Tuesday, 1 November 1988 Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Leo McLeay) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I inform the House of the deaths on Thursday, 27 October, 1988 of former senators, the Hon. Mervyn George Everett and Mr John Thomas Kane. Mervyn Everett represented the State of Tasmania from 1974 to 1975 and John Kane represented the State of New South Wales from 1970 to 1974. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I thank the House. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Leader of the House and Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, is absent on Government business in Papua New Guinea. He will return to Australia this evening. Portfolio questions which would normally be addressed to Mr Beazley should be directed in his absence to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Mrs Kelly. The Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, is Acting Leader of the House today. As a matter of courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Transport and Communications, Mr Willis, will be absent from Question Time today due to illness. Questions on aviation and telecommunications matters should be addressed to the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support, Mr Punch, and the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, Mr Robert Brown, will take questions on transport and shipping matters. Mr WEBSTER —Does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs recall receiving a letter dated 6 November 1987 from the National President of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA), Ms Ann Forward, expressing concern about aspects of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? Did that letter claim improper recruitment procedures; appointment of persons not competent to perform the duties they have allegedly been recruited to perform; widespread administrative malpractice; alarming loss of morale; misuse of travelling allowance; and payments for consultants who have not delivered an identifiable service? Did the National President ask for a `thorough internal but independent investigation before loyalties are stretched too far and a wider more public investigation becomes necessary'? What specific steps did the Minister take to investigate the allegations when they were first raised? Mr HAND —Yes, I do recall getting a letter from the National President of the ACOA. I responded in writing for her to elaborate on her accusations. I subsequently met with Ms Forward and no details were presented. When one gets a letter of that sort, one naturally becomes very concerned by the accusations. I have made extensive inquiries within the Department. The matter was addressed by Mr Miller in his responses to Senate Estimates Committee E. No evidence has yet been produced in respect of any of the accusations that she makes. It is extremely difficult for me, in the position I hold, when I get a letter in which a series of allegations are made and no proof at all is produced. Anybody can write such a letter, but if people are not prepared either publicly or confidentially to explain to me the substance of their allegations it makes my job very difficult. If, on the other hand, evidence is presented to me-I will elaborate a little on this point-concerning any of the allegations made or any of the loose talk that is currently flowing through the corridors of this building, I will act upon it. I give that commitment to the House yet again. I also take the opportunity to say to members of the Opposition that if they have any confidential information regarding the type of issue raised in that letter and others, I challenge them to bring it to me. I guarantee them a quick response. If action needs to be taken, I will take it. Accusations such as those which have been made in recent days are a slur, unfortunately, on all Aboriginal organisations, on all employees in the four areas under my portfolio, being my Department, the Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. I believe that it is simply not good enough to make wide ranging statements hoping that something will develop or something will come forward. I make a plea to the honourable member, as I know of his very keen interest in this area. Every step was taken to look at the issues raised by Ann Forward. I have done that, but in the absence of concrete information it is extremely difficult. If honourable members have information on these issues, I ask them to bring it forward. I give them my commitment that I will follow it through. I can do no more than that. Ms McHUGH —I draw the attention of the Minister for Community Services and Health to recent polls showing that the majority of general practitioners (GPs) do not intend to adopt the new fee structure proposed by the Australian Medical Association (AMA). I ask whether the Minister can inform me and the House what action he now proposes to take to ensure that patients continue to receive high quality primary medical care. Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for her question and for her continuing interest in the well-being of health care consumers. Naturally, I welcome the evidence that the great bulk of general practitioners in this country have decided to reject the AMA's proposed new fee structure and to charge according to the Medicare schedule. Even the Federal President of the AMA acknowledged this morning in the Age that only a minority of doctors were expected to charge their patients according to the new schedule. Let me make it clear that I do not regard this as a victory for the Government. I regard it above all as a victory for the patients. I think it is also a rejection of the confrontationist approach of the AMA to this issue. It is a rejection of the Association's attempt to impose a new charging system, a new structure, on both doctors and patients. I am not surprised that the great majority of GPs appear to have rejected the proposals that the AMA has made because general practitioners have consistently shown themselves to be fair, caring and responsible people, and have observed in very great numbers the schedule fee over the past five years. Indeed, only 3 per cent of GP standard consultations in the last year were charged according to the AMA's recommended fee levels. The indications are clear that the GPs are not prepared to inflict financial hardship on their patients in order to increase their own incomes. The Government, for its part, makes it quite clear that it is prepared to respond to this responsible attitude of GPs by showing and announcing its willingness to work with any medical organisation which is prepared to adopt a cooperative rather than a confrontationist approach to resolving any real concerns that the GPs have. The Government is happy to discuss constructively changes to the Medicare benefit schedule, the overriding purpose of which would be to improve the standard of patient care. I am hopeful that consultations later today will result in a much more constructive approach by the AMA. Mr RUDDOCK —My question is also directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the Minister's media release of 31 October in which he announced that the Commonwealth Auditor-General would undertake an audit of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) and that an officer of the Department of Finance would work with the Commission on finance matters. In view of the serious allegations which have been made about mismanagement within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, why has the Minister excluded his Department from the audit? What other investigations have been initiated into management of the Department? Mr HAND —Perhaps in the discussion of the honourable member's matter of public importance later in the day we can elaborate on this matter a little more, and I look forward to it. The honourable member's question is a valid one. Senator Walsh has written back to me and has suggested that some assistance could be given to the Department. The accusations were made at the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee E. I think the honourable member will find, on an examination of what occurred in the Friday, Tuesday and Wednesday discussions, that most of the more serious accusations-a lot of them unfounded, of course-were made in regard to the ADC. I repeat again my statement of yesterday and of a number of times prior to yesterday-also the Prime Minister's statement of last night and my statement of this morning: if there is any malpractice, misappropriation of funds or irregularities in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs of which the honourable member is aware, I will act immediately. If the honourable member wishes to question whether I will do that, he should supply the information and let me prove how swiftly I will move if there is proof of such things occurring. That is all I say. There will be Finance Department assistance to the Department. But the serious nature of the accusations that have been made, not only about the ADC but also about people involved in the workings of the ADC-general, broad, sweeping statements, encompassing a lot of very good people, I might add-requires that an independent body such as the Office of the Auditor-General come in and once and for all settle whether anything is wrong. That is surely what the Opposition wants me to do; it is surely what the public wants me to do. And, I will tell you what, it is what the Aboriginal people want me to do, too. Mr SNOW —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts and Territories. What was the reason for the Government's decision to change the excellent sporting facilities at Bruce Stadium to accommodate rugby league? Also, why did the Government accommodate an unnecessary move by the Canberra-Queanbeyan Raiders from Queanbeyan to Canberra? Mr HOLDING —As a supporter of Australian rules football, I thank the honourable gentleman for his question and can answer with complete objectivity. The Canberra Raiders are not being forced to move. They feel that in order to maintain themselves in the Sydney league competition they have to increase greatly gate receipts. They are therefore aiming to improve significantly home ground attendances. While the New South Wales Government offered to upgrade their existing oval in Queanbeyan, the club was concerned that access and parking difficulties would limit crowd numbers. Accordingly, the club was concerned to move to Bruce Stadium in order to enhance its ability to attract major sponsorship. The Australian Institute of Sport has agreed to lease the stadium to the Australian Capital Territory Administration, which will in turn make it available for the Raiders. The Raiders will be charged commercial rates for the use of the facilities. The redeveloped Bruce Stadium will be suitable for a range of other uses, including rugby union, Australian rules, soccer and cricket; and it is hoped to provide a first-class venue for both players and spectators. The athletics community, and the Australian Institute of Sport athletes in particular, will also have a high-class facility, at what is now the adjacent warm-up track, suitable for a whole range of athletic endeavours. It is intended that the stadium be managed by a trust which will include representatives of the ACT Administration, the Institute of Sport and the community. I can understand the honourable gentleman's concern and I understand that some of his constituents in Queanbeyan feel a bit upset about having to drive all the way over to the stadium. But, if I might give him some words of comfort as the member of Melbourne Ports: we once housed the South Melbourne football team-and when it plays it is a hell of a drive! Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation this morning that `there will be no cover-up' regarding inquiries into the Aboriginal Development Commission. Does the Prime Minister recollect that on 22 May 1985 a report on the Aboriginal Development Commission was tabled in this House by the then Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, Mr Leo McLeay, and that that report contained a minority report supported by seven members of that Committee which recommended a judicial inquiry into allegations made under oath to that Committee and about which a leading Queen's Counsel, Mr Coombs, had recommended referral to the Australian Federal Police? I ask the Prime Minister: Why did his Government cover up these allegations? In the light of his Minister's just made statement that he will act on firm evidence, will the Prime Minister now reopen that inquiry as a judicial inquiry? Mr HAWKE —There was no cover-up. I endorse completely what the Minister has said in his thorough answer to the House on this matter. In the light of the answer that the Minister has given, I will refer the honourable member's question to him and ask him whether, in the light of any subsequent developments, he feels that there is any need to refer to the matters of the report of 22 May 1985. Mr COURTICE —I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the Business Review Weekly of 14 October reporting on a study undertaken by a group of Melbourne-based occupational health and safety consultants which found that inadequate attention is paid by senior management in Australian companies to health and safety practices and that this often contributes to a sharp rise in workers compensation claims. If so, can the Minister explain what the Government is doing to redress occupational injury and disease in Australia? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. He raises an issue of considerable importance to Australian industry and our economy generally. I think it is worth noting that each year some 550 Australians die as a result of work-related accidents or illness and over 300 of those deaths occur at the workplace. A conservative estimate of the cost of that loss of life and the injuries and illness involved is about $6,000m per annum. The cost of workers compensation alone runs to about $3,000m per annum. I should take the time of the House to compare that with the performance of our trading partners. In Australia we have a fatal injury rate at work of about 77 deaths per million workers. That compares with a rate in Sweden of 22; Japan some 20; and the United States of America some 37. The honourable member asked what this Government is doing about this. In 1985 we established the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. That Commission has a specific national charter-a charter to establish a uniform national approach to dealing with this major problem. It has before it the task of developing uniform standards; providing better education, training and research; focusing on priority issues; and collecting accurate statistical data. All that is being done on a tripartite basis. Again, it is a case of the trade union movement, industry and government working together to reduce the level of casualties and to reduce the costs that are involved. I can say that already codes of practice have been developed for the safe handling of asbestos and timber preservatives and in respect of repetition strain injury. Further work is being done on six specific issues: occupational back pain, noise-induced hearing loss; skin disorders; occupational cancer; mechanical equipment injury; and chemicals in the workplace. I repeat that this is the first time the issue raised by the honourable member has been addressed on a national basis. Overall, it is a fundamental part of the Government's strategy of generating secure, satisfying and safe jobs. It is part of the overall Government package to create a more efficient, more productive and more competitive Australian industry. Mr SINCLAIR —I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs again to the letter he received from the President of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA), Ms Ann Forward, in which he will recall she raised the matter of widespread patronage and malpractice in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Given that Ms Forward indicated that one of the barriers to investigating the administration of Aboriginal affairs was the fact that departmental officers either were compromised or feared reprisal, was his response to her letter, to which he referred in the answer to the first question asked this afternoon, based only on his departmental Secretary's outright rejection of the claim and without any further independent investigation? In the light of Ms Forward's serious accusations and to ensure that there is a totally unprejudiced inquiry into matters now under reference to the Commonwealth Auditor-General, will the Minister ask his Secretary to stand aside until the inquiry is completed? Mr HAND —The answer to the last part of the question is no; I have no intention of asking Mr Perkins to stand aside. The right honourable member has not yet offered me any reason why I should. In regard to the first part of his question, I repeat that I received a very detailed letter from the President of the ACOA, Ms Ann Forward. I wrote back to her. I discussed the comments made in her letter and asked her to produce any evidence she might have regarding any of those issues. Since that meeting, which was held towards the end of last year, I have had a number of meetings with her. I can report to the House that the discussions with the ACOA are proceeding very well. The matter has not been raised by her with me since, in terms of the accusations made in that letter. When this issue came up in questions in the Senate Estimates Committee last week, I again discussed the matter briefly with Ms Forward. Again, there are no accusations. In her press release she makes the comment that she had good discussions with me. That is where the matter rests. I do not intend to proceed to take the action the right honourable member requests in the latter part of his question. Mrs HARVEY —Can the Minister for Employment and Education Services inform the House of the Government's program in the area of student income assistance? Mr DUNCAN —I thank the honourable member for her question. I know of the keen interest that she takes in her electorate concerning the schools and the schooling of young Australians in that part of the nation. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the isolated children? Mr DUNCAN —I think this is a matter which will be of particular interest to the people of Australia, even if it is of no interest to the Opposition, because most people are concerned about the future of young Australians and are very pleased with the way this Government is ensuring that young Australians have much better opportunities through the policies of this Government, which encourage them to stay at school longer. A very important limb of our policies in this area is the policies that we have put in place to ensure that all students can have reasonable income support whilst they are in the secondary system in particular. I point out to the House that when we came into office only 52,000 secondary students throughout the nation were receiving income support from the Government, that is, the previous Fraser-Howard regime. Under this Government, after about 5 1/2 years, 144,000 students throughout the nation are receiving income support. This is a quite remarkable turnaround in anybody's language. There are 200 per cent more students on assistance than was the case under the previous Liberal Government. The result of that has been that we have seen a quite dramatic increase in retention rates in this country. When we again came to office in 1983 school retention rates were a quite disgraceful 36 per cent-a very poor retention rate by international standards. This Government has worked hard at increasing retention rates. This year we have now achieved an estimated 58 per cent retention rate to year 12 throughout the nation. We are well on target to achieve our set goal of 65 per cent in the early 1990s. I believe that we will achieve that. This represents, not only for the individuals concerned but also for the nation, a great leap forward in educational standards. It should ensure that all young Australians are now able to gain a much better opportunity in life than was the case under the previous Liberal Government. Mr NEHL —Is the Treasurer aware that donations to mobile life education units are not tax deductable because the Australian Taxation Office has ruled that the 27 mobile life education units operating throughout Australia play a purely educational role and are not providing direct relief from the affliction of drugs? Does the Treasurer accept the value of mobile life education centres in protecting the youth of Australia from substances of addiction? As the Minister Assisting the Treasurer has advised me that an amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act will be necessary to provide the concession to the life education centres, will the Treasurer tell the House when he will introduce the appropriate amendment? If he does not intend to do this, will he tell the people of Australia why? Mr KEATING —I was asked this question in the last sitting week when I said that I would look at the matter. I will look at the matter again. My office would have been looking at the issue; so I will dredge it up and get back to the honourable member in the next day or so. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Incidentally, I understand that he, like the Prime Minister, has had a win today. The Minister will be aware of widespread concern in the community over illegal fishing activities by Indonesian fishermen and their persistent illegal entry into Australian territorial waters. Obviously, this is a matter of concern to people in Western Australia as well as people in Australia generally. Will the Minister inform the House of the attitude of the Indonesian Government on this matter and what action the Australian Government has taken in regard to it? Mr DUFFY —This is a matter the honourable member has indicated concern about. The recent spate of seizures of Indonesian vessels fishing illegally inside the Australian fishing zone, north-east of Darwin particularly, has added a new dimension to the existing problems with poaching off the north-west coast near Broome and breaches over the years of the 1974 memorandum of understanding under which Indonesian traditional fishermen are allowed to fish around Australian islands. Australia's concerns about illegal activity by Indonesian fishermen in Australian waters have been raised with the Indonesian Government on a number of occasions this year. During the recent visit of Senator Gareth Evans to Indonesia in discussions with the Indonesian Foreign Minister it was agreed that the illegal fishing activity was a needless irritant to the relationships between Australia and Indonesia. It was agreed by the two Ministers to explore further ways of cooperating to halt the illegal fishing, including through establishing a mechanism for consultation and cooperative action. It has also been agreed that officials of both countries should discuss more effective implementation of the 1974 memorandum of understanding. Particularly, Indonesia, for its part, will send a team of officials into the areas from which most of the fishermen originate to warn them of the illegality of their fishing activity and, further, the penalties attracted by it. These visits will reinforce the actions of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, which has publicised the severe penalties for breaches of Australian fisheries and quarantine laws. It is hoped that these steps will alleviate what is becoming a difficult problem. Mr GOODLUCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I note that the Minister and the Prime Minister now realise that there are massive problems associated with the elderly people of Australia. Is the Minister aware that the ideology that the elderly should stay at home as long as humanly possible is supported in the main by most members of this House? Is the Minister also aware that the home care system is inadequate, that there is not enough funding, and that it is completely off the rails-that too many people are living in their own homes and looking for carers who are just not there and are not trained enough to look after them? Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look at this massive problem, recruit more people, and make certain that the elderly are looked after, if he wants them to stay in their own homes? Mr STAPLES —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am glad that the honourable member recognises-and I hope that others on the other side of the House also recognise-the importance of the home and community care (HACC) program. I am glad that Opposition members recognise that the home and community care program, which was an initiative of this Government, is playing a very important role in helping the frail aged and the young disabled to remain as long as possible in the community close to their families and the facilities around them. Since its inception, the home and community care program has been very successful. Unfortunately, in some States much of the funding that is required has not matched the level of funding that the Commonwealth has been prepared to commit. In that regard the Commonwealth is certainly hoping that more money will be forthcoming from the States, as it is a joint Commonwealth-State program, in order to provide more and better services-in fact, a wider range of services-for the frail aged and the young disabled. In that regard the home and community care program is being assessed under the HACC review, and State, Commonwealth and Territory Ministers are looking at the results as they come through. The points that the honourable member has raised in some areas have been taken into account. What we are trying to do with the funds available-and again we hope that the States will match the Commonwealth's effort and the various initiatives that are put forward-is to make sure that the States will take up a lot of the responsibilities in service delivery that they have not been able to do in the past. Mr CLEELAND —Has the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy seen reported comments of the Policy Director of the National Farmers Federation (NFF) on next year's tax cuts? Can the Minister advise the House of the effect of those proposals on farmers? Mr KERIN —Last Wednesday the National Farmers Federation Policy Director went on the Country Hour and suggested that the NFF was considering a position that all available money for tax cuts next year be used to reduce the top personal marginal rates, the corporate tax rate, and the fringe benefits tax to 29 per cent, and that the indirect tax system be broadened. Dr Hooke also advocated spending cuts of $9 billion, which in themselves-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 142 states: Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected . . . Although I realise that farmers would come somewhere in his portfolio, the reality is that he is talking about tax. Surely the matter should have been referred to the Treasurer. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr KERIN —Dr Hooke also advocated spending cuts of $9 billion, which in themselves would devastate living standards in rural Australia. What concerns me about this is that the tax proposals would confine the tax cuts to the top half of taxpayers only; not one cent would be provided for low to middle income earners. The effect would be even worse for farmers. Farm incomes, thankfully, have increased this year but, even allowing for that, only 50 per cent of farmers would benefit from a tax cut of this nature. In a poorer year for farm incomes such as last year, only 40 per cent of farmers would benefit. I am concerned about such an approach that has little idea of equity and only caters for the wealthier farmers. I reject such a regressive approach. It is inconsistent with other policy goals of the NFF. For example, if one had a tax rate of 29c in the dollar the case for income equalisation deposits (IEDs) would be diminished. I spoke to the NFF President, Mr John Allwright, yesterday on this issue. He told me that the NFF does not have a final position on tax matters, but he in no way retracted the comments made by his organisation's Policy Director. Honourable members will be aware that in May we announced that tax linked equalisation deposits would be available to farmers next year. This is a major concession to farmers, particularly the wealthiest farmers, as it is in addition to tax averaging. In the light of the comments by the NFF, it would be irresponsible for me to finalise the detailed arrangements for IEDs until the NFF has decided what its real position on tax issues is. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the Minister's undertaking to the House earlier this afternoon that, if specific allegations were put by Opposition members, they would get a speedy response. Is it a fact that 5 1/2 months ago, on 17 May 1988, the honourable member for Gilmore, accompanied by a senior staff member of Mr Hatton, the Independent member for the South Coast, together with Aboriginal community leaders from the Shoalhaven Shire district, saw the Minister and provided him with detailed complaints about maladministration, even corruption, relating to the Aboriginal Medical Service? Is it a fact that the Minister has not yet replied to the honourable member for Gilmore? In view of the fact that 5 1/2 months have gone by, why not? Further, if he has not replied, why should we now take his assurance seriously? Mr HAND —It is a fact that I was approached by the honourable member for Gilmore and other persons. That is true. I am a bit surprised that the honourable member for Gilmore wants me to relay all of the details. I will be happy to produce all of the details. Steps have been taken by the New South Wales office of the Department regarding the accusations that he made. Given that he was the one who asked me to keep the names of the people who came to see me confidential, and given that he was the one who came into my office with people and asked that they be protected-the matter is being addressed-I have to say-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is far too much noise. The House is interested in the Minister's reply. Mr HAND —A series of accusations were made. If I remember, one was about groceries. We have investigated the groceries matter and other actions. People come into my office, as the honourable member for Gilmore did, and make a plea, prior to introducing other people, that under no circumstances are those people to be in any way implicated in the claims that they make. Mr Shack —That is not the issue. Mr HAND —Just a moment. I can assure the honourable member that the accusations and other matters are being well and truly addressed. Opposition members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left might listen to the Minister's answer. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a serious question and the Minister is replying. Mr HAND —I can assure the honourable member that the accusations are being well and truly addressed, as well as other matters that have arisen following investigation into the claims that were made in my room when I met with the honourable member and those people. I can assure the honourable member that the matters he raised are being looked at. But subsequent to those matters being raised, other matters emerged. I am quite happy to give him a full up-to-date report- Mr Sharp —You have not responded yet. Mr HAND —Just a minute. The matters that were raised with me I think have been addressed. Other matters have arisen. It is extremely difficult when people come in and say they do not want to be named and then make charges; I give those people the protection that I am asked to-- Mr Sharp —All you have to do is respond. Mr HAND —All I have to do is trust the honourable member? God help us. People come in and ask to be protected and the honourable member gets up in here and brings the matter before the Parliament. Mr Howard —We haven't named anybody. Mr HAND —Well, it will not take the network long to know who they are. I always respect a request when people come to my office and seek an appointment and make the plea, by the way, that one of my staff members should not be present in the office while those people come in, in case word was to filter back. That is the sort of situation we had in my office when the honourable member came in. I agreed with that. I have followed the honourable member's complaints, and if he wants to talk to me about what has happened, I am happy to do that. The fact is that the Opposition asked for the matter to be kept extremely confidential to protect people who were laying charges. I have acted on those accusations. Now that people want it made public, I will proceed to make it public. Mr GEAR —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Can the Minister advise the House of progress towards the establishment of the unified national system of higher education, given that institutions were requested to indicate by the end of October whether they wished to participate in that system? Can the Minister also advise on the progress of moves to provide funding for higher education for next year? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Canning for his question. The unified national system is the system which replaces the current binary system which distinguished between universities and those institutions which were in the advanced education sector. Following the release of the White Paper, I wrote to every institution which had an enrolment in excess of 2,000 full time students, inviting them all to join the new unified national system. I am delighted to inform the honourable member and the House that every university, every institute of technology and every eligible college of advanced education has responded to my invitation and has joined the new unified national system. I think this is important in terms of the development of a bigger and better higher education system in Australia. It is important to realise that in responding to my invitation and in joining the system, the institutions have undertaken commitments, expressed in their own terms, to undertake a review of their internal management; to engage in better credit transfer arrangements and to ensure that those students who undertake work in one institution get appropriate credit when they move to another. They will also implement internal staff and research management plans, introduce a common academic year, and make a determination of equity goals for each institution. It is important to realise that the decision on the part of each institution was taken freely by its appropriate governing body. I might say to those opposite that those institutions very soberly decided to put aside some of the more hysterical claims of a few including, I might say, the cackling shadow Minister on the other side. It was their own decision. None of them complained of any duress in terms of the invitation that was made to them. It was, therefore, a rebuff for the fearmongers. I must say that this is not an occasion for me to engage in any self-satisfaction. As far as I am concerned, this is a victory for the higher education system itself. It is a victory for all Australians who will have the opportunity to gain the very substantial benefits that flow from a period of successful participation in the higher education system. In relation to the last part of the honourable member's question, within the next couple of days we will introduce into this House legislation which will provide the basis for funding over the next triennium for all those institutions, whether in fact they are inside or outside the system. Something like 40,000 new places will be created over the next triennium. There will be a new and historic commitment to equity objectives to ensure that every Australian who is qualified to enter a higher educational institution has the opportunity so to do. Mr SMITH —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The honourable gentleman will be aware that the projected decline in oil exploration in Australia leads to projections that indicate that in the mid-1990s Australia will be forced to import in the vicinity of $3 billion to $5 billion worth of oil. In light of the recent successful outcome of the protracted negotiations over some 10 years with Indonesia in regard to the Timor Gap, which gives Indonesia and Australia equal access to that area-and we need to protect our rights to that area-what is now the position of the Government with regard to the claims by Portugal and recent reports which indicate that that country is getting increasing support from the United Nations, to have the agreement renegotiated so as to give it the right of access, with regard to East Timor, to that oil? What is the Government going to do to protect our position, bearing in mind the vital need to ensure that we get access to any oil that should be there? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. He will observe that we have conducted our negotiations with the Indonesians on the basis and the assumption that we are the two sovereign powers and nations with rights in this area to be determined. That carries, necessarily, the implication that we do not accept the observations that have been made by the other power to which the honourable member refers. I am pleased to report to the honourable member and, through him, to the House, that the negotiations with the Indonesians have proceeded satisfactorily. As the honourable member would be aware, those negotiations have been furthered in the discussions that the Foreign Minister, Senator Evans, has recently conducted in Indonesia. I am confident, on the basis of the discussions which he has held there, that we will be able to proceed in this matter in a way which will be of mutual benefit to both Indonesia and Australia. Mr CHYNOWETH —Has the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business seen new research which predicts steep rises in world temperatures? Is the problem serious and how can it be addressed? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question. As honourable members will know, this is a matter of great interest to Senator Richardson and me. Senator Richardson, who has the responsibility, is represented in this place by my colleague the Minister for Arts and Territories. Mr Reith —You have had so many reshuffles, you were not sure. Mr BARRY JONES —Never in my area. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Flinders will cease interjecting. The Minister will answer the question. Mr BARRY JONES —The most recent estimates by the British meteorological service is the most serious and most pessimistic one. The service predicts that the world will become 5.2 degrees celsius warmer over a period of between 50 and 100 years. The very sophisticated computer modelling used by the service suggests temperatures of about one to 1 1/2 per cent higher than the next worst prediction. The British prediction assumes a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere over that period. It also assumes that there will be an increase of temperature-and this is the most serious part-of around 12 degrees celsius at the poles. If we had that degree of increase in temperature, the implications for a melt at the poles would be very serious indeed. It might have a terrible effect on the electorate of Melbourne Ports, the electorate of Denison and every other coastal area that one can imagine. Since internationally comparable meteorological records have been kept, 1987 has been the hottest year. All the predictions are that 1988 will prove to be hotter still. That means that four of the hottest years in recorded meteorological history have been experienced in the 1980s. I happened to be in Boston in August in the middle of a very long heatwave. Harvard University was closed for the first time in 352 years because of the heat. There was a combination of excessive industrial ozone around the city of Boston-although there was ozone depletion around the poles-very serious temperature inversions and a heatwave that had gone on for over a month. It was recommended on television that people stay home and not breath the air because the air, it was said, was unhealthful. Apart from getting away from the city of Boston, not much of an alternative was suggested. There is a very serious consequence for us. We have to recognise that there are two elements in this global warming. One is the human element and the other is the systemic element. There is a lot that we do not know about what is happening to ambient temperature. There is a view that almost all of the contribution is man made. In the United States of America, for example, it is argued that the ambient temperature away from the cities is declining very slightly but that the heat islands around the cities are contributing between 12 and 15 per cent extra heat. The result is that the whole pattern of how we use resources, what we are doing to contribute more CO2 and the rate at which we are knocking out forests internationally raises very serious questions. The other day I was told that Brazil is losing tropical rainforests at the rate of the area of a football field every second. In 1950, 30 per cent of the ground of the earth was covered by forest. By 1975 the figure was 15 per cent and it is estimated that by the year 2000 it will be 7 1/2 per cent. If we do not have the trees in place to absorb the CO2 and, further, if the trees are chopped down and then burnt so that the CO2 captured in the trees is released into the atmosphere, the implications are very serious. There is also a lot that we do not know about the effect of the global warming on the seas-not just on the level of the seas but on the capacity-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister might bring his answer to a close, interesting though it is. Mr BARRY JONES —We have only a decade or two in which to face up to the implications of the problem. I just conclude by saying that between 3 and 5 November an international greenhouse conference will be conducted, and I think a lot of interest will be generated not just here but internationally. I also ask honourable members to think of what would have happened if the greenhouse effect had so flooded the Maribyrnong River that today's great cultural event at Flemington could not have occurred. It is a very serious problem. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I present a letter to Madam Speaker and Mr President from Mr Justice Staples, Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, dated 27 October 1987, concerning his position. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 1 November 1988 upon an efficiency audit of the Department of Social Security, entitled Review of Continuing Entitlement to Employment Benefit. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General dated 1 November 1988 upon an efficiency audit of the Department of Social Security: Review of Continuing Entitlement to Unemployment Benefit; (2) That the report be printed; and (3) That the report be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting 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- Prices Surveillance Authority-Annual Report 1987-88-section 44 of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983. National Standards Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-section 19c of the National Measurement Act 1960. Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance-Annual Report 1987-88-section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983 and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. Children's Services Council-Annual Report 1987-88-section 15 of the Children's Services Ordinance 1986. Election Funding and Financial Disclosure: Election 1987-Australian Electoral Commission Report-section 17 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr NEHL —I do, Mr Acting Speaker. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr NEHL —During the response of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to the question I asked during Question Time about life education centres, he referred very slightingly and arrogantly to dredging up the answer to a previous question, and reflected by implication on my support of the life education centres. I wish to make it quite clear that my question was a serious one based on a very real concern not just for the life education centres but for the children of Australia, and they deserve better than having an answer dredged up-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the matter. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The public concern over the administration of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio to the detriment of Aboriginal people. 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 RUDDOCK(Dundas)(3.58) —Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. The matter of public importance, which you read, refers to: The public concern over the administration of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio to the detriment of Aboriginal people. In order to pre-empt, I suppose, what might come out in this discussion, in Question Time today the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) reduced this matter to one of accusation and substantiation of accusation. I do not intend to follow the Minister's suggestion that I should make further allegations beyond those which have been made; nor do I intend to use this discussion as an opportunity to vilify individuals or to make outrageous statements or allegations. That is not my style, and it is certainly not the way in which I think matters of this sort ought to be dealt with. What I do want to do is to look at what steps the Minister has taken in relation to allegations that have been made and to question whether or not he has taken the most appropriate steps, having regard to the statements that have been made. First and foremost, I think it is important that honourable members understand the background against which I speak in matters of this sort. I do so having maintained a degree of interest in Aboriginal affairs questions over the 15 years that I have been in parliament. For some 10 years I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and for eight years, between 1975 and 1983, I chaired that Committee; and I regarded that as a great privilege in terms of my parliamentary responsibilities. I was involved in the writing of reports which I think documented in a most significant way the hardship which Aboriginals suffer and the difficulties they have as the most disadvantaged people, as a class of people, in Australia. I for one would not be a critic of effective programs directed towards the alleviation of the poverty and difficulties that Aboriginals experience. I remind honourable members that in the Aboriginal Health report which the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs wrote-it was a unanimous report-dealing with Aboriginals as a class of people, it was stated: Aboriginal society has changed irrevocably since European settlement in Australia. Entire social groups died as result of disease, dispossession, conflict and, in some cases, massacre. Large numbers of people succumbed to introduced illnesses and to the despair which characterises people dominated by a more powerful and alien society. The heritage of these often destructive contacts with European society has been continuing at inordinately high rates of ill health and poverty, and highly inadequate living conditions compounded by limited opportunities for education and employment. Like other minority groups living in depressed socio-economic circumstances, Aboriginals suffer feelings of worthlessness, apathy and hopelessness. I could go on and quote from the Aboriginal Legal Aid report, which also documented the extent to which Aboriginals in Australia suffer significantly. It documented the need for assistance, particularly in the area of discrimination and prejudice, as well as the social deprivation that Aboriginals suffer. It is against a background in which I recognise that evidence does support the need for special programs for Aboriginal people and a special and responsible caring attitude that I raise this matter today. If honourable members look at the reports with which I have assisted they will see that I am one who believes that Aboriginals should be involved in the administration of programs. I also acknowledge that there is a learning curve and a necessity to train Aboriginal people in terms of their ability to be able to participate in the delivery of programs. The approaches taken by the previous Government when it was in office were important in developing Aboriginal self-esteem which, in my view, is an important corollary to the efforts that are directed towards specific programs based on need. It ought to be noted that the efforts to involve Aboriginals in the administration of programs have been going on for quite a long time. Some of the people about whom we are talking have been involved in the administration of public programs for 15 years or more. That is a fact that is often forgotten. However, the success or otherwise of programs that are there for the benefit of Aboriginal people is very much dependent upon public confidence in the programs. There is a need for continuing accountability and effective management if that public confidence is to be maintained. Those who are in a position of leadership have a very special responsibility on behalf of Aboriginals. It is not just those of us in the Parliament and those involved in public life who have that responsibility. Those who accept responsibility for offering leadership within Aboriginal communities also carry with them that leadership role and the need to lead by example. It is important that the programs that are in place be not brought into disrepute. Regrettably, over a period trust in the administration of programs has been brought into disrepute. It has not come about by outrageous allegations. If one looks at the comments of people who are known for their caring attitude, one can see why we have a problem today. I wish to quote from what was said by the former Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in New South Wales, Pat O'Shane, on the radio program AM this morning. She was introduced as `Aboriginal activist, magistrate and the former Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs' and as welcoming the probe into the ADC. The leader stated: She says other publicly-funded Aboriginal organisation are ineptly run, and also warrant investigation. Pat O'Shane went on to say: One thing I would say is that in my opinion, it's very much overdue. There have been numerous allegations over some considerable years now about the financial management of the ADC and in more recent years, of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. She then went on to talk about the importance of training Aboriginal staff, and that is a matter which I acknowledge. When asked, again, whether other Aboriginal organisations deserve investigation, she replied: Yes, there are. Yes, there are. When she was asked `Which ones?', she replied: I certainly don't intend to name them on this program, publicly. But I'm sure the Government and other authorities can get to the bottom of them. I happen to know that concerns have been expressed directly to the Minister in respect of some organisations around the country, and I'm sure that the Minister, in the fullness of time, will move to investigate those accordingly. Those comments were from somebody who ought to know. But such comments are not all that new; they were not just made today. Mention was made in Question Time of a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. I do not want to quote from the minority report because the Minister might expect that I was being unduly partisan in doing so, but I understand that the Committee, in the summary of its recommendations, came to this view: The Committee will, in due course, prepare a more detailed report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the ADC, as well as a confidential report which will be made available to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This confidential report will deal with information and allegations of a serious nature which have come to the Committee's attention during the inquiry but which are generally peripheral to its terms of reference. Paragraph 1.10 stated: A number of other matters brought to the attention of the Committee have involved serious allegations of maladministration which in some instances may lead to criminal prosecution. So the Minister has had before him, before these questions arose in the Senate Estimates Committee this last week, serious allegations made about administration in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the ADC. The fact of the matter is that when we rest for support for Aboriginal programs on Australians-that is, Australians at large-and their perception of fairness, the way in which we deal with these questions is of the utmost importance. When Aboriginals live in the community and have to face non-Aboriginals, their relationships within the community are dependent upon that level of trust; the public confidence that is involved. I now come to the allegations that have been made. I want only to remind the Minister of the allegations, because reference was made to them extensively in Question Time, by Ann Forward in relation to the Minister's Department. The Minister will recall the question I put to him about the Department and what action he was intending to take regarding the Department itself. The Minister said that he saw the allegations concerning the ADC as being more serious accusations than those in relation to the Department and, for that reason, the Department was not being investigated. But the allegations that have been made by Ann Forward, representing the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA), related to the Department as well. She said: I have no hesitation in asserting that people have been recruited to the staff of the Department by a number of processes not provided for even in the special provisions established to facilitate entry of Aboriginal personnel. Her allegations also related to the Aboriginal Development Commission. Her correspondence raised serious questions. The point made by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was of the utmost importance in this matter because he brought out, as the full text of the letter which the Minister may find in Senate Estimates Committee E Hansard at page 281 makes clear, that not only are there malpractices but also those malpractices are not disclosed because those involved-that is, officers-are going to the ACOA, their union, complaining that they may be compromised through fear of reprisals or because they do not wish to be identified as racists or betrayers of the Aboriginal cause. It is interesting that in rebutting that the Minister called for allegations to be made, but in answering another question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) today he spoke of the network and the possible problems that people who were introduced to the Minister by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) might face if they were known to have pursued those matters with him. I am disappointed-that would be an understatement-about the way in which the Minister has responded to these allegations that have been made. They have been allegations which have been made over time. The Minister says that he wants to put them to rest. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I know how the Auditor-General operates. First and foremost, I know that the Auditor-General recently has been complaining about his own ability to undertake tasks which he faces. The Minister has said: As a result of a meeting with the Commissioners of the Aboriginal Development Commission in Canberra this morning I have invited the Commonwealth Auditor-General to undertake a comprehensive audit of the Commission. I do not know what is meant by the term `comprehensive audit'. If it is an audit in the form that the Auditor-General normally undertakes, which comprises about 80 per cent of his work, then it is certainly not the sort of inquiry that will cover the range of matters that have been raised. If it is to be a full efficiency audit, I very much doubt the capacity of the Auditor-General to undertake that task. I certainly doubt his capacity to undertake it in a timely and efficient way that will enable the Parliament to be apprised of the results of his inquiry in proper terms. In relation to the appointment of officers of the Department of Finance to assist the ADC on financial matters, knowing of the way in which the Department of Finance has a responsibility to assist all departments, I am astonished that it would be suggested that that is an appropriate response. There is clearly only one response that should be undertaken in relation to this matter-that is, a full and complete public inquiry into all the allegations that have been made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.13) —Like the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), I have been chairperson of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs; so I guess we have something in common in that regard. I have debated issues similar to this with the honourable member on a number of occasions. I make the point that he is a person whom I hold in high regard. The question we are dealing with relates to the administration of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio being to the detriment of Aboriginal people. I will deal briefly with the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). That matter is being addressed. There is no question of it not being addressed. I regret that the matter has been raised in a public way because there is no question that when one pinpoints an area and there are only a limited number of community organisations in that area one may have breached the privacy that those individuals sought. I find that very disturbing indeed. The matter is being addressed. We are having this debate today not because of the comments made by the honourable member for Dundas or comments made by one of the other questioners in this House. We are having it because of a series of actions that have occurred over a period both in the Parliament and outside the Parliament. On 10 December last year the Government announced a proposal to amalgamate the areas within my portfolio into a new commission. This exercise we are engaged in at this point in time is a culmination of events. It is a campaign that has been waged since that time. I apologise to some of the people in the gallery for not talking too much about this matter. I am keen to see that I am correct in what I say. I have been personally subjected to the most outrageous series of press statements. My staff have been subjected to all sorts of harassment. My staff have been harassed by members of this place. One of my staff members was personally abused by a prominent member of the Opposition in the Senate. Accusations have been made of improper practices by my staff. Outrageous claims have been made about the people who went to serve on the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) at my request. Extraordinary broad-brush comments have been made about all of the public servants and others employed in the four areas for which I am responsible. Incredible attacks have been made on Aboriginal people, with the specific purposes of damaging whatever chance we have of getting the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission into place in the latter part of this year. It has been a consis- tent and calculated campaign culminating in the Senate Estimates Committee. A small group of people in the ADC have set about a course of destruction. I hope that they are not aware of the consequences of their actions. We have had hundreds of questions. The previous speaker talked about getting on with the job. I have tried desperately to get on with the job, but the whole bureaucratic structure that I operate has been bogged down by a series of questions, half-truths and accusations about a black mafia. When Senator Tambling was questioned by the media as to why he used the phrase `a black mafia' his answer was, `Well, the only way I can get some attention from the press is to make an outrageous claim like that'. Mr Shipton —Do you call it a network? Mr HAND —The honourable member does not believe that. I use the term as I would have when I was living in the rural areas about the fact that if one pinpoints an area it does not take too long for the people around Mortlake to know who has the big hereford stud farm there. The honourable member knows whom I am talking about. We should not try to deflect the issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Higgins is not in his appropriate seat. Even if he were, he should not interject. Mr HAND —That is right. I think I have a reasonable reputation in this place for telling the truth. I say to the previous speaker that if he or anybody else has any proof of malpractice, corruption, extortion, nepotism or anything else I will act upon it. Mr MacKellar —Will you settle for a prima facie case? Mr HAND —I will settle for information in private that people want to put to me. I have done that all the time. There are people in this House who tell me things. They do not want me to make it public; they want it checked out. We operate a portfolio which is a minority type of view of the whole government. We cover every single type of policy. I say to the people on the other side of the House that this Government has not done everything right. I have not done everything right. No other Minister who has occupied this position would say that everything has gone right while he has been in the job either. But we have all tried, on both sides of the House. Aboriginal people do not deserve comments such as `the black mafia'. It is unfair. I draw one point to the Opposition's attention. There was a whole series of questions asked by Senator Tambling. This is the difficulty we have. Every one of those questions listed does not correspond with the Senate documents. How did he get the numbers wrong? Nearly every single question does not correspond. When Senator Tambling was asked about it, he said something about a typographical error. He must have a pretty crook typist, I would say; he probably did it himself. It is obvious where the information came from. People I have appointed to the board of the ADC systematically have been assassinated around this country for doing me a favour. I have hung back and put up with a lot over the last 12 months. I have put up with a lot of lies and deception by a small group of self-interested people who have told lies right around this nation. We are engaged in an absolute witch-hunt at the moment. It was put to me, `If you drop off ATSIC, we can come to some agreement'. I am not dropping off ATSIC. The honourable member for Dundas is correct in what he says: Aboriginal Affairs needs rejigging. Most people who work in Aboriginal Affairs want it to be rejigged. The honourable member for Dundas and the reports of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, when he was chairman and when I was chairman, all say one thing: Aboriginal people want to be involved in the decision-making process. That is why the policies of governments over the years probably have not worked as well as they should have. Too many decisions are made in isolation away from the people who are affected by them. We are trying to change that with the development of ATSIC. We are limited by time, but I would like to talk about the club-the famous Woden Town Centre club incident splattered across every newspaper in this country. Not one journalist has had the decency to question whether the so-called facts are correct. That is the problem. The `facts', as published, are wrong. I want to put my view on the record. I am totally opposed to the club being given grant moneys. I would not give a poker machine club 1c of public money. I have told the ADC commissioners that. However, I draw to the attention of honourable members the fact that it was not the new commissioners who made the decision. The decision was made in 1986. In 1988 the commissioners were faced with a Coopers and Lybrand report which, incidentally, the club had never seen. The commissioners had a choice of losing $1m or putting in more money to save the club. That is what they were faced with at their first meeting. Despite this fact, Senator Tambling and others have been denigrating and attacking people and writing them off. The honourable member for Dundas knows Lois O'Donoghue. I ask him: Is she part of some black mafia? Is Paddy Dodson part of some black mafia? We could go on. I will refer to other areas. These commissioners had very difficult decisions to make. The problem of Nardoola, for example, which is known to the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), goes back to 1981. Mr Webster —You haven't answered his questions. Mr HAND —Answers will be given very quickly. They have been prepared and will be published quickly. The point is that that problem goes back to 1981, for God's sake. Therefore, how can a new group of commissioners be responsible for that mess? Mr MacKellar —We are talking about you. Mr HAND —I am trying to rectify some injustices. I will take care of myself. People are quick to brand Aboriginal people. It is not fair. It is not fair on those individuals, some of whom lose money to go into these organisations at our request. They lose income. Their price for that is to be maligned. Every one of the accusations that have been made will be investigated. I apologise to the honourable member for Dundas, who proposed the matter of public importance, for my addressing some of these points. He said that he was not going to make emotional outbursts and make wild accusations. That is the sort of person he is. He is like that. That is why he always talks on these issues. However, I think that the members of the cheap shot brigade opposite who are trying to score a few points are outrageous. Their day will come, I tell them that. Senator Tambling, who has led the charge to the people in the press gallery, is on the record as saying in terms of the ADC report: The report before us today by the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) is a very commendable one because it looks, as other senators have said, at the story of an organisation that has grown through many growth pains to a position of success. He went on in the same vein. His remarks were full of praise for the ADC. All of the issues he is now raising stem from that period. I will investigate all of those accusations. I have an open door policy. I will investigate all those issues. However, it is extremely difficult when one is questioned about the integrity of people whom one knows to be honest and hardworking and whose crime has been to say, `Look, under the Act we 10 people are charged with administering this body. You set it up. We are the commissioners'. Their crime has been that they have dared to ask the bureaucracy and the ADC for an opportunity to look at documents before they are sent out. They have asked, `Let us have a look at the documents before you present them to the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs. Let us look at the Senate document before you present it under our banner'. What happens to those people? The Senate has them up on a breach of privilege, for God's sake! How, for example, would the managing directors of Myers or BHP get away with just whacking out their annual reports without showing them to anybody? These people have been attacked in the most vicious, political and dishonest way ever. Honourable members opposite ought to be ashamed of themselves. Honourable members opposite can laugh, but it is true. It is damned true. The public ought to understand that. They ought to understand that this is the biggest witch-hunt ever. There are mistakes made in Aboriginal affairs. If we talk to Aboriginal people, they will agree. But they are not crooks and they are not members of the mafia. That sort of cheap shot is having terrible repercussions around this country. People are scoring points. The honourable member for Dundas knows how the system works. People in the community are saying, `See, we told you so'. People are striving to improve the lot of their communities. The Government is wanting to get on and implement the programs it has provided funding for this year. However, what have we got? We have got a massive conspiracy and a bog-down. There is no need for it. We have had the actions of Senator Tambling and Senator Short. Let us look at Senator Short, who funded his election preselection battle in 1975, when he worked for the Treasury, out of travel expenses. Let us analyse the way we spend travel allowances in this place. How dare those in the Senate question who lives with whom? If we tried that out here, we would go blind trying to work out who lived with whom. However, Aboriginal people are fair game to be attacked. I say to honourable members opposite that the problems will be addressed. They will be fixed. Any honourable member opposite can check whether I am doing that. The bureaucracy is not crook. The Aboriginal communities are not crook. The reason we are bringing people in to look at the Aboriginal Development Commission is to prove the very point that Aboriginal people are decent and want to get on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(4.28) —The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) said in a preamble to his speech that he regretted that he had to comment on this situation. I regret too that I have to comment on a situation of the Government's making-a situation which is seriously harming, as the matter of public importance states, the cause of Aboriginal advancement in this country. Over the last five years the Government has achieved two very clear things in Aboriginal affairs. Firstly, there is the Government's self-indulgent rhetoric about national land rights and treaties. This action by the Government has disillusioned Aboriginals and alienated non-Aboriginals. Secondly, the Government's incompetent oversight of the portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs has discredited the difficult task of Aboriginal development in the eyes of the taxpaying community. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) dismisses the claims made against his administration as mere politicking. His departmental secretary has tried to portray those claims as part of a racist witch-hunt. I consider both comments to be very insulting to this Parliament and untrue. The question before us today is this: Who is responsible for this damaging public exposure of departmental and Aboriginal Development Commission malpractice? Is it the Opposition, which is duty bound to raise publicly questions concerning abuse of public office and wastage of public moneys? Or is it the Government, whose incompetence produced the situation and whose refusal to acknowledge the problem has forced the matter to be raised publicly in the manner that it has? The two questions before us subsequently are these: Exactly what is going on in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? Why have senior union leaders, Aboriginal leaders and the Opposition been forced to use Estimates committees, Question Time, matters of public importance and the media to get the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to do his job? The point is that what has now been made public by a responsible Opposition has been known to most observers for over 12 months. As Pat O'Shane confirmed this morning on the radio, everyone with anything to do with Aboriginal affairs knows that over the last five years the tardiness of the Government's management has seen incompetence develop and rorts take over. They are not my words. Everyone has given the Minister time to settle in and then, on many occasions, the benefit of the doubt. I take his word that he has worked extremely hard and is really taking his portfolio seriously, but many areas do come up for question. But now it is time for the Parliament and the people to be provided with the answers to the questions which have surfaced over the last week. The point is that when the Minister greets with surprise news of serious malpractice and patronage in his portfolio, either he is not being totally honest or he is revealing, it seems, how out of touch he is with his portfolio administration. How on earth can these things happen otherwise? The latter situation must be looked at as a real possibility. For the last five years, agenda formulation in the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio has been dominated by political activists. That is a very significant point. These activists have been concerned more with the higher abstract concern of sovereignty over what they call the Euro-Australian federal state, and less with the mundane priorities of good health, sound education and income self- reliance for Aboriginals. The preoccupation with political semantics and political structures reached its peak under the current Minister. Indeed, this Minister, in his brief period as Minister, has focused totally on his proposed treaty and his grand political plan known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). As the evidence now before us shows, that preoccupation has led to the neglect of the oversight of his portfolio to the extent that he has had to call in the Auditor-General and the Department of Finance to tell him what is going on in his Department and to suggest a solution in regard to what appears to be endemic mismanagement, distorted priorities and patronage. If this issue were just about politics, then the Opposition would have settled for scoring points off an embattled Minister at Question Time. But it is more important than that. If we want to reinforce stereotypes in the community about fraud by blacks and about the vanity of efforts to help Aboriginal communities, the best way to go is the way of incompetence in allocating and monitoring funds and power in the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. Margaret Valadian from the Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute stated: To allow for lower than normal levels of accountability in Aboriginal affairs is to insult the intelligence of Aboriginal people. But it is also to put at risk the support for Aboriginal advancement amongst non- Aboriginals which achieved such significant levels in the late 1960s and the late 1970s under coalition governments. Public concern about the administration of this portfolio is eroding that once-significant consensus, to the detriment of the cause of Aboriginal development. Of course, mismanagement of funds allocated to this portfolio has a more direct consequence for Aboriginal people: it deprives them of the means to lift themselves out of the disadvantage which oppresses them. We hear a lot of talk today about the fact that the Aboriginal people in Australia-and there is absolutely no denying it-are the most disadvantaged people that we have. Enormous amounts of money are being redirected to other areas-not to the areas that will allow them to lift themselves out of these tremendous disadvantages which oppress them so much in so many different areas. Money absorbed by an inefficient or confused bureaucracy presents for Aboriginals what economists call an opportunity cost. Recent research by Professor Treadgold suggests that Aboriginal people have gained little from 10 years of funding this portfolio. So there needs to be a tremendous re-examination of the whole matter. The Minister has suggested that this, indeed, is the case. The debate today gives us an insight into why that research is probably quite accurate. What would best serve Aboriginal advancement is not the grandiose ATSIC blueprints of the Minister, or the dangerous treaty proposals of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke); rather, what would best suit Aboriginal people is a government with its priorities in order, a Minister concerned with excellence in his portfolio, and a bureaucracy which minimises-I emphasise that word-its share of the funds allocated to help Aboriginals maximise their efforts to overcome their problems at the community level. The Minister says that he will clean up his Department and related bodies. He denies, however, it seems, both the gravity of the problem and the fact that the situation is as serious as it is, because he has refused to act earlier. I say that with great concern. The Opposition comes here today, first, to say that we believe the Minister through his inactivity-even though he has made great efforts, as he claims-has harmed the trust of this place and of the people of Australia by his tardy oversight of areas for which he is responsible. I mention the fact that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has been waiting for almost a year for answers to some questions that he has had on notice. Secondly, and more significantly, the Opposition points to the obvious-that the greatest harm being done in this sorry situation is that being done to Aboriginal people and Aboriginal advancement. I put it to the House that on both counts the Minister and the Government deserve strong criticism. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(4.38) —It gives me no pleasure to be involved in this debate, because it is the result of unsubstantiated assertions, innuendo and attacks on the character of Aboriginal people throughout the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, throughout the Aboriginal Development Corporation and throughout every Aboriginal community-controlled organisation in Australia. That is the result of this attack. There has not been one shred of evidence to substantiate the allegations which have been made by the Opposition. Let me just for a moment put to rest the concerns about the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has talked about his role with the Auditor-General's reports. He might like to know what the Auditor-General said recently about the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I will quote it, for his edification: Audits of the payment of salaries and allowances by the Darwin, Perth and Canberra Offices of the Department were undertaken in 1987-88. The audits sought to assess the adequacy of procedures and controls in authorising payment of salaries and allowances. The audits disclosed several procedural and administrative deficiencies which were referred to the Department. In particular, they included an absence of required directions to staff aimed at ensuring that there are adequate internal controls for the preparation and maintenance of accurate and valid payroll data. In response the Department advised of remedial action taken or proposed. That is the sum total of the Auditor- General's criticism of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; that is the sum total of the attacks upon this administration by the Auditor-General. The honourable member for Dundas expresses concern and seeks to demonstrate his integrity by giving us a history of his involvement in Aboriginal affairs. If he had any integrity he would not be involved in this debate, because he ought to know what happened at the Senate Estimates Committee. He ought to know about the derogatory way in which Opposition senators attacked Aboriginal people, using a broad brush, without any thought for their feelings and without any thought for the accuracy of the allegations. All they were concerned about was besmirching Aboriginal people. That is what has resulted from the attacks by Senator Tambling and Senator Short, neither of whom has one iota of credibility within the Aboriginal community and both of whom would be roundly denigrated by Aboriginal people throughout Australia if they went before Aboriginal people and made these accusations in the way in which they have done at a meeting of a Senate Estimates committee. Not only is Senator Tambling prepared to attack the daughter of the permanent head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs because she happens to be his daughter, but also he has sought to make sure that that mud sticks. We saw his accusations picked up by the press gallery and the front page of a major Australian daily. That person's name has been smeared-and the allegations have been demonstrated to be false. That is what the honourable member for Dundas is associated with. The civil liberties of Australians have been undermined by the attacks made by Senator Short and Senator Tambling in the Senate Estimates Committee. Even convicted people have rights but Opposition members are not prepared to accept that those rights exist. They have demonstrated no compassion or concern for the accuracy of the allegations which have been brought forward. The honourable member for Dundas can argue as much as he likes about his credibility but, in my view, his association and the association of the honourable member for Macarthur with these allegations demonstrate that their credibility, their supposed concern for Aboriginal people and for civil liberties, is non-existent. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) has continually said that if any member of the Opposition is concerned about any matters relating to the administration of his portfolio, if any accusations can be substantiated, his door is open. How many times has Senator Tambling, Senator Short, the honourable member for Macarthur, the honourable member for Dundas, or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-`the little boy', as he was referred to by Yami Lester-graced his door? Not once have they taken up the Minister's offer. Yet he made it today, he made it yesterday and he made it as soon as he got into the portfolio. Opposition members are prepared to besmirch Aboriginal people. What are the results of their accusations? They do three things. First, they undermine the confidence of the wider Australian community and the ability of Aboriginal people to manage their own affairs. Are the honourable member for Macarthur and the honourable member for Dundas happy with that? Mr Webster —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want the honourable member for Macarthur to receive any criticism that should be directed at me, the member for Macquarie. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Yes, the honourable member for Macquarie is quite correct. Mr SNOWDON —I am pleased to see that the honourable member for Macquarie has owned up and that he is prepared to wear the badge of honour that he so undoubtedly deserves for the cowardly way in which he is supporting the allegations made by his Party. He ought to accept some of the responsibility that will be sheeted home to the Opposition for the way in which it has sought to undermine the Government's moves towards reconciliation since it first came into power in 1983. Opposition members know what they are doing: they are appealing to the most basic racist emotions of people in our community. That is their objective. They are not running away from it. They know what the result will be. They know too well what making unsubstantiated attacks will do. Secondly, members of the Opposition undermine the credibility of the arguments for a treaty when they say that Aboriginal people are irresponsible. They know that that will be the outcome. Thirdly, they are attempting to use every method possible to undermine the growing public support for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). Look at the history of it. What has happened over the past seven or eight months in this House? An offer was made to the Opposition to join the Government in a bipartisan resolution prepared by the churches acknowledging Aboriginal prior ownership. What did the Opposition do? It refused. There was an invitation to the Opposition to be constructively involved in the development of ATSIC. Again, the Opposition refused, just as it refused to countenance the development of a treaty with Aboriginal Australians. Instead, the Opposition has embarked on a deliberate campaign to scuttle any chance of a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs in this, our bicentennial year. The accusations made by honourable members opposite in this debate have been a vehicle for the Opposition to outline clearly what is on its agenda for Aboriginal Australians, and Aboriginal Australians know what it is. It is a return to the assimilationist claptrap of one Australia-the 1960s mentality which pervades the Opposition's front bench and which is reflected in the attitudes and aspirations of Senator Tambling and Senator Short. I would have thought that the honourable member for Dundas would not want to be associated with those two people in this matter, yet that is what has happened. He says he is concerned but he has no concern. If he had any concern he would have marched over to the Senate and punched those two blokes on the nose because they have reflected on him. Mr McGauran —These are your sanctimonious bleatings. Why don't you face the reality of it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will not enter the chamber and conduct himself in that manner. Mr SNOWDON —He has demonstrated what a fool he is. It might be worth while reflecting up on the reception that the Federal coalition policy on Aboriginal affairs received from Yami Lester and the Pitjantjatjara people at Ernabella. In conclusion, I quote from a press release containing remarks addressed to the Opposition: In a public speech Mr Lester roundly condemned the recently released Liberal/National Coalition Aboriginal Affairs policy. ``You are not working for one Australia with this policy; you are making sure our people can never stand as equals.'' Honourable members opposite should think about it. It goes on: ``It seems more like a paper to attack the Labor Party rather than looking at the real needs and dreams of our people'' . . . Mr Howard was also reminded of Anangu support for the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). ``It will give us real power to make decisions for our own region . . . We ask you to support this new law and make it strong, not attack it just because your party did not think of it''. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The time for the debate has expired. Assent to the following Bills reported: Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1988 Social Security (Review of Decisions) Bill 1988 Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The first purpose of this new Privacy Bill is, like its 1986 predecessor, to regulate the collection, handling and use by Commonwealth departments and agencies of information about individuals. The Privacy Bill will establish an independent privacy guardian, the Privacy Commissioner, within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, to oversee these matters and handle complaints. In addition, the Bill provides guidelines for the collection, storage, use and security of tax file number information which all tax file number information users are required to comply with. At the present time, our privacy rights are protected by various existing branches of the law which provide limited protection. The laws on defamation, breach of confidence, copyright and passing off can be used to prevent unauthorised circulation of personal information or comment in various circumstances. Also, statutory secrecy provisions in Commonwealth legislation such as section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the vigilance of parliamentary bodies and other community groups have been important in maintaining and promoting the individual's right to privacy. The enormous developments in technology for the processing of information are providing new and, in some respects, undesirable opportunities for the greater use of personal information. These developments have focused attention on the need for the regulation of the collection and use of personal information by government agencies and for an independent community spokesperson for privacy. The Privacy Commissioner will ensure that some balance is brought to the debate as to the desirability of using the opportunities provided by new information technology to their fullest extent. There is no doubt that with the greater range of services being provided, governments are accumulating more personal information about individuals in order to provide those services efficiently and effectively. This, together with the ever-increasing capacity of modern computers to search and process information, offers significant potential for invasion of personal privacy by misuse. Also, the legitimate needs of agencies in acquiring personal information and the use made of it must be balanced against the need to sustain personal privacy. It is now clear that legislation is necessary to meet the challenge that information technology is posing for the individual's right to retain some measure of personal privacy. Again, the Privacy Commissioner will have a role in providing advice to government in this area. Internationally, there is an increasing trend for governments to enact privacy legislation. The Council of Europe's Convention on Data Protection and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidelines on personal privacy have been developed to encourage countries to take privacy protection measures. Australia has formally signified its intention to adhere to the guidelines and in so doing to take into account in any privacy legislation the principles set out in those guidelines. Most European countries, the United States of America and Canada have enacted privacy protection legislation. It is now an appropriate time for Australia to enact such legislation. The Government has been giving detailed consideration for some time to comprehensive information privacy protection legislation. In December 1983 a very detailed report and recommendations were received from the Law Reform Commission following a reference to the Commission in 1976. The recommendations included draft legislation which drew on the OECD guidelines. In 1986 this Government introduced privacy legislation. There has been considerable comment and debate on the proposals contained in that Bill. The Government has taken account of those comments in formulating the current Bill. The scheme of the Privacy Bill is to enunciate a series of rules, called information privacy principles, which are based on the principles recommended by the Law Reform Commission in its draft legislation. Under the principles, Commonwealth agencies must have a lawful purpose for collecting personal information, and the purpose must be related to the functions or activities of the collector. An agency collecting personal information from the individual to whom the information relates must see that that person is generally aware of such things as the purpose for which the information is being collected, whether it is compulsory to supply that information and the collector's usual disclosure practices in relation to that information. The principles require agencies, when both collecting and retaining information, to see that it is relevant to the purpose of collection, up-to-date and complete. Before using any information, agencies must also check its accuracy. `Personal information' is widely defined to include anything-act, true or false, or opinion-that reasonably identifies an individual. The principles require agencies to store information records securely against loss or misuse. They are to provide information about the types of personal information they hold. Subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 exemptions they are to provide an individual with access to his or her personal information records and to make corrections for accuracy, relevance and completeness. Subject to certain specific exceptions, notably for law enforcement and preservation of life, information may not be used for a purpose or disclosed to a person other than with the agreement of the individual concerned. The exceptions recognise that any claim for privacy by an individual must be considered against equally justified claims by other individuals and the community. This legislation also recognises the special nature of medical research, in particular epidemiological research. To that end provision has been made to give the Privacy Commissioner and the National Health and Medical Research Council a role in the development and approval of privacy guidelines in the conduct of such research. Commonwealth agencies will be required to comply with the information privacy principles. A breach of the principles will be deemed by the Bill to be an `interference with privacy'. Under the Bill an individual will be able to complain to the Privacy Commissioner about alleged interferences with privacy, who will attempt to resolve the allegations by conciliation and, failing that, make binding determinations against agencies, including determinations for compensation and costs. In effect, the Privacy Commissioner will be the means by which there will be accountability to the public on the use by government of their personal information. The Commissioner will be empowered to undertake random audits of agencies' databases to ensure their adherence to the information privacy principles. To help agencies achieve compliance with the principles, the Privacy Commissioner will be able to give advisory opinions, issue guidelines and examine proposed enactments for privacy implications. Where an agency believes that a current or proposed practice that may breach the principles is nevertheless essential to its operations, it will be able to seek from the Commissioner a determination allowing the practice to continue or go ahead without risk of its being found to be an interference with privacy. Such a determination may be granted only if the Commissioner is satisfied that the public interest in permitting the practice substantially outweighs the public interest in adherence to the principles. Such determinations will be able to be disallowed by the Parliament. The information privacy principles in the Privacy Bill will apply to Commonwealth departments and agencies to the same extent that the Freedom of Information Act applies to them. Since the 1986 Bill the Government has introduced the tax file number legislation which has substantial penalties for unauthorised requests for, recording and disclosure of tax file numbers. The Privacy Bill supplements those protections by providing additional privacy protections by way of requiring that tax file number users comply with statutory guidelines. The Privacy Commissioner, in consultation with the proposed Privacy Advisory Committee, will issue guidelines for the collection, storage, use and security of tax file number information to assist the Commissioner of Taxation and all bodies and individuals lawfully using tax file numbers on what measures should be taken to protect privacy interests. These guidelines will be reviewable by the Parliament which will be able to disallow them. To ensure that tax file number legislation does not come into operation without adequate privacy protection measures being in place, the Bill includes interim guidelines. These are expressed in broad and general terms, and it is expected that after consultation they will be replaced by more specific guidelines. The Privacy Commissioner will be able to investigate complaints about alleged misuse of tax file numbers and attempt to conciliate and, failing that, make determinations, including a determination for compensation or costs. Such determinations will not be formally binding as between the parties. If compliance with the Privacy Commissioner's determination is not forthcoming, either the Privacy Commissioner or the complainant will be able to apply to the Federal Court of Australia to have the determinations enforced. Where a complaint is made and the Privacy Commissioner considers that there may be a breach of the offence provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, the Privacy Commissioner is required to inform the appropriate law enforcement authorities of the complaint and suspend his investigations until the relevant law enforcement processes are completed. I turn to the Government's approach to privacy regulation in relation to the private sector. As I have indicated, the information privacy principles apply only to Commonwealth agencies. Unlike the tax file number guidelines they do not apply to the private sector. The Privacy Commissioner is required to encourage corporations to develop programs for the handling of records of personal information that are consistent with the OECD guidelines on personal privacy. The Commissioner is required to report annually to the Government on the success of these arrangements. The Commissioner will be available to advise private sector bodies on privacy measures and it is hoped that corporations will take significant steps in the future in this regard. The Government will reassess this approach following advice from the Privacy Commissioner. Of course, the tax file number guidelines will apply to the private sector. I mentioned earlier that the law of confidence is an important existing means of protecting privacy in some circumstances. The Bill includes some limited extensions of the law of confidence recommended by the Law Reform Commission which will further enhance privacy protection. The Bill also includes amendments of the Freedom of Information Act to extend the opportunities for individuals to have access to their personal affairs records and establishes the requirement for such individuals to be alerted to requests for access to those records by others. It also makes essentially machinery amendments to ensure that privacy complaints wrongly directed to other agencies are transferred to the Privacy Commissioner for investigation under the Privacy Bill without inconvenience to the complainant. The Office of Privacy Commissioner, to be established under the Privacy Bill, is expected to have a direct cost to the Government of around $970,000 in a full-year operation. The Privacy Bill is the first legislation in Australia to establish a comprehensive code of privacy protection and to provide an enforceable right to privacy. It will provide a practical means for persons who have been adversely affected by a failure to comply with those standards to seek redress. It will also provide an effective mechanism for safeguarding the rights of individuals in relation to the tax file number scheme. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(5.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill represents the final part of the package of legislation introduced by the Government to establish self-government for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The Bill makes provision for necessary transitional and consequential matters arising from the establishment of the ACT as a body politic by the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill 1988. Its object is to ensure that the normal business of government and existing rights enjoyed by residents and transferred staff continue during the transfer of functions from the Commonwealth to the ACT. The Government will ensure that the transfer of power to ACT residents and its elected government is smooth and with as little disruption as possible to their everyday lives. The Commonwealth is particularly concerned to look after the interests of staff who are to be transferred to the employment of the ACT. Provisions in this Bill ensure the preservation of existing conditions of service under various Commonwealth legislation, including conditions relating to workers' compensation, long service leave, maternity leave, superannuation and grievance appeals. The ACT will be free, of course, to make its own provisions for its employees, but before it may do so consultations must take place with the Commonwealth and relevant unions. The Bill makes a number of interim arrangements relating to administrative law. The Bill also provides for the transfer to the ACT of rights, assets and contracts of the Commonwealth which relate to transferred functions. Specific provision is made to transfer to the ACT Commonwealth moneys applied in the Territory for territorial purposes and to protect appropriately the financial interests of the Commonwealth. The provisions of this Bill will, in themselves, have no financial impact on the Commonwealth other than in the context of proposed financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the ACT. I will now address the various parts of the Bill. Part I deals with commencement and interpretative matters. Part II details the various transitional matters I have mentioned before and allows any further necessary consequential and transitional matters to be dealt with by the regulations or ACT ordinance. Part III contains a number of schedules which effect modifications and amendments to various Commonwealth legislation. Schedules 1 to 4 contain modifications to Commonwealth employment legislation in its application to staff transferred to the employment of the Territory. The modifications recognise that such staff will be answerable to Territory Ministers and the ACT Legislative Assembly. By and large, amendments detailed in schedule 5 ensure that, for the purposes of the application of various Commonwealth Acts, the ACT is treated in the same manner as are the States and the Northern Territory. Schedule 5 also contains amendments to place the government of Jervis Bay on the same footing as other Commonwealth Territories which do not have self-government. As I have said in relation to the introduction of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill, the transfer of functions from the Commonwealth to the ACT represents a challenge for the people of the ACT. For the first time, they will have a real say in how they are governed. I am confident they will exercise the rights and accept the obligations which other Australians who live outside the ACT take for granted. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Debate resumed from 12 October, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.06) —A Bill to amend the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987 was introduced into this House on Wednesday, 12 October this year. The background to this legislation is as follows: on 1 January 1988 the marketing of crude oil was deregulated. This meant that the Government ceased to determine import parity pricing, which was the basis of calculating crude oil excise. Instead, the calculation of the crude oil excise is now based on the volume weighted average of realised prices for all sales of Bass Strait crude oil. This price is determined by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) under the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987. Since deregulation commenced on, as I said, 1 January, certain types of crude oil transactions have occurred which are not strictly covered by the 1987 Act. Examples of such transactions are barter deals, exchanges and conversion of oil to products which are then sold-commonly known in the industry as tolling. In other words, arrangements are entered into under which the producer does not sell the oil directly but offloads it for profit without the exchange of moneys usual in a commercial operation. I should point out that a process of appeal by producers dissatisfied with the Minister's determination remains for those types of transactions as it does under the principal Act. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy assures us in his second reading speech that it is not possible to specify the amount which will be raised as a result of these transactions being subject to his determination. So the only thing that can safely be said about the financial impact of the legislation before the House is that it will obviously increase revenue to the Government. Incidentally, the total revenue from the crude oil excise in 1988-89 is estimated to be $1.4 billion. While the Opposition does not oppose the Bill before the House, I wish to place it in context. To do so will necessitate some observations on my part on the present state of the oil industry as well as future trends. The importance of the oil industry to Australia is self-evident and certainly I nor anyone else in this place need dwell upon it. Total excise duty from crude oil, liquid petroleum gas and petroleum products represents some 10 per cent of all Government revenue. A ball park figure in monetary terms is $9 billion. It is difficult to estimate exactly the number of people directly and indirectly employed as a result of the petroleum industry but the number is estimated to be at least 120,000. In reality the figure is probably much higher. Oil supplies 41 per cent of Australia's energy needs. In addition, over the years Australia has exported large quantities of oil with an obvious beneficial effect on our balance of payments. Self-sufficiency in oil has aided immeasurably in Australia's growth as a nation. All this, however, is rapidly changing-for two principal reasons. First, oil reserves are being depleted and production is in decline. Currently, in net terms, Australia is 90 per cent self-sufficient. By the early 1990s self-sufficiency is expected to decline, in net terms, to about 65 per cent. Without further discoveries and the development of new fields, we are likely to be only 20 to 30 per cent self-sufficient by the year 2000. The Australian Minerals and Energy Council forecasts that Commonwealth revenues from crude oil will halve to $1 billion per annum by the early 1990s and drop further to $165m by the year 2000. The second reason why Australia is complacent in taking for granted self-sufficiency and the economic benefits that flow so freely is that the price of oil has crashed in recent months. Even the most optimistic forecasts would have us believe that prices will remain low for a long time to come. It is always hazardous trying to estimate the future price of oil, but it seems that it is likely to hover around $US10 a barrel into the early 1990s and then fluctuate between $US10 and $US20 a barrel for the remainder of the decade. But some pessimists would have us believe that the price will go well below $US10 per barrel. Naturally, that remains to be seen but, even so, nobody can take any joy from any of the estimates made by some of the most sophisticated research institutes in the world. Naturally, this drop in the price of oil has had a drastic effect on the level of exploration undertaken by the oil companies. To put it simply, unless the Government tackles both these problems-and they are intertwined-Australia will face an economic crisis. We suffer a reduction in revenue while increasing outgoings. To deal with our future, the Government has to re-examine the articles of faith which have governed its approach to the oil industry to date. I refer principally but not exclusively to the tax regime that governs the oil industry. Whilst I believe that the Government must look afresh at its conduct of issues such as government regulation and industrial relations, I will concentrate my remarks this afternoon on the tax regime. The taxes imposed on the oil industry can be collectively defined as secondary taxes; that is, they are taxes in addition to the corporate income tax. There is, firstly, the imposition of royalties. Royalties are payable on crude oil production and are based on the wellhead value of the oil. Then there is the crude oil excise levy, which is under discussion in the House at present. The maximum rate of 87 per cent was reduced to 80 per cent in August 1986 after the very steep drop in world oil prices led to a cessation of oil exports. The effective rate is scheduled to be reduced to 75 per cent over the next five years. We may also take into account the resource rent tax, the subject of a very controversial piece of legislation which was passed in December 1987. The resource rent tax replaces the royalties and the crude oil excise levy for new offshore fields. A further form of secondary taxation is the excise duty on petroleum products. The excise duty on petrol is adjusted twice a year according to increases in the consumer price index-on 1 February and 1 August. One certainly does not have to be an Einstein to realise that the oil and petroleum industry is taxed extremely heavily. When times were good, which was really the case until the 1980s, there may have been justification for government getting in for its take of this natural resource, but there is a new reality which I am very concerned the Government is not properly taking into account. When we have declining reserves combined with a massive fall in the return on investment because of the drastic fall in oil prices, the Government has to look afresh at the tax regime-not out of sympathy for any corporation but simply out of self-interest. That requires a rethinking on the part of government. It is terribly important that the Government does not regard the oil industry or, for that matter, any of the energy industries in Australia as something akin to a production line whereby one can churn out the same product endlessly at more or less the same cost and one is assured of production. As it was put to me by one senior participant in the petroleum industry, the industry is not like a jam factory. The reason, of course, is that oil is a non-renewable resource. Once it is tapped and used, we have to explore and replenish the stock. Therefore, exploration is the lifeblood of the oil industry. Government taxes must be so structured as to encourage exploration, not act as a disincentive. Let me take as an example the offshore production of Bass Strait, which is next to my electorate of Gippsland. In Gippsland the Government is reducing the top marginal excise rate by way of a number of steps from 87 per cent prior to the world oil price collapse of 1986 to 75 per cent from about mid-1989. When royalties of 12 1/2 per cent-one of those iniquitous, or ubiquitous, secondary taxes that I spoke of earlier-and a corporate income tax of 39 per cent are included, the government tax on each barrel from mid-1989 will still be 87 per cent of the selling price. An example of how government can encourage exploration is the announcement in the middle of last year-July, if my memory serves me correctly-of a 30 million barrel excise holiday on new developments in Gippsland. This was a step in the right direction, because it has encouraged Esso not only to explore but also to develop smaller fields. Two which will will be on stream within the next 12 months, and planning for the tapping of which is already well advanced, are Dolphin and Perch. They will be developed by unmanned rigs-a quite fascinating engineering development in itself. This is a very good example of where the Government provides an incentive to the industry to continue its exploration efforts. These smaller fields which would not be developed at all if the same level of excise that applies to some of the more established larger fields were to apply. So I welcome the Goverment's concession, albeit somewhat small in the scale of things, that there will be no excise for fields which produce less than 30 million barrels. The Government must understand the industry. It must assist the industry to explore, to replenish the oil used. It is a constant battle for the industry to discover new fields. It is high risk and it is expensive. The system has drastically changed since those halcyon days of past decades when it seemed that the oil would flow for all of eternity. I am reminded of the memorable television show, the Beverly Hillbillies. That hillbilly family came to fame and fortune by the accidental discovery of oil on its Texas farm and was funded endlessly by this continuous stream of oil. In many ways Australia has acted as did Jed Clampett and his family. We in this country never thought that we would have to face up to the fact that we would have to rely very heavily so soon on oil imports. We never had to face up to the fact that revenue gained from the oil industry would fall so drastically and so quickly-so much that Esso and Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP), partners in the Gippsland Basin, have shut in production to the tune of 25,000 barrels per day because to continue to produce the amount they were producing would cost them very dearly. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be only too well aware, Esso and BHP have approached the Government and suggested that economically they may be forced to shut in 80,000 barrels per day-in the order of one-fifth of the production from the Gippsland fields. That would be an economic decision on the part of Esso and BHP as well as the Government. But the truth is that the seriousness of the situation must surely be brought home to the Government. Frankly, in my view, if the economics show that continued production of 80,000 barrels per day will cause a loss to Esso and BHP, the Government has no choice but to lower the excise levy. The arithmetic would clearly show that, if no profit is made by BHP and Esso and, rather, a loss is sustained, the Government really has no choice but to cut the excise. After all, it is far better to collect a lower excise from a greater volume than to collect a higher excise from a smaller volume. The chickens have come home to roost. It is not something for which I wish to lay the blame entirely at the feet of this Government. Regrettably, past governments have also placed too much reliance on the revenue creamed off the oil industry. But the gravy train for all Australians is grinding to a halt. I am not convinced that this Government is going to provide the stimulus and incentive to the oil industry by way of lower secondary taxation, which, I hasten to add, I am opposed to in principle. The return of a Liberal-National Party government would see an easing of the burden and a decrease in the reliance on secondary taxation. In my view, a tax regime on resources should always be based on people's ability to pay. It should be based on profitability. But that is not what is happening now. What is happening under this Government-and this extends right across the resources sector-is that the tax regime is non-profit based. This affects competitiveness because it affects the cost of production. Tax after competition on the free market when a profit is made is legitimate; that is how it ought to be. But we are finding that there are government charges, royalties and a whole number of other government takes that affect the competitiveness of the resources sector. The Government replies to such an argument by declaring that it is not in the business of taking risks. It wants assured revenues. Petroleum and mining are high risk ventures. But taxes which are non-profit based and all of the related charges affect competitiveness and act as a disincentive to exploration. There is no relief when relief is necessary. As profit diminishes, so will taxation in the long run. That is the message that the Government has to heed. If profits are abnormally high, the Government takes a share by way of profit based tax, or corporate taxation, but a lack of competitiveness will diminish the profit. So the Government might get a large take on the present volume, but it will win out more if exploration continues and new fields are found and developed. If I may digress from the petroleum debate before the House at present, let me take, for example, the question of a tax on the gold industry. This matter comes into the argument about the tax regime on our resources. People say, `Why should the gold industry not be taxed in the same way everybody else is?' Farmers in my own electorate of Gippsland say to me, `I pay tax; why is the gold industry not taxed?' This argument then suggests that there should be equity between all taxpayers. I find that an argument worthy of Gough Whitlam; it is very socialistic in its terms. What those people in effect are saying is that we should be dragging every industry down to the same level of taxation. I believe that the gold industry should be serving as an example for all resource based taxes, because the tax regime applicable to the gold industry has led to a boom in that industry. Does anybody really believe that imposing a tax on the gold industry would bring about a lessening of tax anywhere else? Rather, the gold industry should be serving as the model; it should not be regarded as the anomaly. If we put a brake on the gold industry as it bowls along, we will stop its progress dead in its tracks. Whole towns in Western Australia that I have visited have been established or expanded only because of the growth in the gold industry. I could speak at length on this issue, but I will return to it another day when we are debating legislation which specifically refers to the issue. It is argued that we should be developing alternative sources of fuel-synthetic fuels, liquefied petroleum gas and natural gas. Naturally, all of this amounts to a great idea, but it is not going to do very much, at least in the short term. It is great to develop these alternative sources, but they will not come on stream for a very long time and will contribute to only a small proportion of our energy needs. Increased exploration is the answer. The Government is not allowing optimum development and people are missing out. The national interest has to be considered. It is not in the national interest for our petroleum industry to wither on the vine: rather, it is in the national interest, because of the dependence of government on oil revenue, to continue exploration and to encourage development. Secondary taxes killed off the resources boom in the early 1980s because profits could not be ploughed back into expansion, further exploration. The best service that government can render the petroleum industry or, for that matter, any resource-based industry is to stay out of it. It does not want assistance, but neither does it want distortions. As I have argued, a reduction in excise by this Government has already borne fruit. Two fields are being developed in Gippsland which would not otherwise have been even considered as an economic proposition. Indeed, a number of existing rigs in Bass Strait could be expanded if the excise was lower. This Government assumes that old oil cannot be better tapped, but it should not assume that a number of those fields in Gippsland would not be extended if there was not a more favourable excise regime. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. After all, if we are to have a system of determining the crude oil excise, we cannot have exceptions or loopholes. I might add that the industry itself accepts that. However, the Opposition is very concerned that this Government is showing no serious intent to phase out the crude oil excise with an end objective of doing away with it altogether. Naturally, that involves questions of fiscal policy. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has told us time and again in this place that he does not intend reducing government expenditure-in other words, decreasing the Government's reliance on taxation revenue-before the next Federal Budget. How serious then is the Government about reducing the level of government expenditure so as to allow it to decrease the taxes imposed not just on the oil industry but on ordinary taxpayers? It is only when we decrease our junkie-like dependence on revenue from the oil industry that we are likely to be able to provide the incentive for further exploration. Self-interest alone determines that we do so. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(5.34) —I wish to take up the last point made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) because he seemed to contradict himself. In the body of his speech he talked about the need to cut the tax, as he put it, that has been placed on the petroleum industry. Then, at the end of his speech, he said that the Government has a responsibility to cut its expenditure. I would like the honourable member to sit down with the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and tell us what costs he has just been talking about. Mr McGauran —Health? Mr WRIGHT —He says `health'. I would like him to say in which areas he wants to cut down on expenditure and how much money he wants to give back to the oil companies. He mentioned earlier that the oil industry was of national interest. I agree with him totally: it is a vitally important industry; it is central to every day life; and it is vital to the economic development of this country. However, I would suggest that many people who are listening to this debate or who read Hansard would appreciate that as government gains taxes from the oil industry, the people of this country are the beneficiaries. Whether the tax on a barrel of oil is 80 per cent or more, it is the people who ultimately benefit because they get the schools, the roads, the defence advantages, health and so on. I found it a very difficult argument for the honourable member for Gippsland to pursue when he said that we should cut this back. While the honourable member was speaking I quickly took out some figures. I found that of all the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries-we are talking about 24 Western developed countries-Australia has the fourth cheapest fuel. Only the United States of America, Canada and Turkey have cheaper fuel than we have. If we suddenly reduce taxes I ask the honourable member to consider whether the oil companies will reduce the price to the consumer. I do not think there is evidence that that is so, because many of the countries in that list of 24 have lower taxes on their oil industries than we have, yet the price of their fuel is higher. There may be distribution components and so on, but it is not as simple as the honourable member put it. If we must have such taxes, I would like to see them placed on those companies which make high profits and those companies which would in turn take their profits outside this country. I would rather them stay here, whether the rate is 80 per cent or not. I do not like high fuel costs because I live in a country area. However, I would rather the money stay here for the benefit of all Australians, instead of being put in the pockets of the overseas shareholders of oil companies. As I have said, the oil industry is vital to us. It requires massive capital investment. Recently I met with an oil company to talk through that issue. As many honourable members would know, at this moment the oil companies of Australia want to rationalise the industry. They want to cut back on the number of sites-some 10,000 sites throughout this country. It has been suggested that they want to cut back by at least one-third. They argue that there is massive capital investment involved in exploration and refining, distribution and finally retailing, and that they need a maximum return. They want to see a major restructuring. That is on their agenda, particularly in the retailing sector. New agreements are being floated around. Those who represent the retailers through their association, both at the State and national levels, are concerned about those agreements because it seems that a heavy-handedness is appearing in some of the conditions being pursued. I understand that companies have to get a return. They are investing not just millions of dollars but hundreds of millions of dollars throughout this nation. However, I am not sure that some of the proposals they are putting forward are in the interests of consumers. I have noted some of the new franchise arrangements that are being argued-the new wholesaling rules that are being considered. There have been suggestions that there should be key money, premiums on rent or franchise fees. When companies put forward such ideas they often forget that the ultimate payer is the consumer. That seems to have been forgotten here because companies have said that a retailer will have to put only $15,000 up front. However, ultimately that $15,000-others have suggested that it may be $50,000-will be passed back. If the franchise fee is $50,000 it means an extra $1,000 per week that that proprietor of an oil retailing firm has to borrow, find or at least pay over to a company. It is money that he will not have to enable him to employ people. It is money that is coming out of his very slim profits. I appreciate that there have been limited returns for some companies. I realise also that if we compare some of the figures that have been announced companies probably would have been better investing in other areas, certainly in different sites. But that has been the structure of the oil distribution industry in this country. There is certainly a need for greater efficiency. That is part of the pressure. There is also certainly a need for more business-like practices. I accept the desire of any company to get a higher return for its investment, but I question the new franchise arrangements, the rental premiums and what this will mean ultimately to the consumer and to the 10,000 retailers out there in the marketplace. If a third of them go, there will be a loss of some 30,000 to 40,000 jobs spread across the country. My State of Queensland has some 1,600 petrol retailers and is looking at a loss of some 500 sites. That means fewer distribution points, but it also means fewer people in the small business area. It means fewer jobs. For what reason? It is to give greater profits to the oil companies. I also accept the need for the argument as to economies of scale. I know that there are some sites that push through only 15,000 or 20,000 litres of fuel per month. The companies have marked a threshold, saying that it ought to be around 200,000. That sounds all right in theory; but what about the small business people who in some cases have invested years of their lives in these businesses in the small towns? What about the workers who depend on their income from working in the service station industry on a part time or full time basis? I accept that there is a need to think through alternatives. As the chairman of the Government members consumer affairs committee, I am also thinking about rack pricing. Rack pricing is a proposal whereby any dealer should have access to the lowest wholesale price being offered. There is good argument for this because at the moment we hear about the jobbers-those people who are able to go to the oil companies and buy 700,000 or a million litres of fuel. I have seen examples of their getting it for 6c a litre cheaper than the set wholesale price. In a few isolated instances they get it for up to 10c a litre cheaper than the set wholesale price. The strange part about it is that, while the other 9,999 retailers who service the community have to pay cash for their products, these jobbers-these middlemen-are given credit. Sometimes they are given up to 60 days credit on the fuel they get at a discounted price. The oil companies then come back and cry poor. They say, `Things are wrong. We have to do something about it'. I would like us to give more consideration to rack pricing if it ultimately means a better overall price to the consumer and to industry. We have seen the fluctuations. We have seen fuel prices rise from 43c to 53c in the cities. In some areas of my electorate they go as high as 63c. It is a lot of money to pay. Where there is no competition, that is where the price is held. Any measure that is going to bring down the price to the consumer and raise the profitability to the retailer I would certainly be interested in looking at very carefully and supporting. It has to be done with dialogue. The heavy-handed approach being taken by some companies has to be condemned. I do not want to name those companies which are pursuing this line. However, I praise those which are not. Recently, Esso Australia Ltd sat down with me and talked the issue through. I know that Mobil Oil Australia Ltd is prepared to go to its retailers, sit down and discuss these provisions. But there are others which are just not doing that. They are taking a very heavy-handed approach. They are drawing a line because they know that in September next year the provisions of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act of 1980 come up for conclusion. It means that the protections they have had over that nine-year period are going to disappear. Some of these companies are drawing a line and saying, `This is the new contract. You accept it now, before September next year, or else we will give your franchise agreement to someone else. You accept these horrible conditions, these conditions that could send you broke, or else'. Some of those conditions simply should not be allowed. The dictatorial powers of entry so that they can go on site at any time should not be allowed. In some cases 48 hours notice to quit is provided for. How can people invest properly in a business, give reasonable certainty to their staff and be willing to go to a bank and borrow what could be hundreds of thousands of dollars when they know that they could end up walking out of that site within 48 hours at the whim of the oil company? Companies can move in and remodel or disrupt without compensation. Suddenly they may want to change the facade of a particular service station; so they move in. There is no compensation. There is no way the companies will discount the fuel or help people in some way. They can just move in and do it. These are conditions that lock people in 100 per cent with that company. We have an Act of this Parliament that says that people have a right of choice. They have a choice of getting 50 per cent of their fuel from some other company. That has not worked because what the companies do, whichever flag flies, be it Shell or BP, is to come back and say, `All right, you have the right to buy it but you do not put it in the tanks that you are renting from us. You do not put it through the bowser that you are renting from us'. It is rather ridiculous to have that rule; but at least the rule is there. Some of these conditions that the companies are putting into these contracts waive that rule. There is no right of choice. The companies say that they want a business-like practice. They want an open or even playing field to give them all a fair go. But it seems that that fair go is lopsided when it comes to the retailer. There are certainly tough rules when it comes to the transportation of fuel. I cited in this House once before, and I do it again to emphasise the point, that in my electorate I have a service station proprietor who has made it clear, and he has shown me on his books, that if he has the right to transport his own fuel out of Mackay or Rockhampton to his site-I will not name his site because of the risk of victimisation-and he transports that fuel some 300 kilometres, he will save 4c a litre. If he does it himself or gets an independent person to transport it, it will cost around 2c a litre to shift it. At the moment he is locked into the company and it is costing him 6c a litre. The companies talk about fairness. They talk about wanting an entrepreneurial approach. They say that they want a fairer, more businesslike and more efficient approach. Let them start applying this. It is no wonder there are consumers and retailers throughout this nation saying, `Let us have 100 per cent divorcement of the oil companies from retailing. Let us get them out of that area. Then we will stop the problems with the jobbers. We will stop the rorts with the discounting. We will stop the over- bearing rules that they apply when it comes to franchise agreements and contracts. We will stop the unfair rules when it comes to the transportation of fuel'. As I have said-and I reiterate this point-I understand why companies want to change some of the rules. They can get locked in for a nine-year period to a retailer who really has not got it and who does little service to himself, to the company or to his consumers. At the same time they have to consider the many other thousands of retailers who have invested in a business over a long period. At this moment they are under threat of losing everything that they have worked for, saved for and in most instances borrowed for. I have seen the books of some retailers throughout Queensland. I have not had the chance to see those in other States, but certainly in Queensland some of these retailers have been forced to work on 2c a litre. That is not even enough money to service their loan and pay wages, let alone pay the rent. However, they are forced to work on this amount because of the discounting wars and the tactics that have been used by some companies. Companies using their own sites pick a site and pour fuel into it, especially a highway site, and down comes the price of fuel not just at that site but in the whole area. They bring down the price of fuel for 20, 30, 50 or 150 other sites because others have to compete. Those other sites are working on 2c or 3c a litre. It is no wonder they put people off. Two years ago we carried out a survey in the northern parts of Brisbane and towards the Gold Coast. Working on just 25 sites we found a loss of almost 200 jobs. That was during the price war. They simply could not continue to employ those people. There has to be rationalisation. I accept that. There has to be common sense and fairness. There has to be equity. I suggest that this will come about only if the companies will sit down with the retailers and consumer groups and talk it through. I congratulate Esso. It took the initiative of coming to talk to me. I know that it is talking to the retailers and it is prepared to talk to consumer groups. I know that it is prepared, as Mobil is already doing, to work through the contracts with its retailers because some of the provisions that have been put forward have not been fair. Some are even unconscionable. Some work towards exclusive dealing under section 47 of the Trade Practices Act. Others even verge upon the monopoly provisions of the Trade Practices Act in section 46. If this is the way other companies are going to play the game, with this first to the line approach-either they cop it and sign on the dotted line, or else-this House has to do something about it. At the moment we are in a mode of deregulation. We are saying, `Let us deregulate the marketplace to bring about greater efficiency'. I can understand that point of view. I have some concerns about it and I have said that before. I can understand it. But when we allow a deregulation mentality to send thousands of small business people to the wall, which costs tens of thousands of jobs, then we have to say `Stop'. I would say `Stop' in this instance. We have just one year to sort this issue out. I know that some companies are prepared to sort it out. Others are not. Other companies are playing it hard and tough right now. I give them a message. I send them a signal that there are many members on the Government side-as I know there are on the Opposition side because I have spoken to them-who are not going to wear it. We want a fair deal for the companies. We want them to have that degree of profitability that will allow them to continue to invest in this country and to explore and develop the oil industry, as the honourable member for Gippsland said. But we want a fair deal for dealers, the small business people. We want a fair deal for those millions of consumers who rely upon their product. This will come about only if there are fair agreements. The companies have an obligation to consumers. They have an obligation to keep the prices at a competitive level. They have an obligation to keep competition in the system. I am not sure that competition has always prevailed. Therefore, I say to those companies: Let us have the discussion; let us have the dialogue. If that is not the outcome over the next few months then there has to be trouble. Many members of parliament will be arguing not only that we should return to those two Acts of Parliament but also that we should toughen them up, that we use the Trade Practices Commission to take on the rogues and the rebels in the oil companies in the interests of this nation, the retailers and the consumers. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(5.50) —I follow two speakers on the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Amendment Bill. First of all I would like to compliment the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who has just been appointed a shadow Minister. I think that he has a good grasp of his shadow portfolio. I wish him the very best. Secondly, I do not disagree with anything the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) said. Probably a lot of honourable members in here today-although, incidentally, there are not many honourable members in here at the moment-and a lot of people listening to the broadcast will be saying, `Oh, Bruce Goodluck. I hope that he does not make that speech he has made about 17 times before'. I know that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) has ready the reply for Bruce Goodluck that we have the fourth cheapest petrol in the world. However, let me just say that, although we have the fourth cheapest petrol in the world, we are a very large continent. Those other countries that were referred to are very small. It does not take long to drive around them. Therefore, Australia is a little different. As the honourable member for Capricornia said, the oil industry is a vital industry. We could talk about how much money is being spent and how much money is being derived by way of taxation. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), today has talked about home care and home help. He knows, as I know, that we need money to provide that. If we are going to help the elderly of Australia we need money. That money has to be derived from taxes. We all understand that. However, we need to understand also that there are consumers; that there are people who worry about the variation in the price of petroleum from one place to another. We have allowed that variation to go on unabated. The honourable member for Capricornia will remember quite well that I have said on a number of occasions over the last 13 years that we have set up committees to do certain things. I have said that we have Senate select committees to look into this and House of Representatives committees to look into that; but why do we not have a select committee to look at the oil industry, at the service station industry, to find out a bit about it? However, there are always reasons why we cannot do that. This is an industry that needs looking at. It is an industry that needs the concern of all members because it is such a vital and important industry. I thought that I would refer to the report of the 1975 Collins Royal Commission on Petroleum. Commissioner Collins talked about liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as a viable alternative. I did a survey, the results of which quite astounded me. I found that in Hobart the price of LPG is roughly 32c a litre; Canberra roughly 23c; Perth roughly 28c; and Victoria between 12c and 15c. I thought that here we have an alternative to petrol. In 1976 I wrote a few notes about that. I will repeat those points to get them into Hansard so that people will realise that LPG is an accepted fuel. We have vast quantities of LPG in Australia; we know that there are problems with meeting the demand for oil. Therefore, we have the viable alternative of LPG. Cars, utilities, trucks and other vehicles can run, and do run, efficiently and economically on LPG. Vehicles run on LPG are easier to start. There are fewer oil changes, longer engine life and less mechanical attention to the engine. The use of LPG results in a greatly lower level of pollutants in the air. There is one grade of fuel with the use of LPG. LPG can be sold easily. We have talked about the rationalisation of the service station industry. We all know that the days of service at service stations are gone. We all know that, in the main, when one pulls into service stations today it is a case of self-serve. We have to realise that that is the trend and the way that the industry has gone. Service stations are selling points for many items. For example, we see loaves of bread and potatoes, anything we like to name, being sold at service stations. Why can all service stations not sell LPG to service the vehicles that come in? People dislike change. I can understand that. There have been a few rumours about LPG which are completely untrue. Most of the taxis in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra run on LPG. They run very economically and very efficiently on LPG. We can get optional engines, brakes, upholstery, differentials and gear boxes; why can we not have the option of LPG? I know that the Toyota company at one stage produced a motor vehicle that ran specifically on LPG. People do not like change. They worried that if they could not get LPG to fuel the vehicle they would be in strife. Now we have the dual fuel system that is used by most taxis and a lot of consumers in Australia also. The use of LPG is something we could look at very seriously if we tackled it in the right way. I believe that there is not enough dialogue and debate on this subject. Sometimes we get involved in issues that do not relate to the real consumers. In talking about the price of fuel, I mention that that varies greatly around Australia. I listened to the remarks of the honourable member for Capricornia. I noted that he missed an important point. He did not refer to the Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA). That is an authority set up by the Government and funded by the taxpayers of Australia. I have been critical of the Authority in the past. If I had my way I would disband the Authority because I do not think it is able to do the job. We have the Labor State governments and their price watch committees, or whatever they call them, looking at the price of groceries, et cetera. Surely that is the job of the Prices Surveillance Authority? Surely if there is an excessive price for groceries in one part of Australia, we should know about it? However, I am afraid that the Prices Surveillance Authority has failed in the area of fuel pricing. I know that it is looking at the price of home heating oil now. It has not done that previously and as a consequence the price has varied from State to State. I have given a sound indication to honourable members that the Prices Surveillance Authority has no idea of the price of LPG. Of course, it has no idea of how to control the price of petrol. Previously oil companies went individually to the Prices Surveillance Authority. A maximum wholesale price for petrol was fixed for every company. It varied, by not very much, between each company. Now, of course, the oil companies go together to the PSA. Now if they can hit on a price-which they do-that is called the maximum wholesale price. That is the price that does not vary very much from one part of Australia to another. That is the price that is charged. I do not want to be too critical of the oil companies. They provide sound employment opportunities for many people in Australia. Their investment in Australia is immense. They do many fine things for the economy of Australia. I think that the taxation derived from oil companies is about $9 billion, so it would be a futile exercise just to criticise the oil companies. However, the marketing practices of some oil companies leave a lot to be desired. I believe that they should be the subject of an inquiry. We have had inquiries before; for example, the Collins Royal Commission. However, that did not amount to very much because those recommendations really were not put into place. It was mentioned today that the oil companies are going for rack prices. I really do not understand that. It sounds very complicated. It has been indicated to me that there is a fixed wholesale price and everybody buys petrol at that fixed price. However, theoretically that is really the situation at the moment. That really does not work. I really do not know what the oil companies are about in that regard. It is something that needs to be studied. The argument is always put to me that Tasmania has the highest petroleum price in Australia. We have; petrol costs 65c a litre. The State Government imposes a 7c a litre tax to make up for the lack of funds from the Federal Government. We could have a double argument on that. Petrol is dear for the consumers of Tasmania. Most people do not realise that since the Hawke Government came to power the wholesale price of petrol has gone up between 10c and 13c a litre. I often think of one of the famous points made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during an election campaign when he said that the Government would reduce the price of petrol by 2c a litre. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that it was taxation by stealth at the petrol pump. However, they know, and we know, that if we are going to fund programs in Australia we need money. It is a very easy way to extract money from the consumers of Australia, particularly in Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney. Every time we fill our cars up we are paying for some project in Australia, so everybody should have a fair, sensible and balanced opportunity to use our very precious resource; that is, petrol. I refer again to LPG. I would like every Commonwealth car in Australia to use LPG. It would not be a very difficult problem. I would like all taxis-and they probably are-to use LPG. I would also like governments to give consumers the inducement, by some form of taxation, to transfer to LPG. They would be doing this country a great service if they did that and cars converted to LPG and used that resource. Most cars in Seoul and Japan use LPG. The Japanese laugh all the way to the bank. Because of storage facilities and other things, they are probably buying our LPG much cheaper than the consumers of Australia do. This is an area which we should look at very seriously. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Staples) 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)(6.02) —The Opposition does not oppose the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), which gives effect to a series of decisions made by the Government in recent months. First of all, it removes the exemption that government business enterprises had from excises. Secondly, it makes the six-monthly adjustment to the excise on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)-a subject very close to the heart of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck)-and, thirdly, it removes the exercise on aviation kerosene. Let me say-if I may just interpolate another matter-that the public address systems we get in country halls in my own electorate are substantially better than the one we have in the $1 billion national Parliament. I hope that we can make that great technological breakthrough sooner or later and make sure that we have a proper loudspeaker system in this chamber. Let me begin with the issue of government business enterprises and the decision of the Government to remove the exemption from excise that those business enterprises have. We on this side of the House generally support a level playing field for government business enterprises. We want government business enterprises to operate in a competitive environment, and they should be treated in a similar manner to their private sector counterparts. That is particularly true where those government business enterprises compete directly with the private sector, as does the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Where they are a monopoly, perhaps it is another matter. It is important that the Government's enterprises compete in a fair manner with the private sector. In the past, public sector business organisations have been substantially advantaged through favourable taxation treatment and the like. We on this side of the House believe that the reform of government business enterprises is long overdue. The removal of the excise exemptions will impact quite substantially on the Government business enterprises' operating costs. of course, it will lead to an increase in prices-there is no question of that. Already Australia Post and Telecom Australia have announced price increases in both postage stamps and telephone charges respectively. Stamps have gone up from 37c to 39c, local telephone calls have increased from 20c to 21c, and other business charges are also up. Business enterprises are passing on to the general community these increased charges flowing from the removal of the excise exemptions. For us on this side of the House it is a matter of very real regret that the Hawke Government, over its 5 1/2 years, has treated government business enterprises in exactly the same way as the Wran Government did in New South Wales-as milch cows for increasing government revenue. It is interesting to note the submission made by the Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) recently to the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry on government taxes and charges, in particular in relation to Telecom and Australia Post costs. Let me cite the percentage of respondents to the CAI survey of its members who classified Telecom and Australia Post costs as important to their overall corporate costs. It is interesting to note that 50 per cent said that Telecom costs had a direct and important bearing-not a peripheral bearing, but an important bearing-on the overall costs of their enterprises and that 34 per cent of respondents to the CAI's survey made the same point about Australia Post charges. It is interesting to note that, over the period during which the CAI survey was taken, Telecom charges had increased by a massive 59 per cent and postal charges by 57 per cent. That was over a period of a few years-a substantial increase above the rate of inflation. When we look at the response of members of the business community as to how they really feel about the service they are getting for, by their standards, such an exorbitant cost, it is clear that very few think that they are getting a particularly good service. I point out that 22 per cent of respondents to the survey said that Telecom was providing them with a low quality of service and 26 per cent claimed that Australia Post was providing them with a low quality of service. They are matters of real concern and they are matters that the Government needs to address, particularly at a time when through this legislation and other legislation it is trying to make Telecom, Australia Post and other government enterprises more commercial and, if you like, more competitive. My concern is that the Government's motive is not so much to reform government business enterprises, but to collect as much tax revenue from them as it possibly can. It is more greed on the part of the Government, which wants to build up its Budget surplus to as great an extent as possible and continue with its overall philosophical commitment to extracting as much as it can from the general community into the coffers of government. Ultimately it is the consumers who will feel the effects of that. The Government has removed and is removing other taxation exemptions, particularly in relation to Australia Post and Telecom. These include local government taxes, rates and charges, customs duty, sales tax, income tax, and various other miscellaneous taxes. In the context of organisational constraints, whilst the Government has moved to try to make these organisations more competitive, it has to be said that there are still three major issues that remain unresolved as far as the Government's so-called blueprint for government business enterprises is concerned. The first of those constraints relates to the role of the Loan Council. The Loan Council still provides global borrowing limits for government business enterprises and clearly that imposes, therefore, on those business enterprises a commercial constraint which at times, in the judgment of the enterprises, may be deleterious. Certainly, if the Government were serious about making government business enterprises bona fide, genuine business enterprises, it would not place those sorts of constraints on those enterprises. Those constraints act as a severe inhibition on the ability of government business enterprises, for example, to determine their most appropriate debt-equity ratios. That acts to distort the investment patterns of those enterprises. If one looks at the record of Australian National Railways over the last 10 years it is really quite alarming to see how the debt-equity ratio has changed so substantially in favour of debt. The fact that equity has declined is a matter of real concern to me. There are many reasons for that, not all of them directly associated with this legislation. The simple fact is that good business enterprises are very much suffering from a lack of proper commercial opportunity which an ordinary company in the private sector might have. The second organisational constraint that government business enterprises face is that the Government has yet to define exactly what the new superannuation arrangements will be for government business enterprises. Details of those arrangements will not be known until March-April next year following a review of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme presently being conducted by the Department of Finance. Obviously, the review must take place. We hope that the review comes to satisfactory and intelligent conclusions which ensure that government business enterprises operate in a truly commercial way. There has been enormous concern, particularly in the context of the debate on privatisation, about the issue of unfunded superannuation. The Government is addressing this issue, which must be addressed and must be resolved as soon as possible. The third constraint is that the Government has failed to follow through on its so-called privatisation agenda. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) launched a privatisation debate within the Labor Party. People such as Senator Evans, Senator Button and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) supported that privatisation debate. Amassed against them have been the left wing in particular and other backbenchers-indeed, some frontbenchers such as the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West)-of the Labor Party who are ideologically opposed to a greater role for private enterprises in the provision of services to ordinary Australians. It is well known that we, on this side of the House, believe that many of the existing government business enterprises should be privatised. We believe that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Aussat Pty Ltd, Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines, 49 per cent of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, the Australian Industry Development Commission, and so on should be privatised. We support privatisation of those government business enterprises not because we are on some sort of ideological crusade or because we want to privatise for the sake of privatising-as the left wing, indeed most, of the Labor Party argue-but on the contrary because we want to ensure that consumers of the goods and services provided by those government business enterprises are provided for in the most efficient way and at the most competitive price. If one maintains monopolies or special privileges for government business enterprises, one will not get the best possible price for consumers and one will not maximise efficiency in what are now government business enterprises. As Senator Evans and the Prime Minister know only too well, but do not have the political authority successfully to persuade their Party, the losers are ordinary Australian consumers. Wherever there are monopolies there are winners. There are people who benefit from monopoly rents or special privilege rents that come from some of the special privileges that government business enterprises are able to obtain. In Eastern Europe the special privileges, the monopoly rents, are collected by the bureaucracy-the political apparatchiks of the dominant political parties. In countries such as those of Latin America and, indeed, some parts of Asia the same sorts of monopolies exist. The monopoly rents are collected by a very small handful of families who put the money into their pockets and are able accumulate enormous wealth. As a result of that, there is a gigantic diversity between wealth and poverty in so many of those countries. In Australia we too, through our government business enterprises, have a number of similar sorts of monopolies. But, of course, in our society it would be understandably regarded as outrageous for the monopoly rents to be pocketed by a very small number of individuals. What in fact happens is that the monopoly rents are absorbed through business inefficiency and through restrictive work practices promoted by the trade union leadership in some of those enterprises. That is what happens to monopoly rents in business enterprises of that sort in Australia which have uncompetitive monopolies. Again, it is the consumers who provided that monopoly rent to the Government-in this case the bureaucracy which runs these enterprises. We, on this side of the House, could never support that sort of system. From historical experience over 200 to 300 years, we know, as anybody who has an interest in economic history knows, that at the end of the day the only way we will disburse monopoly rents and ensure that a proper and competitive price structure is provided through the maximisation of business efficiency is through competition. If we do not have competition we will have monopoly, and if we have a monopoly, as sure as night follows day-to use the famous phrase of the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock)-monopoly rents will be collected. The consumer-the ordinary Australian man or woman who consumes goods and services provided by these enterprises-will be the loser. So many people in the leadership-if that is what one could call it-of the Government know this but they cannot deliver; they fail to deliver. A change of government is the only way this will be delivered. Government business enterprises are only one part of this legislation. Very briefly, for the record, I will touch on the other two parts. First, there is a provision in this legislation to make a six monthly adjustment to excise on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). We have already had a bit of a debate in the chamber today on LPG and I will not enlarge too substantially on that. I just say that the six monthly adjustment to excise is basically a boomerang tax-it comes back and hits a person every six months. There is something pernicious about that, but then, as it comes from a government which lives and breathes for taxation, one should not be surprised. We must not destroy our very profitable and very successful LPG industry with a continually growing taxation burden on that industry. It is worth remembering that the LPG industry earns about $270m a year in export income. As the honourable member for Franklin said a little earlier, 84 per cent of those exports go to Japan, where much of the LPG is used in commercial transport. What is, and should be, of concern to all Australians is the prediction coming from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics which suggests that by the year 2000 the export revenue we will be able to obtain from LPG will fall from $270m per annum to $96m per annum in 1986 dollar terms. Who knows whether that prediction is accurate? Those sorts of predictions are coming forward all the time in the mineral and resources area. We know that some of them have proved to be hopelessly wrong. In my experience, I have often found them to be more pessimistic than they need to be. But it does underline the fact that this is a very strong and viable industry and one which, in the longer term, does not have very strong prospects. It is a mistake to try to throttle these industries by extracting as much tax as is humanly possible from them. They have to be viable and profitable, and that is a message that the Government needs to understand. The third aspect of this legislation is the removal of the duty on aviation kerosene. Because we on this side of the House believe in lower taxes, in relief from duties and charges, in smaller government and more viable enterprise, naturally we are glad that the Government has decided to remove the duty on aviation kerosene. It is being replaced by an en route charge levied by the Civil Aviation Authority on aircraft flying between different locations. I think that is a much more efficient way of, if you like, imposing a charge on the general aviation industry in particular for the cost of services provided by airports. Clearly, a system such as the Government is introducing will be a user pays system. That is, if someone decides to fly between two airports, he pays a charge which relates to the use of services at those airports. Before, when that money was raised through duty on aviation kerosene, the reality was that the further a person flew, the more duty he paid, obviously because he has used more fuel to fly the greater distance yet he may not have been using more services. It is the number of landings that above all determines the use of services rather than the sheer distance which he flies. This is a rational and intelligent measure taken by the Government. I know there is some concern in the aviation industry about the imposition of the en route charge which is being levied by the Government. The details of that will have to be resolved over time, but I hope that system will settle down and those concerns will gradually be dismissed. The fact is that this is a more rational system and one that we, on this side of the House, very warmly welcome. In conclusion, the Opposition does not oppose the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). We hope that the Government, in responding to this debate, will take note in particular of some of the concerns we have about the administration and management of government business enterprises, because at the end of the day the Prime Minister, and Senator Gareth Evans in particular, know that what we have been saying for years about government business enterprises is right, and that the opposition that is arrayed against the Government from its back benches in particular, but from some of the Ministry, including no doubt the Minister at the table, the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), is ideological opposition and not rational opposition. It is opposition based on sentiment of the great nationalisation program of people such as Chifley rather than on the reality of providing ordinary Australians with a better deal. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(6.23) —The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) brings into action another commitment made by the Government in the 1988 May economic statement. It removes the exemption from liability for excise duty afforded to government business enterprises. The Government has decided that all government enterprises should be exposed to the same taxes and charges as private businesses. Therefore, all Commonwealth agencies now liable for customs duty on their imports will be liable for excise duty from 1 July 1989 on domestically produced accessible goods which they use. Government business enterprises subject to customs duties but exempt from excise duties include Telecom Australia and Australia Post. Both organisations will also be liable for State and local government taxes, rates and charges with effect from 1 July 1989. From the 1990-91 income year both will be subject to income tax. The removal of these exemptions is designed to improve the efficiency of government business enterprises by placing them on a more commercial footing and I think that is only right and proper. The enterprises need, more than ever before, flexibility and the ability to respond rapidly to changes in the market and to take up opportunities as they present themselves. Under revised arrangements, there will be requirements for corporate plans and the setting of financial targets and this will allow the Government to focus on `bottom line' results rather than central controls over managerial decision making. Efficient government business enterprises have the ability, through returns to the Budget in the form of dividends as well as their pursuit of national or other objectives, to contribute in a major way to the common good of all Australians. In the past, government organisations have had controls relating to borrowings, executive remuneration, industrial relations coordination and superannuation arrangements. Governments have loaded enterprises with controls which their competitors do not have and which I believe constitute barriers to efficiency, including restrictive controls on management operations, restrictive capital raising policies and poor board appointments. In the case of Australia Post, controls have resulted in cumbersome administrative processes and delays as the necessary approvals by various arms of the Government are sought. The Government has announced new guidelines for government business enterprises and statutory authorities. The setting of appropriate financial targets will remove the need for some of the more specific detailed controls. Within Australia Post, competition already exists for a number of the Commission's services, the main competitive areas being parcels, agency courier delivery and bulk-householder-mail. Opening the standard letter monopoly to external competition, I believe, would have adverse implications for the community service obligations undertaken by Australia Post. It would surely harm the ability to provide uniform price structure. Australia Post has faced a significant increase in competition over the past 10 to 15 years. This has had a positive effect on the attitudes of Australia Post and its management. Certain aspects of its work are open to competitive bidding. Roadside mail delivery services in outer urban and rural electorates are contracted out after competitive bidding. Of the 4,537 post offices, 3,145 are operated by private sector businesses under contract. Competition in Australia Post is already there. This Bill enables the organisation to be exposed to further charges faced by other businesses. Telecom as an organisation has faced a range of controls over its affairs. It is restricted by Loan Council requirements, which reduce the flexibility of management in financing decisions. However, the freeing up of this requirement would not necessarily address the underlying problem. The need to focus on efficiency, modernisation and participation in a range of future ventures may well mean more debt per capita, not less. Technological advances such as digitisation and fibre optics provide a massive increase in the telecommunications network capacity and efficiency with lower unit costs. Updating of the network requires greater capital expenditure compared to simply replacing or adding capacity to old technology infrastructure. To date, with world developments, in some areas like the integrated services digital network, electronic funds transfer and QPSX-a joint venture company with the University of Western Australia set up to develop new telecommunications switching technology-Australia is among the world leaders. There is already competition in some sections of Telecom's business, particularly in the faster growing areas. This competition will increase in the future even without formal regulatory change. The commercial capacity of Telecom to participate advantag- eously will be mentioned if it is given the ability to stand the changes forced on it by measures in this Bill. Like Australia Post, Telecom will face the same taxes and charges as other businesses. Both organisations will then compete with business on a level playing field. The third aspect of the Bill is the reduction of excise duty on aviation kerosene and substituting an en route charge levied by the Civil Aviation Authority. This was the subject of a brief flurry of media releases by Queensland's Minister for Transport, Mr Gibbs. Mr Gibbs apparently believed that the increases for airlines in my electorate would be about 30 per cent. The only way Mr Gibbs could have arrived at this inflated figure was for him or his Department to add every increase. Instead, the increase was a 3 per cent increase over previous charging arrangements. Honourable members now have some appreciation of why the Queensland Budget Papers have many large photos, a few words and almost no figures. A group called Flight West Airlines also berated the Government over the increase. The airline in fact threatened not to pay the new charges. In reality, at that time, the airline had not paid charges levied by the Department of Transport and Communications in the financial year which ended on 30 June 1988. The new Civil Aviation Authority has been established by the Government to take over operational responsibility for air traffic control, flight advisory services, communications, navigation and surveillance systems and rescue and fire fighting services at airports. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr COURTICE —Revenue from operational charges is expected to amount to $459.4m in 1988-89. The value of assets transferred to the CAA has been estimated at $455m. The major variations to charging arrangements include the introduction of en route charges for avtur fuelled aircraft to replace budgetary revenues from avtur fuel excise and departure tax. Also, there will be a readjustment of revenue sources to ensure revenues are directly aligned with the cost of providing the services concerned. The charges levelled are on the same basis for all operations and represent an overall increase of 3 per cent, which is a reduction in real terms. The changed arrangements ensure that CAA is fully responsible and accountable for the provision and pricing of its commercial airways services. The charges represent a more appropriate and efficient user pays basis for the services. Sunstate Airlines, one of the major airlines servicing my own electorate, appears to have charges under the new scheme which are almost exactly those paid under previous arrangements. The Authority should be commended for its willingness to meet with companies having difficulty with the transition. Larger domestic airlines appear to have accepted the charges without complaint. This legislation was flagged by the Government in the May statement. It is about achieving efficiency in operations and developing greater commercial viability. It deserves support on both grounds. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(8.02) —in reply-On behalf of the Government I wish to respond to a couple of points that were made. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) raised the question of the proposed increase in the excise rate for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which is contained in clause 3 of the Bill. While the excise rate is indeed to be increased from $13.21 to $15.39 per kilolitre from 1 April 1988, it is important to note that the increase is not the result of any change in the Government's LPG policy-that is, it is not, as the honourable member suggested, a means for the Government to extract more revenue from industry. In fact, the formula by which the excise rate is determined has not changed since April 1980, when the previous Government's formula, continued by this Government, was announced. The excise rate is set at 60 per cent of the amount by which the realised price for naturally occurring LPG exceeds $147 a tonne, expressed as a rate per kilolitre. The realised price is calculated as a weighted average of the prices received from exports and local sales of LPG during the most recent six months. For the 1 April 1988 adjustment, this was the period 1 September 1987 to 29 February 1988. The increase in the excise rate from 1 April in this Bill from $13.21 to $15.39 per kilolitre reflects higher export prices during that period. Just as the rate might go up in times of high export prices, so too might it go down. The honourable member might recall that in the Excise Tariff Act 1987, for instance, the excise rate on LPG decreased from $50.77 per kilolitre in October 1986 to $5.02 per kilolitre on 1 April 1987. This was the direct result of the application of the same formula to the lower export prices that applied. I note in this regard that the net result was an estimated reduction in revenue of about $50m. I want to thank honourable members generally for their contributions to the debate. A number of questions were also raised about the charges affecting government business enterprises (GBEs) and whether increased charges will result-especially Telecom Australia and Australia Post charges. In this regard the honourable member for Mayo noted that Telecom and Australia Post announced increases in their charges. While this may be true, those increases cannot be said to result from the measures announced in this Bill, since these measures do not begin until 1 July 1989. The removal of remaining exemptions for Commonwealth business enterprises is expected to result in increased revenue of about $25m per annum from 1989-90 in relation to the following: the ACT Electricity Authority, the Australian National Railways Commission, the Australian Postal Commission, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Federal Airports Corporation and Telecom. The amendment is part of a package to improve their efficiency by making them face a full range of taxes and charges. Any increase in charges by these bodies would serve only to blunt their competitive edge. That is the thrust of the Government's strategy. Finally, I would like to make a comment about government business enterprises and the Loan Council. The honourable member for Mayo also suggested that Loan Council restrictions should cease to apply to government business enterprises if they were to become truly competitive. The Government will, of course, examine all matters to further its strategy to make GBEs more competitive. However, as this measure affects the Government's monetary policy, it is perhaps more appropriate that the matter be referred to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). In respect of Loan Council controls on authority borrowings, the Government has taken a number of steps to place Commonwealth government business enterprises on a more commercial basis. However, these enterprises still differ from private businesses because they are able to borrow funds for investment on the basis of the Government's ultimate backing for the enterprise and many, including Telecom and Australia Post, have community service obligations to provide non-commercial services. This means that, in the absence of quantitative controls on borrowing, they could borrow more freely and be prepared to accept lower rates of return than would comparable private businesses. The Loan Council controls are administered flexibly, having regard to the capital requirements of the enterprises as well as broader economic considerations. This is evidenced by the fact that borrowings by Commonwealth authorities will be allowed to double in 1988-89 to $2.6 billion with the increase being primarily to meet the need for capital expenditure in the aviation industry. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Order of the Day concurrently with Orders of the Day Nos 6 to 10. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(8.08) —It suits the convenience of the Government to conduct the debate in this fashion and the Opposition is more than happy to oblige. There are many important matters before the House tonight. Mr Acting Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that this package of Bills underlines the Government's confusion about what to do about government business enterprises. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) know what they would like to do and I think the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) supports them. What they would like to do is sell a lot of them. But there are certain sections in the Australian Labor Party who do not think that is a good idea. So, to the extent that those Ministers can sort of edge along the track, they are converting some government enterprises to public companies. If they get the numbers on a good day or if they get the courage on an even better day these government business enterprises will be in a format which will enable them to be sold off. But this is, as I said, an example of the confusing and inconsistent approach of the Government to this area of government activity that in most cases would be well handled by the private sector. Not only would it be well handled but it would be more efficiently handled and with less burden on the Australian taxpayer. We are discussing a number of Bills here tonight. I intend to address my remarks to them individually and then make some concluding remarks about the whole package. The first Bill I would like to discuss is the ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill. The Government would dearly like to sell the Australian National Line (ANL), but it cannot quite get the idea through Caucus or its national convention. The best it can do is to convert ANL to a public company and talk about how that will make it far more efficient. The truth of the matter is that it will not do much. It will change some of the operating constraints that apply to it and push it out into the marketplace a bit further, but it will make it a little easier for ANL to be sold at some time in the future. The Opposition certainly welcomes that, because its policy is to sell ANL to its employees and to the Australian public. At a later time in this debate we will be moving an amendment to the effect that, while we would not oppose this Bill, we are disappointed that the Government has not proceeded at a more rapid rate with what is known in technical terms or political jargon as micro-economic reform. That is a euphemism for making people work a little more effectively and efficiently in this sector of the economy. Anybody who has any experience with coastal shipping or the waterfront in Australia knows that it is a classic example of a highly protected sector of the economy where there is precious little competition between the participants and absolutely none from outside. One way to achieve a bit of competition, a bit of efficiency, a bit of market generated allocation of resources, would be to have some competition from overseas. The policy of the Liberal and National parties is to introduce that competition, particularly to coastal shipping. We would do it by allowing Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ships to trade on the Australian coast. That is the way to do it. At present the Australian flagships have a total monopoly of Australian coastal shipping. Because of that monopoly, there is not a great incentive to operate more efficiently. We need a little outside pressure. I am not talking about bringing in ships that are poorly manned and have substandard safety regulations; I am talking about bringing ships from comparable countries, OECD countries, and applying a bit of healthy marketplace pressure to the present operators. If the Government had any real commitment to the Australian taxpayer and any real commitment to our industries that are dependent upon efficient shipping and low cost transport, it would be doing likewise. The Prime Minister has been wandering around the country in recent weeks telling everybody who will listen in various forums that there is no need to worry because he has fixed the coastal shipping and waterfront problem. I guess he rang the Minister for Transport and Communications from time to time and said, `Hurry up, Ralph. We desperately need a quick fix for this because I am raising expectations left, right and centre'. The fact of the matter is that the Government has been in power for 5 1/2 years and does not have any stomach to come to grips with this important question affecting our economy. It has a flow-on effect, also, on other forms of transport. Coastal shipping in Australia has become so expensive in recent years that people have walked away from it in droves. The only things that travel by ship around the Australian coast now are things that cannot go any other way. If one needs to move goods in this country one will do anything one can to make sure they do not go on a ship, because there has to be a cheaper way of doing it. Of course, that has had a distorting effect on our railway system and our road transport system. The Bill I will address next relates to the Australian National Railways Commission. This Bill does not deal with a conversion to a public company, because the Government is not quite sure what it will do with Australian National. I think it would like to privatise some of the lines-that is, sell them, lease them or lease time slots for operation on the lines-but it is not quite sure how to handle it. The Government has not addressed the massive problem of picking up the losses on State rail operations either. That represents about $3 billion a year. Imagine how the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance would like to get their hands on that $3 billion. It would be $3 billion less to the States if those railway systems operated more efficiently. Not only does the Government have the dilemma of privatisation or how to stop the losses of State rail systems but also it has the problem of what to do with the Western Australian railway system. It does not quite know whether to stick its toe in the water there and grab another railway network, as it did in Tasmania, or to stay well away from it. That underlines the confusion and the policy paralysis that exist within the Government at present. It has been in power for 5 1/2 years and it still does not know what to do about these problems. It has been looking at them at close range and it has had the benefit of departmental advice as to the problems and their legislative solutions but we still do not see any decisive action. We do not see a comprehensive approach to transport in this country. We still see piecemeal legislation. We still see it in communications as well. The whole area of transport and communications, including aviation, is an example of piecemeal, ad hoc policy, driven by partisan considerations and what the factions will allow the Government to do from time to time, depending upon which way the wind is blowing and how they think the opinion polls are standing up. It is not in the best interests of this country, it is not in the best interests of the taxpayers-the people who use the network-and it is certainly operating to the detriment of our standard of living. I said that I would talk about these Bills roughly in the order in which they appear on the Notice Paper. For the sake of consistency, I skipped over the OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill. I have dealt with the Australian National Line legislation, which is about shipping, and I have made some remarks about the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill, but the one in the middle which I deliberately skipped over is the OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill. This again is an example of the Government going only halfway to where it would like to go. The Liberal and National parties know exactly what they would like to do with the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC). It is a quite profitable operation. There is no real need for it to be government-owned as long as we have the right controls over who owns it and what it does. We welcome its conversion to a public company. We challenge the Government to take the next step; that is, to sell it. It could sell 49 per cent in the first stage and see how it goes, then move to 100 per cent. That is what we would do. We would privatise it. I suggest that the Government grasp the nettle and do what it has to do. Then it might be able to use the money it gets to repay some of the massive debt load that it has incurred for this country in recent years. As I said, there is absolutely no reason, apart from the restraints within the Australian Labor Party, why the Government should not go the whole hog. I wonder how the left wing feels when it sees Bills such as these coming into the House. It knows what is one the agenda. It is not even a hidden agenda. Blind Freddy can see what the Minister for Finance, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have up their sleeves. They know that they are saying, `Convert it to a public company until we have the numbers and the left wing is not looking because it is more concerned with defending the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, perhaps'. By golly, he really needs defending at present; he had a bad day today. We can bet that, when the left wing is not looking, the right wing will privatise these companies. Of course, that is what should happen. For how much longer will the left wing sit quietly by and allow this to happen? We have seen it with ANL. I wonder when the seamen will start putting on a bit of pressure; when we will see some open factional warfare over this matter. I wonder when OTC will be sold. It must be very tempting for a Treasurer who is framing an election year Budget and is under all the pressure in the world to come up with massive tax cuts because expectations have been built up to look at OTC and think, `We could probably sell that. That would give me a bit more of a cash flow. We have sold the embassies in Tokyo and Paris'. Let me say that we did not get a very good deal in Paris. Have honourable members heard what the real estate agents are saying about the price we got for the Paris property? It is a bit of a joke. Someone ought to have a good, hard look at it. Privatisation is certainly on the agenda, but the Australian Labor Party will not come clean. It will not address this matter within its Caucus or within its conference. It is not game to take it back to the branches because, as everybody knows, it is way out of touch with its traditional supporters. The traditional supporters do not like the idea of selling off enterprises such as these as they provide a rather featherbed occupation for many people. But the Australian taxpayer has had enough. We cannot afford to waste valuable resources on sponsoring and funding government business enterprises that would be quite willingly supported and funded by the private sector. There are more glaring examples than the ones we are talking about tonight. Related government enterprises in this portfolio area are desperately crying out to be privatised. Their management is screaming for them to be privatised. For example, Qantas Airways Ltd needs to spend about $6 billion on acquiring an expanded jet fleet. To do that, it needs a capital injection of about $600m. The Government cannot afford to provide that. Of course, Australian Airlines is in exactly the same position. Of course, the Government will not address that problem. We saw the debate resurface the other day when the Minister for Transport and Communications said that the Government was looking at creative ways of financing these enterprises, and then the Minister for Finance piped up that perhaps one way to do it would be to sell off part of them. So we can see what is on the agenda. This is just the forerunner of what will happen. It may happen in a May economic statement next year, or we might have to wait until the Budget itself. But we will hear an announcement that circumstances have changed, the Left has gone quiet and the Government can get a good price-and off will go OTC and ANL. By then maybe a couple of others will have got on to the agenda. Mr Price —Come on. You can do better than this. What about the cross-subsidy? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I do appreciate your protection. That is exactly what will happen on the Government's agenda. Yet Government members have the hide to wander around the place saying that they will not do it. Of course, there is nothing surer; that is precisely what will happen. I would like to go back to the Australian National Line and discuss for a few moments the imperative to do something about this sector of our economy. Everybody is talking about it, including the Government's own instrumentalities. The Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) brought down an excellent and comprehensive report. It has several parts to it. I did not bring the second volume into the chamber tonight. It makes very interesting reading, but I will not try to read it into Hansard. I will just read the findings of the IAC report concerning Australian coastal shipping. Honourable members will understand why we are critical of the Government's failure to act in this area. The report says: . . . the Commission has made the following findings in respect of coastal shipping in Australia. I will paraphrase the first finding. It says that our coastal shipping `remains inefficient and uncompetitive relative to those in maritime nations with similar standards of living'-and, of course, that is the OECD countries that I was talking about. The only way we will put any competitive pressure on the Australian coastal shipping industry is to expose it to competition from OECD nations. The second finding is: Major inefficiencies (both on-board and on-shore) manifest themselves in the form of excessive costs and avoidable delays which erode the international competitiveness of Australian industries and jeopardise growth and employment prospects elsewhere in the economy. I was talking about the impact of this inefficiency on the Australian economy. Honourable members may think it relates directly only to those people who are forced to use coastal shipping. But it has a flow-on effect to all transport costs right around the country and, of course, it has an impact on the general price level-the costs of buying things at Woolworths, Coles or any other shop. Transport in Australia is more expensive than it has to be because no-one will act to improve its efficiency. For that reason, everybody pays a higher price. It is the Australian voter and taxpayer who is picking up the tab for these inefficiencies. That is why it is imperative for a government-one that really was in touch; one that was not arrogant and was concerned about the good stewardship of this nation-to act to do something about the maritime industry. The third finding of the IAC was: The Commission estimates that if international freight rates applied on the coast then coastal shipping freight rates covering the ship- and shore-based segments of the industry would, on average, be between 20 and 50 per cent lower in most years. This would yield a direct saving of between $180 million and $460 million on the costs of freight services (on a wharfgate-to-wharfgate basis). When the flow on effects on the rest of the economy are taken into account, Australia's real gross domestic product could increase by between $250 million and $550 million per year in 1986-87 dollars. That is in last year's dollars. Our rate of inflation under the Treasurer is fairly high these days, so one could add probably another 6 or 7 per cent to that. If that is the compound rate of benefit that we would get from addressing this inefficiency, we can see that it is an important thing to do. Perhaps people do not understand the importance of doing this. We have one sector of the economy that is not subject to competitive pressure. Yet the Government is hell bent on opening up the rest of the economy to the pressure of the international marketplace. One sector of the economy that in recent years and months has become susceptible to that pressure is, of course, the sugar industry. But what the Government has not said is that sugar is grown on the east coast and a fair amount of it is consumed on the west coast; it is normally transported around there by ship. Our coastal shipping rates are so high that, as a result of the removal of the embargo on the importation of sugar, it is likely that the west coast market for sugar in Australia will be lost to the Australian sugar industry because it will be cheaper to bring sugar in from somewhere else on overseas shipping than to move Australian sugar around the coast on Australian coastal shipping. That is the impact that this little featherbedding deal has on the Australian industry and the Australian consumer. Something has to be done about it. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to walk around the country talking about how he will act; it is important that something be done-and done very quickly. I was going through the findings in the report of the IAC. The next one is: The total benefits to the economy would be much larger than the above estimates suggest because they make no allowance for: - the substantial costs of avoidable delays- of course, that is a nice way of saying `strikes on the waterfront'. We all know about those. Things have got better in recent years, but what the wharfies and the people who man the Australian coastal shipping sector do to the efficiency of transport in this country is still absolutely horrific. The IAC says, further, that no allowance is made for: - opportunities for further processing of raw materials in Australia; and - the benefits that could arise from rationalising domestic production and distribution. The next point made by the IAC is: High costs and a poor record of service have progressively reduced the industry to a position where the only goods currently shipped around the coast tend to be those for which alternative transport modes are either not available or are not a realistic proposition. As I said, the only people who use coastal shipping in Australia are those who cannot escape from it. If they can move their goods any other way they will do it, rather than having to confront the difficulties of using the Australian coastal shipping service. The next point is: A more efficient coastal shipping industry would attract potential users who presently use alternative transport modes and pay more than they would if competitive coastal shipping services were available. Of course, that again is a damning indictment of this Government's failure to act over the past 5 1/2 years. Three more such points are made in the IAC report. It says: Inefficiencies which currently characterise the industry have developed in an environment which imposes little discipline on costs, fails to reward better performance and stifles initiative. Of course, that finding alludes to the fact that one simply cannot compete on the Australian shipping routes unless one meets the unreasonable demands of the Australian unions-and, of course, no-one has ever done it. No-one has ever taken the option of bringing in a ship from overseas and complying. Some specific voyage permits have been issued from time to time, but no-one is bringing in overseas flagged ships and complying with our rules and regulations. There is an absolute barrier to competition. This Government says it believes in competition and deregulation and cries from the rooftops how market-oriented it is. It has not even got within cooee of addressing the problems in this sector of the economy. The next finding in the report is: The major factors accounting for this outcome are the effective exclusion of competition from foreign-flag vessels under the Navigation Act- we even have legislation that bolsters this little monopoly- combined with a number of other regulatory and institutional factors both at sea and on-shore (including restrictive union practices). That is just the unions using their muscle to reinforce their work practices, which you and I and everybody else who pays tax in this country are funding at present. The last point that the IAC makes is: Real and lasting benefits will only be achieved if competitive influences are allowed to operate in both the sea-based and shore-based segments of the industry; to pursue further reform at sea without effectively addressing reform on the waterfront would be an exercise in futility. From these remarks of the IAC we can see that there is only one option available to the Government, and that is to adopt the policy of the Liberal and National parties-to adopt the Opposition's policy and introduce a bit of competition to the waterfront, to make sure that we do in fact reduce the charges confronted by people who are forced to trade on the Australian coast and to do everything possible to overcome that inefficiency. It could be done on a gradual basis, but the Government should lay down a program and a set timetable that everybody has to work for-and not offer remission. It should not make the mistakes that it made with the car plan. It should not underwrite the profits of General Motors and Ford. It should not price the products of the industry out of the reach of the average family. That is what is done so often by this Government when it addresses an industry plan. It brings in an industry plan that has no restraint on it, no pressure on the industry to comply with it and no ceiling on the price levels; it just underwrites the profits. There would not be a member of the Labor Party who is not embarrassed by what the car plan has done in this country. It has not achieved rationalisation to any major extent. It has not achieved the efficiencies that we were promised. What it has achieved is the fact that the average Australian family can no longer afford to buy a Holden or a Falcon. Car prices went through the roof under the Button car plan. Much the same thing happened in the steel industry. The steel industry was in crisis and the Government went charging to the rescue. A lot of money was involved and a great deal did not get to where it was supposed to go. It certainly did not achieve the situation for the Australian steel industry that we were promised when the steel plan was introduced. There was a lot of talk, rhetoric and posturing. What this Government is about is convincing people-the casual observer; perhaps the taxpayer who only sees his Government's policy on the television screen at night-that it is addressing the problems. In fact, it is not doing so. The Government is about window dressing-a facade, with no effective decision-making. It is not making hard decisions or decisions which might benefit the country in the medium and long terms. It is just making decisions which have an impact on the ballot box from time to time. The test, and it is a test that has been set for the Government by itself, is coastal shipping. As I said when I began my speech, the Prime Minister has been wandering around the country talking to everybody-the people involved in industry, manufacturing and the chambers of commerce-saying, and I am fairly accurate as I paraphrase him, `Don't worry. We've got it fixed. We'll fix the coastal shipping problem and we will fix it quickly'. What he really means is that he has been working with some of his ministerial mates in the backroom to come up with a package that perhaps looks good but will not really address the problems. Anything short of introducing competition from outside to ensure efficiency and adherence to efficiency within the industry is inadequate. It is absolutely essential that this Government come to grips with the place of the market in this sector of the economy. If it is good enough to talk about financial deregulation, to expose the farm sector to international competition and to start reducing tariff barriers, it is also good enough to start reducing the barriers to competition within this sector of the economy. Before moving on to other sections of this cognate debate, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) notes the failure of the Government to achieve micro-economic reform in coastal shipping and the Australian waterfront; and (2) calls on the Government to immediately introduce a program to increase the efficiency of coastal shipping, including the introduction of ships from OECD countries and other measures to overcome the problems identified by the IAC in its report and the Business Council of Australia, in its action plan'. I reiterate that this cognate debate underlines the fact that the Government does not have a coherent and comprehensive policy for its Government business enterprises. It has what it describes euphemistically as a government business enterprise reform package, which is designed to apply more market pressure to business enterprises, to give them more flexibility and to take them out from underneath some of the more onerous responsibilities of being part of the bureaucracy. That is a step in the right direction, but it is a bit like entering a marathon when one has callipers. It is probably something one can do, and one should be given credit for trying, but the reality is that a lot more could be done, and done fairly quickly, without any major problems, except upsetting the factional balance within the Labor Party. Mr Hollis —Ha, ha! Mr BLUNT —I hear a member of the left wing chuckling away. It is a pity that the honourable member was not here earlier because he might have been embarrassed about what I said, as it happens to be true that the left wing has been set up. The right wing could not quite get the numbers on the day to push this through, but let me tell my friend it will. The left wing has lots of principle but not much clout. Everything that it supposedly stands for will finally be run over by the right wing. I guess it will have its pursuit of totalitarian foreign policy or something to give it some comfort. Mr Tim Fischer —In black Africa. Mr BLUNT —In black Africa, at some stage. When it comes down to economic policy influence in this country the Left is just an obstruction to the inevitable change that will occur. This Government will not be making that change because it will not address it before the next election and it will not be here after the next election. If we are to get our economy moving properly, the Government has to get out of unnecessary business enterprises, particularly those enterprises that can be transferred to the private sector. The drain on the public purse has to be ended. We must have efficiency and competition. We cannot have selective competition. If our economy is to be open and if we are to operate on international standards, it has to be international right across the board. Let us not look after our mates and protect our friends; let us have some competition right across the board-a truly level playing field. Let us not build a little wall around one section of it because the unions in that section of the Australian Council of Trade Unions can be a bit difficult. Maybe that upsets the balance and could cost Simon Crean his job before he manages to get himself elected to this place. Maybe Halfpenny cannot become President too quickly if we upset that balance. The Australian taxpayer is not worried about that. What we and the taxpayers want is a government that gets away from policy paralysis, a government that addresses the problems and comes to grips with what it needs to do. The measure before us tackles only about one-tenth of the job. It is a great pity that the Government did not go further. Whilst we are critical of its failure to go the whole way, we will not oppose the Bills. In fact, we welcome them because it will make it easier for us to implement our policies after the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tim Fischer —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.38) —The Government's transport and communications enterprises have done well for Australia. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) mentioned what he saw as the need for attention to the Australian National Line and waterfront and shipping issues. I know that my friend and colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), who has far greater expertise than either the honourable member for Richmond or me, will be able to deal with this matter properly at a later stage in the debate. What I do say to the honourable member for Richmond is that when the Government deals with the waterfront and shipping issues, it will be easily seen that the Government has the stomach to deal with them. The successes of other government enterprises relate to positive measures taken by Labor governments to strengthen government-owned transport and communication services as operating enterprises. The Whitlam and Hawke governments have strengthened the services rather than protected them. The Fraser Government was notable for the way in which it weakened enterprises. There are two main objectives in the Government's approach to all the transport and communications issues: firstly, the need for increased efficiency and, secondly, the need for adequate services to both urban and rural areas. Admittedly, governments, both Labor and coalition, have always been prepared to ensure that our very productive rural and outer urban areas continue to receive reasonable services, sometimes cross-subsidised by inner city areas, but there is some doubt now about the Opposition's policy. For instance, the Liberal policy is quite unclear. One version says that it will sell the lucrative parts of government enterprises to private enterprise. Then what? Will the user pay more in the country? Will the user have to pay the full cost, perhaps doubling telephone rentals, so that costs are covered? Will we all pay higher taxes to subsidise those services, or will the services be reduced in number and quality? It will probably be the lot. The Nationals, including my friend the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), would well and truly know that all these alternatives-higher charges, higher taxes and reduced services-are unacceptable to Australian people, particularly country people. The Liberals may never implement their policy. Will they return to their ad hoc policies of not liking government enterprises but having to put up with them because of the National Party? Would they lack the stomach, to quote the honourable member for Richmond? That would be just as dangerous. We would return to those Fraser years when government enterprises were discriminated against, yet no effort at all was made to increase their efficiency or profitability. Honourable members should look at what happened to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, which has now been turned into a profitable enterprise from an unprofitable one. It is now obtaining jobs overseas which were kept from it under the Fraser Government. In short, coalition actions and coalition words lead us to a confusing range of possibilities, depending on whom one believes. Privatisation of the lot and letting the rural and urban Australian pay more, with the central business district paying less, is one proposal. Sell off the lucrative parts, with higher charges, higher taxes and reduced services, is another version. The whittling away of government enterprises by conscious channelling of business elsewhere was the indecisive action shown by Fraser. Even the Liberal leadership in opposition is showing strong evidence of indecisive action, being unable to come to decisions, just the same as it was when in government. It is unable to make decisions; unable to make the hard decisions. None of those choices are acceptable. It is interesting that government enterprises have become more efficient because of the actions of reforming governments. In 1975 the Whitlam Labor Government took the bold step of creating from the Postmaster-General's Department two major public enterprises-Telecom Australia and Australia Post. Time has proved the correctness of that decision. Australia has a technically advanced and highly reliable telephone service. The telephone network has continued to expand and now well over 90 per cent of Australian households have a telephone service. However, the increasing importance of telecommunications to our economy necessitates further building on the achievements to date. Consequently, the Government has decided to continue the process of commercialisation by adopting a reform package which will put Telecom on a sounder commercial footing. For example, under the Bill that is before us this evening, in future the Government will be less involved in scrutinising the day-to-day activities of Telecom. Instead, it will focus on planning through corporate plans and financial targets and accountability for results, with strategic aspects monitored on an ongoing basis. In future the emphasis will be on the bottom line, on how successfully the goals and targets are met. That is a better way than the Thatcher way, which has brought high costs for installation of telephone services, lower wages in regional areas of the United Kingdom for Telecom workers and a lowering of service standards in the United Kingdom. Next we have the OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill 1988. The Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC) is a relatively small but extremely efficient government enterprise. It will be able to pursue its role independently. I am pleased about that because OTC-this organisation which the honourable member for Richmond wants to sell-has an operating profit after tax that is up 16 per cent to a record $68m for the year ended 31 March 1987. It has a dividend for 1986-87 set at $40m-an increase of 33.4 per cent. Its combined tax and dividend paid to the Commonwealth Government totalled $96.68m-an increase of 34 per cent. Again, the honourable member for Richmond wants to deny these funds to the owners of the enterprise, the Australian people. These results were obtained despite adverse effects of foreign exchange movements which significantly impact upon OTC's operations. All this comes from international telephone services, leased services revenue and data services, although there was a decline in telex and telegrams, as would be a natural event in the trend of communications around the world. We need to remember what the principal statutory functions and duties of OTC are when we are considering whether it should be government owned or privately owned. It is there to establish, maintain and operate public telecommunications services between Australia and other countries, ships at sea and the external territories and for services between the external territories. In other words, OTC is our link with the world. OTC is also a great revenue maker. It can tell many overseas firms how to get business. So, there are good cases in favour of full public ownership of OTC. The original objective of ensuring national ownership and ready government control of Australia's external telecommunications system still applies today. Government ownership helps ensure a secure network which, when required, gives priority to defence and national security interests. OTC's record shows that it is able to operate efficiently as well as achieve significant profits. It stands up well in comparison with similar overseas organisations operating in the private sector. This suggests that OTC would continue to perform well under private or public ownership. So, why privatise OTC? In future under this legislation the Government will be less involved in scrutinising the day-to-day activities of OTC. Instead, it will focus on planning through corporate plans and financial targets and accountability for results, with strategic aspects monitored on an ongoing basis. The emphasis in future will be on the bottom line, on how successfully the goals and targets are met. A myriad of unnecessary government controls over day-to-day management decisions will be removed. Another government enterprise I would like to look at is Australia Post-an organisation with a long and very distinguished history. It has given long and efficient service to Australia. I note that Australia Post charges about half the amount charged in West Germany to post a basic article in the mail. Once again, time has shown that the Whitlam Government was right to divide the then Postmaster-General's Department. In the 11 years before 1975 the postal operations of the Postmaster-General's Department consistently showed a loss. Since 1975 Australia Post has made a profit in every year but one. In future the Government will be less involved in scrutinising the day to day activities of Australia Post. Under the Postal Services Amendment Bill 1988, which we are considering this evening, it will focus on planning through corporate plans and financial targets and accountability for results, with strategic aspects monitored on an ongoing basis. The emphasis in future will be on the bottom line, on how successfully goals and targets are met, just as with Telecom. The Government aims to establish a clearer distinction between the ownership of the enterprise, the board and management. The Bill also includes amendments to allow Australia Post to develop its properties commercially. In many cities throughout Australia the post office is located in the heart of the town. These sites are prime real estate, but the existing constraints on Australia Post's powers have inhibited their commercial development. In line with Australia Post assuming responsibility for the telegram service, the Bill recognises that Australia Post's electronic mail services are equivalent to the traditional telegrams they will replace. Lettergrams, like telegrams, will be able to be ordered by telephone or across post office counters. Australia Post will undertake their delivery. The Government members committee on transport and communications, which I am pleased to chair, is also doing some important work with Australia Post in trying to raise the number of non-postal services provided in post offices. This will have a dual effect of providing services which are not at present being provided, particularly in outer suburban and country areas, as well as tending to maintain the viability of post offices in small country areas and outer suburban areas. For instance, we are asking Australia Post and Federal departments to look at the provision of a range of government services. At present Australia Post is providing services in regard to passports and citizenship. It has been found that its services are being provided on a very competent basis. In fact, the error rate has not increased; in some aspects it has declined in the provision of those services. It is important that we build on those services. It is important that we make full use of the staff in Australia Post who are prepared to provide those services. We need to look perhaps at Telecom Australia providing some services from post offices, particularly the display and sales of different types of telecommunication services which it has available. We should look at the possibility of some government departments, such as the Commonwealth Employment Service, Social Security and Medicare, providing basic services by means of computer links from post offices. Above all, no matter which services we are looking at we need to continue the objectives I mentioned at the beginning. We should remember the need for increased efficiency in government services and the need for the continued provision of services to rural and urban areas with the same zeal which has brought success to many government enterprises, including the Commonwealth Bank, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and the Overseas Telecommunications Corporation. The Government should not blindly follow privatisation. I am pleased that in regard to this legislation it is recognising that. I think the Government should recognise that, because Australia has an unevenly distributed population, it needs to provide services to the rural sector, which produces half our exports, as well as to the urban sector. For that reason I am pleased to support all the legislation before us. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(8.52) —I certainly strongly support the amendment moved by the shadow Minister for transport and aviation, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), because I think it reflects the very real and intelligent commitment on this side of the House to improving the performance of these government business enterprises-an issue about which already tonight I have had a little to say in this House. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), reiterating the view we have now heard from so many people in the Australian Labor Party-not, of course, from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or Senator Gareth Evans, but from so many others-that they still favour government ownership. Ideologically they still favour nationalisation. They still favour government control of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC). They still favour the nationalisation of Aussat Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth Bank-which does not come under the purview of this package of legislation. So the list goes on. The fact is that although many people in the Labor Party, not least the Prime Minister and Senator Gareth Evans, know that the intellectual argument in favour of nationalisation, as I will choose to call it tonight, is lost, they still cling to their ideology and the memories of Chifley and their forebears like drowning men clinging to a life raft. The fact is that throughout the world, even in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, it has increasingly been recognised that government monopolies just do not work. The only exception is where there is simply no alternative to a government monopoly. In some of the activities of Australia Post and Telecom Australia that is obviously the case. Where there is no alternative, such government monopolies are acceptable. However, it has been shown again and again all around the world that government monopolies, where competition and enterprise are the alternatives, simply do not work. I do not want to digress-I think this is highly relevant to the debate-but the fact is that one of the reasons the economies of east Europe, Central and South America and some of the less progressive Asian countries have been so unsuccessful is that they have pursued monopolistic policies in enterprise. The monopolies are sometimes owned by government, particularly of course in east Europe. Sometimes they are owned by special and privileged families, as in parts of Central America, South America and, of course, in countries such as, I hope, the pre-Aquino Philippines. The simple fact is that these monopolists have been extorting monopoly rents from the consumers in society-from the ordinary people of those countries-and have been pocketing those monopoly rents in different ways. In east Europe they have been pocketing the monopoly rents in the form of privileges and special salaries and so on for the bureaucracy and apparatchiks of the Communist Party. In Latin America a small number of people have been pocketing the monopoly rents, the monopoly profits, in the form of massive incomes while the rest of the community lives in total poverty. The ghastly contrast between prosperity and poverty, between massive wealth and dire poverty, in so many of those parts of the world is, once more, a reflection of the old policy of concentrating economic power in monopolies, in the hands of far too few people. In this country we too have been extorting monopoly rents in some enterprises. In the Australian National Line, it is the Seamen's Union that has been extorting the monopoly rents because of practices such as overmanning on the ships. There are practices that we have seen in other areas of the waterfront. The list goes on. That is the way we have been distributing monopoly rents taken away from the productive sector of our economy. Therefore, when we talk about the privatisation of these enterprises we on this side of the House are talking about providing competition so that enterprise remains honest, so that enterprise ends up reducing its cost to the lowest level practicable and, at the same time, ensuring that the consumers are first and foremost. If we have a monopoly the result of that monopoly is simply going to be that the consumers come second and that the people who come first are the monopolists who control the monopolies. If ever there was a winning argument for privatisation, for private enterprise and competition, that is the argument that finally floors those people in the Labor Party who have successfully demolished politically the standing of the Prime MInister on the whole issue of privatisation. Of course, the other issue which the Government itself has come to recognise is that as a result of being public enterprises these enterprises simply are unable to raise appropriate capital. As I am going to point out in a minute in relation to Australian National Railways, the growth in the long term debt to equity ratios of those sorts of enterprises is a very serious problem. Again, it is hampering the ability of those enterprises to be able to provide services and goods to the people who really count-the men and women of Australia, the consumers of this country. The Prime Minister recognises that. He has been rolled by his Party. Senator Evans, when he was the Minister for Transport and Communications, recognised that. He was rolled by his Party. Most people around the world now recognise that-even in Eastern Europe. However, the Labor Party remains ideologically and blindly committed to public enterprise for the sake of public enterprise because it can see no further than the dim distant memory of its friend Ben Chifley. I think that if we make a selection from the package of Bills in the cognate debate tonight the example provided by the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill is as good a one as any. I know that the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) has a keen interest in the Australian National Railways. I doubt very much whether he would demur from many of the conclusions I would draw from the operation of that enterprise. This Bill enables Australian National to operate more freely as a business enterprise. The Bill is not a major initiative; it is a minor technical initiative. However, it does enable Australian National to operate still more freely as a business enterprise. I welcome the opportunities that Australian National Railways has had over the last decade or so to become more business oriented than it used to be. I happen to hold the old-fashioned view that railways still have a future in this country. We ought to be providing from this Parliament confidence for the railways and for the people who work in the railways, recognising that their contribution to our economy is respected and should be rewarded and, more than that, that over the next 20, 40 or 50 years railways may very well assume a greater level of importance than they have had in the last two or three decades in this country. I think that Australian National Railways is very much of that view and has been very determined to try to improve the efficiency of its operation ever since the Fraser Government made changes to Australian National Railways to allow it to do so. It has to be conceded that this Government in this legislation is building on the initiatives of the Fraser Government. It is a process that has