Monday, 7 November 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, I welcome you back. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr HAWKE —I inform the House that the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, left Australia on 5 November on Government business overseas and will return on 17 November. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Senator Evans, will perform Mr Duffy's portfolio duties and the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, will represent the portfolio in the House. As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, is unwell and is unable to attend the Parliament. Any questions normally directed to Mr Dawkins should be directed to the Minister for Employment and Education Services, Mr Duncan. Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker, I join the Prime Minister in welcoming you on your return. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Did he request and did he receive in May or June of this year from his Department or from the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) information that a guarantee for $300,000 in respect of poker machine finance for the Woden Town Club had been approved? If so, what action did he take? Mr HAND —Earlier this year I requested a document from the ADC through the Department. In fact, that document was a history of the Woden Town Club going back to the decision of August 1986. At that time I certainly did receive information stating the details of the original decision. Subsequently, I was advised that in August 1986 the General Manager approved, under declaration, an additional grant of $10,000 and that a bank loan guarantee for an additional $43,000 to enable the club to meet increased renovation costs was obtained. All ADC grant and loan funds have been released. In addition, I was informed that the club was due to open in June and that the New South Wales region was investigating a request by the Woden Town Club for an additional guarantee of a $300,000 bank loan from the National Australia Bank to allow the purchase of 47 second-hand gaming machines and ancillary equipment from the City Club. This request was received on 4 May by the ADC. The region's submission was expected within a week once financial information was provided from Price Waterhouse. At meeting No. 56 on 10 May 1988 commissioners approved that a decision on the Woden Town Club's application for an additional loan guarantee be made by the General Manager, under delegation, after consultation with the Chairman-the Chairman being Mrs McPherson. The General Manager advised the new board of this proposal and requested its advice as to whether it wished to endorse this course of action or, if it wished, a submission would be presented to the June meeting. Mrs HARVEY —Can the Minister for Housing and Aged Care inform the House of recent government initiatives to tackle the problems of homelessness? Mr STAPLES —The first point about this question is that homelessness is usually a symptom of some other crisis in a person's life. That crisis can be related to unemployment, or more often than not to some personal crisis such as domestic violence, neglect, breakdown or illness. The Hawke Government recognises this when it introduced the supported accommodation assistance program (SAAP) along with the crisis accommodation program in 1984-85. Of course, the Fraser Government did not have a coordinated program to cater for the most vulnerable sections of our community. In its last year in office it was only able to round up about $14m to spend on homelessness, compared with the $85m that we are spending this year. In other words, we are spending six times the amount that the Fraser Government spent when the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. We have reviewed SAAP after the couple of years that it has been operating and we have built on the experiences of the Government and the community. We are now able to offer the States an extra $40m over the next three years on top of the record amount of money that is being spent this year. That means that about 150 new services will be available over the next three years and those will assist about another 15,000 people. That is what the Opposition spokesman on housing, the honourable member for Mayo, dares to describe as `cynical tokenism'. The emphasis of our new program is that we are trying to do away with the revolving door problem which is often a symptom of homelessness. We intend that this program should stabilise people's lives and help them to get back on their feet. For the record, let me contrast the efforts of the two parties in government. Since we have been in government 220,000 households have been accommodated in public housing compared with 165,000 over the previous five years. As well 70,000 home loans have been provided to low income households compared with 50,000 under the former Government. Also, 70,000 additional rental dwellings have been provided since we have been in office compared with 40,000 over the previous five years. And that is before one starts talking about other issues and other record achievements of this Government in the field of employment. We have created more than one million new jobs and 60 per cent of those jobs have gone to women. Child-care, Medicare, pensions, rent assistance and Austudy are all issues which relate to homelessness. The reality is that the Opposition does not have any sustainable policy on housing, let alone homelessness. Last week the honourable member for Mayo, the new frontbencher, had a unique opportunity to put his case to the Australian people in the pages of the Australian newspaper. He had his big opportunity to talk about the so-called housing crisis, what he perceived as the failure of the Government's policies and, more importantly, his own policies. What was the result? It is there for all of us to see: it was just like the election results-57 per cent of the people rejected his assertions. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. I remind you, Madam Speaker, of your own objection to former Speaker Snedden some time ago about Ministers addressing the matters of Opposition policy and not their own. The Minister has answered the question and he is now wasting the time of the Parliament when there are very significant issues before us. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to request him to bring his answer to a close. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will wind up. Mr STAPLES —The issue is that 57 per cent of the people who responded to that poll at the request of the honourable member for Mayo rejected his policies and his assertions on the Government's policies. Even when he is the only player on the field he falls flat on his face in front of goal. I am not quite sure what the polo analogy would be in that regard, but I am sure there is one. The fact of the matter is that this Government is tackling homelessness across many portfolios. The key element of this is the supported accommodation assistance program. We have made our offer to the States and we hope it will be accepted. Mr HOWARD —My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I remind the Minister of his previous answers to the House regarding the circumstances of the removal of members of the board of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). I ask the Minister: Did Mr Michael Stewart, an officer of the ADC, meet a member of the Minister's personal staff on 7 October 1988? At that meeting did they have available to them drafts of the motions to be moved at the meeting of the ADC on 10 October or did they otherwise discuss the actions contemplated by the motions eventually moved? Did they in fact open champagne and drink a toast? Was that toast to the imminent removal of Mrs McPherson and Mr O'Brien from the positions they then held with the ADC? Mr HAND —This accusation regarding my staff has been made on a number of occasions and I have extensively examined the issue by way of questions to all members of the staff. I am assured that at no time did any member of my staff meet with anybody to discuss proposed motions, or have any knowledge of the proposed motions. I am sorry, but I did not ask about the champagne because I was not aware of that allegation. The only people to have drunk any champagne of late were a group of people in the ADC office when they heard about the events of Friday. But the matter the Leader of the Opposition has raised has been checked on a number of occasions because it has been raised on a number of occasions, and I am assured that no meeting has taken place with any member of my staff, nor has there been any knowledge of or discussions about proposed resolutions for any ADC meeting. Mr SNOWDON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What were the reasons behind the decisions which saw Mr Charles Perkins being removed from his position as Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? Mr HAND —By way of background, I remind the House of comments I made in the House on both 1 November and 3 November. On 1 November I said, in relation to the Woden Town Club: I am totally opposed to the club being given grant moneys. I would not give a poker machine club one cent of public money. I have told the ADC commissioners that. On 3 November I said the following: I think my position on the Woden Town Club is well and truly known. I should point out for the benefit of the House that the offer, and the documentation of the offer that has been alluded to in the media via the Senate Estimates Committee, has never formally been sent to that organisation. The offer has now been withdrawn and the matter will be reconsidered at the next meeting of the commissioners. That is still the situation. It is important that the House understand the following details relating to the Woden Town Club: on 25 October the Woden Town Club was notified by fax that the club would be offered additional financial support from the ADC. The fax said the necessary documentation would be forthcoming. On 26 October Mr Andrew Jackomos, the Secretary of the Woden Town Club, told me this was the first day he had learned of this supposed offer. Mr Howard —What date was that? Mr HAND —It was 26 October. Mr Jackomos told me that this was the first day he had learned of this supposed offer, and he first learned of it when it was raised at a Senate Estimates committee on the same day. From this time until the morning of Friday, 4 November, I had been assured by both Mr Jackomos and Mr Perkins that no action had been taken by the club on this faxed document. On 31 October, at the ADC meeting held at my request, with Mr Perkins present, I expressed my opposition to this funding proposal for the club to the commissioners. I then left the meeting, having stated my position. I have been informed that the ADC commissioners decided at that meeting to defer implementation of the previous funding decision and consider the matter again at the next meeting to be held in December. I am also informed that at the meeting the commissioners were informed that the Woden Town Club had not met to discuss the offer. During last week and following that meeting of the ADC commissioners, I discussed the question of the funding arrangements by the ADC of the Woden Town Club with both the President of the club, Mr Perkins, and the Secretary of the club, Mr Jackomos. At no time during these discussions did Mr Perkins inform me that there had been a meeting of the Woden Town Club to discuss the matter of the funding. On 3 November at approximately 5.40 p.m. my office received a phone call from an ADC officer to say that two board members of the Woden Town Club had delivered a letter to the ADC in Canberra, accepting the supposed offer of additional funding outlined in the faxed letter sent to the Secretary of the club on 25 October. At 10.15 p.m. on 3 November I finally managed to contact the Acting General Manager of the ADC, Mr Wyatt, and asked him for confirmation of the message I had received earlier that evening. He confirmed that the letter had been received and agreed to my request to bring a copy to my office the next morning. At no stage, until the afternoon of Thursday, 3 November, was there any hint that the Woden Town Club had met to consider the supposed offer of support, let alone respond in any positive way. On 4 November at 8.45 a.m. Mr Wyatt brought a copy of the letter to my office. I have a copy here which I am happy to table and I do so now. The letter is from the Woden Town Club Secretary, Mr Jackomos, and its contents differed significantly from my belief of what had been arranged between the ADC and the club-a belief in no way challenged by Mr Jackomos or Mr Perkins at any time until the moment I met with Mr Perkins on 4 November. At 9 a.m. I had a meeting with the Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary, to whom I gave a copy of the letter, and to whom I expressed my deepest reservations as to its implications. At 9.15 a.m. I met with Mr Perkins, confronting him with the letter and his statements about accepting an offer and demanding further assistance for the Woden Town Club. I told him that the letter posed enormous problems for our relationship. I regret to say that Mr Perkins, upon being told of my concern, did not offer any response other than to suggest withdrawing the letter. When I pointed out the improprieties of this idea, he suggested that another letter might be written. Given these circumstances, I indicated to Mr Perkins that he should resign from his position as acting commissioner of the ADC. I also determined that I could no longer work with Mr Perkins as my Secretary and I left Mr Perkins in no doubt of my view. It had become clear to me that Mr Perkins was not prepared to give appropriate priority to his position as Secretary to the Department. I then left Mr Perkins in my office and proceeded to see the Prime Minister, to whom I put my case of not having a good enough basis for a working relationship with Mr Perkins. It was clear that the contents of the letter from the club, of which Mr Perkins was the President, were inconsistent with what I was told by Mr Perkins as President of the club and Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I know now that Mr Perkins had discussed this matter with various people and, in particular, on Thursday, 3 November, at the Woden Town Club, because he told me so himself. Despite this, and knowing my strong views on the subject and my statement in Parliament, he had not informed me until this time, being the Friday. I judged that it was not plausible that Mr Perkins would not have known about the contents of a letter dated 3 November from the club to the Commission and referring to a meeting of the club on 27 October. He did not keep me fully informed as I could have reasonably expected on a matter of major current interest and about which he was in a unique position to know. Nor did I judge that Mr Perkins took adequate action which he was in a unique position to take to give effect to my clear position on a matter of the financial relationship between the Commission and the Woden Town Club. I just say this: Does anybody believe that a grant to enable a club to operate in this way has a priority over the needs of Aboriginal people? I stand by my commitment to that. Following my meeting with Mr Perkins I left my office to speak with the Prime Minister and to report to him that because of this incident I could no longer have a good working relationship with Mr Perkins. Established administrative procedures then followed. The Prime Minister set in motion the necessary Public Service actions which led to Mr Perkins discussing his future prospects with the appropriate people. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Is Mr Andrew Jackomos, to whom he has just referred, still a member of his staff? If not, has he resigned, when and why? Is he also Secretary of the Woden Town Club? If not in either instance, and in any event, is Mr Andrew Jackomos employed in any way or engaged in any capacity by the Aboriginal Development Commission or by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? Mr HAND —Mr Andrew Jackomos was an employee of mine and he was engaged under a training program sponsored by the Public Service Commission. It is not uncommon to put people on at its recommendation. I think last Wednesday Mr Jackomos notified my Principal Private Secretary that he would be taking two days leave prior to taking up a position within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Over the weekend I met with officers of the Department. No paperwork had been produced, I was informed, for him to take up that position. I understand that I will be receiving details of a job that he will be taking up, under the arrangements of the Public Service Commission, with another department, and I am seeking information on that. Mr Sinclair —Is he Secretary of the Woden Town Club? Mr HAND —He is Secretary of the Woden Town Club; that is true. Mr GAYLER —I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: In light of the constant stream of allegations made regarding matters in the administration of Aboriginal affairs, what will the Minister do to deal with these matters? Mr HAND —The Government has always been clear in its readiness to investigate fully allegations of maladministration or impropriety in the administration of Aboriginal affairs. There will be no cover-up. I wish to inform honourable members that the Government has established mechanisms and a process for investigating allegations which have been made. The allegations will be investigated in the first instance by the agencies appropriate to them as follows. The Auditor-General has already agreed to undertake a comprehensive audit of the Aboriginal Development Commission and will extend this as appropriate to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Auditor-General is, of course, fully independent and has powers to conduct a wide-ranging investigation, particularly in areas of financial administration. The Public Service Commissioner, who is also an independent statutory officer, will investigate those questions concerning personnel management in the Department. I might add that any staff classification issues will be investigated as is appropriate by the Department of Finance. In addition, the Government recognises that certain matters may still require further examination in light of these specialised investigations. The Government has asked Mr Andrew Menzies, AM, OBE, the former Deputy Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, to make such inquiry if necessary. He has agreed. I emphasise that the judgment of which matters, if any, would warrant such further examination will be exercised independently by Mr Menzies. Together, these investigations will clearly be able to comprehend all the various allegations made in the report of the Senate Estimates Committee, including the minority part of that report. The approach would be sufficiently broad to pick up other allegations. On timing, I expect that these investigations will be completed in time to enable me to make a statement early in the new year. The approach which I have described represents the best means by which an expeditious, thorough and cost-effective investigation can be conducted. There is no need for the more complex and costly process of a judicial inquiry. Some of the allegations which have been made-I repeat, they are allegations-may be relevant to the former Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I wish to make it clear that Mr Perkins will be given every opportunity to put his views on the allegations against him and against the administration of his Department. Pending the outcome, Mr Perkins is an unattached Secretary and is receiving the salary and allowances of his previous office. Mr Blunt —Will the Minister table the document from which he was reading? Madam SPEAKER —Was the Minister reading from a public document or a confidential document? Mr HAND —It is confidential. Mr MILES —I also direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is Mr Robert Riley a senior member of the staff of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs? Did Mr Riley initiate or participate in any action related to the briefing for, or preparation of, motions to discipline Shirley McPherson or dismiss Mick O'Brien at the meeting of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) of 10 October 1988? Or, on about 26 September, did Mr Riley meet with Mr Michael Dillon and discuss, among other things, the action to be taken by the ADC board against the then Chairman and the General Manager of the ADC? What are the details of each of these actions? Mr HAND —I have already stated on a number of occasions that I have closely questioned all members of my staff. This is not the first time that Robert Riley, an Aboriginal member of my staff, has been singled out in this way. Robert Riley has no knowledge, he informs me, of any discussions pertaining to resolutions that were prepared or were being prepared, nor was he involved in the preparations of any resolutions dealing with the question of Shirley McPherson at the meetings on, I think the dates were, the 10th and the 14th. Mr KERR —Can the Minister for Social Security explain to the House the steps taken by the Government to make sure that pensioner and beneficiary families are not trapped into dependency on social security and report to the House on the effects of these policies? Mr HOWE —The most important measure that the Government has taken to ensure that families are not trapped into dependency is the family allowance supplement, which, from December, will be paid at a maximum rate of $24 for younger children and $28 for teenage children. The payments are made on the basis of income, not on the basis of whether the claimant is receiving a pension or a benefit. The Economic Planning Advisory Council report, which has received some attention in the press this morning, made it clear that the family allowance supplement has worked in that regard, making it worth while for beneficiaries to work. The report says in passing that 95 per cent of families receiving the family allowance supplement would be more than 25 per cent worse off if they were to go onto unemployment benefit. That is not the only measure that the Government has taken to reduce poverty traps for pensioners and beneficiaries. We have lifted the free areas for pension, benefit and income tests, which has enabled pensioners and beneficiaries to earn substantially more with no effect on their pensions. With respect to children of beneficiary families, we have doubled the free area from $6 to $12 per child per week. We introduced the earnings credit. As pensioners who have not been working get under that earnings credit arrangement, they keep the full pension for three or four weeks after commencing a job. With respect to sole parents and others receiving maintenance payments, we have introduced a separate income test, so that sole parents who get maintenance have the full benefit of the general free area for any earned income and continue to get child payments for four weeks after they commence work. Quite clearly, we have built into those changes-particularly the changes with respect to the payment of the family allowance supplement, the arrangement of free areas, particularly the creation of a separate income test, and the introduction of an earnings credit-massive incentives for such people to work. For example, if a sole parent with two children who is solely reliant on a pension with $52 a week maintenance payment were to achieve a job and move from that pension at a rate of payment of around $360 a week, he or she would, in the initial period-in the first three weeks in the job-receive an additional $490 over and above the payment he or she would have received under the previous arrangements. On an ongoing basis those changes represent an increase in real income of something like $32 a week over and above the payment prior to the Government introducing the change with respect to the separate income test on maintenance. So there are quite massive incentives for sole parents and other beneficiaries to move into the work force. In conclusion: I have remarked a number of times on the success the Government has had not only in terms of creating jobs but also in terms of reducing the numbers on unemployment benefit. I make the point that that, of course, impacts on families with dependent children. Since May 1987, when there were about 224,000 children in beneficiary families in which the principal members of the families were on unemployment benefit, we are now down, according to the latest figures, to 203,000 children in beneficiary families. So there has been a reduction of about 10 per cent, or 20,000 children, because families now have employed adults. It is the kinds of changes that the Government has made with respect to income tests that provide that very positive incentive for such families to move from dependence on benefits to the work force. Mr MacKELLAR —I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the claim by the former Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Ms Pat O'Shane, that she had personally provided the Minister with a list of names and organisations involved in departmental patronage and maladministration. When did Ms O'Shane provide that information to the Minister? What were the details of that information? Was the information available to him or to the Prime Minister prior to their initial expressions of confidence in Mr Perkins's management of his Department last week? Mr HAND —Ms O'Shane made a statement on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The next morning I contacted her workplace in the Magistrates Court in Sydney. She was unavailable to talk to me. A series of phone calls were made subsequent to that during the day. On each occasion she rang me when I was in Question Time and when I got back to her she was back in court. After, I think, two more days we did have a discussion on the phone. When she rang back my office, she left with my office some information regarding certain issues. Mr MacKellar —Is that the first time she did that? Mr HAND —That was the first time that Ms O'Shane had contacted me regarding those issues. Mr Sinclair —So she lied on the radio? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —Are you saying what she said on the radio is untrue? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting. The Minister is answering the question. The Minister will continue. Mr Sinclair —So she was right on radio? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member will not argue with the Chair. Mr HAND —It is extraordinary that a question is asked-- Mr Sinclair —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding is that it is inappropriate in this place for any offensive remark to be made of a member of the judiciary. Ms O'Shane is a magistrate. I suggest that, if the Minister is making any offensive remark-and he is; he is alleging that she lied on radio-that should be done by substantive motion. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —If he is alleging that she lied on radio, he should do it by resolution. Madam SPEAKER —Will honourable members take note that I am standing. The Minister will continue. Mr HAND —Madam Speaker, at no time would I question the integrity of Ms Pat O'Shane, nor have I ever-never. Ms O'Shane raised with me a series of points. We had a lengthy discussion about those matters. I told her of certain actions that had occurred in regard to some of them. She expanded on other points. I offered to meet her in Sydney last Friday during the break between her court proceedings; that was, I think, between 12 and one. I then suggested that, if there was a need, I could even go and discuss matters with her on the Saturday. Subsequent to that part of the conversation, we continued the conversation and it was agreed that at that point there was no need for me to meet with her personally. But I gave her an undertaking regarding the matters she raised and, from what she has said subsequent to that in the media, electronic and print, I think she believed me and has no doubt that I will do that. I also suggested to her that I would keep her informed. There are accusations and they will properly be addressed. I repeat to the House: it matters not to me who it is; if there is some form of corruption, misappropriation of funds or some other matter that somebody raises, either in this chamber or in public, my commitment to fix that is still the same as it was when I first took over this job. I resent the right honourable member for New England implying that I made a derogatory comment about Ms O'Shane. I did not. I resent that. It is grossly unfair of the right honourable member to say that, because it is not true. Ms O'Shane contacted me and I have acted on the contact. Mr CLEELAND —My question is to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Can the Minister inform the House of any progress in her initiatives to commercialise the inventions of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation? Mrs KELLY —I thank the honourable member for McEwen for his question and I am happy to report that, following the restructuring of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, we are now able to take maximum advantage of its intellectual property with a view to maximising its commercial potential-without, I must add, undermining its first responsibility to the Australian Defence Force. Recently, I signed a licensing agreement between the Aeronautical Research Laboratory, which is one of the laboratories of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, and Schlumberger Instrumentation Australia (SIA). That will allow SIA to develop what we call Austower, which is an air traffic control trainer which will be based at the Royal Australian Air Force base in East Sale. Once it is developed for East Sale it will then be able to be developed for export. I think that is the key to the developments in the DSTO. On the one hand we want to provide better facilities for defence, as is being done with the Austower development, and on the other we want to have them available for their export potential. Austower simulates a full-scale control tower overlooking an aerodrome scene of up to 10 aircraft and ground vehicle activities. It can also simulate varied conditions of visibility, various kinds of landings and take-offs and even emergency situations. It is a great example of the high level of technology available in the DSTO which must be put to the good use of defence but which also must be used for its export potential. I want to thank everyone involved in the DSTO for that product. I hope this project will be the first of many successful commercial projects. Mr COBB —I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to comments made on radio this morning by Mr Gary Foley regarding an alleged can of worms of corruption about which Mr Foley informed the previous Minister, Mr Holding. I ask: Was the Minister briefed on these allegations by the previous Minister? How do Mr Foley's allegations square with the Minister's assurances that there has been no cover-up in Aboriginal affairs? Mr HAND —I heard part of the comments made by Mr Foley this morning. He made a number of accusations in that broadcast. I will be looking at those comments, along with every other accusation that is made. I repeat for the benefit of this House, the media and the public: every accusation that is made will be addressed. I, or any other Minister in this job, can do no more than look at the matters brought before me. If possible, I intend to have personal contact with Mr Foley and ask him to tell me what these accusations are. If that is not suitable to him and he wishes to relay this information through one of the mechanisms that we have established, he can. He may feel that that is a more appropriate way to do it. Mr LEE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Given the importance of Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea and the joint declaration of principles signed by Prime Minister Hawke and former Prime Minister Wingti, can the Minister advise the House of the outcome of his recent discussions with Ministers in the Papua New Guinea Government? Mr BEAZLEY —Some of the comments that have been raised about this matter go to the issues relating to the Papua New Guinea-Indonesia border. Quite properly, those matters are bilateral matters between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia and I would not seek to comment on them. However, the meeting afforded an opportunity to go into further detail about our very extensive defence cooperation program with Papua New Guinea and specific matters were raised there that are of direct interest to the Papua New Guineans. One of those goes to the air mobility of their ground forces. They have put forward propositions to us, under the defence cooperation program, to assist in the development of their air wing with the provision of support for helicopters. We have indicated support in principle for that and we will go into discussions with them about it. We also took further discussions that we have been having for some 18 months on the question of engineering projects, one of which related to the development of roads in the border area by the employment of engineering elements to Vanimo to operate in a joint project with the Papua New Guinea defence forces. We indicated to the Papua New Guinea officials that we would be prepared to proceed with that if they so wished and they will get back to us on that matter. We had further discussions about the provision of extra patrol boats. The Papua New Guinea officials indicated to us that they found a suggestion that we increase the number of patrol boats for them from four to six acceptable. They were appreciative of that and indicated to us that proposals we put forward for the development of Manus Island were also acceptable. All in all, the meeting was very useful in cementing the process set in place by the joint declaration of principles, particularly that element that implies a commitment to building a substantial Papua New Guinean defence capability. It should be welcomed by all honourable members. Mr HOWARD —I remind the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that Mr Charles Perkins was dismissed because of his supposed role in the financing of poker machines and other matters concerned with the Woden Town Club. As Mr Perkins, having declared an interest, was absent when the remainder of the Aboriginal Development Commission board reached the conclusions to which the Minister objected, what action does the Minister now propose to take against the other hand-picked commissioners who made those decisions? Mr HAND —If the question deals with the meeting of 31 October 1988, the answer is quite clear. That matter will be discussed again in December by the commissioners. Ms FATIN —Can the Minister for Housing and Aged Care inform the House what impact administration of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is having on rural pharmacies and, in particular, on pharmacies in less populated areas of Western Australia? Mr STAPLES —I thank the honourable member for Brand for her question. I presume she has been attracted to this matter by the issues raised by the Leader of the National Party in Western Australia and the Pharmacy Guild of Western Australia among others. In that regard this Government has no policy to close small rural pharmacies. The Government recognises the important role of country pharmacies, particularly in the delivery of health and to the community itself. We can safely discount the claims made by the National Party Leader as rubbish. The claims by the Pharmacy Guild that Government policies are forcing pharmacy closures are simply not supported by the facts. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) has risen by more than $330m in the past three years. For that, pharmacies get about 40c of every PBS dollar. From the mark-ups and fees on national health service (NHS) prescriptions it is estimated that pharmacy income has risen by more than 30 per cent in the past three years due to the increased prescribing of expensive drugs in large quantities. I think that we will soon see information, not from the Government but from other sources, that will certainly show vast increases in profit in pharmacies in the last couple of years, particularly in relation to country pharmacies. The pharmacy remuneration is not determined by the Government, it is determined by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal, which is an independent body whose determinations are binding on the Government and pharmacists. The decision to cut the wholesale margin from 15 per cent to 10 per cent, which reduced pharmacy incomes by 39c per prescription, was more than offset by the higher drug prices and increasing the remuneration by 46c per prescription. The Pharmacy Guild agrees with these calculations. It is nonsense to suggest that the full responsibility for pharmacy viability is on the Government. Pharmacy Guild figures themselves demonstrate that NHS dispensing represents less than 35 per cent of pharmacy turnover. But the pharmacy guilds of Western Australia and Queensland, and to some extent people operating in northern New South Wales, claim to have secret evidence of a Government plan to close down all pharmacies with a turnover of less than $500,000 per annum. It is about time that they substantiated these allegations, because they are going around the community frightening people with a whole lot of baseless allegations in respect of which they have nothing to put up front. In support of these allegations the Guild in Western Australia claims that the Government's actions have forced the closure of pharmacies at Lake Grace, Morawa, Three Springs, Beverley, Esperance, Karratha and Kalgoorlie. But let us look at some of the pertinent facts in this matter. I am informed that the Lake Grace pharmacy, which closed in May 1987, serviced a population-- Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to standing order 145. In fact the Minister has completed his answer to the main part of the question and he is now introducing extraneous matters. He should be asked to finish his question. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is in order. Mr STAPLES —These claims have been made, and I am amazed that members of the Opposition, who talk so much about openness in government, should be now afraid to hear some of the facts relating to the issues that are being peddled around the community. In Morawa the pharmacy which has closed serviced a population of only 1,400 people. Many of these country towns have small numbers of older people who are the main beneficiaries of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Three Springs pharmacy closed in September 1987, but it re-opened under new management in November 1987 and is still operating. The Beverley pharmacy serviced a population of 1,500, of whom 60 per cent were under 40 years of age. The closure of one pharmacy in Esperance left three pharmacies servicing a population of less than 10,000, of which 71 per cent are under 30. These are the stories that the National Party in Western Australia is peddling; these are the stories that people in Queensland are peddling. The closure of one pharmacy in Karratha left two pharmacies still operating. The operator wanted to open another pharmacy, and under State laws he could not operate both anyway. One pharmacy in Kalgoorlie closed, but there are still six pharmacies operating in the same street. Mr Reith —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This Minister has been on his feet for five minutes. He ought to be asked to draw his answer to a conclusion. Madam SPEAKER —I gather that the honourable member is not raising a point of relevance, because I find the Minister relevant. He has been speaking for five minutes, and it could be in the interests of the House if Ministers made their answers shorter. However, I find the Minister quite relevant. Mr STAPLES —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will simply close, because I have made my point. I would expect now the Pharmacy Guild of Western Australia to substantiate the claims it is making about some secret plan of the Government to close country pharmacies, and I would expect those opposite who back them, whether they be in the National Party or in the Liberal Party, to do likewise. Dr KLUGMAN —Madam Speaker, I preface my question to you by saying that I was sorry to hear about your accident while I was overseas, and I am extremely pleased that you appear to have recovered. Are you aware of a letter tabled last week by Acting Speaker McLeay addressed to you and Mr President from Mr Justice Staples, Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and dated 27 October? Do you agree that he raises a very serious issue? Who will reply to him on behalf of the Parliament, and is ignoring such a letter an appropriate answer? Madam SPEAKER —The Acting Speaker tabled the letter from Mr Justice Stap les last week. That is where my responsibility ends. The Acting Speaker has written to Mr Justice Staples to tell him that the letter has been tabled and any further action in regard to the letter would be either a matter for an individual member or at the House's disposition. