Wednesday, 9 November 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That- (1) standing order 48a (adjournment of House), as amended by sessional order, and standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for the remainder of the sittings this week; and (2) in relation to the proceedings on the following bills, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the bills: Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill 1988; Superannuation Amendment Bill 1988; Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill 1988; States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1988; Child Support Amendment Bill 1988; Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Triticale Levy Bill 1988; Triticale Levy Collection Bill 1988; Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill 1988; Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1988; Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Broadcasting (Limited Licences) Fees Bill 1988; Broadcasting (Retransmission Permits and Temporary Transmission Permits) Fees Bill 1988; Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988; Radio Licence Fees (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988; Naval Defence Amendment Bill 1988; Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1988; Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill 1988; Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Lands Acquisition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988; and Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988. The Government very much regrets the necessity of moving this motion. I think all honourable members would concede that legislation in this House has been batting along at a pretty reasonable pace. Since the session began there has been a great deal of legislation handled. There have been delays. Those delays have been the product of Government and Opposition party committees, in some instances wanting, as is their right, a closer look at legislation. It has also been the product of the fact that we had two weeks out earlier in the year for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. Even though we have caught up in terms of numbers of weeks for what we have usually had at this point, nevertheless, that denied us the opportunity to add additional weeks in this period of the year. I think honourable members ought to be aware that to some considerable degree these days the Senate controls the business in this House. That is a product of the fact that the Senate is putting a deadline on legislation that it is prepared to consider from the House of Representatives in the course of this year. Honourable members may or may not be aware that the Senate in fact intends to activate that at the end of the first week of the next two-week block of sittings. That will put further pressure on us. It will probably oblige me to move another of these motions in the not too distant future. I agree that it is pretty unsatisfactory that we have to do business this way, but in the exigencies of the situation it is virtually essential. There is an alternative, and that is to sit for a substantial portion of December. It is not my view that that is a sensible alternative because my experience as a member of parliament tells me that December for members of both sides of the House is an important constituency month. Most members appreciate the opportunity to be with their constituents for what are usually the wind-up functions for the plethora of organisations that members work very hard for and work very hard to keep in contact with. All these factors have come together to produce the situation in which we find ourselves. The only matter which we need to increasingly think about in this place is the impact of the way in which the Senate conducts business on the way in which we have to conduct business in this House. That is a matter of interest to both sides of this chamber. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.04) —The Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) made out the Opposition's case very well. He said that it is an unsatisfactory way of doing business. I have said on previous occasions that as the Commonwealth assumes more responsibilities and as the population grows, it will be necessary for this Parliament to sit for longer periods. In terms of the sitting pattern for next year, already the Government has given an indication that the House will be sitting for a fewer number of days in the autumn sessional period than in the current sessional period. Indeed, the start is scheduled for late February. The Minister has indicated that he believes it undesirable for the House to sit during December. What he did not point out to the House and to the public is that not only will we not sit in December; the House will also not sit in January or for most of February. It is now only 9 November and it is shameful that, at this stage in the sitting period, the Government should be bringing in the guillotine. For the benefit of the public and others who may read this debate, the guillotine means that the Government is limiting debate, and it is limiting debate on a whole range of issues. I will not read out all of the Bills on the Notice Paper in respect of which debating time will be limited, but I will refer to some of them. The first-the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill-is of tremendous importance because it addresses the financial arrangements for road construction and maintenance throughout the Commonwealth. The Government has neglected road construction and maintenance; it has a poor record in this particular area. So what does it do? It limits debate and reduces the opportunity for members on both sides of the House, I suspect, to be able to direct to the attention of the public the problems in this area and the parlous record of the Government. Another Bill which must be of interest to all families is the Child Support Amendment Bill, and then there is a package of rural legislation. Debate on all of this legislation is to be truncated today to meet the convenience of the Government. I also direct attention to a package of Bills concerning new arrangements for broadcasting. As will be pointed out by the Opposition during the debate on the Bills, the provisions contained in this package will have far-reaching consequences on the broadcasting industry, yet the Government will truncate debate. Right at the end of the day we come to a package of taxation Bills-the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, the Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2). Of course, contained in one of those Bills is the Government's decision to break yet another promise and to introduce a gold tax, but because of its embarrassment in this particular area it will truncate debate on the issue. On a number of occasions I have directed attention to the fact that the Government has the worst record of any government since Federation in terms of reducing time for private members to air their grievances and to ask questions. By reducing the number of sitting days, not only is the Government ensuring that there is inadequate time to consider important Bills coming before the House; it is also again reducing the number of Question Times. I have pointed out in other debates that not only are Ministers taking longer to answer questions but also they are reducing the number of days available in which to ask questions. I say to the Minister, in all sincerity, that he would have been doing Australia a better service by extending the period of sitting rather than by bringing in the guillotine to reduce debate on these important issues. Also, I invite him to reconsider the sitting pattern for next year. Instead of bringing us back towards the end of February, Parliament could resume at the normal time so that a guillotine will not have to be introduced towards the end of the Autumn sessional period. The Minister will bring us back late and then, towards the end of the Autumn sessional period, he will truncate debate again by introducing the guillotine. The Opposition opposes the motion and will vote against it. Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Mountford, J. G.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, JohnGear, G. Scott, LesGorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C.A. Willis, R.Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. JAndrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Nehl, G. B.Brown, N. A. Peacock, A. S.Burr, M. A. Porter, J. R.Cadman, A. G. Pratt, M. P.Cameron, Ewen Prosser, G. D.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanCobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hunt, R, J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldDuffy, M. J. Katter, R. C.Dawkins, J. S. Hawker, D. P. M.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(9.12) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill 1988; Superannuation Amendment Bill 1988; Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill 1988; States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustments) Bill 1988; Child Support Amendment Bill 1988; Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Triticale Levy Bill 1988; Triticale Levy Collection Bill 1988; Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill 1988; Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1988; Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Broadcasting (Limited Licences) Fees Bill 1988; Broadcasting (Retransmission Permits and Temporary Transmission Permits) Fees Bill 1988; Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988; Radio Licence Fees (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988; Naval Defence Amendment Bill 1988; Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1988; Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill 1988; Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Lands Acquisition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988; Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 Question put: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. Question resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows: (1) Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill; For the remaining stages, until 11.30 a.m. this day. (2) Superannuation Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 11.40 a.m. this day. (3) Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill; For the second reading, until 6.10 p.m. this day. For the committee stage, until 6.20 p.m. this day. For the remaining stages, until 6.30 p.m. this day. (4) States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill; For the second reading, until 9 p.m. this day. For the committee stage, until 9.10 p.m. this day. For the remaining stages, until 9.20 p.m. this day. (5) Child Support Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 10.30 p.m. this day. (6) Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 11.10 p.m. this day. (7) Triticale Levy Bill; For the remaining stages, until 12.20 a.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (8) Triticale Levy Collection Bill; For the remaining stages, until 12.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (9) Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 12.40 a.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (10) Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 12.50 a.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (11) Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill; For the second reading, until 5.30 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. For the committee stage, until 5.40 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. For the remaining stages, until 5.50 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (12) Broadcasting (Limited Licences) Fees Bill; For the remaining stages, until 6 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (13) Broadcasting (Retransmission Permits and Temporary Transmission Permits) Fees Bill; For the remaining stages, until 6.10 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (14) Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill; For the remaining stages, until 6.20 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (15) Radio Licence Fees (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill; For the remaining stages, until 6.30 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (16) Naval Defence Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 8.40 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (17) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5); For the remaining stages, until 10 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (18) Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill; For the remaining stages, until 10.10 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (19) Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2); For the remaining stages, until 10.20 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (20) Lands Acquisition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill; For the remaining stages, until 11 p.m. on Thursday, 10 November. (21) Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2); For the remaining stages, until 12.10 a.m. on Friday, 11 November. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I understand it is the wish of the House to debate the Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous) Reforms Bill 1988 concurrently with the Superannuation Amendment Bill 1988. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.19) —It is an absolute disgrace that the Government has introduced a guillotine on the Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill 1988 and the Superannuation Amendment Bill 1988, two very important Bills which are now before the House. A number of questions lie behind the legislation before the House and the Opposition wishes to examine them and wishes to force answers from the Government on them. Yet we find that the Government has allowed a very short time for us to debate these two extremely important Bills. I will now turn to the Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill. This is a Bill which proposes new arrangements for the appointment, remuneration, tenure and dismissal of the chief executive officers of the Australian Shipping Commission, Commonwealth Bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. The Bill amends the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973 to provide that statutory office holders and the chief executive officers of certain government business enterprises will be removed from the formal determination-making jurisdiction of the Remuneration Tribunal. The Bill also has a number of other effects which, quite frankly, the Opposition believes do not go far enough in reforming government business enterprises. As a general rule, where the government business enterprises operate in a competitive environment, they should be treated in a similar manner to their private sector counterparts. In the past, public sector business organisations have been substantially advantaged through favourable taxation treatment and the like and disadvantaged through a host of government regulations and controls. Reform of business enterprises is long overdue. For about two years now the Government has been considering a more level playing field, if I can use the jargon of the times, for government business enterprises. The provisions in this Bill are only an infinitesimal step in what should be an extensive overhaul of statutory authorities and government business enterprises. While legislation containing other reforms has already been introduced into this place in recent days, in the view of the Opposition there is a need to hasten the legislative and reform process. The key point is that the Government must quicken the pace of adjustment and it must speed up its micro-economic reform of which it makes such great play. Anything short of a comprehensive program of reform in all of Australia's important industries will further undermine our competitiveness and hence our ability to get out of the economic mess into which this Labor Government has brought us. This House recently debated the Government's decision to provide a more neutral taxation regime for government business enterprises, such as a removal of excise exemptions. This new taxation regime for government business enterprises will impact quite heavily on their operating costs which will inevitably lead to price pressures. Already Australia Post and Telecom have announced price increases for postage stamps and telephone charges respectively. The inescapable conclusion is that the Government is passing the buck on to the community. It is treating government business enterprises as milking cows for increased taxation revenue. The legislation before the House is not so much an expression of the Government's desire to reform government business enterprises, as a display of the Government's determination to collect as much tax revenue as possible. It is more greed on the part of the Government to build up the Budget surplus than it is a sincere, serious attempt to reform government business enterprises so as to advantage the consumer, and it is ultimately the consumers who will feel the effects. The Government has been less than honest and sincere about its reform of government business enterprises. In the context of organisational constraints there are three major issues that remain unresolved in the Government's so-called blueprint for reform. The role of the Loan Council remains in place. This is because the Government is unwilling to free government business enterprises of global borrowing limits determined by the Loan Council. This acts as severe restraint on the ability of these enterprises to determine their most appropriate debt to equity ratio and also acts to distort investment decisions. The Government has yet to define exactly the new superannuation arrangements of government business enterprises. The details will not be known until March and April next year following a review of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme presently being conducted by the Department of Finance. Moreover, the Government has failed to follow through on its so-called privatisation agenda about which so much was heard earlier this year and which the Government, following its conference in Hobart in the middle of the year, has run away from at a hundred miles an hour. `Privatisation' is a word that is not used by any Government member. At one stage the economic rationalists in the Government, the dries, those who could see that micro-economic reform was absolutely essential, supported this concept but now it has been abandoned. The Opposition believes that many of the existing Government business enterprises should be privatised. I list as examples Aussat Pty Ltd, Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines, 49 per cent of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the Australian Industry Development Corporation, and there are several others. As a first step-that is all, just a first step-towards privatisation the Government should fully commercialise these Government business enterprises. Privatisation is an essential component of a credible medium term strategy of structural and micro-economic reform. Since before the 1984 election the Opposition has been promoting the concept of the privatisation of Government business enterprises but the Government keeps putting the issue on the back burner because it is too difficult, internally, for it to face up to. Too many of the left wing and the Centre Left lack the courage, moreover I would suspect the intellectual aptitude, to face up to this essential problem. Caucus in-house fighting and interfactional brawls have prevented a proper consideration of the privatisation issue. While the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), the former Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, and even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have tried to push along the debate, left wing intransigence has held it up so far. According to the Prime Minister, privatisation is a reasonable and rational reassessment of public sector priorities. He has argued that privatisation would save the Commonwealth hundreds of millions of dollars in capital injections, which would then be available for social programs and even tax cuts. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) shakes his head. He is a man who proclaims to be of independent thought. That will soon be put to test by the gold tax but on privatisation, which is the subject under discussion now, I would have thought that he, in his desire to ensure that equity be returned to social welfare planning and the tax regime, would support the privatisation of inefficient public enterprises. Even as recently as two weeks ago, Senator Walsh, the ever rational Minister for Finance, tried desperately to reignite the privatisation debate by suggesting the breaking up of some of these government business enterprises into subsidiary companies which could then be allowed to raise private equity. This is certainly an interesting proposal worthy of discussion. Perhaps the current Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) will elaborate on this point or suggest new proposals at the privatisation conference he is attending at the Australian National University tomorrow. In the meantime, while this Government is bedevilled by internal dissension, government business enterprises are bleeding to death. Unless they are provided with private equity in the near future, they will suffer a slow but certain suffocating death. There is a need to bust open these government business enterprises to greater competition and private equity so as to improve efficiency, customer service and choice. Until this is done government business enterprises will remain more inefficient than they need to be and the Government will milk them for ever increasing contributions to the tax coffers. I turn now to the Superannuation Amendment Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to make certain government enterprises more accountable for their own performance in managing superannuation. Government enter- prises operating under the new guidelines will be required to report their actions in relation to superannuation as part of their annual report. The Bill also allows the Industrial Relations Commission to conciliate and arbitrate on affected superannuation arrangements. This is an opportune time to discuss superannuation. Sadly, there is not sufficient time allowed to examine even part of this tremendously complex and serious issue, because the Government has guillotined debate. People need to understand that the Government, either through mismanagement of the business of the House or, more likely, through a fear of extended debate on issues such as superannuation, wishes to gag Opposition speakers and, in doing so, cut off the opportunity for some of its better backbenchers to make a worthy contribution. I may add that I do not see any such persons who fill that criterion in the House at the moment, but one lives in hope. One or two may yet enter the chamber. On Thursday, 27 October 1988 an editorial in the Australian had this to say: `The Hawke Government has made a mess of superannuation'. Nothing could more succinctly or pithily summarise the position than that statement, because confusion reigns absolute in the field of superannuation. The May economic statement has wreaked havoc in the industry. Experts, fund trustees and members of superannuation funds remain utterly confused nearly six months later. According to the industry, the immediate problems facing superannuation funds can at best be dealt with only through short term solutions, because the Government, in total abdication of its responsibility, has still not presented the industry with an acceptable course of action. In many ways the funds remain unclear as to what the impact of the new taxes will be. There needs to be a clearing up of the mess that has occurred over superannuation. Where is the legislation? Nearly six months after the release of the May economic statement there is no sign of when the legislation covering all of the superannuation tax changes mentioned in that statement will be tabled in the House. The issue before the House is an important one, dealing as it does with superannuation arrangements for a number of enterprises involving statutory officeholders, employees of statutory authorities and certain Commonwealth owned companies. But there is a bigger issue: what is happening to the industry and all of the contributors as a result of the may economic Statement? It is an absolute disgrace. The state of superannuation under Labor has been a disaster. Ray Palmer, who is well known to people as a leading actuary, says that the responsibility for the chaos in superannuation lies mainly with the Australian Labor Party. Heavens above, who else does it lie with? Labor is in government. It must make the decisions, and it cannot do so. It is as if the complexities defy the abilities of its Ministers to take charge of what is admittedly a difficult question. We are waiting for the legislation. In the meantime there is no certainty, there is certainly no simplicity, and people are unable to plan their superannuation arrangements. There is a massive amount of regulation which, quite frankly, puts small superannuation funds at risk. More than half of Australia's 350,000 superannuation funds will be out of business as a result of the recent reporting guidelines imposed by Labor. Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order-- Mr McGAURAN —Not only do Government members gag debate; they try to interrupt speakers on this side of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Chifley on a point of order. Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, we are dealing with the Superannuation Amendment Bill, which deals with new supervisory mechanisms for the provision of superannuation benefits to Commonwealth sector employees. It has nothing to do with private superannuation funds or small private superannuation fund managers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland might address his remarks to the matter that is before the House. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, my time has almost expired, due to the Government's wrongful gagging of the debate this morning. I will bring my comments to a close. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland has 15 more minutes if he wishes to proceed. Mr McGAURAN —In fairness to others who wish to contribute to this debate, I shall draw my comments to a close. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is bound only by the clock, not by party agreements. Mr McGAURAN —My anger is not directed at you, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is directed at the Government for its totally and utterly irresponsible gagging of debate in this place. One wonders what hope democracy has when a government cuts off speakers willy-nilly on important, sophisticated legislation. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said in a speech in Sydney recently that there should be four central principles for a retirement incomes policy: adequacy, fairness, security and sustainability. Quite frankly, since coming to office Labor has made a mockery of those noble sentiments. Adequacy in what? Certainly not in superannuation cover. Fairness to whom? Certainly not to the thousands of pensioners who will have their pensions reduced. The Minister talked of security. What security? There has been no security. Since this Government came to office, there have been no fewer than seven major changes to pension income and 20 to superannuation. The Minister talked of sustainability and coping with the inevitable problems associated with an ageing population. Yet previously the Minister has labelled such people as alarmist. I move the following amendment, which has been circulated in my name, in regard to the Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the passage of this limited Bill, the House condemns the Government for its continued failure to act on major issues which will allow for the cost-effective, efficient and competitive operation and ownership of government business enterprises and authorities'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the amendment seconded? Has the honourable member finished his speech? Mr McGAURAN —No, not quite. There are one or two further comments that I need to make in relation to this legislation that will be of great interest to the Government. However, I realise again that the Government has gagged us and my comments must come to an end. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The seconder has obviously arrived. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Rocher —I have pleasure in seconding the amendment. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.27) —I am sorry. I did not realise that the shadow Minister for science and energy, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), had concluded his remarks. I am very pleased to discuss the amount of gagging by the Government because the most restrictive aspect of it is that there was not an Opposition member in the House to second the amendment. Mr McGauran —That is not correct. Mr PRICE —I think the record of Hansard will show it. I do not want to have a wide-ranging debate about all aspects of superannuation and all the legislative changes that we may have brought in about superannuation. I want to discuss the Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill and the Superannuation Amendment Bill that are before the House. I first want to discuss the Superannuation Amendment Bill 1988. I would have thought that the Opposition would have said, `Well, look, we're actually supporting this Bill for a couple of reasons'. Probably the principal reason is that it will allow statutory authorities, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, to bring in superannuation schemes that are more closely identified with those similar to or consistent with those operating in private enterprise. Unfortunately, the shadow Minister did not say that. Regrettably, he seemed more fixated about what was happening not with the Commonwealth superannuation scheme but with other superannuation schemes. That is perfectly legitimate, I might add. Unfortunately, it might have detracted from his making a positive statement about this particular Bill. The Bill, of course, will initially apply to Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines, the Australian National Line and Aussat Pty Ltd. Later on, following a review by the Department of Finance, it will allow organisations such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to develop their own superannuation arrangements within appropriate guidelines. I ask the House: Who will be the principal beneficiaries of this? Firstly, the existing Commonwealth superannuation scheme benefits those who see themselves in a career service with many opportunities for rapid promotion. The longer that one is in the service and the higher the stage of promotion one has reached the more attractive this scheme becomes. That is probably fair enough. But it is reasonable to point out that that disadvantages, if you like, those at the work face who do not have those same opportunities for promotion. For example, the current scheme does not benefit the typists, the blue collar workers and the cleaners in the organisation. I certainly welcome this Bill and the reforms that it introduces. They will significantly benefit the ordinary worker who contributes so much to these organisations. I think the proposal will enjoy the unanimous support of the people whom it will affect and the trade union members who represent them. I turn to the Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill. The shadow Minister for science and energy made a couple of comments about government business enterprises (GBEs). He attacked the Government, saying that we are using these corporations as milking cows. He then went on to say that they were bleeding to death. That is a mixed metaphor. If the honourable member wants to get his quotation right, it is `cash rich milking cows'. How do cash rich milking cows bleed to death? It is a mixed metaphor and is entirely inappropriate. The Opposition provides a dilemma for us on this side of the House. Consistently, Opposition speakers say that government enterprises should have the same sorts of restrictions as private enterprises and that they should not be in a privileged position. In government they introduced some of these changes. We have certainly picked up the concept, but in doing so we are attacked. The Opposition says that we are doing the wrong thing. Having worked in a government enterprise, I believe that there should be a so-called level playing field. I am pleased to see that the Government is implementing that concept. I certainly reject totally the charge that the Government is treating these organisations as milking cows or alternatively that they are bleeding to death. Once again we get the call for privatisation from the Opposition-the call it hears ringing out loud and clear from England. As truly independent Australians, Opposition members pick it up and mindlessly call for its application. If we are talking about ideologues or those who are incapable of exercising independent judgment, they reside on the Opposition benches. What this Government is doing, and what it can be proud of doing, is undertaking a complete review of all our government business enterprises. No government has had a better understanding of them. We have put in place measures that either apply to all of them-the Superannuation Amendment Bill is a reflection of that-or apply only to some of them. The significance of the measures is that they are designed to make these organisations more efficient, more effective and more customer-responsive. Let me ask Opposition members what significant reform they introduced in their seven years of government to government trading enterprises-absolutely none, not one significant reform. They are not interested in reform. All they are interested in is flogging off government business enterprises. I am disappointed in the honourable member for Gippsland who I thought, as a National Party member, would have defended organisations like Australia Post and Telecom Australia and would have defended this Government's action in ensuring that rural and provincial Australia will not be disadvantaged as far as communications, mail services and information services are concerned. But, no; the Nationals will not do that. They are in the clutches of the economic dries over there. Wherever the economic dries can get a dollar they will get a dollar. They want to flog off these organisations lock, stock and barrel. They have no interest in them. They have no interest in their long term survival. They have no interest or concern for customer services. All they want to do is to flog these organisations off to private enterprise and then squander the money. On the other hand, Government members are concerned about the long term survival of those organisations; they are concerned about the future of the employees and, most importantly, they are concerned about the quality of service that customers receive from those organisations. A number of reforms to the enterprises are encapsulated in this Bill. An important one, for example, is the removal of the payment of the chief executives from the authority of the Remuneration Tribunal. Such executives, when the boards appoint them and negotiate salary ranges, will have to stand up to international competition. No executive will get the benefit of the new salary without first having to apply in open, international competition and take his chances. One of the other things we have done with these GBEs is to loosen industry reform (IR) coordination. We have taken away the financial planning horizon which in practice used to be little more than six months but nominally 12 months and given them a much longer planning horizon so that they are able to establish business plans approved by the Government for periods of longer than, in effect, six months but notionally 12 months. That is exceptionally important. No other government has done that. Another important aspect of remuneration is the freeing or loosening of IR coordination. Some of these authorities have suffered because their employees have been poached by private enterprise. In not having the flexibility to vary in a small way some of those conditions, they are lost. I am pleased to support these reforms. They are consistent with Labor Party policy. The honourable member for Gippsland, the shadow spokesman on this matter, who spoke before me said that we were treating government business enterprises as milking cows and attacked us for a lack of fortitude in relation to privatisation. I listened to Rod Bastian, who was representing small business, on radio this morning. I am sure that the honourable member for Gippsland would have been shocked to hear Rod go public and say how disappointed he was with the Opposition members. I note that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) is a former small businessman as are many honourable members on this side. It is no wonder that small business is recognising who its real friends are. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.47) —The Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill provides new arrangements for the appointment, remuneration, tenure, and dismissal of the chief executive officers of the Australian Shipping Commission, the Commonwealth Bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. To accomplish this, the Bill amends the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 to provide that statutory office holders and chief executive officers of the relevant government business enterprises will be removed from the determination-making jurisdiction of the Remuneration Tribunal. So after five years of debate, reports, submissions, and more reports, all this Government has been able to do is present us with a Bill which argues about who will decide how much the chief executive officers of four government business enterprises will be paid. One thing is very clear: the Government does not have its heart in improving the operating efficiency of government business enterprises. It has proved that by its extraordinary reluctance to actually implement the changes recommended by a number of reviews which have pointed to the inefficiencies in the current arrangements. Why is the Government moving at such glacial speed? Initial steps in the process of reform are so tentative and halting because the Government refuses to grasp the nettle that blocks the path to reform of government business enterprises because it is terrified of any discussion about privatisation. If it seems that we are dabbling at the edges of this debate, it is because the major issues that we should be debating have been hijacked by factions within the Australian Labor Party. Those major issues are all related to the single word `privatisation'. Last November when the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) introduced the final version of a policy information paper entitled `Policy guidelines for Statutory Authorities and Government Business Enterprises' he said: Unfortunately objectivity in the public debate on achieving efficiency in these Commonwealth business enterprises has often been blurred by ideology. Never has the senator, unwittingly perhaps, spoken truer words because that is exactly what happened to the privatisation debate in this country. I say `unwittingly' because he intended those words for the Opposition. But the fact is that the debate on privatisation in this nation has been hijacked by the ideologues of the Labor Party. The Labor Government has never had an easy time with privatisation. For years the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Treasurer (Mr Keating) slammed the Opposition for our proposals to privatise certain public assets. In July 1985 the Prime Minister said: Privatisation is a one-off fire sale, a sale of the century, of your assets-the assets of the people of Australia. The Opposition would transfer them into the hands of a privileged few, to the cost of everyone of us. Could this be the same man, the same Prime Minister, the same Leader of the Labor Party who said just two years later: As you know I recently called for a comprehensive debate within the forums of my Party on those parts of its platform which express opposition to the sale of government business enterprises. I suggest two tests must be applied. First, does public ownership of a given enterprise mean that significant functions are undertaken that would not be if the private sector had the responsibility for funding, owning and operating the enterprise? If the answer is `no', then, second, what are the disadvantages of retaining ownership of that public enterprise, as opposed to transferring it to the private sector? This in effect reverses the onus of proof. The question should not be: `Why should we sell a given enterprise?' but `Why should we continue to tie up our resources in it?' That was the same Prime Minister who was castigating the Opposition for talking about privatisation but who three years later said, `Perhaps we ought to reverse the onus of proof to see whether existing government business enterprises ought to remain within the Commonwealth domain'. He went on to say in the same speech: Efficiency in the achievement of national goals is the key, not some ideological debate about appropriate aggregate levels of public ownership. That is interesting. Unfortunately, the public conversion of the Prime Minister towards this more realistic approach to privatisation was short lived because he was rolled by his faction-ridden Caucus. Following the Caucus meeting, the executive of the Left faction issued a statement which said: It was an important victory which called on Ministers to prepare proposals which would strengthen and enhance authorities in full public ownership. So not only did the Left say that the Prime Minister was comprehensively rolled but also it said that there was to be no privatisation but there was to be a further enhancement and expansion of the Government's role in the private sector. So whilst the Prime Minister has publicly acknowledged the need for and benefits arising from privatisation he will not act because of the prehistoric views of the economically irrational left wing of the Labor Party. While nearly every other Western nation is moving to improve the efficiency of its government business enterprises by privatising them, we in Australia are left languishing. Last September the Treasurer was hoping that the debate on privatisation would get a renewed boost from this year's Australian Labor Party National Conference in Hobart. He said last September: We will address the matter in terms of the next National Conference and try and loosen up that capacity for the Government to review those things. But the Labor Conference in Hobart last June struck down any hope that may have existed for open debate on the issue when it passed the following resolution: The conference: A. Recognises that a fundamental tenet of the Labor movement is a total commitment to full ownership and control of enterprises in the public sector. . . . . . . . . . D. Notes that no change in current policy affecting these enterprises may be implemented except following decision by the National Conference. There is Senator Walsh's objectivity blurred by the intrusion of ideology. The death of debate on privatisation in this nation under this Government has now left Labor with the task of implementing a program of reform of government business enterprises without what has proved in the rest of the world to be the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of such reform-that is, privatisation. The left will not allow it, so the Government remains hogtied. The use of privatisation to improve efficiency is not limited to the Western world. I direct the attention of the comrades of the parliamentary Left sitting opposite to the fact that on 21 September this year the Soviet Union announced that if 31 of that nation's public enterprises were not able to turn their losses into profits within six months, they would be turned over to private management. We now see that the Left guard, which is controlling the whip hand in the Labor Party, is now further to the left than the Soviet Union's Communist Party. That is how relevant the Labor Party is to today's politics. It is the people of Australia who have the most to gain or lose in this debate. The investment of the taxpayer in the major government business enterprises of the nation is enormous. The Commonwealth business enterprises employ about 50 per cent of all Commonwealth employees. Their fixed annual investments comprise more than three-quarters of the Commonwealth Government's capital investment. The capital accounts of the 16 major government business enterprises represent an investment of $2,400 for every Australian family. Privatisation will provide benefits to both taxpayers and consumers in lower prices for goods and services, wider ranges of goods and services, a more rapid rate of adoption of innovations, greater productivity and a reduced burden on government and Ministers. Not too long ago those involved in the public sector consisted mainly of law enforcement officials, policy advisers, taxation personnel and the military. Over time, government has become more and more involved in transportation, telecommunications, delivery of health care services, education and even shopping centres. Today, of the 480,000 non-military employees of the Commonwealth Government, nearly 330,000 of them are employed in government owned trading operations and service industries. Subjecting those organisations to Public Service constraints instead of allowing many of them to develop as efficient private sector organisations is costing us all dearly. We pay more tax to fund them and more for the services provided. The taxpayers are the all round losers from the Government's failure to grasp the nettle and get on with the job of privatisation. Government business enterprises competing with private industry are at a distinct disadvantage from a management point of view. Under their charters they are unable to react as quickly to the demands of the market or to the needs of the consumers. I understand that the Government has put a guillotine on me and that my Whip wants me to wind up. This is one of the most important issues facing this nation because the rate of change in our community is too slow. The Government has backed off from any significant changes to government business enterprises, and while I will wind up, I stress that it is a significant issue. I understand why the Government wants to gag debate on it; it is running scared. The left wing is manipulating the Government against the best interests of the community, and I conclude by saying that the management of government business enterprises is hampered by centralised decision making, lack of both incentives and clear penalties and the fact that there is often unavoidable political control over key management functions and decisions such as investment, financing and marketing, and even over the scope of services offered. The coalition stands by its policy regarding privatisation, and stands ready to debate the role of privatisation in the reform of government business enterprises. The Opposition does not look forward to years of dreary debate on the minuscule detail of reforming government enterprises. Many of the government enterprises have no business remaining in the public domain, where they unnecessarily draw on ministerial and parliamentary resources, clutter up the legislative process and, more importantly, are not allowed the freedom to get on with the business they do best in competition with other enterprises engaged in similar pursuits, whether they be providing home loans to young Australian families or shipping iron ore to Japan. This debate is not about loosening the control of the Remuneration Tribunal over the terms and conditions of employment of certain chief executive officers; it is about reform of government business enterprises and the environment in which they operate. I urge the Government to get serious about its reform of the Commonwealth Government's business enterprises and support the amendment moved by my colleague. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(11.02) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr McGauran —What are you going to do on the gold tax? Mr CAMPBELL —If the honourable member for Gippsland will wait, he will find out what I will do about the gold tax. I have my mind fairly fixed on a course, and I do not need advice from him. The honourable member for Gippsland was born with such a large silver spoon in his mouth that I am surprised he can even sit down. Mr McGauran —Here we go again; same old routine. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I warn the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr CAMPBELL —In this cognate debate I will address my remarks mainly to government business enterprises. In so doing, I want to say of the last speaker, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), that never was a member so aptly named; he is all bark and no bite. In fact, it is my view that if voting in his electorate were not a congenital thing, he would not hold his seat. I want to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. It is my view, often expressed in this place, that the Opposition does not understand how business works. There would not be one single solitary place, not even Naracoorte or Mount Gambier in the honourable member's electorate, where the telephone system would pay for itself. That phone system relies on a cross-subsidy. This is also true, of course, of the phones in the electorate of the honourable member for Gippsland. Not one single exchange will pay for itself; they are all cross-subsidised by the golden triangle of Telecom Australia-the Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra axis. Do these honourable gentlemen believe that a privatised Telecom would service these people and provide them with world class services at the price enjoyed by the rest of the people in Australia? Of course it would not, and if honourable members do think so, then they clearly do not know what private enterprise is about or what it should be about. One has only to look at the history of things to see that. My mind goes back to the situation of the railways in Britain prior to the war when private enterprise existed. Profits were guaranteed by the Government. The government of the day guaranteed a 5 per cent profit to shareholders no matter how efficiently or inefficiently the railways, for example, were run. This is the nature of private enterprise which Opposition members want. I want to inject two ideas into the debate during the short time I have. Railways are essential to Australia and they are very good at moving freight over long distances. Eventually, I would like to see a unified railway system throughout Australia. In the short term I do not think that is possible and it is probably not wise. Without a doubt, the most efficient railway system in Australia is that run by the Western Australian Government. It is a very efficient organisation, because it is largely decentralised. It is an organisation for which a former Minister for Transport, the Hon. Julian Grill, should take a lot of credit, because he was responsible for a lot of the restructuring. The Australian National is also a very efficient railway system, although it has inherited a lot of problems in the railways that it has absorbed. The idea I want to put forward, and I hope it is taken seriously by the various overlords of the railway system in Australia, is the need to develop a unified freight handling system for all railways. It should be possible to put freight on in Sydney and to have it delivered anywhere else throughout the railway system in Australia, on a system in which all the railways work closely together and divide the profits of that enterprise. I think this would be very valuable. I would like to see the same system applied to passenger travel. In the Trans Australian and the Indian Pacific we have the potential for world class tourist facilities. They are tourist attractions in their own right-or could be, if they were developed properly. For them to develop properly, there is a need for an overall management system. I believe the railways of Australia must work together to ensure that that is the case. They must do away with unnecessary crew changing, unnecessary train changing and unnecessary engine changing. All those things must be unified in the interests of efficiency. If those two ideas are taken up, I believe I will have made a useful contribution to the debate. The Bill also opens up the area of industrial relations. I say to Australian National, in particular, that there is what I perceive to be a serious decline in the morale of the staff of Australian National, particularly at the Parkeston depot in Western Australia. It is nonsense, in my view, that we should have Parkeston and West Kalgoorlie so close together; and I believe we should have an amalgamation. That will need goodwill and commonsense on the part of both Australian National and Westrail. We cannot have a recurrence of the outrageous situation in New South Wales whereby Australian National pays for much of the infrastructure facilities at Broken Hill, yet the New South Wales Government has all the control. That is manifestly unfair, and I can understand why Australian National is wary of that happening in Western Australia. I urge both parties to show reasonable commonsense. I believe that will occur and that we will see an amalgamation, with its consequent economies. In the meantime, Australian National has a very strong obligation to let its people at Parkeston know what is happening. I perceive morale there to be low because people have been kept in the dark; they simply do not know what is happening. It is not as though these people are at all militant; the level of industrial strife is very low indeed. But if this simple problem of communication is not addressed, I predict that there will be industrial trouble in the New Year-and I will lay the blame for that entirely and squarely at the door of the management of Australian National. In terms of the potential to increase Australia's export earnings, there is probably no greater potential than that of the Australian National Line (ANL). I believe ANL has the capacity to earn a lot of dollars for Australia, and also to give Australia the security that an island nation requires. I would like to see a continued development and expansion of our shipping lines. That will require a lot of goodwill and a lot of commonsense-and a lot of goodwill on the part of the union. I believe the Seamen's Union has the capacity to act in that way. In talks I have had with the union, I have found that among the ranks there are people of commonsense and understanding. It is nonsense to talk in isolation about the overmanning of Australian crews. We cannot reduce the manning of our ships until we build ships that are suitable to be manned with fewer crew. It simply cannot be done; it would be both dangerous and foolish to do it. There is also a need for capital injection, a capital injection that has been denied for many years. It is interesting to listen to the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) when he gets up and barks about the inaction of this Government-especially when we consider the actions of this Government as compared with the actions of his Government. That Government was in power in Australia for seven years. It had unlimited power; it had control of both Houses of the Parliament. What did that Government do in terms of trying to bring government enterprises into the present day? It did nothing. It was absolutely frozen in its attitude. That contrasts very sharply with the actions taken by this Government. I am not a mindless privatiser; nor do I believe entirely in the free market economy, because, from my observations, it certainly does not work. Rational economists make the grave mistake of believing that we live in a rational world. That is their achilles heel. However, I believe in efficiency, and in privatisation, where it is the appropriate course. But to talk about big business being efficient is absurd. If honourable members opposite ever had any dealings with large corporations, with large insurance companies or large mining companies, they would find them more bureaucratic than-or at least as bureaucratic as-most government departments. When one talks about bureaucracy, no doubt there is a wide variance. I can single out government departments that are extremely bureaucratic. Others, I believe, are more forward looking. Such attitudes display both a lack of understanding and a simple lack of knowledge-perhaps because of a blind adherence to rhetoric. When honourable members opposite talk about efficiency, they really should define exactly what efficiency means. There are many things I would like to add to the debate, but I shall have to confine my remarks to those points. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.12) —Interestingly, as far as the Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reform) Bill is concerned, a great emphasis was placed on the appointment of chief executives to these restructured state enterprises; and I shall come back to that point. The legislation seeks the reform of certain minor aspects of the operation of some government-run business enterprises. Indeed, so minor are the proposed reforms that we have before us a classic example of how shallow the Government's rhetoric about micro-economic reform, beginning in the public sector, really is. If the much talked about structural reforms are to have any lasting effects, they must involve a good deal more than increasing the ability of government instrumentalities to pay more for their senior executives. No matter how competent the chief executive is, he or she cannot overcome the limits of an organisation that in its conception is fundamentally flawed. In the case of government owned business enterprises, no executive officer can overcome the fundamental problems and dilemmas of government ownership, which produces an economy that is less efficient than it might be and which increases the burden on the limited resources of taxpayers. This Bill will allow the portfolio Minister to appoint chief executives of the Australian Shipping Commission, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. All of those bodies must be considered prime candidates for privatisation, if not under this Government then certainly under a government led by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The proposed reforms to government enterprises, of which this legislation forms a part, make sense only if the reformed businesses are eventually privatised. If privatisation does not occur, we shall discover that the blusters of both the present Government and the Australian Labor Party about reform will have produced little in the way of greater efficiency but will have reduced the accountability of government-owned enterprises and businesses to both the Government and, more importantly, the Parliament. The danger of declining accountability can be illustrated by two particularly outrageous and topical examples. The first is being investigated by the Senate Privileges Committee and involves the refusal of the Aboriginal Development Commission to answer questions from Senate committees after a decision by the ADC's independent board. Of course, this follows on from a series of allegations about the inefficient operations of the Commission. It helps to show the problems of accountability when the role of government expands beyond reasonable bounds. Independence from the scrutiny of Parliament and legislative responsibilities might in some way offer efficiencies to government business enterprises, but it removes some incentives to work in the interests of Australians. It does not impose on those enterprises the disciplines of the market-in fact, the opposite is true. The Aboriginal Development Commission has not been sufficiently accountable to Parliament and the result has been a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money. Clearly, these problems are not simply those of the constraints of government preventing the Commission from competing with the private sector. Yet when it comes to government business enterprises, the Australian Labor Party would have us believe that the reputation for inefficiency which the public sector undoubtedly has is only the result of not having a commercial structure. This is not true. The failures of government when it expands beyond those quite narrow limits for which it was instituted and for which it exists are the result of fundamental causes which cannot be wished away by the will of democratic socialists who have seen so many of their other hopes dashed by reality. This brings me to a second illustration of the problem of accountability in government business enterprises-the record of the Western Australian Government when it gets involved in the private sector as a participant rather than an independent arbiter. The Western Australian Government is the model which many honourable members opposite saw as a way out of the privatisation debate. The corporatist policies of the Dowding and Burke governments saw government-owned business enterprises as a great contributor to the revenue of the State government, growing through entrepreneurial activity, clever management and the support of the local private sector-a tool to keep local resources in local hands. To achieve these ends the State Labor governments have formed a number of companies along commercial lines and reformed the management of government assets to be able to take up commercial opportunities. The Western Australian Development Corporation (WADC), Exim and Goldcorp are amongst these new government-owned companies. The State Government Insurance Office was merged with the Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust and given a new charter as the State Government Insurance Corporation. The Superannuation Board was restructured and the Rural and Industries Bank was encouraged to seek new opportunities for growth in a similar way. If I have the time I will go on to show that the reforms which the Western Australian Labor Government first began to implement in 1983 are substantially the same as the Federal Labor proposals for changes to government business enterprises contained in this Bill and the proposals for corporatising various government authorities. The lessons from the experience in Western Australia about the accountability of government agencies and the executive arm of government to Parliament and the people must be learnt thoroughly if the same mistakes are not to be repeated. We should remember that the tragic loss of taxpayers' money in the Rothwells Ltd fiasco would have been avoided if correct principles of limited government had been adhered to and observed by that Labor Government. These events and the principles which they so eloquently demonstrate were anticipated by some of the more perceptive commentators. Notable amongst them was an Associate Professor of Politics at the University of Western Australia, Professor Patrick O'Brien, who published two devastating critiques of the Burke Government, only to be vilified by the hacks of the Labor Party for his trouble. Before the event he correctly identified the problems of the Western Australian Labor Government as more than just errors or the personal corruption of looking after mates and associates; but the result of a particular approach to government which he identified as corporatist. Essential to this idea of corporatism is the blurring of differences between government, business and trade unions through tripartite councils, close personal links between representatives of all three groups, and government involvement in business and union affairs to facilitate the corporatist model. This Bill looks at government business enterprises, so it is not now appropriate to go through the intricate web of activities of the Labor Party in government in Western Australia which have been widely seen to be, and are in fact, corrupt. However, I urge all members of this House to read Professor O'Brien's article on the issue which is published in this month's edition of Quadrant since I cannot believe that many members, or even some members, of the Labor Party would really approve of the actions of their Western Australian counterparts. The new government business enterprises in Western Australia were created on a basis as commercial as is possible for an instrumentality of the Government. That is acknowledged. The Western Australian Development Corporation, although established by an Act of Parliament, is subject to minimal scrutiny by the Western Australian Parliament and actually hides behind commercial confidentiality or, when it is convenient, Crown privilege to avoid the accountability of traditional government authorities. The WADC produces an annual report which, as honourable members would appreciate, is often late and is not subject to the investigations and scrutiny of the State Auditor-General. Complicating the examination of the WADC is its ownership of a number of companies which either invest or operate other functions on its behalf. The State Labor Government was particularly proud of securing the services of a prominent businessman to be the Corporation's Chief Executive. He is a personal friend of mine, one whom I respect and admire for his achievements in the private sector. However, the WADC is a classic example of the type of government business operation that the Keating-Hawke Labor Government risks creating with its so-called reforms. The record of the WADC is, to say the least, uninspiring. Its profits are mainly derived from the privileges conferred on it by the State Government, or what can only be described as creative accounting. The privileges which I refer to include the disposal of government-owned land and assets, management of funds which had previously been the responsibility of the State Treasury, trade in legal tender gold coins, advantages in securing development approvals and a favoured position when dealing with government departments. For those reasons, the Corporation is becoming a more popular joint venture partner for those seeking to avoid possible difficulties with other State government authorities, and that is how it is being utilised. Because of an arrangement which I feel loath to honour as the Government has applied the guillotine, I am unable to continue my remarks. Out of respect for my colleague the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), I will leave it there. I simply want to say that we are a fair way along the track. These measures indicate that we could go further down that track if we do not learn the lessons which have been so starkly presented to us in Western Australia and which have matured in recent times. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(11.24) —The actual content of the Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill and the Superannuation Amendment Bill relates to new changes to the procedure for the appointment and remuneration of senior executives in the Australian Shipping Commission, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the underlying principle being to free these enterprises from excessive government control over their day to day operations and to allow them to become more competitive and efficient commercially. Under the new arrangements, appointments of chief executives will be made by the relevant portfolio Minister upon receiving a recommendation from the enterprise board in the relevant authority. Chief executives appointed in this fashion will have no security of tenure. This procedure will ensure that a Minister makes decisions in close consultation with officials from the government business enterprises (GBEs) for which he is responsible. The terms and conditions of employment for chief executives will be determined by each individual enterprise board in the GBEs covered under this legislation. These boards will also be responsible for the determination of remuneration for their chief executives and, for this purpose, the legislation amends the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. The Remuneration Tribunal will no longer have the power to make determinations in regard to chief executives. However, it is a requirement of this legislation that enterprise boards consult with the Remuneration Tribunal in the course of their determinations in this area. Enterprise boards will also make determinations on remuneration for their senior executives consistent with the arrangements determined for chief executives. The Superannuation Amendment Bill 1988 is also aimed at the removal of government restrictions on the operation of GBEs. It enables ministerial guidelines to be laid down for the payment of superannuation. GBEs can then operate within these guidelines without the need for further reference to the Minister for Finance. That is the actual content of the legislation but obviously as the debate has unfolded it has broadened into a more general consideration of issues relating to privatisation and the performance of government enterprise generally. We have also seen a number of utter irrelevancies brought into the debate, such as the proposal for a gold tax, the performance of the Aboriginal Development Commission and so on. There is very limited time in this debate and I thought it might be appropriate to make a few observations about the privatisation argument because that seems to have figured fairly prominently. An earlier speaker seemed to liken the position of those opposed to privatisation in the Australian context to defenders of the highly and totally bureaucratically planned economies of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Of course, that is an utter absurdity. The public sector and the government business enterprises in Australia carry out a fairly restricted range of activities, substantially relating to the provision of infrastructure which is crucial for economic development. If we are going to talk about the Australian case we should focus on the performance of Australian government business enterprises in that area and whether there is any reason to believe that simply transferring those enterprises from the public to the private sector will confer any significant economic advantages. The first aspect of that argument on which I thought I might comment is the fiscal argument for privatisation-that if the Government privatises enterprises it will derive a windfall gain from the proceeds of the sale of those assets. It is further argued that in the case of the United Kingdom under the Thatcher Government that has been utilised to facilitate tax cuts. Also, the argument runs that if one privatises public enterprises then the Government will not have to fund out of Budget outlays necessary capital injections into those enterprises and thus it opens up the possibility of the Government spending the same money in other areas. That is an argument which has a certain superficial appeal, but I believe that if it is rigorously analysed from an economic point of view it is utterly spurious. The economic literature on the subject is quite unambiguous. The main thrust of the credible economic literature on this is that unless there are very specific reasons to think that transferring an enterprise from the public to the private sector will, by that very change of ownership, lead to a significant increase in the efficiency with which that enterprise operates, then the argument about the claim that one gets a fiscal advantage from selling off the enterprise is quite spurious. Any benefit that one gets is purely cosmetic. It is purely a function and a result of the type of national accounting conventions that we have in Australia which treat the sale of an asset as a negative outlay. Obviously if one sells an equity in a government business enterprise and that is treated as a negative outlay, it reduces outlays and does so without seeming to increase revenues. On the surface we get quite an attractive picture coming out of that. But if we adopt national accounting conventions which are more in accord with those utilised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations, there is a quite different accounting treatment of sales of government assets and also of capital injections into government business enterprises. The focus in those systems is on what is termed the general government deficit which abstracts from those effects. The point is that if the Government sells equity in a government business enterprise on the one hand its spending requirements on the surface are less because it does not have to inject capital and as a result of that its borrowing requirement is less and so there is a smaller requirement to service public debt. In the final analysis the saving is the reduction in the resulting public debt interest. On the other hand, however, by selling equity in a government business enterprise the Government forgoes a future stream of dividend income that otherwise would have flowed into that enterprise. According to the economic theorists, unless there is reason to suppose-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 11.30 a.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Holding: 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 Hand) read a third time. Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by Mr Robert Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(11.31) —This is the fourth significant piece of roads legislation introduced by the Hawke Government since 1983. This Government has an unparalleled record in the 65-year history of Commonwealth road funding. It is a record of failure, theft, deceit, broken promises and economic incompetence. Never before has any government been so short-sighted and stupid as to introduce road funding legislation which cuts expenditure levels in money terms and introduce legislation to cut funding to an established program. Yet this Government is so myopic that it has done both of these things and, despite promises to the contrary, repeated them. Time has exposed the lack of commitment by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to his word. In 1984 he undertook that the Hume Highway would have four lanes all the way between Sydney and Melbourne in time for Australia's bicentenary. The clock is ticking away, it is now November, and I just wonder how many uncompleted miles of four-lane highway there are. I am sure the people of Queensland will also remember the promise made by the same Prime Minister about the Bruce Highway. I think his attitude to road funding and to promises about that and other areas of government activity highlights his lack of commitment to honouring his words and the totally arrogant approach of his Government. Some time ago, when the first ever cut of $50m to an established road program was made by this Government, Australia was told that this decision was prompted by exceptional economic circumstances arising from international events and would not be a precedent for the Hawke Government's future road expenditure. How long did it take for the Government to repeat that action? The answer is that it was about two months before a further $20m was ripped off the Government's new Australian land transport program to mark the third such funding cut in a little over 12 months; the first being when the program was introduced. The story goes on. The Bill before the House again sees the Hawke Government cut road expenditure in money terms. It marks another failure in the Hawke Government's self-determined program of micro-economic reforms, which has become a bit of a joke. The transport portfolio really highlights the failure of this Government to come to grips with what it describes as `hard decisions'. In 1983-84 when the coalition's legislation determined the level of Commonwealth road expenditure, expenditure on roads stood at $1,203m, representing 66 per cent of diesel and petrol excise revenue collected from road users. This record belongs to the Liberal and National parties; in fact it belongs to my National Party colleague the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), a former Minister for Transport. It has nothing to do with the approach of the Hawke Government to road funding, or its commitment to providing for the maintenance of this important infrastructure in our community. What has happened to road funding since is so appallingly bad that any honest member of the Australian Labor Party would be embarrassed to debate the issue in public. From that peak expenditure level-I repeat, established by a coalition Government-the Hawke Government's decisions have cut funding to $1,215m in the current financial year. Yet it has the nerve to brag about it. As we all know, the Hawke Government has talked long and hard about battling inflation but its record on inflation is about as good as its record on road funding. Therefore, when we look for a measure of the decline in real road building effort we perhaps should turn to the Government's own Ministers to provide the evidence of just how savage the funding cutbacks have been. Only this year, on 24 May, the Minister for Finance, Senator Peter Walsh, advised that in 1987-88 dollar terms the Government's road expenditure during 1987-88 was $1,244m compared with a peak some four years earlier-going back to when the level of expenditure was determined by a coalition Government-of $1,593m. Again that was under the policy of the honourable member for Gwydir. Senator Walsh's own admission proves that road funds have been cut by $350m in four years. This latest decision chops another $100m, giving a total reduction of $450m. That is how much the Hawke Government has cut off road funding during its period in office. It has stolen the full value of the Australian bicentennial road development (ABRD) program from the people of Australia, but it has maintained the 2c per litre levy introduced to pay for it. If we look forward to the turn of the century, that theft, that misappropriation, will add up to in excess of $5 billion. Later I will identify what this means in terms of genuine cost to Australians-costs relating to economic activity, social factors and, most appallingly, the number of Australians who will die on our roads during the period. The Hawke Government's contempt for road users does not stop merely at cutting expenditure levels. This desperate Government has ripped off road users in virtually every Budget it has introduced. The result is that fuel excise rates for diesel and petrol are at an all-time high of more than 21.5c per litre. So when the road user fills up his vehicle, he can look at the price per litre and remember that 21.5c of it goes to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Grim Reaper himself. That is about 40 per cent of the final pump price in most areas. Yet I recall when the Treasurer was in opposition he talked about each petrol pump being an office of the Australian Taxation Office. He was really referring to what he was going to do. It was his intention to turn every petrol pump into an office of the Australian Taxation Office. Soon we will have pictures of Trevor Boucher on the top of each pump. In the starkest possible terms the Hawke Government has managed to slash the relativity between what it spends on roads and what it collects from road users from a situation in 1983-84, under the policy of the Liberal and National parties, when 66 per cent of excise was spent on roads, to less than 23 per cent of excise being spent on roads today. That underlines starkly the approach of this Government to road funding and its approach to imposing tax on fuel. I invite members of the Labor Party to justify that action when they respond in this debate. The cynicism of this Government in its exploitation of the Australian motorist was probably greatest when in the August 1986 Budget it made the third roads expenditure cut in little more than 12 months, while increasing fuel excise rates by 3c a litre in the same Budget. That sort of arrogance, that sort of contempt, has become a hallmark of this Government. This Government's record of cutting $450m in road funds so that the share of fuel excise going to roads is below 23 per cent speaks volumes for the absolute contempt it has for the road users of Australia-in fact, for the taxpayers of Australia. One can only conclude that roads do not matter to the Government, that they are not important to the Government's economic and social priorities. In fact, one Minister is reported as having said, `What do a few more potholes matter?'. They really do not understand. They do not understand how short-sighted their policy approach is. These decisions are already costing Australia dearly and will continue to do so while the Government is allowed to get away with this appalling record on road funding. I see the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) has joined us in the House. I hope that he will not continue to grin about this subject because it is a very serious matter. A number of industry associations and road user groups have been working hard to try to convince the Government of its mistakes. Mr Robert Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I cannot allow the honourable member's comment to go unchallenged. I was just conveying my greetings to the other shadow Minister at the table. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BLUNT —Again, this is an example of how the Government is determined to stifle debate on this important subject. This Bill is being debated under a guillotine and the Minister takes frivolous points of order in order to reduce the time available for debate. He should be ashamed of himself. When this speech is circulated-and it will be-that point will be noted by road user organisations. I look forward to the Minister's response explaining his actions. Let me get back to the main issue, which is more important than the attitude of the Minister. Like other Ministers who have held his job, I am sure he will be shuffled fairly shortly. The Government has been oblivious to these comments, and in fact the Minister has been critical of road user organisations for even daring to criticise the policy that has been handed down from on high. The Executive Director of the Australian Road Transport Federation (ARTF), Mr Gamble, has described the Government's decision as `economic madness redoubled'. He is a very responsible person who represents road user organisations right throughout Australia. The Australian Road Transport Federation has estimated that the cumulative effect of the Government's road funding cuts will cost Australia very dearly. It will cost almost 7,000 lives and untold injuries through more road crashes, in excess of $4.2 billion in higher vehicle operating costs, over $3 billion in Australian industry because of lower productivity created by longer journey times, and the inevitable increase in inflation as industries pass on operating costs to consumers. Yet inflation is a priority for this Government. Let me take one simple example. The road transport industry estimates that it now costs $1 for every minute that a major freight vehicle is held up in traffic. The $5 billion-plus that the Government has ripped off road funding cumulative to the turn of the century could go a long way to saving an enormous number of those minutes. The Australian Automobile Association (AAA), another major and respected organisation which represents some 4.7 million road users, has embarked on a public campaign to highlight the short-sighted approach of the Government, yet it was roundly criticised by the Minister for daring to come out and criticise the Government's policy publicly. As recently as June, when the then Minister for Transport and Communications Support, the present Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris), was bemoaning the high cost of road crashes in terms of its economic burden on Australia, he stated that the cost per crash victim ranges from between $450,000 for a fatality to $6,000 for a victim with minor injuries, and the overall cost of road crashes in 1987 was estimated by the Government's own organisation to be $5.7 billion. In the same statement the then Minister referred to the Federal Government's objectives for road safety, including the construction of better roads. Members of the Government might remember that the former Minister initiated a campaign in which he told us that better roads are safer roads. So according to one of the many previous Ministers who have recently been responsible for roads, the better the road system, the greater the road safety benefit. On 12 April the former Minister for Transport and Communications Support highlighted the dramatic benefits that road improvements can have on safety, so much so that he expressed the hope that these improvements were not going to be offset by less careful driving which, according to the current Minister in a celebrated press statement, seems to be the only cause of road accidents. That, quite frankly, is a disgraceful approach. The former Minister said at that time: A huge investment by the Federal Government in roads improvements, increased road safety campaigning and the development of safer vehicles have all contributed to saving lives . . . He went on to identify a number of major road improvements and compared crash figures on new roads with figures for those they had replaced. To take a couple of examples from that press report, the Minister referred to the Calga-Somersby section of the Pacific Highway saving nine lives a year and the Wyong bypass reducing road crashes by 88 per cent a year. That Minister went further in highlighting the benefits of the Wyong bypass. He pointed out that, because of the reduced number of deaths and injuries on the Wyong bypass, the savings to the community were estimated at $9.6m per year. That was just one project. In fact, as industry representatives have pointed out, on some of these projects the rate of saving lives has worked out at about one life per year saved for each $4m in road building effort undertaken; yet the Government is cutting road building expenditure by $450m a year. The fact is that it cannot get away from taking responsibility for this matter. If one Minister is prepared to say that road expenditure saves lives, another Minister cannot say that the major problem with road safety and road deaths is careless driving. They cannot have their cake and eat it, too. The current Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support has attacked the Australian Automobile Association for pointing out the number of lives that will not be saved because of the $450m a year that the Government has slashed from Australia's road building effort. In a statement on 11 October, to which I have alluded previously, the Minister advised us that he was enormously disappointed with the nature of the campaign being conducted by the Australian Automobile Association. The Minister went on to say: . . . it is counter-productive to have campaigns of this kind which can leave the motoring public with the impression, for example, that the number of crashes on the roads, including almost 3000 fatalities during the last year, result from the condition of the roads. . . The previous Minister was busily singing from the tree tops about how the Government had saved lives by spending money on roads. The Minister continued: These organisations, our research, public knowledge, public understanding, indicate quite clearly that the main reason for the level of crashes and for the level of fatalities rests with the motorists themselves because they do not modify their driving behaviour to fit the conditions of the roads upon which they happen to be travelling. . . What a ridiculous statement to make! When the roads degenerate into dirt tracks, what are we supposed to do-get out and walk beside the cars? One could gain the impression from this almost hysterical response that road improvement would make absolutely no contribution to saying lives and reducing the number of road crashes. We have this totally contradictory approach by two successive Ministers. Before the current Minister criticises others for their assessment of what losses have been caused by this Government's road funding cutbacks, he should come clean and provide his own estimates of how great those losses are. I will be interested to see whether he does so when he sums up this debate. Nor can the Government hide behind the tired old excuse trotted out by the current Minister that anyone who wants more money spent on roads must tell the Government where to cut other programs. On 17 August he acknowledged that it would be possible to spend more funds on roads-for example, a further $420m-`but it would have to come from other Federal programs'. It is a shame that the Minister was not in the confidence of the Treasurer, because the Treasurer had the answer, had the Minister been able to talk to him before the last Budget was handed down. It did not have to come from other Federal programs; the Treasurer gave it away by cutting $400m from the beer excise. The last thing that this country needs is cheap beer when our roads are falling to pieces. In fact, it was to be part of another of the Treasurer's too-clever-by-half schemes to keep the lid on an increasingly restless work force who know that their standards of living have been eroded as never before under this Government. We thought that the policy of keeping the masses quiet by keeping them drinking went out in Victorian times. It says a lot for the approach of this Government and the contempt this Government has for the people of Australia. Australians have not even got the lower beer prices that the Government promised, but they are still paying for it with poorer roads because the Government indexed the sales tax on beer. As I said earlier, this legislation marks another sorry chapter in the Government's failure to act on its self-imposed program of micro-economic reform. The transport portfolio abounds with similar sorry stories of the failure of the Hawke Government to come to grips with the real issue. The story is repeated everywhere one looks-on the waterfront, in coastal shipping, in the escalating losses of Australia's rail systems, and the failure of the Government to establish an environment in which there can be genuine competition between modes and within industries. The Government's Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) recently reported that industry reforms could shave $2 billion a year from Australia's transport bill, boosting gross domestic product (GDP) by 1.6 per cent. But what has the Government done? Nothing. EPAC calculated that annual savings of $850m could flow from reform on the waterfront; $200m could be saved by reform of coastal and trans-Tasman shipping; and $700m could be saved from reforms of bulk land transport, particularly coal and wheat. And what has the Government done. Nothing. In fact, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) has set up another task force to look at these matters. Transport savings of $2 billion would generate a rise in GDP of $4 billion. This Government's road funding cuts stand with these other lost opportunities as testimony to the level of benefits that we have forgone because of the way in which this Government has approached the real transport issues. By any measure or examination, it has failed. It has failed by repeatedly cutting road funding. It has also failed to come to grips with the real issues in terms of transport efficiency. It is now over 12 months since the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport released its recommendations. I would be interested to hear what the Government has done in that regard. I am sure that, in summing up this debate, the Minister will tell us that he has consulted with State colleagues on an industry proposal that would enable the Federal Government to open up grain and similar markets to genuine competition. The reality is that still nothing has been done; not a thing. Mr N.A. Brown —Set up a working party. Mr BLUNT —That is right; set up another working party. Because of the Government's incapacity to act on the real issues, how long does Australia have to tolerate this sort of policy paralysis? The $4 billion worth of contributions to the economic development of this country estimated by EPAC is going begging, simply because the Government is sitting on its hands. Based on the EPAC estimate, the Government's delays in making genuine transport reforms are costing this country over $5m a day in transport costs and taking almost $11m a day from Australia's gross domestic product. Nor can this Government say that its hands are tied-that it must wait on the States. That is another tired old excuse that just will not wash any more. The Australian public have had enough. This Government has been in power now for over 5 1/2 years-in fact, I think it is in its sixth year. The Government knows it has the power to act. It has acted in respect of vehicle mass limits to establish a national uniform standard. It can lead the way in opening up markets to genuine competition that will cut Australia's costs. The absurdity of what this Government has offered as excuses for inaction over its 5 1/2 years in office would be laughable if it was not costing so much. What does this legislation offer? Apart from further expenditure cuts, we find the Government seeking to pat itself on the back for establishing a new category of national arterial roads. Why has the Government established this category of roads? The Minister's second reading speech informed us that it was to increase the contribution made to Australia's economic development by the Commonwealth road program. How much greater would the contribution be if the road program also included the $450m a year that this Government has stolen from Australian road users? The Opposition supports the concept of the national arterial roads being added to the established road categories. It is one of the few redeeming features of a very disappointing piece of legislation. When the Bill is discussed in the committee stage I will move a number of amendments, on this and other issues, that have been circulated in my name. It is appropriate, however, at this stage to highlight the most blatant abuses which the Government has attempted to perpetrate upon Australia's road users and this Parliament as part of the legislation. We were told that the share of excise charges to be paid into the trust fund is to be called a road user charge. The major road user organisations have advised the Government that it is no such thing. The ARTF, the AAA, the Australian Bus and Coach Association and the Australian Livestock Transporters Association have left the Minister in no doubt about their opposition to this latest attempt at the trick with mirrors. In fact, the Treasurer gave the game away, the day after this program was announced, during his appearance at the National Press Club. The Treasurer made it clear that the Government's approach was to decide on a level of road funding expenditure and then work out the sums necessary to convert that to a share of fuel excise. He completely disowned any commitment by this Government to any sort of genuine hypothecation of fuel excise to fund Australian roads. Given these sorts of comments and the Hawke Government's record, road users are naturally nervous about what the Government might do next. Any words of reassurance ring hollow, given the Government's record. For example, promises on road funding have been broken within two short months. Users ask: How can any genuine government attempt to describe an excise rate that moves in the opposite direction to road use as a road user charge? If road use goes up, the excise rate goes down so that the level of funding is unchanged. It is yet another desperate attempt by this pathetic Government to try to hide from the community its appalling record on road funding. It is a trick with mirrors. It is a nonsense of the highest order. Throughout this legislation there are attempts to ensure the Government eliminates any parliamentary involvement in road funding decision making. Notwithstanding its already appalling record on road funding, it wants this Parliament to give it power arbitrarily to alter road funding levels. In too many instances, this Bill seeks to allow the Minister the opportunity to cut the already desperately low level of road funding by the mere stroke of a pen. `Trust us' the Hawke Government says, when its record shows it can take as little time as two months to break a promise. This legislation should not be passed in its current form. As it stands, in the last two years of the Australian centennial roads development program the legislation would enable the Government to cut the excise rate going to road funds to virtually nil should this be so determined by the Minister after consulting with the Treasurer. We know what the Treasurer's attitude is to cutting things he does not care about. The poor transport Minister of the day would be summoned to the Treasurer and told what he was to do and that would be the end of it. Some consultation! The Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, who is at the table, knows that is the case. There will be no process for the Parliament to review the decision. There will be no public debate. That is the attitude of this Government because it gags anything that is a bit uncomfortable for it. We see that today and, as I said, this Bill is under a guillotine. The Hawke Government is so ashamed of its appalling record that it wants to hide road funding in the darkest recess of the Government's darkest closet. Probably the only thing behind it is Aboriginal affairs. Quite frankly, that is where the record of this Government on road funding belongs. It is a total national disgrace. Not only does the Government wish to have such incredible flexibility vested in it alone; it also wants to maintain similar flexibility with regard to indexation adjustments during this last two-year period. Indexation would not happen as a matter of course but rather when determined by the Minister. Again it is an indication of how untrustworthy this Government is. Asking the Parliament to pass this legislation in its current form is like giving keys to the blood bank to Dracula. In other words, we again find this cavalier approach. Any balances in trust funds at the end of the existing Australian land transport program and the ABRD program or this program are to be applied not in accordance with legislation for the purposes for which the funds were allocated but rather as determined by the Minister. We can see what would happen if the Treasurer took a liking to grabbing the funds. We could all speculate just how the Minister would determine how those funds would be used. I do not think he would stand up very long to the Treasurer. One of the most obnoxious attempts to further rip off road users is the selection of the indexation factor to maintain this pathetic level of road funding. The Government has already achieved one cute trick which enables it to increase continually the rip-off of Australian motorists and industry by indexing excise rates each six months to the consumer price index (CPI). Because the amount road users pay to the Government is indexed to the CPI, a normal person would regard it as fair enough if the road program's share were also indexed in the same way so that relativity between what one paid and what one got would remain. The Australian land transport program was certainly intended to operate in that way although we have seen what the Government did to that. However, this time the Government does not even bother with that sort of facade. Instead we find the Government is to index the road funding share by the implicit price deflator (IPD). The House will not be surprised when I tell it that over the last three years the implicit price deflator has increased by some 8 per cent less than the CPI. I wonder why the Government is doing that? Again the Government has deliberately selected an index to minimise its financial contribution to road funding. It is the meanest sort of penny-pinching I have even seen by a government. It is certainly the meanest approach to legislation that I have seen introduced in this Parliament. It is a further indictment of the way the Government has tried to be too clever by half in treating road users with absolute contempt. The Minister, in his desperate struggle to find something positive to say, has come up with a new comparison to try to camouflage the Hawke Government's record. He has elevated the old adage of `lies, damned lies and statistics' to a new plateau. As I have shown, the Hawke Government's road funding record speaks for itself. It provides cuts of $450m a year and for the share of fuel excise going to roads to be reduced to an all time low of less than 23 per cent. Those opposite cannot get away from those simple facts. The motorists of Australia know it. If the IPD is such a wonderful measure of road costs one would be given to understand that the Minister's road funding comparisons with the funding of the previous Government must surely have been made using that index. In fact, I specifically asked the Minister whether his comparison was made using that index, and, if not, why not. A situation where the amount road users pay and what they get in return are indexed to the same series is fair to all. But this Government does not believe in fairness and equity, does it? This Bill contains a similar provision to the ABRD program to allow some funds to be directed to upgrading urban public transport services. Industry has highlighted how various Commonwealth urban public transport programs have disadvantaged public transport users and road users. Virtually no Commonwealth funds have been directed to areas served by private operators such as those in the western suburbs of Sydney. The only money the Commonwealth has spent is a couple of hundred thousand dollars in Darwin. The Commonwealth Government must establish some arrangement which makes the distribution of these urban public transport funds more fair and equitable. As I stated earlier, amendments to these and other provisions will be pursued when the Bill is in the committee stage. We have before us one of the most pathetic pieces of legislation ever introduced into parliament. It is legislation which perpetuates the Hawke Government's approach of shirking its responsibility to provide the road system Australia's economic and social needs demand. It is a further chapter in the Government's appalling record in road funding. It is not legislation which the Opposition could support in its current form. It is legislation which, in addition to the changes we will be proposing, should be passed only if the Government is prepared to return the level of funding established by the coalition when it was last in government. As a government, it has stolen $450m from road users while imposing a massive burden through increases in amounts they must pay. It has squandered a similar amount in a way that deserves the community's contempt. It will not get any votes from it. It has shown that it is incapable of delivering micro-economic reforms. I formally move the amendment that has been circulated in my name: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the indexation factor to be related to the all groups consumer price index, being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities, rather than the implicit price deflator for gross non-farm product'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Steele Hall —I second the amendment. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(12.03) —It is quite obvious from listening to the shadow Minister for transport and aviation, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), that his frustration at being on the Opposition side of the House is showing. But he will have to be content with that for many years to come. We are in government and we will be in government for many more years. The Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill continues the outstanding Federal commitment to road expenditure since 1983. With the passage of this Bill, road expenditure will be $7,390m by the end of 1988-89. As a Queenslander, I am pleased that in outlays Queensland has received $1.529 billion, the second highest of any Australian State. In my own electorate the Bruce Highway is an important part of the national highway system. I am sure the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) would agree with me when I say that the Maryborough to Childers section of that highway has been significantly upgraded and improved. The section from Childers to Miriam Vale is today far safer than it ever was. The projects which are currently under way and will have a beneficial effect on my electorate include the Benaraby to Rockhampton upgrading. This will be widened for 11.2 kilometres. The estimated cost will be $3.1m, with $1.9m approved so far. The traffic flow along the Bruce Highway will also improve with the $20m Nambour bypass, of which $14m has been approved to date, and $7m for the Maryborough bypass. These are all good, positive development projects which are of enormous benefit to visitors to Queensland and commuters within my electorate. The road funding effort meant that by September 1986 Australians could, for the first time, drive around the perimeter of Australia on a sealed road. We have heard from the Opposition that something like $5 billion that should have gone to roads has been stolen over a period of years. But the Opposition has not had the courage to say where it would take any extra funding from. Would it take it from the pensioners, health, housing or education? We have seen a steady stream of shadow Ministers come into this House and say that they would give more money to their own portfolio areas. At the same time, the Opposition shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), says that he would cut outlays and bring in tax cuts. A six-year-old child would recognise that that is economically impossible. They have the luxury of being in opposition, where they will be for many years. So they are not accountable. But we on this side of the House are accountable. We have the guts to stand up and be counted and to make the tough decisions that are necessary in every portfolio. It is little wonder that John Elliott will not come and join his colleagues. Who would want to be associated with a bunch of failures? All members of parliament would be aware of a blatantly political campaign being run in Queensland by the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ) and by motoring organisations in other States criticising the road effort of the Federal Government. The dishonesty of this campaign totally neglects the role of State and local governments in road funding. Most of the roads the RACQ singled out in its campaign come under the jurisdiction of State or local governments. The RACQ uses 1983-84, a record year in road funding expenditure, as its benchmark for road funding. It operates under the ludicrous logic that, if there is record spending, record amounts must be spent each year. The road funding effort of the Hawke Government in its first five Budgets exceeded the road funding of the Fraser Government in its last five Budgets. It is a pity that the shadow Minister did not mention that fact. Expenditure on roads as a percentage of total Budget outlays was 1.72 per cent in the last five years of the Fraser Government compared with 1.82 per cent under the Hawke Government. These are facts, not fiction. In Queensland, the Federal Government provides about 50 per cent of the expenditure of the Department of Main Roads. In my electorate, the Federal Government approved $1.66m for the building of a bridge across the Burnett River at Gayndah. The previous Federal member did so little about pushing the State Government to begin the bridge that, in 1987, the National Party State member for the area tried to announce the commencement date as a new project. The State Government should get its act together and complete the bridge. Nowhere does the RACQ mention this type of thing in its advertising. It has been mute in its criticism of the State Government for building toll roads. Toll roads are now going to be built on the Sunshine Coast in the electorate of the Queensland State Finance Minister, Mr Austin. This has just about split the local National Party organisation asunder; yet nothing has been said by the RACQ in Queensland about toll roads. Another outrageous piece of cynicism in regard to road funding has occurred with the performance of local government. Recently the Banana Shire Council spent thousands of dollars of ratepayers' money constructing road signs criticising the Federal road effort. How ludicrous! From March 1983 until June 1987, the Banana Shire Council received $2.28m in Federal grants for unspecified road works. This was about double what was received by every other shire in Hinkler. As a proportion of total outlays, the Banana Shire Council's road funding effort declined from 57.66 per cent in 1983-84 to a miserable 31.35 per cent in 1984-85. It rose slightly to 55.06 per cent in 1985-86. In 1983-84, the Council spent $6m on roads. This figure declined to $5.3m by 1985-86. So, we have a shire criticising the Federal Government when its own funding for roads has slumped, not just in terms of its total budget outlays but also substantially in real terms. Again, the RACQ is nowhere to be seen in this debate to keep local governments honest in road funding. Sadly, many local governments and local shires in Queensland are nothing but the guerilla training grounds for National Party candidates. I have a text here from an interview on radio 4QR on 2 November with Mr Vern Mathieson, the General-Manager of the RACQ. He said: Local authorities know what to do, they've got the expertise, they know what's got to be done, they just don't have the money. That is not fact. They do not have the priorities. It is about time Mr Mathieson put the facts clearly. If he is ignorant of the facts, I will be more than happy to tell him what they are. Mr Mathieson also said: . . . we're not being political . . . Not much! He went on to say: We are putting just as much pressure on the Federal Opposition to stand up and be counted and at the moment there's a deafening silence from them which is disgraceful, they haven't got the guts to stand up and say this has gone on for long enough and give a firm commitment to do something about it. We all understand why. It is because the Opposition does not have a leader. It does not have a policy. As I said before, it is little wonder that John Elliott does not want to come and join the Opposition. He is far too successful making money with his company to join the-how shall I describe it? It is pretty hard to find a word that adequately describes the Liberal Party at the moment. It is certainly wracked with dissension and