been going on for some years. I certainly pay tribute to Don Williams, the present Chairman and former General Manager of Australian National Railways, for all he did to make that railway much more successful. The Government has injected entrepreneurship into Australian National Railways in the area of passenger trains. It has introduced the entertainment car on the Ghan and, as everyone would know, has been putting forward a much more aggressive advertising posture. It has also been rationalising and improving its freight services very substantially. The fact is that Australian National Railways still has many major problems. Those problems need to be addressed properly. First, Australian National Railways needs to be much better integrated with the State railways, in particular the Victorian railways and the New South Wales railways, if it is going to be a truly successful national railway system. It really is a major problem for Australian National Railways to try to promote one trans-Australian freight service when it has to go through marshalling yards at Parkes, Broken Hill, Port Augusta and Dry Creek-and so the list goes on-adding enormously to the delays in the service and to the costs of the service that otherwise it would be able to provide. I think the Commonwealth Government, in cooperation with the State governments, has to work very hard on trying to integrate more successfully the freight services of Australian National Railways with those of the various State railway systems. Secondly, we have the age-old problem of standardisation of track in Australia. This is hardly new; it goes back well over a century. But the fact is that the costs associated with the variation of railway gauges throughout the country are also enormous. One only has to go, as has the honourable member for Throsby, to the Dry Creek marshalling yards to see the facility for changing bogies to appreciate that, although it is a very effective facility and is quite cost effective for what it does-it is technologically advanced even though, I am sorry to say, the technology is not Australian-the fact is that it is slow and therefore is going to be time-consuming and cost ineffective compared to not having to go through that bogie changing process. In the long term, if our railways are to succeed, there will have to be a major investment in the standardisation of track, not least between Adelaide and Melbourne, so that freight trains can link up directly with cities such as Sydney and with the eastern seaboard without having to go through, at the very best, bogie changes and, at the worst, changes of train altogether. I hope that I will live to see the day-indeed, I hope it will be a lot sooner than that-when there is some constructive proposal that can be funded, particularly if it can be funded with private sector finance, for the introduction of a standard gauge line between Adelaide and Melbourne. The third problem of Australian National Railways-and this is a problem that has not been highlighted sufficiently-is that it has a drastic lack of capital. Again, I know that the honourable member for Throsby is only too well aware of the problems of the lack of capital that Australian National has. Let me give the House a couple of statistics: in 1977-78, the halcyon years of the Fraser Government, Commonwealth equity in Australian National Railways was 68.3 per cent of the total capital structure of Australian National Railways. In 1986-87-and these are the latest figures available-Commonwealth equity in Australian National Railways was 34.8 per cent of its capital structure. What is of concern is that the level of debt in Australian National Railways has grown enormously. It is the servicing of that debt which is using up so many of its resources, rather than being able to concentrate its financial resources on continuing to build an effective railway system. In 1977-78, 21.1 per cent of the capital structure of Australian National Railways was in Commonwealth loans. In 1986-87, it is 30.7 per cent. Other loans, which were zero in 1977-78, are now 12.2 per cent. So honourable members can see an enormous increase in the level of indebtedness of Australian National Railways and the decline of equity in that railway system. One of my concerns about that is that Australian National Railways is being forced into more and more obscure financing arrangements which I do not think are necessarily going to be in the long term interest of that railways system, even though they provide for some short term advantages. Nobody has publicised the fact that Australian National Railways has purchased a series of new Clyde locomotives, which is a good thing. That aspect of it has been publicised. Nobody has publicised the fact that Australian National Railways has already sold most of the locomotives or is in the process of selling most of the new locomotives it has just bought to finance companies, be they Australian or foreign-and I understand some of those finance companies are foreign-and is leasing back those locomotives from foreign finance companies. It is entering into this sort of shonky Bannon-style lease back arrangement because it has no other source of capital to pay for the new locomotives. I have a real concern about the way public enterprises in Australia-and, worse than that, State governments such as the State Government of South Australia, which has done it with its power stations-are entering into these curious lease back system which do not provide them with any particular tax advantages, as they might to a private sector company, but which do raise short term capital requirements for the public enterprises and incur a substantial long term liability. I wonder what the effective interest rate is on the locomotives that Australian National Railways is in the process of selling and leasing back. I wonder whether the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), who is at the table, will be able to give us the answer to that in his summing up speech this evening. We as a parliament need to know what is happening to the resources of this public enterprise which is answerable to the Parliament of Australia. If the Government is not prepared to tell us what is happening, if the Minister is going to follow the precedent set by his dear friend and colleague, the Premier of South Australia-I am only being facetious, Mr Deputy Speaker; I know they are not friends-who has told the State of South Australia nothing at all about the way he has flogged off and leased back the State's power stations and all the other shonky financial deals that the South Australian Government financing authorities are getting involved in, then doubtless the Parliament is simply going to be denied this information. I have sympathy for Australian National Railways in this case, because it must try to raise more investment capital. It really has only two choices if it is not going to enter into these so-called creative financial deals. One choice is to come to the Government, cap in hand, and just ask for a cheque. That is the choice that the honourable member for Throsby supports. I am sure he thinks that the Government should write out a big fat cheque for Australian National Railways. If he does not think that, I assume therefore that he thinks it is a good thing that its debt to equity ratio is continuing to grow from 0.3 : 1 in 1977-78 to 1.2 : 1 in 1986-87. There has been a bit of growth there. If the honourable member for Throsby thinks that that is a good thing, so be it. If he does not, he probably favours a big fat cheque from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to try to solve that problem. We, on this side of the House, are not too keen on governments writing out big fat cheques. At the end of the day the solution will probably be something much more creative than that, involving some of the many private enterprise transport corporations in the activities of Australian National through investment processes. I think that is the way to go in the longer term. That will inevitably happen if Australian National, as a railway system, is to raise appropriate capital. I really have some reservations about some of the alternatives, such as the third alternative plan; that is, the old lease back arrangement. It reminds me very much of the case in Britain when the Manchester City Council, trying to circumvent the conservative government's very appropriate spending controls on it, became so desperate for money that it actually sold the Manchester Town Hall and leased it back. From what I understand, it was about the only asset that the Manchester City Council had. The British Government has made that sort of practice illegal. In this country our public enterprises are so desperate for capital that they are doing the same thing, because of the ideological opposition from the Labor Party to privatisation or private sector involvement. Indeed, our Labor State governments are also indulging in some of the same sorts of financial practices. I hope that the Government will be more sympathetic to the problems of Australian National Railways because the management of that company has improved enormously over the years. The present management is doing a professional and constructive job but we ought to be told the real story of the leasing back of the new locomotives whose purchase the Prime Minister announced only recently. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(9.11) —I naturally support the legislation and reject the amendment moved by the Opposition. I am pleased to speak in this cognate debate but will confine my remarks to the Australian National Line and the Australian National Railways Commission. I listened with great interest to the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), especially as he was kind enough to refer to me so frequently in his speech. It is interesting that, if his mates at Ansett Airlines of Australia were doing what Australian National is doing, he would be cheering for them. Mr Downer —They get a tax advantage. Mr HOLLIS —Yes. He started to talk about the-- Mr Downer —But they support it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Mayo was heard in silence. Mr HOLLIS —He talked about big fat cheques-- Mr Downer —He didn't hear a word I said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mayo will not interrupt the Chair. Mr HOLLIS —Of course, the honourable member for Mayo and his mates do not like big fat cheques being paid out unless they are to their mates; they are the ones they like the big fat cheques paid out to. I make no apology for supporting public ownership. Mr Downer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on point of order. By saying that the Opposition would like to write out big fat cheques-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr Downer —I have not completed my point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I advise the honourable member not to make a speech. Mr Downer —It is deeply offensive because the suggestion is one of corruption on this side of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member continues to make flippant and frivolous points of order he will be named. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HOLLIS —I make no apology for supporting public ownership of enterprises. Listening to the honourable member for Mayo-I hope he does not get upset at this-it seems to me that he is all in favour of privatising the revenue making activities but socialising the loss making activities. He wants to let the taxpayers carry the burden for the loss making activities but privatise the good revenue making activities. If honourable members opposite are so keen on flogging everything off, let them go to the people of Australia on this at the next election. Let them tell the people what they will flog off. Many of us in this chamber have seen privatisation at work. We have seen Thatcher's Britain and we do not like it. Honourable members opposite talk about the difference between wealth and poverty. They should look at the difference between wealth and poverty in Thatcher's Britain today. If that is what they want for Australia, they should tell the people of Australia that they want that. As I said, I will confine most of my remarks to the ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill. It is a major step towards implementing the reform package announced by Senator Evans on 25 May 1988 in his statement `Reshaping the Transport and Communications Government Enterprises'. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) in his wide-ranging speech about what the Opposition would sell off and so forth, mentioned the steel industry plan. I do not know what the steel industry plan has to do with this. I see that my good friend the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) pricked up his ears when I said that. When this Government came to power in 1983 the steel industry in Australia had been devastated. Both the honourable member for Macarthur and I know that because we represent the steel producing area. This Government has rebuilt the steel industry. We now have a viable industry that is competing throughout the world. Had the Fraser Government been re-elected in 1983 Australia today would not have a steel industry. So enough of this nonsense about the steel industry plan. A major part of the Government's third term agenda is micro-economic reform. Ensuring that government business enterprises operate as efficiently and effectively as possible is a major element of this reform program. ANL provides an important transport link for Australian industry, both internationally and on the coast. Any improvement in its efficiency will therefore be reflected immediately elsewhere in the economy. But this will occur only if ANL is given greater flexibility and the ability to respond rapidly to changes in the market and to take up business opportunities as they present themselves. The staff of ANL, especially members of the sea-going unions, have played a significant part in this turnabout in ANL. The honourable member for Richmond, in his usual manner, displayed his ignorance about the Australian shipping industry. It is not surprising that the Opposition should display this ignorance. In fact, I expect it. Honourable members opposite see the chance to do a bit of union bashing and away they go. As usual, they are not concerned with the facts; they are after blood-the blood of honest and decent Australian working men. When one strips away their biased rhetoric and their outdated so-called facts, one begins to see what their real contribution has been-so far absolutely nil in this debate and nil for the years that they occupied the treasury bench. This Government has a good record in Australian shipping. We can be proud of our record; it is in stark contrast to that of those now sitting opposite. When they were in government they did absolutely nothing to improve and modernise the Australian shipping industry. I found it interesting that the honourable member for Richmond talked about this Government being confused. He spoke about factions in this Government. Honourable members opposite should talk about factions in a political party! As for being confused, it is obvious from his speech that the Opposition is confused about the maritime industry. Honourable members opposite spend most of their time talking about the waterfront unions. They obviously cannot tell a seaman from a wharfie, a wharfie from a painter and docker, or a painter and docker from a fireman or deckhand. Mr Price —They have never done an honest day's work in their lives. Mr HOLLIS —As my honourable colleague says, they have never done an honest day's work in their lives, most certainly not on the waterfront. They should come with me some time to Port Kembla. I know some seamen, waterside workers, painters and dockers, firemen and deckhands who are most eager to support-- Mr Pratt —They are a good group. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Adelaide will not interject and if wishes to address the Chair, he should occupy his own seat. Mr HOLLIS —Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. These people are most eager to help Opposition members understand the differences. Of course, as the honourable member for Richmond told us the Opposition wants the Australian coastline opened up to foreign shipping. This would be an absolute disaster, not least in that it would add to our balance of payments deficit because the earnings of foreign shipping lines would be sent overseas and no tax would be paid. I have on several occasions challenged members of the Opposition to come with me to Port Kembla to inspect one of the rust buckets that periodically enter our port. To date no-one has accepted my offer. I have been aboard a number of these rust buckets. The conditions for the crew are appalling but, worse than that, they are such that the safety of the ship and crew is seriously at risk. Of the 314 major maritime accidents recorded in 1984, all but a handful were due to defective vessels, faulty navigation equipment or inadequate safety training for the crew. Over the period that this Government has been in power, there has been an enormous improvement in industrial relations in the shipping industry, an improvement virtually unmatched in any other Australian industry. The recently released Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report does not even mention this very significant factor which has done so much to make Australian shipping more competitive. This raises the very serious question of the validity of the report. One cannot help but ask whether it is a balanced and fair report. The facts are that the Opposition is seriously out of date; in fact it is 10 years out of date as illustrated by the comments it makes on Australian shipping, and it keeps making these out of date comments all the time. Mr Martin —Out of touch. Mr HOLLIS —It is out of touch, as my honourable friend says, and out of date. The maritime unions have long since recognised the need to reduce crew levels on Australian shipping in order to make the industry more competitive and they have set up the necessary procedures to meet this challenge. Yet we hear the honourable member for Mayo, in his contribution, talking about overmanning on Australian ships. Has he not heard of the multiskilling that has occurred in recent years on Australian ships? There has been a reduction to 23 and 21 on these ships. Shipping unions then recognised the need to amalgamate so that they could eliminate the causes of demarcation disputes on board our ships and today the amalgamation process is almost complete. The unions also recognised the importance of multiskilled training for the members of ships' crews, so that the one crew member can effectively perform a number of functions previously carried out by two or more crew members belonging to different shipboard unions. To give crew members the necessary multiskilled background, there was set up in Launceston in 1975, some 13 years ago, a training school to do just this-rather than holding back progress by sticking to outmoded work practices. Of course the honourable member for Richmond will not be aware of these facts, nor, I suspect, would he be interested in them. The maritime unions have sought to move with the times, and I must say they have done a pretty good job of it. Today they quite rightly take pride in their being in the vanguard of industrial change to meet the challenges of today's very competitive market-place. But what do they get for this, especially from the Opposition? They never get credit for it, they get only criticism. The same can be said of the progress of some sections of Australian industry. If only it could be said of all sectors of Australian industry. The honourable member for Mayo showed us the breadth of his knowledge, as did the honourable member for Richmond, but I ask them where a coalition government would stop. Would it be after it had destroyed our national shipping industry? Would it turn over our domestic airlines to foreign crews and ownership? What about our railways? Would it flog them off as well? Why not turn them over as well? Many of the cost benefits accruing to foreign shipping arise from their tax haven status and the slave labour wages they pay their crews, if they get around to paying them at all, which they very often do not. Is this what the Opposition wants for the Australian shipping industry? It wants one group of Australians to accept standards of living and employment conditions far lower than for any other category of Australians in the community. The IAC report, so lavishly quoted by the honourable member for Richmond, wrongly compares wages and conditions of Australian seamen and seamen of other nationalities. A more appropriate comparison would be one between Australian seamen and other Australian workers. After listening to the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Mayo-although he spoke mainly about the railways-one would have thought there had been no progress at all in Australian shipping. It is very interesting that in only last weekend's Weekend Australian we saw the following paragraph: An Australian crew will replace a Japanese crew on a Japanese car-carrying ship early next year because it will be cheaper . . . It will be cheaper to employ an Australian crew on this ship than it would to employ a Japanese crew. So much for the costs in Australia. It would do honourable members opposite good to talk to some of the seagoing unions, to get an up-to-date education and to accept the invitation that I constantly offer to them to come to Port Kembla with me and the honourable member for Macarthur to meet the workers of the Australian maritime industry, the seagoing unions and those who work on the wharves. The next time a ship is blocked at Port Kembla, I invite any of those opposite to look at that ship, to go over that ship with me and the honourable member for Macarthur and then tell me whether they would sail on that ship and whether those are the sorts of conditions they want Australian workers to work under. It is time that the Opposition got up to date on Australian shipping. It is obvious that it does not understand it as all the figures those opposite constantly quote in this place, about crew levels and other things, are always 10 years out of date. If they did come down to Port Kembla with me and the honourable member for Macarthur they might not come into this chamber and constantly make such outrageous claims about the Australian shipping industry, because there is no industry in Australia that has worked harder over the last few years to meet the goals set by the Government. ANL has gone into multiskilling and it has reduced the crew numbers on the ships; it is competitive and it will continue to be competitive, especially while it remains in public ownership, as I hope it will continue to do. I support the Bills before the House and I absolutely reject the amendment moved by the Opposition. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(9.27) —I rise to speak on the six cognate Bills before the House, and make particular reference to the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill. As has been mentioned by honourable members, this is important legislation which will widen Australian National's powers to expand the scope of its business activities, to extend the planning and accountability mechanisms which apply to it and to remove most of the remaining day to day controls over Australian National activities. It is to some extent all about the future of rail and providing the right corporate plan as specifically provided for in this legislation. As the House considers this legislation, it is food for thought to pause for one moment and think that 25 years ago we were on the brink of the major standardisation projects which brought about the big breakthrough at that time in rail transport infrastructure. I take this opportunity to quote from a speech by William Charles Wentworth, the then member for Mackellar, to the House on 2 May 1963: I hope I will not be named as one of the people who have been luke-warm about this- in effect, the subject of rail standardisation. He continued: As honourable members know I had the honour to be the chairman of the committee which recommended the scheme of rail standardisation, of which this line is the final, or nearly the final, link. We have seen the scheme carried out step by step. Also as part of the membership of that committee was a former member for Farrer, indeed the first member for Farrer, Sir David Fairbairn. These were giant men of considerable foresight who helped bring about the key standardisation breakthroughs of Albury to Melbourne, of Broken Hill to Port Pirie and through to Port Augusta, and eventually of Kalgoorlie to Perth, and paved the way, in effect, for more recent links including the vital link from Crystal Brook to Adelaide. But as progress has been made on the one hand, to some extent on the other hand we have stood still, because 20 years ago we had this-and I bring to the attention of the House the Main Southern Line and Branches timetable of Tuesday, 10 September 1968. The line passes through the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), and lists amongst other things such illustrious trains as the Intercapital Daylight Express, leaving Sydney at 7.45 a.m. on Mondays to Saturdays and arriving in Melbourne, having passed through Goulburn and Albury, at 8.20 p.m., some 12 1/2 hours later. I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House that precisely the same timetable operates on this day, 1 November 1988, for the Intercapital Daylight Express as operated on Tuesday, 10 September 1968-20 years ago. So as we take this opportunity to look at a window of change in respect of railway development in this country, I have to report to the House and the nation that while some progress has been made in one sense, in another sense very little progress has been made and we have some terrible anomalies. Let me state my position very clearly. Last month I said at one of an important series of meetings convened by the Jerilderie Shire Council that rail has a very strong future in the twenty-first century. I was speaking about revamped and revitalised rail transport in Australia and, indeed, around the world. I might add that underlying that fundamental strength of rail transport is the basic energy equation and the shortage of oil by degrees, especially here in Australia. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) asked a question today about the severe rundown in our oil reserves that we are going to suffer throughout the next decade. More than ever we must take into account the simple equation that a steel wheel on a steel rail has approximately one-tenth of the friction of a rubber tyred wheel on a bitumen surface. It is that simple equation which demonstrates the efficiency and effectiveness of the rail infrastructure around the world. This equation will be responsible for a massive leap forward in rail development with the completion of the twin railway chunnel between the United Kingdom and France. This standard gauge railway line will provide a quantum leap forward in the swing back to rail in Europe and the United Kingdom in respect of not only passengers but also freight. Even in the United States of America where the car has been god for so many decades, we now see Amtrak making some progress towards developing viable operations between Boston, New York and Washington, in what the Americans call their north-eastern corridor, and on some of its other route structures. Some of its operations are swinging heavily back into profit. Carefully managed and very long unit train loads of freight are competing very effectively. Much needs to be done here in Australia. I acknowledge that the legislation that is before the House tonight takes a further step towards bringing about a more commercial orientation to our Australian National operations. I digress for one moment. I mentioned some very effective meetings that were called by the Jerilderie Council in relation to the railway line which runs from Narrandera to Jerilderie and Tocumwal and the question of standardising the Tocumwal-Mangalore link to allow for a second standard gauge link from the Riverina ultimately through to Geelong and certainly to Melbourne. Over the years Jerilderie has been a very big railway centre and a very big consignor of excellent high quality stock. Years ago all of the stock and merchandise produced on Tom and Heather Pyle's property would have been sent by rail. But that rail link is no more. In fact, following the meetings, it was announced that the Jerilderie to Tocumwal section would be permanently closed. That being the case, we are losing the right to advance further the cause of standardisation between Narrandera, Mangalore and Melbourne. I make the point in the context of this Australian National Railways legislation that we will live to regret the closure of the branch lines, regional lines and main lines by governments of all political persuasions and at all levels. While I am not about the business of featherbedding rail infrastructure to the extent of keeping branch lines running when such a proposition is clearly and completely beyond the pale, I do say that there is tremendous scope and potential for the revamping and revitalising of rail infrastructure in this country. Rail transport will enjoy a renaissance in the twenty-first century to an extent that economists, government planners and others ought to start thinking about here and now. I am taking the opportunity, in the context of this debate and the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) which I have seconded, to make these points because it is rare that the House gets the opportunity to examine transport modes and to discuss rail transport in some detail. I hope that governments of all persuasions and at all levels, as they plan for the 1990s and beyond into the twenty-first century, will look long and hard at the use of modern effective railway systems to fulfil the need for both passenger and freight movements on the scale that they do so well. Clearly it would be uneconomic in the extreme to provide such a service to every small town in New South Wales or in the nation. But equally, this could be done well on such routes as Ballarat to Melbourne and on the electrified route from Brisbane to Rockhampton. The north coast so-called main line between Sydney, Newcastle, Taree, Grafton and Brisbane could be improved. This line needs to undergo some upgrading and revamping. Originally it was not much better than a rough branch line which followed every bend and went up every grade. Mr Cowan —Taking pressure off the highway. Mr TIM FISCHER —As the honourable member correctly points out, if it were turned into an effective, revamped, modernised main line, enormous pressure would be taken off an horrific section of the Pacific Highway along the north coast. At the same time more efficiency would be conferred overall on that transport corridor between Sydney and Brisbane. It is in that context that I turn to two other specific areas-firstly, the very fast train concept and, secondly, Australian National. I do so in the context of the corporate plan provided for in the legislation before the House. Firstly, I turn to the very fast train. Ten years ago Dr Paul Wild was thought to be a madman who had lost his focus and his mental balance because he had come forward with a concept of a three-hour train service between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne-Sydney to Canberra in one hour and Canberra to Melbourne in two hours. Today Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, TNT and a number of other companies and syndicates are forking out millions of dollars for very detailed feasibility studies of what is a planning reality and rapidly becoming an actual reality-namely, the very fast train travelling between Sydney, Goulburn, Canberra and Melbourne. In recent weeks the Victorian State Government has decided to make a pronouncement on the very fast train concept after having held back for some time. The Victorian Government has said, `Yes, in principle, we support the concept. But, no, we are not quite happy yet about the basic route structure for the Canberra-Melbourne leg'. The State Government wants to place back on the agenda what I term the so-called western option-that is, a line running from Sydney to Canberra, Tumut, Holbrook, Albury and down the existing and very suitable corridor in terms of terrain to Melbourne. That line would be in contrast to the eastern option which thus far has been preferred by the very fast train syndicate and is subject to detailed investigation at the moment-namely Sydney, Canberra, Cooma, Gippsland and Melbourne. The opening up of the western option question and the placing on the agenda of the route structure of the very fast train concept has great significance for Canberra. It has less significance for Goulburn because clearly the route will pass through Sydney, Goulburn and Canberra anyhow. But it has very great significance for the city of Albury, which I represent. It would boost existing rail infrastructure by providing direct access to the very fast train at various stages and especially at the key central hub point of Albury, quite apart from at Canberra and the Joppa Junction-Goulburn interchange, which is already on the planning boards at a site just south of Goulburn which the honourable member for Gilmore and I inspected about this time last year. One can see from the record of debates in State parliaments 100 years ago, from maps of my electorate and from looking out the window of a plane how so often the intervention of politicians has resulted in railway lines turning at right angles and heading off in all directions except where the line should be heading as people brought influence to bear on the planning of the lines for political rather than economic purposes. I say that there should be a very detailed investigation of the western option: from Canberra, probably utilising the slightly easier grades around the Wee Jasper suboption, to Tumut, not necessarily involving costly tunnelling; from Tumut through Humula to Holbrook; from Holbrook through Table Top, past the Ettamogah Hotel, into Albury; and then resuming the existing standard and broad gauge railway corridor, on which there is quite sufficient space, from Albury to Melbourne. I suspect that that option has a lot to commend it commercially, economically and in every other way but for one thing-the difficult engineering link between Canberra and Tumut. Any decent Italian alpine engineer, road builder or rail builder would say that we should not get too fussed about that, given what the Italians have achieved in tunnelling and punching their way through mountains four times the size of the comparatively wimpish mountains between Canberra and Tumut. These are fundamental questions, but at the end of the day the very fast train project must stand on its merits. It must stand on its economic viability and it must not be interfered with, even by the member representing Albury, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran)-dare I say it-or others. I call for and support a full investigation of the western option. Let it be compared with the eastern option through Gippsland but at the end of the day, whichever option stands up the best, we have to accept it and get on with the job. This country needs the very fast train. It needs it on its most important transport corridor-between Sydney and Melbourne-and it needs it by the year 2000, if not earlier. I back the project overall, and I commend Dr Paul Wild and the other people of great foresight who have carried the burden of this project, often against cynical criticism and indifference on the part of some front bench members of the Government, including the Minister referred to by the honourable member for Gilmore who at one stage attacked the project head on. He will live to regret that attack. I commend to the House the very fast train concept in the context of this legislation. It will impact on the corporate planning of Australian National. Let us get the best option. Let us find out what it is and then get on with the job. I had the privilege in June of spending two days examining in some detail the workings of Australian National, along with my colleagues on a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, including the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil). It is interesting to see how Australian National has made great progress. It was not only under the Labor Government, of course; it was a coalition government that made some of the basic decisions about standardising the line from Alice Springs to Tarcoola and Port Augusta and so forth. But that is not what we are on about. We want to see Australian National get back into the black, ready for the twenty-first century. I am delighted to have seen at first hand its development of containerised wagons which allow for an articulated bogie construction with five long container wagons linked in such a way as to reduce the tonnage when empty by some 15 tonnes and confer a much greater economic benefit as a consequence. I have seen the way the organisation laser grinds its rails so that there is a one in 20 tilt to the rails on a horizontal examination and the efficiency that flows from that sort of progress. It is not just a steel wheel sitting on a steel rail; it is a wheel laser ground to a particular lateral profile sitting on a ground rail likewise dovetailed to provide maximum running efficiency. When we are looking at two-kilometre long freight trains, this is extremely important. The big regret is that in the east-west operation we have the horrific situation of a freight train leaving Sydney having to have crew changes or be remarshalled at each of the following stations: Lithgow, Bathurst, Parkes-if it is lucky it might get through Orange without a change-Ivanhoe, Broken Hill, Peterborough, Port Augusta, Tarcoola, Forrest, Kalgoorlie, Merredin and Northam. Ultimately, eight days later, those wagons might happen to arrive in Perth. That trip takes place on one standard gauge. This is not good enough. That is why we have to look at the option of switching the Parkes-Broken Hill line to direct Australian National control and ownership. I call for that so that two-kilometre unit freight trains can operate directly from Parkes to Perth without remarshalling and without the massive featherbedding and delays caused by the present arrangements. The railways are moving in that direction. I welcome the trial run of a two-kilometre freight train from Parkes last week. I hope that further progress will be made. I commend the legislation to the House. More particularly, I commend the amendment so capably moved by my colleague the honourable member for Richmond. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.47) —In this cognate debate I will direct my remarks to the ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill 1988. This legislation will establish the Australian National Line (ANL) as a company by providing for the Australian Shipping Commission to be registered as a company incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory under the Companies Act 1981 on a date to be proclaimed. The company will be known as ANL Ltd. It is expected that the commencing date of the company's operations will be 1 July 1989. The Bill also removes certain statutory controls on the operations of the company. The Hawke Government has long been committed to a more competitive and efficient Australian National Line, capable of growth and greater job opportunities. The Australian National Line must be efficient to perform its important role as a transport link for Australian industry both internationally and on the coast. The Hawke Government has always believed that the Australian National Line had to be given greater flexibility and the ability to respond quickly to changes in the market and to seize business opportunities for expansion as they occur. In other words, the Australian National Line had to have the flexibility, the drive and the incentive to pursue opportunities and be a first-class commercial enterprise. The initiatives of the Hawke Government to transform the Australian National Line from a debt-ridden loss maker into a profitable enterprise have been outstandingly successful. The transformation was difficult and hard won. Indeed, the history of the Australian National Line has been one of triumph over adversity and, under the Fraser Government, triumph over incompetent management when the line lost $40m. The Australian National Line was almost bankrupt at the time the Fraser Government lost office. To enable honourable members to appreciate the need for this legislation, I will outline briefly the history of the Australian National Line. The line was established after the Second World War when the Commonwealth found itself in possession of a flotilla of merchant ships. In the early postwar period these ships continued to be operated by the Australian Shipping Board under the National Security (Shipping Coordination) Regulations. At the same time, the parlous financial state of the private shipping companies made it very difficult for them either to purchase the government ships or to have new ships built. In order to maintain Australian shipping services and to avoid the losses involved in disposing of its ships, the Menzies Government decided in 1956 to establish the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, trading as the Australian National Line, and to operate its ships as profitably as possible. The private companies, for their part, were able to continue operations, mainly by chartering the vessels they required. Originally established as a coastal shipping operation, the Australian National Line expanded its activities into international shipping services in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In recognition of this change in its role, the Commission changed its name to the Australian Shipping Commission in 1974. The financial performance of the Australian National Line throughout the 1960s and 1970s was patchy. In 1983 the Australian National Line was in a parlous financial position. Its debt-equity ratio was very high and it was on the brink of bankruptcy. The Hawke Government made a capital injection of $90m in May 1983. By using this to convert debt to equity, the Australian National Line was able to significantly improve its liquidity. As a quid pro quo, the Australian National Line agreed to improve its efficiency. A further injection of $70.541m was made by the Hawke Government in 1985. This was needed to place the Australian National Line's capital needs on an appropriate basis when this need became apparent following the adoption of more appropriate accounting practices by the enterprise. The Australian National Line has engaged in a process of improving efficiency by reducing its fleet by around one-third and cutting back employment by a similar amount-almost 1,000 employees-over the period of 1983 to 1987. It has formulated a corporate plan and is attempting to implement lower ship manning levels. It has also ceased providing operations on a number of less profitable routes both on the coast and internationally. Indeed, one casualty was the ANL services from north Queensland. In 1983-84, the north Queensland service lost more than $6m and the ANL ceased its services to north Queensland, which produced much public opposition. The Australian National Line, in its 1986-87 annual report, argued: . . . there is a limit to what can be achieved by corporate economies and internal efficiencies and further corrective action is inhibited now by the institutional rigidities in Australia of the industry itself and the competitive environment within which it is carried on. The Australian National Line lists manning problems, industrial relations and problems on the waterfront as matters needing to be overcome for the enterprise to be able to continue in business and be profitable. This point of view raises several aspects. Firstly, it indicates that the prime concern is no longer one of the corporate structure of the Australian National Line. Secondly, it draws attention to the need for the Government's waterfront strategy to be fully and successfully carried out. I now turn to a more detailed discussion of the need for this legislation. The blueprint for the commercialisation of several of the Commonwealth's more important business enterprises is set out in a document entitled Reshaping the Transport and Communications Government Business Enterprises. This document was released by the Treasurer in conjunction with his May 1988 economic statement. That document draws attention to certain rigidities and non-commercial practices to be found in the operations of several business enterprises and argues that, for efficiency reasons, such problems need to be rectified. Indeed, the impetus for this legislation has been spurred by this document. There have been many problems faced by government business enterprises. There has often been quite a deal of government intervention in the day to day operations of such enterprises. This has extended to staffing conditions, types and magnitudes of contracts that may be entered into, the type of securities which such enterprises could issue or invest in, and so forth. Enterprises have also been subject to more substantial intervention, such as having to meet superannuation liabilities under Public Service superannuation schemes, being subject to executive salary setting by the Remuneration Tribunal, and having to have borrowing programs approved by Loan Council. Frequently, enterprises have been allowed to continue with antiquated and inappropriate accounting practices. Such enterprises have also frequently been at the mercy of the Government's current budgetary `strategy' in terms of their access to appropriate levels of equity capital. Of course, not everything has been negative: several enterprises have operated for years either fully or partially exempt from the payment of Commonwealth, State or local taxation. No one could seriously object to any government taking measures to correct these types of distortions. Indeed, the extent to which such distortions can be overcome solely by converting business enterprises into public companies, which is what this Bill is all about, is by no means clear. Although there could be certain advantages in incorporation, these are likely to be slight. The significant advantage would appear to be that, once an enterprise is a company, it is possible to sell off or issue shares in that enterprise. This may, of course, be advantageous to the enterprise in that it represents one way in which an enterprise can have access to capital, free from government budgetary considerations. Certainly, it might be argued that, to date, whether an enterprise is a company or a statutory authority has had little impact on the degree of government intervention. Qantas, for example, is a company while Australian Airlines was, until recently, a statutory authority. Both were subject to fairly close government intervention in their operations, both were-and are-subject to Loan Council approval for their borrowings, and so forth. Despite their different corporate structures, there was effectively little difference in their relationship to government. One wonders about the fate of this particular Bill and its structure so far as ANL Ltd is concerned. Over recent years, the Hawke Government has introduced legislation to free many authorities from day to day government controls. The Government has amended legislation establishing these authorities to grant whatever freedoms have been seen as appropriate. This has been done, and continues to be done, with enterprises such as the Australian National Line in this particular Bill, Telecom Australia, Australian National Railways and Australian Airlines. In the case of Qantas, an analogous procedure has been followed in that more liberal management directives have been provided to the organisation by this Government. I just want to touch on a few more issues in connection with this debate, particularly with reference to the Bill. I turn to part V of the Bill, which deals with staff matters. I want to say a few words on remuneration. In recent years the legislation governing the activities of several statutory authorities has been amended to enable those enterprises to have more autonomy in setting the terms and conditions of employment of their staff. However, in most instances the salary of the general manager of the enterprise was set by the Remuneration Tribunal. This not only made it difficult to attract highly skilled people into the general manager's position but also put an effective cap on the salaries that could be offered to other staff. Often, more expensive consultants had to be engaged because the salaries needed to employ permanent officers could not be fitted into the enterprise's salary structure. This problem has been overcome by the introduction and probable passage-we hope-of the Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill 1988. Part V of that Bill allows the Remuneration Tribunal to act in an advisory role only, allowing a business enterprise to set the conditions of employment of its managing director. In relation to this Bill, I might mention also the capacity of ANL to borrow money. At present, borrowing by all government owned and controlled enterprises is subject to Loan Council control. In fact, Loan Council controls were strengthened in 1985 when the global borrowing limit program was announced. Such controls have applied not only to statutory authorities such as Australian Airlines, but also to public companies such as Qantas. It might be argued that, where government enterprises are commercial enterprises, especially where they are competing in the marketplace with private sector enterprises, the placing of artificial constraints on their borrowing is distorting as far as resource allocation is concerned, and is commercially disadvantageous to the enterprise. There have been many calls-justifiably so, in my opinion-for such artificial constraints to be removed. The Treasurer, in his blueprint, states that he will look into the possible exemption of Qantas, Australian Airlines and the Australian National Line from Loan Council control. Again, this could be done whether or not those enterprises were public companies. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember that as early as 1981 the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System recommended that, where it could be clearly demonstrated that a public authority was basically subject to market disciplines, it could be viewed as a commercial authority and, accordingly, the volume of borrowing by commercial local and semi-government authorities, and the terms and conditions of such borrowing, should be free from Loan Council control. Professor Campbell envisaged that this principle could be applied to any commercial authority, not solely to publicly owned companies. One may very well ask: What are the benefits of incorporation as envisaged by the legislation? It is obvious that a major benefit of incorporation is that shares in an enterprise can be easily sold off, either fully or in part. Conversely, if an enterprise required capital but the Government felt that within the current Budget context such funding could not be provided within the public coffers, a new share issue could be made. This would dilute the Government's holding of that enterprise and that may be an act which may be inimical to the interests of ANL Ltd. ANL Ltd, as it will be, we hope, after 1 July 1989, has a part to play not only as a commercial, viable shipping line that will benefit all ANL customers and the Australian economy but also in the defence and support of the country. Just as Australia needs physical defence by its Army, Navy and Air Force, so it needs instrumentalities such as the Australian National Line to prevent it from economic attack, which is one of the essential qualities that I see in ANL Ltd: it will be able to help prevent Australia from economic attack. This legislation is a step in the right direction in the pursuit of that goal. It is a reflection of this Government's commitment to a more competitive and efficient Australian national line and it is an endorsement, once again, of the goals set out in the Governor-General's Address when this Government was first elected in 1983 of national reconstruction, nation reconciliation and national recovery. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.03) —To a certain degree all the Bills that are being debated cognately lead to a form of privatisation of public utilities. I am pleased to see the legislation although, naturally, one can criticise it. I do not agree that the legislation goes anywhere near far enough in terms of the future of the organisations referred to. I spoke to the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill when it came before the House and I could reiterate some of the principles that I outlined at that time. Only months ago the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) reported to Australia that the Government wanted to proceed with the privatisation of a number of public utilities. I think that those comments were welcomed very favourably by the majority of the Australian people. We have to appreciate that in this world of ours, particularly in Australia, we must be competitive with other countries. I can easily understand that in earlier days it was necessary for both Commonwealth and State governments, irrespective of their political persuasion, to move towards the provision of transport and communication services to meet the needs of a growing Australia. We should be very proud of what has been achieved to date with our railways, airways, shipping and telecommunications. In this bicentennial year we must appreciate that, recognising our place in this modern world, we have to be tremendously efficient in all of the utilities to which the legislation before us refers. The Western world has found it necessary to privatise public utilities, simply because over the years the taxpayer has been unable to meet the growing demand on the public purse. This demand is growing for a number of reasons. I have already spoken about competitiveness and economic need. However, it has also been proven that in most cases a public enterprise is not as efficient as one that is privately operated. It is realistic to accept that. It does not apply in all cases and I must say that I am proud of what we are doing in the area of telecommunications and what Australia Post is doing. I am very proud of Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines. But we have to look into the future and be aware of what Australia requires. Great advancement has been made in Britain and Europe. The privatisation of the steel and coal industries in Britain was strongly opposed by the unions. I was there in March and April and I believe that the miners are happy now. They receive much more pay than they received before and their conditions are better. They are satisfied with what has occurred there. We in Australia must recognise what has happened elsewhere and take it as an example. Undoubtedly, when the Prime Minister and the Treasurer first raised the matter of privatisation of these public utilities they did so because they had been overseas and had witnessed what had occurred. They said, `Righto, if it has happened there it has to happen in Australia. It is for the good of this country of ours that this takes place'. That is the reason the statement was made. As I said earlier, that is why we see the Government going part of the way in forming corporations dealing with transport and telecommunications. I was very impressed with what the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) said this evening. I believe that there is a place in this continent for an efficient railway system. It is a great shame that many of our spur lines and major services have been reduced considerably. They are in a rundown condition. I will not criticise the efficiency of management over the years. However, when one looks at a railway line, owned by the Commonwealth, running from Sydney to Perth and from Adelaide to Alice Springs, one thinks of the tremendous potential that such a line has in catering for tourism and the Australian domestic population. Such a line is, and will be in years to come, a great asset for Australians. We have so much to offer in the hinterlands of Australia, in Alice Springs and in areas on the way. We hope to see the line go to Darwin before very long. We would love to see another line from east to west across the north of Australia catering for the very significant natural resources in that area. We must be practical in the way we look at this. As the honourable member for Farrer said, a railway line takes only a train on it. It does not take a motor car unless it is on a carriage. It does not have competition, and that is important. Today both the Commonwealth and the States are inclined to take competition away from the railways and the extra traffic goes on the highways-the main arterial and national roads of Australia. As the honourable member for Farrer said, we must be aware of this in terms of our future energy problems. Australia has these energy problems now. We are going to have them, along with the rest of the world. Basically, we have the natural resources that will drive our trains. We may even go back to steam. We do not know what the future holds. We may use nuclear power for the railways. The fact is that it is a fast and efficient way for people who want to travel on land. People who want to travel in the air and who can afford to do so will do so. Rail travel is a form of transport for goods and passengers that we in Australia cannot afford to ignore. I hope that the legislation before the House will further assist this. I do not know how we should look at Australian National Railways or whether we should privatise it. It is a public utility. It is still in its infancy as far as its being built up is concerned. I would love to see the Government, no matter who was on the Commonwealth treasury bench, going ahead by building up and making those lines more efficient. The opportunity is there. For years we have heard about the Australian National Line (ANL), that it is an inefficient line, that it is not properly run and that it is costing the Australian taxpayer a lot of money. I think that is true. Progress has been made. The present administration has made a certain amount of progress. ANL is now a paying line. I understand that it is responsible for only about 6 per cent of the international trade into and out of Australia. That is not very much. It is certainly more responsible for interstate trade. It hurts us when occasionally we read in the media that we can make a shipment from Cairns to Japan, Townsville to Japan or Melbourne to Japan more cheaply than a little trip around the coast on an ANL boat. We have to appreciate that there is something wrong with the management of the Australian National Line. I welcome the legislation and hope that it becomes the means of creating a more efficient service so far as that line is concerned. If we attempted to privatise it, it might be quite a job because I do not know who would want to buy it. This is the important thing. We are competing against other very efficient shipping lines. It may not be opportune to say to the Australian people, `Will you buy shares in ANL?', because it would not be able to show the return to allow for that. I understand that a lot of our ships will soon need replacing. A lot of facilities onshore will have to be upgraded. We will have to have a better relationship between road transport generally and the shipping industry so as to be able to coordinate them, to keep our costs down and to make things much more efficient than they are at present. That is all I wish to say about ANL and Australian National Railways. Telecom Australia and Australia Post are two organisations that virtually do not have any opposition. They are monopolies. It is easy for them to pay. We want to see them pay. We want to see them be commercial enterprises. Over the last 10 to 20 years we have gradually arrived at the point where they pay their way. It is quite easy for them because they are able to put up the price of their stamps and telephone calls at will. They are able to say that they will have to raise costs. They are able to raise the costs simply because they do not believe that they have any great competition. Monopolistic as those organisations are, it has been pleasing to see that public relations within those two organisations have improved on what they were years ago. I only have to look at my own region within the electorate of Lyne to see how Australia Post has operated. Men such as Mr Maurie Thies, the manager in the Newcastle district, have given tremendous cooperation. I believe that we are getting the same cooperation from people within Telecom. We want to see that. When we go to the post office to post a letter, buy stamps or send telegrams it is nice to be met by a friendly face. This is demanded today by the Australian public. A different attitude exists from that which existed years ago. For instance, when people went on to a railway platform and someone growled at them they felt that they were in the road, but things have changed over the years. We do not want to queue for services, but I notice in post offices at home-it is the same in banks-and overseas that one has to queue before getting to the counter. I suppose it is something that we have to accept in Australia. As I represent a country electorate I would like to say that the Government cannot lose control of the essential principles so far as Telecom and Australia Post are concerned. In other words, there must be some form of assistance from those paying enterprises to those which are not paying so well but are giving a service. This is essential. Within my electorate of Lyne six public telephones were taken out recently. I know that they were not paying telephones. The local people objected to this. The fact is that Telecom is a public utility. Whilst Telecom is showing those profits it has to carry the losses as well to provide a service to country people, particularly those in the outback who are many miles from the major towns and cities. Those people are serving Australia from a productive point of view on the land in primary industry and in mining the natural resources of Australia. They are the people who have to receive the services that are so essential for them to be able to carry on. There must be some government oversight of this. Whilst these are commercial enterprises that we are talking about, they certainly have to see that their services are provided for people who really matter. Basically, that is my contribution on the legislation before the House. I am sorry that as far as Telecom and Australia Post are concerned there is not more contract work let out to give efficiency. I notice that the legislation makes it quite clear that all the staff which presently exist will be employed. I assume that if we were in charge of this legislation we might say the same thing. If it is going to be efficient, with the modern technology that we have, it is necessary wherever possible, for efficiency's sake, to keep staff numbers down. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.19) —I am pleased to speak in support of these Bills. This is a cognate debate in which quite a number of Bills are being discussed. In particular, I want to concentrate on the communications area. We have had a number of changes of shadow Minister. I understand that the new shadow Minister for communications is Senator Lewis, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Having its shadow Minister in the other place probably reflects how contemptuously the Opposition treats the whole area of communications. I thought I should look at what Senator Lewis has contributed by way of policy in this area. He has made two speeches in the Senate that mentioned the word `Telecom', but they were in relation to broadcasts and the provision of antennae. So, it is no good looking at the speeches of Senator Lewis to get some clue about what the Opposition's policy is in relation to communications. I have also looked at speeches made by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) to see what he has had to say about Telecom and what the Opposition's policy might be. That was just a trifle more productive but really did not give me any clue. However, I thought in view of the fact that the honourable member for Richmond and the National Party of Australia had made some contribution to the debate today and made supporting statements about the need to ensure that there is cross-subsidy to rural and provincial Australia which, incidentally, I happen to support very strongly, I should read a little article from page 10 of the Daily Telegraph which is actually a rating of the Greiner Government. Of course, we all know that the Greiner Government has broken quite a number of promises that were made prior to the election. I ask honourable members just to listen to this comment about the Leader of the National Party in New South Wales: ASSESSMENT: Important in keeping the National Party loyal while rural areas bear so much of the brunt of Greiner's economic rationalism. Of course, that is exactly what we have heard today. The leading ideologue in communications is not the shadow Minister or his representative in this House; it is my good friend Senator Richard Alston. Senator Alston makes no bones about the fact that he believes in a knee-jerk reaction to privatisation in the area of government business enterprises (GBEs). In fact, I think that any Australian listening to the contribution of the Opposition in this debate to date, in this bicentennial year, will have been struck in the way I have been struck by the fact that they are really so many colonists; anything that Mrs Thatcher has done in England ought to be replicated in Australia. Let us not have any originality of thought. Let us not tailor policies to suit the uniqueness of the Australian context and people but blindly follow the creed according to Thatcher. These are the worst type of intellectual colonists that one could hope to see. All this is happening in our bicentennial year. I want to refer to a comment made by Senator Alston in the other place. He said: The Government finds itself in a quandary over this issue. He was talking about the changes the Opposition wanted to make to Telecom Australia in regard to privatisation. He continued: This could be no better exemplified than by the recent decision of the Caucus to establish a loaded and one-sided committee of three to preserve and protect Telecom Australia. That Telecom preservation society has on it two former Telecom employees, and one other who presumably very much believes in protecting Telecom from any semblance of competition. I am very flattered, I must say, to go down on the record as one of those people named as a protector of Telecom. I am certainly interested in protecting Telecom, its employees and its customers and in protecting Australian industry. If anyone from manufacturing industry is listening to this debate I ask him to have no doubt what Senator Alston would force on his party. Let him have no doubt what the Liberal Party of Australia would force through. It would completely wipe out Australian industry as we know it today. But, as I say, I am sure that my other two colleagues would be pleased to go into the record, as I am doing here, as protectors in this area. Let me just pick up the issue of the protection of consumers. One of the most radical and real reforms brought about as a result of the May economic statement, and partially as a result of this legislation, is the establishment of Austel. Originally Austel was thought of as an independent regulator. One of the things the Government is committed to is ensuring that Austel will have a strong consumer function. It will ensure that system failures by Telecom are addressed by Telecom. In other words, we will no longer have the ridiculous situation that we currently have whereby the Commonwealth Ombudsman gets a host of individual complaints and certainly, as he has said, performs or conforms to the international standard of performance of ombudsmen by solving X per cent of cases. We do not get down to addressing the problems of the real management practices or systems failures that need to be addressed. Therefore, this Government legislation proposes to establish a strong consumer watchdog, Austel. It is no secret that we wanted to divorce the Ombudsman from this function and make Austel a one-stop shop. However, I am pleased to say that the Minister has agreed to review both the Ombudsman's handling of Telecom complaints as well as the way Austel is handling the system failures. This is a very real reform. For all those people who may feel superficially that privatisation is attractive, let me say that I have not heard one Opposition speaker or spokesman say that he supports a strong consumer body of the sort that we will be establishing with Austel from 1 July 1989. I want now to get to the essential, I suppose, hypocrisy-I am sorry to use such a strong word-of the National Party of Australia. As I said, I happen to believe very strongly that rural and provincial Australia should not be disadvantaged. The National Party spokesmen will get up and say that Telecom is doing a good job or that Australia Post is doing a good job. However, when the crunch comes they will not be able to withstand the economic dries. They will not be able to prevent the abolition of the cross-subsidies should the Opposition ever get into government. I would like also to deal with one proposition floated during the review. I refer to the proposal that we should make the cross-subsidy transparent and somehow put it on budget. Let us say, for argument's sake, that the cross-subsidy is $500m and that that is an on-budget item. The real danger with this purist approach, and I must say it has some attractions, is that it would be a very easy target for any Treasurer or Finance Minister wanting to rake in a few extra millions of dollars to reduce that amount of subsidy by X dollars-let us say that it was reduced by $50m or $100m, whatever we like-and then to say to that organisation that it will perform to the same standard. As I have said, I strongly support the Government in its determination to ensure a fair and equitable deal to rural and provincial Australia. I have some sympathy for National Party members when they get up and mouth those same words. However, as the Daily Telegraph showed today, in this new dry era of conservative politics, the National Party will not be able to stand up, as it has failed to do in so many areas in New South Wales, and get rural Australia to accept the full frontal force of the economic change that has been brought about. In this regard I could talk about the number of train services that have been cut and the number of charges that have been so outrageously increased. I warn rural and provincial Australia not to listen to the sweet talk coming from some sections of the Opposition but to listen to the ideologues in the Opposition, such as Senator Alston, who are really setting the agenda. I should also have mentioned in regard to Austel that in fact one of its functions will be the setting of prices. The consumers of the goods and services provided by Telecom Australia will be paying for their services at a reduced rate. In other words, Austel, in setting the prices for Telecom goods and services, will be ensuring that a basket of goods will be provided at a cost less than the consumer price index and less than the real rate of inflation. Therefore, this Government in introducing these reforms has honoured a very strong commitment to the consumer. The consumer will be getting a far better deal through the changes that we have announced in the May economic statement. This legislation is but the first part of that. One other thing I would like to say about the changes is that in fact we have a balanced equation. On the one hand there has been considerable reform in terms of the number of controls and constraints placed on these trading enterprises such as Telecom Australia-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PRATT(Adelaide)(10.30) —I wish to speak again on a topic that is very close to me; that is, the repatriation hospitals. During the last session of the House, the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey), with particularly sarcastic vitriol, attacked the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, my colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), on the coalition's policy and attacked me for bringing on the repatriation hospitals debate. She had the juvenile temerity to sneer at `this much vaunted public meeting'. She went on to say: We do not sermonise and mouth pious platitudes about veterans, we actually take action to ensure their welfare. I add the now famous quote of the honourable member for Hawker that echoes around Australia: `Why should pensioners get special treatment?'. Mr McGauran —What? Repeat that. Mr PRATT —She said, `Why should pensioners get special treatment?'. Let me tell honourable members about the standing room only meeting for more than 200 pensioners and veterans at the Gilles Plains-Hampstead Gardens Returned Services League Club last Sunday morning-organised, I might add, at very short notice. I thank John Barrett, Bluey Roberts and their members, and the totally and permanently incapacitated and RSL executives who attended, along with the war widows and diggers. The honourable member for Hawker, true to her quote `Why should pensioners get special treatment?', is conspicuous by her inaction when it comes to helping pensioners and veterans. Since the August Budget there have been 70 Liberal, National and Labor politicians who have submitted over 5,000 petitions requesting that the decision to place over 50 pharmaceuticals on the authority-only listing be abandoned. These drugs are predominantly used by pensioners and veterans. Through our efforts on the Opposition and Government benches, and even with some help from the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), as well as other Labor members, 43 of those drugs have been brought back for review. But where was the great white hope from Hawker, demographically the oldest electorate in the nation? She is on the record as not going to give pensioners special treatment. Not one single petition was lodged from her office. There have been hundreds of petitions lodged in respect of the legislation seeking to reduce pension entitlements. But where is the honourable member for Hawker? It is too hard; she does not care. There has been not one petition on any issue. If honourable members do not believe me, they can go to the Bills and Papers Office and ask for the Votes and Proceedings. Since 25 August, in the Budget session, dozens of members have lodged petitions containing thousands of signatures from elderly Australians, but not one has been submitted by the honourable member for Hawker. Then, in a bid to implement some damage control, we had a flurry of paper, with a press release in last week's Advertiser and letters to the editor congratulating the honourable member for Hawker on her stand for grey power. What an absolutely hypocritical beat-up! Let us get to the heart of the matter; let us look at the facts: there have been 250 separate issues concerning a range of topics including veterans, pensioners, drugs, food irradiation, the greenhouse effect, the national flag-and the list goes on. Labor has presented petitions from 137 members from across the nation. The coalition is responsible for petitions being lodged in the names of 300 members, but not one issue has been of sufficient importance for the honourable member for Hawker to be bothered to collect some signatures. This is the woman who says that she actually takes action to ensure the welfare of these people-her words, not mine. I think that she must be confused. Mr Acting Speaker, this is action: in my hand I hold more than 250 signatures relating to two specific grievances affecting elderly Australians. Of those, 71 signatures are from constituents of the honourable member for Hawker, the self-described woman of action. I am collecting petitions from her disgruntled constituents and they will be presented to the Table Office ready for Thursday. Perhaps the pensioners will benefit in the near future, after the Prime Minister opens the new Hawker electorate office on Friday, the second such office in 18 months. And what has this procession of offices cost the taxpayer, the veteran and the pensioner? Just a lazy $150,000. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.35) —I rise tonight to take issue with the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt). It seems that the honourable member for Adelaide has a preoccupation with repatriation and pensioners. Mr McGauran —What is wrong with that? Mr CAMPBELL —You would know little about it from your silver spoon fed position, my friend; do not go on with that too much. The honourable member for Adelaide came into this House with a vendetta against the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey). He never advised the honourable member for Hawker that he was about to enter into these tirades, which is not only ungentlemanly but very cowardly. He also criticised the honourable member for Hawker, who I know works extremely hard in her electorate and will hold her electorate for exactly that reason. The pensioners of this country are not the fools those opposite apparently take them for. They know where their interests are better served in the long run, and they also know who genuinely cares for them and who comes into this place to score points. The honourable member for Adelaide talked about the list of drugs that are available. He knows, and every member on his side of the House knows, that this list of drugs is determined by this Government taking professional advice. He knows that, yet he comes in here and tries to make capital out of what drugs are on or off the available list. It is the action of a responsible government to listen to professional advice on these matters, and that is exactly what this Government does. The honourable member for Adelaide comes into the chamber and tries to show that it is some whim of the Government. He knows that that is wrong. He comes in here determined to mislead and try to fool the pensioners. The truth about pensioners is that they are a microcosm of the whole community. There are greedy ones, selfish ones and noble ones; they are just like the whole community. People are not different just because they are old. It is not a state which needs to be sanctified; it is something that happens to us all. I think it is enormously condescending of people such as the honourable member for Adelaide to get up and talk so glibly about poor pensioners. I am sure that when it comes to election time those pensioners, like the rest of the community, will address the matter with common sense, and the honourable member for Hawker will be returned, because I do not think there is a harder working member in this whole House. Having been sidetracked from what I wanted to say, I want to talk tonight about the contribution made to society by officers of agricultural departments in all States-with particular reference to Western Australia. Kalgoorlie, or the goldfields area, is soon to lose the services of Donald Burnside, who is going to Queensland to complete his Masters degree. Donald Burnside is an expert in arid land management and has worked in the rains and land management section of the Western Australian Department of Agriculture for some considerable time. He is very highly regarded in the goldfields for his dedication and the time that he puts in there. I know, because I have had occasion to ring him for advice on weekends only to find that he is out on some station or other. From my experience, the overwhelming majority of stations in my electorate-and my electorate covers virtually all the stations in Western Australia-are in better condition today than they were 10 years ago. This is a tribute to the foresight of the people who now comprise the pastoral industry and to the work of the rains and land management section of the Department of Agriculture. It is a matter of some disquiet to me that, although this evidence is abundantly available, the Wilderness Society and the conservationists do not give enough credit to what has been done. In particular, I am concerned-and I am going to run out of time on this-at the hypocrisy these people show in respect of the kangaroo cull. Without maintaining the kangaroo cull it will be impossible to maintain regeneration. It will certainly slow the progress of regeneration and regeneration of this land is one of the most important problems facing the whole of Australia. Mr JULL(Fadden)(10.39) —World Expo 88 closed its gates in Brisbane for the last time on Sunday night after the most successful and most remarkable function of the Australian bicentenary celebrations. I think that it is only fitting in this House tonight that we pay tribute to the many thousands of people who contributed to the incredible success that World Expo 88 has been. May I start by praising those members of the early Australian Bicentennial Committee who went to the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, and suggested that Australia should stage a World Expo during its bicentenary year. I pay tribute to the Fraser Government for having the foresight to go ahead with that recommendation. I pay special tribute to the then Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and indeed two Liberal Treasurers of Queensland-Sir William Knox and Sir Llewellyn Edwards-who were prepared to take up the challenge when the other States of Australia showed no interest at all in the World Exposition. We should pay tribute also to all members of the World Expo Authority staff, who worked under very trying conditions for some four years to make sure that Expo got off the ground. In terms of direct contribution to World Expo, we should pay tribute to more than 10,000 volunteers who gave their time freely to work at Expo in a number of capacities and who, through their efforts, their friendship, their warmth and their professionalism certainly put Brisbane, Queensland and Australia well and truly on the world map. We should also pay tribute to more than 18 million people who went through the gates of World Expo. It is true that we have had in our community over the years a great number of knockers who said that World Expo would never work. There was one man whose vision, enterprise and dedication were such that he managed to prove all those knockers wrong. I pay a special tribute to the Chairman of the World Expo Authority, Sir Llewellyn Edwards, for staying with the job and for giving a great deal of service, personal commitment and leadership to make sure that World Expo 88 was one of the most successful expos in the world's history. It is true that there were knockers at all levels of government. There were knockers in the Federal Government. I will not go back over that but I just want to acknowledge that not everybody in this place was happy with Australia going ahead with World Expo. There were certainly knockers in the Queensland Government. Many people in the Queensland community said that it would be a flop and that it would never get off the ground. There were also knockers in the Brisbane City Council who said that it could not be done. Sir Llew Edwards was a person who, despite the knockers, had the physical courage to go on with the job and make sure he saw it through. He made sure that he saw it become the incredible success that it was. There is one person in this House that I would like to pay special tribute to tonight; that is, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). At a time when the Federal Government was really not terribly interested in World Expo and really doubted just how much money it should pour into the project, the honourable member for Parramatta at least had enough vision to know what could be achieved. It would be remiss of me if I did not pay that tribute here tonight because he did back the World Exposition to a very great degree. He made sure that Australia played a real part in it and that it was an Australian expo, not just a Queensland expo. The city of Brisbane will never be the same. It has certainly come of age as a result of Expo. The people in the Queensland Government and in the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation who knew what the real benefits of World Expo 88 were going to be are already starting to see the fruits of their labours. There has been an incredible increase in the number of airline flights by international carriers coming into Queensland. It is true that those flights have been to look after the crowds for World Expo, but the advance bookings for next year are at record levels. Hotels in Brisbane are reporting 80 per cent occupancy rates way after Christmas, with record advance bookings for next year. The contribution that those thousands of people have made was a very good investment in the future of Australian tourism, it was a very good investment in making sure that Australia was well and truly on the world map and it was a magnificent celebration of Australia's bicentenary. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.44) —I wish to associate myself with the very generous remarks made by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull). I also congratulate Sir Llew Edwards on the magnificent job he did and the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) on ensuring that the Federal Government got right behind World Expo 88. The honourable member's comments were certainly made in the true spirit of generosity. He is to be commended for that. This contrasted significantly with the contribution made by the earlier Opposition speaker, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt), who in quite an underhand attack on the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) sought to suggest that she did not do anything for pensioners in her electorate. Of course, the honourable member for Adelaide is totally uninformed. He is simply not aware that the honourable member for Hawker has been appointed to the task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the elderly. The Prime Minister recognises that the honourable member for Hawker does a lot of work with pensioners and veterans in her electorate. I am sure that she will ensure that she pays a role in the Government making up its mind on what should be done for pensioners in Hawker and in other electorates. As far as I can recall, the only claim to fame of the honourable member for Adelaide is that, during the by-election for the electorate of Adelaide, he came up with a whole series of outrageous claims. One claim was that while doorknocking he was told by a mother that her child was offered drugs at one of the high schools in the electorate of Adelaide. When the police went to the honourable member and asked him to substantiate the claims, he had no evidence. When the police came across the person who was believed to have spoken to the honourable member for Adelaide, she said that she did not in fact make the allegations claimed by the honourable member for Adelaide. In my opinion, it was an election stunt. It is quite inappropriate for an honourable member with that sort of record to attack the reputation of the honourable member for Hawker. That is not why I rose tonight; I was provoked by a remark made by the honourable member for Adelaide, and it is a pity he is not in the chamber now to respond. The reason I rise tonight is to draw to the House's attention something which I think is quite undesirable and something which could perhaps end up increasing the numbers of young people taking up the very bad habit of smoking. By holding up what I have in my hand, Mr Deputy Speaker, you might think I am breaking the Standing Orders by bringing a lighted cigarette into the chamber. If I were to put this toy to my mouth you would perhaps think that I was smoking in the House of Representatives chamber. In fact, I am not doing that. This is something called a puff cigarette which was drawn to my attention by one of my elderly constituents who was quite outraged that these toys were being sold in toy stores in my electorate. These puff cigarettes-I quote from the label-are not recommended for children under the age of eight years. It reflects poorly on any store in my electorate or anywhere else in Australia to be promoting a toy such as this for sale to young children. It would simply encourage them to take up the evil habit of smoking at some later stage in their life. I am sure that the fact that they are made in Taiwan does not reflect on the quality of the toy but it is something which should be discouraged. I also draw to the attention of the House a booklet which was recently circulated to most honourable members. It was written by Michelle Cross from Wagga High School and it is entitled The power of the tobacco industry and the effects of cigarette smoking on adolescents. In a letter, Michelle Cross makes two very valid points: tobacco companies do have incredible influence and power over government, media, and hence individuals; and smoking is addictive and has damaging effects on life and this makes it a social problem of drug abuse. She say that adolescents take up smoking despite its effect on their health, which poses a question about their identity. She asks: Why do adolescents need to smoke? It is quite important that we do everything we can to make sure that young people do not think that smoking makes one look macho or manly. The promotion of these puff cigarette toys in stores in my electorate or anywhere else in Australia should be totally condemned. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.48) —Yesterday, the Australian electorate was treated to the almost hilarious but certainly unedifying sight of a government in crisis calling in each and every one of its Ministers to discuss strategy for the next election. If it were not so serious for the welfare of all Australians, it would be quite humorous that a government in such disarray felt it necessary to call in each and every Minister to try to map out some sense of unity and to formulate a sense of common purpose leading up to the next election. Mr Acting Speaker, no doubt you know as well as anyone else that that election is likely to be held towards the end of next year. If only one could have been a fly on the wall. One could just imagine the relations with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), so aptly described as a lame duck leader following the hatchet job done on him by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) when he was Acting Treasurer. Perhaps seated on the other side of the lame duck and the ambitious Minister for Employment, Education and Training was the Treasurer (Mr Keating), coveting the position of the Prime Minister. We understand that the Government won endorsement from that Ministry as to its economic policy. Mr Acting Speaker, you must call into question that Ministry's political judgment if it in any way reflects its economic judgment. How can a government be confident that the bases of its economic policy are in place when we have an inflation rate of some 7.3 per cent and the Budget estimate was 4.5 per cent? How can we have any confidence in a Ministry that agrees with a current account deficit for this financial year to date of $3.8 billion, being 40 per cent of the year's estimate of $9.5 billion? In 25 per cent of the time we have reached 40 per cent of the Government's estimate of the current account deficit. It means that over the next nine months there will have to be a current account deficit of only $620m each month-simply an unachievable goal for the Government. Election fever is in the air. The Government seems to believe it has everything nicely and firmly in place. We are also told, by way of press reports and a somewhat curtailed press conference given by the Prime Minister, that the Government will now target the aged and the problems of housing and, if a report in today's Sydney Morning Herald is to be believed, it will also turn its mind towards science funding. In the time remaining to me let me concentrate on the issue of science funding. All I can say is that if the Government is once again raising the hopes of the science community throughout Australia, just to dash them, as it has done so often in the past, it will pay a very heavy price at the next Federal election. The simple fact is, as so many Government members would know, clever, normally apolitical scientists are mobilising and turning their full fury against this Government with quite devastating electoral effects. It is not before time that the Government is now considering an increase in funding to science. But do not let people get their hopes up; there are certainly no guarantees on this Government's past record on science that it will come good, nor should the aged, although suffering from the housing crisis, put too much faith in yesterday's political decisions. The Government is very good at covering over problems-the band-aid approach. It will use every figure and every trick to con the people. It is very cunning and there is no doubt that it will try to pull the wool over people's eyes. In last night's Melbourne Herald there was a very interesting report by Susan Peak, the science reporter, which showed that very valuable research, headed by Dr Leo Clarebrough, a Melbourne Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientist, would not have been undertaken except for the fact that the State Government came to the rescue. Funds of $1.2m were needed for a special microscope, called a Phillips CM-30 electron microscope. The Federal Government would not have contributed any funding except for the fact that the Cain Government contributed the lion's share. It gave $700,000 and the Hawke Government gave $500,000. The article states that according to scientists the research which they say is essential to the knowledge they will need to have by the year 2000 would not have gone ahead if it were not for the State Government. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.54 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, the Rural Industries Research Regulations and certain other Acts, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 1 November 1988: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1988- MQ24/88-USA-1988 Quota Administration Scheme. MQ28/88-USA-1988 Quota Administration Scheme Amendment. Civil Aviation Act-Civil Aviation Order Part 105-Amendment, dated 27 October 1988. Defence Act-Determinations-1988- No. 55-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 56-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 58-Transport Allowance (Revocation). Fishing Industry Research and Development Act-Determination of approved research funds and approved moneys, dated 11 October 1988. Health Insurance Act- Determination made pursuant to subsection 3c (1), dated 26 September 1988. Statement of particulars of ministerial determination made pursuant to section 106aa relating to Dr G. N. Ostroumov, dated 24 October 1988. Honey Levy Act (No. 1)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 251. Honey Levy Act (No. 2)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 252. Honey Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 253. Land Acquisition Act- Land acquired for telecommunications services purposes-NSW. Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). National Health Act-Determination under subsection 4 (1) for purposes of paragraph (dd) of the definition of ``basic private table'', dated 30 September 1988. Occupational Superannuation Standards Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 255. Public Service Act-Determinations-1988-Nos. 221, 223, 224. Quarantine Act-Determination-1988-No. 3. Remuneration Tribunal Act-Remuneration Tribunal- Determination-1988/10-Chairperson, National Board of Employment, Education and Training and holders of public offices on other bodies. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Acts-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 20 October 1988. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1987- Direction-1988-No. 11. Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 250. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws-Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 83. Treaties-Text of- Which have been signed by Australia which require further action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force- (1) Treaty between Australia and the Republic of the Philippines on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Signed at Canberra on 28 April 1988. (2) Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer done at Montreal on 16 September 1987. Protocol signed for Australia, subject to ratification, on 8 June 1988. Protocol is not yet in force. (3) Reciprocal Agreement on Social Security between the Government of Australia and the Government of Canada. Signed at Canberra on 4 July 1988. (4) Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning the Investigation of Drug Trafficking and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking. Signed at Canberra on 3 August 1988. (5) Treaty between Australia and Switzerland on Extradition. Signed at Sydney on 29 July 1988. (6) Treaty on Extradition between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of France. Signed at Canberra on 31 August 1988. (7) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Solomon Islands Establishing Certain Sea and Seabed Boundaries. Signed at Honiara on 13 September 1988 To which Australia has become a party by signature- (8) Agreement on Health Services between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Malta. Signed at Melbourne on 6 July 1988. Entry into force 6 July 1988. (9) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investments. Signed at Beijing on 11 July 1988. Entry into force 11 July 1988. (10) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Canada Relating to Air Services. Signed at Canberra on 5 July 1988. Entry into force 5 July 1988. (11) Protocol on Harmonisation of Quarantine Administrative Procedures to the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations-Trade Agreement. Signed at Canberra on 18 August 1988. Entry into trade force 18 August 1988. (12) Protocol on Trade in Services to the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations-Trade Agreement. Signed at Canberra on 18 August 1988. Entry into force 1 January 1989. (13) Protocol to the Australian New Zealand Closer Economic Relations-Trade Agreement on Acceleration of Free Trade in Goods. Signed at Canberra on 18 August 1988. Entry into force 18 August 1988. (14) Exchange of Notes signed at Canberra on 4 August 1988 and 23 August 1988 constituting an Agreement to Amend the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on Air Services Between and Through their Respective Territories signed at London on 7 February 1958. Entry into force 23 August 1988. Which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded- (15) International Sugar Agreement done at London on 11 September 1987. Instrument of accession deposited by Australia on 24 March 1988. Agreement entered into force provisionally on 24 March 1988. (16) United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods done at Vienna on 11 April 1980. Convention entered into force on 1 January 1988. Instrument of accession deposited by Australia on 17 March 1988. Entry into force for Australia 1 April 1989. (17) Amendment to Article 37 of the Statutes of the World Tourism Organisation adopted at Rome on 25 September 1981. Instrument of approval deposited by Australia on 12 August 1988. Amendment is not yet in force. (18) Amendments to the Constitution of the Intergovernmental Committee on Migration adopted at Geneva on 20 May 1987. Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia on 24 May 1988. Amendments are not yet in force. (19) Protocol of Amendment to the International Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance for the Prevention, Investigation and Repression of Customs Offences (Nairobi Convention) done at Brussels on 13 June 1985. Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia on 30 May 1988. Protocol is not yet in force. (20) Protocol of 1984 to Amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969. Protocol was done at London on 25 May 1984. Instrument of accession deposited by Australia on 22 June 1988. Protocol is not yet in force. (21) Food Aid Convention done at London on 13 March 1986. Convention entered into force on 1 July 1986. Instrument of accession deposited by Australia on 29 June 1988. Entry into force for Australia 29 June 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 706) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Which firms or organisations have undertaken public relations campaigns on behalf of the Minister's Department. (2) How was each firm or organisation selected. (3) Were public tenders called; if not, (a) why not and (b) what other procedure has been adopted for inviting firms to quote. (4) Which firms or organisations undertook research projects, and in each instance, (a) what was the cost of each project and (b) how long did it take to complete. (5) Will the Minister provide copies of the results of each survey and details of the questions asked. (6) How were firms selected for this research work. (7) Was there a public tender; if not, why not. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: The information given is for the 1987-88 financial year. It should be noted that, in the answers to part 4 of this question, only market research and opinion polls are included. Core Department (ie other than A.C.T. Administration) (1) (i) Mojo MDA (ii) Network Ten (2) The firms used were those with a negotiated sponsorship arrangement with the National Australia Day Council (NADC). (3) Public tenders were not called. (a) The campaigns were conducted under a sponsorship arrangement negotiated between the NADC and the firms. Under this arrangement a substantial part of the cost was borne by the sponsor. (b) N/A (4) AGB McNair-post Australia Day awareness survey. (a) $2,190 (b) It took two days to carry out the survey and two weeks to complete the report. (5) Results of surveys and details of questions asked can be made available upon request. (6) Selected on the basis of their previous experience. (7) Public tender was considered inappropriate because of the modest cost involved and AGB McNair's successful completion of an identical survey for the previous year. A.C.T. Administration (1) Nil (2) N/A (3) N/A (4) (i) ACT Electricity Authority commissioned AGB McNair. (a) $26,680 (b) 2 weeks (ii) ACT Water Administration commissioned CSIRO Division of Water Resources Research (a) $7,000 (b) 6 months (iii) ACT Water Administration commissioned Communication Research Institute of Australia. (a) $15,000 (b) 6 months (iv) ACT Water Administration commissioned Frank Small and Associates. (a) $30,000 (b) 6 months (5) Results of surveys and details of questions asked can be made available upon request. (6) (i) AGB McNair was selected on relevant experience, expertise, proposed method and cost. (ii) CSIRO was selected in view of the Division's specialist scientific expertise. (iii) The ACT Administration is a member of the Communication Research Institute of Australia, whose specialist communications research services are only available to participating Institute members. (iv) Frank Small and Associates were selected out of four firms. Final selection was based on the recommendation of the Communication Research Institute of Australia. (7) (i) Public tenders were not called. Expressions of interest were invited from four companies and AGB McNair was selected on the basis of relevant experience, expertise, proposed method and cost. (ii) Public tenders were not invited in view of the specialised tasks and the short time-frame required for the project. (iii) Public tenders were not called due to the specialist communications services available exclusively to participating Communication Research Institute members (including ACT Administration). (iv) Public tenders were not called. Frank Small and Associates were among four companies considered; the final selection was made on the recommendation of the Communication Research Institute of Australia. (Question No. 722) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What was the total expenditure in 1986-87 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister, for (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What were the major items in the advertising budget. (3) What were the major public relations initiatives. (4) What subjects were covered by the opinion research. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: During the time period specified in the above Question the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (DASETT) had not come into existence. At that time, its functions were distributed between the previous Departments of the Arts, Heritage and Environment; Sport, Recreation and Tourism; Science; and Territories. In the interests of simple and concise presentation, the information relating to these now defunct departments has been organised into the current organisational framework of DASETT. The information, therefore, has been divided into the core Department, the ACT Administration, other Departmental bodies and ASETT Portfolio statutory authorities. Listed below as a key to the tables which follow are the various Departmental and statutory bodies within the ASETT portfolio and their common acronyms. LIST OF ACRONYMS-PORTFOLIO OF THE ARTS, SPORT, THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND TERRITORIES Department Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories ... DASETT ACT Administration ACT ADMIN Other Departmental Bodies Australian National Botanic Gardens ... ANBG Australian National Maritime Museums ... ANMM National Film and Sound Archive ... NFSA National Science and Technology Centre ... NSTC Statutory Authorities Australia Council ... AC Australian Film Commission ... AFC Australian Film, Television and Radio School ... AFTRS Australian Heritage Commission ... AHC Australian Institute of Sport/Australian Sports Commission ... AIS/ASC Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service ... ANPWS Australian National Gallery ... ANG Australian Tourist Commission ... ATC Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority ... GBRMPA National Library of Australia ... NLA National Museum of Australia ... NMA Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region ... OSS ASETT PORTFOLIO EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISING PUBLIC RELATI0NS AND OPINION RESEARCH (1) (a) Advertising Public Relations (b) Opinion Research $ $ $ DASETT Core Department ... 2,869,856 88,320 1,940 ACT Admin ... 933,257 238,333 - Other Departmental Bodies ANBG ... 7,245 - - ANMM ... 24,300 107,321 300 NFSA ... 3,194 500 - NSTC ... 18,272 6,221 - SUB TOTAL ... 3,856,124 440,695 2,240 STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AC ... 131,659 33,640 11,605 AFC ... 104,263 2,019 - AFTRS ... 55,000 14,000 - AHC ... 27,421 214,947 - AIS/ASC ... 37,754 69,473 - ANG ... 179,800 29,359 7,500 ANPWS ... 29,895 38,637 - ATC ... 9,244,408 1,887,822 303,689 GBRMPA ... 34,951 3,328 - NLA ... 43,354 63,424 - NMA ... 7,700 25,800 - OSS ... 5,470 - - SUB TOTAL ... 9,901,675 2,382,449 322,794 TOTAL ... 13,757,799 2,823,144 325,034 DASETT Core Department (2) Major campaigns of Information Coordination Branch: `Australian Made', `Young Australia'; staff recruitment; grant scheme; advertising; promotional marketing and audio-visual material (3) Production and publication of newsletters, booklets and brochures (4) Participation in and awareness of Australia Day 1987 A.C.T. Administration (2) Staff recruitment; calling for tenders; public notices; off-peak electricity promotions; and academic programs. (3) (i) The National Capital Development Commission's publication of `The Way We Are' (a 68 page colour magazine). (ii) The production of A.C.T. Electricity Authority brochures promoting the safe and efficient use of electricity, electricity exhibitions (Royal Canberra Show and Canberra Home Show) and a tree-cutting awareness campaign. (4) Not applicable. Other Departmental Bodies ANBG (2) Publications; staff recruitment; and public notices (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. ANMM (2) Staff recruitment. (3) Newsletters; promotional marketing material; founding ceremony; photographic records; audio-visual presentation. (4) Survey of visitor numbers. NFSA (2) Staff recruitment. (3) No major public relations initiatives were undertaken. (4) Not applicable. NSTC (2) Staff recruitment. (3) A promotional video on the science centre. (4) Not applicable. Statutory Authorities AC (2) Grants Program advertising; staff recruitment. (3) There were no major public relations initiatives but rather a series of small ones. (4) A survey of attitudes to the arts. AFC (2) Staff recruitment. (3) No major public relations initiatives were undertaken. (4) Not applicable. AFTRS (2) Staff recruitment; advertising School courses. (3) A centre spread in Encore magazine for 12 months providing information about the School's activities. (4) Not applicable. AHC (2) Advertising the listing of places on the Register of the National Estate. (3) Co-production of the film `The Land of the Lightning Brothers'; co-production of the film `The Nature of Australia'; production of special publications including `Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland: Their Conservation Significance'; Local government workshops and the development of HERA-a national bibliographic database of National Estate material. (4) Not applicable. AIS/ASC (2) Staff recruitment. (3) The marketing of the Australian Institute of Sport. (4) Not applicable. ANG (2) Advertising the exhibition `Old Masters New Visions'. (3) Promotion of ongoing exhibition program and major acquisitions of artworks. (4) Researching public interest in the Gallery's exhibition program and facilities. ANPWS (2) Staff recruitment; advertising the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act. (3) Media releases; magazine articles. (4) Not applicable. ATC (2) Consumer Advertising Campaign-Asia; Enhanced Awareness Advertising Campaign-Canada; Australian Tourism Products Promotion Centre-Japan; Consumer Advertising Campaign-Japan; Joint ATC/Air New Zealand/Qantas Advertising Campaign; Consumer Advertising Campaign-UK; USA Print Ads-USA; `European Alternative' Broadcast Advertising-USA; (3) Press and Publicity Services-UK; ABTA Convention, Gold Coast-UK; Publicity and public relations-USA. (4) International Visitor survey review America's Cup Special Survey US Objective-setting research Reprint of 1984 Statistical Review 1985 International Visitor Survey Europe Report Japan Ad. Guidelines Study Asia Ad. Guidelines Study Holiday Satisfaction Monitor NZ Communications Research Asia Advertising Research German P.A.T.A. Research. GBRMPA (2) Public awareness program for zoning of the Marine Park. (3) Marketing the Great Barrier Reef Wonderland Complex on a local, national and international basis. (4) Not applicable. NLA (2) Staff recruitment; promotion of the National Library. (3) Promoting upcoming exhibitions. (4) Not applicable. NMA (2) Publicity for the visitor centre at Yarramundi; staff recruitment. (3) Promotional campaigns (T.V. and Radio) on the operation of the visitor centre and the ultimate development of the Museum. (4) Not applicable. OSS (2) Staff recruitment. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 1041) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 25 May 1988: What is the total identifiable cost to the Commonwealth of the preparation, completion and printing of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests? Mr Punch —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Commission of Inquiry presented its report on world heritage values in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests and alternatives to forests operations in areas found to have such values on 6 May 1988. Total identifiable expenditure by the Commonwealth as of 30 June 1988 for preparation, completion and printing of the report was $1,923,371.93. Of this, the Commission itself incurred costs of $1,481,428.68 which was within its budget (for 1986/87 and 1987/88 combined) of $1,760,800. The remaining $441,943.25 was expended in relation to grants, administrative, legal and publication costs, by the Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, from within departmental appropriations. (Question No. 1044) Mr Braithwaite asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 May 1988: (1) Was the Minister asked (Senate Hansard, 14 December 1987, page 2979) that, given Dr S. Ho's 1,000,000 shares were still on the register of TAL Holdings on 18 November 1987, whether the Minister would recommend new inquiries to ensure there are no continuing connections between Dr Ho and Federal Hotels. (2) Did the Minister reply stating (a) he would not recommend such inquiries and (b) Dr Hoe had sold all his shares and no longer held any interest in TAL Holdings or Federal Hotels. (3) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the latest update of TAL Holdings listing in the Sydney Stock Exchange Company Review Service. (4) Does this update not contain any reference to Dr Ho ceasing to be a substantial shareholder in TAL, but instead record that on 24 December 1987 Mr G. P. Farrell increased his relevant interest in the company from 9,338,777 to 10,022,375 ordinary shares. (5) Has TAL Holdings ever suggested to the Australian Federal Police that Mr Farrell purchased all Dr Ho's shares. (6) Does the latest Sydney Stock Exchange update also record that on 18 September 1987, prior to Dr Ho disposing of any shares, Mr Farrell held 9,502,375 shares in TAL Holdings. (7) Does this indicate that Mr Farrell could only have purchased a maximum of 520,000 shares belonging to Dr Ho. (8) Does the update record no further addition to substantial shareholdings on TAL's register up until 7 January 1988, besides that of Mr Farrell. (9) If the Stock Exchange Company Review Service is accurate, does this indicate that either (a) Dr Ho still retains 480,000 shares or (b) Dr Ho's remaining 480,000 shares were necessarily disbursed in parcels of less than 50,000 among non-substantial shareholders. (10) Given that TAL is consolidating its minor shareholdings and the unlikelihood of Dr Ho's shares being disbursed in small parcels, will the Minister now recommend new inquiries to ensure Dr Ho does not retain any shares in TAL Holdings and, if so, will the Minister provide me with the results of those inquiries. (11) Will the Minister take action to ensure there is no continuing connection between Dr Ho and TAL Holdings via the 2 or 3 new companies and individuals which have come onto TAL's register of top 20 shareholders since 19 December 1987. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The question asked was ``Given that Dr. Ho's shares were still on TAL's register on 18 November, will the Minister recommend new enquiries to ensure that there is no continuing connections between Dr. Ho and Federals?'' It clearly did no mention any number of shares. (2) (a) and (b). The Minister for Justice informed the Senate that he had been advised that Dr. Ho had sold all his shares and no longer held any interest in TAL Holdings or Federal Hotels. Therefore, he declined to recommend new enquiries into connections between Dr. Ho and Federals. (3) Yes. (4) The latest Sydney Stock Exchange Company Review Service does not indicate that Dr. Ho ceased to be a substantial shareholder in TAL Holdings Ltd. It does, however, record that Mr. Farrell increased his share holding from 9,338,777 to 10,022,375 as at 24 November 1987. (5) Yes. (6) Yes. (7) No. Mr. Farrell, through his family company, Mulawa Investments Pty Limited, purchased 1,000,000 shares from Dr. Ho. (8) Yes. (9) (a) and (b) No. To purchase the 1,000,000 shares and not exceed the 3% limit, Mr. Farrell through Mulawa Investments Pty Limited dispersed, on 11 November 1987, a package of 520,000 shares into various associated family companies. (10) No. Dr. Ho is no longer a shareholder in TAL Holdings Limited. (11) Since Dr. Ho sold his shares on 19 November 1987, the AFP has no evidence that a connection exists between Dr. Ho and TAL Holdings Limited via any of the top twenty shareholders or companies recorded in TAL Holdings Limited register. (Question No. 1075) Mr Porter asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What week-end conferences, including management meetings and team-building exercises, and involving overnight accommodation have been conducted out of Canberra for staff of the Minister's Department for year ending 31 May 1988. (2) When and where were the meetings held. (3) How many days were involved. (4) What was the agenda for each meeting. (5) Who attended each meeting from the Minister's Department and from outside the Minister's Department. (6) What was the total cost to the Minister's Department. (7) What were the itemised costs, including transportation, accommodation, speakers, food and drink costs. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following information relates to expenditure incurred by the ACT Administration, the only area within my Department which was involved in week-end conferences, meetings and exercises involving overnight accommodation: (1) (a) ACT Housing Trust Forward Planning Seminar (b) Future Directions for ACT Works Administration (c) Parks and Conservation Retreat: Managing Change (d) ACT Administration Reorganisation-Management Retreat (2) (a) Mariners Lodge Bateman's Bay NSW 24-26 September 1987 (b) Mariners Lodge Bateman's Bay NSW 3-5 September 1987 (c) Golf View Motel Bowral NSW 3-5 March 1988 (d) Eagle Hawke Hill Motel NSW 9-10 October 1987 (3) (a) Three days (b) Three days (c) Two days (d) One and one half days (4) (a) Management Improvement Plan for the ACT Housing Trust (b) Role and expectations of works planning (c) Corporate objectives, priorities and opportunities for the future (d) Restructing of the ACT Administration (5) (a) Housing-departmental officers-18: 1 SES Level 3 2 SES Level 1 3 ASO Class 8 7 ASO Class 7 4 ASO Class 6 1 ASO Class 5 From outside: 1 Consultant (Communication Concepts) (b) Transport and Works-departmental officers-32: 1 Deputy Secretary 1 SES Level 4 2 SES Level 2 1 SES Level 1 6 ASO Class 8 2 ASO Class 7 3 ASO Class 6 6 Engineer Grade 3 5 Engineer Grade 4 2 Engineer Grade 5 1 Science Officer Grade 3 1 District Manager Class 2 1 Senior Drafting Officer From outside: 2 Consultants (Works Futures) (c) Parks and Conservation-departmental officers-33: 1 Deputy Secretary 1 SES Level 3 3 SES Level 1 7 ASO Class 8 8 ASO Class 7 2 ASO Class 6 1 ASO Class 2 3 Science Officer Grade 4 3 Science Officer Grade 3 2 Science Officer Grade 2 2 Technical Officer Grade 2 From outside: 2 Consultants (Crosstoch Pty. Ltd) (d) 1 Portfolio Secretary (ASETT) 1 Associate Secretary 1 City Manager 1 Deputy Secretary 1 ASO Class 7 1 ASO Class 6 From outside: 5 Statutory Officers: - General Manager ACT Health Authority - Chief Education Officer ACT Schools Authority - Commissioner National Capital Development Commission - Director ACT Office of TAFE - Chairman ACT Electricity Authority 1 Consultant (Roy Gilbert) (6) (a) $4804 (b) $12412 (c) $10151 (d) $2350 (7) (a) Accommodation and meals...$2073 Venue and Equipment...272 Incidentals Allowance...459 Speaker's fee...$2000 (b) Accommodation and meals...$5892 Transportation...520 Consultant fee...6000 (c) Accommodation and meals, equipment and conference facilities (offered as package)...$6549 Transport...602 Consultant fee...3000 (d) Accommodation and meals (estimate)...$1000 Conference facility (estimate)...350 Consultant fee...1000 (Question No. 1111) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: When may I expect an answer to be provided to question No. 194 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 6 October 1987. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The answer to the honourable member's question was published in Hansard of 18 October 1988, page 1845. (Question No. 1117) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) Has his Department established a 008 hot line; if so, (a) why was it established and (b) for each week since it was established, how many calls have been received. (2) Has there been an analysis of the issues raised in these calls; if so, (a) what are the results of the analysis and (b) will he supply a copy of the analysis to me. (3) If he will not provide a copy of the analysis, why not. (4) Is the telephone answered by departmental staff or contractors. (5) How many persons are employed answering calls. (6) Is a record of the name and address of each caller made; if so, why and for what purpose. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) The Department of Community Services and Health has established a 008 number for urgent applications from doctors wanting to prescribe authority drugs after hours. Under the previous system, doctors were given the home phone number of a Commonwealth Medical Officer in each State. The system was reliant on the officer being home to respond to the calls. This new after-hours number has been established to provide doctors with a full 24-hour telephone approval service. (b) The system was established on 22 August 1988. In its first three weeks of operation, the number of calls received on a weekly basis have been 29, 48 and 29. (2) No. (a) and (b) The telephone approval system will be trialled for a period of three months and assessed at the end of this period. (3) See (2) (a) and (b) above. (4) Departmental staff. (5) A roster system is being used for the period of the trial. Given the relatively small number of after-hours calls being received, only one person is responding to the after-hours calls at any one time. (6) No. Mr Barry Jones —On 19 May 1988 (Hansard, page 2673) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy the following question without notice: Why has the Government allowed a 40 per cent duty to be applied to imported high quality lightweight woollen fabrics made from Australian wools, even though Australia's manufacturing industry does not have the capacity to produce this fabric in any quantity? Why was wool the only fabric excluded from by-law entry, its duty thus being increased from 2 per cent to 40 per cent under the guise of harmonisation? What is the sense of the wool industry developing new products like these and spending millions of woolgrower and government money on promoting them when the Australian Government prices them beyond the reach of the consumer? The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy referred the question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, who has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: The change in duty to which the Honourable Member refers is a result of the Government's new assistance arrangements for Australia's textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries. The new TCF arrangements embody substantial reform particularly in the area of tariffs and policy by-laws as the previous arrangements were very complex and had an adverse effect on users. The change in duty for lightweight wool fabrics came about from the reform of the policy by-laws. Wool has not been singled out in these reforms. The number of policy by-laws has been reduced from 51 to 13 and their coverage was reduced for wool, cotton and synthetic fabrics. In addition there has been various other fabrics which have been affected by the new arrangements. The reforms treat competing goods at comparable rates of duty at a series of duty rate plateaus. It was very important that like goods should attract a similar rate of duty regardless of weight differentials or end-use requirements in order to reduce the incidence of tariff induced substitution. I appreciate that a 40 per cent tariff, which incidentally is being reduced to 35 per cent following the May Economic Statement, may cause some problems in areas such as the ``cool wool'' program. However, I understand that cool wool covers a wider range of fabrics than the by-law provision in question. I should note that the question on whether Australia's manufacturing industry had the capacity to produce the goods in quantity was not a major consideration. Nevertheless, I understand lightweight wool fabrics are already produced in Australia and several major international wool textile companies are already exploring the feasibility of producing lightweight wool fabrics in Australia. These investigations are not dependent on tariff assistance as most of the production would be exported. The tariff change to which you refer may have helped focus their attention on locating such activity in Australia and has had the effect of reinforcing the Government's promotion of adding value to wool. Contrary to the view of some wool growing interests, the local industry considers that there are significant prospects for more value added production of wool fabrics in the future. Given that there are differences in views between wool growing interests and textile producers, I have asked the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority to convene a meeting of the major interested parties to discuss the lightweight wool issue and to report back to me on the outcome of those discussions. (Question No. 1025) Mr Porter asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: (1) Subsequent to 1 July 1987, for how many officers has the Minister's Department provided written advice of the kind specified in paragraph 6(b) of the Australian Public Service Redeployment (Redundancy) Award 1987 to the relevant unions that those officers were redundant or potentially redundant. (2) How many officers have been invited to submit elections of retrenchment by the Secretary of the Minister's Department. (3) How many officers within or formerly within the Minister's Department have received formal advice that they are excess to capacity. (4) How many notices to excess officers required under subsection 76w (1) has the Secretary of the Minister's Department issued in the case of notices of (a) reduction in classification with consent, (b) reduction in classification without consent, (c) retirement with consent and (d) retirement without consent. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories- Core Elements ACT Administration (1) Nil 144 (2) Nil 130 (3) Nil 119 (4) Nil (a) Nil (b) Nil (c) 56 (d) Nil (Question No. 1128) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) What were the key elements of the FitzGerald Report on Immigration that the Prime Minister's advisers recommended for re-writing because it would represent a severe political embarrassment. (2) On whose advice was the establishment of the inquiry, which was announced on 23 September 1987, recommended to the then Minister for Immigration. (3) Who, in consultation with the Minister for Immigration, set the terms of reference for the inquiry? (4) Who advised the Minister for Immigration to appoint Dr FitzGerald as the chairman of the inquiry. (5) Who recommended the appointment of the other members of the committee. (6) What were the work-time obligations of the members of the committee. (7) With regard to the committee's deliberations, what were the costs for (a) transport to interstate venues to hear submissions, (b) accommodation, (c) hire of premises for hearings, (d) entertainment provisions, (e) ``back-up'' services by (i) his Department and consultants to it and (ii) other Departments or agencies and (f) secretarial expenses. (8) What is the estimated total cost of the inquiry, including the publication of the final report, associated papers and consultants' documents. (9) Why was evidence taken at hearings before the advertised closing date for receipt of written submissions which was initially 18 December 1987. (10) At whose direction was this closing date later extended to 31 January 1988. (11) Were representatives of the news media in attendance at the hearings; if not, were resumes of submissions presented at the hearings released by the committee to the news media. (12) Who presented a submission to the committee at its hearing in Adelaide on 19 November 1987 dealing with the financial inability of the South Australian Government to develop suburbs on the fringe of the metropolitan area by the year 2000. (13) Why (a) was this submission confidential and (b) could it not be attributed to a source. (14) Will the Government be adopting the various recommendations of the committee; if not, what are the reasons for the specific exclusions. Mr Holding —The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Committee was not requested to rewrite any aspect of its report. By agreement, the deadline for submission of the report was extended to give the Committee more time to complete the report. The additional time was used for normal editing and checking of background material. (2) Establishment of the inquiry followed an initiative contained in the ALP Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Policy, launched by the Hon RJL Hawke AC MP on 18 June 1987, to produce a Green Paper on Immigration. (3) The terms of reference for the inquiry were decided by the then Minister for Immigration on the advice of his Department and in consultation with other Ministers. (4) The decision on Committee membership was taken by the Government on the basis of wide ranging advice incorporating the views of officials and interested bodies. (5) See answer to above question. (6) Although all the Committee had full-time work commitments throughout the period of the inquiry, they devoted substantial time to Committee work. (7) Consistent with recent reforms freeing up administrative expenses, records of expenditure to the level sought are not maintained. However, the attached table dissects expenditure incurred by the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies (CAAIP) on the basis of recorded information. Accordingly, the details sought at parts 7 (a), 7 (b), 7 (c) and 7 (d) are not available in the form sought without very significant administrative effort. In respect of parts (e) (i) and (e) (ii), estimates of direct ``back-up'' costs incurred by my Department have been included in the attached table as have secretarial expenses. However, such costs do not reflect activity within departments associated with CAAIP, such as preparation of submissions, technical briefing of CAAIP staff, provision of information and so forth. No records have been kept on such resource usage. (8) The total identified cost of CAAIP was $742,000 in 1987-88 and $25,000 in 1988-89. Please see the information provided at question (7) for details. (9) The Committee did not take formal evidence at any stage but consulted with 587 individuals and representatives of organisations. Notes of those consultations were taken and copied to those consulted. Consultations and workshops on possible recommendations proceeded throughout the Committee's work, both before and after the deadline for receiving written submissions, as is normal practice. (10) The deadline for written submissions was extended to 31 January 1988 following Committee discussions with the then Minister. (11) All the Committee's consultations and submissions made to the Committee were regarded by the Committee as public once its work was concluded unless submitted in confidence and received by the Committee on that basis. Some of the consultations were attended by media representatives. As is the normal practice under Freedom of Information legislation, submissions were regarded as working documents and not for release until the Committee's work was concluded. (12) and( 13) Records of the consultations held in Adelaide on 19 November 1987 do not indicate that such a written submission was presented. Discussions with State Government agencies (Ethnic Affairs Commission, Department of State Development, Department of Environment and Planning, Office of Employment and Training and Premier's Department) touched on the capital cost of residential development on the fringe of the metropolitan area. (14) The Government is undertaking a wide-ranging examination of the Committee's proposals including advice from a range of portfolio and community interests concerned and affected by immigration policies. The Government's National Population Council has also been asked to develop further a number of important matters raised by CAAIP. As the then Minister foreshadowed to Parliament on 3 June 1988, a statement on the main policy issues will be made in the Parliament in the Budget Sittings. CAAIP EXPENDITURE REPORT 1987-88 Expenditure 1988-89 Expenditure $ $ Special Appropriation (Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973) Sitting Fees -Chairman... 14,316 -Members... 42,204 4,427 Travelling Allowance -Chairman... 3,522 -Members... 19,149 1,397 Sub Total... 79,191 5,824 Administrative Expenses (Notional Item 360-1-02 Travelling Allowance -Secretariat... 7,162 Fares -Committee... 58,017 468 -Secretariat... 20,152 Hire of Vehicles... 14,055 2,331 Printing... 83,960 Advertising... 6,220 Consultancies... 246,418 Miscellaneous... 23,610 2,802 Library... 56 Hospitality... 1,347 2,141 Office Equipment... 12,830 Postage... 11,677 Freight... 506 11,589 Telephones... 6,748 Motor Vehicle Allowance... 8,495 Meal Allowance... 74 Sub Total... 501,327 19,331 Salaries... 157,170 Overtime... 4,710 Sub Total... 161,880 Total... 742,398 25,155