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(2.55) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Menzies moving forthwith: That this House is of the opinion that: (1) A Royal Commission should be established to inquire into: (a) the administration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and the Aboriginal Development Commission and all other Commonwealth agencies and corporations responsible for the administration of Aboriginal Affairs; and (b) the administration of the office of Minister for Aboriginal Affairs by the current Minister and by the current Minister for the Arts and Territories; and (2) The Royal Commission should take evidence and conduct its proceedings in public. Will the Government accept the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders? Mr Beazley —No. Mr N.A. Brown —The Government will not accept it. We have, therefore, at the beginning of the debate on this motion, a very clear indicator of the hypocrisy of the Government. During Question Time we heard the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) say, `There will be no cover-up; it will all come out. There will be an opportunity for people to answer any question that is raised'. Since then, only a few minutes ago, two things have occurred: the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has said, `No, I won't table the document from which I am reading'-a document with regard to the proposed inquiry that he wants to establish-and the Government is now taking a technical and specious objection to prevent debate on this most important matter of public interest and concern. We say that Standing and Sessional Orders should be set aside so that a motion can be put forward to establish a royal commission into these matters of very great concern relating to the public administration of Aboriginal affairs in this country. In this country, unfortunately, there is now a smell of appallingly bad administration hanging over Aboriginal affairs. As a result of recent allegations made, there are now suggestions of corruption going to the highest levels of the administration of Aboriginal affairs in this country. Further, we say it is a clear case in which two Ministers should very promptly be brought to account for their administration of the office of Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Government adopted the tactic today of saying, `Well, let's get in first. We think the Opposition might move this motion, so let's get in first and let's try to give the impression that we really are on the ball and that we really are prepared to have an investigation'. What was the Government's response? It said, `The Auditor-General is already all fired up. We will let him go beyond the review of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) and also review the Department of Aboriginal Affairs itself'. So grudgingly, and only because the Opposition has pushed the matter, the Auditor-General is now to look at the Department. The other thing that the Government has done is to say, `We will have an inquiry. We will get Mr Andrew Menzies-good man that he is-to investigate all these allegations'. The Opposition says that an inquiry by Mr Andrew Menzies-good man though he is-is not good enough. We say that only a royal commission, with all its powers, can get to the bottom of this matter. A royal commission can demand witnesses to appear before it. Witnesses who give evidence before it have some protection with regard to defamation, which is exactly what Mr Gary Foley said this morning when he made a clear allegation of cover-up against the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding). Mr Gary Foley said, `I am not going to come forward to some inquiry or see the Minister. I want some protection for the allegations that I have to make'. The Government is running for cover. The Government is clearly engaged in a complete cover-up, from top to the bottom, in all of these matters. We say that it is a clear case in which Standing and Sessional Orders should be set aside and a clear case for the establishment of a royal commission. That is so for those reasons. Over the last few weeks, there has been a whole series of allegations concerning bad administration in the Aboriginal Development Commission. I do not have time, of course, to go into it all in detail. Honourable members will be aware of the matter concerning the Woden Town Club, the poker machines and the large amount of money spent in that area. Honourable members will be aware of the involvement of the Minister in that and the fact that he had his own ministerial staff involved in the matter. How can this not be a case for an inquiry? How can this not be a case for a royal commission when the Minister's own secretary is involved as one of the parties in this particular deal? Honourable members will aware of that incident. They will be aware of the matters revealed in the Senate inquiry into the Oasis Hotel in Walgett and the expenditure of public money on that. We are all aware that, with respect to both that and the agricultural property at Nardoola, it would appear on the surface that what has happened is that the Aboriginal Development Commission gave away property, property bought with taxpayers' money. A very valuable property was simply given away irresponsibly and in such a way that if ever there were a case for a royal commission or inquiry this must be it. It is abundantly clear that events since the Senate committee inquiry have made an even stronger case than ever before for having a royal commission with the powers of a royal commission. What has happened since then? In the first place we have had further allegations. Secondly, we have had the Minister actually sack the Secretary to his Depart- ment. Thirdly, we have had the appalling spectacle that we have seen here today of the Minister passing the buck to the Secretary and putting the blame on the Secretary. We have seen that, and if ever there were a case for investigation this surely must be it. We have reached a state of affairs in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs where there is a clear evidence of bad administration, suggestions-at least on some evidence-of corruption and absolute chaos reigning within the administration of the portfolio by the Minister and the Minister actually being driven to the point of sacking his permanent head. On top of that we have the permanent head saying, `The Minister knew all about it'. That is what Mr Perkins said. He said that the Minister knew everything that was involved in the portfolio. And then, as if that were not enough to justify an inquiry, at the end of the day in Question Time today what do we find but the Minister pouring a bucket on Mr Perkins and putting the blame on him. Not only is that a discreditable form of conduct: it is one that must surely add to public concern; it is one that must surely make out even more strongly a case for a wide-ranging inquiry with the powers of a royal commission-powers which Mr Andrew Menzies does not have-into this whole sorry scandal. One of the reasons that agitate the public and agitate us about this matter is the involvement of Ministers. Here we have what would seem to be on the surface, at the very least, a clear case of bad administration by two Ministers, a clear case of two Ministers not living up to their ministerial responsibilities. If we need any guidance for what our attitude should be on this we need to go no further than what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said only a few days ago in his Sir Robert Garran Oration. In his Garran lecture a couple of days ago the Prime Minister told us this about ministerial responsibility: `You know, the problem is that Oppositions too often are all too eager to cry leg before wicket'. This is not a case of leg before wicket. This is a case of two Ministers, the Department and the Government being clean bowled-and clean bowled for a duck. If there were ever a case that called out for an inquiry with real powers and not just a superficial inquiry this must surely be it. We have all of the ingredients which justify a royal commission. We have bad administration, cover-ups, slack ministerial performance and an attempt at the end of the day to put the blame onto the former Secretary to the Department. We will not be satisfied with anything other than a royal commission with the powers of a royal commission, because it is only that which will get to the bottom of this sordid, smelly deal which has now involved the Minister for the Arts and Territories with the allegations made against him-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(3.05) —I second the motion. I am sure that every member on this side of the House would second it. Every member on the other side of the House should second it. There are some 200,000 Aboriginal Australians who would like to second it. There are about 16 million Australians who would also like to second the motion if they had the chance. This motion is not just about Aboriginal affairs. It is not just about how the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) and the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding)-he is the only one who still has the courage to be in the chamber-have run their portfolios; it is about standards of government administration. It is about a betrayal-a betrayal of trust that was put in this Government by Aboriginal Australians, a betrayal of the trust that we all have as members of this place to look after those people on behalf of whom we have the responsibility of administering government policy. What we hear in this place today are selective revelations about the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). We have been told today what the Government is prepared to tell us. The Minister said in this place, `I have a personal commitment to ensuring that every allegation made, every suggestion of corruption, will be investigated'. Let me say that it has gone well beyond that. It is too late for the Minister to say, `I will do this behind closed doors'. The Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) knows it. That is why he has refused to agree to this motion today. It has gone far beyond a private, closed door inquiry. The only way that this matter can be dealt with now is by having a public inquiry, a judicial inquiry, a royal commission, where the whole issue comes out and the light of day goes into the dark crannies of this Government's administration. Everybody knows that there is something wrong within the Department. Everyone knows that this Government has a commitment to covering it up. Last week in this place the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, `There will be no cover-up' and then proceeded to stonewall. When the issue would not go away, he probably got together with a few of the right wing policy advisers and they said, `You had better throw someone overboard'. So, what happened? Mr Perkins went overboard. Now what are we doing today, in this place? There are protests by the Government that there is no cover-up and commitments to have an investigation, but there is a total stonewall. The Minister came in here today and announced that the Government was going to have some sort of inquiry. He referred to the inquiries as `two vehicles', not as inquiries. I asked him to table the document from which he was obviously reading. What did he say? He said, `No, it is confidential'. That is the approach the Government has taken to this whole issue-`It is confidential unless we are prepared to let it go and we will not let it go if it is going to cause us any embarrassment'. It is obvious to Blind Freddy that this whole issue is capable of embarrassing the entire Government. It goes well beyond this Department. It goes well beyond the ADC. It goes well beyond Charles Perkins. It goes well beyond Clyde Holding. It goes to the very standards of ministerial propriety and the sort of government this Prime Minister runs. He is not even prepared to come into the chamber and debate this issue. The Minister himself has gone. The only person who is sitting here listening-well might he do so because he knows what his role in this whole issue was-is Clyde Holding. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member will refer to the Minister by his title. Mr BLUNT —If I knew what it was, I would. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Richmond will refer to the Minister by his title. Mr BLUNT —I will. The Minister for the Arts and Territories and Minister assisting the Minister for whatever-for the time being. Let me say that it is very much for the time being. One thing is inevitable. The Government cannot keep the lid on this issue. This issue is far too big for the Leader of the House to put the lid on it today. It will continue. The whistleblowers will continue to blow the whistle. If it is not Gary Foley, if it is not a magistrate in New South Wales, it will be someone else. There will be more issues, more relevations coming forward, more evidence and more accusations. Eventually this issue will be brought out into the public arena and debated. This Government's appalling standards of administration will be seen for what they are. If the Government had a commitment to doing anything about this matter, if it had a commitment to looking after Aboriginal Australians, not only would it take this motion today, but also it would set up a royal commission and we would clear the decks. We would make sure that all those people who have corrupted the standards of this Department and the standards of public administration in this country are brought to book. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(3.10) —The Government will not facilitate this motion or the nonsense of the arguments that are associated with it. I will take seriatim a few of the arguments that were raised. In the course of the remarks that were made by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) in particular, certain aspersions were cast upon the former Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which cannot pass in this place without an answer. The suggestion was made, for example, by the honourable member for Menzies, that Mr Perkins had been put on the unattached list because he was in some way being blamed for the plethora of material that has been dealt with by the Senate Estimates committee. He implied that Charlie Perkins was being thrown to the wolves basically because he was in some way or another allegedly associated with this. That is nonsense. Those matters have absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why Mr Charles Perkins was placed on the unattached list. The Government does not direct any blame to Charles Perkins for any of those allegations which have yet to be investigated by the appropriate bodies. The reasons for Mr Perkins being placed on the unattached list were made quite clear by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who evaded nothing in his answers to questions that were put to him by the Opposition today. The reasons relate quite specifically to the advice given the Minister during last week about Mr Perkins's knowledge of the events surrounding a decision by the Woden Town Club to accept an offer which had been withdrawn from the Aboriginal Development Commission. That is all. It related specifically to the type of advice that a Secretary ought to be providing his Minister. A totally reasonable position was reached by the Minister that in those circumstances he could not continue to work with Mr Perkins. That was all. We must not let stand in this place effectively an imputation or an allegation by the Opposition that Mr Perkins's services to the Aboriginal Affairs Department were terminated for any other reason at all. That goes to the sort of exaggeration that members of the Opposition have brought to this discussion, an exaggeration which leads them to the nonsensical position that the normal processes of investigation of departmental affairs by the Commonwealth ought to be overthrown in this instance, and a royal commission created. Why do we have an Auditor-General's Office if it is not to investigate claims that the expenditure of public funds has been misapplied? Why does the Opposition assume that an Auditor-General who has not declared himself to have the incapacity to investigate those matters ought not to investigate them? That is patently absurd. All the matters that have been raised, and the only matters that were mentioned by the honourable member for Menzies as he proposed his motion, were matters that had gone to the Senate Estimates committee and subsequently an indication was given by the committee, as I understand it, that these matters would be considered by the Auditor-General. He brought out nothing more. There were no additional suggestions to those materials that had already been handed over to or discussed in the Senate. There were no additional reasons why there was some especially unique case of corruption here that required anything other than a normal investigation by the Auditor-General's Office. We do have these proper processes in the Commonwealth. These processes stand outside the occasional efforts by the Opposition to take benefit from that. Nothing that has been alleged so far is in any shape or form an equivalent-a moral, financial, ethical, political or legal equivalent-of the circumstances that have that royal commission operating into that criminal conspiracy that seems to have been the government of Queensland in the course of the last few years. It goes specifically to whether or not-and I am only going on the statements of the honourable member for Menzies here and those that have been made by other Liberals-public funds have been appropriately expended. There is a department which is devoted to such matters. There have been other allegations and those go to whether or not in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs there has been evidence of nepotism in the promotion and appointment of individuals. Those matters are reasonable for investigation, but there is a process in the Public Service for those matters to be properly investigated and that is by the Public Service Commissioner. In the 70- or 80-odd years that we have been developing public policy and public authority in this country we have created the appropriate procedures for those sorts of investigations. To go for a further investigation outside this framework of the appropriate procedures established over time since Federation requires far more dramatic, sinister and dangerous allegations than any of those that have been made by the honourable member for Menzies in his speech to his motion, by any of the questioning by the Opposition in the Senate Committee and by any of the suggestions that have been made public. Sensible administration of public policy demands that the Government does exactly what the Government has done in this regard: refer matters to the Auditor-General for report; and refer matters to the Public Service Commissioner for report. There is a possibility that in the course of that there might be an area in which the Auditor-General or the Public Service Commissioner might want additional advice. We have said in those circumstances that Mr Andrew Menzies, who has quite rightly been detailed by the honourable member for Menzies as a person who is in this regard totally above reproach and who has the complete capacity to comprehend the processes of bureaucracy, will take the inquiry further if such an inquiry is necessary arising from the matters that have been advised by the Auditor-General. We have proper procedures in this country for appropriate problems. It is only when those problems get to an extraordinary extent that we move outside those proper procedures, such as when an entire police force, or a substantial portion of it, appears to have become corrupt. There is no suggestion in any of this that we have the situation where the wives of senior public officials are standing on street corners receiving funds from the criminal element of our community in order to pay off politicians and the like. We have no allegations in these particular matters, and we need to get some balance in this discussion, of Premiers of States directing police against their political opponents. What we possibly have in these circumstances-and this is to be demonstrated-is roughly the moral equivalent of the behaviour of those members of the Liberal Party of Australia who accepted, from funders of their campaigns in the course of their activities in New South Wales, cars; or something of the immoral equivalent of members of the Liberal Party who misused the processes by which public funds are declared in the course of election campaigns in New South Wales. That is basically where we are at. Of course there is no Auditor-General's Department or process to investigate those positions. We rely on the statements of the Premier or anyone else in New South Wales about how they propose to handle that matter. In that regard we do not have and nor does New South Wales, an Auditor-General's process to go through that, so some other means of inquiry into that might sensibly be established. Honourable members opposite who are so anxious that there should be public inquiries into these matters might ask Mr Greiner whether he proposes to do anything about it. I am absolutely certain, after the events of the weekend, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) would be perfectly prepared to invite Mr Greiner to discuss the matter because after all the Leader of the Opposition, who has been enormously subdued in this place over the last two weeks, was given over that weekend something more to be subdued about by Mr Greiner's handling of those matters. The Government has detailed a totally appropriate means of handling these allegations. No allegation has been suggested or made that would mean that the Auditor-General or the Public Service Commissioner could not proceed with them. But if such were to emerge we have set in place a totally appropriate mechanism for handling that. The Opposition's position on this is entirely specious. The Opposition position on this has quite reasonably been rejected by the Government. The Opposition's position on this is totally inappropriate to the nature of the allegations made, to the nature of the charges made. As I said, it is in no way the moral, economic, political, or judicial equivalent of the sorts of problems created by Opposition parties in Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Kerin, J. C.Bilney, G. N. Kerr, D. J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, JohnGriffiths, A. G. Scott, LesHand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Snowdon, W. E.Hollis, C. Staples, P. R.Howe, B. L. Theophanous, A. C.Humphreys, B. C. Tickner, R. E.Jakobsen, C. A. Uren, T.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Wright, K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Australian National Gallery-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 40 of the National Gallery Act 1975 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. Snowy Mountains Council-Annual Report 1987-88-clause 21 of the Schedule to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government's administration of Aboriginal affairs. 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- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Kerin, J. C.Bilney, G. N. Kerr, D. J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Sawford, R. W.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Sciacca, C.Grace, E. L. Scott, JohnGriffiths, A. G. Scott, LesHand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Snowdon, W. E.Hollis, C. Staples, P. R.Howe, B. L. Theophanous, A. C.Humphreys, B. C. Tickner, R. E.Jakobsen, C. A. Uren, T.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. (Teller)Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldDuffy, M. J. Shack, P. D.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 2.30 p.m. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the thirteenth report of the Committee for 1988, relating to the expansion of the international terminal complex at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr HOLLIS —by leave-The report which I have just tabled relates to the approval by the Public Works Committee of the expansion of the international terminal complex at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport at an estimated cost of $214m at April 1988 prices. The Committee considers the need for these works to be urgent. When the inadequacies of the existing international terminal complex are combined with the projected growth in international passenger numbers of at least 7 per cent per annum into the medium term future, it is clear that the Government must act now to expand existing international terminal facilities. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is a critical facility for international tourism, business activity and cargo for Sydney, New South Wales and the Australian economy. Any inadequacies at the airport will have significant ramifications for Australia's economic prosperity. The Committee supports the Federal Airports Corporation's decision to fast-track the development. As a further means of ensuring the project is completed on time, on cost and with the objective of eliminating industrial disputation, the Committee has recommended that the Federal Airports Corporation encourage the development of an industrial agreement between the successful construction contractor and the unions. Due to the complexity of the proposed international terminal development, a significant component of the facilities and related infrastructure will be contributed by other organisations, namely, the airlines, Commonwealth Government bodies such as, Customs, health, immigration and police, oil companies and the New South Wales Government. The Committee noted the project is supported strongly by all of those groups, each of which has agreed to provide its respective facilities or infrastructures. In considering the proposal the Committee also gave careful consideration to the concerns of the residents and councils which had raised a number of objections to the proposal, particularly in relation to the Federal Airports Corporation's environmental assessment. While not questioning the quality of that assessment, the Committee shares the view of the residents and councils that the Federal Airports Corporation would have been better advised to have secured the services of an independent environmental expert to prepare the assessment of environmental issues. In conclusion, the Committee has noted the work which the Federal Airports Corporation has commissioned on the development of a master plan for the international sector of the airport. To ensure the overall orderly development and operation of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport the Committee has recommended that the Federal Airports Corporation prepare a master plan for the whole of the airport as expeditiously as possible. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —by leave-I am pleased that the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), has finally brought down the report on the expansion of the international terminal complex at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Naturally, I have not seen the report and I wonder whether it contains further recommendations from the Committee concerning the adequate functioning of the airport in so far as the runways are concerned. I am pleased that this expenditure is to be undertaken. I look forward to seeing the work carried out as soon as possible. There is an urgent need for the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to be upgraded, and members of the Opposition have constantly drawn the matter to the attention of the Government. I am sorry to see that the opportunity of constructing an additional runway at the airport has been discarded. I constantly fly into and out of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, and consistently there are holdups, for a quarter of an hour or more, for both the larger and the smaller planes. Not only are passengers held up, but also it must be very costly for the airways. This, of course, boosts the costs for those who wish to travel by air. I do hope that the Government will give us a final date for the commencement of the airport at Badgerys Creek. On behalf of my constituents, I trust that no commuter planes from within the State or elsewhere will be diverted from Sydney Airport to Bankstown or some other airport around the Sydney area. The distance one would have to travel from there to the centre of the city would pose many problems for country people. I am sure Eastern Australia Airlines and others would be very worried that, because of the traffic at Sydney Airport, their planes may be diverted elsewhere. I assure the Government that such a move would be very strongly opposed by country people. I hope there is more in the Public Works Committee's report that the Government will act upon besides the actual doing up of the airport terminal, and that the construction of another runway will be seriously considered. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —by leave-I do not usually take an interest in these debates, but I happen to be the local member for the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport area and have been for a long while. I have never favoured the construction of a new runway, on the basis of safety. That is a factor that the National Party of Australia in particular ought to understand. When I was in opposition one of the last questions asked of the then Government was about why the airport had not been expanded. That evening a light aircraft crashed, with all on board losing their lives. The pilot was in trouble and unable to land because there was no area on which to land. Incoming planes were occupying the runway, and the unfortunate pilot made a desperate effort to save everybody's life by trying to land in a transverse position, which would have been impossible because the runway was so narrow. Because of his loss of altitude, the plane actually hit the rocks and burst into flames. As a matter of interest, all the people were travelling to the country. I notice nobody has asked a question about this matter since that time, which was in about 1982. The Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is one of the busiest airports in the world and covers one of the smallest areas of land-some 1,200 acres. As the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) would know, the previous Government thought that Tullamarine Airport ought to cover at least 5,000 acres. Most major airports in the world cover 15,000 acres because there has to be a safety factor when a plane is in difficulty, whether in take-off or on landing. There has to be an opportunity for that plane to come down in some space and not endanger the lives of the people aboard and, particularly in my electorate, without endangering the lives of the people living adjacent to the airport. It is quite wrong for the Liberal Party and the National Party to suggest that the solution is the expansion of the airport with parallel runways. It is not. The solution is a second airport for Sydney, and one should have been built years ago. The reason it was not built years ago, it is suggested-perhaps not altogether unfairly-is that the influence of Ansett Airlines of Australia in Melbourne encouraged the development of a second airport for Melbourne when in fact all the business was basically for Sydney. That is still the problem. I came back from overseas last week to find that air traffic into Sydney is increasing at a more rapid rate than for any other airport in Australia. Why? Because people want to come to Sydney. Therefore we have to cater for them-not within the existing small perimeter, which endangers everybody's life and causes all those delays, but by providing a second airport. It takes time to do that. My own view is that it might not be a bad idea to look at using Richmond. I used to be on the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, and it was suggested that Richmond was always fogbound and dangerous. But all airports can be fogbound and dangerous, and they are not used then. The fact is that there is a strip at Richmond that perhaps ought to be utilised more. That would be beneficial because it would take more of the aircraft. It would give immediate confidence to the people in my electorate that at least something was being done to reduce the hazard that they all would have to bear should a plane be unable to land in the area and have to land on their homes or somewhere adjacent. There is a dreadful situation with the gas terminals located on Botany Bay. A second runway would lead straight into those highly inflammable and concentrated liquid storage facilities. If an accident were to occur there, the explosion would destroy half of Sydney. It is quite wrong just to talk about the convenience aspect. We all understand that point, but it is very important that governments look at need. The need is for a second airport of some size, and it ought to be started now. My constituents have to put up with the continual disruption of their normal domestic life. The noise disrupts people's telephone conversations and the lives of people in nursing homes and schools. Aircraft noise reaches a high level when planes are at 200 or 300 feet, taking off and landing at intervals of two or three minutes. People are prepared to tolerate that. They know that to some extent they cannot do anything about it. But they do not want the problem to increase. They do not want a further disruption to their home life or, most importantly, their safety. I think that, in a considered debate in this place, we should look at the safety of people who must fly in those circumstances. It is not much good putting more planes on a piece of ground which is so small that the planes must keep moving around, as well as be put in holding patterns in the air. It is a real problem that should have been dealt with 20 years ago. The House will recall that, during the time of John Gorton's leadership, he suggested Towra Point as a possible airport site. That proposal was rejected by Sir Robert Askin, the then New South Wales Premier, because he could not bear the thought of the political consequences of building a second runway on a site at Towra Point. A second runway could be proposed for another site, say, in a national park, but one would not get away with that, either. It is very clear that there ought to be a second airport. Members of the Liberal Party have a fatal policy which will crush them in the seats in areas surrounding Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. They want to build a parallel runway there. They have no chance at all. It is about time we started to look at the possibilities, at what can be done. I suggest that we look immediately at the use of Richmond in particular and an immediate start on the Badgerys Creek site. There are problems in regard to Badgerys Creek. The present owners of land are objecting because they do not want to lose their dairy farms, or whatever. The position is that it is about time that we concentrated on safety and ignored the issue of the slight inconvenience to people in aircraft which are in holding patterns waiting to land. I know that there is a safety factor involved in that as well. The fundamental flaw of the whole concept is that the transport and aviation authorities-that is, the bureaucrats-irrespective of which political party is in government, have always taken the considered view that the best thing to do was to expand Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. That suits the airline operators because they do not want to have the difficulty of transporting people from an airport situated further out of Sydney. They never agitate for a second airport. The pilots never agitate for a second airport because they are concerned only with their own convenience. From the point of view of a democratic society, if one took a poll of the million people who live within the environs of the airport, one would be lucky to find 10 per cent in favour of the airport's expansion. Mr FIFE(Hume) —by leave-Had the previous speaker not been the Deputy Prime Minister, one would not have taken very seriously his suggestions in relation to Richmond and in relation to moving Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport from its present location. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) is the Deputy Prime Minister of this country and therefore he has access to the Government of this country in a way which other ordinary members of this House do not. One would have thought that, if Richmond was a serious alternative, the Government would have examined that before now. I am not aware whether the Hawke Government has examined the Richmond proposal. I say, as a former Minister for Aviation-I was Minister for Aviation, the House will be aware, at the time of the change of government 5 1/2 years ago-that that is not a viable alternative. The Government is quite right in proceeding with the development of another airport for Sydney. That airport will be used for the movement of small aircraft-civil aviation and light aircraft-which will take some of the pressure off Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and also off Bankstown; but it will not be a substitute for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport unless the government of the day takes a conscious decision to move the operations of Kingsford-Smith International Airport to Badgerys Creek. It will not take the major pressure off that area. The Government should consider the statistics. I cannot advise the House precisely what the percentages of international aircraft movements in and out of Sydney are today, but in 1982 they accounted for only 3 per cent of total movements. We have the perception that because huge jumbo jets fly in and out, they absorb the main capacity of Sydney Airport. That is not so. They form only a very small percentage of aircraft movements. If, on the other hand, the Government wanted to reduce the usage of Sydney airport, it could make a major reduction, in percentage terms, by not permitting aircraft that service Newcastle and Sydney to land at Sydney Airport. No-one would seriously suggest that that should occur. There are more movements into and out of Sydney Airport for Newcastle-bound passenger planes than for aircraft destined for any other part of the world or any other part of Australia. What is needed is a third runway at Sydney Airport. While I was Minister for Aviation, I had the privilege of announcing, on behalf of the then Government, that a third runway would proceed. It was announced in the early part of 1982 and the preliminary planning work was well under way when the present Government came to office. It was this Government that cancelled that work. Had it not cancelled the work, the project would be nearing completion now. The Deputy Prime Minister put great emphasis on safety. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister and to other members of this House that 50 years from now Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, regardless of who is in office, will be the major airport in Sydney, because no government will face up to the enormous costs of moving the interstate, international and intrastate traffic out of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The cost would be enormous. No government-Labor or Liberal-National Party-will do that because of the cost involved. I am as interested in safety as the Deputy Prime Minister. If the Government wants to do something in the interests of safety at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, it will do what I tried to do, and what the Fraser Government tried to do, in 1982. It will put in a third runway, because that would add tremendously to safety at Sydney Airport. With regard to the noise level, the third runway that we planned provided for every take-off and landing to be over water. In the short term that would have reduced enormously the number of takeoffs and landings over the residential areas of Sydney. The last point that I wish to make concerns the nonsense that is being uttered here and elsewhere, and which was uttered this afternoon by the Deputy Prime Minister when he said that he did not think that more than 10 per cent or 20 per cent of people in that part of Sydney would support a third runway being built. I invite the Deputy Prime Minister to ask the department that is now responsible for aviation to present to him and to the Government the survey work that I commissioned when I was the responsible Minister to ascertain the views of the people who lived in that area. I had a hunch that because such a large number of people worked at Sydney Airport, and because the airport would be regarded as the major industry in that part of Sydney, there would be strong support for what I termed runway 3. That survey material, which I assume is still in the Department, shows conclusively that there is major support from a very significant number of people in that area. That should not surprise any of us. I am not sure what the number of people employed at Sydney Airport is today but in 1982 it was around 15,000 people. That represented 15,000 families. Mr Jull —It is 18,000 people now. Mr FIFE —I am told that today 18,000 families are supported by the activities at Sydney Airport. Not only are there 18,000 families directly supported by Sydney Airport but there are also countless numbers of families in the businesses and factories around that area who support those 18,000 families. I say to the House that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) is wrong. If he is really sincere about wanting to do something for safety and, at the same time, increase the efficiency of Australia's largest airport-Sydney Airport-he will move in Cabinet for an immediate commencement on runway 3 at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Mr JULL(Fadden) —by leave-I join my colleagues the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) and the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) and support their statements about the report of the Public Works Committee relating to the expansion of the international terminal complex at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I was delighted when the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) said that yet again we were to have a complete survey of the needs of the international facilities at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. May I also agree with what my colleague has said in terms of all of the work that was done 5 1/2 years ago. That proved conclusively the need for a third runway. I also hope that one aspect the Committee will look at is the provision of high speed taxiways off the present facilities. That, in fact, is one of the things holding up the traffic at Sydney International at the moment. Indeed, I believe it is something of a safety hazard. The other thing that should be investigated as well is the procedures that are presently used by air traffic controllers. With three-minute separations at the moment we provide some of the longest separations of any country in the world. I am not suggesting that we forfeit any safety mechanisms by looking at that particular area. It is interesting that in the United States of America separations can be as low as 20 seconds. Separations in Australia are three minutes. There must be somewhere in between that will allow us a little bit more flexibility. May I also point out that the honourable member for Hume was perfectly correct when he said the number of international movements was really quite small. Of course, the international movements are the most efficient ones because they are using bigger aircraft. They are using aircraft that are taking up to 400 people. So much of the congestion of Kingsford-Smith is caused by general aviation and light aircraft movements. I too would commend the Government for its decision to proceed with a light aircraft facility at Badgerys Creek. It is quite correct that Kingsford-Smith Airport will be Sydney's airport for another 50 years. One prospect is even more efficient air travel with the introduction of bigger and bigger aircraft. That will help. That is why this decision on Sydney terminal is so vital. If we go back more than 20 years to when the present terminal was built, our foresight was fairly limited. The present terminal at Sydney is built for Boeing 707s and DC8 aircraft. It was completed without any real recognition of what was going to happen in terms of the introduction of Boeing 747 aircraft. The major aircraft manufacturers already have on the drawing boards aeroplanes that can carry 800 to 1,000 people. I sincerely hope that when the Committee does its investigations it has foresight to look to the technological developments that are happening in aviation at the moment and not just at the short term effect that might see the terminal facilities brought up to standard for another five or seven years. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOLLIS —Yes. Even though I think he said it in good faith, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) said that the report of the Public Works Committee relating to the expansion of the international terminal complex at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport called for yet another survey. We did not call for another survey. We commended the Federal Airports Corporation for commissioning the development of a master plan, which, I think is different. It is important that we have a master plan for the international sector. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page) —by leave-The report of the Public Works Committee relating to the expansion of the international terminal complex at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is of great significance. We know the horrendous situation that currently exists in respect of the handling of incoming and outgoing international passengers. However, because of the determination that has been made in this respect we again see very clearly the overall difficulty that confronts all travellers in and out of Kingsford-Smith Airport. The crux of the matter is the enormous growth that has occurred. Of concern, undoubtedly, is the forecast further growth in the next five years. What is proposed in the report is very helpful indeed for international travel. But it falls short of adequate recognition of the public of Australia travelling in and out of the city of Sydney. In the short term, there is adequate provision to meet what is already without doubt a crisis for air travel. It is a crisis for the commercial life of the city of Sydney and an even greater crisis for rural New South Wales. Air transport to the provisional centres of New South Wales is absolutely essential if we are to maintain growth and to provide the services that are essential for the immediate future in rural New South Wales. Great concern has been expressed by my colleagues in the State Government of New South Wales about the situation. I want to support what has been said this afternoon by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), my colleague the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) and others who have spoken briefly on this report. The short term poses an enormous problem. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) did not recognise that entirely. I am sure we are all pleased to hear him say that there ought to be some consideration of the significance of Richmond in some changed plan of utilisation of existing runways that are within reach of the city of Sydney. My concern, and that of my constituents in northern New South Wales, is the fact that we are already on notice that there will be a contraction in the number of movements in and out of Sydney by the smaller aircraft. The weight limit is 5,700 kilos or something of that order-I have forgotten the precise figure. It creates for the immediate future a circumstance in which a large number of small aircraft services may not be able to use Kingsford-Smith Airport. Bankstown is already overloaded. The proposition for Badgerys Creek does not give any hope of a solution within five years. It is possibly 10 years away that anything comes of the determination to go ahead with the Badgerys Creek proposal. I hope that the Committee will look again at some of these issues. Perhaps these questions have not been fully referred to it but they ought to be. The comments by the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon highlight the need for that to be done. He laid emphasis on the question of safety. We are all concerned with safety. Indeed, we face a very serious risk to safety in the immediate future because Sydney Airport lacks adequate navigation equipment. The equipment should be upgraded. What do we find happening under the new authority the Federal Airports Corporation? There is reference in this report to it already imposing heavy additional changes, under the user pays principle, in respect of these facilities that are proposed. In the last couple of weeks, increased landing charges have been announced, particularly for small aircraft. The effect of that will be to increase fares for country services in New South Wales by a large proportion compared with the increase in fares for international travellers. That, as far as I am concerned and as far as my colleagues the honourable member for Lyne and other honourable members who represent provincial centres are concerned, is very unfair. We believe that there is a need for an immediate review of the situation at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. If it is left any longer, it will be too late. I say to the House that what has been expressed this afternoon by a previous Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for Hume, is sound common sense and should be recognised as that. A case needs to be put for the 18,000-odd workers at Sydney Airport and their families. A factual case needs to be put for the people who are dependent commercially on Sydney Airport. We need to see an end to the politicking that has gone on in recent months, a decision on curfew having been overturned on nothing but the premise of a little bit of political and no explanation to the community as to what the real requirements are. People in the vicinity of the airport have been scared about the associated noise and danger. That ought not to be the case. A clear and detailed account of the situation should be given to the community. The community's views should be sought as to what can be done to solve what is an enormous crisis. I urge the Committee to take whatever steps it can to review the situation and I urge the Government to give directions in that regard. Mr LEE(Dobell) —by leave-I did not intend to speak in this debate this afternoon on the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works entitled Expansion of International Terminal Complex, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, but there having been three Opposition speakers in a row on this matter I thought that perhaps a few points should be made. The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) said that, if the situation at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is left any longer, it will be too late. He said that there is a `crisis' at Kingsford-Smith Airport. If there is a crisis, perhaps it has existed for quite a while. Ten years ago the Federal Government should have decided where Sydney's second international airport would be. As the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Deputy Prime Minister, said, the Gorton Government was looking at a site in Botany Bay at Towra Point. The Fraser Government established the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee but could not force itself to make a decision. At least now, finally, the site has been selected; that site is Badgerys Creek. I believe that it will be the long term answer to Sydney's airport needs. The honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) pointed out, correctly, that international flights make up only a small proportion of the number of planes using Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. But 15 per cent of the use of Sydney's international airport is taken up by light general aviation aircraft. Sydney's runway capacity is a scarce resource. We simply cannot afford to let every light plane, such as the Cherokees and the Pipers, hold up the Boeing 747s, 737s and 767s which carry the major domestic and international traffic. We cannot afford to have those little planes holding up those flights, with separations which were outlined by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull)-- Mr Tim Fischer —Why not build a third runway? Mr LEE —The honourable member for Hume made the point that, with the third runway the previous Government proposed, every take-off and landing would have been over water, minimising the noise level. That is fair enough if one does not live within a radius of five or 10 kilometres of the runway. Most of the take-off and landing path would have been over water, but not all of it. The fact that planes might come in over Botany Bay does not mean that residents who live nearby would not hear the planes. I used to live at a place called Cronulla, which was 10 to 15 kilometres away from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. When the jets were landing and putting on their reverse thrust to brake, one could hear them very clearly, especially late at night. So the claim that, if the planes came in over Botany Bay, it would have no effect on the residents of Kingsford-Smith, Barton, St George and other electorates is ridiculous. I commend the Committee's report. It is another excellent report of a high standard which we have come to expect from the Public Works Committee. I endorse the report to the House. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move a motion to discharge certain tariff proposals which were moved earlier in the session and which constitute Order of the Day No. 128. These proposals have since been enacted. Leave granted. Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the House. I move: That Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 14 to 19 (1987), Nos 1 to 4 (1988), Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Proposals No. 1 and Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 7 to 13 (1987) and Nos 1 and 2 (1988) be discharged. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Government came to office committed to transforming the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) into an effective instrument of industry policy after the previous Government had left the Corporation to languish. AIDC was moved to the industry portfolio and in late 1983 the AIDC Act was amended to expand the role of the Corporation. The amendments enabled it to provide finance for the restructuring and revitalisation of industry and for high technology and other growth industries in order to improve the international competitiveness of Australian industry. AIDC responded well, the focus of its investment activities altered significantly, the Corporation engaged in an intense process of self-examination and emerged revitalised and reorganised with the Board and staff determined to make a significant contribution to the Government's industry policy objectives. AIDC's ability to provide both loan and equity capital across the spectrum of new and old industries is a key characteristic which differentiates it from other financial institutions. AIDC is now making a solid contribution not only in its day to day business activities but also to the heavy engineering plan, raw materials processing under the textiles, clothing and footwear package and the anti-malaria joint venture. As a consequence, the Corporation has experienced a period of very strong asset growth of over 250 per cent in the four years to 30 June 1987. However, its capital base has emerged as a factor that could jeopardise AIDC's future contribution to industry development, especially in terms of its equity investment program, which is essential if it is to make its full contribution to industry policy objectives. At present, AIDC has paid up capital of $100m and $93.6m in accumulated reserves. However, budgetary circumstances have ensured that additional capital contributions have been the exception rather than the rule. A provision introduced in 1983 requiring the Corporation to pay a dividend of 50 per cent of net profit after tax has also slowed the growth of reserves. In line with prudent commercial practice, AIDC apportions capital to the various components of its business, appropriate to the risk-return profile of each class of business. This is essential in order to maintain AIDC's credit standing. However, this places a constraint on the level of capital intensive equity investments, although they are highly desirable from a policy viewpoint. Confronted with the capital problem the Government examined a number of options: firstly, to continue as at present; secondly, to provide a substantial capital instalment from the Budget; or, thirdly, to raise equity capital from the private sector. In evaluating these options it was important to maintain AIDC as an effective financial instrument of industry policy. For this reason the first option was unacceptable. It would have undermined the progress achieved by AIDC over the last five years, returning it to the situation it confronted before this Government came to office. It would also have had a disastrous impact on the morale of the Corporation and its ability to retain key staff. AIDC's loan portfolio would have soon ceased to grow and the investment strategy would increasingly have been determined by the need for short term profitability. New investment in the more innovative and useful areas, particularly equity investments, would have had to be abandoned. Given the public interest roles expected of AIDC, which remain the raison d'etre for its continued presence in the public sector, it would be preferable if the whole of the required capital could be found from the Budget-the second option. However, the budgetary realities facing the Government inevitably mean that the Government would not have been able to provide the capital required. The third option involving raising capital from the private sector could have been implemented in a number of ways. Capital could have been raised in the Corporation itself either by issuing voting or non-voting shares. A listed unit trust holding non-voting shares in the Corporation could have also been established. However, these approaches would have either raised insufficient capital or would have altered the essential focus of AIDC's activities. The Government therefore has decided to allow AIDC to establish a listed subsidiary company to conduct most of its loan and investment business with up to 30 per cent of the equity to be offered to the public. It is expected that initially up to 20 per cent of equity will be offered for some $50m. AIDC remains a statutory corporation 100 per cent owned by the Commonwealth. The Corporation will retain its developmental charter and continue to be subject to general policy guidance from the Government. The subsidiary's objectives will also be directed towards and will cover AIDC's statutory charter. Directors of AIDC will compose the majority of the subsidiary's board. Under the reorganisation the bulk of the business of the Corporation will be transferred to the new wholly owned subsidiary. Assets and liabilities associated with the national interest activities of AIDC will remain with the Corporation. It is intended that AIDC will also remain as the borrower for the group. In return for the transfer of assets and liabilities the subsidiary will issue shares to the Corporation. The subsidiary will then at a time determined by market conditions issue shares to the public and be listed. The transfer of the assets and liabilities is to be tax revenue neutral. No tax or stamp duty, State or Commonwealth, is to be paid in respect of the transfer. The subsidiary is also to be placed in the same tax position as the Corporation in respect of the transferred assets and liabilities. It would be inappropriate for any taxes or charges to be levied in respect of the transfer, given that the activities of the subsidiary will be those previously carried out by AIDC. In any event the cost in terms of taxes and charges normally associated with such a transfer would have been so large as to defeat the whole purpose of the reorganisation. Throughout the reorganisation and the raising of share capital from the public appropriate ministerial control will be maintained. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce will, against criteria set out in the Bill, nominate the subsidiary to which the Corporation will transfer its business; specify the assets, instruments and liabilities not being transferred, all other assets, instruments and liabilities being transferred to the subsidiary; fix the day the reorganisation takes place; determine the net value of the transferred business; determine the total nominal value of shares issued to the Corporation; and have the power to issue directions in relation to the first share issue to the public. The market will determine the price of the shares for any subsequent issues. The rights of those staff members transferring from AIDC to the subsidiary have been fully protected under this Bill. The establishment of the listed subsidiary should not be construed as a partial privatisation of AIDC but rather as an opportunity for the public to share in the national development objectives of AIDC. No Commonwealth assets will be sold off and the Corporation will remain 100 per cent owned by the Commonwealth. No single private person or associated group will be permitted to hold more than 10 per cent of the subsidiary's voting equity. This condition and others will ensure the continuing effectiveness of AIDC and the subsidiary in meeting industry policy objectives. These objectives will remain unchanged as will the strict commercial approach to its business that has been a hallmark of the Corporation over past years. In contrast to privatisation measures in Britain, the additional capital raised from the public by the subsidiary will remain with, and contribute directly to, the growth and financial performance of the AIDC group and not flow to Consolidated Revenue. To further assist AIDC the Government has also decided to forgo the 1987-88 dividend which would normally be due to be paid by 31 December 1988. The Bill also amends the mechanism by which future dividend payments to the Commonwealth will be determined, bringing AIDC into line with other government business enterprises. Instead of paying 50 per cent of net profit after tax each year AIDC will recommend a dividend to the Minister for Industry Technology and Commerce who may approve the recommendation or direct the Corporation to pay a higher or lower dividend. Similarly, the remuneration of AIDC's Chief Executive will be determined by the Board in consultation with the Remuneration Tribunal. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce will also now appoint the Chief Executive of the Corporation on the recommendation of the Board. The Bill increases the capital payable to the Corporation from $150m to $200m, of which $100m has been paid up. The forgone 1987-88 dividend will be counted towards the paid in capital of the Corporation. The unpaid capital will be available, subject to appropriation, to enable the Corporation to discharge its obligations. However, it is intended to be available only if the Corporation has exhausted all other options in discharging its obligations. The Bill also contains other consequential and minor amendments that will assist both AIDC and the subsidiary in performing their functions. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is an omnibus Bill proposing miscellaneous amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901. The main proposals contained in the Bill are, firstly, to amend the manner in which the quantity of beer produced is measured for the purposes of assessing both customs and excise duty-clauses 10 and 33; secondly, to amend the controls pertaining to prohibited exports, so as to permit the Minister for Defence to suspend licences and permissions to export goods from Australia in circumstances where it is in Australia's national interest to suspend such licences or permissions-clause 8; thirdly, to extend the duty free entry to the Australian mainland of goods from Christmas Island to those goods which were 50 per cent produced on the Island-clause 11; fourthly, to amend offence provisions contained in sections 228 and 234 of the Customs Act 1901-clauses 20 and 23; and, fifthly, to provide, as part of the Government's decision to impose for the first time excise duties on government instrumentalities, that existing legislative provisions protecting those instrumentalities from excise duty are of no effect-paragraph 29 (b) and clause 30. In addition, the Bill makes a number of other minor, technical amendments to the Customs Act 1901, the Excise Act 1901 and the Off-Shore Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1982. These amendments are set out in detail in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. I shall now outline the major proposals in the Bill. Clauses 10 and 33 amend the manner in which beer is measured for the purposes of assessing duty. The dutiable content of bulk vessels containing beer is presently fixed by legislation. For example, the traditional `kilderkin' is a vessel with a capacity of between 76.5 and 82 litres, although the dutiable contents is set at 79 litres irrespective of the vessel's actual contents. Technological improvements in the manner in which bulk vessels are manufactured and filled means that it is now possible to measure beer more accurately. As from 1 February 1989, it is proposed to assess duty on bulk containers, that is, vessels in excess of two litres capacity, according to the quantity of beer nominated by the manufacturer as being in the bulk container providing that the actual contents do not exceed 101.5 per cent of the nominated quantity of the beer. As from 1 July 1991, the 1.5 per cent overfill tolerance just discussed will be reduced to one per cent. For beer in bottles and cans up to two litre capacity that are entered for home consumption as from 1 February 1989, duty will be based on the labelled contents of the container providing the actual contents do not exceed 101.5 per cent of the labelled contents of the container. I turn now to clause 8 of the Bill, which allows for the Minister for Defence to suspend previously granted licences or permissions to export goods from Australia in circumstances where it is in Australia's national interest to do so. The Government announced in June this year that the existing export controls on defence related goods would be revised so as to reduce constraints on exports where that could be done without prejudice to Australia's national interests and international obligations. The existing controls require case by case ministerial permission for defence exports regardless of lethality or military significance. Case by case ministerial permission is also currently required for the export of non-military but potentially lethal goods like sporting firearms or commercial explosives. The Government proposes introducing a system of licences for recognised exporters of potentially lethal, non-military goods. This system, whilst enabling the Government to stop exports of such goods in particular circumstances, will eliminate the current requirement for case by case approval of all such exports. When circumstances require, authorised exporters will be notified that export of these goods to particular destinations will require ministerial approval on a case by case basis. Case by case ministerial approval will still be required by non-authorised exporters of such goods. Although the Government wishes to remove impediments to this trade, it recognises that from time to time circumstances may arise which make it contrary to Australia's national interest to continue exports to particular destinations. This proposed amendment to the Customs Act makes it clear that the Government may impose these controls should the circumstances arise. Clause 11 provides for an extension of duty free entry to the Australian mainland for goods imported from the external Territory of Christmas Island. Currently, provision is made for the duty free entry into Australia of goods from the Territory where those goods are the produce of manufacture of the Territory, unless similar goods produced or manufactured in Australia are subject to excise duties. To meet the existing requirements of the Customs Act 1901 that deem goods to be the `produce or manufacture' of Christmas Island, those goods must either be wholly manufactured in the Territory or partly manufactured, where the last process of their manufacture was performed on Christmas Island and not less than 75 per cent of their factory or work cost is represented by the value of labour and/or material of Christmas Island or Australia. However, as part of the Government's strategy to foster the development of new manufacturing industries on Christmas Island, in the face of an uncertain future for the phosphate mining industry, it is proposed from 1 January 1989 to reduce the local Australian content requirement under the Customs Act from 75 per cent to 50 per cent. This is the same preferential treatment currently applying to Forum island countries and Papua New Guinea. It is hoped that this matter will encourage small industries that will generate local employment and income. The Government considers this measure to be highly desirable in view of the small size of the population, its remoteness from the Australian mainland and its historical dependence on one industry, namely phosphate mining. This measure is consistent with the Government's policy on Christmas Island, namely, to widen and diversify the island's economic base and improve its financial and management arrangements. Clause 20 amends the offence contained in section 228 of the Customs Act 1901. This section currently provides for the forfeiture to the Crown of ships or boats not exceeding 250 tons registered tonnage where that ship or boat has been used in smuggling, or knowingly used in unlawful importations or exportations, or is found to be altered so as to allow for the concealment of goods; or where the master of the ship has refused permission for Customs to search the ship, or cannot account for cargo deficiencies. The Government has decided that references to `registered tonnage' should be replaced with references to the `overall length' of a ship, because the maritime term `registered tonnage' is ambiguous, having a number of possible meanings. It is now proposed to move to a basis of the `overall length' of the vessel by adopting the definition of the term contained in section 10 of the Shipping Registration Act 1981. The length of 80 metres has been chosen as the appropriate qualifying measure as it is considered that the master of a ship or boat should be able to exercise sufficient control over a ship or boat not exceeding 80 metres in overall length to warrant forfeiture if one of the circumstances set out in section 228 is established. The owners of ships over 250 tons registered tonnage which have been engaged in the practices described above are currently subject to a penalty not exceeding $10,000. This penalty has remained the same for many years, and it is light compared with the replacement cost to an owner of a vessel under 80 metres overall length which is forfeited to the Crown. The Bill will increase the penalty for vessels over 80 metres overall length, and engaged in the activities I have mentioned, to $100,000. Finally, clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill particularly implement a Government decision to impose excise liability on government business enterprises (GBEs) by removing any statutory exemptions from paying excise duty as from 1 July 1989. This complements amendments to the excise tariff proposed in the Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988, currently before this House, which contains the substantive provisions giving effect to this decision. Most Commonwealth enterprises, particularly those in direct competition with the private sector, are subject to the full range of Commonwealth, State and local government taxes and charges. Consistent with the move to place Commonwealth business enterprises on a more commercial footing, the Government has decided that all GBEs should be exposed to the same charges as private businesses. Accordingly, as was announced in the 25 May 1988 economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), excise duty will be payable by all GBEs, the only exemptions being those authorities that have express exemptions to pay excise duty inserted in their establishing legislation as from 1 July 1989. Financial Impact Statement The change in the manner in which beer is measured for the purposes of assessing duty is not intended to net the Government any more revenue. If necessary, duty rates on beer may be adjusted for an overall, industry-wide revenue neutral result. The revenue impact of extending duty free concessions to Christmas Island is difficult to assess, as much depends on the level of exports coming from the island. However, it is anticipated that the extension of the concession will only lead to a minimal loss of Government revenues. The remaining amendments to the Acts have no direct financial impact. I commend the Bill to the House, and present the accompanying explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(4.41) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1988, which is now before the House, contains in its seven schedules a wide variety of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1987-and that is an understatement. I shall briefly outline those amendments. Unfortunately, because the Bill contains 488 pages, I shall not be able to give the length of detail that many honourable members would want. Schedule 2 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 January 1988, contains amendments necessary to enact tariff changes made by customs tariff proposals in August of this year. These amendments relate to walnuts; large machines imported in separate component form; and deerskin leather garments of New Zealand origin. Also contained in this schedule are: an amendment to restore the rate of duty applying to polyphenylene oxide. This overcomes an anomaly that has emerged following the introduction of the Government's decision on the chemicals and plastics industries; and an amendment to additional note 1 to chapter 72 to raise the minimum copper content specification of high alloy steel. This note was prepared some years ago and has been overtaken by changes in the steelmaking industry. The Steel Industry Authority has confirmed that changes in technology have made the restrictions imposed by this note irrelevant to current assistance requirements. Schedule 2 to the Bill, operative on and from 22 June 1988, restores a rate of duty of 15 per cent to certain paper cutting machines and parts thereof. These amendments were previously included in the Customs Tariff Amendment Act 1988 retrospective to 1 January 1988. The amendments legally establish the date of operation as 22 June 1988. Complementary amendments are also contained in schedule 1 to the Bill. Schedule 3 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 July 1988, also contains a variety of amendments. The first amendment is necessary to enact a tariff change made by custom tariff proposals in August of this year. The amendment relates to aviation turbine fuel. Also included in this schedule are: amendments, consequent on the May economic statement, to provide for the phasing rates of duty and remove the revenue duty applying to certain tariff classifications. A complementary amendment has also been made to part III of schedule 4 of the principal Act to remove redundant item 42c as a result of the removal of the revenue duty; the imposition of protective rates of duty in certain raw and refined sugar, consequent on the removal of the import embargo on July 1989, which will phase in in accordance with the Government's decision announced in the May economic statement; amendments to a number of items of schedule 4 to the principal Act, which: rename the Australian industry participation program to the Australian industry involvement program; take account of the new Employment, Education and Training Act 1988; and make it clear that item 22 covers goods for use in natural gas exploration as well as for petroleum exploration; the remaining amendments of this schedule implement certain wording changes to align the principal Act with the international convention on the harmonised commodity description and coding system. Schedules 4 and 5, operative on and from 6 July 1988 and 24 August 1988 respectively, enact tariff changes made by tariff proposals in August of this year, relating to fibre glass insect screening; and beer, which was part of the Government's budgetary measures. Schedule 6 to the Bill, operative on and from 1 January 1989, includes amendments relating to the Government's decision on the chemicals and plastics industries. These exclude certain metallic stearates and vinyl wallpaper from duty phasing arrangements. Also included are other amendments which: accelerate the phasing-out of New Zealand rates for passenger motor vehicles. Complementary amendments have also been made in schedule 3 relating to components for passenger motor vehicles; adjust certain Forum islands and developing country rates to accord with the Forum islands and revised developing country preference schemes introduced on 1 July 1986. These rates were not carried through to the harmonised tariff; and remove redundant item 41d from part III of schedule 4 to the principal Act. Schedule 7, operative on and from 1 March 1989, contains a series of amendments made in the context of the post-1988 assistance arrangements for the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries. The amendments include changes to TCF tariff and tariff quota arrangements. They reflect recent Government decisions on the TCF plan, the May economic statement changes to the plan, the outcome of a review by the TCF Development Authority on velvet duty rates, new ANZCERTA-Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement-arrangements, and handicraft textiles and clothing and handmade footwear. In June 1987 the Government announced the new assistance arrangements for the TCF industries post-1988 TCF plan. The plan commences, in the main, from March 1989 and is aimed at encouraging the restructuring of these industries through a combination of gradual reductions in protection and the provision of special positive adjustment measures. The first of the tariff changes were introduced in legislation in 1987. The proposed legislative changes relate to tariff quota arrangements which will apply from March 1989. The main changes to the post-1988 TCF plan announced in the May economic statement on 25 May 1988 were: a reduction in tariffs of five percentage points for apparel and footwear and for most higher tariff rates for fabrics and footwear parts. Because of this reduction a duty surcharge equal to five percentage points will also be introduced where quota is issued on a past import performance basis and base quota duty rates are being reduced. This surcharge will help maintain the relativities between base quota and out-of-quota imports which existed prior to these decisions; the end of the TCF plan on 30 June 1995, resulting in quota arrangements being abolished eight months earlier than originally announced. As part of its decision on the TCF plan announced in June 1987, the Government decided that there would be a rationalisation and simplification of textile fabric duty rates. This decision included the duty on imported velvet fabrics being rationalised on 1 January 1988 to 25 per cent. A number of representations were received on this aspect of the decision. After analysis and investigation of the concerns by the TCF Development Authority, the Government decided to reduce the duty to 20 per cent in 1989 and 15 per cent in 1990, and to determine future rates in the mid-term review of the plan. Also included in this schedule are liberalisation arrangements to accelerate the achievement of full free trade in goods by 1 July 1990. These arrangements were recently decided upon by the Australian and New Zealand governments. New entry arrangements for handicraft textiles and clothing and handmade footwear will also be introduced. Finally, included are amendments to remove certain tariff classifications from the ambit of the TCF policy. This action now allows the duties applicable to these tariff classifications to be phased in accordance with the rates alterations reductions. Financial Impact Statement The restoration of the 10 per cent duty rate for polyphenylene oxide will result in a small decrease in revenue. However, this will be offset in part by the Government's decision to remove the phasing rates currently applying to certain metallic stearates. The change in regard to the copper content of high alloy steel will result in a decrease in revenue not exceeding $1.4m as a result of claims for refund of duties. Revenue implications flowing from the tariff reductions announced in the Government's May economic statement are difficult to isolate accurately. However, it is anticipated that the reductions covered by this initiative, tariffs which are already phasing, the changes to the passenger motor vehicle plan and the abolition of the 2 per cent revenue duty will result in revenue decreases of $460m in 1988-89 increasing to $900m in 1992-93. The TCF sector currently provides the Government with revenue from the duties levied on imports and from the partial sale by tender of tariff quota. It is difficult to estimate with any certainty the future budgetary implications of changes in assistance for the TCF sector because of variables such as the phasing out of tariff quotas resulting in a decrease in revenue because of lower tariff rates-however, this will be offset by an increase in revenue resulting from an increase in the volume of imports; liberalisation of trade with New Zealand; replacing quota issued on a past import performance with quota sold by tender; relative competitiveness of Australian production; changes in consumer demand and consumer preferences; and significance of developing countries as import sources. Notwithstanding these complexities, it is expected that the total revenue collected from the implementation of the post-1988 TCF arrangements, including those arising out of the May economic statement and the closer economic relations changes, should increase by over $200m over the period of the plan. The increase is likely to come largely from the sale of tariff quota by tender. There is expected to be minimal financial impact caused by the other amendments in the Bill. Details of the amendments contained in this Bill have been included in an explanatory memorandum which has been circulated for the information of honourable members. Before I close, let me say that it just occurred to me, as I was delivering the speech, that this is the week of the American presidential election. The speech I have just delivered is longer than Washington's farewell address to the nation, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's second inaugural speech. Mr Robert Brown —It was much more important than any of those. Mr BARRY JONES —Naturally. Nevertheless, I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Blunt had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: (1) 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'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and orders of the day Nos 2 to 6. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(4.53) —As you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a cognate debate and, in entering this debate, I wish to confine my remarks to the Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1988. The aim of the Bill, as honourable members who have taken note of what the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) said in the second reading speech will know, is to establish a new corporate structure for Telecom Australia. There will be many people across the nation who will welcome the measures being proposed by this Government, particularly as they relate to government business enterprises. The main thrust of this measure is to set up the Australian Telecommunications Corporation, and the measure is part of the Government's reform package, not just for Telecom but, as I have said, for government business enterprises generally. These measures were announced by Senator Gareth Evans on 25 May. There are four main elements of reform. The first is revised corporate and financial structures, which will cover so many aspects of government business enterprises; new planning and accountability mechanisms, which everyone wants and would support; the modification of major strategic controls, and the removal of day to day controls of government. In other words, it is supposed to allow those who are in the public sector to run these enterprises on proper commercial bases and to ensure that there is due efficiency. We do not want to see constantly taxpayers' moneys being poured in to prop up business enterprises where this is unnecessary. However, I want to make the point that for some time Telecom particularly has been involved in a greater efficiency thrust. I think it has met community demand for greater efficiency and accountability. That demand has certainly been heard and has obviously been heeded and a response has been forthcoming. I do not think many Australians really want to go down the full privatisation track. Whilst there has been widespread debate on it, and I can understand honourable members arguing for it, I really do not think it is the consensus of Australians. But they do want efficiency and they do want the best possible service. They want the most efficient delivery of government services, particularly from business enterprises, and they want management of these business enterprises to be responsive to consumer needs. That is happening, and that is the good news. We can always be critical of Telecom. People will always growl about accounts that they have received or about the cost of installing a new service. But it seems to me, as I have sat with Telecom management over recent times, particularly in my capacity as chairman of the Caucus consumer affairs committee, that there is this responsiveness; that Telecom is prepared to listen to consumers. It is listening to the broader community. Some time back I received many complaints about the types of telephone bills that people were receiving. People reading this debate or listening to it now will know that we receive at the moment a telephone bill made up of four pages-an innocuous little document that is difficult to understand. There seems to be duplication and a doubling up on the detail that is available. But, for all that, there is a lack of information, and it is not surprising that there has been considerable criticism of the system. It is a computerised system but it just does not seem to have achieved anything from the consumer's point of view. I took this issue up some months back on the consumer affairs committee when I had the privilege of meeting with Ted Benjamin of Telecom. We talked about all the issues, the complaints, the way that the Australian Pensioners League throughout Queensland and other parts of Australia had argued against the bills and how consumer groups had expressed their concern and their opposition to the bills. In those discussions it was urged that there ought to be a different type of billing format that consumers could understand. We argued also that there should be more information for consumers. They need to know the cost of subscriber trunk dialling (STD) and local calls. Those costs ought not to be lumped in together, as has been the case. We ought to be able to understand what we are being charged for, and that has not been the situation. Consumers have a right to have things in a simple, plain English form so that they know exactly what they are being billed for. At that time, which was many months ago, Telecom promised to take up the issue and research the complaints that had been put forward. I am now pleased that it has come up with some changes. There will now be a single-page bill. It is being experimented with right at this moment. I am told that Telecom is experimenting with about 500,000 households, which is a large proportion of the households of Australia. It will not be until October next year that the full system will be introduced and in play. But at least the change has come about. It has come about because Telecom has listened to the community, to the consumer groups and to committees such as the parliamentary committee, and it has acted on those requests. It has done the correct thing. It has not just said, `Because politicians have asked for it, we will do it'. It has carried out its research and appreciated that there have been some problems. Telecom introduced the four-page system for proper reasons. It took on an American or Canadian system, but it just did not work here and so it is going back to a single-page format. More importantly, consumers will get more information about the cost of their STD calls. They will get greater information because the bills will be itemised. Importantly too, as Mr Ted Benjamin told a recent committee meeting, plain English terminology will be used. That must be hailed as a victory for consumers. But Telecom also should be given bouquet for its willingness to sit down with community groups and those affected by its systems, listen to them and then adopt a strategy. The new strategy will also include a review and rationalisation of the credit management process. There will be additional on-line inquiry details. Telecom is even considering an alternative billing medium, such as a diskette. This is part of a highly consumer oriented approach adopted by Telecom for which it ought to be congratulated. Telecom has issued a very special report. I am very pleased with the substance of the report because it states exactly what will happen. Its heading is `The Telecom Commitment' and it gives a commitment to ensure that the phone bill is easy to understand; that pay telephones work and when people need them; that phone services are at prices that people can afford; that there is quicker, easier installation and maintenance of services; that there is fast and effective response to customer inquiries; and a Telecom organisation that listens and is more attentive to special needs. It is finally happening. It proves that, regardless of the size of any public sector business and regardless of the bureaucratic nature or characteristics of these enterprises, if those in management, those at the head of such structures, are prepared to sit down with consumer groups and others, things can be achieved. I congratulate those involved in Telecom for moving down this track. The Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO), the pensioner leagues, the committee that I sit on and others have said there has to be a greater bridge. It is not good enough simply to solve the problems after they have arisen. We ought to try to be active in these issues and overcome the problems before they arise. It seems that that will be the outcome because Telecom has now set up, on an interim basis, the Telecom Community Consultative Council. Whilst it is still in its early stages-it is an embryo-type structure at the moment-it would appear from the terms of reference that have been announced and from the types of organisations that will be represented on this Council that the consumer voice will be heard. This Council will have representatives of Telecom and a number of peak consumer organisations. I am pleased to note that AFCO and the Disabled People's International of Australia will have representation. The National Council of Women of Australia, the Australian Consumers Association, the publishers of Choice magazine, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Pensioners Federation and the Rural Telephone Subscribers Association will also have representation. These groups that have been brought together truly represent the vast majority of consumers across this nation in the telecommunications area. It is early days but the structure should work. It should be a good sounding board to air consumer-related concerns. As I have mentioned before, the types of things that, no doubt, will be discussed are billing, the basic tariffs that are charged and the community service obligations that Telecom ought to embark upon. It will ensure also that there is customer access to Telecom. This seems to have been the biggest problem in the past. I am hoping that this Council will act not only as a sounding board but also, in some ways, as an avenue for redress. Too often in the past it has been Caesar unto Caesar. If one had a complaint against Telecom one had to go to Telecom about Telecom and it was always very difficult to get a solution. In the past I have had people in my electorate who have been angry over the size of the bill they got and the Telecom manager would say, `We will monitor it over the next three months'. When the bill fell considerably these people would go back and be told by the accounts section that the bill from the past still had to be paid and the only reason that it had dropped in the last three months was that these people had been more careful with their use of the telephone. So people could never win. People were told that the technological integrity of the system in Telecom was such that they could not challenge it; that these machines did not make mistakes. But there were instances where mistakes had been made. The main thing was that people did not believe that they were getting a fair hearing. The new Council ought to be a bridge of understanding between Telecom and consumers. That was the point made by Mel Ward, Telecom's Managing Director. He actually used the phrase `a bridge of understanding'. I hope that that will generate not only a working environment but also a climate of trust in which there will be a free exchange of views and, most importantly, many of the problems that Telecom has faced in the past with consumers will be headed off. I want to pay a special tribute to Ted Benjamin. Whilst he has worked with many other people in the corporate area of Telecom, he seems to have given so much of the lead in bringing about these changes. I am sure that the Council will act as a consultative body and also as a lobby group because it will mean that the 62 organisations that belong to AFCO, the many individuals who belong to the Australian Consumers Association, the hundreds of people who work through those organisations in the isolated telephone subscriber areas and the 1.37 million pensioners will have their say because they will be represented on this Council. I suggest that one thing that this Council ought to look at fairly quickly is the anomalous area that relates to the community access program. It has been a wonderful idea. It means that people in country areas have been able to get cheaper calls because they have been given a township nearby where they would normally deal commercially, educationally, legally and so on. But it would appear that too many of the decisions in drawing up the maps and in drawing the rings around areas have been taken by people who do not understand the areas, particularly in country Queensland. I refer in particular to central Queensland, which I represent. Some strange anomalies have arisen and, despite an effort to overcome them and despite efforts to get the decisions turned around, I have not been successful. The idea of community access is good in principle. It has meant cheaper phone calls for many people and it has meant access to the centres of importance to them. But the anomalies exist. Whilst I give credit to the local and regional Telecom management in my area for achieving some changes, we still have a fair way to go to ensure that there is that degree of sameness that we all desire. I give as an example the people who live in the Mackenzie River area. The Mackenzie River flows about 200 kilometres from Rockhampton in the highlands of central Queensland and there are a number of farmers in the area. I have about 34 farms in my region. These farmers are linked to a township called Blackwater, which is on the Capricorn Highway directly west of Rockhampton. Blackwater is a wonderful place in which to live. It is a mining town with 8,000 or 9,000 people, but the point is that it is a mining town. It does not normally cater for farmers. It does not have facilities such as stock and station agents, equipment suppliers and repair facilities for farmers. The people of the Mackenzie River area have been given community access to Blackwater. If we look at the map we see that it is a quite ridiculous thing. If we look at the biggest dots on the map of the area we see that Blackwater would be the biggest dot closest to the Mackenzie River area. But if we look at the road systems we see that the people of the Mackenzie River area must go through a place called Dingo to get to Blackwater. Dingo just happens to be linked to Rockhampton for community access. Mr Bilney —They clearly don't have the knowledge of the local member. Mr WRIGHT —I take the honourable member's point-they do not have the knowledge of the local member. This has been done despite representations by me as the Federal member for the area and despite a survey that showed that 99.9 per cent of the people wanted Rockhampton as their point of access because their kids go there for educational purposes-there are residential colleges in Rockhampton-because they use Rockhampton for their banking services as all commercial activities take place in Rockhampton and because all the legal services and medical services are operated from Rockhampton. In the wisdom of the people concerned in Telecom who, regrettably are situated in Melbourne-I know that that is a wonderful city as well but they are there and I do not think they know much about central Queensland-the people of the Mackenzie River area have been attached to Blackwater. This is an anomalous situation and one that ought to be changed. I give as a second example the Callide Valley, another area that I represent as the member for the thirteenth largest electorate in this nation. The townships of Baralaba, Dululu, Wowan and Jambin are linked under community access to Mount Morgan. Mount Morgan is a wonderful place. It is five or six degrees cooler than Rockhampton. It is a living museum in itself. It really is a pleasant place to be. If I could get down the range more quickly and not get caught by the road trains and so on, I would not mind living in Mount Morgan and servicing my electorate from there. But it is a small township that does not have the facilities that the people of Baralaba, Dululu and Jambin want. They are all part of what is called the Banana Shire. The Banana Shire is situated in the township of Biloela. These people are linked to Mount Morgan. When the survey was run and Telecom management met with the people at a public meeting, the people argued first and foremost for Rockhampton and, secondly, for Biloela. They did not really care which one they got, provided they got one. Whether it be the local government services, medical services or farming services of Biloela or the other educational, legal, commercial and banking services of Rockhampton, these people wanted community access to either of those places. Instead they have been locked into Mount Morgan. As I have said, a survey was run and the vast majority of people wanted either Biloela or Rockhampton. Instead, probably because Mount Morgan is a bigger black dot on the map when one looks at its relationship to Dululu, Wowan and Baralaba, in the wisdom of Telecom these people have been locked into Mount Morgan. The third example is on the north coast of my electorate-the townships of St Lawrence and Ogmore. These two places have been given Sarina as their community access point. I grew up in Sarina. I went to school there and then taught there before going to Rockhampton and then moving to some of the smaller schools in central Queensland. Sarina is a wonderful place, a great place for kids to grow up in, but it does not have the facilities needed by the people of St Lawrence, which is the centre of cattle country. Sarina does not have those facilities. The people of St Lawrence want Mackay as their access centre because it is the centre of legal, commercial and other services. Admittedly, Sarina has lawyers and doctors but the people of St Lawrence have made a choice. They believe that under the whole concept of community access, they would be better off being linked into Mackay. But they have not been; they have been linked to Sarina. Those are just three examples and regrettably there are many more. I know that I am being parochial, but this demonstrates the point that while Telecom is being more consumer-oriented and is willing to listen to what people are saying, in this case we have an example of people in Telecom in Melbourne sitting in their leather chairs and not understanding what it is like to live in country areas. These people have looked at the maps and chosen the biggest dots. They have linked the rural and farming areas to the biggest dots without even looking at the road systems. I urge the new council to take up these matters and reactivate the surveys that have been conducted. I suggest that council members talk to the Telecom administration in central Queensland and not only review the situation but also bring about change. I welcome the overall new approach and I suggest that in theory it will work well, but time will tell whether it will be as effective as the theory says. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.12) —I wish to speak on a couple of matters which relate to the legislation before the House this afternoon-that is, the ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill, the OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill, the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill, the Telecommunications Amendment Bill, the Satellite Communications Amendment Bill and the Postal Services Amendment Bill. Having listened to the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), I am reminded of the situation in the city of Goulburn which is the centre and the chief city of my electorate of Gilmore. Goulburn's Telecom Australia administration office is presently under threat. The Telecom officials are currently proposing that the administration of our Telecom district be shifted from Goulburn to Campbelltown. We are very concerned about that possibility, because we believe that in Goulburn we have had, over a long period, some very good management of our Telecom district. Some of the points the honourable member for Capricornia raised are also relevant to my own electorate. If Telecom is successful in its bid to shift the administration of our Telecom region to Campbelltown, we will find exactly the same sorts of examples that were very well outlined by the honourable member occurring in our own area. For example, Campbelltown is now part of the Sydney metropolitan telephone region. It is a local call from Campbelltown to any part of Sydney. That has only just been recognised. Unfortunately Telecom wants to go down the path of centralisation of its administration rather than down the path of decentralisation or giving its customers better service and better conditions under which to operate. We think that if the Telecom administration office is shifted to Campbelltown the citizens of Goulburn, and the electorate of Gilmore in general, will receive a poorer service from Telecom. There is no way in the world that the people in Campbelltown can understand the needs of the people of Goulburn, Crookwell, Taralga or Lake Bathurst or any part of the area that lies within the boundaries of the Gilmore electorate, purely and simply because the people of Campbelltown are not country people these days. Even though years ago Campbelltown was a country area, the rapid growth of Sydney has now overtaken it and it is very much part of the urban areas of Sydney today. The people who will be administering our Telecom region will be city based. They will have the concerns of city people and will not have the understandings of country people. We believe that it is terribly important for the Telecom customers in our region to continue to receive a decentralised administration operating from Goulburn. We have received a wonderful service from the Telecom district office at Goulburn. As a Federal member of parliament I know, as would all honourable members, that Telecom's operations are probably the most criticised function of the Federal Government within our own local areas. This is not an unreasonable occurrence, given the nature of the service provided by Telecom and the difficulties of maintaining that service. Despite all those difficulties and the numbers of complaints that a Federal member of parliament must always expect to receive, the service that I have received in dealing with complaints on behalf of constituents, through the Goulburn Telecom administrative office, has been first-rate. With very few exceptions, we have been able to resolve our problems without having to go to higher authorities. We have had wonderful service and we want that to continue in the future. We are fearful that we will not receive that service once Telecom's administration shifts to Campbelltown and becomes dominated by city-based interests. In addition to that, I find it ludicrous not only that Telecom is proposing to shift its administration from Goulburn to Campbelltown but also that the administration of all of country New South Wales Telecom activities is from Sydney itself. If Telecom is as good at providing communication services as it claims it is, then surely Telecom's country administration could be from places such as Goulburn, Dubbo, Orange or Bathurst. They are all close to major airports and all have Telecom services for telex and facsimile machines and all the latest telephone services. Whether one is in Sydney, Bathurst, Orange, Dubbo, Goulburn or wherever in the country areas, one is still able to communicate just as well from there as from Sydney if Telecom is doing its job properly. I think it would be an act of good faith for Telecom to shift the administration of its New South Wales country services from Sydney to one of the main regional centres of New South Wales. I am sure that as a result, it would be providing the people in country areas of New South Wales with a better service. If Telecom is to cater for its customers, decentralise its activities and give the very best possible service to the people for whom it exists, it is important that it not only shift its operations for its country administration from Sydney to the bush but also ensure that areas such as Goulburn are administered by locally based administrative offices. I think that is a crucial consideration for the future of Telecom. While speaking of Telecom, I am very pleased to see that Goulburn is about to receive mobile telephone services. Nowra which is on the eastern end of the electorate of Gilmore-a very fast growing and rapidly developing area-is in desperate need of a mobile telephone service. That service was supposed to be up and running by September of this year but we are yet to see any evidence of it. It was originally promised a couple of years ago, but for various reasons the Government has not been able to meet that commitment. We look forward to the day that it does because it will add further to the growth, the development and the lifestyle of the people in the Nowra region. Mr Bilney —They might get caught! Mr SHARP —People have to be very cautious of how they talk on mobile telephones. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating), Senator Richardson and a whole host of other members of State and Federal parliaments have discovered over a period of time, one has to be very careful. I am sure my constituents will be most cautious in the way they conduct their conversations on mobile phones. We want to have the privilege and right to use them and we look forward to Telecom delivering us that privilege in the near future. I want to move to the Bill that deals with railway services through the Australian National Railways Commission. Last year I took a ride from Alice Springs to Adelaide on the Australian National Railways train, commonly called the Ghan. This is one of the most historic train rides, not only in Australia but also throughout the world. According to train buffs it is one of the best train rides in the world. Having ridden on it, I believe that whilst the service is very good it certainly could be improved to capture the rapidly growing tourist market in Australia. As honourable members know, tourism is our fastest growing industry today. We have had an average increase of 27 per cent in foreign visitors to our country in each of the last four years. We have 2.25 million to 2.4 million foreign visitors this year. It is expected that something like five million-and people are now saying that we could have in excess of seven million-international visitors will visit our country by the year 2000. This represents huge potential to all sorts of facets of Australian life. The Ghan is one of those facets of our Australian way of life that could cash in on the potential for tourism. I believe that Australian National ought to be looking at upgrading several of its carriages to provide first-rate, world-class facilities, with accommodation and service to cater for the increasingly sophisticated range of tourists travelling not only to the eastern coast of Australia but also to the heart of Australia, to Ayers Rock and Alice Springs. There is a rapid growth in the number of international visitors going to those places. International visitors are looking for a unique experience; they are not seeking to have another look at the inside of a five-star hotel room. They are looking to experience something that is different-and the Ghan is different, in the way that a ride on the Orient Express is different. If Australian National can upgrade the standard of its accommodation and services, it will find within a very short time that it will have created a lucrative market for itself by catering to the sophisticated tourist, now very evident in Australia. Goulburn, the centre of the electorate of Gilmore, as I mentioned earlier, is one of the great train cities of Australia. Goulburn has experienced a gradual rundown in the number of people employed within the railways over the last couple of years, unfortunately mostly under the previous New South Wales Labor Government: but we look forward to a very exciting future because, as the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) said earlier on in this debate, the very fast train that will be running between Sydney and Melbourne will be going through Goulburn, as it will be going through a number of centres one of which is Canberra. The very fast train will be a great boost to the city of Goulburn, as it will be to all those places on its course. I am just hoping that the Federal Government and the Victorian and New South Wales governments will do all within their power to ensure that the very fast train becomes a reality and that those people who are the backers of the very fast train can see fit to find the finances and establish the viability to go ahead with the project. We can see this project putting Goulburn very much on the map. We will be only 48 minutes travelling time to Central Station in Sydney and 15 minutes travelling time to Canberra. It will revolutionise our concept of transport and communication in Australia. Australia is a large country. We are a few people scattered around this great land, and one of the greatest things we can do is provide a very cheap and accessible form of physical communication between the two major cities of Australia. I fully support the very fast train and congratulate Dr Paul Wild, who of course has been the driving influence behind the whole concept of developing the very fast train. I just hope that it can proceed. The very fast train is particularly relevant to our discussion earlier in the afternoon about the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. If we can take some of the heavy load off the airport by putting some of those domestic travellers on the very fast train, we will find that we will delay some of the serious and chronic problems that Sydney Airport faces. To finish up, I once again come back to the urgent need to maintain the administration of Goulburn's Telecom district within Goulburn to better enable Telecom to cater for its customers. I look forward to seeing Australian National capitalise on the tremendous growth in tourism in Australia today by upgrading its Ghan services, and I also look forward to the day I can ride from Canberra to Goulburn in the very fast train in the quick time of 15 minutes. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(5.24) —The House is debating cognately six Bills, and in my remarks I want to focus on the OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill, which will convert the Overseas Telecommunications Commission into a public company, the Overseas Telecommunications Corporation. As with all the organisations we are dealing with today, OTC is being converted into a government-owned public company as a result of a report entitled Reshaping the Transport and Communications Government Business Enterprises, released by the former Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Evans, last May. This report, in turn, built on the principles laid down by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in his statement on government business enterprises in November last year. Both of these statements stressed that government supervision of organisations like OTC must concentrate on clarifying aims and getting results, rather than stressing detailed scrutiny of day to day operations, if they are to meet Australia's economic and social needs effectively and efficiently. Indeed, as the document released by Senator Evans pointed out, excessive scrutiny of government enterprises has not brought results. It says: In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. If we want results it is far better to tell organisations like OTC what we want, set strict financial and performance standards and insist that they are met. Rather than continually meddle in essence, we should let the managers manage. As a former public servant myself, I know what happens-or, rather, does not happen-when governments continually fiddle with the day to day running of public administration instead of concentrating on what they want that administration to do for them. In the end, means become confused with ends, both continually change and government becomes a process of reaction and muddling through. Fortunately, this Government is alert to those dangers and, by introducing program budgeting and giving Public Service managers more autonomy, it has acted to avert them. Indeed, restructuring and reforming the public sector is an essential part of the Government's micro-economic reform agenda, on which so much of its energy is being concentrated during its third term, as it possibly will be into a fourth term. In the present difficult and fiercely competitive international trading environment public sector efficiency is critical. As the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) has suggested, nowhere is this more important than in the transport and communications sector, where public business enterprises produce not only final goods and services for the consumer but also provide intermediate inputs for the rest of the economy, and thus influence the nation's overall cost structures. So, naturally, it is imperative that organisations like OTC do their work as efficiently as possible. Fortunately, through a combination of good management and good luck, having faced comparatively little political interference in its day to day operations over the years, OTC already has a fine reputation for its efficiency. Indeed, not only is it one of the most profitable government enterprises in terms of return on investment-making a profit of $190.4m this year, an increase of 52 per cent on previous years-but also it is the lowest cost provider of international telephone calls, over distance, in the world. Despite all the claims made about the supposed efficiency of American telephone companies, a study by the international telecommunications consultants NUS International found that OTC could provide a three-minute call to the United States for $A5.40, while the cheapest cost of a call going the other way, provided by an American company, was $A8.60, about 50 per cent more. Dr Charlesworth —Outstanding. Mr BILNEY —It is an outstanding performance, as the honourable member for Perth points out. So it is not surprising to learn that there is no need to alter OTC's financial structure or inject private capital in order to turn the organisation into a public company. With a debt to equity ratio of 65 : 35, OTC is well placed to operate in the marketplace as an autonomous company. Incorporation as a public company will enable OTC to build on this by allowing it the freedom to compete more effectively with its international rivals. With 1987-88 revenue of $1,167m and a growth rate in service demand of around 15 to 20 per cent it clearly has the cash flow to do this. It is thus well placed to take a leading role in expanding Australian exports of high technology and high value added goods and services, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Such markets offer very great potential for Australian services exporters like OTC. For example, a recent United States study estimated that by 1992 there would be more than 32,000 satellite earth stations installed in developing countries. An estimated 38 per cent of those will go into our region, the Asia-Pacific region. The potential market for OTC's consultancy skills, systems engineering skills and project engineering and coordinating, is highly promising. Moreover, if other Australian suppliers can join with OTC to provide affordable, dependable telecommunications systems for the countries of Asia and the Pacific, there will be great benefit for the Australian economy as a whole. The opportunities are there to do so. OTC's strength is as a service provider rather than purely and simply as a manufacturer. There are ample opportunities for Australian manufacturers to supply the bits and pieces-the computer software, ground systems, generators, solar panels and prefabricated buildings-which go in to setting up telecommunications networks. Anyone who doubts this should look hard at OTC's track record in recent times, especially since the formation last year of its wholly owned subsidiary, OTC International. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I am pleased to be able to point out that the most recent example of the success that OTC has had in this region is the fact that OTC won approval from the South Pacific Forum to set up a $140m regional satellite communications network. Tiny countries in the Pacific are separated by vast distances over sea and have a vital need for communications systems. Not only will this network go a long way to solving the communications needs of a geographically disparate region like the Pacific, but it will do so at a price which Forum nations can afford. Furthermore, a consortium of Australian companies stands a good chance of winning the $75m contract to provide 100 seven-metre satellite dishes to serve the system. To this end, OTC and the companies involved have already spent $18m on a cooperative research and development program aimed at producing hardware for the network. Even more encouraging is the fact that if Australia wins the dish contract there is not only the chance of a repeat order for dishes five years down the track, but also of OTC being asked to set up a similar network in Africa. The spin-offs could be considerable. These are not the only international opportunities which OTC has. Last year the organisation won contracts to design, construct and install satellite earth stations in Laos, Vietnam and Malta. Australian-made components and Australian expertise are involved in each project. As many honourable members may have noted, several weeks ago OTC won back one of the world's largest and most prestigious space communications management contracts. The contract, worth $40m over 10 years, is for the management of Intelsat satellites over the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It requires OTC to build a number of antennae using expertise developed here for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Australia Telescope. It is evident that in OTC we have not only a competitive government enterprise, but also one that has the capacity to generate significant foreign exchange revenue. In doing so it does more than set an example to other Australian companies; it puts them to shame. Unlike many Australian companies, OTC has not been afraid to look for overseas markets or to spend money on research and development to ensure that it provides internationally competitive products and services. Indeed, so highly does OTC value research and development that it has a separate research and development board composed of six highly qualified scientists and technical experts. This board presides over OTC's sizeable research and development budget-over half of which is spent on commissioning research in tertiary institutions and by industry-and ensures the OTC's investment in overseas equipment guarantees technology transfer to Australia. With demand for its services increasing at 20 per cent per annum, OTC is committed to investing $2,000m in new facilities and networks over the next decade to provide the capacity-nine times the total now available-to meet customers' needs to the turn of the century. This expansion of facilities, both here and overseas, through OTC International, can only boost the rapidly expanding Australian telecommunications equipment industry. It is obvious that OTC is well suited to be converted to a public company and, indeed, will benefit from that occurring. As the discussion paper released by Senator Gareth Evans last May noted, conversion into a public company will remove the final impediments to OTC's expansion, while retaining government ownership removes the risk of its central position in Australia's national infrastructure being exploited by an unscrupulous owner if it were privatised. So it is with pleasure that I commend the Bill to the House. OTC is an organisation that is both efficient and effective and, as such, it gives the lie to claims that public enterprises cannot operate competitively in the market-place. This one can, does, and will continue to do so. The OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill 1988 amends the Overseas Telecommunications Act and deems OTC to be a public company. Like the ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill 1988, introduced by the former Minister for Transport and Communications Support and present Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris), this approach is consistent with that adopted for Australian Airlines' conversion to company status. As the same legal entity is transferred to company status there is no need to rewrite existing contracts and the like. The date for conversion is set by proclamation-at this stage intended to be 1 January 1989. OTC Ltd will be expected to operate like other companies under the Companies Code. This means most of the provisions of the Overseas Telecommunications Act will not be needed and can be repealed. Included among these are provisions which deal with staffing matters. The Bill includes provisions to ensure continuity of employment and the maintenance of existing accrued entitlements for each employee, upon conversion of OTC to a company. There will be appropriate mechanisms to allow the Minister to exercise strategic oversight, through the corporate plan and financial targets. OTC will be free to engage, on its own authority, in such standard business practices as entering into contracts, partnerships, joint ventures, and normal business investment arrangements. The Bill does not involve any additional expenditure by the Commonwealth. OTC's performance, and Australia's performance in the foreign market-place, can only benefit from this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.38) —My learned colleague on the other side of the House, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), was attacked by bogong moths while he spoke. I have observed that a number of them are flying around the chamber. Whilst the lights of the building may have been turned off for the past two nights, all of the residual moths appear to have remained in this chamber. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, this matter can be taken up with the Speaker to ascertain what can be done about them. The House is debating cognately six Bills which the Government has introduced concerning government business enterprises, which change slightly the nature of those enterprises. I say `slightly' because I do not think the Government has bitten the bullet and done nearly enough to make those enterprises competitive and integrated into the Australian economy by way of privatisation; that is, by selling government enterprises on appropriate terms to the public sector, either by way of the whole of the capital or part of the capital, so that money can be raised and they can make profits. Because they would no longer be financed by the public purse, they would no longer be a burden on, or responsible to, taxpayers. Privatisation will make those organisations less bureaucratic as Public Service structures will not apply to them. They will be subject to competition in the marketplace. It is only by competition in the marketplace that one can get effective enterprise and better service for the public. Competition is very much the key to it. This cognate debate about government business enterprises is interesting because the introduction of these pieces of legislation in this cognate way is an admission by the Government of failure of policy. It shows its confused approach which arises out of a number of inconsistent statements by Government Ministers, in fact by the Australian Labor Party, as to where the Government is going in relation to privatisation. We do not know the current position of the Government. There was an initial rush under the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to privatise, to get off the Government's books a number of enterprises. Those measures would have Opposition support because we believe that a number of government enterprises should not be on the government books. They should be sold to the private sector, where they could carry on business and be responsible for raising funds for capital expansion. Funds are needed for capital expansion by many business enterprises. For example, Qantas Airways Ltd at the present time needs of the order of $600m. Rather than taxpayers having to pay for it out of their taxes-it is their taxes at work-I say to the people of Australia, `Let us make the private sector raise that money in the marketplace by borrowings, by issuing of capital and by normal mechanisms that are used by private enterprises. Let the private sector get it off the Government's books'. The Treasurer was rushing in that direction. Someone in the Left, perhaps the Centre Left, put up a stop sign and said, `Halt! Look, you've gone too far too quickly. This isn't in accordance with Labor Party policy. Our traditional voters, who we're losing by the bucketloads at by-elections, don't like this because there's some featherbedding going on in many sectors of the economy'. The stop sign went up and we are left with this sort of mishmash of cognate Bills that are really an apology for privatisation. In effect they do very little and in most cases they do nothing. It is a case of too little too late. It shows the confused nature of the Government's policy approach towards privatisation. The Treasurer initially rushed off and started selling assets to raise money. Remember the banana republic statements. We sold the Tokyo Embassy for of the order of $600m, if I recall correctly. I would imagine that the value of that site has doubled since it was sold. That shows what a good sale that was! My own view is that it was a tragedy that it was ever sold. It should never have been sold. It was a national asset. We lost face and we were severely embarrassed in the eyes of the Japanese Government and the Japanese people because Australia, which had this magnificent holding in the middle of Tokyo, sold it to raise money to pay its debts. Similarly the Ambassador's residence in Paris, a lovely residence that had been owned for many years by consecutive Australian governments, was sold. I understand that it has been resold since for at least a 50 per cent increase on the price it was sold for by the Australian Government. I imagine it is now worth double the price it was sold for. I make those comments in passing to show, as I said a second ago, the totally confused nature and the inconsistent approach of the Government in relation to privatisation. One of the Bills before us is the ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill. It is an interesting Bill. Another interesting Bill before us is the OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill. It shows that the Government is taking a step but we do not know what the next step is. We do not know where we are going after this. It is a step that merely makes these business enterprises public companies. We do not know what the next measure is. The Government may as well have done nothing. The ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill is interesting because it does not grasp, deal with or take on the real issues. It shows that the bottom line in the labour movement, the Australian Labor Party, is that the parliamentary party is the parliamentary wing of the union movement. There is no dispute about that. That is a matter of fact, a matter of record and a matter of history. We have the parent, the union movement, saying, `You can't do anything about reforming anything on the waterfront or in relation to coastal shipping'. The maritime unions have in fact said to the Government, `Hey, stop. You can't be efficient and competitive, because we've got a lot of work practices on the waterfront. We're in fact doing pretty nicely out of this'. Because of this the Australian public has suffered, as has been shown in a most excellent report of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) on coastal shipping dated July this year. I challenge the Government to grasp the nettle of the findings of that report. Many of the facts were well known but this report really puts it on the table and makes it a matter of record for the Government to deal with. The report says: The major factors accounting for- it refers to the inefficient outcome of the practices- . . . are the effective exclusion of competition from foreign-flag vessels under the Navigation Act, combined with a number of other regulatory and institutional factors both at sea . . . (including restrictive union practices). One of the keys is that these restrictive union practices are putting the costs of coastal shipping up so that Australia is uncompetitive and the Australian taxpayer is having to pay the bill, as is the Australian consumer, of exorbitant shipping costs around the coast of Australia. We all know about the maritime unions. We know about the Seamen's Union of Australia. It really caused a shock to this Government in this our bicentennial year when we had visits from navies of the Western alliance. Many of the ships could not get into Australian ports because the maritime unions, in particular the Seamen's Union in Melbourne, where I come from, said, `You can't get in'. We had the crazy situation of the HMS Ark Royal, the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, anchored off Melbourne with the crew being unable to get ashore because the Seamen's Union said, `You can't berth' and would not make the tugs available. That showed that the unions control what goes on at the waterfront. Let me go back to the IAC report because it is interesting. It says of the coastal shipping industry as a whole: . . . remains inefficient and uncompetitive relative to those in maritime nations with similar standards of