internal divisions. Its members could not win a B grade football match at the moment. The leadership of the RACQ is misleading its members, is dishonest. If it can afford to splash around other people's money in what is little more that a one-sided road funding debate, it can afford to drop its membership fees or to sponsor more defensive driving courses. I now wish to turn to the question of local authorities in the road debate. In my electorate I have a dozen local authorities with 137 local councillors. In Bundaberg, I have three local authorities situated in the one city block. There are 32 councillors serving 44,000 people. A similar situation exists in Warwick, Cambooya, Mackay and Townsville. It would appear that there is not much economy of scale in the road operations of such shires and councils. A South Australian study carried out by Easton and Thomson in the Australian Journal of Public Administration may provide a clue to a solution. Their study found that, if councils were amalgamated, the savings in road funding would be enormous. Why does the Opposition not talk about that? Again, it is because local governments and shires in Queensland are the guerilla training ground for their own party hacks. I am suggesting that an inquiry should be undertaken in Queensland before such amalgamation occurs. Obviously, with some far-flung shires it would be difficult to see much improvement. But in areas like Bundaberg and Warwick it might be possible for councils to get together and to amalgamate the road component of their administration if full amalgamation is not possible. Let us analyse the benefits. The study indicated that combining two councils so as to achieve a combined council with twice the road length of the separate councils would result in a massive 91 per cent decrease in the per kilometre cost of road maintenance. It is a great pity that the shadow Minister does not understand, or has never read, this paper. Administration, overhead and road expenditures comprise 43 per cent of total local government expenditures. If we have to watch our costs, surely to goodness local and State governments should have to do the same. We have been propping them up for the last five years. It is about time they stood on their feet and were accountable. I stress that only an inquiry can determine which councils are suitable to take on such a task. No responsible State local government Minister can ignore a report like that. It may well be that some local authorities can at the very least get together and share the road element of their administration. There is nothing more tragic than for existing shires that are struggling to survive each outlaying over a quarter of a million dollars for a grader and seeing those graders lie idle two or three days a week. The same people who run these shires promote private enterprise yet want to be subsidised in a social respect by the Federal Government. At the same time they kick the Federal Government for having to raise taxes to do so. In other words, they do not want the responsibility of making tough decisions themselves. I turn to the construction of a new bridge across the Burnett River in Bundaberg. The bridge was promised to Bundaberg by the Bjelke-Petersen Government but was never built. The current State Minister for Public Works, Main Roads and Expo, Mr Gunn, now says that there is no money for it. It is time for the State Government to look at ways of funding the project. This year all port authorities have to pay tax to the State Government. The State should examine the local port authority to see whether it has idle funds or else could waive the tax on the understanding that the funds would go to the construction of a new bridge, given the fact that the existing bridge is almost falling down and is unsafe for traffic and for pedestrians, which is a disgrace. The port authority would be an ideal body to liaise with, because this year it has, as a member, the head of the town planning committee of the Bundaberg City Council. The bridge, at last report, was to connect with Walla Street in Bundaberg City. At the very least, the State Government should announce the route of the bridge so that unscrupulous people cannot profiteer at the expense of the rest of the city. There have been rumours that there is a change to the route involving Scotland Street. If Scotland Street is superior, the State should make certain that the names of all companies and individuals to be affected are made public. In this way people can judge for themselves just what is right. There is a constant complaint in Bundaberg that people with inside knowledge can benefit at the expense of the average person. The bridge is very important to people in Bundaberg, particularly those living in north Bundaberg. It is essential too to the expanding fruit and vegetable industry and to the Bundaberg Sugar Co. Ltd. Queensland has received fair treatment with road funding. However, if the Queensland Minister for Main Roads cannot persuade his Cabinet to spend more money on building a bridge in Bundaberg one of the other statutory authorities may be the answer. I believe the Port Authority may be the best bet. The bridge would certainly ease problems of transportation of both sugar cane and raw sugar. It will form an important function in providing transport access to the port. The Department of Main Roads should give consideration to this proposal. I congratulate the Minister on this Bill. I believe it continues the Federal Government's road funding program. It is a great pity that honourable members on the other side of the House are prepared to say how much money they would spend without saying where they would get it from. As I said, they will take from the elderly, pensioners, health, housing and education. We on this side are prepared to stand up and be counted. We are not prepared to walk away from any issue or any problem we face. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(12.17) —The Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill sets out the directions that the Government will follow in relation to its responsibilities regarding road construction. In so doing, it consolidates the mechanisms that it will use. It sets out a program which deals with the needs of yesterday. The evidence that the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) gives in his speech in support of that program is an apology really for a program which Australia needs to build up its transport links. In fact, I feel sorry for the Minister. He is new to his task and I have enough regard for him to believe that he would not have written that drivel in support of his program. He has been fulfilling the program set out by that wily coyote of government finance, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, who in the May statement clearly set out the future denigration of the Australian road program under this Government. I turn for evidence to the second reading speech of the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support and the propaganda he proposed in the first two pages of it to justify what Australia will soon know as a most inadequate program in support of the Australian motorist. On the first page he said: . . . this legislation will set the direction of road funding towards the year 2001- God help Australia if that is the standard to 2001- the centenary of our Federation. He said that transport would be cheaper, safer and more efficient. On page 2 he had the gall to say: we have managed to establish an impressive record on the road funding front. In answer to a question in the Senate on 4 May this year Senator Walsh set out what the relativities are between what used to be an adequate program and support for roads in Australia and what this Government's substitute is. He said that in 1983-84, which was the last program of road funding which was subject to the rules and directions of the Fraser regime, the figure for road grants was $1,593m in 1987-1988 dollars. What is the Minister proposing here? He is proposing $1,215m, which in 1987-88 terms would be lower than the $1,593m in 1987-88 dollars of the Fraser years. The Minister's allocation would be lower in last year's terms, obviously because of inflation. What has he proposed to do? What has he promised? He will maintain the funds for the next two years. He will make no addition. Funds will be frozen in real terms at this year's terms. Transport is increasing at about 4 per cent a year-but the funds are frozen at this year's terms. This is an adequate program? We have made important advances to go down from $1,593m to $1,215m? That is an advance? I think Australians would like to know about that. It we look further into the program we find that the Minister intends to provide more money for certain new arterial roads by removing funds from other road projects. That has not come out in the debate. The Minister has not said that. By concentrating on a reduced program, of course, he will remove funds from other road projects that are now being supported. It is inherent in the argument. A number of key roads that have financial support will have their funding reduced so that this new emphasis, this new concentration on a new category, can be fulfilled. Again, Australians would love to hear about that. The emphasis on page 8 of his speech referred again to maintaining funds. He went on to talk about the excise charge rate. This fiddle is supposed to relate 4.95c of the 21.5c a litre collection of excise from fuel to the $1,215m which is being spent on this road program. Of course it is a fiddle. As the shadow Minister for transport and aviation, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), said, when the excise goes up overall the rate will have to be reduced to contain the program in its fixed funding. So it is a fiddle. If the Minister is so explicitly trying to say to Australians, `I'm putting this charge rate up so you can recognise what is being spent out of your excise dollar on Australian roads' I challenge him to arrange to have every petrol pump show the excise. If he wants to be honest about this let every petrol pump show all Australian consumers that the excise is 21.5c a litre. This is just a fiddle. It means nothing to the motorist. Does the motorist think that he is paying only 4.95c a litre in excise? That is what the Minister would like Australians to think. Let the petrol pump show these figures. They would show excise of 21.5c a litre with only 4.95c a litre going to roads. Let the Minister face up to that honesty in government, that truth in advertising, if that is what he wants to introduce to the subject. The scene is pathetic. We could emphasise the disparity between the Fraser years of extensive and expansive government in its 1983-84 program, especially on Australian roads, and the low expenditure that is projected in our bicentennial year. It locks Australia into a lower than required expenditure on roads. If we look at some of the statements made by experts we will know where all this will lead. In a January 1988 publication of the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics there is a reference to the age of roads. It states: . . . the mean ages of the networks in 1985 were in the range 10 to 20 years; rates of construction in 1985 ranged from 0.6 to 3.0 per cent of total network length; continuation of the 1985 rates of reconstruction would lead to mean network ages in 1995 in the range 16 to 27 years . . . The general assessment leads one to the view which is outlined in Chapter 1, the introduction to this publication: The Australian network of sealed rural roads has been established largely since the Second World War with peak growth rates occurring during the early 1960s. As a consequence most of the network is still relatively new and has not, so far, imposed major burdens of reconstruction and rehabilitation. However, sealed roads have finite lives, of the order of 30 years, which lead to the expectation that current rates of reconstruction and rehabilitation may have to be dramatically increased if the assets represented by the road networks are to be maintained. That is a 1988 report. This Bill, this program, does not provide the finance for the reconstruction that is required by that expert study. The Government is proposing to significantly run down the quality of existing roads as well as being faulty in the construction of new highways. So under Labor the existing road network will deteriorate to a very serious level. I do not say this without referring to the general aspect which I have found in my political life, and that is that there is some sort of bias inherent in Labor governments against the adequate construction of roads. In South Australia in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a big effort to acquire significant land corridors for road transportation into and out of the city. Under great pain and public protest and at some expense to the State budget, a corridor was obtained called the north-south corridor, reaching from Anzac Highway to Darlington. The properties were acquired and the corridors were awaiting use. They stood there, subject to political controversy of course, but the scheme represented the one clear outlet from Adelaide to the south. Adelaide is a city which, by interstate standards, is still relatively free of road blockage; nevertheless, it is in desperate need of planning of future roads so that it can avert the problems of other cities. But what did the State Labor Government do in South Australia? The Bannon Government sold it. The last properties have now been sold and the corridor brought the State Government of South Australia $12m. For $12m it jettisoned the southern corridor out of the city of Adelaide. I could go on about that for quite a while because it is one of the catastrophes of metropolitan Adelaide-the city which puts on the grand prix and does so much for the show. We all know about the cakes and circuses of the Bannon Government. Yet that Government could sacrifice the one acquisition so desperately needed and so hard fought for and won in South Australia. There is a bias among Labor governments about providing adequate road back-up for the Australian road using community. Mr N.A. Brown —Why is that? Mr STEELE HALL —I do not know. As I said when I started, I sympathise with the new Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support that he should have to put his name to such drivel as is contained in that speech and to support the inadequate program contained in that Bill. It is almost a desperate move of government to so cut the needs of such a basic support area of, particularly, the Australian community. If one travels to Europe, as all of us have at some time or another, one sees the close consolidation of 400 million people in Western Europe and 320 million people in the European Economic Community. They are so close set in terms of where they can have their roads and facilities built to such a high standard. In Australia we are so widespread and the need is so much greater to serve this far-flung community, yet we have this deprivation in respect of the standards that were set by previous coalition governments. One is almost bereft of words to describe the dereliction that the Bill and the program set out for Australia, but for the Minister to have the hide to say he is maintaining funds when, in fact, he should be increasing them, illustrates it all. I am bitterly disappointed with the Bill, and I doubt whether the Minister will stay in the portfolio for very long because I do not think the Australian people will tolerate what he is trying to put over them, nor will they accept the Minister's propaganda. I challenge the Minister, once again, to arrange to have displayed at petrol outlets around Australia what the Minister spends on roads from the 21.5c excise that the Government takes on every litre of petrol sold. When the Minister accepts that challenge, at least I will be willing to listen more amiably to his program for next year. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(12.29) —The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) is quite fond of using the word `drivel' to describe arguments, and I can understand that because he certainly gave the House a fair dose of it himself. It is a typical Opposition line to come in here and say that road funds have been cut. That is obvious and clear; I will not come into this place and argue that black is white, but that is the end of the story. Government members hear nothing at all about where the funds can come from to increase the funds for road building. The same Opposition cries long and hard that there should be deep and quality cuts in government spending in order to fund tax cuts immediately-not next year, but now-and they should be funded by deep cuts in the Government's spending. Yet every time we have an Opposition spokesman on one area or another coming into this House, there is no question that more funds should be allocated to a particular area. I listened to the debate yesterday about veterans' affairs with some interest. The shadow Minister for veterans' affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), said, `There is no question of our cutting veterans' affairs funding. This very important section of the community must be looked after. We will be putting more funds into veterans' affairs'. Yet Opposition speakers today have said that the funding for Australian roads is inadequate; there have to be more funds for roads, so let us put more funds into roads. From where are all the quality spending cuts coming which will fund these great tax cuts which Australians are being offered by the Opposition parties? The reality is that although the particular mechanism we are debating today-the development of this new trust fund and new road program-is, in itself, relatively simple, it does reflect the front line of the economic debate in this country. The level of government road funding by the Hawke Government has been perfectly consistent with the prevailing economic conditions which the Government has found itself in, and I will explain that in depth later on. It is also consistent with the line put by the Opposition because it plays to particular audiences. It goes to its local government audience and its road user audience and says, `There should be more funds for roads'. Then five minutes later it goes into the next room and talks to another audience and says, `The Labor Government is the biggest taxing, highest spending government of all time! We'll get in there and slash all this spending and cut down all this extravagance'. That is the inherent inconsistency of the Australian Opposition which it cannot escape and from which it will not be allowed to escape. The Australian people are not stupid; they may recognise that they, as a community, would like to see more funds spent on roads but they know that if that is going to be the case, those funds have to be found through either increasing taxation, diverting funds from other programs, increasing the deficit or reducing the amount we are repaying on our debt. They are the three alternatives. It cannot be done with mirrors; money does not grow on trees and that is the hard, harsh reality of it all. The Bill generally simply combines the two existing Australian road programs-the bicentennial road program and the Australian land transport program. A trust fund will be established into which will be paid a specified share of customs and excise duty on motor spirit and diesel fuel. The program itself will run for five years, with years two and three being guaranteed to be maintained in real terms. That is the minimum and a provision exists for the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) to agree to increase the amount spent on the program if the circumstances permit, but there is at least a guarantee floor in the amount to be paid for Australian roads. Let us briefly look at the history of funding which has created so much interest on behalf of the Opposition. In March 1983 when the Hawke Government was elected Australia was in the midst of a deep economic recession. For the first time since the Great Depression we were experiencing a period of actual negative growth. The Australian economy was shrinking. We had double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, and at that time the Government boosted a number of programs aimed to get the economy moving. One of those programs included a large injection into road funds, because road building itself is a high employment industry and it also boosts local economies, especially with more funds going to local council. The State governments also boost local economies to increase local employment. If that is combined with programs like the community employment program, which had a specified component also linked to road building, one sees that there was a massive increase in road funds in those early years of the Hawke Government. Funds since then have been slashed, but one cannot divorce that from the overall economic context because Australia's economic conditions changed also in that time. We went from a situation where commodity prices were quite high and then collapsed. We saw a massive decline in what the world was paying for our exports and, as a result of that and the fall in the Australian dollar, we saw a large increase in the amount of our international debt. One cannot pretend that those factors had no influence on government decisions. They obviously did. As a reality, the Government had to take steps which meant a reduction in the Government's call on domestic savings. That meant government spending was reduced, so the pressure on domestic demand and the call on private savings were also reduced. Therefore, there were cuts in government spending; and this year the Government is running a Budget surplus in order to start retiring the large amount of debt which successive governments have accumulated year after year by running Budget deficits. All that means that programs and projects have had to come under very close scrutiny, and some have been cut. What has happened to road funding must be put in that overall context. It is pointless, artificial and hypocritical to highlight road funding and point to the fact that funding has gone down, yet say nothing about the surrounding circumstances, about government spending as a whole and about the prevailing economic conditions. Road funding has been reduced because the conditions which allowed money to go into road funding have changed. That is the reality of it, and there is no easy way around it. This particular program sets a level of funding which is adequate in terms of payments to both the States and local government. It must also be remembered that both the States and local government receive large parcels of untied grants, which they then spend according to their priorities. If local councils, for example, believe that road building is a high priority for their particular area, they are then obliged to allocate Commonwealth financial assistance grants to road building. They have to put off building a cultural centre or a sporting complex or a new swimming pool if road building is the highest priority. Instead of building an infrastructure for water works or sewerage works, they can put the money into the building of roads. That is a decision for an individual council to make. This Government has had to make tough decisions. As much as possible, it has attempted to quarantine the most disadvantaged in our community-pensioners, veterans and those on low incomes-from the effects of those decisions. Through the social welfare program, it has attempted to give more money to single-income families through the family assistance supplement. It has attempted to look after those people who need help. That means that other ranges of government activities must come under close scrutiny; and funds have been reduced across the board. That is why funding for Australian roads has been decreased. If the Opposition is serious in its attempts to convince the Australian community that more money should be spent on roads, I challenge members of the Opposition to nominate how much should be spent on roads and where the money would come from. That is not asking too much; I think it is a fairly straightforward request. Do members of the Opposition propose to slash other programs? Where are those programs? By how much would they slash them? Would they increase other taxes to pay for it? Would company tax go up? Would indirect taxes go up? Would personal income tax go up? Alternatively, are those opposite simply saying, `Well, we will give up the idea of starting to pay back some debt and we will start running Budget deficits again'? Which of those three alternatives does the Opposition suggest the Government should look at to provide more funds for roads? There is a great furphy running around that petrol taxes are at high levels and that not enough is given from petrol taxes. That really misses the point. It is not argued that money from tobacco taxes should go back into the tobacco plantations or other areas related to smoking. Nor is it argued that money from beer excise should go back into hotels or into areas related to beer. Petrol excise and taxes are a means of collecting government revenue-no more and no less. There is no magic in linking the amount of petrol tax to the amount spent on roads. The reality is that an adequate amount should be spent on roads. Whether that money comes from petrol taxes, income tax or company tax really does not matter; it must be raised through one of those mechanisms. If it is not raised through increased taxes, it has to be raised by scrapping other programs. When the Opposition comes to grips with those realities and puts forward concrete proposals about where the money is coming from, its proposals to expand road funding will be taken seriously and will be given credibility. Until the Opposition does that, it will remain a bit of a joke. The Opposition is trying to keep one section of the community on side while approaching another section of the community and saying that it would cut spending and provide tax cuts. That simply does not add up. The Opposition knows it does not add up; and it is being less than honest with the Australian community for claiming otherwise. Mr PRATT(Adelaide)(12.40) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch), spoke with some conviction and at great length. I shall pick up on his final remarks about where the money goes. When the proposed graduate tax was being debated, the Australian public believed the money raised would go into general revenue. The people of Australia do not believe that all taxes such as the petrol excise should be pumped into general revenue. This debate gives me the opportunity of speaking on the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill. The Bill can only be described as a disgrace. The end effect, and the bottom line, of the legislation is once again to rob the motorist of his or her entitlement to a reasonable standard of service, a right earned by the massive taxes paid annually by motorists across the nation. Australians will remember the Hawke Labor Government as the Government that took more revenue than ever before at the petrol pump, at the motor registration bureau and in sales tax-and as the Government that gave back the least. Make no mistake, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) regards motorists as nothing more than a convenient source of revenue. In this financial year, oil taxes alone are expected to total $7 billion. The Treasurer will scoop up more than $2 billion from crude oil, nearly $5 billion from petroleum products and, in total, oil taxes will make up nearly 10 per cent of the Federal Government's overall revenue. During the past 5 1/2 years of the Hawke Labor Government, the Federal Budget has quadrupled-it has multiplied four times, from $20 billion per year to more than $80 billion per year. Fuel taxes have been a major contributor. They have been increasing to the point where, today, approximately 50c of every dollar motorists spend on petrol now goes to the Federal Government's general revenue account, which makes a mockery of the previous speaker's attempts to gloss over that fact. Last year, only personal income tax earned more revenue for the Government than taxes on fuel. Australians should be aware that personal income tax has been increasing at a rate to challenge oil taxes. One of the underlying and fundamental principles in the Treasurer's latest Budget is that the average rate of inflation for the current financial year will be 4.5 per cent-which would be admirable. Anyone who keeps abreast of the news will know that the Treasurer's projection has not been doing too well. Inflation does not stand an iceberg's chance in hell of averaging 4.5 per cent for the 1988-89 financial year. It is interesting to note that one of the major contributors to the so-called overheating of the economy is the Hawke Labor Government's petrol taxes, which make up a 5 per cent weighting in the consumer price index (CPI) calculation. In fact, if the Treasurer were to reduce oil taxes by 10 per cent, it would mean a drop in revenue to the Federal Government of a mere $700m out of nearly $7 billion, but it would mean a drop in the price of petrol at the petrol pump of 2c to 3c per litre. The CPI would then undergo a massive turnaround of 0.5 per cent, which would be a substantial realignment. The benefit to the consumer would be immediate and considerable. Consumers now pay approximately 30c in tax for every litre of petrol or diesel that they buy. Every time they fill their tanks they pay almost $20 in tax. For the average family, that is about $1,000 per year, after income tax, which is a lot of money to try to save on the average salary of some $400 per week. While fuel taxes account for almost 10 per cent of Federal revenue, spending on roads accounts for less than 2 per cent of Federal outlays. Despite the fact that motoring is an essential part of life for the vast majority of Australians, it attracts luxury taxes at every turn. But the cost to the nation of allowing our massive road infrastructure to deteriorate steadily pales into insignificance next to the tragic toll which will be exacted in human lives. Although it is the motorist who is the cause of traffic accidents-for a variety of reasons such as fatigue, frustration and inattention-it is naive in the extreme to imply that traffic conditions and road conditions are not major contributing factors to those reasons. We cannot keep putting more and more traffic on the same road and not have more accidents and mishaps. Because of the Hawke Labor Government's pathetic record on road funding, the States now spend some 60 per cent of their works expenditure on maintenance. Naturally, that amount comes from their Budgets, which come from rates and taxes paid by businesses, taxes which are added to the cost of their products, which is then paid by the consumer. Payroll tax is another business tax which is then passed on to the consumer, as are council rates and water rates. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour when the honourable member will have leave to continue his speech. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Dr HEWSON —I refer the Treasurer to the recent failure of the merchant bank Rothwells Ltd. I ask the Treasurer: Did Rothwells Ltd comply with its obligations pursuant to section 11 of the Financial Corporations Act 1974 and submit regular monthly and quarterly returns to the Reserve Bank of Australia setting out its financial position? If so, did those returns give any early indication of the extent of Rothwells' impending financial difficulties? Did the Reserve Bank, pursuant to its powers under the Act, seek any further information from Rothwells on its financial position? When did the Reserve Bank first inform the Treasurer of its concerns about Rothwells' financial position and the possible consequences for the stability of the Australian financial system? Did the Treasurer or the Reserve Bank take any action in relation to the developing situation at Rothwells? If so, what was it; if not, why not? Mr KEATING —As far as I can recall, the Reserve Bank kept an eye on Rothwells at the time of its immediate problems post-October 1987, as it did with other corporations. At the time I know the Bank was speaking to parties associated with Rothwells; it told me that. As far as I know, the Bank maintained an interest in Rothwells to some extent. To what extent I could not be certain. I could not be certain as to how deep that interest was. I could not be certain as to what documents Rothwells may or may not have lodged with the Reserve Bank, but I could find out and let the honourable gentleman know. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom, led by the Rt Hon. Sir Bernard Braine, DL, MP. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr O'KEEFE —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Community Services and Health, concerns the future of long term patients in Victorian bush nursing hospitals. I refer the Minister to recent threats by some Victorian health insurance funds to withdraw cover for some long stay patients in Victorian hospitals and, in particular, bush nursing hospitals. Can the Minister inform the House as to the action the Government is taking to ensure that these funds continue to pay hospital benefits for nursing home type patients? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the threats to which the honourable member for Burke has referred. I just want to put on record quite clearly the practices in this matter. It has been a longstanding practice for nursing home type patients to be accommodated in both public and private hospitals and for the health funds to pay benefits at a lower nursing home type benefit rate for them. Those provisions were introduced in 1979 by the honourable member for Gwydir. In 1979, when he introduced those excellent provisions, he made quite clear the responsibility of the private health funds to cover those nursing home type patients. However, despite the fact that this practice has existed for almost 10 years, two Victorian funds, the Australian Natives Association (ANA) and the Hospital Benefits Association Ltd, have indicated an intention to consider denying benefits to nursing home type patients in some rural and bush nursing hospitals. In particular, the ANA announced that it would cease paying for seven aged patients in the Pyramid Hill Bush Hospital, but temporarily withdrew the threat following intervention from my Department. I regarded that threat and the way it was made as a particularly heartless action because it threatened the security and welfare of many aged people and, of course, engendered a very real fear amongst those patients. Many of these patients have been contributing in good faith to their health funds for many years in the belief that those 1979 provisions, introduced by the Opposition in government, would be honoured and followed. However, these funds are now seeking to exploit what they believe is a loophole in that 1979 legislation allowing them to abrogate a responsibility which they have accepted for almost a decade. It is the Government's view that the funds have both a moral and a legal obligation to pay. In order to reinforce that obligation the Government will introduce legislation tomorrow clarifying that requirement and confirming the arrangements that have existed since 1979. In the longer term, the Government is prepared to work with the funds and the State governments on particular problems involving aged and long stay patients. I think all honourable members should note, particularly some of the glib critics on the Opposition side of the House, the real advances that have been made in this area under this Government. I am aware that in the smaller towns multi-purpose facilities providing a range of services-acute services, nursing home services, hostel and home care services-are often the most optimum arrangement. Of the 36 bush nursing hospitals in Victoria, 14 have already approved nursing home annexes; two have hospital annexes; and another has approval in principle for both nursing home and hostel beds. As well, in the past two years the number of bed days taken up by nursing home type patients in Victorian public and private hospitals has dropped by a third, with significant savings for the health funds. It has dropped because of the policies pursued by this Government, because of the success of our expansion of the home and community care program and because of our success with the aged residential program involving nursing homes and hostels. The Government will continue to pursue such policies and programs to improve the health and community services for the aged in this population. However, in the short term, we are not prepared to allow these funds to threaten the welfare of these patients. I expect that the Opposition will support the legislation when it is introduced. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services as the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Has the Minister seen reports of the generosity of a company named Richard Farmer and Associates Pty Ltd, liquor merchants and consultants, which, although it had a loss of $258,000 last financial year, was able five months later to find $75,000 which it donated to the Wilderness Society? Secondly, has the Minister seen reports that the Society thanked the company for its generosity in defraying what it called `expenses incurred earlier in the year'? Were the expenses incurred earlier in the year incurred in support of Australian Labor Party candidates in the Federal election? Will the Minister investigate this apparent case of laundering of election funds and whether any other breach of the Electoral Act has been committed? If he will not investigate that, will he kindly tell us why? Mr WEST —I am informed that the Wilderness Society submitted a return of electoral expenditure under the relevant section of the Act after the 1987 Federal election and its return disclosed expenditure of $131,938. I am informed by the Australian Electoral Commission that the Society was not required to disclose the $70,000 donation that has been mentioned in a return relating to the 11 July 1987 election, even if that donation was used to cover expenses incurred during that campaign, since the donation was given after the election. Section 305 of the Act-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr WEST —Opposition members would be experts on this matter. I have no doubt that Dr Hughes will be taking note of the mirth of the Opposition, its actions and its information supplied to me as the relevant Minister. If I could just continue, section 305 of the Act, as it will apply to returns to be submitted after the next general election, will require bodies such as the Wilderness Society to disclose donations of $1,000 or more received by them between 12 July 1987 and polling day of the next election, if those donations are used for purposes related to the next election-in other words, the $70,000 donation should be declared at the next election. In any event, Richard Farmer and Associates Pty Ltd is a private company and can make political donations to whatever organisation it so chooses. It is not a matter which involves this Government at all. Dr CHARLESWORTH —My question to the Treasurer relates to an article in the Age today, the headline of which is `Small business rebuff for Libs'. The article outlines how Victorian small business leaders are sharply critical of the Federal Liberal Party of Australia and warn that they will be forming closer links with the Labor Government. Can the Treasurer inform the House what policies the Government has put in place in order to assist small business which have led to this timely, yet accurate assessment? Mr KEATING —I did see the article in the press. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. As I heard the end of the question, it referred to the `timely, yet accurate assessment' which allegedly had been made in this article. How does commenting on that fall within the Treasurer's province? Madam SPEAKER —The question was in order. The Treasurer will answer the question. Mr KEATING —I noticed the article and I will respond to that part of the question which deals with the changes the Government has put in place now systematically over a period of nearly six years to improve the whole economic and business environment of Australia, particularly that for small business. Principally, the Government restored economic growth in Australia in 1983-84 and the economy has been growing strongly in each and every year since 1983-84, only slowing to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average of around 2 1/2 per cent in 1985-86. In every other year it has been in excess of that. We have had employment growth of 17 per cent; more than 1.15 million jobs which has lifted buoyancy in the economy-the very thing which small business relies upon. It relies upon growth in the economy and on economic business opportunities in order to prosper. At the same time, by our incomes policy, we have reduced real unit labour costs over time so that the costs of running a business are lower and hence the profit share has been restored, which is part and parcel of not only ongoing profitability of small business but also of the retention of higher levels of earnings within small business. Through a floating exchange rate and deregulation we have ensured the competitiveness of the Australian economy-the domestic competition of local products from small business with those from abroad-and through financial deregulation we have guaranteed that small business is now getting financial support from the financial system which it was not getting previously. Importantly, in relation to the tax system we have ensured a flatter and more fair playing field in taxation which particularly supports small business. When this Government came to office a dollar of company income in the hands of the small business person was taxed 78c in the hands of the shareholder. That is now 39c with a reduction in the company tax rate and up to 49c with the distribution. Under the Liberals we had a thing called `division 7 tax' which penalised small businesses for not distributing their income, their profits. They were forced to distribute, otherwise they paid a penalty and upon distributing were then taxed at 60c at the margin if they had income above $35,000. They were getting belted 78c out of every dollar-that is how the Liberals looked after small business. Is it any wonder with the imputation system which frees dividends-- Mr Beale —Look at the imputed tax level. Mr KEATING —It is the lowest rate of tax in the OECD for the honourable member's benefit; the lowest rate of tax on distributed income in the OECD is available to small business in Australia, thanks to this Government. Is it any wonder, therefore, that small business people are saying, `We will continue to be close to this Labor Government, we are entirely fed up with the Liberals who do not have a policy. When they were around for 30 years they kept division 7 tax, they kept the double tax on dividends, we had no imputation system and the financial markets would not service our interest'? Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I first remind you that the question referred to Government policy and, secondly, in support of my point of order I refer you to page 1063 of Hansard of 9 September 1981 in which Mrs Child said: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the Hansard of 27 August. You ruled: The Minister will answer the question and not engage in irrelevancies, such as contrasting the Government and the Labor Party. The Speaker on that occasion ruled: I think it was a very sound decision. I ask the right honourable gentleman- meaning the then Minister for Trade and Resources- to draw his answer to a conclusion. As the Treasurer has concluded answering the question I ask that you ask him to bring it-- Mr KEATING —I haven't. Mr Tuckey —He has finished providing the information requested, so I ask you to ask him to draw his answer to a close. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may bring his point of order before the Chair but he may not then rule upon it; the Chair will do that. The Treasurer is in order. Mr KEATING —The whole commercial landscape of Australia has changed. It is now an international economy; it is a competitive economy and there has been more growth in small business in these last 5 1/2 years than there was in the previous 20. The Opposition knows that well. Is it any wonder that a recent poll found that 39 per cent of those interviewed thought the Opposition was indecisive and did not have clear policy statements; only 8 per cent thought it had clear policy plans; only 5 per cent regarded Mr Howard as a strong leader; and 34 per cent thought he was a weak leader. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the small business community has moved away from the Opposition to the Government. In the face of this policy change is it any wonder that all the small business organisations are now barracking for us and belting Opposition members on any radio program on which they appear. Mr MILES —Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs instructed his acting department head, Mr Bob Winroe, to commence discussions or action aimed at transferring the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) staff into the Public Service as officers of his Department? Has the Minister consulted or obtained the support of the ADC board for such moves? Does the Minister intend to pursue a Department of Aboriginal Affairs takeover of ADC staff in order to achieve at least partially the objectives embodied in the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill of destroying the ADC and further limiting Aboriginal control over their own affairs? Is this an attempt to pre-empt growing Cabinet concern over the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) proposal? Mr HAND —Again we have a range of questions from the happy traveller. I think the question was, `Have I instructed Mr Winroe to do anything in that regard?'. The answer is no. Secondly, when dealing with the question of ATSIC and its future the honourable member talks in terms of the defence of the ADC. I am proceeding with Government policy towards the introduction of ATSIC. We have advertised that widely by virtue of debate in this chamber, to which the honourable member offered very little resistance, I might add. It is now awaiting passage through the Senate and I can assure the House that we will be proceeding with that proposal. But I find the honourable member's question most interesting because for the last two or three weeks a range of accusations has been made, and there has been an attack launched on the ADC the like of which we have never seen before, with calls about its incompetency, et cetera. Opposition members have attacked officers of the ADC at will and now they have the audacity to come in here and talk about the Commission. They have set about to destroy the ADC. We have set about recognising that there needs to be a greater coordination of services for Aboriginal people-something that, incidentally, speaker after speaker on the Opposition side has called for. All I am saying is that we will address the question of ATSIC as soon as those opposite let me proceed with the legislation which sets about rectifying the things they are critical of. Mr SIMMONS —Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the principles underlying the Government's taxation policies? Mr HAWKE —From the outset two fundamental principles have governed the development of the taxation policies of this Government. They are fairness and economic efficiency. We have been determined to ensure that all sections of the Australian community pay their fair share of tax, and through such measures as the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, company audits and other anti-avoidance measures the Government has made the tax system in this country fairer and has ensured that those who previously, under conservative administrations, were able to avoid their fair share of tax and add to the burden of ordinary, honest wage and salary earners have at last been brought to account. So much for our fairness, which is acknowledged within this country and internationally. Equally importantly, the second principle of this Government's taxation policies has been economic efficiency. We have sought to bring to an end the situation where commercial decisions could be based, as they so often were, on questions of tax shelters and tax avoidance. We have sought to create a situation in which commercial decisions will be based on prospective economic returns. As I say, those two principles have governed the Government's approach to taxation policy from day one, and as part of the implementation of those principles the Government announced in its statement of May this year the termination from 1991 of the tax exemption for goldmining. That was precisely in line with the two principles of fairness and economic efficiency. May I say that as recently as last month the Leader of the Opposition said at an investment seminar in New York that he would support such a decision. That is the situation. The Government made its position quite clear in May of this year and the Leader of the Opposition has indicated his support for that principle. Unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition was rolled on the issue, and by whom was he rolled? He was rolled by his own deputy leader, the shadow Treasurer. He rolled his own leader on this issue. So the Leader of the Opposition on this important principle got rolled by his deputy leader, by his shadow Cabinet and ultimately by the party room. I suppose it should not have come as any surprise that on an important issue like this the Leader of the Opposition got rolled, because he has been rolled on everything recently. He has been rolled on-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is always good to hear from the Prime Minister about people who have been rolled, but he was asked a question about the principles underlying Government policy. All the speculation and allegation about what takes place in other places, for example in our party room, have nothing to do with that question. You know that, Madam Speaker, he knows it and everybody here knows it; so I would say that if relevance is to have any meaning in this House you must put him back on the right track. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will return to the question. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member should get back and start worrying about big Mac. That is what he has to worry about, because he is gone. Madam Speaker, I respect your indication that I should not go on with a list of issues on which the Leader of the Opposition has been rolled. I will not list them any more. I will simply say that he has been in his current position for so long and not delivering the goods that he ought to be paying demurrage. I insist that the principles we have followed from day one are the principles of equity and economic efficiency. They are sensible taxation principles which, as the Treasurer said in answer to an earlier question when he was looking at what has transpired in this country in terms of helping small business and others, have produced in this country a fairer and more efficient tax system. This has been an intrinsic and fundamentally important part of the fact that under the economic management of this Government we have produced an economy and a form of economic management which, as has been said by the Secretary-General of the International Monetary Fund, provide a model for the rest of the world. Mr TUCKEY —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that an officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department's Sports Advisory Committee, who was identified in Senate Estimates committee hearings, has been, firstly, the subject of sworn allegations of an extortion racket in the early days of the Aboriginal Development Commission; secondly, the subject of allegations relating to misappropriation of funds for the Boomanulla oval in the Australian Capital Territory; thirdly, associated with the National Aborigines Day Observance Committee for the 1987 celebrations in the ACT from which funds are still missing; fourthly, subject to investigations with respect to the women's conference in Chinchilla earlier this year; and, fifthly, recently summonsed by the police for a variety of offences? If so, why has the Minister failed to act as he did against his departmental Secretary? Mr HAND —Madam Speaker, I seek your guidance because I think the gentleman the honourable member is referring to has been stood down, and I think legal matters are being proceeded with. Madam SPEAKER —If the matter is before the court it is sub judice. Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister sought your guidance. He has given the House no answer and he should be required to do so. Madam SPEAKER —Can the Minister inform the House whether it is a matter before the court? Mr Beazley —On the point of order, Madam Chair: irrespective of whether the matter is before the court I would have thought that under Standing Orders a Minister may answer the question as he sees fit. Madam SPEAKER —Certainly he may answer the question as he sees fit. Mr HAND —Madam Speaker, I am reluctant to name the individual. I would have thought the person has some rights and I do not think that the Parliament ought to be dealing with the matters raised in the question which concern a person who has been stood down from his place of work. Mr SNOW —Can the Minister for Transport and Communications advise the House of the steps that the Government is taking to ensure that new airline operators will have access to terminals after the ending of the two-airline policy in October 1990? Mr WILLIS —Deregulation of the aviation industry is an important element of the Government's micro-economic reform agenda. I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for raising this issue. Of course, the Government gave the required three years' notice of the ending of the two airlines policy in October last year. That means that by October 1990 the Government will no longer be regulating four key areas in the aviation industry; that is, controls over the import of aircraft will be removed; controls over the amount of capacity that can be provided by airlines will no longer apply; the Independent Air Fares Committee, which currently sets air fares, will be abolished and fares will be subject to the Prices Surveillance Authority; and new domestic operators will no longer be prevented from operating on trunk routes. That is a very substantial step towards giving us a more competitive airline system. There was one major inhibition to such greater competition occurring from October 1990: under existing leases for the terminals in the major airports there was limited access, or probably no access, for new operators at that time. Therefore, the Government has renegotiated terminal leases to enable access to be provided to new operators. Those new leases provide that in each of the major airports which has been transferred to the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) each of the major operators has to provide gates in its terminal if there are no common user facilities available. Common user facilities are available in Brisbane and Hobart. The other airports-Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Coolangatta and Launceston-will all have gates available by the provisions in the renegotiated leases. A minimum degree of terminal access is guaranteed to any new operators. In addition, the FAC can also provide sites for new entrants to develop their own terminals if they so wish, or the FAC may elect to construct additional facilities. This means that there are a variety of ways in which terminal facilities can be made available to new operators. The FAC has recently advertised for expressions of interest from potential new airlines as to facilities they may require beyond those that are available under domestic terminal leases-that is, the minimum level that is being provided through the renegotiation of the leases. The House may be interested to know that there have been quite a few expressions of interest from potential new operators, indicating to the FAC that they are interested in discussing the possibility of additional terminal access. What is quite clear is that from October 1990 we will have a much freed up aviation industry. It will be a much more competitive industry than that which was presided over for so many years by the previous Government. Unlike those in the previous Government, who now in opposition talk a lot about deregulation and the need for greater competition in industry, this Government has actually moved to bring all of that about. We will undoubtedly have a much more competitive industry, with great benefits to customers and the nation, following the implementation of our policy in October 1990. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health, concerns an organisation named the Mount Isa Aboriginal and Islander Development Recreational Women's Association which is the sponsor for another group, the Aboriginal and Islander Child Care Agency. Firstly, was a grant of $34,196 set up for a playgroup actually paid to the Association? Secondly, is it a fact that the playgroup has not yet been set up? Thirdly, has the Department paid an additional grant to the Association of $21,694 to purchase a bus for a playgroup that does not exist? Fourthly, is it a fact that only $5,000 of the grant has been paid for the bus and, as a consequence of no further moneys being paid, the bus has now been sold to other interests? Dr BLEWETT —I am not aware of the specific details of child-care provision in Mount Isa. I will immediately endeavour to get the information and provide it to the honourable member. Mr CHARLES —Has the Treasurer seen criticism of his statement in the House yesterday on monetary policy? Can the Treasurer indicate to the House the current state of monetary conditions? Mr KEATING —Yesterday, bill rates rose by about 0.3 per cent and this morning the Reserve Bank readjusted the rediscount rate to accommodate that shift. As well as reactions from other people, there was a reaction from the shadow Minister for finance, who put out another foolish statement on monetary policy, indicating that the Government has been holding down interest rates and that we have now come clean. The shadow Minister for finance stated: He has obviously decided that sufficient time has now passed, since the Victorian State election and the Oxley by-election, to admit that monetary policy has been tightened . . . The truth is that from the very first business day following the Oxley by-election the Reserve Bank started to tighten monetary policy, as evidenced by movements in cash rates. In today's Australian Financial Review there appears a graph-anyone, particularly any interested person, can see it-which shows rises in interest rates, official and unofficial, from April. Unambiguously, there has been a rise from April. In other words, only the most mischievous person would try to make the fallacious claim that the Government was holding down interest rates when it was obvious that interest rates, for certain reasons, have been rising since April. But even worse, people should not say that interest rates should not be rising, on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, in speeches say that they should be rising. In his speech to the Institute of Public Administration, the shadow Minister for finance said: Domestically, our main problem is that the economy is overheating. He went on to say: The marginal tightening of monetary policy since April of this year seems quite insufficient to have dealt with these forces. In other words, we need further tightening of these policies. He said in a letter to the Australian Financial Review of 7 October, on page 6: The market and most of the rest of us- including him- are wrong and there is no case for any further tightening of monetary policy. In other words, in the positive, we are right and there is a case for further tightening of monetary policy. The shadow Minister for finance has been arguing for the tightening of monetary policy-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Treasurer is again moving into areas which, as you have pointed out quite correctly during a previous Parliament, are none of his responsibility and he should return to Government policy. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer was in order with the question. Mr KEATING —We have this pantomime of members of the Opposition, particularly the shadow finance spokesman, who apparently has decided to speak on monetary policy in place of the shadow Treasurer-whom he must adjudge to be incapable of speaking on the subject of monetary policy-saying, in the community, `It is shocking that interest rates are rising', but privately saying to business audiences, `Interest rates have to rise', and accusing the Reserve Bank Governor of being directed by the Government to hold down interest rates, when anyone in the market will have known that they have been rising consistently since April. At the end of his shabby press release he used the words `Unless the Treasurer moves decisively to reopen fiscal policy'. This Government has reduced outlays by 5 percentage points of gross domestic product. His sole job in life as shadow finance spokesman is to put up cuts in public spending on behalf of the Opposition. He still has not done it. Senator Stone did not do it. We had statements from the Leader of the Opposition about how they were going to have a finance policy announced in September. Mr Downer —You are a fake. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Mayo. If he continues to interject, I will name him. Mr KEATING —The fact is that the Opposition has one task, and one task only-to cough up the spending cuts to provide for tax cuts. It is trying to be mealy-mouthed by saying, `This is shocking; interest rates are rising', while privately urging this policy in every economic forum around the country and attacking the Reserve Bank Governor for being a dupe of the Government when he has presided over the most remarkable transformation of a monetary system in the world: the floating of the dollar; the total deregulation of the Australian economy; a terms of trade collapse; a currency collapse; and a massive adjustment of fiscal policy. The shadow Minister, like a mature child, says that the Reserve Bank Governor is on a string being run by the Government, while at the same time he says that interest rates are being held down by that bank and by that Governor in response to political pressures, when it is obvious to any interested observer that interest rates have been rising consistently from April through the period of the State election in Victoria and the by-election in Oxley. There is not one ounce of veracity in any comment made by the Opposition finance spokesman, the honourable member for Wentworth. He has been running around like a delinquent. He is regarded by the Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia as a delinquent. Mr PETER FISHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Mr Cunningham —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the last answer to a question it was absolutely impossible to hear what the Treasurer was saying. Madam SPEAKER —I quite agree with the honourable member for McMillan. Mr Cunningham —The noise from the Opposition side was such that we could not hear. Either we will need the sound louder or the Opposition will need to be a little bit quieter. Madam SPEAKER —I accept what the honourable member for McMillan says. The level of noise in the House has been quite atrocious. Mr PETER FISHER —I refer the Minister to the controversy involving the loss of taxpayers' funds and alleged corruption within the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and the intention of the Victorian Government to amalgamate this body with the Rural Finance Corporation. Does the Minister have any concern with this proposal, and what will be the effect upon rural lending if the VEDC's dubious debts and operations become the responsibility of the Rural Finance Corporation operating within the rural adjustment arrangements? Mr KERIN —The answer to the honourable member's question is no. It is purely a matter for the Victorian Government. Mr GORMAN —Is the Attorney-General aware of a recent High Court case in Australia involving the journalist Peter Hastings which held that journalists must reveal the names of confidential sources who have given them information? Could the Attorney-General indicate what implications this may have for freedom of the press in Australia? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The case concerned was a State matter but the principle of whether information should be disclosed was dealt with by the High Court of Australia. It is important to note that under the rules of the New South Wales Supreme Court a person wishing to commence proceedings against another person whom he cannot identify may seek an order of the court requiring a third person who may be able to identify the defendant to attend before the court and to produce relevant documents. So we are talking about the confined litigation rules of the Supreme Court in New South Wales. The High Court described the article in question as containing a very serious type of defamation. The order would not have been made had the Supreme Court been of the opinion that the respondent had an effective remedy against John Fairfax and Sons. But those persons, if sued, had a possible defence but were not prepared to indicate that they would not rely on it. So we were left with the position that somebody was allegedly defamed. The New South Wales Supreme Court rules clearly indicate that the court itself may make an order so that one can identify the person one may sue. I note also that this case was an appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal, which had already found the same way. That in turn was an appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales who had also found the same way. In every respect we are not basically dealing with the freedom of the press. We are dealing with the issue in law as to what these particular proceedings related to. As I said, whether there was a problem in this sense really related to those proceedings and not so much to defamation. However, what the High Court had to say is worthy of comment because people are entitled to have some protection. May I tell honourable members that State Attorneys-General, meeting with me in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, have for some time been trying to work out what might be a national law on defamation. We cannot really get any agreement on it because the newspaper proprietors have certain views as to what they feel they are entitled to print. The issue is, of course, that the people who are affected ought to have a right of reply-that is one of the first things that ought to be considered-instead of having to go to litigation. Be that as it may, the High Court in its judgment said this: It is a fundamental principle of our law, repeatedly affirmed by Australian and English courts, that the media and journalists have no public interest immunity from being required to disclose their sources of information when such disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice. The High Court declined to set what it called: such a high value on a free press and on freedom of information as to leave the individual without an effective remedy . . . The issue basically relates to the fact that somebody was seeking a remedy against somebody who would have been able to give that person the opportunity to sue, and that information was declined. It has no relevance to the freedom of the press other than that. As we know, defamation proceedings can take place at any time. In this particular case, the court recognised the fact that the person sued had a defence. Therefore, there was no opportunity for the plaintiff to succeed. There was an opportunity within the New South Wales Supreme Court rules to ask that somebody else be identified who could be sued. The States, of course, need to give consideration to this matter. It has implications for defamation laws, which are predominantly matters for the States. It is a question of giving balance between policy considerations arrived at by the High Court and the States themselves. Mr TAYLOR —I address my first question in this place to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister aware of accusations of nepotism in housing matters by certain office-bearers of the Downs Aboriginal and Islanders Co-op Ltd in Toowoomba? Can the Minister confirm that the Aboriginal Development Commission in Brisbane is investigating these accusations? Does the Minister personally know the chairman of the cooperative, a well-known retired Aboriginal jockey? Does the Minister have an interest in racehorses and, if so, can he assure the House that none of the horses is or has been agisted at Alma Vale, the ex-horse stud purchased by the cooperative outside Toowoomba for nearly $600,000 but never used as such? Can the Minister assure the House that Alma Vale will now be cost effective in its alcohol rehabilitation role as the result of his recent approval of another $49,000 at that place? Mr HAND —Madam Speaker, you might notice I have a suit on. Maybe I do have an interest in horses. The fact is I do have an interest in horses, like a lot of other people in this place. I do not own any horses. I do know the person the honourable member is referring to, Darby McCarthy, whom I watched ride a lot of horses and who was one of the great jockeys Australia has produced. Darby McCarthy is connected with the organisation that the honourable member referred to. Yes, he sent my wife some photos of a horse on one occasion. And at one time we even contemplated that we might take out a lease on a horse. But we did not, we have not, and there is no horse of mine on Darby's property. I have not been to the property. Mr Tuckey —It's not Darby's property. Mr HAND —It is the property of the community group, the organisation which Mr McCarthy is attached to and part of. The questions the honourable member asked relate to the Aboriginal Development Commission and, as the honourable member knows, it is a statutory body. I will inquire of that particular body and get the full details of the other parts of the question and respond to the honourable member. Mr SCIACCA —Will the Minister for Administrative Services tell the House what progress has been achieved in streamlining the efficient delivery of services by government agencies? Mr WEST —The House might recall that approximately a year ago I said that I would be reviewing on behalf of the Government the way in which Government provided services to itself. The criteria that I used were whether the Government ought to be in the business of supplying the service at all and, if so, whether it ought to be charged for it, and whether the service delivery provision ought to be opened up to competition with the private sector. Over the last six months we reviewed something like nine divisions in the Department of Administrative Services. We spotted off the way it provides services against a principles paper that I produced earlier this year. We have reformed the operations of the Australian Property Group, the Construction Group, the Australian Government Publishing Service, the Analytical Laboratories and the Surveying and Land Information Group, to name just a few. We have made decisions on a case by case basis. We have made certain decisions about cost recovery, basically as a matter of demand control. We have opened also many of the service areas to competition on the basis that we should open them up to the efficiency pressure of the market. It is all right for the Opposition to seek to comment on these matters, but it was in power for a long time. It talked a lot about deregulation, about reform of the public sector and about reform of the way government provides services to itself. But what the Opposition is stuck with is that it did nothing about these matters in all the time it was in office. A great degree of reform has been effected through the process that I have mentioned. While opening up a significant number of government services to competition and to effective cost recovery, we at the same time have been able to protect matters of public interest. As far as the Construction Group is concerned, project management services will be untied totally as from the middle of 1991. It will be put on a full recovery basis regarding its costs from that time. Similarly, for the Property Group, all of the government business enterprises attached to the Commonwealth have been untied as far as their property services are concerned. Departments which are providing significant network services, such as the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security, in areas outside the commercial business districts of major cities will be untied also for lease or fit out. Another example of the way that we have untied these services and protected the public interest at the same time is the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. Public interest matters, such as the testing of imported food and drugs, have been tied to the Government Laboratories. All other areas have been untied and are subject to full cost recovery. So, I am able to assure the House that in this area, where it has been necessary to balance a number of considerations such as employment and the efficient delivery of services and, at the same time, to effect a degree of commercialisation, we have been able to do all of those things and not throw the public interests baby out with the commercialisation bathwater. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to an answer. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Dr BLEWETT —During Question Time today, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) asked me a detailed question about the Mount Isa Aboriginal and Islander Child Care Agency (AICCA). I said that I would try to get him a prompt response. I would like to give him that response. There is a dispute at Mount Isa between the sponsoring body and the management committee about the administration of the Mount Isa AICCA which has resulted in the temporary closure of that agency. An independent Aboriginal person is to travel to Mount Isa to chair a public meeting on 14 November. I hope that many of the agency's difficulties can be resolved at this meeting. As the honourable member for Dawson noted, there is also a difficulty relating to funds made available to the sponsoring body to purchase a bus for a playgroup which has been established by the AICCA. These funds have been inadvertently used for ongoing operations of the agency. My Department and the sponsoring body are endeavouring to rectify that situation at present. No further funds will be provided to the AICCA until the difficulties have been satisfactorily resolved. Departmental officers are also monitoring the agency on a day to day basis. Funds have been provided for a bookkeeper and also special arrangements have been made for a local accountant to set up a financial system for the agency. I also point out to the House quite clearly that, until these difficulties arose, the Mount Isa AICCA provided an excellent service for Aboriginal children who otherwise may well have had to be sent away to much larger towns out of the Mount Isa setting. 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- Affirmative Action Agency-Annual Report 1987-88-section 12 of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986-together with an explanatory statement. Department of Finance-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922. Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General-Annual Report 1987-88-section 19 of the Governor-General Act 1987. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorise the publication of the annual report for 1987-88 of the Affirmative Action Agency. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The drastic effect upon the living standards and future prospects for Aboriginal people resulting from the Government's indecision and policy vacuum. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(2.56) —I repeat quite clearly the terms of today's matter of public importance: The drastic effect upon the living standards and future prospects for Aboriginal people resulting from the Government's indecision and policy vacuum. In drawing that situation to the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), I guess that we could have no better example of it than on Wednesday, 2 November when the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program The World Today conducted the following interview. A Mr Carey commenced his remarks by saying: Namoi Reserve is out of sight and out of mind. It's decidedly worse than Toomelah, which was called Third World, and which caused Justice Marcus Einfeld to weep. Some 200 people live in 27 dwellings, loosely described as houses. Most are constructed of galvanised iron, some have dirt floors and in summer the water pressure drops leaving Namoi's residents high and dry. In the floods, it's the reverse. This morning I spoke to two Namoi residents and asked them what they thought of the money which had been spent on the Oasis Hotel. Plenty of references in this place have been made to the Oasis Hotel recently. The interview continued: Woman: (Not identified). I reckon the Oasis should be closed down. Think about people over here. They've got a foundation, up there, they're buying cars, rent-a-cars, and what are the people doing over here? Bloody still living in tin shacks. We don't want rent-a-cars or an Oasis. We want homes. Carey: What then do you think of all the money that is being spent at the Oasis? Man: (Not identified). The money they spent on the Oasis should be for houses. We don't need another pub in town. Carey: Where did the idea come then, to spend the money on the Oasis? Man: Charles Perkins. He was referring to Mr Charles Perkins, the former Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The fundamental issue that we are debating here today is the way millions of dollars have been wasted and not spent as those people-the Aboriginal people who are still suffering deprivation of the level described-clearly wish it to be spent. It is outrageous. There has been plenty of time to fix the situation. The Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) was first formed in 1980. The Act was assented to in the fifth month of that year. It was an attempt to give to the Aboriginal people more decision-making powers and to give them money to that effect. Since then, the Parliament has voted $650m to that organisation. Since 1967, when this Parliament first took responsibility for Aboriginal spending, a nominal $3,000m has been spent or, in real terms, $4,600m. That would represent a lot of houses, health treatment and education. But the Minister knows and I know that, certainly in the more remote areas of Australia and as close as the Namoi Reserve, there is no evidence that that money has been spent to good effect. It is a disgrace and, unfortunately, the Minister's administration has been responsible for that for the last five years. Early problems could be expected, but in February 1984 the Standing Committee on Expenditure decided to look at the Aboriginal Development Commission in a routine way to see how it was going. There was nothing sinister about it, but as soon as the inquiry was announced there commenced a flood of allegations of bad management and corruption. I was so concerned that, when I read in another paper that the then Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission, Mr Perkins, was about to be promoted to the position of Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, I telexed, as a member of that Committee, the then Minister, Minister Holding, requesting him to hold over any decision on that until such time as the Committee had completed its inquiry. I had two reasons for that. The first, of course, was that we felt that the person responsible for the ADC should not be in charge of the Department during those inquiries as quite clearly a lot of evidence would be expected to come from the Department. The other reason was the allegations. The fact is that the Minister ignored that and everything else and promoted Mr Perkins. I suggest that that promotion at that time has contributed substantially to what has occurred since. The Minister put arrogance and idealism ahead of prudence and commonsense. Mr Hand —Who, me? Mr TUCKEY —No, the previous Minister, Mr Holding. This happened in his time. Many of these things occurred then and evidence was given under oath. It caused the Expenditure Committee to say in its report to the Parliament: A number of other matters brought to the attention of the Committee have involved serious allegations of mal-administration which in some instances may lead to criminal prosecution. Mr John Coombs, QC, assisting that inquiry, said that two matters should be referred to the Federal Police. He said: Perkins was generally an evasive and unhelpful witness from whom the Committee's attempts to seek answers were probably a waste of time. All this was reported to Parliament in 1985. Strangely enough, the Government's embarrassment was such that towards the end of that inquiry efforts were made to confuse and hose down the issue. In the end, the final report was delivered to this Parliament at midnight, making sure that all media deadlines had passed. That was another disgrace. The reality is that we are now in a position where the Opposition has attempted to give the Government all that evidence-and I say to the Minister that some of it will make his hair stand on end-but the Minister and his colleagues have declined the offer. We know that there is in camera evidence. We know that it should not be published, but it is obvious that a Minister who genuinely means that he wants to clean things up should look at that evidence and consider it. It has got me beat why the Minister is avoiding looking at that evidence. The Opposition has not suggested that it be published. The Opposition has not suggested anything other than the Minister look at it and have the authority to give it to his inquirers if that is the result. He might in his remarks tell us why-if he is genuine in his desire to clean up this mess in the interests of those people at Namoi and all the others who are suffering because all that money has been wasted-he does not want every scrap of evidence, as he has said he wants, in this place day after day. It might really lift his stocks if during his speech he said that he would welcome such a motion to be put again, and in fact put it himself. He could carry it without our assistance. He will never be trusted in this place while he will not accept the opportunity to look at that evidence. It is amazing. The allegations in the report in many cases have surfaced again. And now the Government is embarrassed and it is the same old story: what the Government tried to hose down five years ago is coming back to haunt it. It is also haunting the Aboriginal people because another five years of money has been wasted and misdirected while all that