefit of us all; and, of course, taxes are paid to governments from profits. This allows governments to lower overall taxes elsewhere. Privatisation is being talked about more and more. Only yesterday the Chairman of Australia Post was welcoming elements of privatisation into that institution. Air New Zealand has been privatised. Qantas Airways Ltd will follow when we win the next election. The most efficient sector of Australia Post is the private enterprise sector. One only has to look at the private mail contractors who run the mail between Bourke and Wanaaring in my electorate. God knows what it would cost if the Government were running that service. Also, the post office agencies are the most efficient sectors in Australia Post. Some of them even still open on Saturday mornings. Telecom Australia is a monopoly. It is probably the institution I get most complaints about in my electorate. People complain about such things as slow services, outrageous work practices, and no area code map on the back of the directory. Some even complain about no service at all. In a town such as Enngonia in the far flung reaches of my electorate if there is a heavy dew on the lines at night time people cannot ring out. Government monopolies give the correction of that problem a very low priority. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia is relatively efficient by government enterprise standards but, as one of the four main banks along with the Australia and New Zealand Bank Banking Group, Westpac Banking Corporation and the National Australia Bank, it still comes up poorly. In 1987 it had only half the profit of the three other banks; it paid only half the tax; it had only little more than half the return on the funds and assets used; and returned only half the earnings per employee. There is no logic at all in a government owning a bank. In fact, the net return to the Federal Government over the last 10 years has been below zero. It is better off for the government as well as for the Australian people if all the banks are privately owned. In conclusion, this motion is nothing more than a last ditch stand by the increasingly irrelevant quiche-eating Left against the privatisation process that will benefit all of us. The motion should be rejected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —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 Parkes will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(12.30) —It has now been over 48 hours since Mr Valeriy Zemskov, Minister-Counsellor at the Soviet Embassy, was exposed as being the ranking KGB officer in Australia and a member of the KGB's elite Special Reserves. Since Mr Zemskov's exposure the Hawke Government has sat back and done nothing. Earlier Government inaction against KGB officers in Australia was recently highlighted when a respected journalist, Mr Laurie Oakes, revealed that the Government had refused to act on security advice to expel three Soviets identified as KGB officers because to have done so may have jeopardised the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to Moscow. This fear, this weak and cowering approach to our national security interests, was enough to ensure that no action was taken against the three identified officers. In the case of Mr Zemskov the Soviets have raised the stakes much higher. In his press conference yesterday, Mr Zemskov himself suggested that any further `fuss' on the issue could harm Soviet-Australian relations. He further implied that serious treatment of the claims would not be helpful to attempts to arrange a visit by Soviet Prime Minister Ryzhkov to Australia later this year. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister's earlier inaction against KGB officers in Australia, coupled with Mr Zemskov's threats, augur ill for Australia's security. The visit by Soviet Prime Minister Ryzhkov has been thrown up as a bargaining chip by Mr Zemskov. In other words, Mr Zemskov is saying to Australia, `If you move to expel me, then you can forget the Ryzhkov visit', a visit that will throw the world spotlight on the Prime Minister of Australia. It is ironic that on the one hand this Government professes to be a reliable and committed member of the Western Alliance, yet on the other it is unwilling to deal decisively with Soviet threats to our national security, threats which ultimately erode the very fabric of the whole Western Alliance itself. Other Western nations such as France, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, when confronted with evidence of Russian intelligence service activities, act decisively. They expel the officers concerned. Even Labour governed New Zealand, considered somewhat of a pariah in the Western Alliance, moves decisively against identified KGB officers who are acting to the detriment of the country. As late as 24 April 1987, New Zealand expelled Soviet Embassy Counsellor Sergey Budnik, identified as an officer of the KGB's First Chief Directorate. Budnik was the sixth Soviet diplomat to be expelled from New Zealand in the past 25 years. Indeed, in the period 1970 to 1987, 691 Soviets have been expelled from various countries around the world. The one important question that remains unanswered is why this Government fails to act against identified KGB officers when confronted with the evidence of their damaging activities. Is Australia's failure to act through fear of jeopardising the Prime Minister's overseas trips or as a result of implied threats from Soviet officials such as Mr Zemskov, or as a result of the influence the Soviet Union is able to exercise in the uppermost echelons of the Public Service and the Federal Government? Mr Hollis —That is outrageous. Mr ALDRED —It is quite outrageous. It is influence manifested in the shape of, among others, Mr Zemskov, who by his own admission has many contacts in high places. Until his press conference yesterday Mr Zemskov, despite suffering what is every clandestine intelligence officer's worst nightmare, had played his role admirably. In his contacts with the media, contacts in which he was under great pressure, he remained jovial, witty and charming, the epitome of the sophisticated diplomat he insists he is. However, in his answers to two of the questions posed by journalists at yesterday's press conference he totally destroyed his credibility. In answering one question he said that there were, to his knowledge, no spies at the Embassy. Then, in answer to the obvious question-why is Canberra the only Soviet Embassy in the world that does not have KGB agents?-he said: I do believe what we are doing in relations with this country is all above board. There was no `playing' or `counterplaying'. I have today sent a letter to the Prime Minister which I will now read to the House. It states: Mr Dear Prime Minister, I draw your attention to reports of an article by the respected Mr John Barron in the current edition of the international magazine, Readers Digest, identifying Mr Valeriy Zemskov as a member of the KGB's elite Special Reserves. Mr Zemskov's official position is Minister-Counsellor at the Soviet Embassy in Canberra, which is the next most senior position in the Embassy after the Ambassador. Since Mr Barron's allegations became public there has been rising public concern and debate as to what action the Australian Government intends to take to redress this major threat to our national security. Accordingly I ask you: 1. What confirmations have you sought concerning Mr Zemskov's alleged activities from Australia's security and intelligence services, and from friendly Western security and intelligence services? 2. If such confirmations substantiate the allegations made by Mr Barron, when do you intend to expel Mr Zemskov from Australia? 3. Will you as a matter of the gravest urgency establish an inquiry to determine the damage done by Mr Zemskov to our security interests, especially in view of his admitted ready access to contacts at the highest level of government and the Federal bureaucracy? Your response would be appreciated at the earliest opportunity. Yours sincerely, Ken Aldred Member for Bruce Mr Zemskov has played his role well. He has served his own country well and for that he deserves some admiration. However, the fact remains that he is an undeclared hostile intelligence officer acting to the detriment of Australia's national interests and because of that he should be expelled immediately. In concluding, I seek leave to table my letter to the Prime Minister, which I have just read, and a partial alphabetical listing of Soviet officials expelled worldwide during the period 1970 to 1987. Leave granted. Mr UREN(Reid)(12.37) —I want to talk about the entitlements and remuneration of prisoners of war taken by the Japanese. Before I begin, let me say that I have great admiration for the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Arthur Gietzelt, and a great deal of respect for the present Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Ben Humphreys. Anything I have to say today is no direct criticism of them. However, my remarks today are strong criticism of those Ministers in the Hawke Cabinet whom I have often described as having cash registers for hearts and little understanding or compassion for war veterans or their widows. Five hundred and fifty thousand Australians served in all theatres of war in the Second World War; 19,000 of them were killed in action. Eight thousand prisoners of war were taken by the German and Italian forces; 7,700 of them returned to our shores. No more than 300 died. Of the 22,000 prisoners of war taken by the Japanese, only 14,000 returned. I want the House to dwell on those startling statistics. It is difficult at any time to deal with the issue of assistance to war veterans. It is particularly difficult when one has to take into consideration the Australian men and women who were taken prisoner of war by the downward thrust of the Japanese in 1942. One really could not describe the barbaric and subhuman conditions that many of our people had to endure. I want to make it quite clear that I am not trying to re-open old wounds regarding Australian-Japanese relations. I am not anti-Japanese; I am anti-fascist and anti-militarist. This speech is not about reparations from the Japanese Government but about justice from our own Government. In the 1974-75 Budget the Whitlam Government made available to all Japanese, German and Italian prisoners of war free medical, hospital, dental and optical treatment irrespective of whether their injuries were war related or not. Since March 1983 the Hawke Government has eroded many of the conditions which had been gained, particularly under the Whitlam Government, and honoured by the Fraser Government. My argument is that the current Government should be more compassionate and more understanding in its policies towards the dwindling number of former Japanese prisoners of war. I emphasise the words `dwindling numbers'. Of the original 14,000, less than half would now be living. One of the deepest concerns is that now if a former prisoner of war ceases employment or reaches the age of 65, that person is not entitled to apply for the totally and permanently incapacitated pension. I know that the bureaucrats and some Cabinet members will say that that is the case with all veterans. I am talking not about all veterans but about the veterans who suffered like no other group did in the Second World War. The Government has already shown flexibility in establishing the extreme disability adjustment legislation to correct the anomaly whereby severely disabled veterans have failed to qualify for special pension rates because they were beyond retiring age. This will raise the pension up to 150 per cent of the general rate to veterans over 65 years of age who are receiving the full general rate and who meet the criteria. I commend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Government on this new action. If those positive adjustments can be made for the normal war veterans, the Government must also review the special position of former Japanese prisoners of war. Other detrimental changes have either reduced the benefits or tightened the eligibility of former prisoners of war. The entitlement to pharmaceuticals has been removed from the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme and placed under the ordinary pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Further changes introduced in this year's May statement require prior departmental authority for the prescription of a wide range of expensive drugs. From 1 January this year all veterans, including former Japanese prisoners of war, admitted to nursing home care for war related conditions, have been required to pay a statutory patient fee. Previously this was free of charge. The Government has limited the expenditure that veterans, including former Japanese prisoners of war, can spend on dental treatment to $300 in any one year and we all know that $300 a year will not go very far with dentists these days. It is argued that if the amount is not limited, veterans will obtain modern dental treatment such as capping and restructuring, which is very expensive. What understanding do the people putting those arguments have of the living conditions that former prisoners of war suffered for 3 1/2 bloody years, on starvation rations? In some cases there was no medical or dental treatment whatsoever. It is those people who need this kind of expert treatment today. It is about time that all the pennypinching, miserable and narrow-minded people with cash register hearts had some compassion for some of the conditions of these ex-servicemen. Again, I ask that special consideration be given to former Japanese prisoners of war. I well remember receiving a note from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during a Cabinet meeting a couple of years ago. He had seen on the weekend prior to the Cabinet meeting a television program which attempted to illustrate the conditions under which our servicemen suffered on the Burma-Siam railway. He expressed in his note to me the horror of what he saw. I have always felt that the Prime Minister is a very compassionate person. But I say to Bob Hawke and to the House: we need government action directed towards former prisoners of war now. There should be a review and compassionate programs and allowances created to fill the urgent need. The Government has a moral and social responsibility to provide justice to those who served our country under such extraordinary conditions. The Government must honour that responsibility and provide them with at least some justice. I gave the figures earlier but I will repeat them: Five hundred and fifty thousand Australians served in all theatres of war; 19,000 were killed in action. Even under the barbaric Nazi regime of Germany, of the 8,000 taken prisoner of war, 7,700 came back; in fact fewer than 300 died in their camps. But of the Japanese prisoners of war, 22,000 were taken and only 14,000 got back. I hope that that really is graphic, descriptive and imprinted into the minds of all members of parliament and that they understand the conditions which those prisoners of war had to suffer. Of those 14,000, fewer than half are left and it is about time that the Government itself-it has been in government now for five years and has eroded the conditions of those people-re-examined that situation to rectify it, to give justice to those prisoners of war and to stop being so mean and miserable. I am aware of the problem of the deficit balance on the current account. But there is also a very healthy Budget surplus and I think that the sharing of that productivity, the sharing of the wealth of this nation, should be looked at to rectify some of the problems and illnesses of those former prisoners of war and to give them real justice. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(12.48) —I commend the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) for his penetrating comments on an issue vital to all Australians today and encourage the bipartisan support for the thrust of what he has said. In his well-known work On Liberty, John Stuart Mill observed: The liberty of the individual must be this far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. Mill believed that the primary duty of government was to guarantee freedom of thought, expression, religion and action to its citizens. He believed that all opinions, assenting or dissenting, representing the majority or the minority viewpoint were important and should be valued. He added, however, the necessary and significant proviso that in expressing an opinion, no person or group is entitled to harm the interests of another. I believe that Mill was on the right track and it is in this context that I speak today about the unfortunate occurrences which took place in Melbourne last weekend in relation to the visit to Victoria of the Bicentennial Naval Salute fleet. These issues have already been widely canvassed in both Houses of this Parliament, in Victoria by the media and, indeed, throughout the whole of our community. This recognition and publicity have, for the most part, been extremely critical of the tactics of the Seamen's Union; the rowdy and disgraceful behaviour of some of the demonstrators; and the `Don't blame us, it was not our fault' attitude adopted by two Labor governments directly involved. It indicates very clearly that decency and dignity and a fair go are still important to the vast majority of Australians. It may help, at least to some extent, to restore our battered image in the eyes of those who took part in this international naval gesture of good will. However, it in no way lessens the deliberate insult to our friends and allies which has been perpetrated by people who pretend to be motivated by a desire for peace, and concern about the so-called nuclear arms race and related issues. These same people demonstrate their sincerity and commitment to the causes they say they espouse by adopting abusive, irrational, insulting, disgusting, and, in some instances, violent behaviour and tactics to get their message across. It in no way excuses the politically motivated action of the Seamen's Union in imposing its ban on assisting two British ships to berth in Melbourne and instead, leaving them to cope with the adverse weather conditions of Port Phillip Bay. One would have thought the potential for an accident to occur under these conditions would have been far greater than had the ships been securely tied to the dock. It in no way lessens the dismay and embarrassment experienced by the vast majority of Australians, in particular Victorians, who have watched guests invited to this country by our Government treated in a most despicable, unreasonable and unacceptable manner and then deserted by those who issued the invitation in the first place when the going got a bit tough. We have learnt by bitter and all too frequent recent experience that there simply are not any `tough to get going' on the Government benches when it comes to controlling the Socialist Left unions. It in no way excuses the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who dismissed a totally legitimate question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in regard to this matter as `stupid and irrelevant'. Under the circumstances, it is neither stupid nor irrelevant to ask for an apology or to question who is really in control of this nation and its affairs. There are millions of Australians who share my belief that an official and sincere apology should have been immediately offered by both the Federal and Victorian governments to the men of the Ark Royal and Fort Grange, to the captain and crew of the USS Ingersoll, and others who were the target of this reprehensible behaviour of a group of irrational and irresponsible demonstrators and left wing controlled unionists. It does not absolve the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) who obviously, and quite rightly, regrets the incidents which occurred in Melbourne but unfortunately tempers his regret by trying to shift some of the blame from the unions and the lily-livered Cain Government on to none other than the Good Lord for failing to provide the right weather conditions on this particular occasion. The solution proffered by the Prime Minister and Minister for Defence is that the Government should not confront the unions and order them to do what they are told, but instead should capitulate to Mr Halfpenny and his henchmen and use Royal Australian Navy tugs, still to be purchased and years away from operational service, to do the job the unions should be doing. What a shameful and outrageous farce! It is hardly surprising that the community is demanding to know who controls this country, the Government or the Socialist Left unions. Let us look at the evidence. The Government invited these ships and their crews as guests to our 200th birthday party and when they got to the door allowed them to be turned away by extremists who acted as unofficial, self-appointed, but nonetheless very effective, bouncers. Unfortunately, and to their lasting shame, it is now obvious that the Hawke and Cain governments have cravenly surrendered their authority and control to the Socialist Left union leaders. Many of us have suspected for a long time that Labor governments have been the pawns and playthings of the socialists, the communists, the Fabians-call them what you will; they come in many guises and disguises but their motives are the same and certainly not in the best interests of this nation and its people. This latest effort serves only to reinforce the fact that these suspicions are correct. It is deplorable and intolerable that the Cain Government has effectively been allowed to wash its hands of this matter and that the Hawke Government does not even display the intestinal fortitude to apologise for what Mr John Halfpenny, the Secretary of the Trades Hall Council, has described as an `important victory'. An important victory for whom, or for what? Such victories should be and are condemned by those who value freedom, security, international goodwill, justice and democracy; but then, none of these concepts are important to those of Mr Halfpenny's ilk and political persuasion. They care not at all if our relationship with important and loyal allies is jeopardised. They are delighted to find a government so apparently ready and willing to abrogate its responsibilities in favour of appointing union extremists as de facto managers of the nation's affairs in regard to vital and sensitive defence and foreign policy matters. They rejoice as Australia's international reputation and standing are threatened by illegal strikes and the intimidatory, perverse and revolting behaviour, including spitting and the throwing of condoms, of protesters who say they are concerned for the future of this country. As we learned this morning, Mr Deputy Speaker, the trade union movement in Western Australia is also gearing up to disrupt the arrival of Ark Royal in Fremantle. Evidently, the Seamen's Union is still deciding whether or not its tug boat crew members will provide assistance for the British naval vessels. Hopefully, sanity and common sense will prevail. However, in an interview on AM, the President of the Construction, Mining and Energy Workers Union, whose members have decided to withdraw necessary support services from some of the naval salute vessels visiting the port of Fremantle, said the trade union movement needs to `make a statement', to show that its members are concerned about visits of nuclear capable ships. There is a big difference between making a statement and making a nuisance of one-self and a laughing stock of the Government and the nation. One wonders whether the same concerns will be expressed by those unions if, and when, vessels from the Russian fishing fleet seek to utilise the facilities of the Fremantle port. To his credit, the Minister for Defence has already stated that the Melbourne port fiasco will not happen again. He has said that the Navy would provide any services withdrawn by the unions. But that is not the point. The Minister should be ordering the unions to do the job they are meant and are paid to do. He has legislation at his disposal to ensure that his directions are being followed. Why is he not using it? There was a time, Mr Deputy Speaker, not that long ago, when Australians were relieved and grateful to see British and United States warships in our ports. They symbolise the protection and security that good and loyal friends may provide in times of trouble. The Bicentennial Naval Salute was a gesture which demonstrated to us that this loyalty and friendship still exists, although we hope and pray that they will never again be needed in the same context as they were those 40 or so years ago. It was a gesture by the very countries which are committed to the preservation and protection of the rights and freedoms which are so vigorously claimed, so frequently exercised, and so blatantly abused and exploited by politically extreme unionists and demonstrators such as those who thumbed their noses at our bicentennial naval fleet visitors, the Government, and the community of Melbourne. These ships and men sailed thousands of miles to join in our birthday celebrations. They were treated scornfully and discourteously by a small section of our community who, in expressing their opinions, imposed their will to the detriment and harm of others. On behalf of those Victorians and other Australians who are understandably appalled by the actions of the Seamen's Union and the irresponsible element amongst the demonstrators and the weak-willed governments which stood by and watched their authority usurped by the rabble, I extend an apology to those who came in peace and friendship to participate in the Bicentennial Naval Salute to Australia: We hope that they will forgive the appalling manners and politically motivated actions of the few and remember instead that the majority of Australians offered them a warm welcome and recognised them and the nations they represent as they deserve to be recognised-as our friends. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(12.58) —Mr Deputy Speaker, Mozambique is a country which is little known in Australia. People are vaguely aware of a civil war going on there. Some remember that it was once a Portuguese colony and earlier this year it gained some publicity when an Australian missionary, Ian Gray, was arrested and put on trial. There was some ill-informed and unjustified media criticism of Australian aid to Mozambique earlier this year and we heard the usual rubbish from the apologists for the racist regime in South Africa on the Opposition side. Mozambique, with a population of some 14 million, should be better known and better understood in Australia. What should also be better understood is the activities of the South African backed terrorism that is bringing such misery to Mozambique. Their activities have made Mozambique one of the poorer countries in the world and have given it one of the world's highest infant mortality rates. They have caused large parts of its economy not to function. South Africa, by its support of the rebels, intends that Mozambique will not reach its full potential. Indeed, Mozambique has great potential. It is a huge country with much unused fertile land and, like much of Africa, it has considerable possibilities for irrigation and substantial mineral resources. Its railways and ports are vital to its neighbours and it is an important and valued member of the regional economic development organisation, SADAC. Portuguese colonial rule was ineffective and brutal. For four centuries Portugal maintained little more than a trading network stretching inland from the seaports. The Portuguese did little on education or services. They simply exploited and raped the country; at independence Mozambique lacked even the rudiments of a modern economy. The new government inherited a large external debt and a currency that was virtually useless abroad. With independence, most of the 250,000 Portuguese inhabitants fled, taking with them Mozambique's limited fund of administrative and technical expertise. The Mozambique work force was untrained and uneducated. The illiteracy rate at independence was some 96 per cent. The civil war is not only one of the most vicious in Africa but I would say one of the most vicious in the world. The terrible murders, mutilation and destruction are being carried out by the Mozambique National Resistance, known as Renamo. Renamo was created by the Rhodesian secret service in 1977 to punish Mozambique for that country's assistance to the Zimbabwe liberation movement. With Zimbabwe's independence in 1980, sponsorship of Renamo was taken over by the South African Defence Force. What makes Renamo different from other groups is its deliberate destructive nature. I can understand rebel forces. I do not always necessarily agree with them, but be they in Ethiopia, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador or wherever, basically they are saying, `Our philosophy is better suited to the economic needs of this country', or `Our economic policies are better', or `We as individuals are better suited to running the country than you are.' As I said, we might not always agree with this philosophy or what they are fighting for but we can understand it. Renamo has no philosophy, no economic policy, and no scheme for an alternative government. Its members are determined to bring chaos and destruction. They bomb hospitals, schools and health centres; in fact, they have bombed over 30 per cent of the health centres in Mozambique. They bomb the railways which are so vital to Mozambique; they kill and maim-and all this with the support of the racist regime of South Africa. Of course, the apologists for the racist South Africa regime cry, `Where is your evidence?' The evidence is in the many documents captured from Renamo. On a recent visit to Mozambique I spoke with the United States Ambassador and there was no doubt in her mind of the South African support for the rebels. There was no doubt in our Australian officials' minds, or in the minds of the aid workers there; Margaret Thatcher, not renowned for supporting left governments, has permitted since 1986 British Army personnel to train the Mozambican Army. Chester Crocker, United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, testified to the United States Senate hearing on Renamo's activities, putting the blame well and truly on South Africa. In fact, throughout the world, people of all political shades agree on the destabilising activities of the South African Government in Mozambique; that is, except for the apologists for racist South Africa on the Opposition benches, especially the National Party members in this House. It is no wonder that they invited the South African Ambassador to address their recent conference. He must have felt very much at home. Why, people might ask, would South Africa wish to destabilise one of her neighbours? Would it not be in South Africa's own interest to have a peaceful, prosperous neighbour, reaching its full potential? But Mozambique, like Zimbabwe, is a multiracial country. If there were a successful multiracial country next door, people, even in South Africa, would ask: If in Mozambique or if in Zimbabwe, why not in South Africa? The racist regime in South Africa therefore is determined to see that a multiracial country cannot exist as its neighbour. Australia can assist Mozambique more. We must bring diplomatic pressure on South Africa to stop its destabilising activities. We can give more aid, especially technical aid; we can understand better the situation in that country. Many Australian-owned organisations and our Government are distributing food, clothing and tools to the distressed and displaced people of Mozambique. Yet time and time again these efforts are being destroyed by vicious Renamo attacks, Farming projects are ransacked, food convoys ambushed and development workers murdered. I have recently been involved in two campaigns directed at the South African Government, urging them to stop the killing and maiming in Mozambique. A group of Uniting Church ministers from South Australia on 1 September laid a wreath at the gates of the South African Embassy here in Canberra. This was the culmination of a week's activity in Canberra to draw attention to the plight of Mozambique. Also in September, I launched a campaign at the Pitt Street Uniting Church in Sydney for the Concerned Citizens of Mozambique. Both these campaigns are urging people to write to the South African Ambassador here in Canberra, urging South Africa to stop the killing and maiming of innocent people in Mozambique. Mozambique has the potential to be a self-supporting country, but effective aid and lasting development can take place only where there is peace. The tragedy is that racist South Africa, by her brutal destabilising activities, is preventing Mozambique from achieving its full potential and the peace this country so richly deserves. I am pleased to see two National Party members in the chamber because it is their Party that is usually supporting the racist regime in South Africa. I would ask these people to consider just by giving support to the South African regime exactly what they are involved in, in countries like Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and the surrounding frontline states, because South Africa is determined that these countries will not reach their full potential. She is determined to continue destabilising-destabilising in Mozambique as she is destabilising in Zimbabwe. While South Africa continues these activities-- Mr White —What about the Mozambique Government? Mr HOLLIS —The evidence is there. The evidence is there and you can shout and yell and shake your heads-- Mr White —Anything to do with the Mozambique Government? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McPherson will stop interjecting. Mr HOLLIS —Do what you like. The evidence is there through captured documents; through evidence before the United States Senate; through visits by the current United States Ambassador to Mozambique; and through evidence given at the trial of Ian Gray, who was a runner for the rebels there. He is lucky, I must say, not to have faced a firing squad. In most other countries he would have faced a firing squad. The evidence is there. I call on all members of this House to put pressure on South Africa to stop her destabilising activities and I especially call on the National Party in this place to stop giving aid and comfort to the racist regime in South Africa. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(1.07) —It goes without saying that I reject utterly the comments of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), especially in relation to the National Party. Today I bring to the House this dreaded Style Manual released by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) a fortnight ago and I want to address grievance on the matter of the ability of governments to communicate at all levels with the people in a simplistic, constructive way, rather than in the arrogant and out of touch manner which seems to be emerging from this Labor Government in office. It seems to be that bureaucrats, academics and governments which perpetrate these acts upon people are taking it on their own to say that they know best, that they know what should be done with our English language, and that people will have to put up with the types of communications that they draft in accordance with their Style Manual. I, of course, refer to the artificial decision and the objectionable priority to delete the word `man' from the English language and to replace it with some extraordinarily convoluted phrases. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I speak to you at this moment, `The Flying Scotsman, a very historic steam engine, is moving from Sydney to Melbourne on its first major visit to Australia. The Government will end up renaming `The Flying Scotsman' as `The Flying Scotsperson' before it arrives at Spencer Street this afternoon. That is how incredible and how arrogant the Government is getting as it lays down preferred manners for deleting the word `man' from our language. Before dealing in detail with the Style Manual, let me turn to another example which is in part related, and which comes from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Repatriation Commission. I am pleased to see the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) at the table. This is the all time classic; it must take out some form of record. The veteran involved has given me his permission to utilise this example. The file number is MSS7841 and I am now going to read to the House a 266-word sentence, a single paragraph sentence, the size of which defies examination, let alone understanding, for the veterans who have to put up with this type of phraseology. Mr White —Who wrote it? Mr TIM FISCHER —It comes from the Repatriation Commission, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, all of which is under the responsibility of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who is in the chamber at this time. Let me quote this extraordinary sentence: In relation to determining this aspect, section 9 of the Act states in effect that an injury or disease shall be taken to be war-caused if it resulted from an occurrence that happened while the veteran was rendering operational service, it arose out of, or was attributable to any eligible war service rendered by the veteran, it resulted from an accident that occurred while a veteran was travelling, while rendering eligible war service but otherwise than in the course of duty, on a journey to a place for the purpose of performing duty or away from the place of duty upon having ceased to perform duty, it was, in the opinion of a question, due to an accident but would not have occurred, or were due to a disease that would not have been contracted, but for his having rendered eligible war service or but for changes in his environment consequent upon his or her having rendered eligible war service, or the injury suffered, or the disease contracted, was suffered or was contracted while the veteran was rendering eligible war service, but did not arise out of that service or suffered or contracted before the commencement of the period, or last period of eligible war service rendered by the veteran but not while the veteran was rendering eligible war service, and, in the opinion of the Commission, the injury or disease was contributed to in a material degree by or was aggravated by, any eligible war service rendered by the veteran being service rendered after the veteran suffered that injury or contracted that disease but not otherwise. What an incredible example, Mr Deputy Speaker! That is the sort of nonsense-type drafting of communications, from a Department that does try and a Repatriation Commission that does try, that the veterans of this country have to put up with. That is the classic example of all time-a 266-word single sentence in the middle of a determination-advising letter which does not make life easy for veterans. That is what we should be on about. Certainly as shadow Minister for veterans' affairs I can say that that is what the coalition policy is all on about-a fair go for veterans. I can ease the mind of Hansard by saying that I will make available the exact copy of that 266-word sentence or paragraph. Let me hark back to this incredible Style Manual and the incredible chapter which I highlighted in the national media over the last fortnight as being a ridiculous priority by government. It is chapter 8, `Non-sexist Language'. We now know from our further questions in the Senate that the direct cost of this little chapter was some $3,691. What does it set out to do? It sets out to rewrite military history. It sets out to rewrite our heritage, so far as our language is concerned. So `manpower' is to become `human resources'; `labour', `labour force'; `personnel', `staff'; `staffing', `work force'; `man-size' is to become `big, huge, large'; `manhours' are to become `labour hours, working hours, work hours'; `manhole' is to become `access hole' or `utility hole'; `bushman' becomes `person from the bush'. `Bushpeople', is allowable but not `bushman'. What would the Bush Tucker Man say about that, in terms of his contribution to this nation? `Middleman' is an acceptable and reasonable term but it now becomes `an intermediary' or a `wholesaler'. Sportsmen, our fine Olympic athletes who have come back to this country, are not now sportsmen. They are `athletes, players, sports competitors, sportspersons, men and women in sport', but not `sportsmen'. `Statesmanlike' is an expression which we hear in Question Time from time to time from members of the front bench of this Government, but we see very little of it, because they are not anything like statesmen; they, of course, are on the left of the chair, but that is to go. It is `authoritative, diplomatic, experienced, skilful, tactful', and so I could go on. The poor old engineman, the poor old postman, the poor old milkman, the poor old newsman are to go; and, above all, the ombudsman is to go as well. He is to become `ombud, attorney-ombudsperson, parliamentary commissioner, protector, representative or watchdog'. How much reprinting of legislation is associated with that one change and the add-on cost that will be involved? I come now to the one that I object to most, and I know my colleague the shadow Minister for defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), joins me in this. Such terms as `seaman' are to be replaced by `mariner' or `seafarer', but `serviceman', part of our military heritage, is to be dispensed with. We are going to have `servicer' or `military member of a service'; anything, in a sense, but `serviceman'. Mr White —No-one will take any notice of it. Mr TIM FISCHER —It is absolutely objectionable. It is artificial. it reflects the priority of an arrogant and out of touch government that does not understand what grassroots Australia is thinking. Let me assure the House and the nation that the coalition recognises just how out of touch a priority it is, how much waste of money is involved, money which would be better spent on roads such as the terrible road between Deniliquin and Wakool and beyond. Let me call on the Government to review this total rewrite of our heritage, of our language. It is an unjustified rewrite and one which, if carried to the extreme, will see such incredible situations where Old Man Creek in my electorate will have to be renamed Ageless Person Creek and Manuka, here in Canberra, presumably will have to become Personuka. I am particularly delighted to make this speech while there is a demonstration from some women's conference occurring out on the forecourt of the Parliament, denying lady senators access to this Parliament for some period and denying members of the public free and easy access in a way which I think is disgraceful. I respect their right to demonstrate on the forecourt. I object to their claiming a right to block access to and from the main doors of our Parliament House. I think it is disgraceful. I have much pleasure in highlighting this point to the House and the nation at the same time as that demonstration is occurring because I am fortified by the support of Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen, the Country Women's Association recent conference at Narrandera and other organisations. They also see this as an absurd priority. The grassroots nation where the real people live, think and act, will not accept for one moment this incredible Style Manual which the Government presented at some cost to the nation a fortnight ago. Finally, I would invite the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to take up with his Department and the Repatriation Commission these 266-word classic sentences which break all records and which are very confusing for veterans. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(1.17) —I would like to use my time in this grievance debate to address what I regard and this Government regards as an extremely important issue in terms of the future of our country. I am talking about safeguarding our environment. Recently I was privileged to give an address to the Northern Territory Institute of Quarrying. In part of that address I discussed with the Institute questions on the environment. I said that in my view we need to assess carefully the impact of development on our environment. The conservation debate is less and less the preserve of any minority group in our society as the consequences of pollution that can be unleashed by industrial development become apparent around the world. It is my firm view that a strong economy depends on a healthy environment. We will not survive if we allow pollution slowly to destroy our countryside, cities and oceans. We will not survive if we use the land in ways which are not sustainable nor even if we allow every piece of land to be open to human activities. By doing so, it is my firm view we become poorer and not richer. Today we are beyond facile arguments to pretend to trade off economic growth against environmental and social well-being. We have to be. We cannot afford to mess around with our environment the way we have in the past. The Federal Government is paying increasing attention to environmental issues and, in particular, the question of land use in the context of environmental needs; industry, I might say, is also to its credit taking this issue seriously. For example, the Australian Mining Industry Council (AMIC) recently held a conference in Darwin on mining in the environment and various environmental issues were raised at the recently held north Australian development conference in Alice Springs. Valuation of different land uses from a community point of view is a complex task. Priority for different uses from an overall economic viewpoint may vary over time due to changing economic, social, environmental and technical circumstances. Some uses of the land are flexible; they can be easily changed. Other types of land use, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, are inflexible because once they are applied the land cannot be restored to its pre-existing state. In between these extremes a number of combinations of uses may be possible. There are, however, some basic objectives that need to be recognised and understood as ground rules in the development game. We need to acknowledge that development should not occur if these objectives and basic ground rules are not met. The first of these is the maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems. The second is the preservation of genetic diversity. The third is the sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems. The fourth is the maintenance and enhancement of environmental qualities. Indeed, AMIC, the peak mining body, has endorsed these principles. These are, in fact, the basic objectives of the national conservation strategy of Australia. There are five relevant strategic principles guiding these objectives and they are: firstly, to integrate conservation and development and emphasise their interdependence and common ground; secondly, to retain options for future use; thirdly, to focus on causes as well as symptoms; fourthly, to accumulate knowledge for future application; and, fifthly, to educate the community about the interdependence of development and conservation. The purpose of this national conservation strategy for Australia is to provide nationally agreed guidelines for the use of living resources by Australians so that the reasonable needs and aspirations of society can be sustained in perpetuity. The Federal Government's message is clear: economic development and environmental protection must be seen as compatible rather than conflicting objectives. It is a message which is being adopted on a continuing basis by various groups around Australia. I have already spoken about the Australian Mining Industry Council. I am pleased to say that two other groups have been recently formed in the Northern Territory in the pastoral industry. One is a central Australian group; it is called the Central Australian Land Management Association and comprises pastoralists of the central Australian area. One of the members of this group is a Mr Bob Purvis and I have spoken about Mr Purvis in the past in this House. Mr Purvis is the owner-manager of a property 200 kilometres north-east of Alice Springs. This property has been in the family since 1920 and was previously known as Woodgreen. When Mr Purvis took over management of the station in 1960 it was very badly eroded and degraded. Wholesale pasture and land degradation had resulted from poor management practices. When he took over the situation in 1960 he had determined to establish a productive breeding herd, to reclaim degraded country, to manage debt in the short term to survive and to develop his own philosophy, a key philosophy, of management because the only advice that the industry or government could offer at the time was the conventional wisdom which had produced the crisis he was in. Fortunately for Australia and, indeed, for Mr Purvis, he disregarded that advice. Mr Purvis, apart from being educated at a public school in Adelaide, has spent his entire life in the Northern Territory. After schooling he returned to the Northern Territory first to work at Atartinga, his family property, and then to assume management of that property. During the 1950s the drought brought Atartinga close to ruin. But, as I have said, rather than adopt the widespread conventional wisdom of the time, that the deterioration of land and economic crisis of the pastoral industry could be attributed solely to drought conditions, Mr Purvis saw something wrong with the overall production system and realised that he had to change his management techniques radically if Atartinga was again to be productive. He embarked on a system of pastoral management which would-it had two aspects to it-minimise his dependency on climatic windfalls; and secondly, minimise his dependency on government handouts when the windfalls failed to materialise. He did not seek the assistance of government every time that drought struck. He saw the benefits of providing appropriate management strategies to land management. The biggest myth prevailing in the pastoral industry is that the country comes back regardless of the regional ecosystems. The widespread view is that the climate is solely responsible for the condition of land and therefore its carrying capacity and those who support this view can always find evidence to support their case. It is, after all, always easier to blame the climate than to blame poor management. While it is true that in some parts of Australia the country is resilient and will bounce back, it is not true of the Northern Territory pastoral lands which require careful management and analysis to be productive. Society, as I have said, cannot afford to gamble with arid and semi-arid lands. Neither can it afford to support the risk takers in pastoral management by bearing the cost of land degradation and government handouts. The Central Australian Land Management Association is, I believe, a very important step in addressing the concerns of land degradation and land management in central Australia. A similar group has been set up in the Victoria River district of the Northern Territory. I think this all bodes well for the success of the Government's program in managing soil conservation and land degradation. It is important that we recognise that some of the most productive and profitable areas in this country reside north of the Tropic of Capricorn and we need to direct more of our research attention to land management techniques in these areas. Finally, I would like to conclude by giving the House some aspects of Mr Bob Purvis's personal philosophy about land management. These are: firstly, nurture your land and it will repay you; secondly, abuse your land and it will break you, sooner or later; thirdly, manage your land first and the stock will respond; fourthly, avoid large concentrations of stock; fifthly, run more mobs of smaller numbers. Next, aim for stock quality, not quantity and have no rogues in your herd. Wean calves and supplement cows. Take water to where the palatable feed is. Cattle graze a shorter distance from water during summer. Supply clean water; cover tanks and clean out troughs regularly. Repair degraded land with ponding banks and pitting. Muster at six-monthly intervals to facilitate weaning, quieten cattle and shift the herd to allow pasture spelling. Matches are cheaper than dozers for scrub control. Avoid division fences through watering points; this aids stock control, reduces stock pressure on fences and reduces the grazing pressure on pastures close to water. I believe that Mr Purvis provides a good example of the type of land management practices that ought to be adopted in the arid zones of Australia. There is one aspect of his management system which I believe is deserving of particular attention and that is his use of a fire regime to control his environment. Mr Purvis has no compunction in using fire. He said that the first major bushfire that he fought was almost his last. Now he uses fire. He says he progressed to the use of savage fires lit on 40-degree centigrade days, with a strong north-westerly wind to assist him in managing the environment. It is a demonstration to all people in the pastoral sector of arid zones. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(1.27) —When he is not basking in the self-deluding glory of foreign officials who are paid to flatter their guests, our arrogant, out-of-touch Treasurer (Mr Keating) would have us believe that his shallow rationalisations for a failed and flawed policy, which he trots out every day, are some sort of evidence of a degree of economic rationalism unprecedented in Australia. The idea that any government has the solution to all or most of the economic problems of Australia is as prevalent today amongst members of this Labor Government as it has been amongst any government in the past. I was sorry not to have the opportunity to debate a motion brought on this morning by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), dealing with the general topic of privatisation. It is in this debate over privatisation that we see Government speaker after Government speaker asserting that it does not matter whether the government owns a business or whether it is privately owned. They argue that what matters is the management of the enterprise or the degree of competition in the market. The same apologists cannot see the difference between the actions of government supported by taxpayers' dollars and coercive legislation and the actions of private individuals investing their own money and trusting their own judgment. To everyone other than honourable members opposite, with their pretence of omniscience and arrogant insistence that political control by them is the same as control by all Australians, it is clear that government ownership is very different from private ownership. Remember the old gag, that the worst possible type of firm to deal with is one which is run like the post office. That reflects people's perceptions of government involvement in the running of businesses. The most obvious difference between government-owned firms and privately-owned firms is that, while government firms might make large losses, they almost never fail and they never go bankrupt. They will always be bailed out by a Labor government; indeed they are likely to get additional funding and support as if by way of reward for their incompetence. Government trading corporations have other advantages because they have the ear of government as to regulation of the industry in which they operate and frequently they benefit from a degree of protection from competition which no private firm does or should receive. Any government owning and operating firms when it does not need to costs both the taxpayer and the consumers who must deal with them. So does the practice of the Labor Government in Western Australia, my own State, in bailing out its rich mates in private business; but that is a matter for another day. There is absolutely no hard evidence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to suggest that government ownership offers any advantage in price or service to the Australian public, unless those advantages are paid for by taxpayers or other consumers whose choices are restricted by government enforced monopolies. The issue of privatisation helps to demonstrate two important features of the modern Labor Party which the Treasurer claims to have moulded in his own Grim Reaper image. The first is the arrogant assumption that government knows better than anyone else what is really in their interests; the second is the deliberate blurring of the difference between private affairs and the role and actions of government. Amongst the senior Ministers of this Keating-Hawke Government it is difficult to pick the most self-righteous and most arrogant. Is it, for example, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) who, after suffering the severest referendum defeat ever, appeared on national television to berate Australian voters for their lack of understanding and for listening to the campaign mounted by the Opposition? Is it the same Attorney-General who seriously expects the Parliament to accept a nationalised company scheme which adds to the power of his Department, when he finds so many flaws in the Bill himself that 280 amendments were proposed at the very time the Bill was first debated in this House? The Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) is a candidate with his continuing belief that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should choose to stand down as leader now, and for his attempts to dictate the future direction of all higher education in Australia. Or is it the lame duck Prime Minister himself, who recklessly uses the status of his office to ensure a comfortable retirement for his mates and for others to whom he feels indebted? Mr White —Or wants to get out of the road. Mr ROCHER —Yes, after he has inserted the knife. There is one particular example we all remember. Perhaps it is, as most people think, the Treasurer, who, in his relentless plunder of tax revenue, is led to believe that he is above the law. It is the Treasurer and would-be Prime Minister who preaches to a miserably attended session of the International Monetary Fund, even though Australia has an inflation rate well above that of other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries; a balance of payments deficit which underpins a persistent and enormous foreign debt problem; a sclerotic labour market; poor productivity growth; and perilously low investment. The gall of such preaching, when his only achievements have been to deregulate the financial markets in line with worldwide trends and to balance a Budget through massive taxing of the Australian public! It is incredible. However, I should express a degree of sympathy with the Treasurer. He is stuck with the burden of a lame duck Prime Minister who will probably last only long enough to ensure a coalition win at the next election. It is clear that the writing is on the wall for the Hawke-Keating Government, or the Keating-Hawke Government as it is becoming known, and, as the last days of Labor rule pass, it becomes more apparent that its goals have more to do with maintaining power than with securing the peace, order and good government of the Federation. If ever evidence were needed that the end is near, observe the unholy rush to deliver the fruits of office to as many supporters as possible, before the gravy train comes to an end. There is also this abiding inability of the Labor Party to distinguish between the private and public sectors. Actions which are perfectly legitimate for private individuals take on an entirely different character when pursued through government. Hoping to secure the odd directorship on retirement is reasonable, when it is offered by a private firm which, after all, itself will bear the cost and benefits of its decision. But the spectacle of political apparatchiki forever being maintained on the public payroll is quite another matter. I instance just one: the former Premier of South Australia, Mr Don Dunstan. The pursuit of ambition is laudable when it is achieved by voluntary actions of individuals, but it takes on a very different character when it becomes the means of empire building by Ministers and parts of the government. Honourable members opposite could, at least, have the honesty not to repeat the fallacy that what a Labor government does is somehow, and by their definition, in the interests of all Australians. After all, the present Government was elected in 1987 by slightly less than half of the electorate. It is time that the same fallacy which is used to argue that government-owned enterprises are really owned by all Australians was exposed; they are not. If they were, there would be a stampede, a rush, because many, many people would want to sell their shares of these underperforming assets very quickly. What the Australian Labor Party fails to realise is that everything which it does as the Government is paid for by someone else, the taxpayers. What do they get for their trouble? The Government treats the taxpayers with arrogance and contempt. Few will be sorry to see the back of this tired Government, led by a man who, win or lose the next election, is living on borrowed time, time which is on loan from a Treasurer who is not giving up the fight and who is increasingly desperate to assume the mantle of Prime Minister of this country. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(1.37) —Mr Acting Speaker, I must say that I have always thought that the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) is a reasonable fellow. He certainly creates very little in the way of ripple in this House; in fact he seems to do very little, but today's diatribe from him indicates that when you can fathom his somewhat rambling rhetoric, when you can fathom the gist of it, it seems that he is straitjacketed by his ideological prejudices. I suggest to the honourable member that, if he really is concerned about impropriety in government, he should look at the performance of the Court Government when it signed the take-or-pay contract to take gas from the North West Shelf and supply it to Perth at prices which were very high. It was warned by every private sector consultant not to do it, but it proceeded to do that. The gas is cheaper in Perth than it is at its point of origin. In fact the gas is cheaper delivered to Japan than it was when available in the Pilbara. That, of course, meant that the Government had no alternative but to use the gas to generate electricity, which meant closing down the coal mines. A Labor government could not be so irresponsible. The Labor Government has been forced by that irresponsible action of the Court Government-I would say that almost criminal action of the Court Government-to seek other uses for that gas. I might also add, when we are talking about wasting public money, that the Court Government agreed to provide a pipeline at the cost of $1 billion of Western Australian taxpayers' money to bring that same gas for that company to Perth, so that the company could have the privilege of selling it at high prices to the Perth population. When the honourable member for Curtin talks about impropriety in government, it is the grossest hypocrisy that he never mentioned that incident at all. I got up today to speak about an important matter. I refer to the Australian newspaper of 9 October, which carried an article which said, `Iran cracks down ruthlessly on rebels'. This article sets out how the forces of the Ayatollah were using the Mujahideen as shooting galleries and had killed thousands upon thousands of these people, virtually wiping them out. It is interesting because that article was a reprint of a Guardian article in late September. The Guardian did have the decency to publish an article by the Mujahideen which completely refutes the allegations of the Ayatollah. I think the Mujahideen make some very good points. They say that their forces were very successful, were able to wipe out nine of the Ayatollah Khomeini's crack revolutionary guard and got a lot of support from local people. They also say that their casualties were severe, something like 1,400, greatly reduced on the figures produced by the Ayatollah, but the Ayatollah's casualties were much higher. Given the performance of the Ayatollah and the enormous abuse of civil liberties and human rights that has occurred in Iran, I would suspect that there is more than a grain of truth in the Mujahideen claims. These people are leading a war, a battle for human rights and for civil liberties in Iran. I am sure that in the long run they are going to win. It does give me some concern that the world and Australia, and I refer to Australia particularly because it is my country, seem to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Ayatollah's regime, perhaps because we have a very large trade surplus with that country. I am often concerned at the apparent hypocrisy that we have in our attitudes to, say, Iran and the abuses of civil liberties that are going on there and our attitude to the situation in South Africa. We see in the newspapers that the Ayatollah is saying that when people from the Mujahideen whom he has had in gaol for terms of five or seven years finish their terms, he then executes them. It seems to me to be the ultimate double jeopardy. I think it is something that we really should be asking some serious questions about. I do not believe that consideration by Australia of civil rights and human caring issues worldwide will affect trade. I believe that Iran deals with us because we supply the best quality products at the best prices and it will continue to do that. I also believe that in the long run, and I think we should think in terms of the long run, it is going to stand this country in much greater stead if we are seen to be always fearlessly standing up for these issues regardless of immediate initial cost. I might add that I am unhappy also about the situation that is occurring in Iraq in respect to the way it is treating the Kurdish people. The situation that is occurring in Iran is probably beyond comparison anywhere else in the world. Certainly, I do not think that Pinochet in Chile could be accused of conducting anything like the abuses of human rights that the Ayatollah is conducting, nor is it for such a narrow purpose. Mr Lindsay —It is orchestrated genocide. Mr CAMPBELL —Yes, I agree with my good friend, it is orchestrated genocide. It is something which the world should be making very loud and very concerned noises about. The fact that we do not do so I think makes us a little suspect when we do take on these issues in other countries. I would certainly implore this Government, the Government of which I am part, to take a very strong line with Iran and to argue that those people who have served gaol sentences be released, as they should, and not subjected to this double jeopardy of instant execution on completion of their terms. I might also add in this context that women seem to be singled out and to suffer disproportionately. This is, no doubt, because of the peculiarities of the particular culture in which they live. This might be a very useful lesson to many of the multiculturalists in this country who tell us that we have to honour and respect and have regard for the cultures of other people. I think culture should be seen in the context of human rights and, where human rights are not compatible with that culture, we should have no hesitation in condemning that culture. I would like to hear the Multicultural Commission and the people who drive the multicultural industry in this country come out very strongly and say just that-that where there is a conflict between human rights, individual liberties, there is no place in this country for those aspects of those cultures. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being approximately 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —On Monday of last week, 10 October, the Third National Prayer Breakfast was held in the Great Hall of this Parliament House, hosted by a number of members and senators. The breakfast was attended by over 600 people and brought together parliamentarians from this Parliament and the various State parliaments and leaders from all walks of Australian life to join in worship of Almighty God and a time of fellowship and sharing. The thrust of the purpose of the gathering is expressed in 1 John, chapter 1, verse 3: What we have seen and heard we declare to you so that you also will join with us in the fellowship that we have with the Father, and with the Son, Jesus Christ. The guest speaker for the occasion was Sir Ronald Wilson, Justice of the High Court, who spoke on `Grace under Pressure'. The prayer for national leaders was offered by Sir Harold Knight, former Governor of the Reserve Bank. At the subsequent luncheon, the guest speaker was Mr Mal Garvin, National Director of Fusion in Australia. As Chairman for the occasion, I express our thanks to the members and senators from both sides of the Parliament who took part in the program; to the men and women who spoke at the fellowship meetings; and to the many who ably assisted in the vast organisation job for so large a gathering, in particular the coordinator, John Christison, and also our good friends June Ey and Carol Southwell and her staff, who I believe were on deck at about 3.30 a.m. to prepare for the occasion. I seek leave to table copies of the breakfast and luncheon programs and the text of Sir Ronald Wilson's address. Leave granted. Mr KERR(Denison) —I rise to pay tribute to a young man who died in the early hours of Sunday, 16 October 1988. His name was Matthew Francis Nelson and he was aged only 17. I speak on his behalf because he was a young attendant who had worked in this Parliament House for 2 1/2 months and during that time I had come to know him as a friendly, cheerful young man who worked on the wing where I am presently accommodated. Of course, those who are also attendants in this House knew him much better than I and, rather than express my rather limited tributes, I thought I would read two notes that have been given to me by some of his colleagues. The first of those notes said: Matthew, your young carefree happiness and friendliness made everyone here smile. It is hard to say what we really feel because we miss you so much. We all knew you as a happy, generous, smiling person and you often made those around you feeling down, feel good again. You were great to work with and have as a friend. We will always remember you as Matt, the one who made us laugh. We will never forget you, mate. The other note stated: Underneath Matt was an unreal guy, who when you were around him made you laugh and smile. He was a guy that really cared and was happy himself at the worst of times. Matt had what really counted underneath and there will always be a happy memory, not only to me, but to everyone else who knew him. I understand that in the galleries today there are a number of his colleagues, the attendants who shared his short time with us in this Parliament House. I know they join with me and I am sure other members of this House in paying tribute to a young man so tragically taken from us. To those attendants, to everyone else associated, and, of course, to his mother, Mrs Julie Nelson, I hope to express the views of this House and to offer condolences on his so untimely death. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —I am rising to speak about a matter concerning the Department of Community Services and Health, which has written to nursing homes advising them that the lodgment and processing fee will be imposed wherever the operators request the Minister to review nursing home fee determinations. I am speaking particularly on behalf of the Bundalee Nursing Home in Wauchope, in my electorate, because it feels that a lodgment fee of $500 to apply to all requests for review of departmental fee decisions lodged after 23 August 1988 is totally unfair; and, further, a processing fee of $500 per half day meeting to be applied to all cases considered after 23 August by the relevant nursing homes fees review committee of inquiry. I believe that so many of the nursing homes in this country are having to cut their costs right to the bone that they do not have any spare money and because they happen to disagree with the ruling of the Minister's delegate on what their fees should be it is a case of blatant injustice that nursing homes which are not filled with money should be asked to pay a fee of $500 to have their situation reviewed in terms of fees and further to pay a fee of $500 per half day for any sort of hearing. It is also mentioned in the Department's letter that the necessary amendments to the National Health Act would be introduced in the coming Budget sitting. I do not believe they have come through yet. It is a very dissatisfying situation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —Australia's destiny will be determined to a great extent by investment, research and development. It is incredible that total spending on research and development-both government and industry-is at exactly the same level, 1.18 per cent of gross domestic product, as it was 20 years ago. For a nation that aspires to political and economic leadership in the South West Pacific, it would seem obvious that research and development is the linchpin of our future prosperity and political survival. The private sector has just not carried out its fair share of Australian research and development. The situation is improving due to the initiatives introduced by the Hawke Government; for example, 150 per cent tax deductability, the national procurement development program and the offset scheme. But more needs to be done and urgently. We still compare poorly with similar countries overseas, particularly our trading competitors. As my colleague the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) has said, changes internationally are occurring at an unprecedented rate. We just cannot afford to be left behind. We are not yet developing the infrastructure for Australian industries of the twenty-first century. How do we get this message through to the leadership of the Australian community? Australian companies must take up the challenge and seize the opportunities. This is the challenge for every Australian. If we fail to meet this challenge, we shall have surrendered our responsibilities to Australia and to the generations of Australians that follow us. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Tasmania is an island with 400,000 people-a lovely little island. But sometimes I think it is being spoilt by some of the people who have come to Tasmania. Whilst I am not being critical of the Premier of Tasmania, Robin Gray, for trying to get people from New South Wales to come down to Tasmania because they are going to get cheaper real estate, I do not know where they are going to get jobs. That is what is worrying me. Somebody challenged me the other day-I think it was one of those new Ministers over there-about employment and unemployment. I worry about unemployment all the time in Tasmania. I noted in the Hobart Mercury-that is our local newspaper-the other day a report that we are welcoming some new person to Tasmania whose name is Clive Jenkins-a greenie, another greenie from England, a former union representative, coming down on top of Bob Brown. I think he comes from that other island, New South Wales, from memory. He came to Tasmania. We have Norm Sanders from America. We have another fellow down there, another greenie. All they do is try to restrict industries in Tasmania. All they do is stir the people up, worry the people into an unnecessary frame of mind. People in Tasmania are starting to realise, `We are being demoralised by this person'. So I warn Mr Clive Jenkins, a former large unionist from England, one who got sick of stirring up the troubles over there so he has decided to come to the east coast of Tasmania to try to stir up a bit more trouble for my wonderful island of Tasmania. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker) —I wish to address a subject raised by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) the other night, namely, the planned integration of the repatriation general hospitals into the State hospital system. This plan makes good economic, medical and veterans' affairs sense. It makes no sense to have a repatriation hospital functioning in isolation, unable to take advantage of the facilities and services offered by the State hospitals. The concern of veterans, and I understand this concern, is that changes may diminish the quality of medical service they currently enjoy. I can assure veterans of three things. First, they will always have priority; secondly, the present high level of medical care will be maintained; and, thirdly, the broadening of hospital options will mean greater convenience for them and their families. The coalition policy states that the Liberal and National parties are committed to the maintenance of a separate repatriation hospital system. However, the shadow Minister was forced to concede at the National Congress of the Returned Services League that they could not extend this guarantee for the life of a coalition government. Their commitment does not even extend to 1995. I wonder whether the honourable member for Adelaide will come clean and tell his veterans this at his much vaunted public meeting. Mr Acting Speaker, I, like many members on this side of my generation, have a father, father-in-law and several uncles who served and suffered during World War II. We do not need the honourable member for Adelaide to lecture us about the sacrifices they made. We are as aware as he is of these things. But the difference between him and us is that we do not sermonise and mouth pious platitudes about veterans; we actually take action to ensure their welfare. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PROSSER(Forrest) —It galls me to have to raise in this place yet again and highlight an incident in which Telecom Australia has blatantly disregarded its statutory community responsibilities. I refer to the Australian Telecommunications Commission's enterprise projects policy, relating to semi-rural residential subdivisions. The aim of this policy is to make someone else pay for what Telecom should be doing. Specifically, Mr Green began developing in 1982 a semi-rural subdivision just 15 minutes from the city of Bunbury in Western Australia. Telecom brought in its enterprise policy in early 1986, almost four years after Mr Green started his development and several years after first blocks were sold. Yet Telecom wrongly enforced its policy retrospectively and refused to cable the area unless Mr Green contributed thousands of dollars to pay for it. In February this year I referred Mr Green's case to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Eight months later the Ombudsman has not been able to make a ruling because Telecom will not respond to his investigations. Meanwhile the first resident to apply for a phone service, Mr Grahame Humphreys, advised last week that he had been too late to the bedside of his dying father because relatives could not contact him. Mr Acting Speaker, it is a scandal that such a situation exists in civilised twentieth century Australia. I note from Telecom's report that the responsible Minister did not have cause to direct Telecom on any matter of public interest in this previous year. This is certainly a case for the Minister's intervention. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to the failure of the New South Wales Greiner Government to recognise the importance of proceeding immediately with the construction of the proposed Caloola Pass road, thus putting in jeopardy the economic development of the Illawarra region. With the downturn of the steel and coal industries in the Illawarra, our region suffered greatly. Thanks to the intervention of the newly elected Hawke Labor Government, the steel industry was saved, but 12,000 jobs have still been lost in this industry. One of the great signs of hope for the future economic development of the Illawarra has been the work of the Port Kembla Harbour task force. This organisation has worked hard and effectively to develop the port of Kembla as a significant outlet for the Australian export trade. This is rightly seen as one of the most valuable ways of diversifying our local economy, thereby ensuring more jobs. To date, the most notable achievement of the task force has been the construction of the grain handling terminal at Port Kembla. For Port Kembla to reach its full potential as an export development port, it is absolutely essential that there is put in place a suitable road infrastructure to get the product from inland New South Wales to the coast quickly and effectively. Caloola Pass road is an essential part of this plan. The road meets all the criteria of a national arterial road, but the Greiner Government refuses to see this. The refusal of the New South Wales Minister, Mr Murray, to recommend an immediate start to this road is, I believe, an act of deliberate spite against the people of the Illawarra. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —On 5 October there occurred a momentous occasion in the history of Latin America and certainly a watershed in the history of Chile. It was the free and democratic elections. I am saddened that sufficient credit has not been given to either, one, the Government of Chile or, two, the people of Chile for the freely exercised vote, in which some 57 per cent of the population decided not to continue with the incumbent president beyond another 18 months, according to the 1980 Constitution. I have personally visited Chile in recent months. I have seen the trend towards democracy in that country. Quite frankly, I met with members of the Government and the Opposition, including the church. That Government and that country deserve the support of Australia rather than just our hungry dollars, given that Australia is the biggest foreign investor in Chile. Why is it that this Government will not encourage and support the forces at work for democracy in that country, instead of using every opportunity to slander a government that organised the same free and democratic elections that have seen its President voted out of office? Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory) —We have just heard a diatribe from the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) about the virtuous aspects of the Pinochet regime in Chile. Let the honourable member know that what the Pinochet regime has done in Chile has been an abuse of human rights, and this week is Human Rights Week-Amnesty International Week. Ask Amnesty International how it views the Chilean junta. Ask Amnesty International about the invasion and denial of human and civil rights in Chile. Ask Amnesty International how many people have been murdered under the Chilean regime. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to press reports that the British Government has initiated a review of Britain's military cooperation with Australia following union bans imposed on the Ark Royal and the Government's weak response to those bans. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Government has ascertained the correctness or otherwise of those reports? Can the Prime Minister guarantee to the House that Royal Navy and other visiting naval vessels will be given complete freedom of access to and facilitated entry into other Australian ports, including the ports of Perth and Fremantle? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I have not seen those reports. It may be that my Defence Minister has been made aware of them. Let me say this in general terms: During the recent visit to Australia of the British Prime Minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, we had the most useful discussions covering every conceivable aspect of the relationship between our two countries. I can say that I was very pleased to be informed, by Mrs Thatcher directly and then subsequently by our High Commissioner, that Mrs Thatcher had indicated that she believed that her visit to Australia was the best organised visit that she had had overseas during the period of her prime ministership. Mr Connolly —What has that to do with ships? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —Mr Acting Speaker, I regard the question as a serious one. I am trying to give a serious answer and I hope that I will be allowed to do so. As a result of Mrs Thatcher's visit and the very useful discussions that we had, I responded positively to her request that I should visit Britain in June of next year and take with me a number of my senior Ministers. I indicate that one of those Ministers will be the Minister for Defence. Mrs Thatcher has given instructions that those discussions are to be prepared with the greatest detail. She is committed to making those talks successful. I give that background to indicate that I would be totally surprised if the attitude which was displayed and followed through by Mrs Thatcher would in any way be changed as a result of the action, which is repudiated by this Government, of a union in this country in regard to a visit by the British Royal Navy. But, in deference to the Leader of the Opposition, I will have the matter taken up to see whether there is any substance in the report. I indicate that I doubt it very much. As to the final part of the Leader of the Opposition's question, both I and the Minister for Defence have made clear publicly, outside of this House and in this House, that we are taking steps to accelerate the acquisition by the Royal Australian Navy of those facilities which will ensure that, should there be in the future any refusal of facilities or services by seamen that could in any way preclude the proper berthing and servicing of ships in similar circumstances, the Royal Australian Navy will itself have the capacity to provide that service. I conclude my answer by making the point that I made before. In the last three to four weeks more than 30 ships have been accommodated in 12 Australian ports. As I have said publicly and strongly, I regret that the attitude that was adopted in Melbourne did prevent the berthing of some ships there. To conclude the answer to the honourable gentleman's question, I understand that should the action of one union in question mean that the facilities that Fremantle can provide will not be available, action has been taken to ensure that facilities of the Australian defence forces will be available. Ms JAKOBSEN —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the advances made in achieving the Government's social justice objective, together with consequent benefits for the majority of Australians? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Cowan for her question. Very briefly, let me make the point that the Government is committed to the achievement of a fair and just society based on these principles: equity in the distribution of economic resources; equality of civil, legal and industrial rights; equal access to essential services such as health, education and housing; and the opportunity for participation by all in personal development, community life and decision-making. The Government's economic and social justice strategies are equal partners. This is nowhere more clearly apparent than in the area of job creation. I would remind the honourable member of the fact, of which she is no doubt well aware, that in the period since we have been in government we have been responsible for the creation of over 1,100,000 jobs, which is twice the rate of job creation of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average. May I say-without wanting to rub it in too much-that it is four times as fast a rate of job creation as existed under our predecessors. I remind the honourable member that there is nothing more useful that one can do in directing oneself to the question of poverty that we inherited in this country than creating jobs. We have done that better than has ever been done before. But we have not been satisfied with that alone. We have taken historic steps to direct a battle against child poverty. For example, I would point out-and I think this is truly a remarkable statistic; it is one which should give pleasure to all members on both sides of the House-that payments through the Government's family allowance supplement will mean that by December of this year a low income family with three children will get a supplement which is worth more than a wage rise of $100 a week. This is truly an historic step. I quickly refer to what has been done in the area of educational opportunities. The honourable member will be aware that we have done and achieved the following things: We have given assured real funding increases for recurrent purposes to both government and non-government schools. We have more than doubled the rate of the education allowance for 16- and 17-year-olds. We have boosted the year 12 retention rate from the miserably low 36 per cent that we inherited in 1982 to 57 per cent this year, which is a truly remarkable increase. I give this statistic, which perhaps the honourable member is not aware of, in regard to the creation of tertiary education places: In our period of government we have created 46,400 new tertiary education places. I ask the honourable member to compare the creation of 46,400 places with the 14,900 in a similar period when the Opposition was in government. That is, there are 211 per cent more places under this Government. We have also provided the free and universal health cover, Medicare, which has removed the disastrous fact that two million Australians had no cover. We have increased the age pension in real terms by 8.3 per cent. That is the achievement of this Government-an increase of 8.3 per cent in real terms which compares with a 2.5 per cent real reduction in the real value of the pension in the period when the current Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. Two questions have been answered in 10 minutes. I ask you again whether you could please try to get Ministers not to make statements during Question Time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I can understand that the Opposition does not want to hear the facts. May I say finally to the honourable member for Cowan-I know that this matter is of particular interest to her-that in terms of trying to ensure that we give women in this country a fair go, a fair chance and a fair opportunity, we have ensured the provision of another 30,000 child care places over the next four years. This will mean a trebling of the number of child care places in this country. Mr Acting Speaker, I conclude by saying that in those statistics there is an indication that the combination of this Government's economic and social justice strategies have been and are working to create a fairer and more prosperous Australian society. Mr BLUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support. In October 1986, the Government announced that it proposed a panel to review regulatory changes affecting the aviation industry. Who is conducting this review and what has been done? Mr Sinclair —Quick, Gary. What page is it on? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. Mr PUNCH —There was an inquiry in the period mentioned by the honourable member for Richmond. I think he mentioned aviation charters-did you not? Is that what you said? Mr Blunt —No. Mr PUNCH —Well, would you mind repeating the question? Mr BLUNT —Mr Acting Speaker, from the top: In October 1986, the Government announced that it proposed a panel to review regulatory changes affecting the aviation industry. Who is conducting this review and what has been done? Mr PUNCH —I do not have that information with me. I will get a response and get back to the honourable member. Mr LINDSAY —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Is the Minister aware of remarks attributed to Mr Richard Butler concerning Australia's cooperation with the United States in the operation of joint facilities in Australia? I ask the Minister to inform the House of the Government's plans regarding the continued operation of the joint facilities. Mr BEAZLEY —I have seen those remarks attributed to Mr Richard Butler and I understand that, in fact, Mr Butler has indicated to us that his remarks are inaccurately reported. I might say that there is no intention by the Government to review or to run down joint facilities in this country. Those joint facilities, in the circumstances where arms control verification is required as arms control agreements are reached, become more and not less important. As was indicated by the Prime Minister in this Parliament last year, there is a role being played by those joint facilities in the verification of the arms control agreements currently being achieved between the Soviet Union and the United States. Of course, some of those other facilities are not directly related to arms control agreements in the tasks they perform. North West Cape, for example, is a communication facility for ships but principally for submarines. In that particular instance, of course, arms control issues simply do not arise when the future of that station is considered. I might say, however, that that station is growing in importance to Australia. We are now in the situation where we utilise that facility for some 25 per cent of its time, which, when the relative sizes of the Australian submarine fleet and the US submarine fleet are considered, is a pretty fair indication that we indeed gain a great deal of utilisation out of that facility. As our submarines become the most significant striking arm of the Navy and as our submarines become more important to our own defence requirements overall, that joint facility becomes more and more important to this country. So, as I said, there is no intention to run down those joint facilities in any way. It is a case of that particular joint facility's value increasing to Australia. In the case of the others, arms control agreements or otherwise do not alter the importance of the tasks they perform. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I remind him that, in the first quarter of this year, the general government sector paid $648m of interest to foreign lenders compared with $590m for the same period last year. Nevertheless, the Treasurer claimed yesterday that the repayment of government debt was an important reason for the apparent improvement in total net income-that is, official and private payable overseas. I ask the Treasurer: How can the repayment of government debt be an important reason for a decline in total net income payable overseas when, for the nation as a whole, an increase in private foreign debt was required to finance the repayment of government foreign debt plus the current account deficit? Mr KEATING —Mr Acting Speaker, the indebtedness of Australia as a whole has, over the last year-I would need to check the number to be precise-if not declined certainly slowed in its growth, given the fact that the dollar, of course, has appreciated and that the balance of trade and the current account have improved. That being the case, there are, of course, naturally savings on the income and transfer system, as was revealed in the current account figures yesterday. That is in the low net income deficit which is recorded for September. That deficit reflected the seasonal low in non-official investment income payable abroad as well as, as I said yesterday, a decrease in official investment income payable abroad. The fact of that matter is that under this Government-I have made this point clear before and I will make it again and there is some reference to it in Budget Statement No. 2-the debt which we are aggregating is now higher than the debt we would otherwise aggregate for the current account condition. We are aggregating now higher levels of debt simply because we are now repatriating equity. We are delivering equity offshore to fund the growth of this constellation of companies and our private assets abroad. In the Budget analysis it will be seen that, in the 5 1/2 years since 1983, the growth of Australian assets abroad has gone from something like $5 billion to just on $37 billion, which stands in some respects in contrast and offsets the growth of our private debt abroad. To the extent that when we had a current account deficit of about 2 1/2 per cent of gross domestic product through the 1970s, which was not aggregating any debt simply because it was funded by equity, we are now in fact acquiring more debt than we would otherwise need to acquire by virtue of the fact that we are exporting equity. In other words, the basic conditions have changed. We are not in the position we were in the 1970s when we were simply taking equity in satisfaction of our current accounting balance. We are now as well exporting equity and of course, therefore, the current account debt is higher by virtue of the value of that equity being exported. But that said simply makes the point that whatever is seen in the level of Australian indebtedness abroad today does not necessarily reflect absolutely and solely the current account condition. As the Government diminishes its own debt abroad, there is therefore a gain on the net income transfer and that gain was reflected in yesterday's current account figures, as I made clear yesterday. Mrs HARVEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware that unscrupulous insurance sales people are doing the rounds of pensioner and senior citizens groups and inveigling retired people into taking out insurance policies by alleging that the age pension will be reduced or phased out in the near future? What is the status of the age pension under a Labor government? Mr HOWE —Mr Acting Speaker, in recent weeks there have been a number of groups which have been peddling rumours that have no relationship to or any basis in fact whatever. The Government's commitment to the age pension is a strong and quite fundamental commitment. As the Prime Minister has indicated, we have sought to provide real increases in the age pension in the period that we have been in government. We have, of course, also made adjustments in the income test free area to increase the amount of income that aged persons might receive without loss of their pension. We are the government that has addressed the issues of fringe benefit limits and ensured that those limits are indexed so that, as people's incomes move, they still have access to extremely important fringe benefits that provide quite a significant part of the real income of so many aged pensioners. The Government is about to receive from Professor Cass a paper on retirement incomes policy. It will provide the Government with an opportunity to think long and to look to the future of our retirement system. We have been facing the very difficult circumstances where the dependency ratios, particularly in the late 1970s and early 1980s-that is, the proportion of people who are dependent on social security payments-rose from 30 for every 100 people employed in the work force to 44 people at the time we came to government in 1983. That massive rise in the dependency ratio has meant that the social security budget has had to be spread across a much larger group of people. Notwithstanding the cost of supporting the unemployed and the increasing numbers of sole parents, notwithstanding the restraint that has been exercised in terms of wages in the community, we have delivered to aged people a real increase. It is the intention of the Government, in framing its retirement income policy, to build on the very strong basis of the Australian pension system-one that is the envy of a number of other countries-and certainly not to diminish it in any way. At the same time it will ensure that we have a retirement income policy that will lead to much higher standards of living for aged people in the future than has been possible in the past. It will have to overcome the fact that we are dealing with an ageing population. We will move from something like 10 per cent of the population over the age of 65 to 16 per cent of the population by the year 2011. We are going to have to cope with that ageing population, but we will do that by recognising that we have a well targeted pension system, one that we believe can be built on to ensure that over a period we deliver to aged people in Australia, both in terms of the pension and in terms of the increased proportion of the population who will have access to superannuation, a retirement income system that I believe is now the envy of many countries but will be more so in the future. Mr MOORE —Can the Minister for Industrial Relations tell the House how many containers presently remain uncleared at the ports of Sydney and Melbourne due to the current state of industrial chaos on the waterfront? What effect has this industrial strife, including the recent Customs dispute, had on the import figures and hence on yesterday's current account number? Has this number been distorted as a consequence of these delays? Mr PETER MORRIS —No, I cannot give an answer in respect of the last point the honourable member raised. I do not think he seriously expects me to. Mr N.A. Brown —Why not? Mr PETER MORRIS —It is part of his presentation. The honourable member and I know very well the reason he asked the question. In respect of the other items he raised, there have been a series of problems affecting the waterfront. There was the dispute in relation to the Australian Customs Service that originally began the delays. There have been subsequent disputes which have contributed to the delays and the build-up of the container backlog. Naturally, I am not able to give a figure on what number of containers are delayed, but we do have a great deal of concern about the interruption to our export and import services. Mr Halverson —What are you doing about it? Mr PETER MORRIS —We are doing what the Opposition did not do. On the waterfront, of all areas of activity the area that offers greater potential-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will get back to the question he was asked by the honourable member for Ryan. Mr PETER MORRIS —I was addressing myself directly to the question, Mr Acting Speaker. I was asked about the delay in the movement of containers. Fundamentally, the question asked about the organisation of the waterfront, the organisation of the methods used on the waterfront, and those who are responsible. One of the problems on the waterfront that contribute to these kinds of difficulties is that there is no direct relationship between the people who pay for the containers to be moved and the people who move the containers. There is no direct relationship at all. That is a reflection on past practices in the industry. That is a reflection on previous governments, where everybody at the time-- Mr Lloyd —That line doesn't work any more, Peter. It did when you came in but not any more. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister might bring his answer to a conclusion. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am doing that, Mr Acting Speaker. All the practices on the waterfront that have led to these kinds of disputes arising are the result of their not having been addressed in earlier years. The changes and the reform of the waterfront which are in progress and which have been instituted by this Government, through the activities of the Stevedoring Industry Review Committee but more recently the activities and report of the Inter-State Commission, should all help to create a much more efficient movement of those containers and make a major contribution to the improvement of our trade competitiveness. It is much easier for people to grandstand on this issue than it is to address the really difficult structural and established problems that are inherent on the waterfront. This Government is doing that. We will continue to press ahead with the task. As the honourable member for Ryan would know, the direct responsibility in that area rests with my colleague the Minister for Transport and Communications. Mr FITZGIBBON —Will the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy advise the House of recent movements in major agricultural commodity prices? Will he inform the House of the implications of these changes? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question, which goes directly to many issues of debate today. The Opposition is saying that we will have big tax cuts now and that will increase living standards. At the same time it is saying we are doomed on the export front. The Australian newspaper even echoed that today, saying that some of the estimates on commodities are shonky. The Opposition is saying that we need big cuts in spending now but somehow that is not going to lower living standards. Let me get this into some sort of perspective. What I am running on, as opposed to the Treasurer's estimates, is the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, which gave me four years of bad news. It is saying quite plainly that the relatively low commodity exports in July and August were quite consistent with the Bureau's forecasts. Rural sector exports are expected to increase sharply in the remaining three quarters of 1988-89. The value of commodity exports in 1988-89 may well exceed the Bureau's latest published forecast by around $750m, or another 2 per cent. That is why I have been saying that the Treasurer's forecasts are, if anything, at this stage, from my perspective as the Minister for commodities, conservative. Mr Hawker —You want to have his job. Mr KERIN —I am just giving the facts. The Opposition is talking of doom and gloom and shonky estimates. What I am saying is what I am advised-that is, that there has been a strong upsurge in world agriculture commodity prices in recent months. In Australian dollar terms, even after allowing for the currency appreciation, prices since the 1986-87 slump have increased by 75 per cent for wool, 40 per cent for wheat, 25 per cent for dairy products and sugar, and 10 per cent for beef. Parenthetically I add that we are now starting to see increases coming through in the coal market-21 per cent on the steaming coal settlements recently and 9 per cent real. Those increases are the major reason for the more than doubling of the real net value of rural production over the last three years. As I have said, they validate the Budget forecast of a 9 per cent terms of trade improvement. Another major reason for improved farm conditions is that farm cost inflation was only 4.5 per cent in 1987-88 due to an 8.6 per cent fall in interest paid and an increase in fuel prices of only 1.6 per cent. That was the lowest rate for 17 years and can be contrasted with an 11 per cent increase in farm cost inflation in the last days of the Fraser-Howard Government. So the Government's policies are bettering the farm sector. I should mention-I am not one of those boom-bust men who say, `That is always the way it is'-that the farmers themselves have changed their product mix and improved their efficiency. As the Treasurer and all Government members freely acknowledge, this improvement in rural conditions is of great benefit to the economy as a whole, but it only accrues over time. In particular, there is a lag between the time commodity prices improve and the time farmers get the money, and then there is a further lag before tax is paid on it. For example, wheat growers are seeing some of the improvement in world wheat prices only in their first advance for the current season. The full benefit will be contained in the first subsequent payments for the 1987-88 crop early next year, and in advances in subsequent years as earlier low prices wash out of the averaging formula. Similarly, the Australian Wool Corporation has large financial reserves arising from the sale of its stockpile over the last two years. Both the provisional tax system itself and the effect of tax averaging will delay the revenue effect of the commodity price increases until next year. Of course, such niceties never worry the Opposition. It is interested in cheap propaganda-doom and gloom, boom and bust-about tax cuts without caring about economic responsibility, as this Government does. Mr HICKS —I preface my question to the Acting Minister for Community Services and Health by saying that in Australia there are regions that have a high incidence of arbovirus or mosquito-borne diseases. These diseases include encephalitis, Ross River fever and other diseases, some of which are still to be identified. Given this situation, will the Minister give this House and the people of the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally irrigation areas a guarantee that the mosquito eradication and research program initiated after the 1974 Australian encephalitis epidemic will continue to receive adequate funding from the Federal Government to allow this crucial research program to continue, particularly in those irrigation areas I have mentioned? Mr STAPLES —I thank the honourable member for Riverina-Darling for his question. As Acting Minister, not having full carriage of this area, I will ensure that when Dr Blewett returns this question is addressed by him and, before that, by his Department. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Treasurer inform the House of the progress that Australia is making in restructuring our economy and overcoming our trade imbalance? Mr KEATING —That was obviously a question which the Opposition should have asked yesterday, but did not do so because it does not like the answers given by those on this side of the House, particularly on matters of substance. Yesterday it engaged in an attack on you, Mr Acting Speaker, instead of asking questions about the current account imbalance or any matter relating to the fundamentals. Yesterday's current account figure shows that the progress the Government is making in terms of its strategy of changing the structure of the Australian economy is very much on track. Yesterday's current account figure was down $337m from last month and down $1,228m from the same month last year. The fundamentals show that imports were down and that there is scope for further improvements in export earnings coming off higher volumes. I refer briefly to the answer just given by my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy in relation to commodity prices, commodity exports and commodity volumes, and make the point that while we had a couple of high figures in the current account in the early part of the year, this is the part of the year when figures are prone to be higher than at other times, particularly as we have now run down agricultural stocks. As a result of a pretty good season we may see that product going to export markets and, given the prices which prevail at the moment, a decline in the deficit; that is, a pickup in our export figures over the balance of the year-so much so that it is entirely possible that the current account forecast in the Budget could be realised, which was the point made by my colleague. I said yesterday that it is getting harder to realise that projection with the two high numbers in the first two months of the year, but it is not out of the question that, with these lower numbers and higher export volumes, it could be done. The main point is that this is part of the continuing structural change. A great deal of the progress which we are making now is built around good commodity prices and good export prices. Competitiveness is still there; we are still highly competitive. The general competitiveness of the economy is being maintained by a real depreciation of the exchange rate and a decline in our inflation rate, coming from the Government's wages policy. As the Budget indicated, the investment is there, pumping the supply capacity of the economy along. With 10 per cent real growth in investment last year and 12 per cent real factored in for this year, the supply side response that will effect such a transition on the current account and the balance of payments is there. While we might have had some higher figures than we would have either expected or wanted in the earlier part of the year, the fact is that the structural transition is there, which was the essence and point of my colleague's question. Progress is being made and it is built on these fundamentals-good commodity prices, strong competitiveness and a strong investment response, which we are seeing coming off a particularly big decline in public sector demands on financial markets and Australian savings; in other words, a strategy which is working to change the balance of Australia's industrial production, its current account deficit and hence its indebtedness. That is what people on the other side of the House thought they could not do and did not need to do. They simply relied upon commodity prices and did not worry about selling intellectual product, selling a restructured Australian economy or seeing a better balance in its secondary and tertiary sectors to offset the dependence on the primary exports sector. It has fallen, as usual, to a Labor government to pick up the ball and run with it and make the changes which were left for nearly 40 years by lazy, indolent coalition governments. Here we are now a fair way through the current Parliament still with no structure in policy from the Opposition. There is still no indication of a fiscal policy-a basic thing like a fiscal and tax policy-no clarity about wages policy and, therefore, no structure about how the continuing necessary transition of Australia would be undertaken by a coalition government. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order concerning relevance. Mr Acting Speaker, I thank you for the wonderful show we have had today. We have actually heard some answers. The Treasurer is now-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will get to his point of order. Mr Tuckey —My point of order is that the Treasurer is now breaking the golden rule. He has given us the information. He now wishes to make a historical attack. If he wants to do that, we are back to yesterday. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —The point is that you can ask him to bring his answer to a conclusion. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KEATING —Honourable members opposite have a quaint understanding of the Standing Orders. They think that the only answer is the one they like; otherwise all other answers are out of order. Is that the proposition? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will answer the question and not respond to interjections. Mr KEATING —The fact of the matter is that we have an important and an entirely fundamental transition taking place in the Australian economy which the numbers reveal month by month, including yesterday's. That is being delivered only through a coherent economic policy structure, a structure which belongs to this side of the Parliament alone. There is no such structure on the other side of the House. Not to have such a structure means that honourable members opposite could not go to the Australian public at an election proposing anything which resembles something which would change the Australian economy to remove our dependence upon commodities, to get off the large current account imbalances and reduce our overseas indebtedness. Mr JULL —I ask the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support whether it is a fact that the Government signed off the new Brisbane Airport terminal prior to its opening earlier this year, thus negating responsibility by contractors to guarantee their work. Is the Minister aware of major security risks now involved with the terminal? What is the Government doing to solve the scandal, as the Federal Airports Corporation seems not to be accepting any responsibility? Mr PUNCH —Brisbane Airport is under the auspices of the Federal Airports Corporation. The matters raised by the honourable member quite properly are in the Corporation's domain. I am quite aware that there are a number of problems with Brisbane Airport-first of all, the terminal; secondly, the noise problem-all of which have to be addressed. In terms of security, in recent times there has been a full-scale attempt to upgrade security around airports in Australia, relating not only to perimeters but to internal areas as well. The honourable member's question about the problem of security at Brisbane Airport is one that I will refer to the Federal Airports Corporation as the body concerned. Mr GORMAN —My question is to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I ask: Is the Minister aware of reports suggesting the possibility of Australia Post being privatised? Can the Minister advise the House of the correctness of these reports? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of a report in the Canberra Times yesterday in which it was stated that the Chairman of Australia Post, Mr Lansdown, had said that privatisation of Australia Post was an option. In fact, Mr Lansdown assured me that he said no such thing in his address to the seminar and nor did he say anything of the kind in the discussion that followed. His speaking notes indicate that he spoke generally in support of the Government business enterprise reform packages as they apply to Australia Post, although he did say that he thought there were some ways in which the package could be taken further. He instanced things such as auditing arrangements. I assure the House that the Government has no intention whatever of privatising Australia Post. That statement has been made clearly by my predecessor in his portfolio as well as by the Prime Minister. What we are doing, of course, through the Government business enterprise reform package is making Australia Post, along with all other Government business enterprises, much more dynamic organisations and much more efficient organisations through providing for those bodies to be incorporated and for other various steps to be taken which will ensure that they operate in a more businesslike fashion. In the case of Australia Post, of course, we have to bear in mind that it performs not only a business undertaking but also very important social obligations, especially the obligation to provide a universal service at a universal price. Of course, that requires it to do things which a fully commercial organisation simply would not do. If we had a fully commercial Australia Post, we would certainly not get a lot of the services we currently get-or, at least, we would get them at a much higher price. What we are doing with Australia Post and the other Government business enterprises is incorporating them. Where there are community service obligations involved, where there is, as I have mentioned, the kind of social obligations of Australia Post, we will be taking those into account in setting the financial targets for these organisations so that we will have full accounting for their community service obligations. They will have a paid up capital structure. They will be required to establish a corporate plan and financial targets. They will provide a dividend to the Government. They will be subject to normal business taxes and charges and, in most respects, will operate in a fully commercial way. What we are seeing with Australia Post is a very substantial development to make this already quite efficient organisation, which has earned profits in every one of its last 12 years except one-which marks it out uniquely in the world as a post office which actually makes profits-even more efficient with the Government business reform package in the legislation before the House now, and the second element, which will come through next year, will bring about a much more dynamic organisation. 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, 3 November 1988. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Tuesday, 1 November 1988. The report read as follows- Report relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 3 November 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, 3 November 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. Committee report Statements upon presentation Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs Interim report on the effectiveness of support services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted Notices *1 mr langmore: To move-That this House notes with profound regret the financial crisis in the UN due principally to the arrears of the USA, and also the threat to the effectiveness of the World Bank posed by the failure of the US to ratify the General Capital Increase, and calls on the US Administration and Congress to swiftly authorise in full payment due to both the UN and the World Bank. (Notice given 23 August 1988. 40 mins *2 mr andrew: To move-That this House congratulates President Reagan on his contribution to world peace and economic prosperity during his 2 terms as President of the United States of America. (Notice given 18 October 1988. 40 mins Order of the day *3 human rights and referendum question: Resumption of debate (from 1 September 1988-Mr Lavarch, in continuation) on the motion of Mr Webster-That this House- (1) declares that this nation enjoys basic human rights and freedoms unequalled anywhere in the world, and that these rights and freedoms are not under threat; (2) acknowledges the inherent dangers in inserting ``rights'' clauses in a written Constitution; and (3) expresses its concerns that the changes to the Constitution proposed by referendum question number 4 would allow Commonwealth Governments to meddle with and deprive Australians of their basic rights and freedoms. 30 mins Notice *4 mr scholes: To move-That this House is of the opinion that attempts by the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria to undermine Melbourne's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games are unacceptable and extremely short-sighted. (Notice given 29 September 1988. any remaining private Members' business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day 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- Constitutional Commission-Final Report-volumes one and two. Higher Education-a policy statement-Paper. National Board of Employment, Education and Training-Guidelines in relation to performance of functions-section 8 of the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force-Report. Commonwealth Ombudsman/Defence Force Ombudsman-Annual Reports 1987-88-section 19 of the Ombudsman Act 1976. Judge Advocate General-Annual Report 1987-section 196a of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. Official Establishments Trust Annual Report 1987-1988-Corrigendum. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —Mr Acting Speaker, I desire to make a personal explanation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TIM FISCHER —Yes, I do. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TIM FISCHER —I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) immediately prior to Question Time. She was talking about a public meeting coming up in Adelaide on Sunday, 30 October about saving Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital. The honourable member for Hawker said that I had given no worthwhile assurance in relation to the future of that hospital. I simply refer her to our policy, which represents an absolute commitment to retain a separate repatriation general hospital system in every capital city of this nation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat that the precarious balance of payments and huge foreign debt pose for living standards in Australia. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(2.49) —We have proposed this matter for discussion for the obvious reason that yesterday, with the publication of the current account figures, we saw that the current account deficit for September brings the deficit for the first quarter of 1988-89 to $3.8 billion compared to $3.4 billion in the same quarter last year. We heard two very interesting answers from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in Question Time today. In one answer, in response to a question I asked, he absolutely confused the nature of the question. The second, which was in answer to a dorothy dixer from his own side, was a repetition of allegations made yesterday at the press conference, which are simply unfounded. I went through the transcript and, on the first reading, found five, and I am assured there is a sixth. Yet the Treasurer came in here today and stood before us as bold as brass and said that there is an improvement in the current account deficit. Quarter by quarter, this is not so. This year it is $3.8 billion and last year it was $3.4 billion. Yesterday's figures means that we have added nearly $1 billion to our foreign debt. Of course, official capital outflow was over $1 billion, but a private capital inflow of nearly $5 billion was required to finance the current account deficit, plus the Treasurer's debt repayments. This puts into perspective the spectacle of the Treasurer paying off a bit here and a bit there while travelling the world paying off a bit of debt. He neglected to mention any of this yesterday. I have to say that as I read the transcript there seemed to me to exude through that press conference a complacency which does not serve Australia well. I know what he is referring to when he refers to the triple somersaults with pike. That is not a bad illustration because he performs in that manner. But I would have thought that for a government that is doing more somersaults over taxation than any government I have ever seen, it was not the most apt description at present, with or without the pike. The bottom line is that the Australian economy is extremely vulnerable in the world economy. In the 13 or 14 months I have been in this shadow portfolio, I have constantly used the theme of the need to speed the pace of adjustment because of that vulnerability. The pace of adjustment to our huge foreign debt is already slow. The reality that it is already slow is shown by three examples which I will cite. Perhaps the Treasurer would be good enough to listen to them and address them and tell us whether he agrees with them. When I say that the pace of adjustment in the face of our huge foreign debt is already slow, it is shown by: fact No. 1, that net exports are projected to make yet again a negative contribution to the gross domestic product in this financial year; fact No. 2, that imports of capital goods, as a share of total imports, fell again in 1987-88; and fact No. 3, that investment in the mining and manufacturing sectors is expected to show little, if any, real growth in 1988-89. It would be helpful to the House, in terms of the pace of adjustment, for the Treasurer to address those three crucial factors. I do know from reading the press release yesterday-and it was interesting to note-that there has been a change in the labelling or the rhetoric that the Treasurer uses on the capital goods point. He no longer talks about `capital goods' as imports, but rather `producer equipment imports'. A mere change of labelling by the Government does not disguise the fact that imports of investment goods, as a share of total imports, fell again in 1987-88. No wonder Moody's Investor Services Inc. continues to refuse to restore Australia's AAA international credit rating. In fact, according to Moody's, `nothing has really altered' its thinking since it downgraded our credit rating in 1986. In other words, despite the statements of the Treasurer, Moody's has said that the Government's rhetoric is no indication of change and indeed is no substitute for sound economic policies. Despite the undeniable vulnerability of the Australian economy, the Budget strategy is based on continued strength and commodity prices. I listened with interest to the Treasurer's colleague today trying to talk up the question of commodity prices. We in this House do not know whether those commodity prices will rise or fall as that is outside the Government's control. We also do not know, because it is also outside the Government's control, whether there will be significant economic policy changes-I cite the United States of America alone, with the transition that will occur shortly-in a major economy in the Western world. What is not out of our control is our capacity to get our own house in order, for example, to address fiscal policy. Senator Walsh, in his now oft used post-Budget addresses, has indicated this is a prime concern to be addressed. When we talk about vulnerability, it is not rhetoric from this side. The riskiness, the reliance on factors that are outside our control, is in fact highlighted by available indices. The riskiness of the strategy is certainly highlighted. Notwithstanding what the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) says, the International Monetary Fund says in its forecasts that 1989 will see an easing of commodity prices due to slower world economic growth. The recent decline in the commodity price index of the State Bank of Victoria, which has fallen 12 per cent in United States dollar terms since 10 June, hardly augurs well for Australia. But the nub of it is the riskiness and the vulnerability for this economy caused by the Government relying on factors totally out of its control when it could be addressing factors over which it has purchase and leverage to put us in a sounder position to weather any storm should the economy, either for cyclical reasons because of a downturn in commodity prices or because of changes in the presidency of the United States, be affected. It is against that background that the Treasurer still plans, as he said yesterday, to give tax cuts but in the absence of substantial cuts in government expenditure. Indeed, the Treasurer made it clear recently that the tax cuts would be funded from the Budget surplus. The irresponsibility of this is absolutely clear. Without offsetting reductions in government outlays, the Government cannot possibly provide the proposed tax cuts without blowing out the balance of payments even further. We call for the tax cuts, but funded primarily by cuts in government expenditure. Senator Walsh has again endorsed this approach, or at least he hinted at it last Sunday week. Meanwhile, other Ministers are tying themselves in knots through their gyrations over the wage-tax trade-off, and we have been subjected to some remarkable contradictions and vacillations about those tax cuts. Only a few weeks ago they were to be, in the words of a man of great influence to the Treasurer, Mr Kelty, the `biggest tax cuts in the history of this country . . . We're after nothing less'. Then the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris) said it was `inevitable' that there will be tax cuts from 1 July. But four or five days later he said they will be conditional on the state of the economy. I asked him about this yesterday, as, to me, these statements were mutually exclusive. If it is inevitable, it is just that. If it is conditional on the state of the economy, the inevitability is somewhat circumscribed. Yet he confirmed the validity of both statements. When we talk in terms of gyrations and somersaults and confusion, they are coming every day from the mouths of Ministers. We have said in the House before that Australians deserve better than this. They have illustrated in the by-elections in Adelaide, in Port Adelaide and in Oxley that they do not believe-they may not articulate it this way-that this Treasurer is executing the two basic duties of his job. What are they? Those two duties are: to increase the living standards of the people in this country and, secondly, to manage a growing and adequate economy competently. During the period that the Treasurer has been in office, living standards for the majority of the population have fallen; unemployment is almost 8 per cent, that is, more than double the average rate under the Whitlam Government and well above the average for the Fraser years; inflation is stubbornly high, with little prospect of a serious reduction; investment is low; foreign debt is out of control-it has quadrupled in the period of the Government-and for middle and low income earners life is certainly meaner and the focus narrow. Those last few words I quoted from a journal which I was going to use but will not go on with. It illustrates why Australians are protesting and why they will not cop the claim the Treasurer made just the other day when launching his book that his life had been `dedicated to the interests of Australians of basically low to middle incomes'. It is precisely those people who are suffering today. I said that the Treasurer has fundamentally two duties: to leave a healthy and resilient macro-economy, and to improve the living standards of Australians. The reality is that the Government has failed to do this. The truth of the matter is that responsible economic policies can strengthen our balance of payments position and improve living standards at the same time. That is not magic. One does not have to be Mandrake. It is simply responsible economic management which will achieve this. There are two ways to achieve sustainable improvements in living standards: first, with tax cuts funded by reductions in government spending and, of course, secondly, improved productivity. The coalition can do both. The first, reductions in government outlays, releases resources of both labour and capital to the private sector, including export and import competing industries. Tax cuts, as I have said time and again, increase disposable income and improve the incentives to work and to invest. The cuts in government spending curb the growth in public sector demand, permitting a rise in private sector demand without risking a further blowout in imports. Again, our industrial relations policy addresses the second issue, productivity. Productivity can be improved through more flexible and decentralised labour markets through privatisation and genuine micro-economic reform. Micro-economic reform-remember that? It was to be the hallmark of the third Hawke Government. It is gone. The Government has again failed on those fronts. There has been a lot of talk of reviews, of committees, of inquiries and so on, but there has been hardly any action at all. The Treasurer has clearly failed in his twin obligation to strengthen the economy and to improve living standards. This matter of public importance is brought before the House today to rip asunder the facade that was sought to be presented yesterday by the Government with the figure that was produced. This is worse than the first quarter of last year. A $9.5 billion projection was put forward in the Budget. We have achieved 40 per cent of that in 25 per cent of the time. Some improvement! I hate to see what the hell would be happening if we were allegedly going backwards. The reality is that underlying all of this there is grievous vulnerability, not just in the short term for those who might like to make some commentaries on this issue, but also for our country. One is either interested in ensuring that Australia is in a secure position should there be any downturn, or one is not. After the Government talked up its stuff yesterday it failed miserably on the test of ensuring that Australia can weather the storm should there be any downturn in the coming year. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.04) —The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), employed all the skills of a seasoned parliamentarian-someone who has been around in public life, both in and out of parliament-that is, the easy resort to the interpolative interpolations, the sentences and juxtapositions such as `I have said often' and `I repeat the point' as he read the text in front of him, written of course by someone else. No amount of oily slickness on the floor of the House will conceal the point that the shadow Treasurer does not understand the structure of economic policy or the economic policy ramifications of what he is saying-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I ask the Treasurer to hold on a minute. I say to the honourable members on the left that the Chair will not tolerate interjections-- Mr N.A. Brown —It is not a kindergarten. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Menzies will heed the Chair. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. I expected that courtesy to be extended to the Treasurer. Mr N.A. Brown —Who interjected? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor has interjected twice. The honourable member for Menzies will assist the Chair by remaining silent. I say to the honourable members on my left that the Chair will not tolerate interjections. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) goaded the honourable member for Kooyong into accepting the shadow Treasury job, which he did, to preserve his own position within the coalition parties. The honourable member for Kooyong then went through a sort of pro forma set of statements and words about what Opposition policy ought to be. But when it comes to the point there is no understanding, no comprehension, no structure, and no detail. In other words, there are no ideas. We know that, the whole of the Opposition knows that, and, of course, all the onlookers including the press gallery know that. We had this diatribe about the Australian economy being vulnerable and the pace of adjustment. The coalition is arguing that we ought to be adjusting faster. That means that fiscal policy ought to be tighter; monetary policy ought to be tighter, as indeed the shadow Treasurer is now arguing these days; interest rates ought to be higher; and wages ought to be lower. That is the argument from the other side of the House. That is what honourable members opposite call the pace of adjustment. We, on this side of the House, know that they would not have the guts to do any one of those things. They never did when they were in office. They had no structure and no courage. It fell to a Labor government to remove the big structural imbalances, to turn the Budget deficit to a surplus. It fell to a Labor government to repair the profit share in gross domestic product, to restore investment and employment. It always fell to a Labor government to make these adjustments. Yet we have these glib words about the pace of adjustment around policies that they would never-not now, not in the past, and not in the future-have the courage or the wit to implement. We have this sort of arid recital of what we need to do and what is required of us when they have no structure at all. We are almost a couple of years-18 months or more-into this Parliament. I have some quotes on tax policy which goes to fiscal policy from the Leader of the Opposition, who said: I have said all along that the timetable for the policy release by August is going to be adhered to. August was months ago. He said that in February this year. In April Mr Peacock said: Well, I think that if you contain your enthusiasm you will see a tax policy before the end of the year. Again in April he said: We will be announcing a tax policy later in the year. They do not have a clue. As they do not have a tax policy, they do not have a fiscal policy. They are a bunch of hapless professional parliamentarians picking up their 48 grand a year-or whatever it is-and getting their travel entitlements, here there and wherever it takes their fancy, and getting a ride to Sydney or Melbourne. But on essential matters they do not have a clue what to do with Australia. The shadow Treasurer mentioned exports. He said that there will be a negative contribution to growth from net exports this year. One of the reasons why that is so is that we are being deluged with income this year from a lift in the terms of trade. If one gets more income-that is, higher wheat prices, higher wool prices, greater volumes for wheat, and higher prices for commodities-one cannot say, `Oh no, we won't have this income. This is shocking. Someone wants to pay us more. No, we won't have it. We don't want this income because what we want is to protect the next export position, so we'll knock the income back'. The fact is that, if there is a surge of income, we end up with more spending and more demand and that tends to blot out net exports. But that same net income is cutting the current account deficit, which is what the net exports are about in the first place. It is a bit puerile for honourable members opposite to be saying `Oh, this is shocking; we have got a negative contribution from net exports', when they really do not know what it means. What it means is that net exports will reduce the current account deficit, but that is otherwise reduced by a lift in the terms of trade, the very thing which is blotting out the net exports. Those opposite should not make stupid points. The second point about net exports is that if the terms of trade were to go off somewhat-and that seems unlikely at the moment-the strong supply side response going into investment would keep the net exports coming through. In other words, we would still be competitive. We are still seeing high levels of investment in the whole trade and goods sector of the economy, in tourism and what have you. That will push net exports through if demand is held in check. That is what the Government is doing-cutting public demand by cutting the Budget imbalance and keeping a decent wage and monetary policy in place. That is the role of that structural change on net exports. But honourable members opposite do not have that degree of comprehension because they do not understand the concepts. They just do not understand what they are saying. Mr Tuckey —Professor Hewson will tell you all about that in a minute. Mr KEATING —We know all about Professor Hewson. He and Mr Howard ruined a nice middle-sized Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) economy in five years and now honourable members opposite, as a party, are inviting the two of them back to try to do it again-the John and John show. We had that for five or six years in the late 1970s and early 1980s and those opposite took a place with a terms of trade lift-that is, with higher coal and oil prices-and put it into a massive recession. Those opposite should not tell us about any professional skills on their side. Australia can do without them. The honourable member for Kooyong, the shadow Treasurer, talked about imports of capital goods. He said in a great stentorian voice that this month's figures show that machinery and transport fell again. Yes, they did fall again. After we abstract motor vehicles and aircraft, they fell by a modest 2 per cent. But what does the trend show? It shows investment in the whole trade and goods sector in the economy. It shows strong plant and equipment imports and machinery imports-that is what it shows. A large part of these imports is plant and equipment-producer goods, the very things which will produce more import replacement and exporting products; in other words, the very stuff of which an economic transition is made, of which a transformation is made. That is happening now, coming in with those imports. The honourable member for Kooyong referred to one month's figures and said, `That game is in trouble'. He did not make any reference to the hotels going up at a rate of knots, the tourism deficits turning around at a rate of knots and all the other elements of the supply response and the response to competitiveness on real depreciation and economic policy. He has no comprehension of that. That is why the facts murder his point. The current account deficit peaked at 6 per cent of gross domestic product in 1985-86. It went to 5 per cent in 1986-87 and 4 per cent in 1987-88. This year we have forecast it to be substantially lower again. In other words, we will have halved the current account imbalance. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, `Oh no, we are not going fast enough'. We have actually picked up the horrible mess that was left by 40 years of total dependence on commodities. When they fell apart there was a greater exposure on debt. We have actually got the place fixed up; we have reduced the size of the Australian public sector by 10 percentage points; we have turned a massive Budget imbalance into a surplus by cuts in government outlays; we have fixed the wage-profit share in the economy; we have fixed the competitiveness of the economy; and we have cut the current account deficit in half. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, `Oh no, that is not good enough. You have got to be like us'. The `us' refers to those who gave this Government the debt exposure, the rickety industrial structure and the wage mayhem. Those opposite are unbelievable. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to Moody's Investor Services Inc. If he wants to look at the people who punt, the people who buy and sell Australian stocks and bonds, he should just go and look at the markets-he should not worry about Moody's-and see what they say. They are not worried about what Moody's says; if they were they would not be making any money. He then talked about the people who buy and sell Australian stocks and bonds. Mr Peacock —You did say the punters? Mr KEATING —The international punters, that is right; that is, the people who fund the current account imbalance. Mr Peacock —I just wanted to know. Mr KEATING —The honourable member thinks of punters as people on a racetrack. We actually fund a current account imbalance of the order of, in recent times, $10 billion to $11 billion by people who buy and invest in Australian stocks and bonds and who do not particularly wake up every morning and worry about what Moody's has to say. The honourable member then went on to say that there should be no tax cuts without offsetting cuts in government expenditure. Those opposite do not know what they want to say about fiscal policy. The shadow finance spokesman, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), said the other day that members of the Opposition preferred to keep the surplus and provide any tax cuts from cuts in government outlays. Mr Tuckey —That is right. Mr KEATING —`That is right', says the honourable member for O'Connor. Nothing specific has been said about where these cuts would be or what their orders of magnitude would be. We are nearly two years into another Parliament. Those opposite are a bunch of intellectual layabouts. They will not do the work. They have no policy. They are up at Question Time taking points of order on relevance-phoney points of order. I have seen these phases come and go so many times in the 20 years that I have been here. Those in the community could not care less. Out there in the big economy where it really matters the people who would naturally support those opposite think they are basically lemons. They will not have those opposite on again. They are going to keep on thinking honourable members opposite are lemons because basically they are right. Those opposite do not have any structure or any policy detail. A little bit of pouncing around here about points of order, about the Standing Orders, and driving the Speaker mad is supposed to take the place of decent, reasoned economic debate and having some structure. Members of the Opposition ought to get used to the comfort on that side of the House because they are going to be there for a while. I have the task of increasing living standards. Let me make a couple of points. Since 1983-84, per capita household disposable income in Australia has risen in each year except 1986-87. The cumulative change over the years 1983-84 to 1987-88 has been 4.4 per cent. Household disposable income has risen despite falls in average earnings in each year except 1984-85 because employment growth has been so robust; in other words, there have been so many more incomes in the one household. In rebalancing the wage-profit share, declines in average earnings have made way for the strongest employment growth in the OECD. The point is that there are simply more people in jobs. Household disposable income is higher, notwithstanding a cut in real wages. That is why members of the community did not vote for those opposite in the last election. They are not silly; they understand these points. People know if they have more income coming into the one house. I do the right thing by coming in here and trying to answer the points which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raises, but they are just an arid, empty recital of cheap political points laced with some economic language, pieced together by a less than enthusiastic staff and put up by coalition parties-an Opposition-which do not have a clue about economic policy formulation. Those opposite do not have the courage or the guts to do the things that need to be done and they do not even have the decency at least to acknowledge the things the Government has done. We have cut the size of the public sector and rebalanced the Australian economy, and those opposite do not even have the decency to acknowledge what we have done on picking up the mess of their 30-odd years in office. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(3.19) —As the new boy in this place, having listened to the world's greatest Treasurer (Mr Keating), I guess I am supposed to stand over here and shake in my boots and thank him very much for what has been a wonderful lesson in fundamental economics. But the facts are that all he has done is what he usually does, which is to come into this place and prattle on and carry on a treat, throwing basically historical anecdotes at the Opposition, making accusations that are totally unfounded, and really not dealing terribly much with the issues. Let me pick up two or three things that he has said. I have only 10 minutes and I will be as brief as I can. The first comment was in relation to net exports. He attacked my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), about what he said on net exports. The Treasurer said something like, `Don't worry, boy. Don't make stupid points'. It is interesting to draw the Treasurer's attention to the words on this subject of one of his principal advisers, the Reserve Bank of Australia, when he talks about making stupid points. I would refer the Treasurer to what it said in its annual report, released about the time of the last Budget. It stated: The higher commodity prices should be regarded as a windfall which provides the opportunity to reduce markedly the balance of payments deficit. It would be tragic if they were absorbed in an overly rapid increase in domestic demand, with the pressures that would unleash, or if we were to be deflected from the long-term task of adjusting the structure of the economy. . . . . However, it is disappointing in that context that Australia's high economic growth in the year just closed largely reflected strong domestic demand with no further gains in volume terms in net exports. I put it to the Treasurer that one of his principal advisers, the Reserve Bank, totally disagrees with him, as does Senator Walsh, who has mentioned that he believes the pace of economic change is disappointingly slow; indeed the suggestion is that micro-economic reform has stalled. The reason that net exports are not playing a significant part at the present time is that the Treasurer overheated the Australian economy and forced down interest rates last year prematurely on the back of a commodity price explosion. This Treasurer, who is now walking out, probably off to the opera or somewhere else, overheated the economy and created the difficult economic circumstances we are in at present. He, more than anyone else, is directly responsible for the current state of our balance of payments from the domestic demand point of view. The second point I would like to take the Treasurer up on is what he said fairly loosely when he mentioned in passing that I am apparently interested in increasing interest rates. I am not interested in increasing interest rates. I have been saying that interest rates are on an upward course under this Government and this Hawke Government has shown a great capacity to play politics with interest rates over its life in government. I particularly remind the Treasurer of the 1984 experience, but let us just look at the current experience to which the Treasurer has drawn attention. Before focusing on what has happened in the past few weeks in relation to official interest rates, we should remind ourselves of a couple of quotes and performances of the Treasurer when it comes to speaking openly in this House on interest rates. He never tells the truth and never comes up front and says that interest rates are going up. He never admits, at the time, that monetary policy is being tightened. Only down the track does the honourable gentleman begrudgingly admit to any of that. At the time he is never prepared to say what is happening. For example, on 20 April, in his Press conference in response to the March balance of payments release, the Treasurer was asked an explicit question, `Will you tighten monetary policy?' and he gave an emphatic `No'. As I pointed out in the press release of about the same time, 21 April, the Reserve Bank had already begun to tighten monetary policy by increasing cash rates, probably from the end of March but certainly from the middle of April. However, by 30 May the Treasurer had changed his mind and finally he admitted that monetary policy has been tightened. I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 May: We have tightened monetary policy but as I said on Friday, we are not tightening it any further. Against that background, it is interesting to look at what is happening at present in regard to monetary policy and interest rates. The Treasurer has been creating the impression in recent days, including in his press conference yesterday, that he is not tightening monetary policy and that he is not putting up interest rates, but if one looks at what has happened to both official and unofficial cash rates in the last few days and, as it happens, since the Oxley by-election one finds that there has been a sizeable increase across the board in cash interest rates, be they official or unofficial. Through September and into the pre-Oxley days of October the official cash rate averaged about 12.84 per cent. Since the Oxley by-election it has averaged about 13.38 per cent, about 0.5 per cent up. It is a tightening up of monetary policy and tightening up another notch. Unofficial cash rates averaged a little over 13 per cent in the pre-Oxley period from the beginning of September, but since the Oxley by-election they have been increased to 13.5 per cent. Will the Treasurer come clean on that sort of development? Is he authorising the Reserve Bank to tighten monetary policy? Has he instructed it to do so? He is not yet prepared to admit it. It is difficult to know. The honourable gentleman has not yet come out and said in any explicit way what he is on about. The closest we got was a question put to him yesterday during his press conference when it was pointed out to him that cash interest rates had risen over the last couple of days, and that some in the market see that as a slight tightening of policy. He said: Cash rates can do all sorts of things without that implying that there is any official tightening happening. There is no further discreet tightening on the Government's part. We had a lift in rates after the second big balance of payments number, that's a month ago. And well, the market made that judgment, that's fine, we're happy with that. What is actually happening? Is the Treasurer prepared to admit that interest rates have been tightening officially or not? Clearly official interest rates, to which I have been drawing attention, the ones the Reserve Bank often admits in its publications are the key indicator of monetary policy, have been tightened significantly since the Oxley by-election. The exact quote that I picked there is really quite misleading. The Treasurer tried to date the rise from 28 September, when the last balance of payments number was released, but the fact is that the rises in interest rates started, surprisingly, on the Monday morning immediately after the Oxley by-election and have been sustained ever since. The third point which the Treasurer made in his remarks, on which I will briefly comment, relates to the idea of tax cuts and the use of the Budget surplus. I would be fascinated to know exactly what the Treasurer has in mind when it comes to next year's Budget surplus. Senator Walsh has been very helpful in this, unlike in some other areas in recent days, namely in his personal attacks on me. He has been particularly helpful in relation to the Budget surplus for next year. Senator Walsh has said that it could well be $9 billion or even $10 billion next year and that the bulk of that could well be spent in the form of tax cuts. How much? He said that something has to be kept in the surplus. His suggestion is that `at least $1 billion' ought to stay in the surplus-so some $7, $8 or $9 billion, depending on which projected number comes in, will be spent on tax cuts. If he is right in those numbers, that is about the same size tax cut in today's dollars as we received last time. So much for `the greatest tax cut in history'. It will be a miserable tax cut for the average Australian. Today we have seen a clear demonstration of just how out of touch this Treasurer is in current economic debate in Australia and how arrogant he is in that when he comes into the House he is not prepared to do any more than just prattle on and make some loose attacks on the Opposition. He is not interested in genuine economic debate. Indeed, when somebody tries to make some substantive economic points, the Treasurer turns his back and walks out, rather than address the fundamental issues that are of significance to the average Australian. He cannot deny the fact that under this Government the standard of living of the average Australian has fallen dramatically. The Opposition has put a figure of $56 a week as the extent to which that standard of living has fallen and, although the Government attacks the Opposition for saying this, the Government never denies that it is $56 a week. The Opposition could make the number higher and include housing costs, which would add about another $14 a week to the bills of the average Australian, and yet the Treasurer has the hide to come into this House and act as arrogantly as he has done in this debate, failing to address any of the very serious and substantive arguments put by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong. Mr Tuckey —Does he understand them? Dr HEWSON —My guess is that he does not have any understanding at all. He learns his lines, he has his staff sitting in the House, he comes in here, stumbles over a few words, throws a bit of abuse and sits down. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(3.29) —One of the most useful ways of seeing the inherent absurdity and inherent contradictions in the economic policies put forward by the Opposition is to juxtapose the matter of public importance submitted yesterday by the shadow finance spokesman, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), who has just spoken and the matter that has been put forward today by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). Yesterday's matter of public importance from the shadow finance spokesman referred to: The threat of higher interest rates and their adverse effect on living standards as a consequence of the economic mismanagement of the Hawke Government. In other words, yesterday the Opposition raised the living standards issue, and claimed to be concerned about it and said that its policy mix would produce a better result for living standards. Today the terms of the matter of public importance read: The threat that the precarious balance of payments and huge foreign debt pose for living standards in Australia. The implication is-and this is the thrust of the speeches we have just heard from the shadow Treasurer and the shadow finance spokesman-that the Opposition would in fact advocate and prosecute a more rapid pace of adjustment. It is fairly obvious that those two propositions are incompatible, particularly in the context of the overall economic policy mix, such as it is and such as it can be discerned, that the Opposition has put forward. Today's proposition implicitly argues for a more rapid pace of adjustment to correct our external balance problems and to reduce our external debt. The interesting question to pose is: What exactly would the Opposition do differently? In what way would its policies differ from those of the current Government? There are three possibilities here. The first obviously goes to fiscal policy. Today we heard the shadow Treasurer say that if he were Treasurer he would in effect run a tighter fiscal policy and he would constrain spending more than it is already constrained. The implication is that it would then be fiscally responsible to give tax cuts because by doing so one would be counterbalancing the impact of tax cuts on domestic demand by corresponding cuts in government expenditure. That is the argument that is put forward. But is that a credible claim? I submit to the House that it is not. It is an absurdity for that particular individual and for that particular Party to come in here and put forward that sort of proposition. What we have had since the current Government took office is perhaps the most substantial turnaround in fiscal policy engineered in any Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country. We were left with a very substantial deficit. That was the legacy of the Government in which the Leader of the Opposition acted as Treasurer. The shadow spokesman for finance was his monetary adviser. The legacy of the massive fiscal deficit that they left us has been turned around. This financial year we are looking at a substantial fiscal surplus. No other OECD country has had that sort of turnaround to a zero public sector borrowing requirement. So the Opposition spokesmen have a rather tough job of convincing us that they would be able to run a yet tighter fiscal policy and constrain expenditure yet further. What about their claim that they would cut expenditure further? The fact is that time and again-most recently on Budget night this year-the Opposition has been challenged to state exactly where it would cut expenditure. The Opposition has isolated certain areas which it says it will not touch. These include defence, measures which might adversely impact on living standards, and foreign debt interest. The Opposition has said that it will take those areas out and that they will not be the subject of cuts. But it has consistently failed to identify or even hint at areas where major cuts can be made. The one exception to that, of course, is the health area. Some members of the Opposition are proposing that the transfer of health insurance from the public to the private sector would provide a superficial cut in outlays of a substantial order. However, the obvious point to make there is that if the concern and the task of macro-economic management under current economic circumstances is to limit growth in domestic demand, simply switching that area of expenditure from the public to the private sector will have absolutely no impact on domestic demand. That is the one substantial area in which the Opposition has given some hint of how it would cut expenditure. But in macro-economic terms, this will totally fail to do the job which the Opposition claims. There is no question but that the Opposition's claim to be able to run a much better and tighter fiscal policy is just an utter absurdity and can be dismissed out of hand. So that is the first possible area in respect of which the Opposition presumably argues that it would have a more rapid pace of adjustment than what is happening at the moment. The second possible area is wages policy. The Opposition says that it would run a tighter wages policy. Of course, the Opposition has consistently over a considerable time opposed any wage increases. The fact is that the Opposition has no coherent wage policy at all. Its constant opposition to wage rises sits oddly with its professed concern about living standards. One highly significant aspect of this in the current circumstances, in which we are looking at the prospect of substantial tax cuts, is that in the absence of the ability to negotiate a wage-tax trade-off, the effect on domestic demand and, hence, on the inflow of imports, of large tax cuts of the order of what the Opposition is talking about or hinting at would be utterly catastrophic and would lead to a substantial exacerbation of the very problem that it claims to be concerned about-the balance of payments problem. The clearest illustration of the way in which that effect would operate is the case of Great Britain under the Thatcher Government, where we have seen precisely that done-substantial tax cuts producing a very serious balance of payments problem. The Opposition has no coherent answer to that whatsoever. I do not think any serious weight can be attached to their pronouncements in the wages area either. That leaves the third possibility-monetary policy. Of course, we are getting a bit warmer in respect of this area. Yesterday a matter of public importance was proposed-unfortunately it was not debated-in which the Opposition professed to be concerned about interest rates and their impact on living standards. What exactly would the Opposition do in the monetary policy area? If we are to take seriously today's matter of public importance that involves a further tightening of policy and a more rapid pace of adjustment, logic would tell us that the Opposition would advocate a tighter monetary policy in order to further dampen domestic demand with the obvious implication of higher interest rates. That is the Opposition's policy prescription in the monetary policy area. It is the only instrument that it has left, because it has no credibility in the fiscal or wages policy areas. The only policy instrument that the Opposition has at its disposal is one in which it would have to tighten monetary policy. That would mean higher interest rates than we have now, and that would have a serious adverse impact on living standards. It is interesting to note that yesterday the Opposition finance spokesman proposed the matter of public importance yesterday which supposedly expressed concern about interest rates. I have a copy of the letter which he sent to the editor of the Australian Financial Review on 5 October 1988. Throughout this letter he makes it explicit and clear that he favours a tightening of monetary policy and higher interest rates. I quote directly a few passages: . . . I was concerned that by responding to the editorial- this was a reply to an editorial- rather than just lying low, I might sustain the issue, with the practical effect that the much needed- I emphasise the words `much needed'- further tightening of monetary policy would be even more delayed. The shadow spokesmen went on to say: Now to be clear, I am not arrogant enough to imagine that the Reserve Bank and Treasurer could be small minded enough to delay the needed- I emphasise the word `needed'- tightening of monetary policy . . . In other words, it is absolutely unambiguous that the shadow finance spokesperson, presumably speaking on behalf of the Opposition, advocates higher interest rates, higher mortgage repayments and reduced living standards. Yesterday the Opposition expressed a totally contradictory concern about living standards, implying that its policy mix would produce lower interest rates. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. Opposition members then come in here today and advocate a faster pace of adjustment when their bankrupt economic policies imply that the only possible instrument of adjustment would be a tighter monetary policy-again, higher interest rates, reduced living standards and higher mortgage repayments. The Opposition policy is an utter farce and should be recognised as such by all members of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The debate is concluded. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.39) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the National Party introducing and moving the second reading of the Defence (Visiting Warships) Bill 1988 forthwith. I so move because of the concern on this side of the House that follows the announcement this morning, to which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has promised to give his attention, that a review of Britain's military cooperation with the Australian defence establishment started in London yesterday in the wake of a ban imposed by Melbourne unions on HMS Ark Royal. We are dealing with this matter in this way and at this time because, from a review of today's program, no effort is being taken by the Government to ensure that it has the power-not that it need use the power-to ensure that we can maintain in a proper and appropriate way not only our defence relationship but also the honour of this country in extending to the United Kingdom and other countries an invitation to participate in Australia's bicentennial celebrations. This is the last occasion that this Parliament will meet prior to the Ark Royal's scheduled berthing in Fremantle at 9 a.m. on Sunday. If this action is not taken and this Bill is not passed through this House, there will be no provision except the standby powers of the Government to take HMS Ark Royal down to HMAS Stirling in Garden Island for it to be berthed there. The Government will say, `Yes, but that ensures we will be able to handle the Ark Royal'. The reason why we have to suspend Standing Orders to consider this Bill is the time factor. This is Thursday afternoon. HMS Ark Royal was due to berth in Port Phillip. She did not do so. HMS Ark Royal was due to berth and participate in bicentennial celebrations in Adelaide. She did not do so. HMS Ark Royal is now sailing and due to berth in Fremantle on Sunday morning. Will she do so? Of course, the Government says that it has two naval tugs in Western Australia, that it has standby arrangements and it can guarantee it can handle the situation. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a matter of propriety and the honour of Australians. This afternoon at Question Time we heard the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris). They are not concerned about a few statistics and about containers that have not been discharged in Sydney and in Melbourne. They are not worried about the fact that industrial disputation is threatening and prejudicing our reliability and reputation as an international trader. What is happening is that this Government is saying, `Look, our defence and our honour are going to be put on a table as part of an industrial negotiation'. That is not good enough. Honourable members on this side of the House believe that it is about time that we reconsidered the Defence (Visiting Warships) Bill 1988, which is similar in form to a Bill I introduced into this House in 1982. Mr Beazley —When you were in government. Mr SINCLAIR —Precisely. I am glad the Minister spoke about that because the circumstances were that in government we were prepared to ensure that we had a capacity, should it be necessary, for the Federal Government to exercise its defence powers. We did not do so because we understood that it was possible for us to come to conclusions, but we did not deny the capacity to have the power. The reason why we want to introduce the Bill this afternoon is that we would hope we would not have to use it. I would have thought that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) would understand that the purpose of having a defence force is not to use it but to create a climate in which those who are in our region know that we have sufficient capacity so that they will not want to attack us; they are not going to prejudice our national interest. The whole concept of our defence arrangements relates to the deterrent effect. We consider this relationship at this time of the celebrations of our Bicentenary. But, in a wider sense, because of the threats that are obviously there, not just for the British but also the Americans, there is every reason for them to ask: `What earthly use is there in us trying to rely on you?' We see this Government going down the New Zealand course. Let no-one in Australia be mistaken. The product of the change of government in Victoria, as I would describe the result of the recent election there, is that for the first time the Socialist Left of the Labor Party has assumed office in a major State government. The Socialist Left was the reason the HMS Ark Royal did not dock in Flinders Dock in Melbourne. The Socialist Left is out there telling the Victorian Premier that it is not going to have a bar of overseas naval vessels in Australia. The Socialist Left is laying down the agenda and that is exactly what has happened in New Zealand. On this side of the House, we are not prepared to accept the undoubted good intentions of the Minister to try to maintain our defence arrangements with the United States and the United Kingdom. People should remember that ANZAM, the Australian-New Zealand arrangements that involve Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom, is a quite critical part of our defence arrangements. Under that particular agreement, we maintain our arrangements in Butterworth. The whole concept of the United Kingdom arrangement, of course, is not as significant as it used to be, but we seek to maintain and ensure our reliability as a nation. We want to put into place an insurance policy. We would hope that through negotiations the comments that were made by Mr Bill Ethel this morning on AM were not fulfilled. Let no-one be fooled. The Minister will say that of course there are contingency arrangements. We know the ships can go down to HMAS Stirling. We know that there are facilities there. We know there are tugs there. We know the Army has the provisions and the capacity to be able to handle any naval ship should she go into dock there. Mr Andrew —These are our allies. Mr SINCLAIR —They are our allies, as my colleague says. The point is that the Ark Royal could not berth in Melbourne. The sailors could not go ashore. The Ark Royal could not berth and in fact is not visiting Adelaide. The Ark Royal will visit HMAS Stirling but she ought to be berthed in Fremantle. I hope the Minister and the Prime Minister succeed in persuading WA Incorporated and the Western Australian Premier to allow the Ark Royal to berth as she should. But, if we do not introduce and pass this Bill this afternoon, the Government will not be able to do anything except rely on a wish and a prayer; and that is not good enough. The Government has to be able to ensure that the threat that undoubtedly lies behind that Advertiser article is not in any way realised. Our defence arrangements are not there as a matter for industrial negotiation. We cannot have the Bill Ethels or the crane drivers of this world saying that they are not going to allow the ship to be prove- dored and refuelled and that they are going to create obstacles in every possible way. We all know there are a few radical elements in our community who will do everything they can to embarrass overseas sailors in Australian ports. We saw the absolutely appalling sight of things that were done in Melbourne to visiting sailors. That is just not good enough! This Government has a prime responsibility to ensure that it exercises the constitutional power that it has to have a piece of legislation available but not necessarily to exercise it. That is what this suspension of Standing Orders is all about. We know the Minister says, `Yes, we have naval tugs; we have facilities; and we believe our industrial negotiations are going to succeed'. But did he hear AM this morning? Does he really believe that the Bill Ethels of this world will just lie doggo? We heard about this at Question Time. We know the doubt about the tax-wage trade-off next year. We have all these diverse views from the Government. At the moment the Treasurer tries to dampen down the tax cut expectations. The realisation within the trade union movement is that this Labor Government is welshing on its responsibilities. The left wing of the trade union movement is quite prepared to assert its rights and, if it can embarrass this Government, it will. What is wrong with it all is that they are going to embarrass Australia. We on this side of the House are not prepared to have that threat overhanging the British Royal Navy, our invited guest, on Sunday morning. There is a very easy way by which that situation can be overcome. It is not the contingency of having Ark Royal berth down in HMAS Stirling, but of having the guarantee that the Government can ensure she berths in Fremantle. It is not just a matter of a wish and a prayer. It should not be a matter of industrial negotiation. It should be a matter of Australia's prime obligation to maintain the defence relationships and to maintain the honour of this country. This is our bicentennial year. For goodness sake, why cannot the Government come in here, accept the piece of legislation which is designed to give it the power should it need it and, if it is successful, good luck to it! But, for goodness sake, do not let the Minister come in and say, `It doesn't matter. We have contingency plans that might work'. So far as we are concerned, our relationships with our friends are too important for that. Why cannot we, in our bicentennial year, be assured that we can at least maintain our probity, our integrity and our international honour. It is an important issue. It is not something the Minister can dismiss as being irrelevant. It is important. It is critical. I have moved to suspend Standing Orders so that this particular piece of legislation, the Defence (Visiting Warships) Bill 1988, can be introduced into this House this afternoon. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.49) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the motion. This motion is necessary because of the weak and gutless action of this Government over the last two years and, to some extent, in preceding years. It is essential to suspend the Standing Orders to allow the introduction of the Bill, to allow the Government-indeed, to force the Government-to exercise control when visiting warships come to this country and to allow them to enter, to berth, to repair and to be supplied fuel and stores. What has happened in the last couple of weeks has brought great shame and disgrace to this country. We are now regarded in Britain and America as an unreliable ally. While the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, might have made his personal efforts, he has been rolled and has been unable to convince either Britain or America that we are any longer a reliable ally. They see us going down the New Zealand road. About two weeks ago the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) raised the spectre again. The Minister for Defence said in his White Paper last year and he has said it on subsequent occasions-along with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) whenever he gets a chance-that the cornerstone of our defence is for us to be a strong member of the Western Alliance. As the Minister well knows, the British High Commission and the United States Embassy are now questioning that, as are their governments. They are asking Australia whether it really wants to be a member of the Western Alliance and whether we are to remain a member of ANZUS. We look forward to the Prime Minister coming back to answer the question the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) asked today and telling us whether the reports from the United Kingdom are true. Is the British Government conducting a review of the Australian-British relationship? It is an absolute disgrace that Britain, our oldest friend and ally, would be considering a review of its relationship with Australia. That has been brought about by the Government's inaction. We have had the spectacle of two British Navy ships sitting in Port Phillip Bay for three days waiting to berth, having been invited to this country by the Australian Government. What did the Minister do about it? Nothing. The Minister's spokesman said, `It is in the hands of the unions'. In Sydney HMS Edinburgh arrived with a damaged propeller. Did we put it in dry dock, as the British wanted us to do? No. And why? Because the unions had the Minister bluffed. The Minister knew that if it went into dry dock the unions may not have taken it out. Did the Minister give the guarantee asked for? No, he did not. So the British did not make a formal request. In addition, the Ark Royal and the Fort Grange were sitting in the middle of Melbourne harbour waiting to berth. They were our guests, having been invited by the Minister. The fiasco in Adelaide is being fixed. How is it being fixed? By negotiation with the unions. Is every warship visiting this country going to be subjected by the Government to negotiations with the unions on whether it will be allowed to come into an Australian port? Before this incident we had HMS Invincible in 1983. Who could forget it? No wonder the British are worried. In 1985 we had the MX missile fiasco. No wonder the Americans are worried. The Minister is inviting people to come, abusing them when they arrive, and casting into doubt our membership of the Western Alliance. The unions are winning hands down. The Minister claims that he can do it by negotiation. That does not convince the American or British governments because they have lost confidence in him. We say to the Minister and to the Government that they should allow this legislation to go through so that, once again, all of us can stand up like proud Australians. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(3.54) —The Government will not agree to this motion and rejects both it and the cant and hypocrisy which underlies it. I will go into that in some detail in a minute or two. We do not have to stand in this House and make any apology to the Opposition for the way we conduct our relationships with our principal allies. We can go to the plethora of statements that our allies have made about the nature of the relationships they have with this Government as evidence of that fact. The Opposition is attempting to introduce the Defence (Visiting Warships) Bill. It is worth looking at a bit of history in order to find a basis for rejecting it. The Opposition comes in here big-noting itself about legislation it put forward in this House six years ago, in 1982. That legislation was brought into this House and, to the Opposition's horror, it discovered that we were prepared to support it. The Bill received its second reading in the Senate and then disappeared for the remaining two or three months of that session. It was never brought back. There was no interest in it. There could be a couple of reasons for that. Mr White —On the word of the Premier of Victoria. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member should not give me that `word of Victoria' nonsense. That was given within a week of the issue being raised and within about three months of its being introduced in this Parliament. Do not tell me about the `word of Victoria' suddenly appearing in this place. What a load of nonsense. The word of Victoria was given publicly months in advance of that Bill coming in. The fact is that when the Opposition discovered that we would support it, it did not want to proceed with it. It did not want to proceed with it either because it did not think it was necessary or because it did not think it was enforceable. Indeed, when one looks at the Bill, there are distinct problems of enforceability associated with it, implying as it does, effectively, the Minister for Defence taking over every port in the country when a foreign ship visits, at least potentially. It would mean that when these goodwill visits occur, on which the Government places great importance-I will demonstrate that point in some detail further-we would be placed in a position of having them occur on a basis of extraordinary squabbles over jurisdiction, extraordinary squabbles over who exactly we should prosecute, and extraordinary squabbles over who exactly we should gaol, going through the process ever time a ship visits of gaoling a few hundred people here and there. What a terrific idea the Opposition is now foisting upon us! This is how we are supposed to sustain the support of our population for the ship visits policy of this Government. We have discovered the Opposition's policy, since we have had the opportunity in office, and the doubts it was riven with at the time. We have had the benefit of it since we got ourselves into office. We now look at the points at which its policy was successful but which we have made universal. The point of the policies the Opposition pursued when it was in office was to evade confrontation by avoiding the east coast and ensuring that when port visits took place in Western Australia they were sustained by the only two naval tugs manned by naval personnel in the naval inventory. There were no Australian naval ships there. There was the odd patrol boat and survey vessel. The destroyers that are there now, with one extra coming in another week or two, and the submarines that are there now are the products of the decision of this Government. The tugs preceded the ships. On the east coast there were no tugs. I will give a few interesting statistics because, as I pointed out in this place a long time ago, I have been trying to change a few minds on port visits so that we do not have Finland east coast and ANZUS west coast, which was the policy of the previous Government. In 1981 we had 48 visits to west coast ports and 19 to east coast ports. In 1982 we had 54 visits to west coast ports and 18 to east coast ports. Mr Sinclair —Have you ever heard of Afghanistan? Mr BEAZLEY —In 1986 there were 34 west coast port visits and 24 east coast port visits. In 1987 there were 33 west coast port visits and 27 east coast port visits. The right honourable member heckles me about Afghanistan. Afghanistan never imposed the obligations on the United States Navy that the Persian Gulf imbroglio imposed on it. United States activity in the Indian Ocean has been vastly greater over the last couple of years, as a bit of common sense would tell him, than in the immediate aftermath of the Afghanistan crisis. But on port visits they are turning up here on the east coast. Why? Because this Government said it was politically intolerable, on the basis of the relationship we have with the United States, that it should be assumed for one minute that the Government of Australia, by sleight of hand or any other means, was scared to put the ships of its allies into east coast ports. That was the subtle position adopted by our predecessors and it is one which we reject. Over the years we discovered that by and large, irrespective of any demonstration, irrespective of any industrial opposition, we have been able to berth those increased numbers of warships on the east coast. Mr Sinclair —What about Melbourne and Port Adelaide? Mr BEAZLEY —In the case of Melbourne, for the first time we were proved incorrect. As a result of that we have decided to address the matter in exactly the same way as the previous Government addressed it in Western Australia-no more and no less. We will address it in exactly the same way as the previous Government addressed it in Western Australia and we will provide the wherewithal to berth those ships should the need arise. That is all there is to it. We thought that the previous Government's subtle policy or its underhand, underground, unannounced policy, probably ought to work and maintain a reasonable degree of peace and acceptance of ship visits among our citizens. We have come to the same conclusion that the previous Government reached, only we will apply it to our total Australian participation in ANZUS policy-as opposed to the Finland policy for the east coast and the ANZUS policy for the west coast. We reject the nonsense and the necessity for the legislation that the Opposition is trying to tout here. Our relationship with the United States and the United Kingdom could not be better. The right honourable member talked about ANZAM. If he were current he would have been aware that that disappeared ages ago. We are talking about the five-power defence arrangement in which we are significantly upgrading our participation by rotating a ship through Singapore and in which we participated in the first ministerial meeting, Britain included, that has happened with the five-power defence arrangement since it was founded in 1971. We are engaged in a process of breathing real meaning into five-power instead of running away from it. What it faced under the previous Government was a subtle continual rundown: `It is not really all that relevant to regional security; it is not really all that relevant to the politics of the region; let's just let five-power drift quietly away'. That was the previous Government's policy. We have said that that is not good enough, that as far as we are concerned five-power provides a substantial input into regional affairs and we should nurture it. Opposition members know nothing about defence and our relationships with our allies. They have kept themselves in deliberate ignorance over the last four or five years by failing to give any area of foreign policy serious attention. The Opposition says in this place that it is serious about defence matters and that we should suspend Standing Orders. The shadow Minister, who has been a shadow Minister for three or four years, was put into the defence portfolio recently. So little does the Opposition think of defence and its defence spokesman-who travels around this country's bases like a long lost soul remembering his past lives but basically having nothing to do with the politics of defence-that it will not put him in the shadow Cabinet. The Opposition is not serious about defence matters. The fact that it is not is well and truly amplified by the nonsense that it has spouted on this occasion. We welcome those visitors to our shores: we invited them to come here. This country provides access to ports like no other and it will continue to do so. We will continue to have the support of our citizenry for those port visits because we will exercise common sense in our dealings with people on these matters to sustain maximum possible public support for ship visits. On the basis of tried and true experience, we believe that we have the means by which we can do that. We are gaining the additional means by which we can do that by the processes already announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We reject the motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The time allowed for the debate under Standing Orders has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt. R. J. D. Woods, R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Johns, G. T.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Brown, John Kent, L.Brown, Robert Kerr, D. J. C.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J.Courtice, B. W. McHugh, J.Crawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, JohnGear, G. Scott, LesGorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W. Cameron, Donald Darling, E. E.McArthur, J. S. Klugman, R. E.Millar, P. C. Bowen, LionelBurr, M. A. Blewett, N.Howard, J. W. Hawke, R. J. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The Acting Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of the following senators to the Joint Select Committee on Corporations Legislation: Senators Alston, Cooney, McMullan, Macklin and Short. Assent to the following Bills reported: States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1988. Governor-General Amendment Bill 1988. Mr JENKINS(Scullin) —I present the ninth report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated in the chamber to honourable members. Report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 1 November 1988, at 3 p.m., unless the Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.15) —The Opposition does not oppose this motion. However, I want to take the opportunity again to make a plea to the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) in relation to the conduct of Question Time. Again today there were only six questions asked by the Opposition in the time available. That means that there was a total of 12 questions asked by members of the House of Representatives. I said on another occasion when there was a motion in relation to a special adjournment that in the five years 1975 to 1979, when the Fraser Government was in office, no fewer than 5,555 questions were asked. In the five years 1983 to 1987 only 3,766 questions were asked. This represents a reduction of 1,789. That is disgraceful. Yesterday I listened patiently to the Leader of the House defending the Government's position-indeed, defending the position of the Acting Speaker. He put to the House that the reason for the reduction in the number of questions was the number of points of order raised by the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that the motion that has been moved deals with the meeting time of the House and not with Question Time and, indeed, not with questions themselves. Therefore, I ask the honourable member to be relevant to the motion before the House. Mr FIFE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is relevant, because if the Government is going to continue in this way I submit that the House ought to be meeting two or three hours earlier in order to provide the Opposition and, indeed, the back bench members of the Government, with adequate time to ask questions. Under the Westminster system it is traditional for the government of the day to make itself available for a period that is called Question Time so that Ministers may be questioned in relation to their administrations. Slowly but surely under this Government the number of questions that can be asked is diminishing. Today is a classic example. The Opposition refrained-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I again draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that the motion before the House deals with the time of meeting of the House and not with the business to be conducted at that particular time. I ask the honourable member to be relevant, otherwise I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Mr FIFE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I heard what you said. I have a reputation for respecting the Chair and the person who occupies the Chair. But I believe what is happening in this Parliament is disgraceful. It is time that the Government took stock of the situation. Whilst the motion relates specifically to the time that the House will meet on Tuesday, 1 November 1988, and whilst I have indicated that the Opposition on this occasion will not oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the House, I am saying to you, sir, and through you to the House, that if the Government continues down the track that it has pursued this week, we will get to a point at which there will be very little time available for questions to be asked. In that event, unless the Government is prepared to do something about the period allocated for questions, then the time suggested for the meeting of the House will be opposed by us because we will move an amendment to enable the House to meet earlier. I say with great sincerity, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Leader of the House, that today I think there was only one point of order taken by the Opposition. Notwithstanding that, Ministers, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), took an inordinate time to answer questions. At the very least seven questions from both sides of the House ought to be asked. Indeed, on one occasion a few days ago there were 10 questions from both sides of the House, so it can be done if the Government wants to cooperate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(4.21) —I move: That standing orders 45, 46, 47, 199, 200 and 285 be amended by omitting ``two'' (wherever occurring) and substituting ``four''. As honourable members would realise, this motion basically maintains in Standing Orders the practice we have adopted since being in this House of ringing the bells for four minutes for votes and quorums. I think we have been running informal tests on how many people have made it, on both sides of the House, for a division by the conclusion of three minutes, and the tests would suggest that this is not the most athletic House that has ever been elected in the history of Federation and that four minutes is unquestionably necessary. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.22) —The Opposition does not oppose the motion. Indeed, because of the reasons that the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) has referred to, it is necessary to continue ringing the bells for four minutes to give members adequate time to answer the call, be it for a division or a quorum. I suggest to the Leader of the House that the Government, in cooperation with Madam Speaker, give consideration to the installation of electronic equipment for the recording of divisions. I understand that the building is wired for the electronic equipment, and I also understand that the idea was put aside at some stage during construction or during the design stages because of the cost. I do not know what it costs to keep this House in session for one hour, but I imagine it is quite considerable. I am sure that any cost-benefit survey would show that in this day and age the House of Representatives and, indeed, the Senate would be able to complete the business of recording a vote much quicker with the use of electronic equipment and that there would be an overall cost saving. I am not making these remarks in any critical way, but in a cooperative spirit and in the sincere hope that Madam Speaker and the Government will give consideration to this idea. Four minutes are required because of the distances between ministerial suites and the suites of members and the chamber, but, when we get here, we should be able to record votes much more quickly than we do under the present system. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.24) —I strongly support the comments of my colleague the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) on the matter of electronic voting. Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting the United States House of Representatives will have seen that during a division suddenly one section of a wall of that chamber changes colour and up come all the names of the members. Their votes are shown and totals reached in a very quick and efficient way, without in any way taking away the need for the member to be present to cast his vote. This motion before the House does set in concrete the time of the ringing of the bells for divisions and quorums. One other point I want to raise is that I hope the powers that be, the Speaker, the President, the Government and the House managers on both sides, will look at the severe problem that has now been created for those who take more than a passing interest in the proceedings in the other chamber, be they senators visiting this lower House or be they lower House members visiting the Senate. Due to the need to compartmentalise the first floor for the public, members end up having to fight their way through a series of china walls and man-made obstructions-in fact the more attractive the door, the more likely it is to be locked. The best located lifts are designed to confuse members and prevent them making it to a particular level of the House which they want to get to because access to that particular floor is ruled out. I do not dwell on this unduly because we are privileged to be in a fantastic building-perhaps one of the most magnificent buildings in the Southern Hemisphere-and our conditions have improved greatly. I dare say that efficiency has improved as a consequence of being able to have one's own desk without one's secretary sitting on the desk top, because there is no other room for her, as was the case in the old Parliament House. In the situation where members and senators cross over, especially with debates on certain legislation where we have shadow representations, when the division bells ring there is a physical problem in complying with those bells, especially as we are watching the proceedings of the other chamber from the compartmentalised first floor which, due to a series of man-made barriers-and I am very pleased to use the term `man-made barriers' and not `artificial barriers' as is laid down in the Government Style Manual, which I absolutely reject-make it difficult for members to cross over in a constructive and positive way and thus contribute to the efficiency of the running of this Parliament. I hear on the grapevine that there is a suggestion that a small section near the main door of both chambers, at ground level, might be roped off and made available for senators and members in their respective cross-over situations in each chamber. I understand that that suggestion needs to be evaluated and considered by the leaders of the parties in both chambers. That problem certainly needs to be addressed because a danger exists that if members take more than a passing interest in the proceedings of the other House, as some of us are required to do as part of our duties as shadow Ministers, they will not be able to do so without running the risk of not being back in time to vote on a division in this place. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.27) —I would like to support the comments of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). This is a matter I have discussed. There is a very serious problem in the workings of the security of public areas in this new Parliament House. It is not uncommon for members to find themselves in one of the function areas or a committee room when a division or a quorum is called, and it is very difficult for them to get to the chamber. I think we have put a high priority on security and given the lowest priority to the needs of members getting to and from the chamber. When members are in what I would call the House of Representatives precincts-that is, in their office area-access to the chamber, except for the distance, is not too difficult. But as soon as we move out of the precincts of the House of Representatives side of the Parliament, access to this area is extraordinarily difficult. Members might recall that the other night a quorum was called at about 8 o'clock and it took some time to form a quorum. That delay was not due to the tardiness of members. I have checked with many of them and I have found that they had to come from committee rooms and other areas. It took longer than expected, due to the reason that the previous speaker has referred to. When we come, for example, from the second floor to the first floor we find the door is locked. This is a serious safety hazard because some of these fire doors should open, but they do not. Also committee rooms have electronically locked doors. That is totally unacceptable because, if there is a fire alarm, the system will prevent the unlocking of those doors. As the previous speaker said, if we wish to go from here to the Senate side, we are asked not to proceed by the senators lobbies which are on either side of the chamber. Again we have to go through the extraordinary exercise of making our way up through the first floor before getting back to the ground floor. I know of no institution that deliberately designs such obstructions, except this one. We have to ask ourselves whether this place is working properly. I think the answer, in the short time that we have been here, is that it is not. I believe members in this place have good intentions at least to stay in contact with one another and to do their part in making the Parliament work. But there are real obstacles with the current arrangements with lifts and staircases. Mr Tim Fischer —And arrangements for meeting guests. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The honourable member is quite correct. One finds that if one wishes to speak to one's guests in the gallery, getting up there is a long, difficult exercise. Again, that is a nonsense. Again, this has happened because the architects have been allowed to design the inside after they have designed the outside of the building. They have not looked at the normal, public usage of this area. Quite honestly, it is a serious matter that we, as a parliament-certainly those in the House of Representatives-need to address. One finds that it is very difficult under the current circumstances for members to get to and from the chamber. I would think that that is the primary issue. Bear in mind that honourable members are not always in their offices and in the House of Representatives precincts. Very often they are at committees, public hearings, or in the functions area at an official function. It is extraordinarily difficult to get back to this chamber. I am sure I speak on behalf of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Farrer, whose remarks I endorse. Members' interests in this respect have not been properly served by the current arrangements. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to convey on my behalf and, I assume, on behalf of other members, the need to review the current arrangements as far as lifts and doors are concerned. I believe that security has been given a priority and the needs of honourable members for getting to and from the chamber when they are outside the House of Representatives precincts have been given very little priority. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I am sure those comments will be relayed to the Acting Speaker. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.31) —Not to prolong the debate in any sense but simply for an abundance of caution, I say for myself and, I am sure, for many others that many honourable members share the views expressed by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). There is no need for me to repeat them. I simply want to emphasise the fact that the views that he has expressed about the difficulty of moving around this building are held by many other members, and certainly by me. Although there is no need to repeat the arguments, I would like it recorded that I hope that those views are seriously considered and put into practice because this business of locking every door that one needs to use as one walks around the place is absolutely absurd. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Humphreys, and read a first time. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986 and the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. The amendments contained in this Bill include measures to address the reports of the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee and to implement decisions provided for in the 1988-89 Budget. The Bill also contains a number of minor non-Budget measures. This Bill is primarily aimed at giving effect to those major recommendations of the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee accepted by the Government and requiring legislative amendments to implement. The Monitoring Committee was set up on 18 May 1987 to determine the extent to which the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 met the stated intentions of the Government at the time of its passage through Parliament. The report of the Monitoring Committee was presented to the Government on 23 May 1988. Details of the Government's initial response to the report were set out in a response booklet sent to all members and senators in September. The Government has accepted 28 of the Monitoring Committee's recommendations in full, four have been accepted in a modified form and another 20 are receiving further consideration. I will advise of the outcome in due course. Nine of the 32 accepted recommendations are considered to require immediate legislative amendment and are presented in this Bill. The first initiative arises from a committee recommendation which the Government accepted in full. The Bill provides for the introduction of an extreme disablement adjustment (EDA) to assist those frail, aged veterans who are not adequately compensated by the present disability pension structure. These are veterans who are receiving the 100 per cent general rate disability pension, are severely incapacitated by their war or defence-caused disabilities, have passed the normal retirement age and are not eligible for the intermediate or special rate of pension. The EDA will be an addition to the maximum general rate pension received by the veteran and will be equal to 50 per cent of the rate. It will mean an extra $42.15 a week for eligible veterans at current rates. A major focus of the Monitoring Committee's report was the eligibility criteria for intermediate and special rate pensions. The criteria for these higher rates of disability pension were changed by the Government in 1985 when it became clear that the outmoded terminology in the old Repatriation Act was enabling these pensions to be paid to veterans who had completed a full working life, often retiring on good superannuation payments. Nevertheless, the Committee was critical of these criteria, arguing that the requirement for war-caused disabilities to be the sole cause of a veteran's inability to work was too harsh. In arguing this way, the Committee was perhaps overlooking the original intention of the intermediate and special rate pensions. This was to provide a higher level of pension to compensate those severely disabled veterans who could not work to support their families on their return from service. These pensions were never intended to be retirement pensions. That is why the Government took the steps it did in 1985 and why the changes to the eligibility criteria for these pensions were carried through to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Government does not agree with many of the views expressed by the Committee about those changes and in particular with the Committee's assessment of the intention behind the changes. The Government could not, therefore, agree to recommendations made by the Committee for major changes to the eligibility criteria. However, the Government has not rejected the Committee's recommendations on the intermediate and special rate provisions outright. The Bill proposes major changes to the first of the eligibility criteria for such pensions and to procedural aspects of the scheme of the Act for assessing rates of pensions. These changes will be of significant benefit to veterans. Currently, the first of the criteria for eligibility for an intermediate or special rate disability pension is that the veteran be receiving or be eligible to receive a disability pension at 100 per cent of the general rate. The Monitoring Committee had recommended abolition of this requirement altogether. This was not acceptable to the Government as the requirement for a high degree of incapacity has been an intrinsic part of the intermediate and special rate pensions since their introduction. However, the Government recognises the Committee's argument that a veteran can be unemployed and unemployable due to war or defence-caused incapacity when the incapacity is as low as that attracting a disability pension at 70 per cent of the general rate. The Bill will therefore provide for a reduction in the required degree of incapacity from 100 per cent to 70 per cent. The Committee also criticised the `application day' provisions which were inserted in the legislation in 1987. The Government does not agree with many of these criticisms. Under the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act, as interpreted by the Federal Court, the day on which a veteran's eligibility for the special rate pension is to be determined has always been the day of his or her application. However, a decision of Justice McGuire of that Court would have permitted decision-makers to examine the right of a veteran to continue to receive pension at the special rate even though the eligibility criteria had been satisfied on the earlier application day. The Government acted quickly by introducing amendments to overcome the effects of that decision. The effect of the 1987 amendments were twofold. The first was to confirm the application day as the relevant day on which to examine a claim. This prevented factors occurring after the application date, such as deterioration in non war-caused disabilities or increasing age, from being taken into account as reasons why the veteran would have not been working at that later point in time. Such factors would have had a disentitling effect on the eligibility of any veteran for the higher rates of pension. The second was to ensure that, subject to certain exceptions, once granted on the basis of eligibility at the application day, a pension could not be taken away on a subsequent review. That is, the special rate pension was preserved for life. A veteran who was not eligible for intermediate or special rate pension on the application day was precluded from being granted a pension prior to the 1987 amendments and continued to be so precluded after those amendments. Where a veteran became eligible for a higher rate of pension after the application day, the Act required the veteran to lodge a fresh application for increase in pension. Many veterans for a variety of reasons failed to lodge a fresh application. The failure to follow this procedure has had an adverse effect in some cases and has meant the issue of a fixed `application day' assessment has continued to be a contentious one. Even recent decisions of the Federal Court of Australia indicate a misunderstanding of the scheme of the Act and the intention behind the application day provisions. Due to its contentious nature, I specifically requested that this issue be considered by the Monitoring Committee. Having regard to the confusion and misunderstanding and the views of the Monitoring Committee, the Government has decided that the application day provisions will be amended. The new provisions would enable a veteran to qualify where he or she meets all the eligibility criteria at a date between the date of lodgment of the claim or application and the date of the decision of the Commission or any review body. While this will not have the effect of altering the existing eligibility criteria under the Act, it will mean that it will no longer be necessary to lodge a further claim or application for increase between the date of application and the date of determination of the claim when circumstances change during that period. The Committee cited the example of a veteran who is employed at the time when his or her claim is lodged, who expects to and who subsequently does retire due to war-caused disabilities before the claim is determined. This veteran would not be required under the new scheme to lodge a fresh application upon retirement. Such a person will be entitled to special rate pension for life, provided of course that all the eligibility criteria continue to be satisfied in all respects at the date of his or her retirement. These amendments will allow decision makers to take into account significant variations in the degree of incapacity a veteran may suffer from his war-caused disabilities during the assessment period. At present, review bodies see themselves as restricted to looking at the veteran's situation at the time of the initial decision. I believe that these amendments will allow a commonsense approach to be taken in the consideration of pension assessment applications and will have a significant beneficial impact. This Bill also makes a number of minor amendments arising out of recommendations made by the Monitoring Committee. These include: Clarification that the determination of the required degree of incapacity of at least 70 per cent need not be made by a previous decision-maker before the Commission, Veterans' Review Board or Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceeds to consider eligibility for the intermediate or special rate of pension; provision to ensure that veterans receiving pension at 100 per cent of the general rate for tuberculosis are deemed to meet the required degree of incapacity for intermediate and special rate pension purposes; and provision to ensure that matters which were commenced prior to the commencement of the veterans' entitlements legislation are, for the purposes of the application of that legislation, treated as if the initiating action was a `claim'. Through this legislation and administrative measures, the Government has acted quickly to implement as many of the Monitoring Committee's recommendations as possible. This Bill does not just deal with Monitoring Committee issues. This Bill will also provide for increases in the rates of specific disability allowance, clothing allowance, attendant allowance and recreation transport allowance. Further minor amendments include: Clarification that a war widow's pension may only be paid to a remarried widow where she remarried after 28 May 1984; a change to the definition of `severely handicapped veteran' for carer's service pension purposes to bring it into line with the equivalent definition in the Social Security Act; and a change to ensure that overpayments arising under the Social Security Act and recoverable under the Veterans' Entitlements Act are subject to social security rights of review. Financial Impact The introduction of the extreme disablement adjustment, the changes to the intermediate and special rate pension criteria and the application day/up-to-date assessment changes will cost approximately $3.15m in 1988-89 and $8.85m in the full year 1989-90. The increases to minor benefits will cost approximately $168,000 in 1988-89 and $335,000 in the full year 1989-90. The other amendments are revenue neutral. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.44) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of a shell filling facility for St Marys Munitions Filling Factory, New South Wales. The proposed work now before the House is for the construction of a new facility for the filling of high explosive shells at the St Marys Munitions Filling Factory. This factory, which is located 45 kilometres west of Sydney, is one of the three main explosives manufacturing factories operated by the Department of Defence. The factory is a self-contained facility for manufacturing, filling and assembling a wide range of service ammunition and other explosive stores. It is the only establishment in Australia capable of filling shells. The factory site consists of approximately 800 buildings made up of explosives processing buildings, storage magazines and support buildings, such as offices and engineering services. Within the proposed new shell filling facility shell cases will be filled with high explosives. This is a specialised operation involving a casting process in which the explosive is melted, poured into the shell case and allowed to solidify under controlled conditions. The existing shell filling facility at St Marys is over 30 years old and as a result of high usage, general wear and corrosion the existing plant has reached the end of it economic life. In addition, the health and safety standards with respect to fumes, dust and noise are substandard. The proposed new shell filling building and plant have been designed to minimise exposure of employees to dusts and vapours and will provide a safer, more efficient environment, better suited to meet current and future needs of the Department of Defence. The proposed work comprises a new process building containing: shell preparation, fill and probe sections and a shell finishing section; earth mounds for safety protection; associated engineering services and site works; a trade waste treatment system; and process plant capable of filling medium to large calibre shells to meet current and expected production requirements. This plant, which does not form part of the proposal being referred to the Committee, will be installed during the building construction phase of the process plant. The estimated cost of this proposed shell filling facility is $7.7m at April 1988 prices. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is intended that construction commence in mid-1989 and be completed by early 1991. I table selected plans of the proposed work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.49) —The Opposition supports the reference of this work to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The St Mary's factory is a very old facility. I am not sure how far it goes back. It looks as though it is of World War I vintage. It is necessary that the facility be upgraded because whether one likes it or not, the filling of shells and the manufacture of ammunition is very much a part of our self-sufficiency in defence. We would all like to see a peaceful world. In the last few days we have had protests against the visit of nuclear ships to this country. The people protesting are fantasising if they expect the world to be as perfect as they would like to see it. The reality is that it has been the strength of the Western Alliance in the past few years that has maintained the peace and, regrettable as it may be to some people, munitions and ammunition and the general readiness of our defence forces are very much part and parcel of maintaining that peace. I hope that with the redevelopment of St Marys into a modern facility we will be in the business of not only making ammunition for ourselves but also selling it to friends and allies who might require it. There is no reason in the world why Australia should not become a major exporter of defence equipment and munitions, particularly now that the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, who was so adamantly opposed to Australia being in this business for so long, has departed the scene for what he expects to be a higher appointment. Perhaps we will see St Marys modernised to become part of the export drive in this country. This raises the question, of course, of what are our reserves of ammunition in this country. I do not profess to know. I hear some disturbing stories about the low level of reserves and I hope they are not true. It also raises the question of how much ammunition is being made available to our defence forces for the very necessary training they have to undertake. I hear they are very short, particularly of small arms ammunition that that the allocation is about 400 rounds per man per year. If that is so, it is a pathetic figure. Not so long ago, as honourable members might remember-I think it was in about 1983-I raised in this House the question of soldiers having to to out and buy their own ammunition, which was absolutely true. Because not sufficient service ammunition was being given to them for training, they used to acquire rifles, usually .22 rifles or bigger, and buy their own ammunition so that they had something to shoot. It is a pathetic approach to the training of our Defence Force. I have not heard such stories in the last few years. Probably we made such a fuss about it that the problem was fixed. Nevertheless, there are complaints now from our active units, our infantry battalions, that training ammunition is short, and I hope they are not true. If indeed there is a shortage of ammunition, it is just another indictment of the Government that seems to be taking every possible step it can to make life difficult for the service men and women of this country. There is no shortage of money when it comes to big ticket equipment items but when it comes to training facilities and personnel matters, it is a different story. That is why, as the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) knows, record numbers are leaving the service month by month. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(4.54) —I support this reference to the Public Works Committee. I do so claiming to have the facility in my electorate but I am often reminded by at least one member of the Opposition, the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), that the facility borders his electorate and that of the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free). Perhaps I should say that the three of us share it and I am sure that all three of us welcome that facility. The shadow Minister for defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), described the facility as run down. Certainly, the run down occurred when the coalition parties were in government and, consistent with Defence Department policy, we are revamping it. Not only has there been one significant streamlining at the St Marys munitions factory but also we are currently making the munitions factory into a corporation. I place on record the cooperation on the shop floor given by the workers to those changes, some of which have been fairly traumatic. I congratulate them and place on record not only my appreciation but also the appreciation of the nation. Importantly, when the Public Works Committee accepts this reference I hope it will, as the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) indicated, look at waste disposal and, in particular, the storage of nuclear waste at the St Marys munitions factory. One of the features of the storage of nuclear waste is that it is concentrated in Sydney in military establishments, primarily at St Marys munitions factory. We are no longer continuing the practice of the previous Liberal Government of transporting Victorian nuclear waste to the St Marys munitions factory. It is also stored at the RAAF base at Richmond, at the military establishment at Moorebank and at other non-military sites in the western suburbs of Sydney. I think I speak on behalf of all my constituents when I say that the St Marys munitions factory is a very significant employer of local people. We want the munitions factory to continue at St Marys. We want it to be modernised and we would like to think that management might be modernised just as the buildings might be modernised. But we do not want it to be used as a repository for nuclear waste. That is absolutely outrageous. The former State Labor Government did no credit to itself by failing to identify a site in New South Wales where nuclear waste could be stored. I appeal to the incoming Government and Minister Moore to take a different approach. He said when he first took office, and perhaps it was understandable, that he did not know that nuclear waste was stored in such quantities in the western suburbs of Sydney. Now he does and I sincerely hope that he will nominate a site and the Federal Government will be able to move swiftly to locate that storage, not in the midst of 1.5 million people but in a place that poses less danger to a significantly smaller number of people. I certainly commend the Minister and I hope the Public Works Committee will do a thorough job when it accepts this reference and that in particular it will examine nuclear waste stored at the St Marys munitions factory. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.57) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of a military police complex at Green Hills, Liverpool Military Area, New South Wales. This proposal will provide new working and living accommodation for military police units currently housed in sub-standard accommodation at Ingleburn. The Army intends to rationalise the use of the Ingleburn military area, with regular Army units currently accommodated there being relocated, and part of the area being redeveloped as an Army reserve centre. The existing military police facilities at Ingleburn are currently dispersed over some 30 hectares and comprise mainly weatherboard buildings dating back to World War II. Most of these facilities are not economically viable to renovate. The standard of accommodation provided has an adverse impact on the training, morale and operational effectiveness of the units. The new military police complex at Green Hills will accommodate the following Army military police units: A military police school, which conducts training of personnel from both military police and regimental police corps; the 2nd Military Police Company, which provides military police support to units operating within the 2nd military district; the 1st Military Corrective Establishment, whose role is to hold and conduct correctional training for servicemen under sentence or detention; the 2nd Platoon Special Investigation Branch, a unit which seeks to prevent, detect and investigate crime within the Army in the 2nd military district. The proposed complex will provide more efficient and appropriate facilities to accommodate the diverse range of activities carried out by these various military police units. The proposed complex will comprise four main building groups arranged around a parade ground. Facilities to be provided for the various unit will include: Headquarters and administration offices; Operations and training areas; A separate secure compound for the 1st Military Corrective Establishment, including its own parade ground, cell blocks, rehabilitation and recreation facilities. There will be sharing between the unit of common-use facilities such as: A mess served by a fully equipped kitchen; A canteen; Living-in accommodation for a total of 20 staff and 40 students; Sports facilities. The estimated cost of this proposal is $12.4m at May 1988 prices. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is intended to call the first tenders for the works in mid-1989. Construction of the proposed complex will take approximately 20 months. I table selected plans of the proposed work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.02) —The Opposition supports the motion of reference to the Public Works Committee. We welcome the improved complex that the Government is proposing and to which this motion relates. We are interested in the fact that it is going to cost some $12.4m in 1988 dollar terms to build this complex, although one wonders what the cost will be after the 20 months of construction, which is due to begin in 1989. As I have said on previous occasions in relation to these sorts of motions, we on this side of the House have a deep-rooted concern that the costs of so many of these projects are higher than they should be and that the people who bear those costs at the end of the day are the taxpayers of Australia. It has been estimated that restrictive work practices in these sorts of projects amount to about 20 per cent of the total cost of the project. Of course, one does not know at this stage whether that will be the case with this project. We would be interested to know whether the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) has taken account of any prospect of improved work practices or whether he is unconcerned about this very major issue. If this project is going to cost another 20 per cent, the taxpayers will be paying well over $2m more than they should. We on this side of the House are very strongly of the view that as much emphasis as possible in this regard should be placed on subcontractors in projects of this kind. I hope that the Minister will take note of that. Our real concern is restrictive work practices. With this project, as with many others, we would seek a guarantee from the Minister that he is doing something to address that problem. Let me just give four or so examples to demonstrate the sorts of things that we really do not want to see happen on a project of this kind. We heard recently of what is apparently a very common practice-perhaps it will occur on this project if nothing is done to stop these sorts of practices-where the unions instructed employees to refuse to walk on a wet earth surface in order to get to a dry area to work. Really, I am sure the House will agree that that was a fairly extraordinary and unnecessary restrictive work practice. When the management of that project offered to put down planks for employees to walk across in order to get to the dry area, it was told by the unions that that would be completely unacceptable because people would have to walk across wet earth in order to lay the planks! Really, I think that is a foolish work practice. It simply means that productivity is much lower than it might otherwise be. The Sydney area has a high rainfall and therefore there is the prospect of this sort of thing occurring numerous times during the construction of the proposed project that is now before the House. I also hope that the Minister will take note of the disgraceful way that the principle of no-ticket no-start is applied on many projects. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member for Mayo must keep within the confines of the debate. At the moment we are discussing the referral to the Public Works Committee of the development of a Military Police complex at Green Hills, Liverpool. We are not discussing work practice issues. I would like the honourable member to keep within the confines of the debate. Mr DOWNER —Mr Deputy Speaker, let me draw your attention to the fact that $12 1/2m of taxpayers' money is proposed to be spent by the Government on this project. I am doing what I would have thought the House would expect me to do-presenting the view of the Opposition on the way this $12 1/2m is to be spent. We are prepared to support the motion but we want to make the point that we do so with the qualification that the Government must take action to address these sorts of restrictive work practices, which may, in the case of this project, add something over $2m to the cost. I have nearly finished my remarks. What I am doing, Mr Deputy Speaker, is giving a couple of examples of the sorts of problems that we have encountered in the past with projects of this kind. We do not want these practices to be repeated. The next time that the Minister comes into the House with a proposal of this kind, we would like to hear not just an analysis of the proposal. We would like to have from the Minister appropriate guarantees that these restrictive work practices will be addressed so that taxpayers' money can be saved. If we do not get those guarantees, we are going to make this point again and again in defence of taxpayers' money. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave of the House to make a very short statement, at the outset of the second reading debate, which I believe would assist the House in its deliberation of this matter. Leave granted. Mr WEST —I thank the House. I would like to table a replacement explanatory memorandum to the Lands Acquisition Bill 1988. The memorandum that was tabled when I introduced the Bill in May required a series of corrections of a technical nature. I believed that the best way to do that for the convenience of honourable members was to produce a replacement memorandum. Since that was to happen, the opportunity was also taken to clarify some of the clause descriptions. In this instance it was particularly important that the explanatory memorandum provide a clear and accurate description of the detail in the Bill. When I introduced the Bill at the end of the autumn session, I indicated that debate on the Bill would not occur for some months to allow sufficient time for interested parties to examine the Bill in detail and to provide comment to me. I am pleased that a number of organisations took up the invitation and literally dozens of comments on different parts of the Bill have been submitted to me. I wanted to ensure that when those people examined the Bill they would have as clear a description of its contents as possible. Honourable members will also be aware that I circulated copies of this revised memorandum in July so that it would be available for general and convenient use during the consultation process. This public consultation process that I adopted in the introduction of this legislation has, I am pleased to say, been extremely effective. Submissions were made by a number of groups, including the Australian Institute of Valuers and Land Administrators, the National Farmers Federation, the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines (Incorporated), the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia (Inc), the Australian Mining Industry Council, and the Land Acquisition Reform Committee. The latter group convened a two-day symposium in Sydney to discuss the Bill, which was attended by representatives of the Opposition, the judiciary and the Government. At that forum I emphasised my promise contained in my second reading speech that I would consider all comments made and incorporate any suggestions for amendment which I considered would contribute to the general intentions of the Bill. I have considered all the comments and in the committee stage of the debate on this Bill I will be proposing 34 amendments which reflect the suggestions and comments generated by the consultative process. Some of these amendments are of a technical nature but others are proposed because they contribute to the objectives of this major legislative change which clearly has the interests of individuals as its primary focus. Therefore, the fact that I am prepared to propose several significant amendments should be seen, I believe, as a positive response to a successful public consultation process in which the Opposition is involved. In commenting on the Bill prior to these amendments, Justice Murray Wilcox said: I will not take the time to refer to the several other features of the draft which will improve the present law. It is enough to say that, even if the Bill were enacted in its present form, it would constitute a significant achievement for the Government and the Parliament. In some respects, notably compensation rights, the legislation would rank with any in the English speaking world, at least. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has further improved the Bill, I hope, by Parliament accepting these proposed amendments that I will move during the committee stage. In doing so, I believe we are creating a model piece of legislation in this field. I now table the supplementary explanation memorandum covering my proposed amendments. Mr FIFE(5.12) —The Bill before the House is the Lands Acquisition Bill 1988. It is designed to implement much needed reforms of the law governing Commonwealth acquisition of land. Reforms in this difficult area of Commonwealth legislation are long overdue and the Government has been tardy, to say the least, in moving to correct the deficiencies of the current legislation. Nevertheless, the coalition welcomes this legislation as a positive step forward. It is in fact bringing Australia up to the twentieth century and more in line with other nations which have had much better legislation for some years now. The need for reform, with a view to providing more adequately for the rights of property owners whose land might be acquired, was recognised by the coalition Government back in 1977. It was not only the inadequacies of the existing legislation that exercised the Fraser Government. With the coalition's firmly held belief in private property, the Government of the day wanted to ensure that fairness in acquisition continued to pertain and that the legislation kept abreast of modern times. Accordingly, the Law Reform Commission had been requested to examine the Commonwealth legislation with terms of reference which concentrated on the rights of people whose land was compulsorily acquired by the Commonwealth. The Commission was also asked to report on the law and practices in relation to compensation payable to users of private land or business in respect of the injurious effect on such land or business arising from the construction of works by the Commonwealth or an instrumentality of the Commonwealth or from the use of such works. In a third reference the Commission was asked to report on any related matter. Following extensive deliberation, the report of the Law Reform Commission was tabled in Parliament in April 1980. The Commission was critical of a number of aspects of the existing Lands Acquisition Act and recommended new legislation covering both land acquisition and injurious affection incorporating the following: (1) revised acquisition powers, including the right of an affected owner to an independent review, exception to the right of appeal to be: when acquisition is urgent, or there is a need to maintain secrecy, and when the land has already been advertised for sale. (2) new pre-acquisition procedures, including improved information to owners before acquisition: entitlement for the former owner to remain in possession of the land for six months after acquisition; better compensation, including an advance of 90 per cent of the Commonwealth assessment of the compensation payable; and a general right to compensation for injurious affection. Since the tabling of the report there has been a lengthy discussion and debate within the community on the report's recommendations. However, it has taken the Government until 1988 finally to introduce this Bill which picks up most of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. Since then there has been a further round of discussions as a result of which, as the Minister has indicated, a number of amendments are to be introduced. These changes will pick up many of the concerns that have been expressed. But one key issue has not been addressed by the Government's legislation. It relates to injurious affection, that is, compensation for those whose land is deleteriously affected by the acquisition by the Commonwealth of adjacent land. Injurious affection is a very complex area, legally and administratively. Yet this was an important element in the reference to the Law Reform Commission, with the then Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott, pointing out that it was an area that needed looking at, as new legislation in Britain and Canada had to some extent dealt with this problem. In view of this, it would be helpful if the Minister could let us have the reasons why the Government has not proceeded with injurious affection. Neither the 1955 Act nor the new legislation provides adequately for all the ramifications of injurious affection. Admittedly, the Government proposes to retain section 23 (1) (c) of the existing Act which takes some account of injurious affection. But this by no means goes far enough. It will only take into account, where a property is partially acquired, the effect on the remaining property in determining compensation, either depreciation or enhancement of value. This does not come to grips with the question of injurious affection where no land is acquired at all. As the Law Reform Commission has pointed out, an owner from whom no land is taken may suffer an injury equal to that of his neighbour from whom some land is taken. Yet, he is not entitled to any statutory compensation. This seems anomalous and unjust. Injurious affection is something that should be looked at quite seriously. Recognising the drafting difficulties involved, we suggest that the Government should immediately establish a task force to examine this area and make public its findings. Another of our concerns relates to the mining of land vested in the Commonwealth. The Bill differs from the 1955 Act which provided for the laws of the State or Territory to apply to mining, subject to prescribed exemptions and modifications. The 1955 Act, in fact, guaranteed compatibility with State practices and procedures. Miners know exactly where they stand and are not subject to potential changes to regulations, which can occur at short notice. By retaining a reference to State laws in the Bill, there would be no need to modify the regulations under the proposed Act as changes are made to State legislation. Accordingly, I foreshadow that, in the Committee stage, we will be moving an amendment seeking to give effect to this. A central tenet of the Law Reform Commission recommendations was that a person threatened with the compulsory acquisition of his land should be afforded the opportunity to challenge before an independent tribunal the necessity for that acquisition. The principle behind the recommendation is that, generally speaking, a person adversely affected by an administrative decision ought to be able to obtain a review by an independent body as to the fairness, as distinct from the legality, of the decision. The Bill includes a formal provision for an owner to have the Minister reconsider the decision to acquire and it also provides for appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal based upon the nature of the public purpose; the extent to which the public purpose is in the public interest; suitability of the land for the public purpose; the effect of the acquisition on land owners; the environmental effect of the use and development of the land; and any alternative means of achieving the public purpose. The Bill does not include a provision to enable an owner to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal when the land is `essential for the implementation of policy'. In fact, it specifically excludes any review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Of course, though it is not specified in the Bill, in such circumstances an owner can always appeal to the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review Act). It would be reassuring if the Minister in his reply made clear that this recourse was available to an affected owner. Otherwise the impression remains that no avenue of relief is open where a land acquisition is declared essential for the implementation of policy. The Commission's recommendations concerning pre-acquisition are already included in the Bill. They encompass improved information to the owners whose land is to be acquired; ability of persons with an interest in the land, in addition to the owner, to appeal against the decision; and a statutory deadline of three months to acquire the property following a declaration by the Minister that acquisition is proposed. This will go some way towards minimising planning blight. The Bill picks up all the Commission's recommendations on changed acquisition procedures, including the gazettal of acquisitions, and provides for former owners to remain in possession for six months after acquisition. More generous compensation will be available to the former owners, especially home owners. The Bill adopts the Law Reform Commission's recommendation that a home owner should never receive less than the cost of a reasonably equivalent dwelling. It also proposes a solatium of $10,000 instead of the $5,000 originally stipulated, adjusted annually by the consumer price index, to compensate owners for the intangible costs of compulsory acquisition of their homes. The Bill provides a detailed statutory list at clauses 54 to 63, giving guidance to all parties and the Federal courts for the calculation of compensation. While significant improvements will be enacted under this legislation its application must be kept under constant review so that if anomalies arise they will be addressed expeditiously rather than years being allowed to elapse before anything is done. One of our concerns on this side of the House is that, in applying this legislation, the Government does so in the spirit of ensuring that the owner's rights are protected to the utmost. How often have we seen this Government give assurances, only to back away from them later or seek to water them down? Look at what it has been doing in the pensions-superannuation area; and now its promises for personal tax cuts and wage rises are apparently in doubt. We do not want to see situations arising, as they have in the case of the Badgerys Creek acquisitions, where the Government has been vacillating for so long. Residents there may have been the victims of distressing political bickering as they wait for news of their future. The present situation at Badgerys Creek, where land is being acquired for a new Sydney airport, is imposing intolerable hardships on landowners. The land acquisitions there must be finalised urgently and adequate funds provided for the Government to meet its obligations to individual owners. People placed in the situation that landowners at Badgerys Creek have been should not have to endure a prolonged fight for compensation justice. Here is an example of the sort of thing I referred to earlier. The 240 affected landholders at Badgerys Creek were assured that the Government would purchase their properties when the owners desired and that either Government or private valuers could be used. But what has happened? There was a freeze on offers to acquire land and an inadequate budget allocation by the Government to honour fully the offers it had made. Still the Government has no timetable for the construction of the airfield, after having announced its decision in February 1986. How much longer do the people there have to put up with the uncertainty that continues to surround the proposal? Then, of course, there was the Commonwealth's proposal to acquire rural land in western New South Wales for army training and manoeuvres. After detailed public hearings, the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence concluded that the two areas of land in the Bathurst-Orange area and at Cobar were wholly unsuited to meet the specified user requirements. It strongly recommended the immediate abandonment of the proposed acquisitions. In fact, the Committee in its report was highly critical of the acquisition procedures. In the event, the Government abandoned the two projects. But consider the hardships that the affected landowners had to endure over four or more years. It raises the question of how such areas could have been selected in the first place. It also serves to emphasise the care that has to be taken to ensure that land to be acquired is actually suited to the purpose for which it is to be used. If land is acquired and then abandoned it puts a blight on it, resulting in falling market prices and reduced sales opportunities. It also raises the question of where the Australian Labor Party stands concerning private property. It says it recognises the right to own private property, but it has also acted as one of the greatest undermining factors in property ownership in Australia. Here I refer to the great coal rights grab perpetrated by the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales. Against that background, to what extent can Labor be trusted to respect the rights of property owners? We do not want to see a repetition of the Wran piracy, when thousands of New South Wales companies and individuals were stripped of their private coal rights under compulsory acquisition and offered compensation which was less than one-third of the coal royalty rate collected by the New South Wales Government. We have had to wait for a Liberal-National Party Government to come to power in New South Wales for this devastating attack on the property system to be put right and for those affected to be afforded a measure of fair treatment. Another factor to be kept in mind in considering the property scene is the increased scale of acquisitions. The Law Reform Commission noted that each year the Commonwealth acquires an average of 2,000 properties, the majority of which are leasehold. However, approximately 700 are freehold and about 42 per cent of these are acquired by compulsory process. With this sort of legislation and that rate of acquisition, it is as well to remind ourselves that an obligation to justify a decision to deprive an individual of his or her property must rank second only to the obligation to justify a decision to deprive a person of his or her liberty. The landowner is entitled to, and should receive, `just terms' when land is compulsory acquired. It should be incumbent upon governments of the day to adhere to that concept and not impose undue hardship on those from whom they are acquiring land. With just treatment in mind, it is to be hoped the Minister will exercise restraint in using his powers to declare acquisitions `essential for the implementation of policy'. This is new legislation and, undoubtedly, experience will show up deficiencies that will need to be remedied. It is, therefore, essential that the Government monitor carefully the operation of the Act and be prepared to introduce promptly amendments that are necessary. Possibly one of the most disturbing flaws in the legislation that has not been addressed by the Government is the question of blight following a public announcement of an impending acquisition without a pre-acquisition declaration being made. The gap between impending acquisition announcement and pre-acquisition declaration could be several years, perhaps longer, with the affected owners bereft of the protection provisions of the Act. This should form part of the first review of the legislation. When the Minister responds to the second reading debate I ask him to give an assurance that there will be no delay in proclaiming the Act. I am aware that regulations have to be drafted. However, the Minister should be able to give an assurance that, at the latest, the Act will be proclaimed very early next year. Whilst the Opposition regrets that the Government has not addressed the question of injurious affection, it recognises that, although belated, this is a positive step forward. We will support the legislation and will keep the administration of it under review. We will be looking for ways to improve the legislation when we return to government after the next election. Mr KERR(Denison)(5.32) —We shall be waiting for a very long time if we are waiting for the Opposition to return to government before action is taken to bring changes to the legislation. It is rather sad that the very significant and positive steps that have been taken in the Lands Acquisition Bill have met with such faint praise. One would have thought that this very significant restructuring of the provisions which apply to ensure that Australians who have dealings with the Government and whose property is necessarily compulsorily acquired are fairly and effectively compensated would be welcomed with enthusiasm by both sides of this House. Of course, I am delighted that the Bill has the support of the Opposition, but it is a fairly grudging expression of support in the circumstances. The Bill has very significant features, It brings in more open processes in the acquisition system; it allows greater public accountability for decisions to acquire property; and it contains significantly more generous statutory provisions for compensation for persons deprived of their land by the Commonwealth. Each step is significant and important. I turn to the first feature; that is, more open processes in the acquisition system. Prior to these very important developments there has been no onus on the Commonwealth to establish its need to acquire property. It has been left to an assertion of that need. Now the Commonwealth has seen fit to include in a Bill mechanisms to test the assertion of the Commonwealth that a particular proposal needs to proceed and that a particular acquisition is required for those purposes. That is a very significant step. Provisions in the Bill permit the Government, in circumstances where the national interest is involved, to carry out necessary works expeditiously but, in the main, the Government is subjecting itself to restraints which no previous government had and which significantly protect the interests of private individuals whose homes or properties might be subject to acquisition. The second feature is public accountability. This Bill establishes a mechanism to ensure that not just the decision to acquire but also the question of compensation and the adequacy of compensation can be reviewed. Procedures are set out simply, in a clear form, which has never been done before. I will turn to those measures later in this discussion. Thirdly, the Bill establishes more generous statutory provisions for the compensation of persons, particularly those whose houses have been acquired. It is always wrenching if somebody has to lose his house. There has never been adequate provision in previous legislation to ensure that the additional emotional losses that are inevitable if somebody's home is taken from him are compensated for. This Bill will do that for the very first time by providing $10,000, which will be indexed forward-therefore, the amount will not lose its effective value-on top of whatever else is finally awarded and determined by way of compensation. The Commonwealth is looking to a regime whereby those individuals who are unfortunate enough to be in a position in which the national interest requires that their home be taken for the provision of facilities, such as roads and airports, will not only get the market value of their property, plus whatever amounts are appropriate for injurious affection to their interests, but also an additional $10,000 to compensate them for the fact that they have lost their home and it involves the burden of emotional beliefs that we all have when we lose our homes. Those are very important steps which I think should be welcomed. A rather fine irony is involved here because only recently the Opposition opposed a proposal, which was put to the Australian people by way of referendum, which would have entrenched similar rights-rights to fair compensation-not just applying to people who have dealings with the Commonwealth but also with the States. Many States, including Tasmania, have nowhere near adequate provisions of this nature to govern acquisition of lands by the State government concerned. That means that we now have double systems: if one's land is acquired by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth one will be protected, with guaranteed rights of appeal, procedural fairness and fair and adequate compensation, whereas those rights are not entrenched in a similar manner States' legislation or in States' Constitutions. This is because of the opposition to the referendum proposal by the Opposition which failed to address the issue with any degree of candour during the last debates on the referendum. I welcome the measure as an implementation of an Australian Law Reform Commission document. It is often thought by critics of the law reform process that many documents emanate from the Law Reform Commission and not all are acted on. Some are said to gather dust, to be pigeon-holed and the like. It is pleasing when an important piece of work by the Commission eventually works its way through the system, gains the support of the Government and is brought into legislative form. This is one such example. The proposals in the Bill were based and modelled essentially on the work of the Law Reform Commission, following the reference given to the Commission in 1977 to examine the Commonwealth legislation. That report was tabled in the Parliament in April 1980. The Commission was critical of a number of aspects of the then Lands Acquisition Act which was modelled on 1845 United Kingdom legislation. The Government has adopted the Law Reform Commission's report with only minor modifications. The form of the Bill reflects the thrust of the Commission's recommendations. It is very pleasing that the work of the Commission has been vindicated. It is important to note that the work of the Commission had been brought into fruition years later. The fact that a Commission report may not result in action immediately should not be seen as a suggestion that the report is worthless. For example, there is the instance of this report which was initiated in 1977 and tabled three years later. Now, in 1988, this Government is bringing in legislation to implement the recommendations of that Commission report. Just by way of digression, I noticed this morning in my in-tray a discussion paper of the Law Reform Commission on product liability. I have now had the opportunity to read that and look at some of the proposals. The thrust of that recommendation is, firstly, that we need a very stringent form of liability to operate in the product area to make sure that those people who are victims of dangerous or negligent manufacture are adequately compensated, and secondly that we need to overcome some of the technical deficiencies of the law as it presently operates. I hope that that discussion paper stimulates the same kind of interest that the Law Reform Commission report on land acquisition did. I hope that ultimately it will result in appropriate legislative action in this Parliament to ensure that those people who are affected by badly made and dangerous products can get adequate compensation. I return to the Bill. There are a couple of points on which I should comment. The first of these concerns the detail of what compensation elements will be taken into account. In the past it has always been a bit of a lawyer's nightmare to work out exact procedures for determining compensation. Of course, there are different approaches to the assessment of compensation. However, this Bill now sets out in a tabular form some of the elements to be taken into account. That will help in clarifying the process of the assessment of entitlements and make clear the benefits to which anybody from whom land is taken will be entitled. Clause 55 of the Bill provides that compensation entitlements will be expanded to provide for disturbance, including loss or damage incurred as a reasonable consequence of the acquisition. Clause 55 of the Bill states also that such costs should at all times be reasonable, having regard to market rates, and that they should be directly related to the acquisition. Clause 59 states that compensation should be assessed on the basis that zoning restrictions for public uses are to be ignored provided that a claimant who bought the property in the knowledge of the restriction would not be entitled to compensation on a `without restriction' basis. Where a person's principal place of residence is acquired and the compensation payable is insufficient to acquire a replacement house, clause 61 states that compensation is to be increased to enable the acquisition of a reasonable equivalent. That is a very important point, particularly given the way housing markets can operate. Of course, as well as that very important provision, there is the provision I mentioned earlier in relation to the additional compensation of $10,000 to be paid by way of recognition of the importance of an individual's house to that individual. Not only is there an economic interest but also an interest resulting from the various emotional ties that we have to our family homes. These are important measures. None of us would wish that our property be taken from us by way of the Commonwealth seeking to develop a proposal of any kind. However, we accept and recognise the reality that governments need to acquire land for roads, airports and other public purposes. When that happens the individuals affected obviously have a right to be treated in an appropriate and fair manner. This Bill does that. This Bill follows the proposals that have been set out. It follows the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. It is a much more generous Bill than the provisions that previously applied. It is a streamlined Bill that makes clear what a person's entitlements will be. It gives adequate rights of appeal at two stages. Firstly, there is the stage at which it must be asked whether the acquisition should proceed at all. Secondly, there is the question of what is an appropriate measure of compensation for a person whose land has been acquired. I welcome these provisions. Again, I say that it is rather sad that the Opposition's response has been so grudging in terms of its welcoming of this legislation. It has been said that the legislation has been accepted with regret. The Opposition is now seeking to move various amendments in the committee stage of the debate. I would have thought that a more appropriate response would have been to welcome the very important elements of this legislation and to recognise them for what they are: landmark changes in an area which affects individuals in the most important areas of their lives-that is, of course, the homes they own. With those remarks, I commend this Bill to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.46) —Contrary to the remarks of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr), the Opposition welcomes the Lands Acquisition Bill 1988. The honourable member for Denison might shortly have his seat resumed, because I am told that the previous member for Denison is very determined to do that. I can tell the honourable member that when it comes to profile in this place, by comparison with the former occupant of the seat he is the invisible man. The point is that the Opposition welcomes this legislation but, of course, in its proper role in supporting the people of Australia it has a responsibility to identify existing deficiencies in the area of lands acquisition. To that extent the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), has put forward an amendment relating to the mining industry-a very important industry to Australia-and the amendment is proper and correct. It makes the legislation a little better. However, there are aspects of the resumption of land by the Commonwealth that I think I should address on this occasion based on experiences that I have had as a member of Parliament. Of course, all such legislation gives effect to the Constitution itself. The honourable member for Denison suggested a short time ago that we should be criticised because of the recent referendum. He and his colleagues threw away $40-odd million of taxpayers' money on an exercise that the taxpayers did not want in the first place and then, in the second place, rejected very substantially. The honourable member was suggesting that as a Commonwealth we should have been imposing the same constitutional requirement on the States in regard to the acquisition of land. I must remind the honourable member, of course, that the people of Australia were never given the opportunity to make that decision. They had to answer either yes or no to a single question that required decisions on trial by jury, certain aspects of religion and the resumption of land in relation to the expression `just terms' in section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution. That is hardly a simple choice. The honourable member should not blame the Opposition for its proper objection to that particular referendum question. He should blame his own Party for putting those matters to the people in that way. There are aspects of this legislation which I welcome. I will talk about some of those, as I said, in the light of experience. I want to draw to the attention of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) some of the correspondence relating to this-he will be aware of some of the previous correspondence. We can legislate until we are blue in the face in this place. We can bring down quite excellent legislation. However, unless those in our bureaucracy administer such legislation in a fair and reasonable way-they do not use the power of secrecy or pure brute force, because they know in the end that they can have the land-it does not much matter how we legislate. It does not matter how we legislate if in fact those people in the bureaucracy are not fair to the people whose land they wish to acquire. I think that the Law Reform Commission, in making its recommendations, took this into account. It has suggested revised acquisition powers, including the right of an affected owner to an independent review. The Commission is talking about an independent review prior to the Government proceeding to acquisition. I gather the Government has picked this up, which is interesting. In other words, people can put an argument to the Minister that he should not even contemplate the resumption of their land. That is excellent. It is much better. Mention is made of entitlement to remain in possession of the land for a period of time, speedier compensation and the advance of money, which is particularly necessary if someone's home is involved and another home has to be bought. The point I want to make-this has been alluded to by the honourable member for Denison-is that the Bill adopts the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission that a home owner should never receive less than the cost of a reasonably equivalent dwelling. That has been a major sticking point with me for many years because, in the past, the valuation has been inappropriate. I have seen an example of this. Some people owned an old and somewhat decrepit building in an area that had declining residential value probably because the Commonwealth wanted some of the land. The valuer took these factors into account and the amount of money offered to these people was very low in comparison with what they needed to buy similar accommodation elsewhere. The people were clearly happy to remain living in that place. It was home. Under the old arrangements, the money they were offered could not buy anything of equivalent size in a more attractive suburb, which was all that was left. This Bill addresses that problem and, as has also been pointed out, provides for further compensation for the mere fact that a person's life is being disrupted through having to move to a different home. I have also recently seen people forced out of their homes as a result of the assets test, merely because they lived on a block of land of, say, 100 acres. The family home was in the middle. It is interesting that the Government takes account of the fact that there should be some compensation for people being kicked out of the home that they may have raised their kids in and lived in all their lives. But under the assets test the Government says, `No, you have an asset. It is worthless to you and it brings in no rent. But we will take your pension off you because you own it. If you sell that house and move to the city, and all you have is a house on a suburban block, we will give you back your pension'. That is a pretty remarkable situation which, in another piece of Government legislation, the Government refuses to acknowledge. Having taken the decision, as the Government has, to recognise the difficulty caused to home owners, one wonders why it is not prepared to extend that recognition to farmers and people with certain business properties, because they too frequently find themselves in the same situation, particularly farmers. The next time this legislation comes before the Parliament, or when we have an opportunity to debate it, I think there should be included within the arrangements a simple requirement for a fair swap. In other words, why is it necessary to get valuers and everybody else in when people could say, `You are taking me out of a three-bedroom home in a medium class suburb, and over there is a three-bedroom home in another middle class suburb. I will have that one. It is for sale, so you buy it for me. You do not have to resume it'. That could happen with farmers. It is very difficult for a farmer to move. A farmer knows his land. He knows which land he can use for certain crops. He has a complete understanding of his land and the soil types. Suddenly the Government wants the land for a particular purpose and it says, `Here is the money, that is about what it is worth'. I think the Government is taking too tough an approach on many of these occasions, sometimes to the detriment of its plans and ambitions. It says, `Take the money and buy another farm'. But it just so happens that no-one in the district wants to sell his farm this year, so that person has the money but has not got a farm to buy. I think people ought to be able to say to the Government, `If you want my land for a special purpose, I cannot argue with that, but you must get me something equivalent and I will shift as soon as you have got it'. If it is going to cost the Government extra money because somebody does not want to sell his land, it then becomes the Government's problem, not the owner's. He is comfortable and does not want to move. I mentioned earlier how our bureaucracy often deals with people in this situation. I have here a simple case history. I have corresponded with the Minister about it at different times, as well as with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). It is an interesting case. The Government with my support-it did not ask for my approval-wanted to build a base in my electorate to monitor overseas telecommunications and things of that nature. Many chose to call it a spy base, but I did not. During the last election campaign all the candidates in Geraldton, where the base is being constructed, were campaigning on a simple platform. When a questioner asked me, the Liberal Party candidate, my opponent, the Australian Labor Party candidate, and some other candidates whether we supported or opposed the establishment of that base in that town, I spoke strongly in favour of it and the Labor candidate spoke against it. It must never be said that I was taking an opportunity to do anything other than to support this project. I supported it because I thought it was good for my district and I rejected the ridiculous arguments by some that it would become an atomic target. These monitoring stations are the very stations that record rocket launches. Without such stations we would have to find other ways of detecting and destroying them. No self-respecting general, I am sure, would want that to happen. Land was needed and a particular farm was identified. These people wrote to me pointing out that on about 27 March an officer from a department rang up and said that the department wanted to talk about a satellite site. The people were getting ready to put their crops in. Three days later they received a visit and were told that their farm was one of five sites to be considered, but not to worry about that because it was unlikely that theirs would be chosen. They were told that they had a very large farm and it would be necessary, if their farm was chosen, to resume about half of it, about 500 hectares. Only 50 hectares would actually be required but the rest would be needed for a buffer zone and would be leased back to them. They could continue to farm it. But again they were told it was most unlikely that would occur. On 11 May another departmental officer-I would love to use his name because it really personifies everything that happened, but I feel I cannot as it would be a bit unfair-came to talk to these people. On 19 May a telegram was phoned through for them to contact someone else. All this time these people were trying to get ready for the harvest, but they kept getting told it did not matter. On 25 May there was further communication. On 26 May this same fellow rang and said that the people would be able to keep farming the land, that they had nothing to worry about. But, as they said, by this time they had still received nothing in writing. The reason given was that the department had not made a decision. It was then suggested, `You had better get ready and ask the Government to give you some professional assistance'. I would concur. But we find that after some more discussion and after these people had written a letter, on about 4 June or 5 June this fellow rang back and said that there was no help available and that they had better get their own. These people did not want to sell their farm, they wanted to stay there. Time went by. On 17 June they were told that four people were coming to dig up some ground. Still more telephone calls were made but there was nothing in writing-nothing formal; no evidence. Two four-wheel drive vehicles arrived and something that sounds, from their description, like a back hoe turned up and started digging holes in their ground. On 24 June, seven days later, surveyors turned up and started doing contour work. On 25 June an engineer came and told them he had been in touch with everybody else around the countryside, but the people still had nothing to worry about because there was one other site the department was still looking at. Then, on 1 July, Warren somebody or other turned up-they did not know who he was-and on 15 July they were told to get a valuer, again over the telephone. There was no formal proposal. On 23 July they were told that more people were coming to see them. On 30 July they were told what the Government's valuation was but still they had received nothing in writing. Something referred to as a licence, which was supposed to be a lease for the leaseback of this land, was then produced to them. This is very significant because the value was based on the fact that they were going to keep most of their land. But, in fact, they found it was to be a licence to use the land and that it could be revoked at any time the Commonwealth felt like it. As they said, it was totally contradictory. By this time these people were looking at losing half their farm but it was viable if the leased section could be negotiable. In the early stages they told the people that if they put the mast where it was going to be they would not be able to get to half their land; it just blocked it off. Again, there was nothing in writing. In this letter it states: 30th July . . . The draft he brought with him was unfeasible as a farming lease-and anyway was contradicting what they had lead us to believe-that we'd always have the use of the buffer zone-Still nothing in writing-the lease draft etc he took away with him as he only had one copy . . . On 7 August they got more phone calls asking them to come to Perth. They were told that on 10 September an independent valuer, people from the Housing Commission and an archaeologist, were coming out to survey the access road. The Government started to worry about the environment but it still had not told these people in any formal way how much money they would get and it had not done anything for them. When the money was eventually offered, it was substantially insufficient. The whole time they were being told, `Don't tell a soul; don't talk to anyone; don't talk to your member of parliament; it's all secret and remember, it might not happen'. Of course this went on and on. On 15 September as this letter states: Served a notice to treat-left maps etc. Said their valuers had . . . finished doing their new value. We had 4 days to reply (actually 13). John said it would be gazetted on 9th Oct. and that the value would be effective on that date-The licence that John left us is totally unfeasible in a farming situation. So to sum up. All their talk of us being able to always farm it, was just bluff and we were too trusting, too busy seeding or too naive to realise the implications. This law will improve those sorts of things but the funny fact about it was that I wrote to the Minister for Defence at one stage and told him that the one thing I had to warn him about, in the Government's own interest, was not to deal unfairly with these people because he was handing a club to the opponents of the base. Of course, as history has proved, they grabbed it. The then Senator Wood, Senator Vallentine and others stood up in the Senate and poured their hearts out on behalf of these people. The people of the district who had accepted that this base was going to be built there and had seen some value in it, were harassed and, of course, all rose up in defence of these farmers. But those who were leading the push were not interested in the farmers. They wanted to stop the base. The Government was not even smart for itself. I tell that story because it is worth understanding that it will not matter if we do not ensure that the bureaucracy deals fairly with the people. When it comes to the situation of resuming people's land, we should always be generous because it is a major disruption to them. The shadow Minister also raised the matter of Badgerys Creek. I will close on that. What is going on there is outrageous. The simple fact is that once a government identifies an area and says, `We'll build an airport here', nobody can sell his land to anybody but the Government. It is absolutely outrageous to then say, `Look, we're not ready to resume it yet. We really haven't got our plans together. We really don't know when we want your land. Tell you what, if you want to sell it ring us up and we'll negotiate'. The Government would then be the only organisation wanting to buy the land. I would like to be in that position when I am doing a bit of shopping because I know what price I would get it at. Of course, some of these people need to sell. They have plans to build and construct but all that is finished. They would like to do it somewhere else. It should not be that way. Once the Government makes an announcement of that type it should be obliged to resume the land immediately. If it is not going to do it, it should not make the announcement in the first place. We know why this announcement was made. It would not proceed with the proper arrangements under the plans of the Minister in the previous Government to give us a second runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. We could be landing on it now. We would not be stacked on 20 minute flights with half an hour waiting times and huge costs to taxpayers and to the community. We would have lost all that. But to overcome that and find an excuse for the disaster that is Sydney Airport, the Government made the announcement of where it was going. It has affected the lives of 200 or 300 families and now it is not acting properly with those people. I hope that this legislation will improve that situation. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(6.06) —in reply-I thank those who have contributed to this brief debate. Shortly we will be going into the committee stage. As the shadow Minister for administrative services, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), said, this Lands Acquisition Bill has had a long gestation period. That was not only under our Government but also under the former Government. Honourable members opposite were in power when this long process started. As the shadow Minister has said, the Bill must give and does give owners an appeals process to ensure that they get just compensation when their land is compulsorily acquired. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is what this Bill is all about. It sets up-as the shadow Minister and others have said-an appeals process to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). On the issue of a primary decision to acquire, the AAT may make a recommendation to the Minister. But on the matter of determination of compensation, the decision of the AAT is of course determinatory or the owner, if he wishes, can bypass the AAT and go straight to the Federal Court of Australia. A number of points have been raised by the shadow Minister, particularly the question of blight. Of course that issue raises the secondary issue of the commencement of the acquisition process. That issue has been well canvassed during the debate. I have considered the argument that a government's announcement of an intention to acquire property should trigger the acquisition process. That suggestion has been made and I am satisfied that it is simply not appropriate to do that. The Law Reform Commission spent considerable time looking at this question of blight and when the acquisition process should be deemed to have commenced. It concluded that the only realistic way of starting the acquisition process was by issue of a pre-acquisition declaration to the owners. I must agree with Opposition speakers and others that there is a problem with blight being inadvertently created by a government, by a ministerial statement or even by pure speculation. Certainly, the land may be required for a public purpose. However, the suggestion that a government or ministerial announcement should be the legal trigger for activating the processes in this Bill really bristles with difficulties as was recognised by the Law Reform Commission. For instance, what would constitute an announcement? How would an announcement clearly identify the land involved? How would the Government ensure that all owners were aware of the announcement? If the Government knew that an announcement would start the acquisition process, it probably would not make an announcement until it was ready to start that process. It would be necessary to define in the legislation precisely what constitutes an announcement or statement of intention. The point is that when we get to that level of precision we have what is effectively a pre-acquisition declaration. All these difficulties are overcome, in my view, by starting the process with a pre-acquisition declaration to owners, as recommended by the Law Reform Commission. I agree that that is not totally satisfactory, but one cannot deny the problems that are associated with the alternate approach. However, the legislation can specify what information is to be included in the pre-acquisition declaration, the land involved can be clearly and accurately identified, and all owners can be separately notified. The Law Reform Commission also observed that where many properties were to be acquired for the one project an announcement starting the process would initiate acquisition of all properties at the one time. The Commission did recognise that there could be situations in which it might be impossible to start acquisition of all properties at the one time and complete those acquisitions within some specified time, even if the government made sufficient funds available. In such cases the issuing of pre-acquisition declarations progressively may be the only practical way of dealing with these multiple acquisitions. Consequently the Commission in its report recommended that the acquisition process be started not by a general or specific announcement by government; rather the process should be started by the issuing of a pre-acquisition declaration. My answer to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Hume, is that all these problems exist and have been considered by both the Commission and the Government. The Bill adopts all the recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission in this regard. I turn to the question of injurious affection-the shadow Minister and other speakers also raised this matter-where no land is acquired and alternatively where part of a person's property is acquired. We considered the Law Reform Commission's recommendations concerning injurious affection where no land is acquired, and decided that we could not incorporate these recommendations in the Bill. I will give honourable members the reasons for that decision. Firstly, we believe that the issue is of much wider scope than being simply related to land acquisition as a specific issue. It is a land use planning issue. These matters obviously have to be considered at that point; that is, before the primary decision to go on with the project is actually made. Secondly, some related investigations-in particular those of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise-were under way. The costs to Federal and State governments are simply impossible to predict, but would be extremely high. I do not run away from stating this; as I have said, several deputations came to see me on this matter. The Commission's proposal did not resolve some of the fundamental issues, such as how to measure the change in the value of a property that occurs due to the Commonwealth's actions and no other factor; at what point the effect would be measured-that is, at the planning stage, the completion of development or some years after the activity has commenced; and to whom the compensation shall be paid. If a prospective application is adopted, people who have suffered the injurious affection for years might not be paid compensation, but a neighbour affected by some minor change who had not been affected initially might be paid compensation. I will deal now with a situation which will be dealt with by amendment in the committee stage-I want to offer something on this vexatious matter-that is, where part of a property is acquired by the compulsory process. The current Act does provide for injurious affection in a particular circumstance; namely, where compensation is to be paid for the compulsory acquisition of a part but not all of a property. It is a provision, strangely enough, which is used fairly infrequently. The current Act gives virtually no direction as to how that compensation should be assessed. It has all the deficiencies of the Law Reform Commission proposal. Furthermore, it is inequitable because it provides for an owner to be paid compensation for the deleterious effect the Commonwealth activities may have on the remainder of his property as long as the smallest portion of the land is acquired; whereas, although the neighbour suffers equally, if none of the neighbour's land is acquired, that neighbour would not be entitled to be paid any compensation at all. So there is even a problem in deciding what to do about the situation which is now covered by the current Act. I have considered these matters and, on balance, I would affirm the Government's earlier decision that injurious affection where no land is acquired needs to be considered in a wider context, as I set out earlier, than the Commonwealth's land acquisition legislation; that is, basically at the planning stage-whether or not the project ought to go in a particular position at all if, for instance, there are lots of people and small landholders around. For that reason, the Bill should not contain any provision for the payment of compensation on the grounds of injurious affection where no land is acquired. I will be proposing an amendment to the Bill after full consultation with the Opposition spokesman and with organisations such as the Land Acquisition Reform Committee. This amendment will incorporate a provision contained in the current Act whereby the enhancement or depreciation of the remainder of an owner's land caused by the public use of the land acquired from that person shall be taken into account in assessing compensation. The shadow Minister raised some other matters regarding possible improvements to the Bill. He referred to the new provisions which will apply to applications for mining on Commonwealth land other than Antarctica and national parks. He wants to retain the provision in the current Act, which I understand sets out that mining will occur under the current State legislation. Basically, that is what we intend anyway. I will not be accepting the amendment, but I will explain why in detail-I hope the Opposition will accept that explanation-in the committee stage. I will not take up any more time right now. The question of essentiality in clauses 24 and 22-that is, the Minister's right to declare essentiality and thus exclude appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal-has been referred to. I will be proposing an amendment; that is, the deletion of clause 24 (1) (b) but the retention of the provisions of clause 22. I will explain my reasons for that in detail during the committee stage. I hope I have dealt adequately with these matters at this point and will extend those explanations during the committee stage and will deal with the arguments raised by the shadow Minister. I will now refer very briefly to some of the points raised by other speakers. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) made a very good speech on this issue and he correctly praised the Law Reform Commission. I do not think anyone else did that and I praise the Commission too, as I praised the decision of the former Government many years ago to set up the inquiry. As the honourable member for Denison said, this is how the parliamentary democratic process should work and at the end of the day, as he said, it has worked, despite the lengthy time frame. We have had the referral, the report, the Government consideration and the re-assessment by myself when I took my current office. We have had a Bill introduced, a long period of consultation, and now we are discussing the proposed legislation which, I believe, will lead to a new Act which Justice Murray Wilcox said will be equal to, if not better than any other-even if we do not do anything more and we are planning to do more to the Bill very soon. We will have an Act without peer in the English-speaking world, and that is high praise indeed. It certainly was time that the Act was overhauled. The current Act dates back to 1955 and that legislation was simply based on the 1906 legislation, which was based on the United Kingdom legislation enacted in the 1840s; so, in effect, we are changing something now that has endured for almost 150 years. As the honourable member for Denison has said, that is an achievement. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) raised a very important point. I do not agree in total with what he said, particularly towards the end of his speech, but I certainly agree with him when he points out that it does not matter how good legislation is, at the end of the day if the Minister, the Government and the public servants who administer the Act are not seriously concerned with applying its intent, somewhere along the way the legislation may break down. Mr Fife —He is quite right. Mr WEST —I agree with that. Perhaps he missed the fundamental point. He should have gone on and said that this legislation is good legislation because it understands that salient point and provides a framework-except in certain cases which I think should be there; that is, urgency and cases where national security might be prejudiced-to protect the rights of the individual against the bureaucratic mismanagement which sometimes occurs and which has been referred to. The honourable member, having said that there is a danger that the best of legislation can be subverted, ought to have gone on and said that this legislation at least takes us a long way down the track to creating a situation in which the individual's rights are protected and he or she has an avenue of challenge. I thank the three people who have contributed to the debate. I believe we should now move to the committee stage where I propose to move a number of amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 4-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5 (Operation of Territory laws). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(6.23) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 5, page 2, line 7, omit ``and''. (2) Clause 5, page 2, line 8, omit ``both the law and this Act'', substitute ``that law''. (3) Clause 5, page 2, after paragraph (1) (b) insert the following word and paragraph: ``and (c) this Act requires that the authority acquire or dispose of the interest in accordance with this Act;''. Clause 5 described how this legislation will relate to legislation in the Territory. These are technical amendments only which clarify the provisions of clause 5. Mr FIFE(Hume)(6.24) —I wish to indicate, in order to save time, that the Opposition agrees with the amendments proposed by the Minister and on only one or two occasions do I need to make comments. I indicate to the committee at this stage that I shall not take up the time of the committee by speaking each time the Minister moves amendments. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —That would be very helpful. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 6 (Definitions). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(6.25) —I move: (4) Clause 6, page 2, line 39, insert ``or Norfolk Island'' after ``Northern Territory''. The amendment alters the definition of a Commonwealth authority. In the Bill as drafted Norfolk Island statutory authorities would have been included as acquiring authorities. As with Northern Territory Government statutory authorities, the Norfolk Island statutory authorities are not intended to be bound by the Bill in recognition of the self-government arrangements there. Hence I propose that the definition of Commonwealth authority be amended to exclude authorities incorporated under a law of the Norfolk Island territory. Amendment agreed to. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(6.27) —by leave-I move: (5) Clause 6, page 3, line 13, insert ``and a right of redemption'' after ``option''. (6) Clause 6, page 3, lines 29 to 31, omit the definition of ``owner''. (7) Clause 6, page 3, lines 39 to 44, omit the definition of ``public purpose'', substitute the following definition: `` `public purpose' means a purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws and includes, in relation to land in a Territory, any purpose in relation to the Territory;''. These are technical amendments to the definitions in clause 6. Amendment (5) clarifies that an interest in land can include an interest associated with a mortgage. Amendment (6) deletes the definition of an owner. Concern had been expressed in comments that the original definition would have excluded a person who held an interest in land which he could not assign to others, an example being a person holding some form of mining tenement which could only be returned to the State. It is not intended that such persons be excluded, so this is a technical amendment to clear that up. Amendment (7) clarifies the definition of a public purpose by removing a part of the original definition which was simply found to be superfluous. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 16-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 17 (Nature of interests that may be acquired). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(6.29) —I move: (8) Clause 17, page 7, line 4, insert ``and a right of redemption'' after ``option''. This is also a technical amendment to make clear that an interest in land that may be acquired includes a right of redemption or a mortgage right. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Clauses 18 to 20-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 21 (Acquisitions to be in accordance with Act). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.01) —by leave-I move: (9) Clause 21, page 8, line 2, omit ``An acquiring'', substitute ``Subject to subsection (2), an acquiring''. (10) Clause 21, page 8, at the end of the clause add the following subclauses: ``(2) Nothing in this Act prevents the benefit of a restriction on the use of land becoming vested in an authority by the operation of a law other than this Act. ``(3) In spite of paragraphs 48 (1) (b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, regulations made for the purpose of paragraph (1) (b) of this section may provide that the regulations shall take effect on a date to be fixed by the Minister by notice published in the Gazette. ``(4) The Minister shall not fix a date for the purpose of subsection (3) that is earlier than: (a) the last day on which a notice could be given under subsection 48 (4) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in relation to the regulations; or (b) if such a notice is given, the latest day on which the regulations could be disallowed by a House of the Parliament in which such a notice has been given.''. Clause 21 provides that the Commonwealth shall acquire land in accordance with this Bill. This provision is, however, subject to a series of exceptions and concern has been expressed about the provision which allows exemption from the Bill by regulation at clause 21 (b). In this regard it has been suggested that an acquiring authority could be exempted soon after the Senate rises and an acquisition completed outside the terms of the Bill before the Senate and the House of Representatives had the opportunity to consider and perhaps disallow the exemption. I must say that this concern is equally applicable to other legislation which provides for the making of regulations. More significantly, under the existing legislation exemption is effected simply by gazettal of a ministerial decision. The exemption provisions contained in the Bill provide for parliamentary scrutiny and are consistent with those proposed by the Law Reform Commission. However, it is unlikely that exemption of an authority would be required so quickly that it would not be possible to allow parliamentary scrutiny of the intention to exempt before the exemption took effect. So I am proposing these amendments to prevent the acquisition by an exempted authority until after parliamentary scrutiny of the exemption has taken place. Mr FIFE(Hume)(8.03) —I remind the committee that the Opposition supports the 34 amendments being moved by the Government. It is not my intention to speak on each occasion that the Minister moves an amendment. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 22 (Declaration that land is suitable for acquisition). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.04) —I move: (11) Clause 22, page 8, lines 22 to 36, omit subclauses (1), (2) and (3), substitute the following subclauses: ``(1) The Minister may declare in writing that the Minister is considering the acquisition by an acquiring authority of an interest in land (other than a mortgage interest) for a public purpose. ``(2) The declaration shall identify the acquiring authority, the land, the interest in the land and the public purpose. ``(3) Except where the interest is a restriction on the use of land, the Minister shall include in the declaration: (a) a statement that the land appears to the Minister to be suitable for use, or for development for use, for a public purpose; and (b) a statement setting out: (i) particulars of the use to which the land will be put or for which it will be developed; and (ii) the reasons why the land appears to be suitable for that use or for development for that use. ``(4) Where the interest is a restriction on the use of land, the Minister shall include in the declaration: (a) a statement that it appears to the Minister to be appropriate for the acquiring authority to be given, for a public purpose, the benefit of the restriction on the use of the land; and (b) a statement: (i) explaining the nature of the restriction; and (ii) setting out the reasons why it is appropriate for the acquiring authority to be given the benefit of the restriction. ``(5) The Minister may include in the declaration a statement that the proposed use of the land, or the proposed restriction on the use of the land, as the case may be, is connected with the implementation of a policy particulars of which are set out in the declaration.''. This is a technical amendment to clause 22, which describes the information that is to be provided in a pre-acquisition declaration. The Bill, as introduced, requires that a pre-acquisition declaration shall contain a description of the use the Commonwealth intends to make of the land to be acquired. Where the interest to be acquired is a restriction on use there may be no actual use of the land. This amendment provides for such a situation. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 23 agreed to. Clause 24 (Acquisitions where land required urgently etc.) Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.05) —by leave-I move: (12) Clause 24, page 10, line 7, insert ``or'' after ``declaration;''. (13) Clause 24, page 10, lines 8 to 10, omit paragraph (b) and the word ``or'' following it. These amendments, which are perhaps the most important amendments, have been requested by the Land Acquisition Reform Committee, Justice Murray Wilcox and a whole host of other people. The Law Reform Commission, in its report on the Commonwealth's land acquisition legislation, recommended that there should be two instances where a pre-acquisition declaration need not be given and from which there would be no right of appeal either to the Minister or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) about the decision to acquire. These were in cases of urgency, or, as I said in my reply to the second reading debate, where national security requirements prevented disclosure of details of the proposed land use. This was incorporated in clause 24 of the Bill. The Administrative Review Council recommended that a third situation should have a constraint on appeal to the AAT-namely, where the Minister is satisfied and certifies that it is in the public interest that a particular parcel of land be acquired for a public purpose; in other words, where it is essential that the specified land be acquired because there was no other option. The Bill includes this recommendation at clause 24 (1) (b). It has been suggested that since the essentiality provision excludes review, its use could negate the benefits of the Bill. One of the most significant features of the Bill is the appeal provision. The concern is that the essentiality clause might be used frequently for the express purpose of denying an owner access to that appeal provision, although it could be argued that the same criticism applies to the other two provisions which the Law Reform Commission proposed-that is, the urgency and security provisions. I understand the concerns that people have with this provision. It is in the Bill because the Government decided that it would accept the argument put forward by the Administrative Review Council, that in such instances there would be no review by the AAT of the decision to acquire. Circumstances where this provision might be used would arise, I reckon, infrequently. But from time to time it happens that the Commonwealth has a need to acquire property that is very location specific. For example, the Commonwealth may need to acquire a small parcel of land for a communications repeater station that requires line of sight to other such stations and, because of the terrain, only one place meets the requirement. The Administrative Review Council expressed the view that in such instances appeal to the AAT should be precluded provided that the Minister makes a public declaration that the acquisition is essential. Such a declaration would indicate the Government's commitment to the acquisition, making review by the AAT redundant, given that the Government is not bound to accept the recommendation of the AAT. The Council believed that it was highly desirable that the Minister remain politically accountable for such decisions. The essentiality provision is cited twice in the Bill-initially at clause 22 (4), where a pre-acquisition declaration would be issued and an appeal to the Minister to reconsider would be available but appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would not be available; and, secondly, at clause 24 (1) (b) where there would be no pre-acquisition declaration and therefore no appeal to the Minister or the AAT. So I am proposing an amendment that deletes the more severe of these provisions at clause 24 (1) (b). However, I am of the view that clause 22 (4) should remain unaltered because in its present form the need for public accountability is met. If a Minister chose to use this provision he would not be able to do it without the details of what the Minister was doing becoming public. A pre-acquisition declaration would be issued to anyone affected by the acquisition and copies of the declaration would have to be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and in a newspaper circulated in the area where the land was located. Furthermore, if an owner of land being acquired using this provision believed that the provision was being misused, he would be able to appeal to the Federal Court under the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. It has been suggested that the availability of such an appeal should be made clear. However, I am advised that it is neither necessary nor desirable to amend clause 22 (4) to refer to an appeal of this nature. it is not necessary because any decision is reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act unless specifically or generally excluded. This decision has not been excluded in any way from the provisions of the Act. Furthermore, it is not desirable to insert a particular reference to the availability of such an appeal in this clause because if that were inserted, for consistency a similar insertion would be required anywhere in the Bill where an administrative decision is involved. I understand the concern that has given rise to the suggestion. In recognition of that concern, I will have the explanatory memorandum to the Bill amended to incorporate reference to the normal availability of appeal under the AD (JR) Act in this situation. Mr FIFE(Hume)(8.10) —The Opposition welcomes this amendment. As I indicated, we support all the amendments that the Minister is proposing but, because I specifically referred to this matter in the second reading debate, I wanted to say that the advice available to me is identical to the advice available to the Minister. There is no need-and indeed, it would not be desirable-to include in this Bill a reference to the fact that land owners in appropriate circumstances could appeal to the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. During the second reading debate I asked whether the Minister would confirm that his advice was in line with ours. He has done so and I thank him for it. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 25 to 30-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 31 (Consideration to be taken into account on review). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.12) —by leave-I move: (14) Clause 31, page 13, lines 5 to 12, omit paragraphs (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), substitute the following paragraphs: ``(a) the nature of the public purpose identified in the declaration; (b) except where the relevant interest in land is a restriction on the use of land: (i) the nature of the proposed use of the relevant land; (ii) the extent to which the proposed use is connected with the public purpose; (iii) the extent to which the proposed use is in the public interest; and (iv) the suitability of the land for, or for development for, the proposed use; (c) where the relevant interest in land is a restriction on the use of land: (i) the nature of the proposed restriction; (ii) the extent to which the proposed restriction is connected with the public purpose; (iii) the extent to which the proposed restriction is in the public interest; and (iv) the appropriateness of the benefit of the proposed restriction being acquired by the acquiring authority;''. (15) Clause 31, page 13, line 18, insert ``, or the use of the land were restricted, as the case may be,'' after ``developed''. (16) Clause 31, page 13, line 19, insert ``, or that restriction,'' after ``development'', (17) Clause 31, page 14, line 4, omit ``proposed use of the land to which the declaration relates is a use'', substitute ``proposed use, or proposed restriction on the use, as the case may be, of the relevant land is''. This is a set of technical amendments to clause 31 which clarify the considerations which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal may take into account when dealing with a review of a decision to acquire where the interest to be acquired is a restriction on the use of land. These amendments are required because clause 31 of the Bill as introduced spoke in terms of the proposed use of land where the interest is in fact a restriction on the use, such as in a restricted area around some Commonwealth establishments where there might not be any actual use. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 32 agreed to. Clause 33 (Minister to consider Administrative Appeals Tribunal's recommendations). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.14) —by leave-I move: (18) Clause 33, page 14, after subclause (1) insert the following subclause: ``(2) The Minister is not entitled to reject a recommendation of the Tribunal more than 90 days after the decision of the Tribunal comes into operation.''. (19) Clause 33, page 14, line 33, omit ``15'', substitute ``3''. Clause 33 provides that, where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has completed its review of an appeal against the decision to acquire, the Tribunal will make a recommendation to the Minister and the Minister will be able to accept or reject that recommendation. The Bill does not specify that the Minister shall make that decision within a particular period. The Bill does specify a period that must follow the AAT's recommendation before the Commonwealth can proceed to acquire. That time period is 28 days. It is specified to enable an owner to seek a review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's finding on matters of law through the Federal Court as provided in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. The Law Reform Commission in its draft Bill did not specify a time in which a Minister must decide whether or not to proceed with an acquisition following the recommendation from the AAT, taking the view that it was not possible to legislate to force a government to take a decision within a specified period. However, in response to the suggestions made to me, I believe that in this instance it is reasonable to place some time limit on the Minister because otherwise the Minister could delay his decision indefinitely. Consequently, I propose to amend the clause so that, if the Minister is to reject the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's recommendation, he must do so within 90 days. Furthermore, the Bill requires that the Minister must notify Parliament if he rejects the recommendation from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and that he must do so within 15 sitting days. Comments provided to me suggest that this period is unnecessarily long. I also accept that view, and I am proposing an amendment that the Minister must table a notice of rejection of an AAT recommendation within three sitting days. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 34 to 40-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 41 (Acquisition by compulsory process). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.16) —I move: (20) Clause 41, page 17, line 35, omit ``declaration interest'', substitute ``interest identified in the declaration''. This is purely a technical amendment to clause 41 to clarify that reference in the Bill to a declaration interest means reference to an interest identified in the pre-acquisition declaration. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 42 to 45-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 46 (Disallowance of acquisition of interest in land in public park). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.17) —I move: (21) Clause 46, page 20, line 12, omit ``28 days'', substitute ``7 sitting days of that House''. Clause 42 of the Bill provides that land in a public park can be acquired by the Commonwealth provided that a particular set of requirements is met. These conditions are as follows: There must be a full environmental inquiry unless both Houses of Parliament veto the need for a full inquiry. Even if both Houses do veto the need for a full inquiry, any other requirement of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act must still be met. In particular, where the property is a World Heritage property or on the Register of the National Estate, an environmental impact statement must be prepared. The relevant State must also agree to acquisition of the land. After the acquisition has been gazetted, either House of Parliament can disallow it. In my view that process provides a means whereby inconsequential acquisition in public parks can occur. At the same time, this process provides appropriate checks and balances to ensure that acquisitions of some consequence in public parks cannot occur without appropriate scrutiny. In stipulating this process, the Bill provides in clause 46 that the Parliament be notified of the acquisition of land in public parks and that, within 28 days after the notification, either House can pass a resolution disallowing the acquisition. Concern has been expressed at the 28 day limit. It is suggested that it would be possible for the information to be tabled at the end of a parliamentary session and that either House might not have time to consider the matter adequately. It should be noted that the current Act provides a power to either House to veto any compulsory acquisition that is undertaken, stipulating that this must be done within 30 days of notification of the acquisition. That time limit as stipulated in the current Act has not led to the situation that the comments suggest might arise, but even so I am sympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed. On the other hand, there needs to be a balance between the desirability of allowing either House sufficient time to consider the matter against the need for the Commonwealth to act following the acquisition. In practice, although the Commonwealth may have acquired the land once it is gazetted, the Commonwealth is not really in a position to make use of the land as intended until after the potential parliamentary disallowance period has expired. Under these circumstances, I believe that the best approach is to specify the disallowance period in terms of a number of sitting days, and I propose to amend the period from 28 calendar days to seven sitting days. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 47 to 54-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 55 (Amount of compensation-general principles). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.20) —by leave-I move: (22) Clause 55, page 23, line 32, omit ``and''. (23) Clause 55, page 23, after subparagraph (2) (a) (iii) insert the following word and subparagraph: ``and (iv) where the acquisition has the effect of severing the acquired interest from another interest, any increase or decrease in the market value of the interest still held by the person resulting from the nature of, or the carrying out of, the purpose for which the acquired interest was acquired;''. These are the amendments I referred to earlier. I have received several comments about the lack of provision in the Bill for the payment of compensation for injurious affection where the Commonwealth's use of land causes a diminution of value of a person's property. There are two situations that arise here: firstly, where no land is acquired by the Commonwealth; and secondly, where part of a person's land is acquired. Regarding the first situation, the Government considered the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations on injurious affection and decided that this Bill would not incorporate them. As I mentioned earlier, the reasons for that decision include the fact that the issue is of much wider scope than, being related simply to land acquisition, it is in the primary instance a land use planning issue. Some related investigations were under way, particularly the investigation by the House of Representatives committee inquiry into aircraft noise, at the time we took this decision. The costs to government were difficult to predict but would no doubt be very high, not only to the Commonwealth but to the various States. The Law Reform Commission proposal did not resolve some of the fundamental issues-such issues, for instance, as how to measure the change in value of a property that occurs due to the Commonwealth's actions and no other factor; at what point in time the effect should be measured-at the planning stage, at the completion of the development, or some years after the activity has commenced; and to whom compensation should be paid. Consequently, the Bill does not incorporate compensation for injurious affection where no land is acquired. In the second instance-where part of a person's property is acquired by compulsory process-the current Act does provide for the assessment of compensation to take into account any decrease or increase in the value of the remaining part of the person's property as a result of the Commonwealth's activities on the part acquired. It has been suggested that the same provision at least should be carried into this Bill, and I agree. This Bill has as one of its main objectives the intention that compensation provisions will be improved compared with those under the current Act. In my view, if this aspect of injurious affection were not included in this Bill, then the Bill could be seen as detracting from the present provision. In these amendments I am proposing that the provisions of compensation for injurious affection, where part of a property is acquired by compulsory process, should be incorporated in this Bill. Mr FIFE(Hume)(8.24) —I welcome the amendment that has been moved by the Minister. As I indicated earlier, we support this and the other amendments he has moved. They have certainly improved the original Bill in so far as injurious affection is concerned. As I pointed out in my speech on the second reading, this is a very important element and certainly a very important reference that was made to the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Committee might recall that I advised the House that the then Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott, pointed out that it was an area that needed looking at as legislation in Britain and Canada had, to some extent, dealt with the problem. I do not underestimate the problem. I want the Committee and the Minister to understand that I and the Opposition appreciate the drafting and administrative difficulties associated with this matter. However, it is a very important matter, and a moment ago the Minister said that his advice indicates that the cost to government could be very high. If the cost to government could be very high, that indicates that the loss to people is also very high. We cannot have one without the other. If that is the case, then the Government and the Parliament are neglecting a very important area. I have not proposed an amendment; I do not intend to. I think a great deal of thought and consideration needs to go into it before an amendment is proposed. To propose an amendment just to make a point would, I think, be irresponsible of the Opposition. What I did ask the Minister to consider during my speech on the second reading was the establishment of some kind of task force. He has pointed out that it is not only this Bill, when it becomes an Act, that injurious affection will apply to. Maybe the Government would consider establishing a task force or making another reference to the Law Reform Commission or some other body that could provide technical advice to see how this issue could be properly addressed and then make public the findings of that investigation. It is a very important issue. As I said, I appreciate the difficulties. If I thought there was an easy solution then the Opposition would be moving an amendment. I ask the Minister again through you, Mr Deputy Chairman, to at least consider, and perhaps advise me at a later date, whether the Government is prepared to look at this matter again. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 56 and 57-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 58 (No general market for interest acquired). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.27) —I move: (24) Clause 58, page 25, omit the last 2 lines of subclause 58 (3), substitute: ``FI is the present value of any real and substantial saving in recurring costs (relating to land or an interest in land) gained by the person as a result of the relocation.''. This is a technical amendment. Clause 58 of the Bill describes how compensation is to be assessed where the Commonwealth acquires property which has no general market value, such as a church or a school. The basis of that approach is that sufficient compensation will be paid to enable the former owner to relocate the facility, although that amount would be reduced by the amount the owner had improved his financial position. This amendment simply clarifies that for the purpose of this clause the replacement by a new facility of an old facility does not in itself improve an owner's financial position, although some clearly identifiable reduction in future maintenance and operating costs would be an improvement of an owner's financial position. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 59 and 60-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 61 (Acquisition of a dwelling). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.27) —I move: (25) Clause 61, page 26, line 33, omit ``$5,000'', substitute ``$10,000 (or that amount as indexed by section 126)''. We propose to make a solace payment to people whose homes or primary places of residence are acquired by compulsory process, in recognition of the often intangible value attached to a home or the owner outside of any commercial value. This once only payment will be additional to any amount of compensation determined for the acquisition as a whole. I think it is only reasonable that individuals should receive some recompense for those personal aspects of home ownership that cannot be valued in a commercial sense. It is, of course, these personal attachments and memories which for whatever reason, often cause the greatest distress to persons when they are required to vacate their homes. The legislation as originally drafted provided for a payment of $5,000 in each case. Several groups in the community have expressed concern about three specific aspects of solatium payments: firstly, the amount of the payment being incorporated in the body of the Bill rather than in regulations makes it difficult to alter, particularly if the amount of the solatium payment is to keep pace with inflation; secondly, the specification of a single figure does not recognise the difference in the value of different homes and, thirdly, the amount is too low. I think the first point is valid to the extent that it is more difficult to amend an Act than it is to amend regulations. However, incorporation of the amount in the Act at least makes clear the Government's intention about the quantum of the amount that should be paid. If the amount was left to be specified in regulations to the Act there could be criticism on the grounds that the Act itself should indicate the order of magnitude of the payment that the Government considers appropriate. Comments have been received from several sources suggesting that any difficulties associated with amending the value of the payment could be overcome by writing in a provision for an automatic upgrading. This could be achieved by amending the clause to provide for an increase in the value of the payment in line with some index. I agree with that view and I propose an amendment which would increase the amount annually in line with the consumer price index (CPI). I now turn to the second area of concern-solace payments and the different value of homes. When the Government considered the proposition for a solace payment it considered a number of options. Some States provide a householder solatium with the amount to be paid linked to the value of the property. The Government believes that that is not a valid basis for payment since the intangible losses suffered by less affluent socioeconomic groups are not necessarily less and, in fact, may be greater than those suffered by more affluent groups whose properties are valued much higher. The Australian Law Reform Commission proposed some broad criteria that could be applied-for example, interest in the property; length of occupancy; and inconvenience caused by having to move-to determine the amount of solace compensation. However, the Government considers that the application of such criteria would depend largely on value judgments. That is something to be avoided because of possible disagreement and disputation. Therefore, we decided on a fixed statutory payment for each residence so acquired. Regarding the third matter of concern-that is, the amount of the payment-I agree that the figure of $5,000 is now too low. Therefore, I propose that the amount be specified as $10,000 which, as I mentioned earlier, will be increased each year in line with the CPI. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 62 to 95-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 96 (Entitlement to compensation-pre-acquisition declaration made but acquisition not proceeded with). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.33) —I move: (26) Clause 96, pages 41 and 42, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Entitlement to compensation-pre-acquisition declaration or section 24 certificate made but acquisition not proceeded with ``96. (1) Where: (a) a pre-acquisition declaration is revoked or ceases to have effect because of subsection 44 (2) or 46 (3); (b) a person who, when the declaration was in force, was an owner of an interest affected by the declaration, suffers loss as a direct, natural and reasonable consequence of the making of the declaration; and (c) within 3 years after the declaration is revoked or ceases to have effect, the person claims compensation in accordance with section 97; the Commonwealth is liable to pay to the person as compensation such amount as will justly compensate him or her for the loss. ``(2) Where: (a) a certificate under section 24 is revoked or ceases to have effect because of subsection 46 (3); (b) a person who, when the certificate was in force, was a person affected by the certificate, suffers loss as a direct, natural and reasonable consequence of the giving of the certificate; and (c) within 3 years after the certificate is revoked or ceases to have effect, the person claims compensation in accordance with section 97; the Commonwealth is liable to pay to the person as compensation such amount as will justly compensate him or her for the loss.''. Clause 96 of the Bill makes provision for compensation for any loss suffered by an owner to be payable when a pre-acquisition declaration has been made but acquisition does not proceed. However, several comments have been made to me identifying two situations where it appears compensation will not be paid when an acquisition does not proceed. In both situations no pre-acquisition declaration would have been issued. The first of these is when land is acquired in a public park. Due to the special procedures to be adopted when acquiring land in a public park, no pre-acquisition declaration is issued. The second case identified is when land is acquired using the provisions in section 24 where land is required due to urgency or, in some cases, when to provide details of the intended land use might be prejudicial to the security of the country. In both instances the Minister certifies that a pre-acquisition declaration will not be issued. Regarding the first case, where land is to be acquired in a public park, by definition a public park would be owned by a State or local government. For that reason it is not considered necessary to have a compensation provision if the acquisition did not proceed; hence clause 96 does not need to refer to that particular situation. However, where the Minister has certified under clause 24 that an acquisition should proceed without issue of a pre-acquisition declaration and then that acquisition does not proceed, it is reasonable that the owners of the land involved should be able to claim compensation for a failure to proceed with the acquisition in the same way as if a pre-acquisition declaration had been issued. For that reason I propose an amendment to clause 96, so that where an acquisition has been instigated by certification under clause 24 and that acquisition does not proceed, the owners of the land involved should be able to claim compensation if they suffer loss as a result. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 97 to 116-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 117 (Disposals to be in accordance with Part). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.36) —I move: (27) Clause 117, page 51, at the end of the clause, add the following subclauses: ``(2) In spite of paragraph 48 (1) (b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, regulations made for the purpose of paragraph (1) (b) of this section may provide that the regulations shall take effect on a date to be fixed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. ``(3) The Minister shall not fix a date for the purpose of subsection (2) that is earlier than: (a) the last day on which a notice could be given under subsection 48 (4) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in relation to the regulations; or (b) if such a notice is given, the latest day on which the regulations could be disallowed by a House of the Parliament in which such a notice has been given.''. Clause 117 provides that the Commonwealth shall dispose of land in accordance with the Bill. However, this provision is subject to a series of exceptions. Concern has been expressed about the provision which allows exemption from the Bill by regulation at clause 117 (b). In this regard it has been suggested that an acquiring authority could be exempted soon after the Senate rises and a disposal completed outside the terms of the Bill before the Senate and the House of Representatives had the opportunity to consider and perhaps disallow the exemption. I must say that that is equally applicable to other legislation but, more significantly, under the existing legislation exemption is affected simply by gazettal of a ministerial decision. The exemption provisions contained in the Bill provide for parliamentary scrutiny and are consistent with those provided by the Australian Law Reform Commission. However, it is unlikely that exemption of an authority would be required so quickly that it would not be possible to allow parliamentary scrutiny of the intention. Therefore, I propose this amendment to prevent a disposal by an exempted authority until after parliamentary scrutiny of the exemption has taken place. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 118 to 120-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 121 (Interest in land to be offered first to former owner). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.38) —I move: (28) Clause 121, pages 51 and 52, omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute the following subclauses: ``(2) An offer shall be made by the Minister by written notice given to the former owner and shall specify the amount that, in the opinion of the Minister, represents the market value of the interest at the time of the offer. ``(3) The acquiring authority shall not dispose of the interest to a person other than the former owner within 28 days after the day on which the offer is made. ``(4) If, within that period of 28 days, the former owner gives to the Minister notice that he or she wishes to purchase the interest from the acquiring authority, the authority shall not dispose of the interest to a person other than the former owner within 2 months after the notice is given. ``(5) The former owner may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the Minister's decision as to the amount specified in the offer as the market value of the interest. ``(6) The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 applies to the former owner's application. ``(7) If the former owner makes an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the acquiring authority shall not dispose of the interest to a person other than the former owner: (a) until the end of 14 days after the decision of the Tribunal on the application comes into operation; or (b) if, within that period of 14 days, the owner gives the Minister written notice of his or her wish to purchase the interest from the Commonwealth at the market value determined by the Tribunal, until the end of 2 months after the decision of the Tribunal comes into operation. ``(8) The Minister may, by notice in writing given to the former owner, extend the period of 2 months referred to in paragraph (7) (b). ``(9) The validity of the disposal of an interest in land is not affected by a failure to comply with this section. ``(10) In this section: `former owner', in relation to an interest in land, means: (a) if the interest was acquired by the acquiring authority from only one person and that person is still alive or, in the case of a corporation, is still in existence-that person; and (b) in any other case-such persons (if any) as the Minister, having regard to the interests that existed in the land immediately before the acquisition, considers to be fairly entitled to the benefit of subsection (1); `market value' has the same meaning as in section 56.''. The Bill provides for the disposal of Commonwealth land as well as the acquisition of it. Clause 121 of the Bill requires that when the Commonwealth is reselling land that it acquired by compulsory process within the last seven years, regard shall be had for the general principle that the land should be first offered back to the former owner. It has been suggested that the Bill should identify a specified time during which former owners may consider the Commonwealth's offer. They might need to investigate all manner of things, not the least of which would be their financial position. By the same token, I need to be conscious of the desirability of avoiding delay to the Commonwealth's disposal program, particularly if the former owner is not very interested at the suggestion of the saleback offer. Therefore, I propose an amendment which would provide that the former owner would have 28 days in which to indicate his general intention to acquire the land. That does not mean that the former owner must acquire it within that time, nor is he bound to acquire it having indicated an intention to do so. Another point made to me concerns the price at which the land is offered back to the former owner. The Bill requires that the land be offered at market value. A technical amendment to the Bill is required to make it clear that the definition of market value contained in clause 56 shall also apply to clause 121. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 122 and 123-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 124 (Mining etc. on certain land). Mr FIFE(Hume)(8.40) —I move: Clause 124, pages 53 and 54, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Mining etc. on certain land ``124. (1) The Governor-General may authorise the grant of a lease or licence to a person to explore, recover or mine for minerals on land situated in a State, which is vested in the Commonwealth. ``(2) Subject to such exemptions and modification as are prescribed, the laws of the State in which the land is situated relating to mining shall, so far as applicable, apply to a lease or licence under this section, and to exploration, recovering or mining carried on under the lease or licence. ``(3) In this section: `mineral' means a naturally occurring substance or mixture of substances; `mining law' means a law relating to the exploration for, or mining or recovery of, minerals and includes a law relating to the protection of the environment from the effect of such exploration, mining or recovery; `relevant land' means: (a) land in a State vested in an acquiring authority, being land that is a Commonwealth place for the purposes of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970; or (b) land in a Territory, being land: (i) vested in an acquiring authority; or (ii) that: (a) is in a conservation zone within the Northern Territory pastoral lease area; and (b) by a grant under section 12 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 is vested in an Aboriginal Land Trust, whether the vesting occurred or occurs before or after the commencement of this section.''. This clause provides for the making of regulations prescribing the conditions for exploration and mining on Commonwealth land. The regulations can also make provision for the making of arrangements between the Commonwealth and a State or Territory for the officers of the State or Territory to perform functions or exercise powers under the regulations. The Government has said that it is envisaged that the regulations made under the Bill will contain provisions similar to those of relevant State or Territory mining laws. The Bill before the House differs from the 1955 Act, which provided for the laws of the State to apply to mining subject to prescribed exemptions and modifications. I want to emphasise that there is a capacity for the Commonwealth to insert in those mining leases conditions to suit its requirements. The Opposition and the mining industry consider that the 1955 Act provisions are preferable to those proposed in the Bill for the following reasons. First, the 1955 Act guarantees compatibility with State practices and procedures. Miners will know exactly where they stand, and will not be subject to potential changes to regulations, which can occur at short notice. Secondly, State laws are, from time to time, modified, and if the Bill is passed in its current form new regulations to the proposed Act may be required each time State legislation is changed. By retaining a reference to State laws in the Bill there would be no need to modify the regulations under the proposed Act as changes are made to State legislation. The amendment would ensure compatibilities. Thirdly, the 1955 Act provides a much clearer statement of respective responsibility. Accordingly, I have moved on behalf of the Opposition the amendment which has been circulated, providing for clause 124 of the Bill to be deleted except for section 7, to be replaced with words akin to section 51 (2) of the 1955 Act. Honourable members will notice that additional words have been added to the section of the 1955 Act to cover exploration and recovery as well as mining. I have already made it clear that the Opposition and the mining industry believe the amendment I am moving is preferable to what is proposed in the Bill. As well as providing greater certainty for the mining industry, what the Opposition is proposing will be more administratively efficient for the Commonwealth Government and still provide the Government with all the powers it needs in relation to mining on or beneath Commonwealth land. Indeed, I predict the making of these regulations will prove complex and I seek from the Minister an indication as to when they will be available for scrutiny by the Opposition, State governments and the mining industry. I also invite the Minister to indicate in his response whether the holders of any mining tenements situated upon land to be acquired by the Commonwealth are persons affected by the Bill and are thus entitled to be notified of any intended acquisition. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(8.45) —The Government does not accept the Opposition's amendment, for the following reasons. The provisions contained in the Bill have not been sprung on anyone overnight. As far back as May this year I issued a press release foreshadowing the introduction of this legislation and outlining the key reforms that it contains, including the issue of mineral exploration and development on Commonwealth land. Although I applaud the constructive way in which the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), has approached the majority of the provisions in the Bill, he has not really followed the progress of the mining aspect of the legislation. I have not been approached in the last six months by anyone seeking clarification or explanation of the rationale in making these mining reforms. I really think the issue has been raised at the eleventh hour. I think there is a misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I shall again outline the Government's intentions and the reasons why I think these changes are necessary. For many years there has been a perception within the mining industry and some State mines departments that exploration and mining on Commonwealth land either is not allowed or is just too difficult and time-consuming to attempt. Back in September 1986 this Government established an interdepartmental committee to examine the problems in this area and to formulate possible solutions that would streamline the administration of exploration and mining on Commonwealth land. One of the major problems identified by this interdepartmental committee was the present Lands Acquisition Act. Sections in the present Act which deal with exploration and mining on Commonwealth land are imprecise and inconsistent. The current Act provides that State laws, subject to such exemptions and modifications as prescribed, shall apply to mining on Commonwealth land in a State or the Northern Territory. However, the same provision is not made in regard to exploration on Commonwealth land. A further shortcoming in the current Act is that exploration and mining provisions apply only to land vested in the name of the Commonwealth. For land vested in the name of Commonwealth bodies sharing the Commonwealth immunity from State law, there is no mining regime providing for the issuing of exploration licences or mining leases. This has resulted in poorly defined administrative procedures which mean that the present system is not working well. Our objective is to facilitate access to Commonwealth land, other than national parks and Antarctica, for mineral exploration and development while at the same time to both protect the use of the land and meet statutory responsibilities for environmental protection and heritage conservation. To this end we have recently decided on a multiple land use policy that will apply to all Commonwealth land; as I said, the exceptions being national parks and Antarctica. This policy should ensure that a proper resource assessment is undertaken prior to acquisition; that the wider interests of the Commonwealth are considered in determining land use, not just the specific use to which the land is put; the mining industry is aware of general guidelines that are likely to govern operations on Commonwealth land; and Commonwealth land is used as efficiently as possible in returning a benefit to the Government and the country. The policy will ensure that environmental and heritage interests are adequately protected when considering development proposals to mine or explore on Commonwealth land. The other major recommendation was that revised provisions on exploration and mining on Commonwealth land should be included in the Lands Acquisition Bill and that regulations should be developed based on that multiple land use policy. These regulations will prescribe all the conditions under which exploration and mining will be allowed on Commonwealth land. The mining industry will know exactly what it must do to obtain access to Commonwealth land. The regulations will be drafted after consultation with the States and the Northern Territory. They will contain provisions similar to those of relevant State mining laws and, at the same time, ensure that the Commonwealth meets all its statutory responsibilities in managing the land it owns. The regulations will provide for the Commonwealth to enter into agreements with the States and the Northern Territory for them to administer exploration and mining on Commonwealth land. The Commonwealth will be looking to the States and the Northern Territory, with their expertise in mining administration, to become more closely involved in the administration of both exploration and mining on Commonwealth land. I wish to digress slightly. The interdepartmental committee and I considered whether we should set up a separate Federal mining regime for this purpose, and we decided against it. We decided to do it by regulation agreements which, after initial Federal approval, would allow for exploration and mining to proceed according to Commonwealth law but administered by the States. All of this goes much further towards involving the States and the Northern Territory in the exploration of mining activities on Commonwealth land than is the case under the present system. Together with the new multiple land use policy, this will streamline the process the industry has to follow in order to gain access. We consider that it is not desirable or necessary for actual State law to be applied to Commonwealth land. This would mean-I think this is very important-that, as a State or Territory parliament changed its laws, it would be changing what can or cannot be done on Commonwealth land. Mr Fife —You have just said that you will have regulations which will mirror the States'. Mr WEST —That is right, but it does not necessarily mean that, if they make a change, that change has to be mirrored in what we do. Mr Fife —Well, then it will not be mirrored. That is the point. You have made my case. Mr WEST —Under the provisions proposed in this Bill, the Commonwealth therefore retains ultimate control at the end of the day over what happens on our land. Doing this by regulation means that this Parliament remains fully informed about just what conditions apply to mineral exploration and development on Commonwealth land. Of course, the Parliament has the normal 15 sitting days in which to disallow any regulations put forward under this legislation-the ultimate safeguard. With this legislation I am improving a situation that is not working well and has not done so for the last 30 or so years. Once the regulations are drafted, companies will know exactly what they must do to obtain access to Commonwealth land for exploration and mining. If the States and the Northern Territory choose to enter into agreements with us on administering these activities, this will further improve matters. Mining companies will be able to deal with State mines departments which they already know, and the States and the Northern Territory will then be fully aware of all exploration and mining activity within their borders. At the same time, these proposals will not diminish the Commonwealth's responsibilities in the areas of environmental protection and heritage conservation. I repeat, they will not apply in the national parks or Antarctica. These proposals ensure that at all times the Commonwealth will have full knowledge of, and control over, the conditions that apply to mineral exploration and development on Commonwealth land. Mr FIFE(Hume)(8.55) —Had it not been for the fact that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) represents a mining constituency, I would have said, with the greatest of respect, that he had been badly advised. But because he represents a mining area, I would not have thought he would need advice on this matter. Before I go into detail and respond to what he said, let me take up one point. He mistakenly said that this matter was raised at the eleventh hour. Today is 20 October, and I have in front of me a copy of a letter dated 29 August 1988, addressed to the Minister, from the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia, (Inc.) which in part states: The Chamber respectfully submits that this Bill fails to properly protect the interests of the mining and petroleum industries. In desperation, it goes on to say that, if the Bill is to be passed as drafted: We thus seek your urgent confirmation that the proposed regulations will closely reflect relevant State laws and that the holders of mining to petroleum tenements are considered to fall within the definition of the term `owner'. That was not raised at the eleventh hour; it was raised with the Minister on 29 August. The only point I want to make at this stage, because the Minister has indicated clearly that the Government will not accept the Opposition's amendment, is that at present the 1955 Lands Acquisition Act gives the Commonwealth all the power it needs in relation to mining leases, mining purposes leases, exploration licences and any other mining operation on Commonwealth land. The Commonwealth can demand and have conditions inserted in the State licences as they are issued. The Commonwealth does this now, and it can continue to do it. If it is the intention of the Commonwealth to regulate, to mirror State legislation, it means that we will have a set of regulations for every State in the Commonwealth. The Minister said a moment ago that these regulations will not be promulgated until there have been negotiations with the States. In other words, officers of his Department will soon be negotiating with every mines department in Australia. Following that, these regulations will be drawn up and, if the Minister is telling the truth-and I have no reason to disbelieve him-those regulations will conform with State mining legislation, plus the conditions that the Commonwealth will require for a particular mining operation. I do not believe that it is possible to prescribe regulations for the Commonwealth that will cover every situation. If the Government succeeds in doing that, its draftsmen will be the first in Australia who have succeeded in prescribing regulations in a central way to suit every mining operation. Conditions have to be attached to mining leases and exploration licences to conform with the requirements of specific areas. The Minister ought to know that. It is just not possible to cover every situation. So what is proposed in this legislation can be described as nothing less than an administrative nightmare. It must mean that the Commonwealth has draftsmen to spare, that they are unemployed, and that it is looking for something for them to do. I say that with the greatest of respect, because what is proposed here is just a load of nonsense. There is no need for it. The Act has been in place since 1955. I do not know of any problem that has occurred between the Commonwealth and any State in relation to mining on or beneath Commonwealth land. I administered the New South Wales Act for seven years. Mr Robert Brown —And very well. Mr FIFE —I thank the Minister very much. I do not recall, in the seven years in which I administered the New South Wales Act, a problem with the Commonwealth in relation to mining on or beneath Commonwealth land. I assume that the Minister has his riding instructions. Cabinet has told him that this is the piece of legislation and, not withstanding the fact that the Opposition has drawn to his attention this deficiency, it will go through. It is a case of yes, Minister, it has to go through. If it has to go through tonight-and by weight of numbers the Government will push it through-I ask the Minister, in the interests of common sense, that after the Bill has been passed by this House and the Senate, that he look at it again. Indeed, I ask that it be looked at between here and the Senate. I ask this sincerely because I believe that the Minister will find that he has many problems with it. Perhaps, by way of interjection or when I sit down, he can indicate to me when these regulations will be available for scrutiny. If he cannot give me some indication as to when the regulations will be available for scrutiny, then he cannot tell me when this Act will be proclaimed. Will there be further delay? I am sorry to introduce at this stage of the debate what could be referred to as a sour note. The Minister, his Department, his departmental officers, and his personal staff, have been very cooperative with me and my staff in this matter. Indeed, the Minister has set an example for some of his colleagues by bringing this Bill into the House in May and leaving it on the table until October for it to be debated. I commend him for that. I hope that other Ministers will follow his example. In the interests of good administration and common sense, I plead with him to look at this again. If he cannot accept the amendment tonight, I ask that he look at it again before the matter is dealt with in the Senate. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.02) —Our intentions on this matter are to streamline the process and strike a balance between expediting applications for exploration and mining on Commonwealth land, other than national parks and Antarctica, and the need for proper environmental controls and so on. Our intentions are pure. We wish to streamline the process. This goes back a long way. An interdepartmental committee has looked at this in great length and provided me with a very lengthy report. As I said earlier tonight, it discussed whether we ought to set up a separate federal mining regime under federal legislation. Mr Fife —I can't believe that it would consider that. Mr WEST —It did consider that and it rejected it. We then rejected it. The shadow Minister says, and basically implies in his amendment, that we should simply rely on the provisions of the current Act. But as I explained to him, that situation applies only to mining; it does not apply to exploration. We are trying to provide an expeditious regime under which we would, firstly, write the regulations, and secondly, strike the agreements with the States or the Northern Territory. This would then allow exploration or mining to proceed after the Federal Minister has approved the initial application. If the Commonwealth does not approve it, it is chopped off-that is proper and fair. If it is approved under the regulations and the agreements that would be reached under those regulations, the agreements would stipulate the regime which would virtually mirror-and be reached in agreement with the State if there were any deviation-the current State law. That is what the Opposition wants to achieve. Basically, at the end of the day we have to decide or be the arbiter of whether we want to accept the State law absolutely to the letter or whether we want to accept to the letter any changes that it may make in future-changes over which we have no control whatsoever. I repeat: Our intentions are pure. We think this system will expedite it. If it does not, we will certainly have a look at it. That is it. I hope that this does not hold up the Bill, particularly when it reaches the other place. I want to get the whole process going as quickly as possible. This brings me to the second part of the shadow Minister's contribution; that is, how long it will take to get the show moving. If we have not already written to the Premiers, we will be doing so very quickly telling them what we have in mind. Providing this legislation goes through the Senate, it is my intention to promulgate this matter as quickly as possible. Probably, as of now, we would be preparing the regulations under which we would reach the agreements. If the letters to the Premiers have not already gone, I assure the House that they will go very soon. I know that I have authorised them. We will then write the regulations. The Senate can disallow them if it wishes. I do not expect that it will. As I have said, we will reach agreements with the States and they will be informed very quickly. Mr Fife —Within three months? Mr WEST —I expect so. We will write the regulations quickly and we will attempt to reach quick agreements with the States. I expect that the Bill will be promulgated very quickly after it passes the Senate. It is in the Opposition's hands. If we get the Bill through the Senate, the regulations will be written, the agreements will be struck, and the situation will be streamlined. This will be a great improvement on the present situation. I think the Opposition's amendment is unnecessary. If it proves, in practice, that I am wrong, we will most certainly have another look at the situation. As I said at the outset, our whole intent has been to strike a balance between the need to get rid of the red tape, to expedite the process, to avoid having to set up our own federal administration, to work with the States and the Northern Territory, and to allow the ultimate Commonwealth sanction with the need to be able to keep control of the environmental process at the same time. I will maintain my position on this. If I am proven wrong and if it does not work I am willing to look at it. Mr FIFE(Hume) —By the time the Minister is proven wrong, the damage will have been done because all the regulations will have been drawn up. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —The honourable member for Hume can speak on only two occasions in the committee stage. Mr FIFE —With your indulgence Mr Deputy Chairman, I will make two comments for the assistance of the Minister. The Opposition will not be holding up this Bill in the Senate. We will move our amendment but we will not hold up the Bill. The second point I make with your indulgence is for the benefit of the Minister. I draw his attention to the amendment that is before the House. The words `explore' and `recover' have been added as well as the word `mine'. I suggest that because the Minister has been busy he has not had an opportunity to read it. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Fife's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S.C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, JohnGear, G. Scott, LesGorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Cameron, Donald Darling, E. E.McArthur, F. S. Klugman, R. E.Millar, P. C. Bowen, LionelBurr, M. A. Blewett, N.Howard, J. W. Hawke, R. J. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.19) —by leave-I move: (29) Clause 124, page 54, lines 6 to 10, omit the definitions of ``mineral'' and ``mining law'', substitute the following definitions: `` `conservation zone' means a conservation zone declared under section 8a of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975; `Gimbat' or `Goodparla' means, in each case, the area described by that name (being an area of land that is or was subject to a pastoral lease) on the map referred to in the definition of `Alligator Rivers Region' in section 3 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978; `mineral' means a naturally occurring substance or mixture of substances; `Northern Territory pastoral lease area' means the area delineated by the outer boundaries of the aggregate area comprising Gimbat and Goodparla;''. (30) Clause 124, page 54, lines 12 to 14, omit ``, being land that is a Commonwealth place for the purposes of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970''. (31) Clause 124, page 54, at the end of the clause, add the following subclause: ``(9) Nothing in this section shall be read as authorising the making of regulations extending to land vested in an Aboriginal Land Trust, other than land referred to in subparagraph (b) (ii) of the definition of `relevant land' in subsection (7).''. I will not go over any of the ground we have just covered, but I do believe that some amendments to clause 124 are desirable. I am proposing a series of technical amendments pertinent to the definition of relevant land to which this provision will apply. Amendment (29) defines terms used in the definition of relevant land in the Northern Territory where the conservation zone in Kakadu National Park is identified. A definition of minerals is also provided for clarity. Amendment (30) defines the definition of relevant land in the States so that it clearly includes all Commonwealth land in a State whether or not that land is a Commonwealth place for the purpose of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act. It is necessary also to provide that where statutory provisions exist specifying how the mining and exploration licences are to be issued in relation to land vested in Aboriginal land trusts, the status quo is to be retained and this is provided by amendment 31. Hence these amendments to clause 124 clarify the definition of relevant land for the purposes of the mining provisions and ensure that there is no change to the way that statutory provision has already been made for the issue of mining and exploration licences where the land is vested in Aboriginal land trusts. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 125 agreed to. Proposed new clause 125a. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —To avoid confusion and to follow normal practice, I advise the Committee that I will be referring to the two proposed new clauses, that is, the Government's amendments (32) and (33), as new clauses 125a and 131a rather than new clauses 126 and 132 as circulated. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.22) —I move: (32) After clause 125, page 55, insert the following new clause in Part XII: Indexation of subsection 61 (2) amount ``126. (1) In this section: `index number', in relation to an index year, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number, being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities, published by the Australian Statistician in respect of that index year; `index year' means a period of 12 months commencing on 1 April. ``(2) Where the factor ascertained in accordance with subsection (4) in relation to a financial year is greater than one, section 61 has effect as if, for the amount of $10,000 specified in subsection 61 (2), there were substituted, on the first day of that financial year, an amount calculated by multiplying the existing amount by that factor. ``(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), the existing amount is: (a) if, because of the operation of subsection (2), section 61 already has effect as if an amount were substituted for the amount of $10,000 specified in subsection 61 (2)-the substituted amount; and (b) in any other case-$10,000. ``(4) The factor to be ascertained for the purpose of subsection (2) in relation to a financial year is the number (calculated to 3 decimal places) ascertained by dividing the index number for the index year that ended on the 31 March preceding the commencement of that financial year by the index number for the previous index year. ``(5) Where a factor ascertained under subsection (4) would, if calculated to 4 decimal places, end with a number greater than 4, the factor ascertained shall be taken to be the factor calculated to 3 decimal places and increased by .001. ``(6) Subject to subsection (7), if at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the Australian Statistician has published or publishes an index number in respect of an index year in substitution for an index number previously published in respect of the same index year, the publication of the later index number shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section. ``(7) If at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the Australian Statistician has changed or changes the reference base for the Consumer Price Index, then, for the purposes of the application of this section after the change, regard shall be had only to the index number published in terms of the new reference base.''. Honourable members will recall that when we considered amendments (25) regarding the householder solatium payment at clause 61, part of that amendment was to index the specified amount of the solatium. Amendment (32) is a technical amendment which details how that indexation will be calculated. The principle that this amendment adopts is that the solatium payment will be increased each 12 months in line with movements of all groups in the consumer price index. Proposed new clause agreed to. Clauses 126 to 131-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 131a. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.23) —I move: (33) After clause 131, page 57, insert the following new clause: Injunctions ``132. (1) Where a person has used, or is proposing to use, land in a manner inconsistent with a restriction on the use of the land acquired by an acquiring authority under this Act, the Federal Court may, on the application of that authority, grant an injunction restraining the person from using the land in that manner. ``(2) Where an application is made to the Court for an injunction under this section, the Court may, if in the Court's opinion it is desirable to do so, grant an interim injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct of the kind to which the application relates pending the determination of the application. ``(3) The Court may discharge or vary an injunction granted under this section. ``(4) The power of the Court to grant an injunction restraining a person from using land in a particular manner may be exercised: (a) if the Court is satisfied that the person has used the land in that manner-whether or not it appears to the Court that the person intends again to use the land, or to continue to use the land, in that manner; or (b) if it appears to the Court that, in the event that an injunction is not granted, it is likely that the person will use the land in that manner-whether or not the person has previously used the land in that manner and whether or not there is an imminent danger of substantial damage to any person if the first-mentioned person uses the land in that manner. ``(5) The powers conferred on the Court by this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers of the Court, whether conferred by this Act or otherwise.''. The Bill provides the means by which the Commonwealth can acquire all types of interests in land. One such interest is a restriction on the use of land and this particular interest was identified in the definition of interest in clause 6. This amendment is simply a technical amendment which provides a means by which a restriction on the use of land that has been acquired by the Commonwealth can be enforced. The amendment makes it clear that an acquiring authority can apply to the Federal Court to have that court grant an injunction restraining a person from using the land in question in a manner contrary to the restriction that has been applied. Proposed new clause agreed to. Clauses 132 to 136-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 137 (Notification of confirmation or revocation of authorising documents). Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.26) —I move: (34) Clause 137, page 59, line 7, omit ``person'', substitute ``member of the Australian Public Service''. This amendment provides that the Minister may delegate powers under the Act and regulations. The clause goes on to qualify those by listing a number of areas where the Minister's powers cannot be delegated. Comments have been made during the consultative process expressing concern that when the Minister delegates powers he or she is delegating responsibility for the use of those powers and the Minister's powers may be delegated to elements of the bureaucracy which might have little regard for the intentions behind the legislation, and hence ministerial powers should not be delegated. I disagree with that view. Delegation of ministerial powers rightly or wrongly does not remove responsibility for the use of those powers from the Minister. Furthermore, it is necessary to delegate general powers simply to enable the day to day operation of government and the House would be aware of that. However, I believe it is not appropriate for some of the Minister's powers to be delegated, and for that reason the Bill identifies those powers which I think should not be delegated. Another concern has been raised, that is that the Minister may delegate his powers to a person. That is the way it is written in the current Bill. The view has been expressed that persons to whom powers are delegated should be qualified so that it cannot be assumed that the Minister is able to delegate these powers to just any person he chooses. I consider that that point is very valid and I am proposing that this clause be amended to make it clear that ministerial powers would be delegated only to persons who are Commonwealth public servants. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr FIFE(Hume)(9.28) —I do not wish to delay the House but can the Minister give us some indication when the Act will come into operation? When does he intend it to be proclaimed? Will it be before the end of January? Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(9.29) —That depends on the Bill's path through the Senate. It is my intention, once the Bill goes through the Senate, to have it operational as quickly as possible. As I said before, in regard to the mining provisions in the Bill, we will put that process in train as quickly as possible and that means drawing up the regulations, reaching agreements with the States and simply carrying on with what the Bill allows us to do. I see no reason for the inferred concern by the shadow Minister that there will be some extraordinary delay once we have the Bill in the Senate. I see no reason for that concern with regard to declaring the Bill, promulgating the Bill or setting the mining provisions in train. Mr Fife —Within a couple of months of the Bill going through the Senate? Mr WEST —We shall see. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Mr Acting Speaker has received advice from the Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Smith to be a member of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in place of Mr Reith and Mr Shipton to be a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration in place of Dr Hewson. Motion (by Mr Robert Brown)-by leave-agreed to: That Dr Hewson be discharged from attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and that, in his place, Mr Prosser be appointed a member of the Committee. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(9.32) —The Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Amendment Bill 1988 makes provision for an increase in the salaries and allowances of certain persons and, in particular, judicial officers and the President and members of the Inter-State Commission. Under Section 72 of the Constitution, provision is made to the effect that: The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament- . . . . . . . . . (iii) Shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix: but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Of course, the reason for that device is to provide security for judicial appointments to ensure their independence from the Executive. The Bill before us specifically changes the law to effect salary and allowance increases. The increases of 3 per cent include such matters as travel allowances. The cost to the Budget is in the order of $1.2m. The Bill implements the 1987 recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Of course, the Remuneration Tribunal was established by the Parliament to advise the Parliament on appropriate levels of remuneration for such persons as judges. I think as a matter of common sense and a matter of general principle there is a very heavy obligation on the Parliament always to give favourable consideration to the advice and recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal. So it is that the Government has acted to initiate a change in the law to implement these increases. I was very interested in a statement made in the second reading speech of the then Minister for Industrial Relations, the present Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis), in support of the increases. In the third paragraph of his second reading speech the Minister said: In relation to the second tier salary adjustment, I am satisfied that the changes to practices and procedures in the various courts and tribunals in the federal jurisdiction, together with changes in the value of work of the office holders, justify an increase of 3 per cent in conformity with the national wage case principles. So what the Minister has said is that because of an increase in productivity, judges have earned this extra 3 per cent. He felt that this was such a precondition the increase of 3 per cent that he placed real emphasis on the justification on the first page of his second reading speech. I think that is very interesting. In fact, the Remuneration Tribunal, in coming to its recommendation, said this on page 4 of its report: All of the provisions of the Commission's decisions are not in their literal terms applicable to the groups within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. For example, the restriction upon the grant of second tier increases by reference to restructuring and to enquiry and approval by the Commission are not applicable. However, as it has done on previous occasions, the Tribunal will continue to apply the intent and spirit of the Commission's decision. I just put this matter into perspective. In the recent national wage case to which this decision is relevant there was an agreement that people would get more pay in exchange for entering into changes in work practices. That is a pretty simple and sensible idea. This is a marked change from some of the attitudes that we have had in the past. One of the problems that we have had in this country in regard to pay increases is the dog chasing its tail effect. People are saying, `Look, inflation has gone up so we want the equivalent amount of dollars in our pocket'. The problem with that is that the economy of this country is operating in an environment where we compete with people from other countries who are producing goods and services for the same markets that we want to be in. So we are engaged in serious competition with other countries in an international environment. But one gets nowhere fast when one has a wages system which is based on indexation. In fact, one starts to go backwards because the economy has a wage structure in which wages are going up faster than those of our competitors. So it is no wonder that we do not do well. This is one of the problems that we have faced as a nation. We have moved from a system of indexation to one where we encourage people to say, `Well, look, if you want a wage increase why not sit down and work out some basis upon which you can become more productive and more efficient?'. In that way we will create the wealth so that we can in fact have some real money to pay people real wage increases. I am sure that honourable members will agree that such an approach is only sensible. Superimposed on that fact of life we have in this country a centralised wage fixing system. It is interesting to look at the way in which we are worrying in this Bill about justifying pay increases of judges and fitting them into a centralised system and to compare that with the actual reality. The reality is that judges are not getting the 3 per cent increase because people have used stopwatches to see whether they have been more productive. That is nonsense, as everybody in this chamber knows. It is not a question of productivity. In fact, it is just nonsense to apply the centralised system to individual circumstances. This is a good example of the centralised solution not being relevant and sensible in each and every case. It just cannot be done. One of the great points of difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we say, `Look, it is about time we woke up to ourselves. This country is going backwards. Our international competitors-the people with whom we are in competition-have a better system than we have. It is about time we thought of something rather than trying to impose from the centre rigid and inflexible arrangements. It is about time we had a system which reflected the actual circumstances of the hundreds of thousands of workplaces around this country'. I just say to the Government, `To the extent that we have moved from the system of indexation, to the extent that we have encouraged people when they are looking for pay increases to be more efficient, that is great; that is fine; that is sensible. But we have to move faster and there has to be an understanding that this sort of imposition from the centre in a rigid and inflexible manner is inappropriate in so many circumstances'. Award restructuring is the next stage, as it were, in this process. We have moved on from productivity to award restructuring. To the extent that that is going to encourage people again to sit down and say, `Let us have a look at our enterprise and see what other sensible things we can do to make it more profitable', to the extent that we can encourage an employee and an employer to say, `We actually have something in common-a future, a stake in this enterprise', and to the extent that award restructuring facilitates that, that is fine. But, quite frankly, we are going at a snail's pace-and, in this world, unless one goes forward, one goes backwards. One of the interesting debates in the Parliament in the last week or so has been about the tax cuts. I am sure thousands of people who have heard of this business are saying, `Look, the bad times are over, the wartime conditions are behind us. Bob and the Grim Reaper have been telling us that the good times are coming. There will be tax cuts, the biggest tax cuts in the history of the federation'. It is all good news, all building up the next election. Of course, the Government had a thrashing in Oxley and a thrashing back in Adelaide. After Adelaide the Government said, `We have to start telling people that things are going to be better whether they are or not'. It was telling people in Oxley before the result, `Vote for Labor because we have turned the corner'. That is the line, and we have seen as a result the great build-up of expectations about wages and about the extent of the tax cuts. It is no wonder people are expecting something because, if we were to put the average family in the position they were in then back in 1983, we would have to put $56 a week in their pocket. No wonder everybody is talking about living standards. People out there under this Minister have had a cut in their wages and in their living standards. The Minister talks about all the extra jobs. Why have there been some extra jobs in this country? It is because the Government has been cutting wages and cutting people's living standards. Now the Minister has got himself into one unholy mess. His rhetoric is about sitting down and talking to people on the basis of productivity. He asks them to make some changes to their organisational arrangements at the workplace and thereby create the wealth to pay for the wage increases. But the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is not interested in all that. He is just worried about the next election. He has only one political strategy, and that is try to get some dollars into people's pockets so that they will feel better as they go down to the ballot box. Nobody will believe it, because everyone knows that the Government has robbed them blind. It gives them back half what it took and then asks them to be grateful and vote for it. The reality is that the build-up of expectations has led to this situation: People are going to say that if the tax cuts are not big enough they want a few extra dollars in the wage packet. It has not dawned on the Minister's side that the Government is preparing the ground to shoot itself in the foot, because the spillover into wages is in fact a spill back to the concepts of wage indexation. To the extent that we agree about where we want to go in industrial relations, to the extent that we agree that we want people to sit down at the workplace and come to sensible arrangements for the benefit of the enterprise in which they all have a future stake, the situation which the Minister has built up, primarily because of the Prime Minister's simplistic political strategies, is working against the interests of this country. Judges' salaries, of course, are essentially in the public sector. I have talked about this Bill. Let me tell the Government the view of the Opposition when it comes to the manner in which we should set salaries. We have issued what is, I think, the most comprehensive industrial relations policy that has ever been presented and I read just two of its clauses. Clause 6.1 reads: A Liberal and National Party Government will adopt a more flexible, market-oriented approach to industrial relations in the area of Commonwealth employment. Clause 6.2 reads: Public sector pay and conditions will be such as to enable employers to recruit, retain and motivate the staff they require in order to achieve their objectives. In determining pay and conditions the following factors will be taken into account: economic conditions, cost, the need to be fair to employees, and the need to reflect differences in market conditions, individual performance, skills and experience. Public servants will, as far as possible, be provided with terms and conditions of employment that are broadly comparable to, but not more generous than, the private sector. In respect of judges, the Remuneration Tribunal had this to say by way of preliminary remarks: For the purpose of this review it should be stated that preliminary findings to date have confirmed the Tribunal's earlier reported view of the serious inadequacies of judicial salaries and conditions. The Law Council, in a press release, spoke about the manner in which the Government had gone about looking to improve judges' salaries. The heading, which pretty well expresses the Council's view, was `Judges shouldn't have to punch time clocks'. That was its view, and when one thinks about it, it is a pretty sensible reaction and one that the Government should not be surprised about. Specifically, the Law Council said this: The task of judges is not just to `increase production' and to raise the productivity of their courts, but to produce just decisions. It would be quite wrong to have a situation in which litigants felt that their cases might not be properly dealt with because judges were under pressure to comply with wage determination principles set by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That reinforces the point I have made, which is that these centrally dictated principles, when applied to a specific situation such as judicial salaries, show what a nonsense they can be and how inflexible those rules are. But it was not just the Law Council that had something to say in respect of these salaries. I refer the Minister to some comments of Sir Anthony Mason, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. He said in respect of this approach that judicial salaries should be conditioned on achieving equivalent cost savings resulting from the introduction of innovative procedures: This approach, which may be an acceptable yardstick in measuring salary increases in productive enterprises, is quite inappropriate for the judiciary. It is an approach which may create an impression that judges stand to gain from concentrating on speedy justice. That is another nail in the coffin, as it were, of the policy position that the Government has adopted and its inflexibility. Also of very considerable significance was the allied remark of Sir Anthony Mason to the effect that, given the involvement of other court officers in terms of the capacity of the courts to deal with cases and to get through their work load, what one achieves by this sort of criterion is to impose a foreign element, as it were, on the court structure which in fact goes to the independence of the judiciary. This is what Sir Anthony Mason said: Judges do not participate in the provision of these court services. That is stating the obvious, of course. He said, and this was his cautionary note: These moves may impair judicial independence. Not only is it a question of being an inappropriate criteria to adopt and apply to the provision of judges' salaries but, furthermore, as was stated by Sir Anthony Mason, it imposes on the judicial system an element which has the potential for impairing judicial independence. If we look back in recent times at judges' salaries, I do not think there is any question whatsoever that they have seen a relative decline in real terms in the salaries they receive. I do not think there is any doubt that, as a consequence of that, we have expected from our judges an ever increasing level of a sense of public duty as their salaries have declined and they have been prepared to continue to undertake the work of judges. That is not an appropriate situation. That is not a situation that can go on forever and a day as the differentials widen. There is only so much that we as a community can expect of people when it comes to the giving of their time and their services and their dedication to the maintenance of our system of justice. On behalf of the Opposition, I simply say that we welcome this measure, but-and I point to the inappropriate standards by which the Government has come to this conclusion-I note that the Remuneration Tribunal has been reviewing judicial salaries. That is good. We look forward to its report. If that report states a necessity for an increase in judicial salaries, I hope that the Government will give it favourable consideration. One hardly needs to state the importance of ensuring that we properly attend to the need of the judiciary for a reasonable salary level. I conclude my remarks by reiterating our support for the Bill. I look forward to the Remuneration Tribunal's recommendation in respect of judges' salaries. I think it is certainly overdue. It is a poor reflection on the Government that it has not addressed these issues earlier. It is a poor reflection on the Government that it is in a position where the system it is so keen on supporting-the centralised system-in this case is an inappropriate vehicle for measuring the proper standards by which we should assess the remuneration of judges. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(9.53) —The slow, ponderous and padded speech that we have just been listening to was full of contradictions. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) seemed at one point to be arguing for reduced pay and then later criticising the Government for allowing real labour costs to fall. He seemed to be arguing at one point for a more flexible system and then criticising a more flexible system when it occurred. He described the country as going backwards when, of course, the rate of economic growth has been very substantial. The country is going forward rapidly and a process of major restructuring is well under way. One of the most striking things about the last five years is how well the centralised wage fixing system has worked. It is true that real unit labour costs have fallen, as they had to during the last three years because of the decline in the terms of trade. That has happened at exactly the same time as there has been a sharp reduction in industrial conflict. It has been a remarkable achievement of this Government to have succeeded in a costly and difficult restructuring program at the same time as the level of time lost through strikes has fallen to about half of what it was in the last years of the Fraser Government. The accord has been a resounding success. It has been a success because the Government has consulted closely with both unions and employers and has been successful in getting agreement about major economic policies and about the process of restructuring. That agreement has been achieved in a voluntary way, which has ensured its durability and success. It is remarkable that the Government has been able to achieve all of that at the same time as there has been a rapid growth in employment. I think perhaps the Government's greatest achievement during the past 5 1/2 years has been the growth in employment. The number of people in employment has gone up by 1.1 million in the last 5 1/2 years, and nothing could possibly be more important than that. Employment is what gives people the opportunity to earn an income, to have satisfying jobs; and, of course, it has been associated with a substantial reduction in unemployment. That has been partly the result of the success of the accord in allowing real unit labour costs to fall, then to stabilise and now to rise. The Opposition's industrial relations policy, on the other hand, would be a recipe for chaos, anarchy and disorder. There would be massive increases in pay for some people and reductions in pay for other people. The policy is opposed by most people who are practitioners in industrial relations. It is certainly opposed by the unions, but also opposed by many employers. If it were introduced, the cost would be a major increase in industrial conflict again. The time lost through strikes, which has fallen by half under this Government, would rise again and we would be back to the levels of the Fraser years. The arbitration system has served Australia very well over the last 80 years. It would be vandalism to destroy it in the way the Opposition is proposing, as well as being a recipe for the exploitation of the weak by the less scrupulous employers. There has been some decline in the real salaries of judges, but they have been sharing in the adjustment that has had to happen throughout the community as a result of the decline in the terms of trade that Australia has experienced during the last four years. This Bill is about increasing pay again-an increase in pay that is now being experienced by all the Australian work force as they receive their second tier adjustment. So one can be very glad about this Bill. One can support it wholeheartedly, and I am glad the Opposition is doing so, because one welcomes it as a symbol of the increase in pay that it is now possible for the whole work force to receive as a result of the adjustments that have taken place. One could argue that this is a trivial Bill. It certainly covers only a few people. No doubt it is not trivial to them because it is about their pay. One major point that I want to make about this Bill is that this sort of Bill should not have to come to Parliament. It would be much more logical for increases in the pay of judges to be set simply by the Remuneration Tribunal. I know the Government has that under consideration. There is no constitutional bar to that. It would save the time of Parliament. It would remove delays in the implementation of decisions of the Remuneration Tribunal. It would be simply logical to allow the Remuneration Tribunal to set pay for judges, as it does for politicians, departmental heads and other statutory officeholders. I conclude by saying I hope we never have to debate a Bill of this kind again, because it is really not appropriate for Parliament to be debating issues so local and small in character as this. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton-Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support)(9.59) —I just want to make a few observations about the contributions that have been made to this debate by both honourable members who have spoken. I think all honourable members are aware of the fact that the Remuneration Tribunal has jurisdiction to make recommendations only in relation to the remuneration of the Federal judiciary and related officers. This Bill now implements the recommendations made by the Remuneration Tribunal, as was indicated by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) when he was leading for the Opposition, in its 1987 review concerning the remuneration and allowances of the Federal judiciary, including people who, by virtue of an Act, have the same status as a judge, and the President and members of the Inter-State Commission. It provides for a 3 per cent second tier salary increase and adjustments to various allowance. The honourable member for Flinders used a few throwaway lines of the kind that the economy is going backwards when, in fact, the whole of the Australia community knows that the contrary is correct. I do not want to spend a great deal of time dealing with those issues because, in my judgment, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) dealt with them more than adequately. He indicated that one of the fundamental reasons behind such legislation is the fact that, to a very large extent, the Hawke Government has been remarkably successful in bringing about the type of restructuring that it has been pursuing. That has been important as a follow-up to those wider macro-economic responses that were introduced when we came to government in March 1983. As a result of those macro-responses, it was possible to put a fairly substantial and significant solid base under the Australian economy to make it possible now for us to switch our emphasis to micro-policies and to bring about this restructuring. I realise, as does the honourable member for Flinders, that the judiciary would not be and should not be expected to punch the bundy. Members of the judiciary do not have responsibilities which lend themselves to that. Mr Reith —That is just my point. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member said, quite correctly, that it was not appropriate for them to punch time clocks. Of course they should not be doing that. That is not the nature of their work. If their work was such that it was determined by starting at 9 o'clock in the morning and finishing at 5 o'clock in the evening, I would not believe that it was necessarily inappropriate for them or any employee or person carrying out any type of social or economic responsibility to participate in that sort of thing. I do not want to make a lot of this, but I think that there is an element of arrogance about the implications of that comment, that perhaps it is all right and appropriate for certain types of employees to punch bundies but there are others whose position is so elevated that they should not do so. It is not as a result of the elevation of their particular responsibilities, but the nature of those responsibilities, which makes punching the bundy inappropriate. Of course, that was not the implication in the contribution of the honourable member for Flinders. On all occasions remuneration should reflect effort, whatever the task happens to be. That can be manual effort, creative effort, intellectual effort and effort of the kind that is involved in the judiciary. It is quite appropriate and sensible that we attempt to marry into the centralised wage fixing system a recognition that, as a result of the application and operation of that system, it is possible for increases in remuneration to be applied right across the economy. The honourable member for Flinders suggested that the centralised wage fixing system and the application of these principles are not appropriate in this case. That is a quite legitimate point to make. However, we have emphasised that there has been a general application. The honourable member quoted my colleague the then Minister for Industrial Relations, the present Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis), as having said, in his second reading speech to the Bill: . . . the changes to practices and procedures in the various courts and tribunals in the Federal jurisdiction, together with changes in the value of work of the office holders, justify an increase of 3 per cent in conformity with the national wage case principles. There is nothing exceptional about that and I do not think that we should seek to find anything exceptional about it. What we are doing is applying those general principles to make it possible for that 3 per cent increase to be applied to the judiciary. If we do not do it that way, on what basis do we provide the increase? Do we provide it simply because it is applied elsewhere or do we, as we attempted to do for members of parliament, professional people and all people on wages and salaries right through the economy, identify the improvements that have taken place in order to say that it is appropriate for the 3 per cent to be applied? Mr Reith —I read out our policy so that you would know how to do it. Mr ROBERT BROWN —We are familiar with the fact that some statements have been made by the Opposition but, in terms of those types of distinctions, I do not think that the Opposition's policy at this stage is in any way adequate to deal with the matter. The contribution of the honourable member for Flinders implies what I suggested before-an essentially arrogant type of response to occupational differentials in the economy and the implications of those differentials. The honourable member also referred to the fact that Sir Anthony Mason suggested that this introduced an element which had the potential for infringing judicial independence. I think that that is drawing a fairly long bow. The honourable member for Fraser also drew attention to one of the particular points that are covered in this legislation when he raised questions concerning the extent to which it may be necessary to implement increases to remuneration of the judiciary by legislation. That has been necessary up to the present time and I think honourable members are aware of the fact that under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to make recommendations in regard to the remuneration of the Federal judiciary and not legally binding determinations. However, I understand that the view of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is that the Act could be amended to give the Tribunal determination-making powers. The Government considers that this would be a desirable step and would eliminate to a large extent delays that have occurred in the past in implementing increases to salaries and allowances within the Federal judiciary. I understand that it is the Government's current intention to legislate in 1989 to enable those determinations to be made and thus to eliminate the necessity for legislation. That would be in terms of the general type of application of wage fixing tribunals and the way in which they operate in relation to all other types of wages and salaries in the community. That would be appropriate. It is not necessary for parliaments and governments to legislate in order to give effect to determinations that are made by other wage and salary fixing tribunals and it probably is not and should not be necessary in connection with this as well. Those are the only matters to which I wished to draw attention. The Minister has asked me to thank the honourable member for Flinders and the honourable member for Fraser for their contributions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Robert Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 1 September, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.09) —I will not take up too much of the time of the House tonight, but I say on behalf of the Opposition that it certainly does not oppose the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988. The legislation provides for amendments to five bounty Acts and one subsidy Act and the principal part of it relates to amendments to three bounty Acts for textile yarns and certain fabrics in accordance with the textile, clothing and footwear assistance measures announced in November 1986 and modified in the May economic statement this year. This Bill is very much what we expected and, more significantly, it was what the industry itself expected. The challenge for the Government now is that it must maintain a predictable, stable policy environment for the textile, clothing and footwear industries. I know only too well that those industries want from the Government a guarantee that they will not see some sudden changes to that plan at some time in its duration. If there is one thing that an industry wants it is consistency so that it can invest and have some prospect of anticipating returns on investment and thus have some predictability in the way it can evolve. It has been an historic problem for many Australian industries that they have been struck by unpredictable decisions from governments. Therefore, in the reply of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) both I and, I am certain, people within the industry will be only too pleased to hear a clear statement from him that the Government's policy in relation to the textile, clothing and footwear plan will remain predictable. They want to know that when this Government goes the plan will still be in place. I am certain that predictability will be the hallmark of the new Government's policies as well. Of course, this industry will succeed and do well only if it has, in addition to that predictability, a chance to become truly competitive. If it is to become competitive, if it is to stay competitive in the areas in which it is already competitive, it will have to continue to invest. It will have to invest in higher technology equipment and produce quality products. It cannot expect Australians or the world markets to accept products of a low quality. There is no point in our industries going out and trying to grab the mass share at the bottom of the market. We have to look at the higher ends of the market. We have to look at the quality end of the market where we can use, as the Minister would put it, our brain power to achieve products which are different and which are respected not only in our own country in the face of import competition but around the world. Let honourable members make no mistake: it is my view that the textile, clothing and footwear industries can do that. There is no reason why we cannot. Countries such as Italy which have a high cost structure-perhaps not as high as Australia's-succeed. They have an extraordinarily successful record in the textile, clothing and footwear field. We can do it ourselves if we concentrate on quality and if we give the industries predictability. Of course, when we are making these sorts of judgments we have to take into account factors such as the cost of capital to our industries and, indeed, the relative cost of capital to investors in Australia as against investors in the same industries in other parts of the world. It is matter of concern to me, as I often say, that the cost of capital in Australia is relatively higher than it is in most of our competitor countries; more than that, it is higher than most countries in our region which are increasingly also becoming competitor countries. If we look at the estimates of the Business Council of Australia of the cost of capital, we can see that the cost of capital in Australia, according to its list of 16 selected nations in both our region and around the world, is the second highest, exceeded only by New Zealand. That is a matter of real concern. It is something that the Government, in spite of the changes it made in the May economic statement, in the Budget and in the subsequent legislation that has been before the House, needs to take into consideration. The Business Council estimates that the cost of capital actually has increased since the changes made in the May economic statement-particularly in regard to depreciation and company tax rates. That is something that the Government needs to note, and to note very carefully. We have to go further in trying to reduce the cost of our capital. The cost of capital is lower in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines. The cost of capital is lower in London, New York, Montreal, and Toronto as well. We have the second highest cost of capital, I repeat, of the 16 nations in the Business Council of Australia survey. Our capital cost is exceeded only by that of Labour New Zealand. That is one factor our industries have to live with. We need also to take into account the real interest rate problems that we still have in Australia. Of course, the balance of payments crisis has exacerbated that. In spite of this, the Government is determined to pursue economic management on the basis of interest rates being its almost sole tool of economic policy, instead of making the appropriate structural adjustments, in particular to our industrial relations and wage fixing system, which it should be making. I have noticed with some amusement the way the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stands at the despatch box on the other side of the table and repeatedly talks about the enormous achievements of this Government in the field of structural adjustment. We are waiting to see when those so-called achievements are going to bear some fruit. Living standards are falling. Many of our industries and particularly our smaller businesses are in a great deal of difficulty. Bankruptcies are at the highest rate they have been for many years, almost at a historical high. The cost of capital, the industrial relations and wage fixing system we are lumbered with in this country and our extraordinarily high interest rates are a major contribution to that. I want to make one specific point in relation to this legislation, and that concerns the bed sheeting bounty scheme. The bed sheeting industry was of the view that the bounty scheme would be reviewed after February 1993. That was the understanding it had all along. But the Minister implied in his second reading speech that the scheme would be terminated in February 1993. I am not making a political point, but I ask the Minister in his reply to this debate to clarify that point, in particular so that the industry has no uncertainty. The point is not so much what the Minister means but that the industry is uncertain. The situation needs to be clarified. The final point I wish to make relates to the Bounty (Ships) Act amendments which are incorporated in this legislation. This bounty scheme has caused some confusion in the industry. There have been quite a few difficulties. One of the difficulties relates to the ships built for the tourism industry. There was no understanding amongst shipbuilders, including shipbuilders in my own electorate, that the bounty would not be available for ships built for the tourist industry. Some of them went ahead and planned on the basis that they would be eligible for the bounty. No second reading speech indicated that that would be inappropriate. Yet we noted in a statement that Senator Ray made on 1 September 1988 that if bounties were provided for shipbuilding in the tourism industry, those sorts of ships would not `stimulate improvements in the design, operation and crewing of Australian ships'. It is hard to understand why ships for the tourism industry are somehow so totally different, so totally valueless in terms of design, operation and crewing that they are not eligible in any way for the bounty. It is a quite arbitrary decision by the Government to exclude this section of the shipbuilding industry. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister an explanation as to why that may be the case. There has been quite a bit of confusion in the shipbuilding industry about registrations for bounty purposes. Again there is a great need for the policy to be made clearer than it is. It is a policy that has been administered with a great deal of departmental discretion and ministerial discretion. Sometimes the exercise of that discretion has been very unclear to people in the industry. But let me say it before the Minister says it: the shipbuilding industry has improved over the last couple of years. The Opposition is happy to see that occurring. We obviously want things to be going well in Australia. We do not just want to point to things that go badly. I note, in particular, that the Shipbuilding Consultative Group's annual report came out today. It pointed to a significant growth in shipbuilding orders in our shipbuilding industry, reaching orders worth $500m. The report made the surprising point that there were no recorded industrial disputes during the last year in the industry. Naturally we on this side of the House welcome that. If only it were true of most of our other industries. I point to one other thing that appeared in the annual report of the Shipbuilding Consultative Group. It expressed the view that the Royal Australian Navy's submarine and Anzac frigate projects would provide very little benefit to the Australian shipbuilding industry. That came to me as something of a surprise, because the Premier of South Australia is always telling us how the salvation of South Australia lies first with the grand prix and secondly with the submarine project, although occasionally he needs to be reminded that 75 per cent of the submarine project will take place in other States and not South Australia. I am sorry about that; I wish it was all going to be in South Australia. He would be interested to know-he probably does know but he will not tell us-as, I think, would most people in Australia, that, according to the Shipbuilding Consultative Group's annual report, there will not be a lot of direct benefit for Australia's shipbuilding industry from the project. I am not sure I agree with that. As time goes on projects such as this may very well provide spin-off benefits. I hope that they give our shipbuilding industry greater technological capacity and know-how. I hope that the know-how is genuinely transferred, in the case of the submarine project, from Sweden to Australia and that we do not end up with Swedes coming here, doing all the technological jobs and then jumping on a jumbo jet and flying back to Sweden for training, but one wonders how many, and one wonders how enduring that training is going to be in terms of their being able to make some contribution to future design and technology in the Australian shipbuilding industry. I am sure I have taken enough of the time of the House on this issue tonight. These are important measures for the textile, clothing and footwear industries in particular. Also, let me not denigrate the bounty that is provided for the shipbuilding industry. The industry regards that as valuable assistance, and this legislation will pass through the House with the support of the Opposition. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(10.22) —It is good to see the bipartisan support for the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). The only thing on which I would disagree with the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) is the fact that this Government will not be changing. He will have to get used to another decade, and a decade after that, of Labor Government. It is ironic that he criticises structural adjustment. We have certainly done more in five years than the conservative forces did in 40 years. All they did was put a tariff monkey on the back of farmers and industry. We have thrown that tariff monkey off. This Bill aims to extend the life of the first two bounty schemes until 30 June 1995 as part of the Government's post-1988 textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) plan and to implement the phasing down of assistance under the schemes to a final rate of 30 per cent. This was announced in that plan and in the May economic statement introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 25 May. The textile, clothing and footwear industries have been the subject of a thorough examination by the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). The Commission brought down its report on 19 May 1986. The Commission's report found the industry to comprise what it termed a bewildering menu of measures ranging through quotas, tariffs, bounties, by-laws, country preferences, regional measures and payroll exemptions. Its reform package recommended a tops-down gradualism in reducing existing protection. It did so in the belief that there would be widespread community benefits. It also believed that this was the only way of cutting through the tangle of interventions which exist. The industry feared that rapid change in protection would severely restrict job opportunities. The industry is characterised by a constant movement of firms and people into and out of the industry. It was estimated in the IAC report that about 30,000 people leave jobs in the industry each year. In recent years about the same number have entered. According to the National Institute of Labour Studies, unemployment is common among textile, clothing and footwear workers, with 24 per cent of those surveyed having been unemployed at some stage in the past three years. The IAC found that, with a 50 per cent rate of protection, employment would fall by 20,000. Spreading this over seven years gives an order of magnitude of less than 3,000 jobs a year. Compared with an annual turnover of 30,000, the IAC believed that this number was small. The industry itself faces continuing competitive changes. There are constant changes in fashion and buying habits. In addition, there are changes in technology. Naturally, workers in textiles, clothing and footwear industries fear technological changes, particularly if their jobs are under threat. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) in a keynote address at the twenty-fifth Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress in 1983 quoted United States union leaders who said: If you robotise you lose 75 per cent of the workforce. If you fail to robotise you lose 100 per cent, because the firm goes out of business. This description is just as fitting for textile, clothing and footwear industries as it was in the American experience. The Government in the May statement set about the task of continuing to provide industry restructuring which will greatly enhance job prospects in the manufacturing sector. Tariff rates greater than 15 per cent were phased in in five stages to 15 per cent over four years beginning on 1 July, 1988. Tariffs between 15 per cent and 10 per cent inclusive were phased to 10 per cent over four years. The main change to the post-1988 TCF plan was a reduction in tariffs of five percentage points for apparel and footwear. Tariff fabric and footwear parts items were also reduced by five percentage points. The TCF plan will end on 30 June 1995, eight months earlier than announced. The Government also announced the establishment of a Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority which began operations on 1 June this year. The Authority was established to revitalise the TCF industries. It will implement a number of comprehensive progams aimed at encouraging raw materials processing, lifting industry efficiency, enhancing the skill base of TCF workers and increasing penetration into export markets. The Authority will be able to recommend to the Government a review of policy provisions should the Government's plan cause an excessive decline in domestic production. New export development initiatives are being developed by the Authority in cooperation with Austrade. The Authority will be encouraging improved business practices in small firms through the facilities of the National Industry Extension Service and State government delivery agencies. There are special labour adjustment provisions designed to help workers adversely affected in the course of industry restructuring. There has been a great deal of emphasis in encouraging primary industry to develop value added industries. This Authority will set a priority for a wide-ranging raw materials processing program designed to facilitate greater domestic processing of Australian wool, cotton, hides and skins. Other programs which the Authority will direct include a scheme to encourage textile industry modernisation and another aimed at encouraging the emergence of world class manufacturing operations. The TCF industry like all other industries, will benefit from a range of measures put in place by the Government over a number of years. The deregulated exchange rate has helped give Australian industry its most competitive edge ever. This year alone industry benefited from the abolition of the 2 per cent revenue duty. This represented a tax of about $240m a year on industry. More than 80 per cent of the duty was paid on intermediate or capital goods and amounted to a direct tax on production in Australia. The Government decided to remove the tax because it was seen as handicapping our manufacturers facing international competition. The net effect of abolishing the duty and reducing tariffs was to reduce input costs for many industries and make them more competitive on international markets. The TCF and other industries will gain from the restructuring of the corporate taxation scales which makes the top company rate 39 per cent. Moreover, the 150 per cent tax concession for research and development will continue until 1991 and there will be a 100 per cent deductibility after that for companies, partnerships, individuals and trusts. Businesses are responding positively to the need to invest in research and development. Expenditure on research and development in 1986-87 rose by 12 per cent in real terms-the largest increase in any national sector. There had been a commensurate increase in the number of people working on research and development in the business sector. There was an increase of 10 per cent to more than 15,400 person years in 1986-87. Expenditure from, 1985-86 to 1986-87 was almost $3,120m-an increase of 7 per cent in real terms in just one year. However, Australia is trailing its main competitors in research and development spending. The gains we have made need to be built upon. The Australian manufacturing sector is showing signs of recovery and there is evidence of growth in the range of products being produced. In my own State of Queensland, there was further growth in the manufacturing sector in the September quarter over the same period last year. There was a growth of 7.7 per cent from quite a low base. Queensland's manufacturing has shrunk in relative terms to other industries. Five years ago, it represented 12.5 per cent of national manufacturing. Latest figures indicate Queensland's share at just over 11 per cent. 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 Barry Jones-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr COURTICE —It appears that years of high tariff protection and an overvalued dollar impacted most severely in Queensland. Whereas in other States manufacturing industry was scaled down, in Queensland firms simply closed their doors. It is to be hoped that the range of measures outlined in this Bill, as well as the positive measures the Government has introduced, will revitalise industry throughout Australia. Queensland, being a primary industry State, needs to diversify to give itself economic strength. It should be ideally placed to take up the challenge offered by the new opportunities in TCF industries. The tariff monkey has been lifted off the back of industries. These bounty Bills serve to underline this trend and are worthy of support. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.31) —This legislation chiefly enacts amendments to the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) plan announced by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in the context of the May statement. The first major component of the amendments is to the Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act 1981. Whereas originally the TCF industries plan envisaged a phased reduction of bounty payable in this area from 56 per cent to 30 per cent by 1 March 1996, this amendment will see that phased reduction achieved by 30 June 1995. Similarly with the Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act 1977, this amendment changes the timetable for the phased reduction of bounties under this legislation. The bounty payable will now be reduced to 42.5 per cent on 1 March 1989, then to 35 per cent on 1 March 1993, and finally to 30 per cent on 1 March 1994. The other major change is in the form of an amendment to the Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Act 1977 which increases the total amount of bounty payable under this scheme from $600,000 per annum to $3,200,000 per annum. This system will operate until the scheme ends on 28 February 1993 and is an important form of assistance to this sector of the TCF industries. It is most important for these legislative arrangements to be seen in their proper context-that being this Government's commitment to tripartite planning for industry restructuring and development. In November 1986 the Government rejected the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC), report recommendations for the TCF industries. These recommendations focused solely on the area of tariffs, with a phased reduction of protection being recommended over a seven-year period. The IAC envisaged that this reduction would have led to a loss of 20,000 jobs in this period, although union estimates put the figure as high as 60,000. The IAC plan had no scope to look at retraining provisions for those workers who became victims of the restructuring. It had no investment incentive provisions for industry and there was no provision for a monitoring authority to review the effects of the changes on this industry. Such a plan would have had a disastrous impact on the TCF industries. The TCF industries are an historically vital part of our manufacturing economy. In 1987 these industries were still employing nearly 10 per cent of our manufacturing work force and accounted for 7 per cent of manufacturing value added. The Government was therefore determined not to endanger such a vital component of our manufacturing industry through a haphazard policy approach such as that demonstrated to us over so many years by those on the opposite side of this House. Instead, in consultation with industry unions and employers, the Government developed its textile, clothing and footwear industries plan. The details of this plan were announced by the Minister in a statement to the House in June last year. This plan is designed to provide the industry with the opportunity to restructure on a gradual basis over a period of years. The emphasis is on making the industry more internationally competitive by developing local production advantages and by increasing productivity. A key element of the plan is a production guarantee and accompanying trigger mechanism, being administered by the TCF Industries Development Authority. This system is designed to ensure that, if production figures for the TCF industries fall below 85 per cent of the 1986 levels, the operation of the plan can be temporarily suspended until a report on the operation of the plan is presented to the Minister. This works to guarantee that rapid disruption to the industries, and accompanying job losses, will not occur. It represents a flexible and level-headed approach to restructuring. Another key element contained in the plan is an industries restructuring strategy. This strategy contains four parts: first, a raw materials processing program; secondly, an industries efficiency program; thirdly, an industries infrastructure program; and, fourthly, an export development program. The raw materials processing program is aimed at rectifying the situation that has existed in Australia whereby, although we produce some of the highest quality wool, cotton and hides in the world, important parts of the processing of these raw materials have been carried out overseas. The plan aims to correct this situation. Through the assistance of government funding, Australian industry will carry out all stages of the processing of raw materials. The benefits in terms both of employment and our balance of trade should be obvious to all members of the House. The industries efficiency program is aimed at helping to diagnose problems that may have existed with management techniques, at developing new designs and technology for the industries, and at improving the quality of finished products. An important part of this process for those companies participating in the adoption of a close consultative process with unions over all changes in the workplace. No improvements in efficiency will be won without the input of unions. It should be noted that the development of consultative processes between management and unions has always been a key plank of the Government's industry restructuring plans. Those who work in an industry have a point of view on restructuring equally valid as that of employers. Those who work in an industry have a right to share in the decisions on the future development of their industries. I believe the TCF industries are a fine example of the value of this approach. The textile clothing and footwear unions have played a major role-a positive role-in the future development of their industry. I believe this House should commend them for their valuable work in this area. The third program in the restructuring strategy is the industries infrastructure program. The focus here is on information services, research and development, and upgrading the skills of the work force through extensive retraining programs. The final component of the restructuring strategy is the export development program. Previously a large part of the exports from TCF industries have comprised products in early stages of processing. This program aims at giving government assistance for industry to build on the growth that has occurred in recent years in the export of finished products. Development of export markets is crucial to the success of the restructuring plan. Australia has great advantages in the area of raw materials in this industry. We need to translate that advantage into success in the international market-place if the restructuring of the TCF industries is to be viable in the long term. The TCF industries plan represents a great step forward for industry planning in this country. It gives both employers and employees in these industries the guarantee of a stable environment in which to carry out necessary restructuring. The plan is therefore of great economic value to the industries. The plan guarantees workers who are retrenched a package of retraining and relocation assistance measures which will assist them to return rapidly to the work force. The plan is therefore of great human value to the work force. It demonstrates that restructuring can occur in a well planned fashion that shows concern for those whose lives are disrupted by the process. This is the antithesis of the callous economic anarchy preached by the Opposition. I commend the amendments to the House. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(10.39) —in reply-I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and, because I know honourable members are bursting to say something in the adjournment debate, I shall not detain the House for very long. I wish to answer a matter that was raised by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) in his debut as shadow Minister for Customs. He was anxious to find out about the proposed review of the bed sheeting bounty. As I said in my second reading speech, the provisions of the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill No. 2 will increase the maxiumum annual amount of bounty payable to bed sheeting manufacturers each year, commencing 1 March 1989, from $600,000 to $3.2m, until 28 February 1993. I also indicated in the second reading speech that this bounty scheme would be reviewed. On 5 June 1987 Senator Button announced in the Senate the changes to the Government's industry policy as they relate to the textiles, clothing and footwear industries, which became known as the TCF plan. This plan is designed to encourage and facilitate the revitalisation and restructuring of Australia's TCF sector, of which the bed sheeting manufacturing industry is a part. At that time Senator Button also announced that further continuation of the bed sheeting bounty beyond 28 February 1993 would be subject to a review by the newly established TCF Development Authority. It is anticipated that the TCF Authority will conduct the inquiry into the continued assistance of the bed sheeting manufacturing industry in the middle of 1992 when the Authority conducts its scheduled mid-term review of the TCF plan. I think that was obviously the difficulty expressed by the honourable member for Mayo. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TAYLOR(Groom)(10.41) —Press reports this week in Toowoomba and Brisbane have suggested that the Department of Defence last week issued a notice of dismissal to a substantial number of civilian employees in Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) stores depots in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. The reasons for this action are unclear at present and yesterday, 19 October, I placed on notice a question with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) seeking clarification and amplification. However, a local spokesman for the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union and the Australian Public Service Association, Mr Terry Olsen, of No. 7 Stores Depot in Toowoomba is quoted in the Toowoomba Chronicle on 15 October as saying `It is just all to do with dollars and cents', when commenting on the possible sackings of about 11 per cent of the civilian work force in his depot, which I understand might be the order of sackings in other States. Furthermore, yesterday's 19 October page 1 headline in that newspaper suggested-once again I quote-`Union action could ground F111's' pointing to possible industrial action with the Federated Storemen and Packers Union State Secretary, Mr Wal Rutherford, and assistant State Secretary, Mr Jeff Brahim, saying that action by No. 7 Stores Depot members could ground those aircraft within three days-a matter, no doubt, of interest to the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Les Scott). A report in today's Brisbane Courier-Mail indicates that storemen in that depot in Toowoomba have imposed bans preventing some spare parts and high priority equipment being issued or being issued to aircraft, particularly to the F111 force of Amberley, the Army aviation centre at Oakey and Air Force elements in Townsville. The No. 7 Stores Depot commanding officer, Wing Commander Rod Brittain, has conceded that this industrial action will have `a fairly substantial impact'. I understand that a hearing was set down earlier today in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in Brisbane, but I am not aware at this time of the results. This dispute has a serious potential to impair the operational effectiveness of the RAAF. Clearly this is not in the national interest. Over the last two days in this place we have heard a large degree of self-congratulation from the Government on defence matters. What I cannot understand is how civilian logistics staff can be sacked when large scale civilianisation was approved by the Minister for Defence last year to allow uniformed members of the Defence Force to assume a higher operational function. I ask: Who will assume the additional tasks of those personnel at a time of personnel stretch and poor morale? I have discussed the press reports informally with the Minister for Defence. With the indulgence of the House, I ask that he give my question his early attention so that the matter, or the wider ramifications of the decision, can be explored, remedial action can be taken quickly and the understandable concerns of many civilian employees in Defence Force stores depots can be put to rest before the issue escalates to a point that everyone will regret. It is about time that the Minister for Defence matched his undoubted intellect and equipment acquisition skills with the equally important administrative needs so vital to his portfolio. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(10.45) —The year 1988 is one of great significance for Australia. I take the opportunity this evening to remind the House that it is also the centenary of the death of Edward Lear. Lear was a remarkable and talented man. He was born in London in 1812. He had to earn his living from the age of 15. He began by making tinted drawings of birds and assisted the famous John Gould. In 1837 he left England for health reasons, and lived as a landscape artist. But Lear is best known as the father of the limerick, the verse form he came across while entertaining the grandchildren of the Earl of Derby. The limerick form did not originate with Lear. Scholars differ as to its origin. There are claims that it began in a play by Aristrophanes in 4 BC. Others claim an old English origin and certainly many nursery rhymes, such as Hickory, Dickory, Dock, which are of great antiquity are in limerick form. There is also argument about the origin of the name `limerick'. Incidentally, in Lear's time they were known as `learics'. One theory has it that the name came from an association with the Irish city of Limerick whose inhabitants apparently have a reputation for verse. A second theory associates the limerick with the old English dialect word `limmer', meaning scoundrel or rascal, in line with the association of the limerick with the bawdy and the obscene. Lear's contribution was to transform the limerick from its bawdy form to a form later taken up by academics, philosophers, churchmen and others. Of course the earlier form lives on. It has made many famous, including the old man of Khartoum, the young man of Belgrade, the young lass from Madras, the young lady from Ryde, and assorted residents of Tashkent. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Let us make sure that we are not unparliamentary here. Mr FREE —It made them famous, Mr Acting Speaker, in a way in which I dare not have recorded in Hansard. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —It would be very difficult for you if you did. Mr FREE —In the refined form we have seen observations on inflation. For example: There was a young man from Montrose. Who had pockets in none of his clothes, When asked by his lass, Where he carried his brass, He said `Darling, I pay through the nose!' There were also observations on the theory of relativity: There was a young lady named Bright, Whose speed was faster than light, She set out one day In a relative way, And returned home the previous night. Of course this change from the obscene to the refined version left some people unhappy. One said: The limerick packs laughs anatomical Into space that is quite economical But the good ones I've seen So seldom are clean And the clean ones so seldom are comical Whatever it changes, the limerick has been an enduring and popular verse form. The first limerick competition was staged in 1863 by the magazine Punch. It had to be discontinued because of the low tone of the entries. At the turn of the century, limerick competitions offered fabulous prizes, including houses and #3 a week for life. They were as popular as Sale of the Century. More recently the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio's clean limerick competition attracted over 1,000 entries. The Wilderness Society also staged a competition following the recent New South Wales election. Among the entries was this one: There was a young man called Nick, Who used to write with a Bic, But being a frog, Who became top dog, He writes budgets today with a Schick. We owe a lot to Edward Lear. In his memory tonight I am launching the parliamentary bicentennial limerick competition. It is open to all who work in this place. I undertake to enrol a panel of eminent judges and to arrange a suitable presentation to the winner. I propose to pass on entries received to a suitable charity for publication and sale. I exhort all members and senators and all who work in this place to get to work on their entries which should be received in my office by the end of November. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —After that, I suppose we should just say that bogongs should be bogongs. Mr PRATT(Adelaide)(10.49) —That is a hard act to follow, Mr Acting Speaker. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —It certainly is. Mr PRATT —On Sunday, 30 October, I am convening an important meeting of the Gilles Plains-Hampstead branch of the Returned Services League. The meeting is titled `Save the Repat', the Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital. A friend and colleague of mine, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), a Vietnam veteran and shadow Minister for the Arts, will be the keynote speaker. I bring it to the attention of the House again tonight because earlier today the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) claimed that our policy would shabbily treat veterans and that this much-vaunted forum that I am convening did not have a lot of substance. I reiterate a couple of points for her attention and for the attention of the veterans. It is clear that there will be no change in 10 years. We have a firm commitment until 1998, as set out in our Veterans Affairs fair go for veterans policy put out by the shadow Minister. I have researched it a bit further. Since Budget week, we have had five Thursdays of petitions sent to the Bills and Papers Office, on which there have been more than 7,740 signatures concerning the decision to place certain pharmaceutical drugs on the authority list. Seventy members in this House, on both sides-50 from the Liberal and National parties-are included in that 7,740. My electorate alone contained 244. Some 40 of those 53 drugs have now gone back for review. But the honourable member for Hawker has not seen fit to have anything to do with the petitions on drugs or the pension issue. Honourable members should remember that she made the classic statement, `Why should pensioners get any concessions?', and I am sure that pensioners and veterans are very aware of the pharmaceuticals and their market-linked investments. The other matter is that my electorate of Adelaide has been rocked by the recent prosecution and conviction of former Drug Squad chief Barry Moyse on 17 drug offences. The sworn evidence of a super-grass, a Mr X, has put Barry Moyse away for a very long time and cut off all avenues of appeal. His testimony is a compelling account of the sleazy world of marijuana, smack, grass, dope, crack, needles, bongs, pushers and pedlars. This is not a script for Miami Vice or Hill Street Blues. This is Adelaide. For months I have been on the drug trail myself in the grass-roots area of drugs in schools, with anxious parents, my constituents, giving evidence to the Drug Squad. I personally handed over to the police the evidence given to me by a worried relative-marijuana pipes and implements that kids in my electorate have, unfortunately, been using to free-base. My concern over this sort of problem moved me to convene a public meeting, a drug forum, in order that my constituents could show their concern by standing up to be counted and, at the same time, find out what they could do about drugs; not with holier-than-thou experts, but with former drug addicts and dealers, street kids-Poppa John T. was one-and those at the coal-face who had been introduced to drugs by their school mates. The meeting in the Enfield Civic Centre was packed. People sat or stood in rapt attention as they listened to speakers put lie to the Deputy Premier's claim that there was no problem with drugs in schools. I have here a copy of a story that appeared in the Adelaide News on Thursday, 16 June last, in which Dr Don Hopgood accused me of a cheap political stunt and deceit over claims about young children using marijuana in Adelaide's schools. I also have a copy of a story that appeared in the News of the following day, referring to a single mother who said her two teenage children both used drugs while at school. I was there when this worried woman told reporter Sean Whittington that children as young as 13 were using drugs in school playgrounds. Did Hoppy Hopgood recant or retract the statement made by his press secretary? No. Did he apologise on behalf of his press secretary, who obviously wrote this rubbish? No. And since then, two students have been expelled from a private school for using and peddling drugs. The press ran an article `Drug dealers beware' because they were operating at Tea Tree Plaza, and two principals had to come out in support of that; and yet the Bannon Government denies that there is a drug problem. As Mr X spills the beans on South Australia's drug industry, and as the truth finally comes to light, I suggest that the Deputy Premier at least has some explaining to do, or at most I call on him to resign. The drug forum I convened at Enfield Civic Centre passed two resolutions which I am currently acting upon. Time does not permit me to complete this. As the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor) and Fairfax (Mr Adermann) reiterated yesterday- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.54) —All of us would have read today in the newspaper of the multiple birth of three children in Perth to a mother who had been assisted by in vitro fertilisation. The question involved a surrogate mother and, as such, raises many moral and ethical questions. Indeed, the doctor in charge of the pregnancy, Dr John Yovich, said that he believed a case could be made for compassionate family surrogacy as was the case in this episode. But, of course, I think the scope of dealing with that issue goes beyond a five-minute adjournment address. Suffice it to say, as is quoted in the Age today, that Mr Daniel Callahan, Director of the internationally renowned Hastings Centre in New York, said: We are caught in the middle of a major social experiment without the faintest idea how it should be conducted. I suppose that that is the status of the surrogacy debate in this country at the moment. I wish to focus on the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) program and the future of this program. I want to make some comparisons on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. There is a great deal of pressure on government to fund new technology and new procedures in medicine. Let us look at some of the programs that are involved. The average cost of heart transplants is about $60,000 to $70,000. On top of that, those who have a heart transplant need considerable treatment after the procedure and there is anti-rejection therapy which costs in the region of $8,000 to $10,000 a year. So it is a considerably expensive procedure. A liver transplant, which again is something that is gaining popularity in this country, costs about twice to three times as much and requires the same anti-rejection therapy. We find that governments increasingly have to make decisions about the cost-benefit analysis of such procedures. For instance, in Great Britain it is necessary for governments to make decisions that kidney dialysis is not available to people over 55 years of age or hip replacements are not available to people over 65 years of age. Increasingly, in other countries and in Australia we have to look at these factors. There has been a great deal of controversy about the cost-benefit analysis of the in vitro fertilisation program. If we look at the program in Australia we find that 1,850 live children have been born as a result of the program during the last 10 years. It seems that the average percentage success is about 8.8 per cent of in vitro treatment cycles resulting in an ongoing pregnancy and the birth of a child. This is an estimation, but there are a number of programs and protocols throughout the country and it seems that this is a reasonable one. At this rate, the cost of each IVF baby is at least $40,000 and therein I suppose lies the controversy when we talk about the IVF program because there are many who believe that this is excessive. Let us put aside the ethical and moral questions. There are those who believe that we should look at the cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps that is excessive but when we compare it with heart or liver transplants I think it is easy to see that this procedure provides, in the vast majority of cases, a fit and healthy citizen for 60 to 70 years of life and thus it is a program that we should be supporting. In 1987 the number of couples in the IVF program was 5,000. So we can see that it is growing in popularity. The Government commissioned a report into the IVF program. A number of funding options were considered by the Government because it was concerned about the cost of the procedure and the open-ended way in which it was presently funded. There was great concern amongst my constituents before the Budget. Indeed, there was great relief when no changes were made and at least the status quo was preserved in the Budget. But it is certainly true that much more consideration is needed about this issue in a country where the birth rate is falling and 10 per cent of the population is infertile. This offers a chance for many couples who feel the hopelessness and frustration of infertility. Indeed, there are many questions to be answered. More research is needed. The Government needs to consider the access which is available to couples who want this procedure. Certainly there are moral and ethical questions to be dealt with. If we look in totality at this procedure I believe that it deserves our support. I am sure that the protocols will become streamlined and the effectiveness of the procedures will improve. Those moral and ethical questions that have been resolved in respect of heart and liver transplants similarly will be resolved in this case. It is a program that deserves our support. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PRATT(Adelaide)(10.59) —In the time remaining I will just complete the speech I was making. Two suggestions came out of this excellent drug forum. The first was to raise money to fund the introduction of the learning for life program into South Australia. The mobile life education centres have proven outstandingly effective over the six years that they have been operating in the eastern States, teaching young Australians how to resist the dangers of all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. As mentioned by the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor) and the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann), they are still looking for taxation funding to assist this program. The life education centres-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 1 November 1988 at 3 p.m. in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 781) Mr Wilson asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 15 March 1988: (1) What properties is the Commonwealth planning to dispose of by 1990 in (a) NSW, (b) VIC, (c), QLD, (d) SA, (e) WA, (f) TAS, (g) the ACT and (h) the NT. (2) Which of these properties have been listed by the Australian Heritage Commission on the Register of the National Estate. (3) What covenants, agreements and other undertakings would it require purchasers to comply with to ensure that the National Estate value of these properties is preserved. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth is planning to dispose of a number of properties by 1990. The list of properties identified at this stage is variable and subject to alteration, additions and deletions over time. Due to the changing nature of the disposals program, I do not consider it appropriate or meaningful to provide a detailed answer to this part of the question. (2) Of the properties currently identified for disposal, the following have been entered by the Australian Heritage Commission on the Register of the National Estate. (a) New South Wales: Vacant Land, Castle Hill; House (Lot 1) ``Cliffbrook'' 45 Beach Street, Coogee; Commonwealth Stores &Office, 5-7 Hickson Road, Millers Point; Anzac Rifle Range (Part), Franklin Street, Malabar; Residences, Barrenjoey Headland, Barrenjoey; Lightstation, Montague Island; Surplus Property, Macquarie Lightstation, Watson's Bay; Cockatoo Island, Sydney. (b) Victoria: Old Customs House, 126 Nelson Place, Williamstown; Lighthouse, Cape Otway; Lighthouse, Point Hicks: ``Majella'' 473 St Kilda Road, City. (c) Queensland: Customs House, Petrie Bight, Brisbane; Brisbane Airport Old Terminal, Areas 6 &7, Eagle Farm, Brisbane; Part of Lighthouse Reserve, Moreton Island. (d) South Australia: Navaid, Cape Du Couedic Lighthouse, Kangaroo Island; Customs House, Commercial Road, North Parade, Port Adelaide. (e) Western Australia: Lightkeepers Quarters &Land, Jarman Island, Lighthouse, Yardie Creek Road, Exmouth. (f) Tasmania: Eddystone, No. 3 Quarters, Eddystone Point Lightstation; Laboratory Site, 121 Hampden Road, Battery Point; Part of Light Station Low Head. (3) When disposing of heritage property, officers of the Australian Property Group consult with the Australian Heritage Commission and the office of the Australian Government Solicitor on the most appropriate form of protection for such properties once they leave Commonwealth ownership. In those States and Territories where there are suitable legal mechanisms available, protection of heritage properties is provided in conjunction with the National Trust. The requirements differ between most State/Territorial Governments, but the various covenants, agreements and other undertakings are all designed to adequately protect the National Estate. In South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, which have effective heritage legislation, conservation orders or similar protective planning mechanisms are put in place. In addition, properties may be disposed of through long-term lease arrangements where none of the options outlined above are likely to achieve an adequate level of protection. (Question No. 1196) Mr Prosser asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) What procedures are adopted to ensure the swift retrieval of drugs which, for any reason, need to be recalled. (2) How are members of the pharmaceutical industry advised of these recalls. (3) Were normal recall procedures adopted in the case of antibiotic Achromycin, batch number 8G048A. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The procedure for the recall of drugs (and therapeutic devices) is described in a document called ``Uniforn Recall Procedure for Therapeutic Goods''. This represents a voluntary agreement between the Commonwealth and State health authorities and the therapeutic goods industry in Australia. The procedure is based on a network of people comprising of an Australian co-ordinator in the Recalls Section of the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health, recall officers in each State and Territory health authority and two personnel in each company which markets therapeutic goods in Australia. Recalls are carried out to different levels within the distribution chain depending on the nature of the problem, extent of the product's distribution and the degree of hazard involved. The health authorities monitor the effectiveness of the recall and follow-up the reason and also the remedial action taken by the company to prevent a recurrence of the problem. (2) In many cases, recall action is initiated when the company advises the Australian co-ordinator of the problem. In other instances, the company may be advised of a problem which has been referred to the Australian co-ordinator. In all cases, negotiation occurs between the company and the Australian co-ordinator prior to the company implementing the recall action. (3) Yes. The company notified the Department of the problem. On the basis of expert medical opinion concerning the hazard represented by the presence of wire fragments in orally ingested capsules, the company and the Australian co-ordinator agreed to an urgent consumer level recall. A media release and press advertisements, with an agreed text, were released. The media release occurred on the same afternoon that the Australian co-ordinator was notified of the problem by the company. (Question No. 748) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 25 February 1988: Is he able to say, at the most recent date for which figures are available, which countries were in arrears in their interest payments or repayments of foreign debt; if so, (a) what was the amount of the arrears and (b) what proportion are the arrears of each country's total foreign debts. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The IMF's 1988 Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions lists 56 member countries which, at the end of 1987, were maintaining external payments arrears to all sources on both current and capital transactions, of which interest and principal arrears on foreign debt may be a component. These are: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burma, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, St Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zaire, Zambia. IMF data on arrears to all sources is unsubstantiated and is not published for individual countries. The IMF report also notes that, from a peak of SDR 44 billion recorded at the end of 1984, total external payments arrears of IMF members are estimated to have declined by over SDR7 billion in 1985 and increased again by about SDR8 billion in 1986. (At 30 June 1988, one SDR, or Special Drawing Right, was equivalent to $A1.6504). Provisional data indicates that the amount of arrears decreased significantly in 1987, possibly by SDR 7 billion. The number of countries experiencing arrears fell to 56 at end-1987 from 58 a year earlier; this number had been rising continuously from 1976 to 1986 (reflecting the difficulty of eliminating arrears once they have been incurred). Of the countries for which data is available, 25 experienced increases in existing arrears and 21 were able to reduce arrears. The large reduction in the amount of arrears outstanding was mainly due to debt reschedulings. (Question No. 999) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 May 1988: (1) Is the International Monetary Fund planning to change the conditions under which compensatory financing will be available to developing countries; if so, (a) what are the new conditions and (b) will the changes increase the number and stringency of conditions which developing countries must meet before compensatory loans will be approved. (2) What is the Government's position on the proposals. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently reviewed the operations of its Compensatory Financing Facility for Export Fluctions (CFF) which was established in 1963 to assist members (especially primary product exporting countries) confronted with balance of payments difficulties arising from a temporary shortfall in export earnings associated with factors largely beyond the member's control. On 26 August 1988 the IMF announced that it had established a Compensatory and Contingency Financing Facility (CCFF). The new facility replaces the existing CFF and also introduces an external contingency financing facility to help maintain the momentum of Fund-supported growth-oriented adjustment programs in the face of unexpected adverse external shocks. The CCFF will provide assistance to member countries encountering balance of payments difficulties that arise out of temporary export shortfalls, adverse external contingencies or excessive costs of cereal imports. (a) The amount of compensatory financing available under the CCFF depends on the circumstances of the member. Where a member has a satisfactory balance of payments position but is confronted with a temporary export shortfall or excessive cereal import costs, the existing CFF access limit of 83 per cent of the member's quota under either component has been maintained. In all other circumstances, the amount of financing available under the CCFF is 40 per cent of quota on account of each of the export shortfall and the external contingency components and 17 per cent of quota for the cereal import costs component. In addition, there is one optional tranche of 25 per cent of quota which can be used to supplement any one of these three elements, at the choice of the member. Total access under the new facility is therefore 122 per cent of quota, compared with total access of 105 per cent under the previous CCFF. Access to the compensatory component in respect of export shortfall is available in three tranches: 20 per cent of the member's quota, where the member's record of cooperation in recent periods has been unsatisfactory, or its existing policies are seriously deficient in relation to the size of its existing or prospective payments imbalances, but where the Fund is satisfied that the member has taken action that gives an assurance that policies corrective of the member's balance of payments problem will be adopted; an additional 20 per cent of the member's quota (or total accesss of 40 per cent of quota) when the member has a Fund arrangement under which performance is broadly satisfactory, or if the Fund approves such an arrangement for the member at the time of the request; the optional tranche of 25 per cent of the member's quota (or total access of 65 per cent of quota) if the member has a Fund arrangement under which a review is completed by the Fund at the time of the request. (b) The essential objective of the new facility is to revitalise access to the lower tranche and thereby improve the timeliness of CFF assistance. This can be compared with recent practice where purchases in both tranches had become increasingly linked to approval of stand-by arrangements. It is designed also to provide for possible use of the compensatory element during the course of programs that are supported by stand-by arrangements to help cushion the program from the effects of unexpected export shortfalls. (2) The Australian Government supported the restructuring of the CFF (including the addition of a contingency element to help ensure that Fund programs were adequately financed). The Government supported the position that the operation of the CCFF should ensure that purchases under the new facility provide timely compensation for export shortfalls, while at the same time providing reasonable assurance of protection of the Fund's resources. (Question No. 1180) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: (1) How many submissions have been received by the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee on matters relating to the inclusion of certain genera and species under s. 13 of the Plant Variety Rights Act. (2) How many submissions have been received by the Committee on other matters relating to the Act. (3) How many copies of the first issue of the Plant Varieties Journal were distributed. (4) When will the second issue of the journal be published. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Forty five written submissions. (2) There have been forty four other invited submissions which have been or are destined for consideration by the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee. There is also numerous other correspondence received by the Plant Variety Rights Office which contributes information or states views and they may be also presented to the Advisory Committee if they are relevant to agenda items. (3) Approximately 1,350. They are still available free on request and are being distributed at the rate of approximately 20 per month. (4) It has been published on 28 June 1988. This and subsequent issues are available on subscription through the Australian Government Publishing Service or perusable at Public Libraries which receive subscriptions. (Question No. 1181) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: (1) Further to part (6) of my question No. 874 (Hansard, 3 June 1988, page 3302), what is the name of the member of the Advisory Committee nominated by the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations to which he refers in his reply. (2) Is he able to say how this member of the Advisory Committee consults with the interested organisations also referred to in his reply. (3) Does the Plant Varieties Journal list the Members of the Advisory Committee without identifying the member who represents consumer interests on the committee. (4) Will this be rectified in the second issue of the Journal; if not, why not. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Mr Richard Arthur. (2) This member is available for consultation by letter either via the Registrar of Plant Variety Rights or direct to his address published in the Plant Varieties Journal, Volume 1, numbers 1, 2 and 3. He also has direct consultation with office bearers of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. The consultation referred to in my answer to your previous question No. 874 (Hansard, 3 June 1988, page 3302) is occurring mainly by correspondence and meetings with the Registrar but is also through the direct contacts of the Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee members. The standing invitation for comments and consultation published in the Plant Varieties Journal gives both the postal address and telephone numbers of the Plant Variety Rights Office. (3) Yes. (4) No; the second Plant Varieties Journal was published and disseminated on June 28, 1988. The Plant Variety Rights Advisory Committee member nominated by Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations is agreeable to being specifically identified in the next journal. He will be so in Plant Varieties Journal Volume 1 No. 4 which is due for publication in December, 1988. (Question No. 1183) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: Is it a fact that patents have been granted for Kangaroo Paw; if so, why was it necessary on 28 November 1987 to call for public comment on the inclusion of Kangaroo Paw under the Plant Variety Rights Act. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes, I understand that patents have been granted for some varieties of Anigozanthos, the Kangaroo Paw. Patents, however, are not administered by my portfolio. It is necessary to call for public comment on the inclusion of Kangaroo Paw under the PVR Act to canvass public interest in seeking Plant Variety Rights on Anigozanthos varieties. The fact that there are some varieties protected by patents does not disqualify other new varieties from Plant Variety Rights. An Australian plant breeder who holds patents for some of his varieties of Kangaroo Paw, informed the Plant Variety Rights office that his breeding work was completed in the mid 1970's and he has been waiting since then for the Plant Variety Rights Act to be passed. He said that he would have preferred Plant Variety Rights protection because it is more appropriate but was unable to delay any longer the marketing of his varieties and resorted instead to the protection of patents.