living. Major inefficiencies (both on-board and on-shore) manifest themselves in the form of excessive costs and unavoidable delays which erode the international competitiveness of Australian industries and jeopardise growth and employment prospects elsewhere in the economy. I have read that to the House and into Hansard because is it significant. This industry, an important transport industry, remains inefficient and uncompetitive. We have here a government that has been in power for 5 1/2 years. We have here a government that says it is trying to restructure the Australian economy. It is frightful that 5 1/2 years down the track, after an internal stop-go debate in the Labor Party as to whether we should privatise, the answer is that because of the factions and the unions we cannot privatise. So we have this crazy situation on the waterfront of enormously high costs of an inefficient and uncompetitive industry. One of the things the Government must do is restructure the economy. I think the Government accepts that. But we in the Opposition say that the rate of restructuring is too slow and after 5 1/2 years the Government has got nowhere on the waterfront. The situation is as bad as it was when the Government came to office. Mr Barry Jones —Do you think restructuring began in the Fraser period? Mr SHIPTON —No. I acknowledge the interjection from the Minister. Mr Beale —It began in shipping under Ralph Hunt as Minister. Mr SHIPTON —The former Minister, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), started it because he realised the problems of the industry. This Government should have picked up on what the honourable member for Gwydir started and accepted the challenge of restructuring the economy because, if Australia is going to be a competitive, efficient economy playing its part in the world economy as an important trading nation, we have to solve problems that exist in industries such as the coastal shipping industry. I believe that the future of Australia is one of a great trading nation, and a global trading nation. Shipping is important and vital to, in fact the lifeblood of, most imports and exports. If we are going to be global, if we are still going to have markets in Europe, buy from and sell to the United States of America and trade with the whole world, we must have an efficient, competitive and effective coastal shipping industry. Even more importantly, Australia, as a global trading nation-I believe that there is an enormous potential for Australia to be a global trading power-has to place an emphasis on the region in which we live-the Asia-Pacific region. That is where all the growth is occurring in the world at present. It is where the growth economies are-the tigers of Thailand and Taiwan; the strongest economy in the world, the Japanese economy; and Korea. The President of the Republic of Korea is arriving in Australia today, I think. Those are the nations that have restructured, that are competitive. Those nations do not have featherbedded, inefficient and uncompetitive industries like the Australian coastal shipping industry. Those are the nations with which Australia has to deal, trade and compete. If Australians are to have a future, we must have an efficient economy. An efficient economy will provide jobs for Australians. The challenge for governments is to restructure the Australian economy at a rate that will make us competitive as quickly as possible. The tragedy is that we are now falling behind. The introduction of this legislation shows that the Government is not prepared to bite the bullet. Our inflation rate is still double that of our major trading partners. Our costs are still going up. We are out of balance and out of kilter with our major trading partners. That means that we will fall behind. As we remain uncompetitive and fall behind, the standard of living will fall. While the Government fiddles in relation to privatisation while Rome burns, the standard of living of Australians falls and the Government fails to grasp the nettle in restructuring the economy. A number of these Bills before the House today involve part of the micro-economy. I am talking about coastal shipping but we are also debating the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Conversion into Public Company) Bill, the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill and the Postal Services Amendment Bill. It is a pity that the Government has not grasped the nettle firmly. I return to coastal shipping and the excellent report of the IAC. I will quote other parts of the report, because it is significant. The report states: 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. That is a reduction of between 20 and 50 per cent in coastal shipping freight rates immediately, if international freight rates apply. We have a highly protected coastal shipping industry. The Commission goes on to say: This would yield a direct saving of between $180m and $460m on the costs of freight services (on a wharfgate-to-wharfgate basis). These are incredible savings to Australian industry and Australian consumers. The Commission goes on to say: 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 $250m and $550m . . . So, not only could we cut costs and become more competitive, but also we could increase real gross domestic product by having a growing, dynamic economy. The IAC continues: 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; opportunities for further processing of raw materials in Australia; and the benefits that could arise from rationalising domestic production and distribution. Benefits would arise from a rationalisation of domestic production and distribution. Obviously, there is a distortion at present because of high coastal shipping industry costs. If we had a rationalisation of road freight, rail freight and air freight we would have total competition between different forms of transport-a totally competitive transport economy. In a trading nation the size of Australia-transporting goods from east to west and north to south-whose lifeblood is trade to and from the rest of the world, because we are an island continent, shipping is important to get products from east to west, from the mines and factories around the coast. It is important that the economy enjoy the cost reductions and the benefits that would flow from a rationalised, competitive transport system-each form of transport being competitive with the other. The Government has failed dramatically to bite the bullet in relation to the Australian National Line (Conversion into Public Company) Bill. Again I quote from the Industries Assistance Commission report: 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. That is the point I made a minute or two ago about the need for a totally competitive transport system. I conclude with a quotation I referred to earlier from the Industries Assistance Commission report referring to the factors that I have discussed: The major factors accounting for this outcome are the effective exclusion of competition from foreign-flag vessels under the Navigation Act . . . In other words, Australia excludes competition. We will not allow competition from overseas shipping lines. We are afraid of competition. But, if we do not have competition, we will have an inefficient and ineffective industry. The IAC report then refers to a number of other regulatory and institutional factors, including restrictive union practices. The final paragraph of the findings of the Commission states: 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. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(5.58) —It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and to hear him expounding the benefits of competition. I was pleased to see recently the beer baron from Victoria pull out from the competition for the seat of Higgins, therefore-temporarily, at least-assuring the honourable member for Higgins of his position in this place. I hope that that position continues for his own benefit-- Mr Barry Jones —And to the advantage of the nation as well. Dr CHARLESWORTH —I hope that it continues for his sake because, clearly, he has an important contribution to make. Mr Shipton —Thank you. I look forward to the competition. Dr CHARLESWORTH —From my experience, most of those who are interested in free enterprise or who are devotees of such spend most of their time trying to eliminate the competition, creating a monopoly where they are able to control the market totally. That is the Government's concern about government business enterprises such as those within the ambit of legislation we are discussing today: the Australian National Line (Conversion into Public Company) Bill 1988, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Conversion into Public Company) Bill 1988, the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1988, the Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1988, the Satellite Communications Amendment Bill 1988 and the Postal Services Amendment Bill 1988. Earlier in the year we discussed the Qantas Airways Ltd legislation and the Australian Airlines legislation. It is our concern that there should be competition in those areas. Were we to make a move to privatise Australian Airlines, one of our concerns would be that a monopoly was not created in that area. Specifically I would like to speak about the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC). The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) has already put a strong and cogent case in respect of the OTC and the effectiveness with which it presently functions as a government business enterprise. Perhaps the most telling statistic he produced is that relating to OTC's cost of telephone calls. Of course telephone revenue is the bulk of its revenue. He made the point that a three-minute call from Australia to the United States costs the Australian consumer $4.50, whereas a call made the other way-which is exactly the same distance, as he pointed out-costs the US consumer $8.60. So the role of OTC is one which benefits Australian consumers greatly. It is important for us to look at OTC's history. Overseas telecommunications services between Australia and the rest of the world commenced in 1871 with the completion of the submarine telegraph cable to Darwin, inaugurating the overseas telegram or cable service. This service was later operated by Cable and Wireless Ltd and remained unchallenged until 1927. Of course, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, probably has these facts at his fingertips, as he seems to have most facts at his fingertips. When Amalgamated Wireless opened a competing beam wireless telephonic service in 1930 there was considerable competition between the two. There was concern because the less costly radio service threatened the demise of the more reliable cable service. That was a very sensitive matter. During the Second World War governments became very concerned about the integrity of telecommunications. It was in 1946 that the Overseas Telecommunications Act was established and OTC came into being. That followed very sensitive times. Since then, OTC has grown into a very aggressive and successful company. I suppose that it is the nature of the outreaching activities of OTC, the nature of telecommunications and the rapid way in which technology has expanded in this area that has made this service very successful. The point was made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) in his speech that the operating profit of this organisation was up 16 per cent in the year ended 31 March 1987. During 1986-87 a dividend was set at $40m for OTC, and the Commonwealth Government's total take in dividend and taxation was nearly $100m in that year. So we can see that this is an organisation which is making a substantial contribution to Australia's Budget. It is also an organisation which is providing a great deal of the impetus to research and development in a very high tech area, an area in which there are considerable markets and potential for Australia as an overseas supplier to be successful. Mr Barry Jones —Apart from its non-quantifiable social benefits. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Yes. On top of the very practical and pragmatic work that is being done by OTC, it provides Australia with social and political advantages which are very significant for those many Australians who have settled in this country and who have ties all over the world. Australia, which has had a significant immigration program for many years, has large numbers of Australians have ties all over the world. Telecommunications is very important as the world gets smaller and as we become increasingly part of a world community. It is very important in a personal sense and for businesses. Communications from Australia to all parts of the world will be vital in the future. The debate on these pieces of legislation invariably turns to privatisation. From honourable members on the other side of the House we hear how important it is that the Government should sell all these enterprises and that we should be pursuing the miracle of Margaret Thatcher who has in some way turned around the economy in the United Kingdom. But if one looks closely at the figures, one will see that there is reason for concern about the United Kingdom privatisation model that is being pursued there. If one looks at the United Kingdom's economy at the moment, it is fair to say that it is heading for a balance of payments crisis which is highly reminiscent of another period of conservative government which began in the 1970s. If one looks at manufacturing output in Britain one will be interested to note that there has been a steady fall in the balance of manufacturing trade in Great Britain which is offset only by significant increases of revenue received from oil expenditure. As those reserves of oil reduce over the next few years the Thatcher Government will face an enormous problem. But more importantly, one needs to look at what was supposed to happen when privatisation occurred in the United Kingdom. It was suggested that there would be some significant increase in managerial competence as a result of the privatisation of a large number of nationalised industries in that country. But one has not seen that occurring. One has seen a demand led boom in the United Kingdom rather than a massive increase in efficiency of those industries which have been privatised. In fact, many figures indicate that those organisations which have remained under the control of the public purse in the United Kingdom have shown much greater increases in productivity. Perhaps it is because of the threat of privatisation. Nonetheless, it is very important that that point be made. When privatisation occurs, one master replaces another. There has been a massive increase in the amount of legislation required in the United Kingdom to control all of those industries which have been supposedly privatised. Some observers have described the situation as a regulatory bonanza. The Government has simply substituted one form of external state intervention, that is nationalisation, with another, that is regulation. Regulatory agencies in the United Kingdom conduct rate of return regulation, pricing regulation, policy of service regulation and, again, there are many questions being asked as to whether the new masters are any better or effective than those who were there previously. I have been an outspoken supporter of partial privatisation of one or two of the Government's industries, but it is increasingly my view when I look at OTC that that is not the most appropriate response in this case. Mr Beale —What about Australian Airlines and Qantas? Dr CHARLESWORTH —I am already on record with respect to those two organisations. When one looks at this organisation one will see that clearly it has been functioning very effectively in a commercial sense for some time now. It does not have the crisis of cash flow that exists in one or two other areas, so we will not be making significant demands on taxpayers' money. It is providing consumers with an outstanding service. It is very cost efficient and it provides some integrity to Australia's security if there should be any threat. The concern about the selling off of public enterprises is what happens to the profits. If we look at British Telecom, British Gas, British Airways or Rolls Royce, we will see that the first instalment of shares that was made available on the share market reaped a windfall profit to those who were able to get hold of them initially. The opening price for British Telecom shares was 93p whereas the shares were available on the first instalment at 50p. So there was an 86 per cent profit from the day the shares went on to the market to the first day of ownership. There were windfall profits to be made for those who were able to get hold of those shares. It is human nature for people to choose to take those profits. We find that over time the ownership of those shares is not spread amongst large numbers of shareholders, but increasingly is becoming centralised and located amongst one or two larger groups. That is of concern. The same applies when one looks at British Gas or British Airways. In the first instalment their shares were available at 65p, but they came onto the market at 109p, a 68 per cent profit straight off. There is the concern that, should the decision be made to privatise, there is the possibility of those shares very quickly being controlled by small groups because small investors would be encouraged to take their immediate profit. Unfortunately, the dream of having a nation of shareholders that Margaret Thatcher talked about may well fall to its feet. Quite clearly, there are many concerns about the United Kingdom model, and there are many concerns within the Australian Government about government business enterprises and about which way the Government should go; but significantly we have played a part in restructuring the macroeconomy and micro-economy in Australia. The Government has gone about that task diligently for a number of years now and, if one examines the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, one finds that effective communications are being provided for the public. Consumers can be well satisfied with the performance of this company. Significant revenue comes from this venture to the Government. It is not a drain on taxpayers' funds and, indeed, the Bill will make it more efficient, more competitive and more effective; but whether or not the Government should go further is something that needs to be considered seriously. It is a great pleasure to support the Bill, because OTC can become stronger and better as a result, and that is certainly something that the Government wants to see. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(6.12) —A series of Bills are before the House this afternoon. They are the ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill, the OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill, the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill, the Telecommunications Amendment Bill, the Satellite Communications Amendment Bill and the Postal Services Amendment Bill. As the member representing the people of Maranoa, I wonder why it is that all of these important subjects are debated cognately. I should have thought that the Government would be prepared to debate the Australian National Line, which is a large proportion of Australia's shipping industry, on its own; and I should have thought that it would do the same with the OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill, which deals with the large Overseas Telecommunications Commission, and with the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill, which runs at the lovely loss of $50m a year but which at least it is a very large part of our railways system. Telecom is now the biggest corporation in Australia-I believe it now outguns the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP)-so one would think that the Government would be prepared to put even that Bill forward as warranting a separate debate, given the con- tinuing problems with our telecommunications, especially in my part of the world. Dr Charlesworth —What would happen if we didn't cross-subsidise? Mr IAN CAMERON —We will talk about cross-subsidisation and, if we have to charge doctors who live in cities the real price for our food, I know who will be better off. It will not be the city people who are sitting back getting cheap food. The country people are feeding them, keeping them healthy and allowing them to play hockey as well as the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) does. He is an old Olympian and I must congratulate him on his efforts in Seoul. There is no doubt that the doctor and his team did a splendid job on behalf of Australia, but no doubt they did it on Australia's high protein wheat and good beef steaks, most of which would have come out of Maranoa. Of course, some would have come from the Northern Territory. So the guys who sit on their backsides in the big cities of this country and talk about cross-subsidisation have to understand that those of us out in the boondocks doing some work and producing cheap food are using cross-subsidisation as well. Just take that into consideration when talking about who pays for what in this country because, without the country people working their butts off, where would our balance of payments be and where would our standard of living be? They would be down the drain! The farmers of this country have saved the Labor Government over the past 18 months with ever-increasing production and with the better prices they have been receiving overseas for the quality products they have produced. Without the help of these farmers, people like the honourable member for Perth would not be able to play hockey and have the opportunity of going to Seoul. Those things should be taken into consideration. Returning to the subject of satellite communications, satellites on their own would be a sufficient topic for debate in this House. In terms of the postal services, the old PMG is being revamped and corporatised along with Telecom. Most of these instrumentalities were originally set up out of Consolidated Revenue. Her Majesty's mail service was originally paid for out of Consolidated Revenue. It was not an extra tax on the community, as it is today. The trend today in the Labor Party and, admittedly, in our own parties is to move further and further away from the Government and from taxpayers' funding to a corporation. No doubt, the stage has almost been reached where it may as well be sold, because all we are doing now is paying a commercial rate for the use of what were government services which are no longer being supported in any fashion whatsoever by government. Even under these arrangements, the Minister will still have control over and will still be able to direct the boards that are being established. In view of that, I would like to ask the Minister at the table a question. We did have a Minister at the table, but it seems the Government never wants to govern! There he is; he has moved to our side of the House. I should like to ask the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Jones) why it is that the Governor-General has to become involved in remunerations. It is amazing how much talk there is in the second reading speeches to all these Bills about the remunerations of the Managing Director and the board members and all the staff and employees, but there is nothing about the cost to the consumers, about what they may have to pay on their telephone accounts or even for stamps from Australia Post. Nothing is said about the poor consumer; but there is a lot of concern about the Managing Director of the board and about going to the Governor-General and obtaining his consent. It is beyond me why the Governor-General should become involved. I should like to know, legally, why he gets a mention in the Bill. I thought that the Labor Government, after previous experiences of the Governor-General's involvement in government, was opposed to the gentleman. Yet, here he is involved, and the Bill states that board members are to be appointed by the Governor-General! I have never heard of such things. Anyway, that is the way the Government seems to want it, for some reason or another. The Bill also states that the board will consult with the Remuneration Tribunal about remuneration packages for the Managing Director. That would be a great set-up! It is a pity that the Government would not do the same thing for us poor members of parliament. We could continue to consult with the Remuneration Tribunal and get nowhere with our package of remuneration. The taxpayers of this country must understand that, as we continue to incorporate the postal system, the telephone system, the satellite system, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the railway system, they are no longer services to the taxpayer, but that the taxes the Government is collecting are now being spent on welfare. The Government is continuing to increase welfare spending by huge amounts and, of course, the services like Australian Airlines and Australia Post, which were established to service inland Australia, already involve cross-subsidisation, and so they ought to. No decent company in this country does not cross-subsidise. BHP does it, the Bond Corporation does it-all companies cross-subsidise; they have to, if they are to run their business properly and get complete coverage across the nation. The same should apply to the telephone system. As I mentioned to the honourable member for Perth earlier, there are many aspects to cross-subsidisation, and it is amazing how it is always the poor inland person who has to be singled out. Cross-subsidisation exists between Melbourne and Sydney and across Brisbane, for instance, with the telephone charges, and so it goes on. I would like to bring up some concerns from the electorate of Maranoa, and particularly the small community of Hannaford, where I live. We now have cost recovery in Australia Post and Telecom whereby small communities throughout the nation no longer have a post office. They now call these services community services, but there is not much service left to the community; it merely costs the consumers much more money to receive their mail. These people receive their mail only once a week, if they are lucky. The chap who has been running the small post office of Hannaford for 25 years is retiring and Australia Post is taking the opportunity of closing down the post office and offering it out at $1,500 a year as a community service. Nobody in the community is really in a position to run this service for the people of Hannaford, which is only a small district, but there are hundreds of such situations throughout Australia, particularly throughout inland Australia, where we are seeing a continuing drift away from rural areas. Of course, under this Government, that is happening at a much faster rate. There are still people living there. There are still people who have to post their mail and who have to do business. It is all very well to talk about cross-subsidisation, but it so happens that business is done both ways: it is done inwards and it is done outwards. If a person does not have a phone, it means that BHP cannot get in touch with him if it wants to sell him a few iron posts or whatever. The argument always is that such people are being subsidised for phone calls out from their businesses; but that is not how it works. It just so happens that businesses may wish to contact you, because they are also interested in making a profit and they have to make sales if they wish to stay in business. So, it is a two-way street. What happened in the small community of Hannaford is a great pity. When the subscriber trunk dialling (STD) service was extended throughout the whole area, the public telephone at the Hannaford post office was removed. Telecom refused to put in a public telephone at the hall, which is a couple of miles away. It is too costly to install a pay phone. We were prepared to install a key phone, but we were told we could not run a key phone because Telecom requires a potential income of $800 to justify the installation of a public telephone. So there is no longer any cross-subsidisation taking place regarding public telephone booths. It is obvious that, despite the taxes they pay, they have been left without a telephone service. The only areas in which public telephones will be installed are areas which will return at least $800 a year. Many small communities are not in that position; there are not enough people in those communities to generate that amount of revenue. Therefore, they go without. At present, one can travel hundreds of miles along highways throughout these small communities and be unable to find one public telephone box. That is a disgrace. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business should address the problem and, if necessary, provide some funds to supply a community service to these people. It does not apply only to small country areas; it also applies to the outer metropolitan areas of the capital cities of Australia. That is a position many small communities are in, and I draw it to the attention of the House while I am speaking on these Bills. The next Bill to which I shall refer is the Satellite Communications Amendment Bill. Aussat has been able to sell off space on the satellite, on the transponders, to private enterprise; also, it has sold a lot of space to Telecom and our armed services. Australia now has a satellite system in place, after many years of argument and after much work by the Department of Transport and Communications. All in all, I believe it is working very well. Remote areas of Australia are receiving good service, particularly from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), which has installed small receivers and translators-small dishes to receive the signal and to retranslate those signals to small communities. I am pleased that it has been prepared to supply that service. On the other hand, there are many small communities that cannot afford a television service, because it costs $3,000 or more to install a single dish and one television set. So not everybody in Australia is watching television. Many areas in my electorate do not have such a service, and they cannot afford to buy a satellite dish. As I said at the time the satellite was launched, it is all very well to give BHP and the steel industry, and General Motors and other motor car companies, a couple of hundred million dollars in government subsidies-buried in what is called research and development but which are subsidies straight out of the taxpayers' pockets through the Consolidated Revenue Fund-simply to keep their business going, but it is different when it comes to people having television through receiving a satellite signal. The Government does not seem to want to become involved in subsidising the aerials. Such small communities have even had a great deal of trouble getting the sales tax removed from the dishes that need to be installed. Since the satellite has been launched, NQTV has come on stream; at long last remote areas in my electorate are receiving a commercial signal. Most of the areas in my electorate in inland Queensland receive only two signals-one from the ABC and one from NQTV, which is operating on a footprint over all of Queensland and northern New South Wales. We had the absurd situation of an Aboriginal community in Townsville wanting to get involved in the service and take over the television signal. The Aboriginal community has established what we hope will be a good television station in the Northern Territory-Imparja-but it also wishes to intrude into New South Wales, a proposal that I oppose. Mr Snowdon —Ha, ha! Mr IAN CAMERON —The honourable member for the Northern Territory laughs. I am sure the honourable member could not give me any reason why a television station in the Northern Territory should want to send a signal into New South Wales. It is beyond my imagination. The Aboriginal group in Townsville wants to become involved. It has asked the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to be allowed to broadcast many more Aboriginal programs. The High Court of Australia has rejected one of its applications, which is good. Opposition members are not opposed to the Aboriginal community becoming involved. It is already allowed a special amount of time on NQTV, on the commercial signal, under its licence agreement. But it is not happy with that; it wants to double that time. It wants to put directors on the board of the company; it wants to run the company. Yet the Aboriginal community never wants to put money into it. If money is provided for such projects, it is always taxpayers' money. Imparja is 100 per cent funded by this Parliament. I guess it is training a few people in how to use television cameras and so on. I wish Imparja well. I guess if we keep pumping money into it it will survive. I do not know when we will get around to commercialising the service. It would be interesting to see the Labor Government introduce a Bill to commercialise Imparja in the Northern Territory. It has taken me a long time to have a rebroadcast system established in a small place in my electorate, near where I live, called Yellowcap. The residents are still waiting to bring that rebroadcast system on stream. Councils are getting involved. Small communities cannot afford the licence fees. NQTV has installed rebroadcast translators in various towns below a certain size. NQTV was not compelled to install that equipment in towns of less than 1,500 people. Translators have been established in places such as Roma, Cunnamulla, St George, Charleville and Mitchell, as well as other smaller towns in my electorate. There are many other smaller towns like Glenmorgan, Meandarra, Yellowcap, which is a district, Bollon, Thargomindah, Wyandra, Eulo, Quilpie, Windorah, and Birdsville which are not covered by that criterion. In such towns local government has had to install the equipment to receive a commercial signal for the first time. One only has to look at what the Government is doing to local government. It restricts grants to local government; it has cut back road funding and it has cut back direct grants to local authorities in country areas. Local municipalities are finding it very difficult to help their ratepayers in those small communities. I urge the Minister to take what action he can to see that those municipalities receive the funding needed to help them establish those translators. Every person in a small town cannot be expected to install a dish that costs $3,000. It is different in Sydney, of course. There only has to buy a small television antenna for a few hundred dollars. But a person living in Birdsville wishing to receive a signal has to pay $3,000 for a dish. They are the types of concerns and problems that such people have to put up with because of government legislation. Finally, I shall refer to the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. Good old Telecom! Overall, it does a very good job. Slowly but surely the telephones in my electorate are being connected to the STD system. This year, Telecom is spending $43m in the Roma zone. Councillors from Roma were in Canberra last week to speak to the Minister for Transport and Communications because of Telecom's policy of centralisation. The Government is placing a ceiling on Telecom's charges and directing it to be more efficient. Nobody minds that, provided Telecom goes about it in the right way. But Telecom is starting at the top and working down. It is moving management from decentralised areas such as Roma, to Toowoomba, which is absolutely crazy. Telecom is spending approximately $45m a year west of Roma to install the digital concentrator system and to continue the installation of cables and STD phones. Most of the constituents in my electorate who live away from the small townships still do not have an STD telephone; they still operate under the old manual telephone system. I have much pleasure in supporting these Bills. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(8.00) —Tonight I am pleased to be able to address the House in this cognate debate on a range of Bills dealing broadly with transport, including the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill. It is to that Bill that I would like to refer tonight. Before I do, I would like to commend the contributions of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney). In particular, I commend the contribution of the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) in outlining to the House the relative merits of having the Overseas Telecommunications Commission looking after Australia's telephonic links on an international basis and comparing the costs of OTC with the costs of similar international agencies. I recall that he used a figure, which may also have been used by the honourable member for Kingston, which demonstrated clearly that the cost of a phone call from Australia to the United States of America was around half the cost of a call from the United States to Australia. In addressing the question of the Australian National Railways Commission Act and the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1988, I would like to speak for a moment on the relevance of railways to the Northern Territory. There has been a historic association with railways in the Northern Territory. Indeed, a line which used to go from Larrimah south of Katherine to Darwin and which was closed somewhere in the 1960s, with the stock and the rail being sold after self-government was achieved in the Northern Territory in 1978, was important in terms of Australia's defence capability during the Second World War. It played a significant role in the movement of troops from Darwin south and the movement of supplies and troops north. That line features in a very famous Australian novel by Xavier Herbert called Poor Fellow My Country. I am sure that members of the House will be conversant with that book. More recently, railways have been important in the context of a proposal to build a new rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin. When the Hawke Government was first elected an offer was made to the Northern Territory Government, after a study commissioned by the Commonwealth into the cost, structure and feasibility of a railway between Alice Springs and Darwin. The Commonwealth offered to contribute 60 per cent of the cost of the construction of that line and asked the Northern Territory to find 40 per cent-not an outrageous suggestion, I would have thought. Unfortunately for many of us the Northern Territory Government, under the stewardship of Mr Ian Tuxworth, the member for Barkly, rejected that offer. When the Northern Territory Government rejected the proposal put forward by the Commonwealth in relation to this cost-sharing arrangement for the construction of a railway Mr Tuxworth said, as reported in the Hansard of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly of Wednesday, 20 November 1985: My government is left with no option now but to seek to build this railway utilising private ownership, operation and funding. Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that that is what we intend to do and it will be Australia's first economic railway. That statement was made on Wednesday, 20 November 1985; yet we are still to see any tangible evidence that the Northern Territory Government has been able to secure private backing for this railway. It leads one to question the irresponsible way in which the Northern Territory Government initially rejected the offer made by the Hawke Government for a 60:40 cost sharing arrangement for the construction of that rail link. That offer is important in a number of areas: firstly, it demonstrated the concern of the Commonwealth that the Northern Territory should accept a fair share of the costs and, secondly, it indicated the belief by the Commonwealth that such a railway would be appropriate. Unfortunately, with the Northern Territory Government's rejection of this proposal for cost sharing, we are yet to see this railway under construction. I for one am a bit of a fan of the railway and I believe that there are a number of reasons why such a railway would be important. I hope that the Northern Territory Government, having basically thrown away the opportunity offered by the Commonwealth to provide a substantial input of Commonwealth funds into the construction of such a railway, will be able to get private support from entrepreneurs to establish that rail link between Darwin and Alice Springs. The aim of the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill is to provide for the expansion of the scope of business activities that the Australian National Railways Commission will be able to provide. As part of it, in future the Government will be less involved in scrutinising other activities of Australian National (AN). Instead, the Government will focus on planning through corporate plans, financial targets and accountability of results. Significantly, day to day controls are to be removed in line with this approach and AN will be free to engage in such standard business practices as entering into contracts and normal investment arrangements without the requirement for prior ministerial approval. Borrowings will also be freed from specific approval requirements, subject to continued overall Loan Council scrutiny. This is seen as important as, apart from anything else, it will remove many of the present constraints which provide bureaucratic limitations on the way in which AN operates. We are all aware that the transport and communications infrastructure forms the very fabric of our economy. Without it, industry could not function, our exports could not reach their markets and service industries, such as tourism, could not develop. I have said previously in this place how important tourism is to the Northern Territory economy. Places such as the Northern Territory would remain isolated and estranged from other parts of Australia and the world. They are areas which have traditionally had a high public sector involvement, partly because they provide essential social services and also because, in some instances, they were not viewed by the private sector as profitable forums for investment in the early days of economic development. The Government has played and will continue to play a vital role in this area. It is a role that has come under some scrutiny in recent years and it has been an area of rather intense debate. This debate has been of particular importance and interest to those of us who reside in the Northern Territory, where the public sector is the main economic actor, accounting for some 26 per cent of total Territory product and 42 cent of wage and salary employees. Those figures are from the Northern Territory Government Budget Paper No. 6, 1988-89. In response to the debate about the importance of the public sector and the need for a review of the performance of some public sector enterprises, the Government has introduced a program of reform in that area. The main plank of the Government's economic strategy has been involved with the reform of government business enterprises. The amendments to the Australian National Railways Commission Act which are being debated tonight are part of that reform package. They will continue the process which the Government has set in train to increase the efficiency of the public sector, reducing its demands in the Budget and aiding the efficient operation of government. The reforms are aimed at improving the flexibility of Australian National (AN), so that it has an increased ability to respond rapidly to changes in the marketplace, and to take up opportunities as they present themselves. They continue the changing relationship between government and business enterprises from a relationship which involves government control to one which necessarily and appropriately demands accountability by business enterprises. Day to day controls are to be removed so that AN, in this instance, will be free to engage in standard business practices, such as entering into contracts and normal investment arrangements without the requirement for prime ministerial approval. As I have already said, the consequences will be a more efficient public sector, including a more efficient AN. These consequences will flow through the economy thus improving competitiveness. The Australian Government has been involved in the operation of a rail system since 1917 when the Trans Australia Railway was completed and the Commonwealth Railways was established to run the system. The Australian National Railways Commission was established in 1975 and took effective operational control of an amalgamated system comprising the former Commonwealth, Tasmanian and South Australian-although in that instance non-metropolitan railways only-systems in 1978. In 1983 the Australian National Railways Commission Act was passed, providing the national rail system with modern legislation more appropriate to AN's role as a business undertaking with commercial goals. The changes introduced in 1983 have done much to put AN on a more commercial footing. AN's call on the Budget has fallen by more than 60 per cent in real terms, from $106m in 1982-83 to $54.9m in 1987-88. It expects to break even on its commercial operations in 1988-89. As most people are probably aware, in the Northern Territory there is one stretch of rail, which I spoke of earlier, which is currently utilised by Northern Territory residents-to wit, the line from Adelaide to Alice Springs. This line carries the very famous and romantic train, the Ghan. This is operated by AN and that organisation has introduced some important innovations to increase the attractiveness and, indeed, the romanticism of travel on the Ghan. For example, a conference car has been built which has audio-visual and lecture facilities. There is also a new entertainment car which has been designed to help AN compete with road traffic on the route from Adelaide to Alice Springs. As one who has driven that route on a number of occasions, I might say, as an aside, that travel by rail is far superior. There is not much joy in driving down a straight highway for 1,800 kilometres, I can tell honourable members. These innovations have been particularly successful so that the Ghan is very close to being an economically viable operation. It is certainly worthwhile to run and AN is currently in the process of spending a couple of million dollars refurbishing the train. In the 1987-88 financial year it carried close to 30,000 passengers. AN has established a travel centre in Adelaide to promote package tours, including a rail component to the NT, and to encourage Alice Springs and the Northern Territory as tourist destinations. The amendments before us tonight, in conjunction with the previous legislative changes, pave the way for similar developments in promotion and targeting from within the Northern Territory itself. They also pave the way for AN's expansion into coach travel which, as anyone who has been to the Territory would know, is a vital and growing mode of transport in our economy. One has only to drive from Alice Springs to Uluru and see the number of coaches that line up at the sunset viewing strip close to Uluru to realise the importance of coach transport in the contemporary tourism industry. Freight services are also of a major importance in the Territory, as only a small percentage of our product is produced locally and we are heavily reliant on the transportation of a wide range of commodities into the Territory. In the area of freight the central corridor and, in particular, the railhead to Alice Springs, which is then supplemented by road transport to Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin and other places, is the most heavily used route for freight transport. Ninety per cent of the freight into Alice Springs is carried by the rail-road link. Fifty per cent of the Northern Territory's freight comes through the rail-road link. AN has worked to improve this corridor with improvements to the track, equipment and train speed. In Adelaide AN operates the Islington freight centre and there is a similar but smaller freight handling depot at the railhead in Alice Springs. The Northern Territory provides wide potential for the expansion of AN's freight services and these amendments, which build on the Commission's ability to undertake a broader range of commercial activities, are important for the Territory and for the increased efficiency and expansion in private enterprises. AN has for some time now been engaged in piggy-back arrangements with road hauliers, where semi-trailers are transported on the train to Alice Springs and then continue their journey up the Stuart Highway by road. It has also developed a new wagon called the five pack so that more freight can be carried faster and is selling these five packs to private customers. The way is now open for AN to become involved in road freight transport and to expand government freight services throughout the Northern Territory. It is now encouraging greater use of contain- erisation and the way is open for AN to establish a freight handling depot in Darwin and contract arrangements with shipping lines for freight transport. This is not to say that AN will immediately take up these options, but the legislative change introduced by this Government means that, if commercial opportunities arise in these areas, AN is equally positioned with other commercial enterprises to be able to take hold of those opportunities. Rail has always been a major means of transportation in Australia. It is gratifying to see the increased development and expansion of AN. I commend these amendments to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In conjunction with the 1983 legislation, they add to the flexibility and commercial viability of AN, giving Australia the efficient and effective public transport system that it deserves. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(8.18) —I rise to debate the ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill and support the honourable member for the Richmond (Mr Blunt) in his amendments to that particular Bill. The Opposition has no concern about the general thrust of the Bill, but we contend that the Government has not gone far enough in privatising the Australian National Line (ANL). The proposition of the Bill is that the ANL have more commercial flexibility, provide corporate plans and financial targets and pay dividends according to the requirement of the Minister for Transport and Communications. That will be an interesting problem-that the Minister will dictate the actual profitability levels of the ANL according to the legislation. I am also pleased to note that the legislation requires that the ANL will revalue its assets every five years, which will give a more meaningful result in terms of economic performance. This Bill brings about the conversion of the $196m of capital to $1 shares with the Government remaining the main shareholder. I noticed earlier in the debate that the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) supported the privatisation concept so strongly put by the Opposition. He indicated that on various occasions he, like the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and a number of other members of the Australian Labor Party, supported privatisation. However, they have been put off by certain arguments of the left wing and others within the Australian Labor Party, and of course the privatisation argument is now on the back burner. We in the Opposition suggest that the ANL privatisation could be a symbol of what could be done with a corporation and operation which is now totally owned by the Government and which has a monopoly. If we privatised that operation we would then bring more competition into this whole area of interstate sea transport, we would see true competition with road and rail, and we might even achieve transport costs comparable to costs overseas. Of course there would be considerable savings in the capital input by taxpayers, it would help exporters provide a more efficient service, and of course the manufacturers around Australia would be encouraged to find a better coastal operation. Coastal shipping services have been plagued for many years by the work practices that I will refer to later in this speech; by a total monopoly of the operation with tacit government support; by government regulations covering every aspect of this particular trade; by trade union dominance in terms of both conditions and pay and salary rates; and by capital invested and continuing investment from time to time as the operation becomes more difficult and makes less profit and provides less service. The efficiencies of sea, rail and road transport are very difficult to compare even as the efficiencies of the coastal trade become more evident. So there arise some inequalities as customers move from road to rail and away from coastal shipping because of the various problems they encounter at the container wharves and elsewhere on the waterfront. Of course coastal shipping should be handling the bulk materials such as fertilisers, grains, chemicals and other heavy commodities such as coal and iron ore. ANL has a monopoly over container and bulk shipping, those two areas which should be efficient and the facilities for which should be updated. Of course there is a combination of reasons for the shipping company, the wharf operators and the stevedoring companies not increasing the efficiency of their industry and introducing new technology in container and port practices. It is interesting to observe the history of ANL. In 1983 ANL lost $18m. At that time it had 33 vessels and employed 3,802 people. I am pleased to say that in 1984 it recorded a profit of $3.3m, and continued to make a profit in 1985, of $41m, with a $38m profit in 1986. But in 1987 its profit was reduced to $14m. I notice that it reduced its number of vessels from 33 in 1983 down to 17 and that there was a change in the type of vessel. However, the number of employees was not reduced accordingly and in 1987 ANL still had 2,738 employees on its books. Whilst there was an improvement in profitability, the number of personnel was not really reduced. Of those employees, 38.4 per cent are engaged in terminal stevedoring work whereas 42 per cent are actually out on the sea undertaking ship activities to maintain coastal operations. Over time there have been a number of reports submitted indicating the difficulties that coastal shipping has encountered. As many members of the House have reported, the Industries Assistance Commission has been putting forward reports over the past 10 years indicating all the difficulties that coastal shipping has encountered. For instance, the fertiliser industry has had great difficulty, with the monopoly position of ANL, in transferring phosphate rock from Nauru and Christmas Island, and farmers have historically been disadvantaged by up to $20m because of this monopoly position. The transport of iron ore from Whyalla to Newcastle has been dominated by the monopoly position of ANL. There have been reports concerning the transport of chemicals, and the Economic Planning Advisory Council has produced a report, as have the Australian Manufacturing Council and the Bureau of Industry Economics. They all indicate the very high cost of coastal shipping and the unreliability of the vessels moving around the Australian coast. It is estimated in these various reports that the cost is in the vicinity of $250m to $550m a year. It is estimated that it costs 20 to 25 per cent more than average shipping costs around the world to move shipping around the Australian coastline. Of course this affects those exporters who use shipping for the delivery of bulk materials, and it is estimated that in Australia 30 per cent of the cost of delivering bulk commodities is taken up by shipping costs. Many members of the House would be aware that the cement industry is now facing a bit of competition from overseas. Some of the new technology in the transport of cement from some of those countries with low production costs has certainly put a bit of pressure on the home industry. The new technology employed in the handling of these cargoes has certainly drawn the difference between the very high costs of the intrastate trade in Australia when we compare the costs of cement companies in Tasmania and New South Wales with the price of imported cement from foreign competitors. The Business Council of Australia has had a good look at the coastal shipping problem and it has put forward a positive plan that there should be some foreign competition to give a true costing of the Australian shipping industry; there should be a reduction in costs; we should have a change in industrial relationships between the management and the staff; and of course the ownership of ANL should be addressed. In regard to foreign competition, the honourable member for Richmond supports in his amendment the view that shipping from Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries should be allowed to compete with ANL so that we do get a true benchmark of the costings involved on our line compared to the costs of the more industrialised countries. It is worth noting that Japan, Norway and Germany have manning levels about 25 per cent less than we have in Australia. So they would be able to compete, and it should be borne in mind that they have similar standards of living. Foreign competition should make sure that the quotas and regulations that now restrict any competition for coastal vessels should be removed. Likewise, the Business Council suggests that subsidies to ANL should be visible if it is to receive subsidies to allow it to compete with other nations. There should be no hidden subsidies that the taxpayer and commercial community cannot observe out in the open. Of course, I concede that the specialty vessels that move around Australia items such as iron ore, fertiliser and grain do need special attachments. Moving on to costs, the Business Council suggests that repairs, port dues and handling charges could be reduced. Of course, if we look at the problems of the Williamstown Dockyard we can fully understand the horrendous costs that can be incurred for any shipowner who wishes to repair his ship in Australia. The Business Council suggests, in relation to costs and productivity, that in Australia we have a very high cost of manning ships in our coastal waters, and that that constitutes about 20 to 40 per cent of operating costs. Along with the coalition, the Business Council is suggesting that ships' companies should negotiate agreements that work out terms and conditions and rates of pay that are commensurate with the conditions prevailing at the moment. We have a very competitive world trade situation and a glut of shipping, and Australian shipowners and seamen working in Australian waters should negotiate agreements and working conditions that are compatible with profitability. I am pleased to say that that is in line with the coalition's industrial relations policy. We advocate voluntary agreements between management and staff so that both sides are better off and jobs are maintained and created. In regard to the repairs and maintenance to which I have referred, it is suggested that it costs 60 per cent more to repair a ship in Australian shipyards than in overseas ports. A number of shipowners have avoided coming to Australia because they know there will be hold-ups. They understand that industrial problems are prevalent in Australian shipyards, which is exemplified by the activities of the painters and dockers union to which I have referred. Over the last couple of weeks I had the privilege of looking at the Hyundai shipyards in South Korea. They provide a magnificent example of a modern nation prepared to compete world wide. There are 23,000 workers in those shipyards and they work six days a week. They employ great skills across a range of activities. I have no doubt that there are no demarcation disputes in those shipyards because they are keen to get on with the job and create quality output on the many and varied ships that are constructed in those yards. They are competitive on a worldwide basis. It provides a lesson for Australia in what can be done in the area of repairs and maintenance in shipbuilding, if one puts one's mind to it. There is no doubt that we have a number of inefficiencies in our container ports. The Business Council of Australia suggests that we could improve our efficiency output by 50 per cent. We have modern cranes, container terminals and tracts of land. A change of attitude by staff members and management would improve these container ports quite dramatically so that they are comparable to other container ports around the world. The coalition suggests that ANL be sold. To date, $160m has been allocated to ANL. It is showing a return of 4 per cent. It is estimated that $250m would be needed to modernise ANL so that it can compete with overseas shipping lines. Another observation that I make concerns the very poor situation in our coastal ports which is a result of a combination of the shipping monopoly, trade union power and restrictive work practices that have occurred in Australian ports over the last 20 years or so. It would be a joke, if it were not so serious, to observe the number of restrictive work practices that have taken place on our waterfront over the past few years which have inhibited the efficiency and profitability of these vital ships which have been held up in exporting our commodities around the world. For the information of the House I would like to list a number of restrictive work practices which draw home to the public the difficulties that the port authorities are having in introducing new technology and work practices that, by any standards, would be reasonable. Some specific instances are: `nick off' days, where members of a gang draw straws to see who can return home for the day on full pay; more sophisticated variants on the theme are published rosters and auctioning of entitlements. Fifty-four foremen and supervisors are employed at Newcastle for the 186 waterside workers employed at the port. There is certainly a good ratio of foremen to men on the job! In Wyndham in Western Australia 30 Waterside Workers Federation members average eight hours work a week. In another instance the Waterside Workers Federation insists on two members-one on board the vessel and one on the dock-watching while a crane driver and a truck driver move a container from the truck to the vessel; neither is necessary but, because there are two, a supervisor and foreman are also needed. Similarly, two unnecessary employees observe wheat being poured into the holds of a vessel. In another instance, as a result of union pressure a gangway watchman is engaged 24 hours a day when a vessel is in port, although no work needs to be done, or alternatively the job could be done by a crew member. Waterside employees receive a number of particular allowances for unpleasant work, such as dirt money, stooping money, rain money and cold money. Employees on a night shift frequently work for a short time and then draw straws to see who will remain to clock off all members of the gang, while the remainder go home. Container handling rates in Australia are typically half or less than those overseas. Australian grain terminals handle approximately 14,000 tonnes per employee per year, whereas northern American terminals average 60,000 to 120,000 tonnes per employee. The final instance I give is that overmanning is rife amongst tug operators, as it is with coastal ships. This is a blueprint for privatisation-converting ANL to a company and then selling the shareholdings back to private investors so that true competition will prevail. The Prime Minister has been advocating privatisation. Of course, the Treasurer advocates privatisation from time to time, depending on the political temperature and activities of the left wing. Even the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is advocating privatisation for those various activities which he knows will be a drain on Government funds. Privatisation of ANL would ensure that there are no future subsidies. It would help the commodity exporters of Australia who make up 50 per cent of our export income. It would also help to to change attitudes and make the Australian shipping line a more commercial activity. It would help in that very difficult area to which I have just drawn the House's attention-industrial relations on the waterfront. If we could privatise ANL we might bring about some changes in the stevedoring industry. Profitability, attitudes, and good work practices might engender quite a big change in this whole area which is so vital for Australia's exports. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(8.38) —I want to comment on the fact that the Government has, as a consequence of the determination of ministerial responsibility, lumped together a number of Bills which involve an enormous area of responsibility. I believe that it is quite inappropriate that we should be debating cognately those matters that are listed on the business sheet. This limits the possibility of identifying the real problems, the real issues and the real consequences of the legislation that is before us. I will content myself with referring to the Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1988 because in the time available one cannot hope to refer to all the other issues that are before us. In the area of telecommunications, there has been a conscious decision on the part of the Government to proceed very rapidly with what is commonly referred to as privatisation. Under the umbrella of this very broad concept of privatisation, we find an enormous range of determinations with regard to what for so long has been a very important element of service to the community by an instrumentality that has meant so much to the individual and to business, across the whole spectrum of progress and development of our nation. I have looked at the words expressed in the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis). It encompasses an enormous aspiration to carry forward the great charter of Telecom Australia, to carry forward the aspirations of that service and all that it means. But if we look at the fine print we discover that there is a great deal to be concerned about. The first aspect that one discovers is that Telecom wants to serve the community but in so doing wants to meet the wishes of the Government in office. Those wishes are reflected first of all in the undertaking that there will be no disruption to the staff of Telecom. I commend that. The Bill then goes on to say that there will be an acknowledgment of the consumer aspect of Telecom and I commend that. But let us look at the historic background of the services of Telecom to Australia, which previously operated under a different charter and a different name. Telecom was the flagbearer of what was the Postmaster-General's Department. It was that Department's area of profitability and success. I am appalled that it is being absorbed in the way that it is into just one more compromised public organisation. I say `compromised' because in the mini-Budget of 18 months ago it was obliged to meet extraordinarily heavy charges. In the last mini-Budget further charges were imposed. Of course, as announced by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) in recent times, increased charges are to be imposed by Telecom. Yet the annual report released only a few weeks ago showed a continuing enormous profit on the part of that organisation. Australia is so different from other countries around the world. It is different because of the vast distances. It is different because of the composition of its communities. It is different because we have an enormous rural area to be serviced by Telecom. It is different because we have on the eastern seaboard and on one or two other fringes of our continent a conglomeration of commerce and industry. If we reflect on what was accomplished by what was previously the Postmaster-General's Department, we can now appreciate that there is an enormous network of the most sophisticated and modern equipment available from around the world. This network provided telecommunications to overcome the backlog that had built up after the cessation of the Second World War. If one sought to make a telephone call interstate or for that matter a short distance within one or other of our States, there was a time delay. People waited not months but years for the connection of telephones. All of those problems were overcome by modern technology, with the judicious use of funds that were available to Telecom and by the utilisation of profits that it was able to amass. This system was second to none anywhere around the world in providing service to the community. Because of its great success, this Government found that Telecom was an easy target for a source of revenue. So it imposed for government revenue purposes charges which impinged upon the system and the charter that had provided service for so many years. This legislation is merely part and parcel of carrying through that political decision to utilise Telecom as a revenue earner for the Treasury. I believe that this is wrong. It contradicts all of the historic background of Telecom over so many years. I hope there will be some recognition of this in the determinations that follow this legislation. Obviously the Parliament will pass the legislation. But I just put it to the Government and to those on the Treasury bench that there is a limit to which Telecom subscribers can be expected to pay the bill. There has been reference in this debate to the decisions to make some changes, for instance, in the bill the subscriber receives. Instead of receiving three or four pages of gobbledegook we will go back to a one-page statement. Why not introduce at the same time something that is comprehended by the Telecom subscriber, by the person who pays the bill? Why not tell the subscriber exactly what the bill is all about? Currently, of course, that does not occur. Only this afternoon I had a constituent approach me regarding a telephone account. It emerged that, whereas in the past he had received a quarterly account, he now receives a monthly account. Nothing appeared on the statement to say so. There was no notification that there had been a decision by Telecom to issue a monthly account in lieu of a quarterly account. This is just one window into the trend that has occurred. I hope that the management of Telecom will take a strong stand against the Government's intrusion into what it is expected to do for the public and in respect of what Telecom sees as its charter into the future. Privatisation must, of course, be part and parcel of a recognition of a service that is not in any way, shape or form similar to private enterprise. Private enterprise is one of those areas where the endeavours of the individual, the endeavours of the corporate body, the endeavours of whatever, are dispensed to the public through a private enterprise operation. Telecom, surely to goodness, can never be seen quite in that role. It has a different responsibility. It has a responsibility first of all to the subscribers who pay for a telephone. It has a responsibility to those who over the years have seen Telecom as their lifeline, as their one link with their friends, their business associates, a big corporate organisation, or whatever the modern day technology provides them with the wherewithal to be linked in an effective way through computers or whatever else has been developed in the business sector. But let us get back to reality. Telecom is there to serve the people. If we impose on it extraordinarily high charges to raise government revenue, if we impose on it a charter that does not take into account the essential element of cross-subsidisation because of distance-a recognition of that very important element in the Australian community; that is, the vast spaces of this country, the vast areas that stretch thousands of miles across the inland and the country areas of this great Australian continent-we are letting down the community that made possible the development of the best telephone system in the world. I appeal to the Government not to go headlong into what can only be described as privatisation without a heart, privatisation without an appreciation of what it really means. Cross-subsidisation ensures that people in far-flung parts of this nation will share the advantages that those in the metropolitan areas have of technology, instant telephone contact and all of the things that flow from telephone contact. This is, without question, a vital matter and one that should not be glossed over, as this legislation proposes to do by saying, `This is your charter. The Government will not interfere. We will appoint a certain structure of management and it will have the responsibility'. That brings me, in the few minutes still left to me, to the present determination of Telecom Australia to restructure its management and to create certain divisions-a country division and a metropolitan division. What do we find? We find not only State borders being transcended by this new structure-perhaps that is fine; perhaps it is good to have management that can look at the whole continent-but also, when we get down to the locality level, we find that there is a proposition to alter the areas, the regions, of Telecom management as we have known them for about the past decade. I suggest that this could be disadvantageous. In my own electorate of Page it is proposed that there should be an amalgamation of the Grafton telephone district and two other districts adjoining. Having sought the facts, I find that there is very little to justify the proposition. If it is intended to introduce computerisation for management, accounting and various other purposes, that is good. Let us do it. But why do we have to alter the boundaries to introduce that kind of change? As to the Government's attitude in this matter, very little has been said by the Government about it at all. I was fascinated to find at the end of last week that the Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds, issued a press statement criticising Telecom Australia's decisions in respect of changes that would occur in Queensland and saying, `This is no good. I will make representations to the Minister'-the Minister for Aviation and whatever. I do not think the Minister has yet responded to his colleague's public utterance made in an official press statement. If it is good enough for a Minister to criticise the decision that has been made by Telecom in this matter, it is good enough for the rest of us, as members representing various important regions of Australia, to make a similar criticism. I hope that the Minister-whether it be the Minister at the table, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis), or his sub-Minister, if we can so term him-will look very carefully at what is being proposed in regard to this aspect of the administration of Telecom Australia. I suggest that the Minister have a good look at what it means. The Grafton Telecom area in my electorate has a record second to none in the matter of the maintenance of service to every subscriber, a record second to none in terms of early connection for applicants for telephone services and a record second to none in the economics of administration of those services. Matched against other regions, it is a success story in the financial catalogue of what Telecom does. That ought to be recommendation enough. Yet we have superimposed over this vital aspect the proposition that someone knows better and that the boundaries should be changed not only in the Grafton district but also in other districts. This afternoon the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) referred, as did the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), to the fact, as I mentioned, that a Minister of the Government in office has criticised the proposition for the Maranoa electorate. If it is good enough for that Minister to make a criticism, it is good enough for us to make the point strongly in this debate that these changes are unwise. They have been conceived without proper recognition of the facts relating to the business management of Telecom. It is time to go back to the drawing board and to think again before there is an implementation of the great proposal to restructure the management of Telecom in the regions around Australia. This legislation is obviously the thin edge of the wedge. The Government would be well advised to think again before it makes the appointments that this legislation would make possible. It should think again about how it moves in the so-called privatisation of Telecom Australia. Telecom provides a service that is worthy of the recognition of this Parliament, of those whom it has served so well over the years. We should not turn the clock back by making Telecom nothing more than a source of revenue collection-nothing more than the tool of those who say, `It is only if the user pays that a service will be provided to the community'. Let us not slip back to what we find even in a developed country such as the United States, where telephone services are not as good as they are in Australia. Australia has a proud record. Let us continue that record by making it possible for every Australian to enjoy the services that Telecom has built up over the years and which it is truly proud of. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(8.57) —I will not detain the House long. This set of Bills-the Australian National Line (Conversion Into Public Company) Bill, the OTC (Conversion Into Public Company) Bill, the Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill, the Telecommunications Amendment Bill, the Satellite Communications Amendment Bill and the Postal Services Amendment Bill-might be described as an extremely important set of half-way or part-way Bills. They represent half-hearted efforts by the Government to make some headway in the area of so-called micro-economic reform-what might better be referred to as structural change, or adjustment, and increased market efficiency. In the whole complex of policy to promote the economic development of this country, that area of change-structural change and increased market efficiency-is extremely important. In the area of macro-economics, we deal with the great aggregates in an attempt to contain inflation and unemployment. But a key factor in the whole approach to policy is this area, that is, in various ways to increase productivity, reduce costs, thereby enhancing our international competitiveness, and thus address the key, the central, issues confronting our nation of our overseas deficit and massive overseas debt and in that way to begin to set the stage for a rise in living standards. What we have in these Bills is a pulling back from what ought to be the situation in several cases-for instance, in the case of the Australian National Line-of privatising the whole show, for goodness sake. But we cannot have privatisation, with the left wing of the Australian Labor Party opposing it. That is the problem. It sees privatisation as an ideological issue. It is not. The privatisation we on this side of the House propose is a sensible program of privatisation with a view to increased efficiency and lower prices for consumers. That is what privatisation is all about. It is not a matter of ideology at all. But that is what the left wing of the Labor Party makes it. So we have this half-hearted attempt to go part of the way, for instance, to make the ANL into a public company. What is required is something in the way of deregulation and increased competition. That is where the benefit will ultimately stem from. Does anybody think this Government would be likely to take on the seamen, which is what is required in the coastal shipping industry, and introduce some competition from other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries? I am not suggesting any sort of sweated labour situation or anything of that type. What we have in the case of Australian coastal shipping is a situation where it costs as much to ship milk powder from Tasmania to Melbourne as it does to ship it to Taiwan-or indeed more-and certainly as much to ship newsprint from Hobart to Sydney as it does to ship it to Tokyo. That is the sort of situation with which we are confronted. What is required is thorough privatisation along with increased competition. I cannot stress too much that these Bills, as I said, are a set of halfway or, rather, part-way Bills. They are the best the Government can do in the way of so-called micro-economic reform, in trying to achieve structural change and increased market efficiency. That should be the major thrust of economic policy, yet this Government backs away and brings in these half measures. I understand the time limits that are imposed, so I will not address the House further on this matter. These are potentially very important Bills. They just do not go anywhere near far enough. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.02) —In winding up this long second reading debate, I firstly thank the Opposition for agreeing to a cognate debate on six important Bills. It is unusual to put so many Bills together in a cognate debate, but the issues involved in all of these Bills essentially are similar. I think it was a sensible proposal to have the one second reading debate. I thank the Opposition for allowing that to take place. I also thank all those honourable members who have contributed to the debate. There have been a number of very important contributions. I would like to refer in a moment to some of the statements made by Opposition members which I refute. Before doing that perhaps I should refer to what these Bills are actually seeking to achieve. The debate has been very wide-ranging and it is perhaps easy to forget what we are trying to achieve with this legislation. With all of these Bills we are trying to reform various government enterprises-in some cases this is only one of two substantial steps to bring about that reform-in a way which will make them more commercial, more efficient and more likely to operate in a way which will benefit Australians at large more than they have hitherto. Of course, making public enterprises efficient and dynamic is not particularly easy. It is something which various governments have tried to do with varying degrees of success. Some have given up and said, `Let's just privatise them because that is the only way we'll make them efficient'. That, obviously, is the basis of the thinking which lies behind the contributions from most Opposition members. The Government differs from the Opposition in that it believes we should be trying to ensure, so far as is possible, that government enterprises are substantially efficient, bearing in mind, of course, that in some cases-particularly in the case of Australia Post and Telecom Australia-we cannot simply turn them into straight commercial enterprises. Various members of the National Party would not want us to do that. In the course of this debate they have made the point that these organisations serve substantial social interests and that those social interests should be taken into account by Telecom. Indeed, they criticised Telecom for not taking them into account enough and for being too commercial. So we have some rather conflicting lines coming through in this debate. In trying to make these enterprises more efficient there are, of course, many difficulties, but we believe that the steps that have been taken in this legislation will provide a very substantial step towards producing more efficient, more dynamic, and more accountable public enterprises than we have had in the past. That is part of the Government's wider approach to bringing about structural adjustment in this country with its so-called micro-economic reform which goes well beyond government enterprise reform and encompasses reform in a number of other areas. The point of doing all of that is to try to make the economy much more productive and efficient, to increase the level of productivity and to enable us to have a more dynamic economy which can better stand on its feet in the international marketplace. All of the enterprises with which we are dealing today have an impact on our competitive position-some directly and some indirectly. It is substantially important that these enterprises make their contribution to the national need of the time, which is to bring about a more productive and efficient economy than we have had in the past. Of course, Opposition members who in their contributions condemned us for not going far enough did none of this when they were in government. In fact, in the long period in which they were in government in the post-war period, for 30 of the 33 years between 1950 and 1983, they managed to produce an economy which was grossly inefficient and an industry structure which was totally inappropriate to Australia's position in the world which left us massively vulnerable to the adjustment in the terms of trade and left this nation with far less of a living standard than would be the case if much more sensible policies were pursued in industrialising Australia. With this legislation and other legislation which forms part of our micro-economic reform, this Government is trying to make up for the benign neglect of that long period, that three decades of neglect by the previous Government in which it massively disserved the people of Australia by producing an economy which was entirely on the wrong basis, which had manufacturing industries which were largely, almost totally in most cases, preoccupied with the domestic market and not able to compete internationally. They were not export-oriented and left us with an economy which, as I said, was massively vulnerable to the collapse of the terms of trade. These Bills are part of that process of reforming the Australian economy in a way which will enable it to face up to the world in a much more substantial state in the future than it has been able to in the past. In the debate various criticisms were made by the Opposition. I will refer to just a few of them for the sake of brevity. It would be quite impossible to deal with all of the comments. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) seemed to be very convinced that we had an abysmal, monopolistic situation which needed remedying. He was so impressed by this thought that he gave us a substantial preview of his speech before he delivered the speech which was relevant to this debate-if it was relevant. His contribution about a monopoly seemed to work on the basis that all of these enterprises were in some monopoly situation. In fact, none of them are in a completely monopolistic situation. Even Telecom and Australia Post, which have substantial monopoly elements, face considerable competition. Telecom, through the deregulation package which is being implemented, will face considerably more competition in the future. Australia Post already faces competition for something like half of its activities. So even in those areas we do not have a monopoly. In other areas, Australian National Line for instance, it is out there competing. Nearly 70 per cent of what it does is in the international shipping trade. Does the Opposition think that is a monopoly situation? The Australian National Line is out there competing against the rest of the world. On the coastal run it has competition from other shipping lines. There is no monopoly situation there. Even Australian National (AN) with its railway system faces competition from other forms of transport. So I reject entirely the assertion that we have some monopolistic situation. Most of what the honourable member for Mayo said, for that reason, was quite irrelevant. He also said that AN had sold off its newly acquired locomotives and having done that was leasing them back. My understanding is that that comment is quite wrongly based, that no such action has been taken by AN in relation to its recently acquired locomotives. The Opposition has also criticised AN for not doing enough to improve its efficiency. That was a rather unfair set of criticisms, because AN has markedly reduced its operating deficit since the Government has been in office. It has reduced from a $106m deficit to $55m in the last year, which is roughly a half or, in real terms, a two-thirds reduction in the level of deficit. That must surely be seen as a very substantial increase in efficiency by that organisation, and that improvement in efficiency will continue. In talking about the railways, one of the interesting things to note is that one sees a conflict coming from members of the National Party, who talk about efficiency, on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, say, `We want railways running all over the place'. Mr Tim Fischer —Not now; we used to. Mr WILLIS —The honourable member for Farrer obviously did not listen to his colleague's speech, because the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) said he wanted not only a railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin, but also a substantial railway constructed across the north of Australia in an east-west direction. Who he thought would put anything on that train I am damned if I know. But that was what he said. In the same speech the honourable member for Lyne was giving us a lecture about the need for increased efficiency. That again indicates the confusion of thinking which applies in the National Party. Mr Tim Fischer —Switch the Parkes to Broken Hill line to AN. Mr WILLIS —Indeed, the honourable member for Farrer, who is interjecting, in the course of his contribution was also deploring the fact that there had been closure by the various railways around this country of branch lines, of regional lines, and of main lines. He said that this was a terribly bad thing, but on the other hand he wanted to talk about improving efficiency. He cannot have it both ways. The National Party has a terrible job in getting its act together in this area. Suggestions have been made by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) that there is a problem facing the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (OTC) in meeting its future capital requirements. OTC is a tremendous success as an organisation. Of course, in a sense, it has a substantial monopoly, given that it is the sole provider of overseas telecommunications-our link with the rest of the world through telecommunications. But, of course, it is facing some competition, increasingly, through other forms of communication-through satellites, for instance. Nevertheless, it is performing very well indeed. Last year its profit was more than $100m. I assure the honourable member for Ryan that it will be able to finance its future capital outlays program, which will be in the order of $2 billion over the next decade, substantially from retained profits. This organisation will be able to meet most of its capital needs from that source and, if it has to borrow, it will certainly be able to do that without in any way engaging in some profligate financial dealing. So we need have no worries about OTC, I assure the honourable member for Ryan. The honourable member for Ryan also said that government enterprises were sheltered enterprises and were not bound by the Companies Act. He is quite wrong in saying that. These government corporations will be bound by the Companies Act in the same way as private enterprise is, and they will therefore be fully out there on the same basis as private sector enterprises, if they are relevant to their field of activity. The honourable member for Ryan had things somewhat confused. He also indicated in the course of his address that ANL was one of the Government enterprises protected from competition. I have already made the point that ANL is very much facing competition both in international shipping and in terms of coastal trade. The Opposition spokesman on transport and aviation, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), made his contribution substantially on the issue of coastal shipping. I might say that it was a somewhat irrelevant contribution, because the debate is not on coastal shipping. Nevertheless, he saw fit to make most of his contribution on that issue and has moved a second reading amendment in relation to it. The second reading amendment is quite inappropriate and will not be supported by the Government. The amendment states, in part: That 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 . . . Let me say a couple of things about that. Firstly, in relation to the issue of the failure of the Government to achieve micro-economic reform, I have already referred to the general process of micro-economic reform in which the Government is engaged; and the Government has had active consideration of policy for the two areas of coastal shipping and the waterfront-far more active, I would say, without fear of any sensible denial, than the Opposition had when it was in government. The Government has sought, both on the waterfront and in coastal shipping, to bring about sensible reforms, which obviously has involved difficult issues. That policy consideration process is coming to an end. The Government has reports on both of those issues, one of which is only an interim report in relation to the waterfront, and the Government will, in the course of the next few months, finalise its consideration in relation to both of those issues. So, of course, to condemn us for failure to achieve micro-economic reform when we are in the latter stages of such reform development is quite absurd. Since the Government has been in office a considerable improvement has been made in the efficiency of coastal shipping, albeit phased in in a gradual way; but the fact is that for all new ships coming into the Australian shipping industry the crewing numbers are far less than those of the ships that they replace, and that is a substantial improvement in efficiency. One can question the pace of development of the reform, but certainly, in so far as that reform is taking place, it is a considerable reform and it can be said without any sensible denial that the Australian shipping industry today is more efficient than it has ever been. In the course of the next few years, even if there were no other change, it would become much more efficient as the much lower crewing levels come into place as a result of initiatives developed by this Government in relation to the industry, through the Maritime Industry Development Committee. The second reading amendment also refers, as I mentioned, to the need for the Government to immediately open up the coast to the introduction of foreign ships. I must say that I was rather surprised to hear that moved, because it would appear to be quite a contradiction of the previously announced policy by the Opposition in this area. Only a couple of months ago, on 25 August, speaking in this House in the Budget debate, on Appropriation Bill (No. 4), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said, in regard to shipping: Our policy, released recently, directly addresses this issue. We will monitor progress by local shipping companies and the relevant unions in reducing manning levels on Australian ships to levels comparable to those of our trading partners. If we do not receive employer and union cooperation, we will introduce foreign competition on coastal shipping routes, but only as a last resort. That was said by the Leader of the Opposition two months ago in this House, but in the second reading amendment we have a call for the Government to immediately introduce a program to increase the efficiency of coastal shipping, including the introduction of ships from Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. In other words, the Opposition's policy now, according to the spokesman on transport and aviation, is to immediately open the coast to foreign ships, not to monitor progress-as was said by the Leader of the Opposition to be the policy-and to see whether they could get agreement to increase the efficiency and, if they could not, to then open it up to coastal shipping routes only as a last resort. Apparently that policy has now been overridden by the Opposition spokesman for transport and aviation, but I am not aware of any announcement by the Opposition of the change of the policy, which had been released only a short time previous to the speech on the Budget by the Leader of the Opposition. If there has been no real change of policy announced by the Opposition, there seems to be confusion among the Opposition about what the policy really is. Opposition members are not sure whether the policy is to do it immediately or after some period of time; nevertheless, they seem to be moving something, in the course of this debate, which conflicts with what the Leader of the Opposition said was the policy a couple of months ago. This is an absurd second reading amendment and the Government totally rejects it. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 October, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 October, on motion by Mr Willis. That the Bill be now read a second time. Amendment (by Mr Blunt)-negatived: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House deplores the delays by the Government in implementing meaningful reform of Telecom and its continuing failure to introduce the full package of reform measures for all Transport and Communications government business enterprises'. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.25) —by leave-I move: (1) After clause 6, page 2, insert the following new clause: ``6a. After section 5 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Subsidiary function `5a. (1) It is a subsidiary function of the Commission to carry on, outside Australia, business relating to telecommunications. `(2) The Commission shall not carry on the business of providing space satellite facilities for use in telecommunications systems for neighbouring regions. `(3) In subsection (2), ``neighbouring regions'' and ``space satellite'' have the same respective meanings as they have in the Satellite Communications Act 1984.'.''. (2) Clause 11, page 7, lines 11 and 12, omit proposed subsection 27 (1), substitute the following subsection: ``27. (1) The Board may, by resolution: (a) delegate all or any of its powers (other than its powers under section 10b and division 4) to a director; and (b) delegate its powers under subsection 11 (2) to an employee.''. (3) Clause 28, page 14, line 28, after ``Act'' insert ``(other than a delegation of the Commission's powers under subsection 11 (2) of the Principal Act)''. (4) Clause 28, page 14, after subclause (1) insert the following subclause: ``(1a) a delegation given under section 33 of the Principal Act (being a delegation of the Commission's powers under subsection 11 (2) of the Principal Act) and in force immediately before the commencement of section 11 of this Act has effect, after that commencement, as if it were a delegation given under subsection 27 (1) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.''. (5) Clause 28, page 14, line 33, omit ``section 10b of the Principal Act as amended by this Act has'', substitute ``section 10b and paragraph 27 (1) (b) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act have''. (6) Clause 34, page 16, line 8, omit ``11 or''. (7) After clause 35, page 16, insert the following new clause: By-laws ``35a. By-laws made under section 111 of the Principal Act and in force immediately before the commencement of section 11 of this Act have effect, after that commencement, as if they had been made under section 111 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.''. (8) Page 17, Part II of Schedule 1, clause 22, item 1, after ``5,'' insert ``5a,''. The amendments have been moved to enable a number of omissions in the Bill to be rectified. Essentially, in the process of drafting the amendment Bill, some issues have arisen which need to be rectified before the corporation Bills come in next year as a second stage of amendment to Telecom Australia legislation. Consequently, some amendments are being moved by the Government to ensure that such potential difficulties are overcome. They relate to the savings by-laws-that is, the Government wishes to ensure that it saves existing savings by-laws; and the legislation as it stands will not do that. They need to retain the jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission pending the commencement of new industrial relations legislation. The Government also needs to ensure that Telecom can continue to provide services overseas, and the Bill at present would not allow that to occur. We also need to ensure that Telecom is allowed to competitively set prices in newly liberalised markets. These amendments will facilitate the smooth transition to the new corporation for Telecom. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(9.27) —The Opposition has no objection to these amendments which are essentially of a transitional nature. However, I shall make just two points. One wonders how the Bill has reached the stage whereby, once again, the Government must amend its own legislation. I am aware that gremlins can creep into the system; yet legislation has become so complex that that is happening more often than not. That leads me to the second point that I wish to emphasise. The drafting of legislation is far beyond the comprehension of the average person. I shall give the Committee one brief example from the amendments that have just been moved by the Government. Amendment (4) states: Clause 28, page 14, after subclause (1) insert the following subclause: ``(1a) A delegation given under section 33 of the Principal Act (being a delegation of the Commission's powers under subsection 11 (2) of the Principal Act) and in force immediately before the commencement of section 11 of this Act has effect, after that commencement, as if it were a delegation given under subsection 27 (1) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.''. I rest my case. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 September, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Amendment (by Mr Tim Fischer for Mr Blunt) negatived: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes the Government's failure to privatise AUSSAT and its continuing failure to introduce the full package of reform measures for all Transport and Communications government business enterprises'. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 September, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(9.31) —On behalf of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), 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 deplores the delays by the Government in implementing meaningful reform of Australia Post and its continuing failure to introduce the full package of reform measures of all Transport and Communications government business enterprises''. This amendment was dealt with in the debate which has just taken place. Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Amendments (by Mr Willis)-by leave-proposed: (1) Clause 31, page 15, line 32, omit ``10 or''. (2) After clause 31, page 15, insert the following new clause: Transitional provision-by-laws ``31a. By-laws made under section 115 of the Principal Act and in force immediately before the commencement of section 10 of this Act have effect, after that commencement, as if they had been made under section 115 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act.''. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(9.33) —I am advised that the Opposition has no objection to these essentially procedural amendments. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 November. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 6, paragraph 4 (5) (b), lines 15 to 18, leave out ``authorising the use of that chemical product'' (wherever occurring), insert ``in which the clearance for registration of that chemical product is expressed to be''. No. 2-Page 16, subclause 20 (1), line 15, leave out the Penalty provision, insert the following provision: ``Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.''. No. 3-Page 16, paragraph 20 (3) (c), line 32, leave out ``proprietor'', insert ``applicant for, or holder of, the certificate of clearance in respect''. No. 4-Page 16, after subclause 20 (3), insert the following new subclause: ``(3a) The Chairperson shall not divulge any confidential commercial information under paragraph (3) (a) in respect of a chemical product unless he or she: (a) has advised the applicant for, or holder of, the certificate of clearance in respect of that chemical product, in writing, of his or her intention so to divulge the information and of the reasons for so divulging that information; (b) has given the applicant or holder a reasonable opportunity to communicate any views which the applicant or holder has concerning the proposed divulging of that information; and (c) has taken into account any views so communicated.''. No. 5-Page 17 subclause 20 (6), line 25, leave out the Penalty provision, insert the following provision: ``Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.''. No. 6-Page 18, subclause 22 (1), paragraph (a) of Penalty provision, line 14, leave out ``$10,000 or imprisonment for 5'', insert ``$50,000 or imprisonment for 10''. No. 7-Page 18, subclause 22 (1), paragraph (b) of Penalty provision, line 16, leave out ``$50,000'', insert ``$250,000''. No. 8-Page 18, subclause 22 (2), paragraph (a) of Penalty provision, line 25, leave out ``$5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years'', insert ``$50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years''. No. 9-Page 18, subclause 22 (2), paragraph (b) of Penalty provision, line 27, leave out ``$25,000'', insert ``$250,000''. No. 10-Page 24, subclause 35 (1), lines 11 to 13, leave out ``and, if the person is not the holder of a certificate of clearance in respect of that chemical product, with the agreement of the holder of that certificate,'', insert ``and, if the person is not the holder of a certificate of clearance in respect of that chemical product, after informing in writing the holder of that certificate of the name of the applicant and the name of any foreign country to which the applicant proposes to export that chemical product,''. No. 11-Page 24, subclause 36 (1), paragraph (a) of Penalty provision, line 39, leave out ``$10,000 or imprisonment for 5'', insert ``$50,000 or imprisonment for 10''. No. 12-Page 24, subclause 36 (1), paragraph (b) of Penalty provision, line 41, leave out ``$50,000'', insert ``$250,000''. No. 13-Page 30, subclause 46 (2), line 17, leave out ``variation of the conditions of use'', insert ``registration, or variation of the conditions of use,''. No. 14-Page 30, subclause 46 (2), line 23, leave out ``variation to conditions of use'', insert ``registration, or variation of the conditions of use,''. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(9.34) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988 was introduced into this House on 28 April 1988. It is regarded by the Government as high priority legislation which will be of critical importance to Australia's primary industry, to the protection of the health of all Australians and to ensuring the preservation of the Australian environment. During its passage through this House I agreed to consider seven amendments proposed by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), and have subsequently agreed that the intent of two of these amendments be incorporated into the legislation. The first of these amendments provides for the immediate disclosure of confidential information in the public interest to address a possible or actual emergency. Such situations could arise where recommendations are not followed, in instances of accident or when new pivotal information comes to light. The second amendment establishes mechanisms to handle submissions already in train which have been cleared but not yet registered. Further consideration by the parliamentary draftsman identified three minor consistencies in the draft Bill which, together with the first two amendments, were passed in the Senate. The function of clearance is to authorise the registration of chemical products by States or Territories. Clause 4 (5) was incorrect in that it referred to `authorising the use of the chemical product'. Reference to the `proprietor' in clause 20 is inconsistent with that used elsewhere in the Bill, where reference is normally made to the `applicant, or holder of, a certificate of clearance'. Complications could have arisen should the proprietor be a different person or body from the `applicant, or holder of, a certificate of clearance'. The amendment of clause 35 removes the possibility of a holder of a clearance certificate refusing the provision of certificates to foreign authorities necessary for export trade. During the Senate debate the Government accepted further amendments to the draft Bill, namely, substantial increases in the proposed penalties, which were deemed to be insufficient for the severity of the misdemeanours and, in fairness to the holder of a certificate of clearance, a requirement that the holder of that certificate be advised of proposed exports of the chemical product. I believe that this Bill will provide a valuable legislative basis for the current complex regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. I commend the amended Bill to the House and present the consolidated explanatory memorandum. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.37) —The Opposition is not opposed to the amendments. In fact, a number of the amendments referred to by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) were moved in this place by the shadow Minister for primary industry, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). The amendments which the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has referred to, particularly the amendment to clause 20, the amendments to clause 46 on page 30, line 17 and the amendment to clause 46 on page 30, line 23, were proposed by the honourable member for Murray and, as the Minister has indicated, the Government then used the opportunity to move further amendments in the Senate and those amendments have been supported by the Opposition in the Senate. Some reservation was expressed about clause 35. In fact, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Association still has some reservations about clause 35, but I think it generally accepts that at this point in time the best has been made of what was otherwise a difficult clause to amend further without the support of the Australian Democrats and the Government. While I am on my feet I would like to point out that these amendments to this legislation further highlight the absurdity of the proposal by the Democrats for an inquiry because this legislation has been designed by the Government and brushed up by the Opposition to ensure that agricultural and veterinary chemicals are used safely in Australia. The proposed inquiry by the Democrats will only add a sense of apprehension to the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia and I believe that the Government and the Opposition would find this unnecessary. Furthermore, this level of apprehension is likely to be damaging to the opportunities that we have for export trade in various agricultural products. In the past I have used agricultural chemicals widely. Mr Kerin —It shows. Mr ANDREW —I was half expecting the Minister to suggest that it shows. I can claim to be relatively free from brown rot, codling moth and those other things with which we are mutually familiar. As one who has used chemicals in the past I concede that at times I have used them carelessly. That careless operation has only ever been as a result of pressure with which the Minister would identify from his own agricultural experience when the weather meant that the job had to be done in a hurry. I find it a matter of great concern that all this apprehension is currently being generated over agricultural chemicals. From my own experience I can say that the use of agricultural chemicals was only ever determined by the pressure the consumer placed on the horticulturist or the broad acre farmer, as the case may be, to deliver a product that was up to the sort of standard that the consumer had come to expect. We have to realise that we are dealing with hybrids in the horticultural, viticultural and agricultural fields in primary industry in Australia today. The opportunity for pests and diseases to take over those hybrid crops has been all too evident. Agricultural chemicals have played an essential role in the development of broad acre and intense primary production all round Australia. I think that in 1988 we would do well to remember that if it were not for agricultural chemicals we would not be the exporting country we are, nor would we have reclaimed the amount of land that we have been able to reclaim, thanks to the astute use of weedicides. I would like to conclude by making a comment or two about the testing of agricultural chemicals, which these amendments are designed to further tighten. Two weeks ago I was at Turret Field Research Centre in South Australia and was interested to find a number of tests being conducted by the Department at the research centre to see whether pea and bean crops had a particular tolerance to a new weedicide that was to be released. I am reassured by my own experience and from what I have seen that the present legislation does a great deal to protect the consumer and to ensure that whatever chemicals are released onto the market are released only after extensive testing. I am pleased to support the amendments currently before the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Mr Humphreys: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(9.44) —The Opposition is not opposed to the quite important Budget related Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 before the House. In considering this legislation, I would like to give the House some background, particularly with regard to the last 3 1/2 years of cutbacks and complex changes which this Government has brought forward on veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and indirectly on serving personnel. I think it is fair to say that one can categorise the area of cutbacks on veterans and so forth into 10 groups. Firstly, in the May 1985 mini-Budget we saw the travel allowance reduced by half to a flat 11.6c per kilometre. This particularly affected country veterans, and there has only been one small increase since that time. Secondly, subsistence allowance, including meals and accommodation, was reduced substantially for veterans-a good deal less government expenditure in this area-resulting in veterans arriving in Brisbane from Kingaroy or arriving in Melbourne from Albury for medical and specialised treatment to find that they were inadequately recompensed for their subsistence during the period that they were required to be in and about the repatriation general hospital system. Thirdly, there have been cutbacks in the dental scheme with four particular categories of treatment being limited to a maximum $300 limit annually with no consumer price index (CPI) adjustments. Fourthly, we have had the totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) pension criteria tightened up and in fact veterans in the retirement phase of their lives are no longer eligible for the TPI. This matter has been partly rectified in this Bill and I will come to that directly. Fifthly, provisions were made for termination of dependants' allowances by commutation, albeit on a voluntary basis, with no further increase in that dependant's allowance. Sixthly, war widows and their dependants, as well as service pensioners with their fringe benefits, no longer have access to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Seventhly, war widows who also receive an age pension will have their social security component frozen at a maximum level of $60.05 with no CPI adjustments. Eighthly, in 1986 a 2 per cent cutback was brought in on Defence Force retirement benefits (DFRB) pensioners. It has not been taken off since, despite the Government saying that it made a mistake in the construction of that 2 per cent cutback. As a consequence, it is compounding. I know my colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) will dwell more on this particular matter when he speaks. Ninthly, from 1 January 1988 we have had a $5,000 plus statutory patient contribution imposed on veterans in nursing homes for war related conditions. Finally, in these 10 big areas of cutbacks imposed by this Government we have had a series of cutbacks in the list of drugs available under the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme along with an increase in the number of drugs now requiring prior authority and adding greatly to the administrative burdens. This is the list of 10 areas of significant cutbacks on veterans, war widows and ex-service personnel. Shame on the Government for this treatment of those who served their country in time of war! Whilst there has to be an economically responsible approach to the deliberations of government, particularly with regard to veterans' affairs, veterans' affairs has borne more than its fair share of cutbacks. This legislation before the House follows on from those 3 1/2 years of cutbacks and complex changes. I think it might be the first tentative step by the Government to recognise that it has meted out some very harsh treatment to many elderly people-to many elderly World War II veterans. To be fair, in this legislation, the Government has brought in some very worthwhile measures and I believe in giving credit where it is due in the context in which it arises. Mr White —A bit late for some of them. Mr TIM FISCHER —But of course, as my colleague the honourable member for McPherson says, some of it is too little, too late. During the winter recess I launched the veterans' affairs policy for the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, as it happened on the same day as that magnificent Changi chapel was dedicated at Duntroon. That policy was all about a fair go for veterans. One of the centrepieces of that policy was the introduction of an extreme disablement adjustment (EDA) to cut in at the 150 per cent rate of disability pension for veterans suffering extreme disability in their retirement phase. I am happy to tell the House and the nation that in its main thrust this legislation adopts the extreme disablement adjustment, patterned on the independent monitoring committee report. I commend that step forward by the Government in introducing the extreme disablement adjustment in the Federal Budget following the winter recess. It is my hope that the veteran will be able to apply for the EDA very quickly-certainly some time after 1 December or very early in the new year. However, I am duty bound to issue a warning to the House that the criteria for eligibility for the extreme disablement adjustment is extremely tight. The lifestyle rating criteria required is six or seven points-not the slightly more flexible five points-and therefore it will be very much a case of veterans with extreme disabilities qualifying for EDA. The Government has budgeted for some 6,000 veterans only to receive this EDA. That should be seen in the context of the tightening up of the TPI pension, which has resulted in thousands of veterans who would otherwise have been eligible not receiving their TPI pension, of course at a saving admitted by the Government of at least $100m a year. On the one hand, the Government is now providing $3m or $4m by way of this extreme disability adjustment, although we will not know the exact amount until it settles down; on the other hand, the Government is in front by at least some $100m following that savage cutback on the TPI, which was originally launched in May 1985, in the mini-Budget, but was then transferred and set in concrete in the Veterans' Entitlements Act later that year. We have a situation where at long last there is some effort to rectify that TPI anomaly through the provision of the extreme disablement adjustment. To the extent that that is being introduced I welcomed it, but I issue a note of warning: the Government ought to be prepared to review the criteria for the EDA to ensure that it is more comprehensively available to those veterans for whom it was intended. Another matter dealt with by this legislation is the provision for a reduction from 100 per cent to 70 per cent in the essential eligibility criteria for the TPI pension itself. That, too is in line with the independent monitoring committee report on the Veterans' Entitlements Act. It is also a step in the right direction, and I give credit where it is due to the Government for picking up on this matter in the Budget context. At the same time the Bill provides greater flexibility for the application date and provides for some consumer price index specific adjustments to amputees and other allowances paid under the Bill which are not otherwise covered by automatic indexation. I have had some amendments examined to see whether we could move to switch those particular allowances which require amendments in that annual amending process to an automatic indexation process. Unfortunately those amendments were found to be outside the scope of Standing Orders, and that is to be regretted because I think it is an unnecessarily clumsy approach to have a specific set of amendments to adjust amputees' allowances, other attendant allowances and the other specific allowances not covered by automatic indexation. Surely, above all, those veterans who are amputees should be eligible for automatic CPI adjustment. That is not the case, and I highlight that aspect. There is another series of streamlining measures in this legislation, but clearly before we proceed to adopt this Bill we have to examine clause by clause the very detailed provisions which cause concern. This I now want to do, because I believe that the House should not be in the business of passing legislation which is deficient in any way, shape or form. The House should be in the business of dealing only with legislation which accurately and comprehensively covers its objectives and it is to be hoped that the Bill will in fact do that. In that context I want to put to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys)-and I am pleased he is in the House tonight-a series of specific matters which I hope he will deal with when he replies to the second reading debate. They are very important matters and go to the detail of this Bill which, I say again, the Opposition is not opposed to. Nevertheless, we want to establish absolutely the effect of some of the clauses and some of the drafting phraseology used in the Bill. This whole area is still being examined. Perhaps that is partly due to the fact that the Government has not proceeded with the normal consultation that it has extended to, for example, the Returned Services League (RSL) on previous occasions, including in relation to the original Veterans' Entitlements Act. On this occasion we have a situation in which the RSL saw the legislation for the first time when the Bill was introduced onto the floor of the House, and to some extent by that stage it was set in concrete. Whilst there have been briefings and consultations, I think the original undertaking of the Government would have been better adhered to; namely, there should have been earlier consultations so that the Government and relevant veterans organisations could study the Bill in detail to see whether any matters had slipped through. We have just seen in relation to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill, the previous legislation before the House, a situation where the Government had to amend its own legislation because of certain omissions, and I now want to highlight for the Minister a number of matters of genuine concern. To be fair, I think they are concerns held by honourable members and senators on both sides of the Parliament. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the transitional provisions of this legislation comprehensively cover every situation relating to veterans who have claims in the determining system and that there will be no detrimental situations arising at either Veterans' Review Board (VRB), Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) or Federal Court of Australia level relating to the Bill before this House if it is enacted as it is presently constructed. Those transitional provisions should be watertight. They should cover applications and they should provide a basis for the Federal Court, the VRB and the AAT to make determinations. Perhaps there is in fact one area where this is not the case. That relates in part to proposed section 24 (a) (i), which the Minister has indicated in letter form will have no adverse impact at all if passed in its present form but which, the Minister goes on to say, may well require some technical amendments. If it is going to require some technical amendments, clearly the legislation in its present form is, by degrees, inadequate. Is that inadequacy, in turn, going to create a situation of a detrimental nature to veterans; a situation where the determining system at VRB, AAT and Federal Court level cannot deal with claims which may already be in the system, may already be the subject of appeal? It is my understanding that, once the date of assent passes, this particular technical transitional anomaly will be covered, but what is not clear is whether it is by any means covered right at this point of time by the construction of the Bill. I seek the Minister's assurance that the transitional provisions comprehensively cover every situation which might arise in the context I have just highlighted. I turn to clause 10 of the Bill, and refer in particular to the part which deals with the rate or rates at which the pension would have been payable `from time to time' during the assessment period. This is yet another complex area of legal interpretation and I understand that clauses 11 and 12, whilst stated in the negative, have some bearing on the application of that particular phrase. I further thank the Minister for providing by way of letter an assurance that this will definitely mean that claims and eligibility for pension for a veteran for a period from his application date to the time of his final assessment, during this whole assessment period until an ultimate decision is made, will be accepted and payment will be made from the first day of eligibility. If that is so, why not say that in the wording of this particular proposed section? Why not say, instead of `from time to time', something along the lines of `from the first day within the assess- ment period when the veteran becomes entitled to an appropriate level of pension'? That would be an alternative form of wording to the existing phrase. As a consequence of the timing of this debate, I understand the Minister will have an opportunity to examine this overnight and reply in his response to the debate. The area of concern in clause 10 in respect of disability pension concerns the range 10 to 100 per cent. In a sense, it relates only to the assessment period. It does not impact once the ultimate determination is made. I accept all of those qualifications, but equally, it is important that we know that the first date of eligibility will be the practical reality applying and arising out of this clause and the phraseology at the bottom of page 5 of the Bill. Not every person or organisation associated with the veterans constituency is satisfied of that. One has to rely on some very complex and often conflicting legal comment when examining this matter. It is not a matter which is essential, for example, to the implementation of the extreme disablement adjustment, but it is essential to getting it right in terms of the veteran and making sure that he will be paid from that first date of eligibility. I seek an assurance from the Minister in that second area dealing with the phrase `from time to time'. The phrase `detained by the enemy' is deleted and the phrase `a prisoner of war' is substituted. This terminology has been sought by Sir Edward `Weary' Dunlop, members of the Ex-Prisoners of War Association and other organisations. It is something which those on both sides of the House fully support. Again, we would like to see placed on the record by the Minister that that change, in itself, will not deny any veteran any access to a pension to which he would have otherwise been eligible, or the successful determination of any claim which he would have otherwise lodged. I turn to the question of the criteria for the extreme disablement adjustment which I have already mentioned. The rating has been set at six or seven points. That is something which the Government will have to look at in light of the practical application of the EDA and those people who will be eligible for that extreme disablement adjustment. The cut-off is still quite severe. The best example is given by taking two World War II veteran brothers, John and Jim, working side by side at, say, Borg-Warner (Australia) Ltd at Albury in my electorate. John suddenly suffers a very sharp deterioration in his war-related lung condition and applies for and ultimately gets the TPI pension. He keeps that pension, which is presently $220 a week, for the rest of his life. A month later Jim retires from work at Borg-Warner, shakes hands with the manager and walks out the front gate. A month later, Jim comes down with exactly the same war-related lung condition. As the law now stands, he cannot get access to the TPI in any way, shape or form, so sharp is the cut-off. At least once this Bill is passed he will be able to get access to the extreme disablement adjustment-or, should I say, he may be able to get access to that adjustment, so tight are the criteria associated with it, I seek a commitment from the Minister that he is prepared to review the criteria after six months of operation to see whether the rating should be shifted from six or seven down to five of perhaps even four points. I also seek an assurance from the Minister, when he responds to this debate, in relation to the peacekeeping forces. We should be reminded that at the moment there are four groups of Australians in very dangerous places, in the Middle East and elsewhere. There is talk of a fifth group going to Namibia. Of course, until quite recently there was also the Royal Australian Navy diving team. There has not been absolute clarity with regard to the coverage under the repatriation legislation of their widows, should that sad circumstances arise. We must be absolutely sure about these matters. If Australians are sent by the government of the day as part of the peacekeeping force to Iran or to the other three areas in the Middle East, they are entitled to go to those countries with full coverage already in place and already listed in the schedule to the Veterans Entitlements Act. That is not the case; that should be the case. The honourable member for McPherson will deal with the matter in more detail. I ask the Minister in his reply to the debate to look at that aspect so that the House knows exactly what the position is and so that the service men and women-I totally reject the term `servicer' which the Style Manual would have us use in that context-who are sent overseas can be satisfied about their coverage, with no ifs, doubts or qualifications. It is a matter of record that we are still trying to straighten out eligibility, for example, for the Vietnam campaign medal. The Government, the Parliament and the nation eventually got around to granting repatriation cover retrospectively to those who served on the HMAS Sydney and other support ships between Australia and Vietnam. Nothing was done until three years ago, a decade or more after the end of our involvement in the Vietnam War. That is why it is so important that these matters be dealt with properly. I have listed five areas of specific concern to the Opposition. They are very important areas to which I invite the Minister to respond comprehensively. I have signified these matters to him in order that he might do so. I hope that he will afford the clarification which is essential so that these matters can be properly determined by the lower House and, likewise, by the Senate. Notwithstanding these areas of concern and the huge number of cutbacks and complex changes imposed by the Government, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. It introduces the extreme disablement adjustment, which is part of our coalition policy; it provides a slightly more lenient basis for qualifying for the totally and permanently incapacitated pension; and it provides a number of other improvements flowing from the Budget and from the independent monitoring committee report. There is also very widespread concern amongst the veterans constituency over delays in the determining system and over the complexity of the system as it stands today. I mention in that context that justice delayed in justice denied. Many veterans have said to me that they are suspicious that their claims are being pushed back, delayed, adjournments sought and obtained, by elements of the Department in the hope that the veteran will fade into the sunset before a decision has to be made and a pension paid. That is simply not good enough. This is a commitment that the nation owes to those who served their country in times of war. It is a commitment which should be honoured in the way in which Ben Chifley once told this House: On this Parliament rests the responsibility of seeing that the right thing shall be done. We know from my list of 10 cutbacks that the right thing has not be done in recent years for the veteran and the war widow. This must be reversed. That is what the coalition policy is all about. We want a fair go for veterans. That is what the Government should be about. Instead, it is taking these tentative steps in that direction and not seeking comprehensively to reverse some of its cutbacks. Before I conclude my remarks and a Government member rises to speak in this debate, let me say that, for example, we have given a specific commitment to reverse the statutory patient contribution which the Government has imposed on veterans in nursing homes. The Government has imposed it since 1 January 1988-in our bicentennial year. It has imposed it on veterans who are in nursing homes for war-related conditions. It has imposed it at a rate in excess of $5,000 a year. What a bicentennial gift for our World War I and our TPI veterans! That is what has flowed from the Government's 1987-88 Budget. That is what has applied since 1 January. That is what I have given an absolute commitment to alter, in the context of our providing and ensuring a fair go for the veteran, the war widow and our ex-service personnel. In that context I move this second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `Whilst supporting the general thrust of the Bill, the House is of the view that: (1) repatriation should be recognised as compensation, and not welfare, in acknowledgment of the service of veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel; (2) there has been a series of cutbacks and complex changes impacting on veterans, war widows and ex-service personnel described as a `penny pinching, miserable and narrow-minded cash-register approach' and typified by: (a) a $300 limit on certain categories of dental treatment within the one year; (b) the halving of the country travel allowance for veterans referred to specialists and Repatriation General Hospitals; (c) the hardship imposed by recent changes in the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; (d) the imposition of a statutory patient contribution in excess of $5,000 per year from 1 January 1988 on veterans in nursing homes for war-related conditions; (e) the massive delays in the determining system, thus denying justice where veterans die before a decision is made; and (f) the 2% cutback applied to DFRDB pensioners in 1986 which has never been rectified despite promises by the Government to do so; and (3) the Government should take account of recent criticisms of Government policies, priorities and administration in relation to the repatriation and system and make the necessary adjustments as a matter of priority'. Indeed, as the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) said, we have had a number of speeches not only from our side of the House but also from an ex-prisoner of war, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who said that the Government had adopted a penny pinching, miserable, narrow minded, cash register and heartless approach. That sums up the Government's policy on veterans' affairs as perceived and felt directly by veterans. That is partially rectified by this legislation, which the Opposition will not oppose because of the positive though tentative, steps it takes to fix up some of the measures which I have described in the course of this debate. Equally, we take this opportunity to say to the House and the nation by way of this second reading amendment that repatriation is not welfare; disability pensions are not welfare; war widows' pensions are not welfare; service pensions are not welfare. They are compensation for what those people have suffered in the service of their nation. Let us also see that those who are still serving their nation and facing loss of their life in the Middle East in peacekeeping forces are fully covered in a time honoured way. At the very least, I hope that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will be categorical in his response to the second reading debate so that these matters are injected into the record and can be utilised by the determining system in relation to the serious queries that I have raised. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(10.14) —I welcome the opportunity to lead off for the Government in this debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988, the latest of this Government's initiatives to improve fairness and equity in the area of veterans' entitlements. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), said at least twice during his speech that he believes in giving credit where it is due. Having worked with him on several occasions, I believe that is his wont. However, perhaps instead of singling out a very selective litany of cuts which this Government has made in various areas, he could have mentioned, if he wanted to give credit where it was due, that this Government has increased funding for veterans' affairs almost 100 per cent since it came to power. The veterans' affairs budget under the previous Government in its last year was $2.3 billion. The veterans' affairs budget this year was $4.5 billion-as I said, an increase of almost 100 per cent. As the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) pointed out in his second reading speech, this Bill is aimed at giving effect to those recommendations in the Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee which the Government accepts. Nine of the 32 accepted recommendations are considered in this Bill. I wish to address myself specifically to three major aspects of the Bill: firstly, the so-called application day provisions; secondly, the relaxed requirements for eligibility for the intermediate and special rate of pensions; and, thirdly, the entirely new payments proposed in this Bill, namely, the extreme disablement adjustment. I consider that the changes that this Bill makes to the application day provisions are a very important step in bringing more fairness and reason into the system of awarding special rate pensions. Until now we have worked under the rather artificial and arbitrary system whereby a veteran's application is assessed according to his state of health or disability on the day of application; that is, the medical report he received on that day is the only one taken into account during the whole decision making process and progressive or sudden changes in the applicant's physical state are not taken into account. We have conceivably had cases where a veteran may have suffered a severe setback, perhaps a heart attack or simply gradual rehabilitation between his day of application and the day of decision, but where this deterioration was not taken into account when the decision was made. This state of affairs is particularly serious when, as in the instance of a case coming before the Veterans' Review Board, the delays between application and decision can be anything up to four years. Even in a straightforward assessment by a departmental officer the normal period for assessment is 90 days. Under these new provisions an applicant's state of health can theoretically be assessed on a day by day basis. Certainly the decision making body can review its deliberations whenever further medical evidence comes to hand, either from the applicant's local medial officer or from a hospital or wherever. The great benefit of this change for veterans will be, firstly, that it removes the onus on veterans to continually lodge applications in accordance with their state of health. The system after the application of this Bill will automatically take these changes into account. Secondly, it means that the end decision will more accurately reflect the veteran's real condition and real need. The second provision of this Bill that I would like to address is the changes to the criteria for receipt of an intermediate or special rate disability pension. At present, the first of these criteria is that the veteran be receiving or be eligible to receive a disability pension at 100 per cent of the general rate. The Veterans' Entitlements Act Monitoring Committee had recommended that this criteria be eliminated completely. This, however, we believe is not in accordance with the spirit in which these pensions are awarded. They are intended to compensate in part for a reasonably high degree of incapacity. However, we do recognise that unemployability can be used by factors other than just pure physical disability and that this need not be the only determinant of the applicant's eligibility. Accordingly the Bill provides for a reduction in the required degree of incapacity from 100 per cent to 70 per cent. The honourable member for Farrer criticised this, saying that this relaxation did not go far enough. Criteria were changed in 1985 when it became clear that the outmoded terminology in the old Repatriation Act was enabling these pensions to be paid to veterans who had completed a full working life. The Committee and the honourable member for Farrer have nevertheless criticised these criteria. They overlook the original intention of the intermediate and special rate pension, which was to compensate severely disabled veterans who could not work on their return from service. I envisage that this provision will be of particular benefit to younger veterans such as Vietnam veterans who under the existing criteria would not rate a 100 per cent disability rating but who would be, nevertheless, deserving for other reasons of an intermediate or special pension. A major initiative of this Bill is the proposed introduction of the extreme disablement adjustment. Existing provisions exclude from the intermediate and special rate pension those veterans who have passed the normal retirement age and who are precluded by this by continuing in or resuming employment. These veterans are disabled beyond the threshold required for 100 per cent of the general rate but have no avenue for compensation. They would be provided for under the extreme disablement adjustment. It is only fair and just that they qualify for such a payment. In technical terms the proposal is that recipients of this adjustment must satisfy an impairment of lifestyle rating of six, that being the average of their scores in various categories. The honourable member for Farrer said in his contribution to this debate that he and various ex-service organisations have voiced the opinion that these criteria are too strict. The honourable member suggested, I believe, that they could be reviewed later. This seems to me to be a reasonable proposal. I understand that, if it is found in the future that the target group is not being reached, the criteria will be reviewed. I emphasise that this proposal is important to enhance the fairness of the veterans' entitlements provisions. The Bill also increases some minor benefits which until now have not been automatically indexed. I commend the Government on this action also. There is one other provision of this Bill which is not a substantial change in that it effects veterans' entitlements but which is, I believe, important in the broadest sense, that is, the restoration of the term `prisoner of war' to denote service personnel who were taken prisoner by enemy forces. In recent times the official term for all people, whether civilian or service, who were detailed by the enemy have been just that-`detained by the enemy'. I understand that the Ex-Prisoners of War Association and specifically, as the honourable member for Farrer mentioned, its President, Sir Edward Dunlop, has been advocating that service personnel detained by the enemy should be officially referred to once more by the term `prisoner of war'. I certainly have no objection to this distinction being made. I personally have a considerable link with the Ex-Prisoners of War Association. The South Australian President of that Association, Mr Byron Fitzsimmons, is a constituent of mine. I met him quite by accident while doorknocking last year as the Australian Labor Party candidate for Hawker, was immediately invited into his home and spent a very pleasant and informative half an hour with him and his wife. Since then we have kept in touch and meet quite regularly. I am very grateful for his friendship and for any information and opinions which he may have on the situation of ex-prisoners of war in this country. Even closer to home, my father-in-law, Dr Bill Harvey, a medical officer in the British Army and a prisoner of the Japanese for four years in Changi Prison and on the Burma-Siam Railway, has passed on many of his experiences to me. I am, indeed, one of the few fortunate people who have read his very poignant diary of those years. He subsequently became the medical director of the Repatriation General Hospital at Daw Park in South Australia. Even now, at the age of 85, he is still an active member of the Ex-Prisoners of War Association and regularly attends its conferences in Queensland. So I am very much in favour of any measure which will assist the status and condition of ex-prisoners of war. In this respect I endorse fully the recent statements by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) in respect of our treatment of former prisoners of war of the Japanese. I have nothing further to add to this debate except to commend the Bill to the House. I believe that it rectifies certain omissions in the existing Act. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.26) —I welcome the opportunity to join in this debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey)-and I am sure that she has a genuine concern for veterans-started off her contribution to this debate by saying how well the Government is looking after its veterans because it has increased the Department of Veterans' Affairs budget from $2.3 billion to $4.5 billion. If that is the level of understanding of Government members-that the requirements of the veteran community in Australia are served by increasing the veterans' affairs budget-the mind boggles as to what sort of treatment veterans will get in the future. The reason that the budget has increased is that more veterans are coming into the system and are demanding more and more services. It is not the generosity of the Government that has led to more services being made available. We heard the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) detail 10 points where veterans' entitlements have been cut back. The budget has had to be increased because veterans are getting older and their disabilities are getting worse and they are demanding more and more services. We must understand in the context of this debate why the Department of Veterans' Affairs budget is being increased. As I said, it has nothing to do with the generosity of the Government. Whilst Government members get up and say that they understand what is happening, very few, if any, on that side really understand what is happening in the veterans' community. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) made a speech in this House not so long ago. He obviously does understand because, as an ex-prisoner of war, he has very close links with the veteran community. Mr Campbell —He is on the Government side, isn't he? Mr WHITE —He gave his side a good old serve, which I will get to in a minute. The problem is that, as the years pass, people forget. Not only do they forget but also they do not understand what sorts of experiences many of these veterans went through. Let me give a brief example. A friend of mine who is an ex-prisoner of war went to this local medical officer a couple of years ago for some treatment. He had never seen this local medical officer before. He explained what was wrong with him. The local medical officer said, `How did you acquire those disabilities?'. He said, `I was a prisoner of war of the Japanese'. The medical officer said, `Well, tell me about it'. That is fair enough. The medical officer at least asked my friend what it was all about. He had never heard of my friend's particular disability and wanted to understand how it had happened. At the end of the story, the medical officer said to this ex-prisoner of war of the Japanese, `Now I understand where you were for those years during the war. But you are very lucky that you were out of the war zone for three years and, what is more, you were on a healthy, high fibre diet. So you really should have no complaints'. Mr Lee —Who said that? Mr WHITE —That was a local medical officer talking to an ex-prisoner of war. Mr Lee —That is a disgrace. Mr WHITE —I mention that because, amongst some members of the community, that is the level of understanding of the experiences of these people. That attitude, unfortunately, is reflected also in this House, which represents the community. It is very easy to say, `Those wars happened a long time ago. These people are now old and their numbers are declining, but the services they are demanding are increasing'. It is very easy to say, `If we turn a blind eye, sooner or later they will disappear'. It is a tribute to the honourable member for Reid that recently in this House he said: I express strong criticism of those Ministers in the Hawke Government whom I have often described as having cash registers for hearts and little understanding or compassion for war veterans or their widows. I think that is a fairly accurate reflection of the views of some honourable members, particularly those on the Government side. It reflects fairly accurately what the honourable member for Reid believes is the Government's attitude towards veterans and serving personnel. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Humphreys-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr WHITE —I digress for a minute to say that the Government's attitude to veterans is reflected in its attitude towards serving personnel. That is why in 1988, in 1987 and in 1986 we have had record losses from the services. The Government does not understand the role of personnel in war. It sees it as a matter of big equipment, big battles, but the personnel are neglected. Month after month in the last three or four years we have had record losses of personnel in the Australian Defence Force because of neglect and disinterest. The Government treats service personnel in the same way as it treats veterans-with neglect and disinterest. We have all heard the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) make speech after speech in this House about defence and never once mention the role of personnel in the Defence Force of this country. Let me quickly give some indication of the number of veterans we are talking about. In the Boer War 16,000 Australians served; in World War I, 336,000 served; in World War II, 557,000 served; in Korea, 16,000 served; I do not have the figures for Malaya and Borneo but I would think probably 20,000 served; in Vietnam, some 50,000 served. Those killed in action numbered 518 in the Boer War; 59,000 in World War I; 33,000 in World War II; 281 in Korea; 36 in Malaya; 15 in Borneo; and in Vietnam, as I presume everyone should know from recent events, 496 were killed. That does not take into account those who were wounded in action and those who were not physically wounded but mentally wounded during those campaigns. Let me turn briefly to the prisoners of war. In World War I, 3,600 Australians were prisoners of war; in World War II, there were some 30,000; and in Korea there were 30. I do not think anyone-unless he has been closely associated with prisoners of war-understands the sort of treatment that was meted out to them, particularly those Australians who were prisoners of war of the Japanese in World War II. The honourable member for Reid has asked for special treatment for those Australians, and I totally support him. There have never been, to my knowledge, any other group of Australians who were subjected to such treatment as prisoners of war. It is perhaps the case in Europe, but I am not familiar with that. The prisoners of war who survived came back and attempted to get on with their lives. Half of the 14,000 or so who came back from Japanese prisoner of war camps are now dead. The other half are suffering from disabilities caused by that severe treatment they suffered during those years. Some of us went to the bicentennial prisoner of war reunion this year which was held in my electorate on the Gold Coast. It was a very touching reunion. The veterans are not complaining; they want a fair go. They asked why they are not properly recognised. I think that is a fair question when we look at some of the priorities the Government had adopted. Recently hundreds of members of the former Government Aircraft Factories were sitting round for months on end being paid full wages because the Government could not find them a job or did not have the guts to sack them. The prisoners of war ask: Where are the Government's priorities? In the last couple of weeks we have had the spectacle of the Aboriginal Development Commission and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs throwing around government money like confetti. An amount of $900,000 was given to an Aboriginal club and the veterans fairly ask: Where are the priorities? Recently we had an abortive referendum which cost $47m. It failed. It was not necessary. The veterans ask: Where are the Government's priorities? In the last few years $30,000 or $40,000 have been spent on supporting the gay mardi gras in Sydney, and the veterans ask: Where are the Government's priorities? Recently we had a spectacle of arts grants. Money was given for a study on motherhood-- Mr Humphreys-I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. None of this has anything to do with the Bill. I ask you to bring the honourable member back to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I remind the Minister that there is an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill and if he cared to refer to the points made in that amendment he would find that the honourable member for McPherson is in order. Mr WHITE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no need to draw your attention to the second reading amendment. My remarks are pertinent because we are talking about priorities. We are talking about priorities of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Taxpayers' money was spent on the study of motherhood and ancient Rome. A grant was given to women surfboard riders so they could find a lower centre of gravity. I think that was the subject of the study. Artists in residence have been funded. The State trades and labour councils have been funded. We had the recent spectacle of the appointment of a new Governor-General who is wandering around the world on, I think, his fiftieth trip spending $80,000 of taxpayers' money. Extra politicians have been foisted on this House by the Hawke Government. We have the easy unemployment benefits. We see people who will not work because the test is not tough enough. I am not talking about the genuine unemployed. Any day in my electorate I can find hundreds of people who will not work. They are out there on the beach and in the surf every day. The veterans ask: Where are the Government's priorities? That is the point I make. It is a matter of fairness and equity to those who have served their country. They also ask where are the Government's priorities in trying to preserve all the things they fought for. They remember when, in 1983, an allied warship-the Invincible-came to this country, was not allowed to dock in Sydney, and was sent away to Singapore. An allied country would not repair the ship, and the veterans ask: where are the Governments priorities? Two or three weeks ago a similar incident occurred when the HMS Edinburgh came to this country. It required repairs, but when it arrived in Sydney we said, `Sorry about that, the union said no. The Government buckled under; you will have to go and find your way back to England on one propeller'. No wonder the veterans question the Government's priorities. There are some good amendments in the Bill and, as the honourable member for Farrer has indicated and acknowledged, it is about time they were made. Those who could not receive the totally and permanently incapacitated pension before because they were not 100 per cent on retirement will now have more easy access to it. That is something for which we give credit, because it is grossly unfair for someone who retired with a war caused disability for that disability to be held against him, because it was not recognised before he retired, for the rest of his life. Therefore, that is an excellent measure. The acknowledgment that a man's or a woman's condition deteriorates after the lodgment of his or her claim is a step in the right direction. In conclusion, probably in the next few months, the claim will be forthcoming from the Ex-POW Association for reparations from Japan. That is a contentious issue. I certainly do not speak for the Opposition in any way on this point, but a lot of the activity on that matter has been generated in my electorate. I have met with the people who feel very strongly about it. Not all veterans feel the same way. The matter should be closely examined, discussed and decided upon. There is no doubt that the German Government paid reparations to people who had been held in German concentration camps. I am not sure of the detail but, so far as I know, no reparations have ever been paid to Australians or anyone else held in Japanese prisoner of war camps. Mr Lee-What about German POWs? Mr WHITE —I am not sure. But what I am saying is that this is an issue which, for one reason or another, has been pushed aside for more than 40 years and that it will now come to the fore. It deserves support for examination and then, eventually, for a decision to be made. Debate (on motion by Mr Lee) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.45) —I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to an outstanding Australian, Air Marshal Sir Harold Martin, who died last Thursday at his home in London. Harold `Micky' Martin was born in Sydney in 1918. As is often the case with remarkable people, hurdles placed in their way which would discourage many others serve only to reinforce their determination. So when Harold Martin was told that, because he was an asthmatic, he could not pursue his love of flying in Australia, he looked for opportunities elsewhere. He went to England. It was wartime. As the threat to Britain from a determined and daring German Luftwaffe increased-and with it the list of casualties from the ranks of the Royal Air Force (RAF)-conditions such as asthma became minor considerations. `Micky' Martin first saw service with an Australian Hampden bomber squadron operating with the Royal Air Force. In 1942, whilst serving with an RAF Lancaster bomber squadron, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). Before the war was over he was decorated twice more with the DFC-the Royal Air Force's highest award for bravery in action. In 1943 he transferred to the RAF's 617 Squadron. This was the squadron which came to be known throughout the world as the Dam Busters-the brave and youthful airmen given the responsibility of dropping Barnes Wallis's equally famous bouncing bomb in the daring raids over the Mohne, Eder and Sorpe dams in Germany's Ruhr Valley industrial area. For the bouncing bombs to have any chance of being effective, the planes had to fly about 60 feet above the water against heavy concentrations of German anti-aircraft fire. Anyone with any experience of low-level flying will appreciate the skill and courage needed to bring a heavy bomber to within the limits required for the success of this mission. On 16-17 May 1943 Harold Martin flew one of 18 Lancaster bombers on a night raid over the Mohne Dam. His plane became a target for German anti-aircraft guns and was hit by exploding shells during the bombing run. Despite the damage his Lancaster sustained, Martin completed his mission successfully and was able to nurse his plane safely home. Although the raid did not totally achieve the expectations of massive and irreparable damage to the dams-and thereby to the German war effort-it was recognised as one of the outstanding flying feats of the Second World War, and those who took part in its planning, and more particularly in its execution, were immortalised in the post-war film and book The Dam Busters. `Micky' Martin continued his distinguished wartime flying career, developing a reputation as a skilled low-level flier specialising in night time attacks on enemy airfields, and dropping flares to illuminate targets during heavy bomber raids. After the war Sir Harold pursued an outstanding career with the RAF. He was awarded the Britannia Flying Trophy in 1947, and in 1963 served as aide-de-camp to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. In 1970 he was promoted Air Marshal, and was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the RAF in Germany and Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's Second Tactical Air Force. He served with distinction in these posts for three years. Sir Harold `Micky' Martin is survived by his Melbourne-born wife, Wendy, whom he married in 1944, and two daughters. He was a true hero, a daring flier, an honourable and gallant man, and a very great Australian. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.48) —The acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) is, perhaps, one of the most fascinating medical problems we find ourselves faced with this century, but it is also a problem of frightening magnitude. Within the community a number of high risk groups exist. Homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and those who require the use of blood products are among those in the high risk area. One of the great concerns which the Government faces and about which all Australians are concerned is that the disease, which is found predominantly in these high risk groups at this stage, will find its way into the heterosexual population. Indeed, there is really no opportunity for us to wait and see what happens. This is a disease without cure and therefore it is necessary, in many cases, for us to indulge in perhaps what might be seen as radical solutions. One of those solutions was suggested last week by the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the proposal is that heroin be made available for AIDS victims who are intravenous drug users. The belief, of course, would be that, along with the methadone program which presently exists for such people and needle sharing programs, this would be a further block to the spread of AIDS within that community and, therefore, into the heterosexual community. Clearly, it is a controversial suggestion, but one that certainly needs consideration; and it was my hope that the Government would take up this program, because we need to start to do some radical things in this area. If one examines overseas figures one finds the frightening fact that in Edinburgh in the United Kingdom 65 per cent of intravenous drug users are AIDS sufferers and that in New York the figure is more like 85 per cent. Those are frightening statistics and clearly ones that should concern us in this country. In Sydney, the figure presently sits between one per cent and 3 per cent. I would hope that by preventive measures and by the implementation of what is seen as a radical program we would be able to continue successfully to control the disease in the way that we are aiming to. When one talks about drug abuse, one faces a larger problem. Recently I read an article in the Canberra Times by Joan Morris, who had just returned from Holland with some interesting insights into the drug problem. We have a hypocritical attitude towards drug abuse in Australia. Clearly, the drugs of greatest addiction are alcohol and tobacco. The motivation of those who sell those substances is no different from that of drug traffickers. Yet there are completely different sanctions on those people. I suppose those are historical and cultural differences, but we must realise that our attitudes are hypocritical in that respect. In my view, the Dutch have a much more relaxed and sensible attitude to the problem. They do not try to hide the problem and nor do they try to overemphasise it. I shall quote from the article, which refers to the attitude of the Dutch: ``Prevention should therefore eliminate the fascination with, and misplaced idealisation of, a user. The phenomenon of drug use should be shorn of its sensational and emotional overtones . . . being a `junkie' should be demythologised and deglamorised''. To this end, the policy is for ``normalisation''-drug takers and even addicts should ``neither be seen as criminals nor as dependent patients, but as `normal' citizens of whom we make `normal' demands and to whom we offer `normal' opportunities'', Mr Engelsman said. Addicts should not be treated as a special category, except when necessary. The Dutch are concerned with the health hazards arising from drug abuse, but feel this concern should not be accompanied by exaggerated attention. The statistics in Holland are quite impressive. Between 1981 and 1986, the average age of drug users in Holland increased by two or three years. Between 1981 and 1986, in Amsterdam, which has a massive drug problem, the use of drugs by people under 21 years of age fell from 14.4 per cent to 5.1 per cent. Clearly, in that country, a more liberal and perhaps pragmatic attitude to drug use has been very successful. Of course, that country has significant methadone, needle share, and heroin supply programs, which are perhaps much more enlightened than programs in our country. As a result, we see an increasing number of people-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TAYLOR(Groom)(10.54) —On 3 November in this place, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) highlighted the importance of the multibillion dollar Anzac ship project, not only in respect of its critical operational implications for our Navy, but also as an ingredient in the very necessary ongoing development of the nation's industrial infrastructure. The project calls for 12 ships to be built in Australia-eight for the Royal Australian Navy and four for the Royal New Zealand Navy. In the Australian of 3 November 1988 I discovered an added dimension to the project revealed in a confidential report to the New Zealand Cabinet by the New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr Lange. That report indicates that both Prime Minister Hawke and Defence Minister Beazley see a successful Anzac ship project as being central to a closer trans-Tasman relationship, with any suggestion of New Zealand opting out of the project as raising questions not only about its defence commitment and credibility but also about closer diplomatic and economic relations with Australia generally. The House will be aware that the project has aroused a storm of criticism in New Zealand, from both peace groups and the Labour Party conference. New Zealand has always been a strong and valued ally of Australia, and should remain so, despite the Lange Government's disappointing attitude to the broader ANZUS arrangements previously in place. Therefore, it is important that Prime Minister Hawke make clear to Prime Minister Lange, once again, that Australia's intention to carry the Anzac ship project research costs, to allow delays in project payments and to provide a special deal on spare parts cannot be taken for granted ad infinitum. To clarify the present situation, I will be placing on the Notice Paper the following question to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley): Will the Minister confirm that New Zealand authorities visited Australia during the week commencing 31 October? If so, was this a routine project visit or are there serious doubts about New Zealand's commitment to the project? If the New Zealand commitment is questionable, can the Minister provide assurances that the project is viable for Australia on a unilateral basis? If the answer to the last part is yes, is the Minister satisfied that the present budgetary cost cap per ship will be sufficient to provide eight operational platforms for the Royal Australian Navy that will satisfy fully the naval force structure requirements set out in the Dibb report and in the resultant defence White Paper? The New Zealand Government should be left in no doubt that if a country fails to meet its responsibilities, that failure brings substantive penalties. Any political ties that might exist between the two governments should take a back seat to the broader Australian national interest. This country needs those replacement ships and New Zealand should be asked to put its money where its political mouth is before this essential project goes the way of many others-down the path of indecision, of wasted resource and towards a further loss of morale in what is already a Defence Force that is clearly bleeding to death. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(10.57) —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to finish what I started. The methadone program to which I referred has been very effective in Holland where there has been a significant decrease in the last five years in the number of young people who are interested and, indeed, involved in using drugs. The program in Australia was focused upon yesterday in the Sunday program on Channel 9. Many of us who watched that report would have been interested to see that, according to the report, there are shortages in methadone in a number of States. As a result, there are queues of people who wish to be involved in the program but who are unable to get hold of methadone. As a result of that report, I made some inquires today in respect of Western Australia. It seems that the problem does not exist there but it is certainly a source of concern. It is clear that the program does not solve the problem but it provides a drug addict with the opportunity to get some breathing space. It reduces the pressure to get a hit and to take part in the other nefarious activities that go along with it. Indeed, it provides some opportunity for a drug addict to normalise his lifestyle. In Holland the experience clearly has been that increasing numbers of people have voluntarily undertaken detoxification and drug rehabilitation as a result of such programs. Certainly, this is something about which we should be ever vigilant in Australia. Clearly, in those States where there is a problem with access to methadone it is necessary to look very closely at the availability of the program to make sure that people are not left waiting on the list. It is at our cost and a cost to our economy if large numbers of people who could be productive citizens are excluded from the program. The problem of drug abuse is, as I have suggested, a vast one. There is a great deal of hypocrisy in our attitude to it. Drugs which are supposedly legal are available and yet they cause massive damage and problems within our community. I refer, of course, to alcohol and tobacco. These are drugs that we have to live with. But, increasingly, we are finding through education and prevention that there is an awareness of the problems associated with these drugs. Those drugs which are considered illegal are another problem. It is important that those who are found guilty of illegal drug abuse should not suffer more from criminal proceedings than from the use of a drug itself. That is an attitude that we need to develop. Indeed, we need to look at this problem as a health problem rather than as a punitive criminal one. It is important that our education, treatment and enforcement be innovative and for radical new programs, such as the one I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, to be considered. Unless we are creative in our thinking, we will find this problem ever increasing and difficult to control. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., in accordance with Standing Orders, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.30 p.m. in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 7 November 1988: Federal Airports Corporation Act-Federal Airports Corporation-By-laws-1988- Federal Airports (Amendment), dated 19 September 1988. Federal Airports (Amendment) (No. 2), dated 26 September 1988. Health Insurance Act-Determination pursuant to subsection 23dn (2), dated 10 October 1988. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Agents Ordinance-Declarations pursuant to subsection 3 (2)-1988-Nos 1, 2, 3. Co-operative Societies Ordinance-Declarations pursuant to subsection 14aba (1)-1988-No. 1. Housing Assistance Ordinance-Variation pursuant to section 12-No. 2. Ordinances-1988- No. 73-Building (Amendment). No. 74-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 75-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2). Regulations-1988-No. 17 (Electricity and Water Ordinance). Taxation (Administration) Ordinance-Determination-1988-No. 2-Stamp (Surrender and Re-grant).