has been happening. We have heard the Minister talk about the Woden Town Club. I am a bit surprised that the Minister thought he should explain to us the difference between a guarantee and a grant. Mr Dowding in Western Australia thought he knew the difference between a guarantee and a grant. With the aid of Mr Burke he guaranteed $150m and the taxpayers of that State will have to pay it. The Minister knows that the Woden Town Club will never make any money. It can barely open its doors. His guarantee has become a grant. Maybe not today, but it is another $300,000 that will not be spent on housing, that will not be spent on health, that will not be spent on the education of Aboriginal people-the fundamental things that the Aboriginals need, and the Minister knows it. I can mention other grants. There was $514,000 in grants and loans given to that same club over and above the $300,000 guarantee. There were no repayments, there was no interest paid. There was no mechanism in place to get back a bit of money through the ADC, which was seen as a form of merchant bank for the people who need it most. And now is the time the Minister is objecting. There were grants for the Oasis Hotel in Walgett, Nardoola near Moree and Tranby Co-operative College, which got $500,000 for very dubious uses. The other thing that has been around for a long time is Inada Holdings. The Minister's predecessor was deeply involved in that. What about Aboriginal artists? Art is something with which the Aboriginal people can lift themselves by their own bootstraps, yet it has been subject to massive losses, massive empire building, and massive involvement when it was not necessary. About $300,000 was necessary. It had some financial problems, but they were resolved. A lady called Natasha McNamara, who is well known and trusted throughout the community, had got it back on its feet. As soon as that Aboriginal arts operation got back on its feet, the Secretary wanted it. He fought them in the courts. He formed companies. What is the current situation? Four million dollars later a number of the stores that were opened are now closed. In fact, in its last balance sheet that was audited it reported a loss which, when one took into account some tax credits, amounted to a quarter of a million dollars. The Director said, `trading results were a marked improvement on previous years'. That is another $3m or $4m gone. It was not necessary. There was no need for it whatsoever. Now we have the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association (TAIMA) issue. We raised the question yesterday and the Minister said he knew about it, that it was down here lobbying the other day. What is its purpose? It is to apply for an FM licence in Townsville. There were 20 expressions of interest in that licence. The only applicant was the inexperienced Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association, which said it could do it if the ADC would lend it about $2m-80 per cent of the project cost. How many houses would that build? The fact is that not one experienced operator would apply for the licence because it knows it cannot make it pay. The two AM licences dropped $1m in the market last year. The Minister told us he knows about it. The application hearing commences on 19 December. Why has the Minister not stopped it? Why is he letting it go on? It is not only going to spend $2m, it will lose tens of millions of dollars every year-more houses not being built. All of those things are working against the people in need. I want the Minister to tell us about that. I do not want him to get into histrionics as he did yesterday. I do not want him to play politics on this issue. We are talking about people's lives. Mr Snowdon —What have you been doing? Mr TUCKEY —I have been very clearly raising the issues of people in need. I put them to the House. The Minister will have the opportunity to say in his speech, `I will not allow the TAIMA issue to continue. I will not allow another $2m of Aboriginal people's money voted by this Parliament to be wasted while the people of Namoi live in tin sheds'. The hearing is set down for 19 December and goodness knows how much money has been spent so far. What about the Aboriginal Medical Service? It has become an umpire. It set out as a very good proposition; something to help remote area Aboriginals who fear the institution of white man's hospitals. Now we find it in capital cities. Now we find it in towns that I represent such as Geraldton. Look at the situation in Geraldton. A ministerial submission dated 7 May makes an interesting point. It is a few years old. It was written when the Minister's predecessor was in charge. It states: In October 1984, the organisation's doctor- namely, the Geraldton regional Aboriginal medical service- made allegations in the media that DAA funds had been misapplied and elections mishandled. He was subsequently dismissed . . Now we hear about Mrs Forward from the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association complaining about the fear of reprisals and Gary Foley saying on Australian Broadcasting Corporation programs that, `We cannot give evidence to this particular group of inquiries because we have no protection'. This man complained and he was sacked. I shall read the following part of the submission: Following receipt of material in confidence from a G.R.A.M.S. staff member the DAA Area Officer examined the books of account in early May 1985. Why he did not examine them six months earlier when the allegations were made, one would not know. The submission continues: This revealed numerous irregularities in salary payments, loans to employees and their relatives, and unusually high levels of expenditure in some areas without adequate supporting documentation. The submission then has `seen by Minister' stamped on it, but little was done about it. The people's money was still wasted and, of course, institutions of Aboriginal medicine are being established where people have been quite adjusted to ordinary hospital treatment for many years. In one area I visited they put in an Aboriginal medical service and had to close the general hospital for lack of support. So those people who were white and in the district went without medical services. All of these things add up to one thing: the Minister has no policy, does not know where to turn and is not fixing the problem. In fact, the Government, collectively, has ignored the signals for five years and so has the Minister since he has had the task. If the Minister is not going to fix the problem, he should tell us. But I am hoping that his speech, in the next 15 minutes, will give some encouragement to the Aboriginal people. I hope the speech he gives will give them some hope and that the Minister will guarantee them that these problems will stop, not through the current inquiries but through a proper inquiry where evidence can be given with protection, under oath, and be subject to cross-examination. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(3.12) —I will attempt to address the questions raised by the previous speaker, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), and I will start with his last point about the Government having no policy. I will be talking about who has no policy over the whole of my speech. The Government has a policy. We have recognised the shortcomings in the current range of services that are provided, and on 10 September last year I outlined a proposal which I took around Australia. I talked to more Aboriginal groups and communities than has ever been done before regarding any policy area which would affect them. The Government changed the proposal; we came back to this place, prepared the legislation, put it through Parliament and the Government is now waiting for it to be passed through the Senate. I have no disagreement with the honourable member who has just spoken. I do not like going to places and seeing people in tin shacks. I do not like seeing sick people who have no homes and no water. That is the whole thrust of what I am on about-the Woden Town Club grant-and I will say it again: The Opposition must understand the Bill. That is the dilemma faced here. It is a Bill which the Opposition set up and yet the Opposition talks as though everything happened yesterday. The things Opposition members talk about have occurred over a number of years. Under the restrictions placed on me, I have attempted at every turn to do something about the situation, but the Aboriginal Development Commission legislation is well known to Opposition members. It is interesting that every time I have tried to take some step, I have been attacked by the very people who are now telling me to do something about the situation. Senate select committees are holding back the introduction of the changed legislation. People are being pilloried every day in here, with no proof, as though they are criminals. The question is fundamental: If one is serious about wanting to bring about change-and I have said to the Opposition and the Democrats that there is a problem that needs to be addressed-I have a concept here which I believe would do that. I have said to the Opposition, `Show me how it can be improved, and if it can be improved and an agreement can be reached on it, we will do it.' I have said to the Democrats, who have one view in the morning and another view in the afternoon, `Why do you not come forward with concrete proposals?' But nothing has been produced. A range of issues was addressed by the previous speaker in terms of evidence that he has. I say to the honourable member and I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker-because you were chairman of the committee of this Parliament which took that evidence under the rules of the Parliament-that in terms of protection of witnesses, those people, as I understand it, came forward under the protection of parliament and gave evidence in camera. Is it fair that, when people come before the Parliament of this country and give evidence, thinking that they will receive the protection of the Parliament, that evidence is then handed out for someone else, who was not part of that inquiry, to look at? I am as concerned as the honourable member is about corruption but those people are in the same position now. They can come forward to me and present that information if they choose. They will be given protection by me and by the processes the Government has established, but I did not set the rules of this Parliament; those rules to which the honourable member referred have been built up over years. I am surprised at Opposition members. They talk about civil liberties but, when it suits their cheap political ends, they throw them overboard. That is the fundamental question here. It is not about trying to address the problem of tin shacks on the riverbank; it is not about trying to get kids into education or trying to establish an employment program; it is about cheap political shots day after day in this damn place and not one Opposition member will come forward to me with any evidence. I say to the Opposition and to those people who are quick on the gun to accuse people: if they are fair dinkum about trying to rectify the problems of today-not the problems of 1980-81, not the problems of 1983, not the problems of 1984-85 but the problems of today which I have the ability to do something about, although I am limited in some regards-come forward with the information and help us do something about them. The honourable member referred to the Namoi Reserve and the Oasis Hotel. At the same meeting where the problem of the Oasis was being discussed, a decision was made to build homes for the people at Namoi in a two-year program. That decision has been made. If one looks at the budgetary expenditure and the way it is structured this year under me, and if one examines the arrangements I have developed with the States, one finds that I can reach agreement with the Queensland Government; I can reach agreement with the South Australian Government and the Northern Territory Government on joint programs to obtain houses for people; I can improve the living standards of people all around Australia. But the only people from whom I cannot get cooperation to fix the problem are these people on the Opposition benches. I say to them again: if they want to fix it up, they should let me know and we will do it. I reached agreement with all of the States on how to fix the town camp problem in the Northern Territory. It involved a massive program jointly with the Northern Territory Government, the Commonwealth Government and the Aboriginal people. It involved a tripartite approach. It was the first time it had ever been done and it will work. The bulk of the proposal and the money were put in by the Northern Territory and I give it full credit. The questions the Opposition raises about the television station are pertinent and the Opposition is correct in raising that issue. The matter has been raised with me. The question concerns the Aboriginal Development Commission, which is the funding body. Again, it is interesting that the Liberal and National parties set up the Commission when they were in government. It is an economic venture. Whether it succeeds or whether it fails will be judged in those terms. The ADC has business people and experts advising it. When an ADC report came out last year, the Opposition congratulated the ADC. Last year Senator Tambling stood up and congratulated the ADC. Yet now the Opposition is about destroying the Commission. I wish honourable members opposite would make up their minds. One of the components of the ADC legislation is to try to establish an economic base for Aboriginal people. I have to say-and honourable members opposite should listen-that when the stock exchange crashed and billions of dollars were written off, the people who lost that money were plastered across the front pages of the newspaper as heroes. When Laurie Connell's business venture crashed in Western Australia, he was not subjected to the same viciousness that is expressed about Aboriginal people. That is the difference, and honourable members opposite know that. If we are going to get into the business of economic development to establish an economic base for Aboriginal people, something which the previous Government's legislation established, can honourable members opposite seriously say to me that every proposal that is put up has to work or the whole thing is a failure? There was not one word from honourable members opposite about the shopping complex in Alice Springs worth $40m. There is not one word about the success stories and the good things that Aboriginal people do. There is not one thing said about the training programs by which Aboriginal people claw their way up and get themselves off the river banks and establish going concerns in Mildura, Echuca, Swan Hill and other such places. Nothing is said. I say again to honourable members opposite: `If you have information about maladministration, nepotism and other problems, it is your duty to bring that forward'. There is a way to fix it. The way not to fix it is to create the division that has been created, not totally by one side-- Mr Miles —You have had five years, Gerry. Mr HAND —Wait until I finish the sentence. I thought the honourable member for Braddon had gone back to New York, or wherever he was. I did not know he was here. The situation is that the issue that was raised about the people in the arts proposal-- Mr Tuckey —That is outrageous. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr HAND —Again, the honourable member for O'Connor is justified in raising that point, as was the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who asked a question yesterday about the same point. In my answer to the honourable member for Gwydir I explained that I was meeting the people connected with that issue this week-and I will do that. I say to the member for O'Connor: I can only do that. I cannot rectify a situation that developed back then. I have said to the people concerned-and I shall keep the names between the two of us-that the people concerned will come and see me, and I shall discuss the issue with them and talk the issue right through; and I shall see what needs to be done. The Government has set up a three-pronged attack to get at the issues that the honourable member has raised. People have raised problems with particular programs, and they have made general statements about programs. Aboriginal people have said to me, `Well, it should be looked at if it's wrong'. They are not running away from it at all. I resent the philosophy that everything that is wrong has to be talked about-and that Aboriginal people cannot handle anything that they touch. That is not true. Mr Miles —We are not talking about the Aborigines; we are talking-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I warn the honourable member for Braddon. Mr HAND —In relation to the point that the honourable member for O'Connor has raised about the ADC television proposition, I give him a commitment that I will contact the ADC and get an up to date report on where that matter is, for his information. In terms of the arts question, I am addressing that particular point, because at that time, like the honourable member for Gwydir, I was in touch with people about that issue. Let us go to the issue of medical services. If ever there was a program of which both sides of the House could be proud, and of which Aboriginal people could be proud, it is the medical services program. That program arose from a report from the parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I think the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) was the Chairman of that Committee-or perhaps it was just before his time. That report suggested that there was a need for a health care program run by Aboriginal people. The concept was developed by Aboriginal people. As the honourable member for Dundas said the other day, Aboriginal people want to be involved in the running of things; they want to have a say about how things are done. Aboriginal people want to be involved, not just consulted. I say to the member for O'Connor: I will wager that the biggest disasters we have had have probably occurred because of the limited involvement of Aborigines in the decision making process. I want him to dwell on that. I am not having a go at him; but I want him to dwell on that very point, because it goes to the heart of a couple of the issues that he raised. In situations where Aboriginal people have developed a process, the odds are that things will work. Where they have been excluded from the process-where an idea might be put up and someone else makes the decision-the odds are that will fail. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) provides the remedy for all of the problems raised by those opposite. It is a new commission, starting again, but involving Aboriginal people. That is the difference. Honourable members opposite are trying to knock it down and they will not do one single thing to help fix it up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(3.27) —I would like to say to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) that the matter of public importance refers to the drastic effect on the living standards and future prospects of Aboriginal people resulting from the Government's indecision and policy vacuum. There is nothing at all in the wording about the indecision of Aboriginal people and the policy vacuum of Aboriginal groups. We are talking about the Government, and that is what this matter is about. I am one member of the House who would like to thank Senator Tambling for his actions in the Estimates committee in bringing this matter to the attention of the Australian people. He has done a magnificent job and his work compares favourably with the work done by the Human Rights Commissioner who visited Toomelah. Senator Tambling has brought to the attention of the Parliament the nepotism and maladministration that have gone on under this Government. I have listened to many honourable members speaking in the House and I have spoken to other honourable members in the corridors about the problems that Aboriginal people face. Many of them do not know what they are talking about. I have been a member of parliament for eight years. In that time I have tried desperately to do something for the people of my electorate, but I must say, and I am ashamed to say it, that I have failed miserably. The reason I have failed is that I just cannot get through the system. I cannot get through the various departments that have been set up not only by the Whitlam and Fraser governments, but also by the Hawke Government and the present Minister. The situation gets worse. In my electorate, the Aboriginal people are worse off than they were nine or 10 years ago. This is after the expenditure of millions and millions of dollars-certainly millions of dollars have been spent in my electorate. As a member of this Parliament, I am ashamed to say that I have failed. I am sure the Minister will be true to his word and try to do something about the situation, because it is still desperate. I shall touch on one issue that I know about concerning the town of Wilcannia. In that town, as the Minister probably well knows, we have an area known as the mission. There are 13 Aboriginal homes there, and those homes are in an absolutely desperate situation. I invite any honourable member-as I know the Aboriginal people would do-to have a look at their desperate plight, a plight resulting from maladministration and the other problems that I have mentioned. When I talk about the mission, I am talking about the mission run by the Sisters of Compassion. They have done a magnificent job in trying to look after the Aboriginal children. Unfortunately, they are leaving the area. I do not know what will happen then, because they have certainly been angels in the way in which they have cared for the Aboriginal people. To give an example, in January 1986 I was invited to the mission because the Aboriginal people there had a problem. The sewerage system was overflowing and they could not get anyone to do anything about it. It had been in that situation for a couple of months, once again due to maladministration and the fact that they could not get through the system. I said to them, `You have got the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, various other departments, housing authorities and all these things that have been set up at great cost to the taxpayer. Why are they not looking after you? Why are they not doing something?' They said, `Mr Hicks, we cannot get anything done. We cannot get our message heard'. I went there-honourable members should remember that this was during summer-and the stench was unbelievable. Sewage was running under the houses. People talk about Toomelah. I invite them to visit Wilcannia in summer. Human excreta was running through the houses and there was green slime everywhere, yet the people were expected to live there. I immediately sent a telex to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Two months later I got a reply. I am not sure how long it took to fix the problem but it was at least a month. It was found that a pump in the system had broken down and this pump had not been reconditioned or looked after for five years. When we talk about expenditure of money and responsibilities, I wonder where we are going. While I was at the mission-I had been there plenty of times before-I took it upon myself at the invitation of the people there to look at some of the housing. It was disgraceful. I used to be in the plumbing trade and I have been in some pretty awkward situations, but I was ashamed to be an Australian when I saw what was there. I believe that the situation in Toomelah brought tears to the eyes of the Human Rights Commissioner. It certainly brought tears to my eyes, too. I had a look at these homes. Sewerage pipes and flush pipes were broken and there was no way that the system could work. Many of these people are paying rental for that accommodation and they wonder exactly where the rental money is going. No-one seems to know. They do know that a property by the name of Weinteriga was bought for about $850,000. It used to have one family on it. I do not know how its purchase was going to help the Aboriginal people, but it was bought and it was disaster. The $850,000 has gone down the drain. I am pleased to be able to say that there is now an administrator there and I am sure that he will get on top, but I still cannot understand why we go round buying properties for $850,000 when people in the town of Wilcannia are living in Third World conditions. The people of Wilcannia also have a problem with hepatitis B. When I spoke to the Aboriginal people there they were very concerned about the sewerage because of this hepatitis problem. One women who invited me into her home said, `Mr Hicks, two of my daughters died in this room'. When I saw the conditions under which they were living, I understood the health problems that those poor people had. I just cannot understand how this could possibly happen in Australia this year or last year, given the amount of money that we are spending. Where is the money going? We are asking questions about the Government's indecision and policy vacuum. What is happening to all this money? In 1986 I received a letter from the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs saying that these homes on the mission would be replaced. It is two years since I received that letter. Every time I go to Wilcannia I visit the Aboriginal people on the mission and they look at me and ask, `Mr Hicks, what is happening to our houses?' I say to them, `They have been promised by the Government'. Each time I ring the Department I get put off. Either the footings of the houses have not been designed properly, the design of the houses is wrong, something is wrong with the streets or the streets do not have the proper street name, but the houses still have not been started and these people are still living under these conditions and have to face another summer. I was not surprised at the statement of the Human Rights Commissioner when he visited Toomelah and blamed the situation on the mismanagement of the Federal Government, the previous State government and local government. But what can local government do? I believe that the Central-Darling Shire is owed by the Department about $40,000 for rates. The shire is struggling as a result of cutbacks in Federal and other funding and is just existing. How can the shire be expected to pay out money? I visited an Aboriginal home in the town of Wilcannia which was absolutely spotless and the people were wonderful. When I walked into their home they looked at me and I could see that something was amiss. There was very little furniture in the house. The lady of the house could see that I was looking around. She felt a little embarrassed and said, `Mr Hicks, I am sorry, but we are a bit worried because there are so many break and enters that we have stored all our good stuff at our daughter's place'. I asked, `What is the situation?' She said, `With Aboriginal legal aid we have people breaking in and entering, they go to the courts, they get out of the courts, they get a slap on the wrist, they go back to the courts, they come out of the courts and it is just open slather. Mr Hicks, we want something done about it. What is the Government doing about all this?' It is not only a question of housing but also a question of law and order, health and education. I congratulate the State and Federal governments on the $3m that they spent on the school in Wilcannia. I believe that it is only through education that we will get anywhere. I referred earlier to the legal aid situation in the town of Wilcannia. Wilcannia has 10 policemen for 1,000 people, which is one per 100. I hope that the policemen are getting somewhere. I am one of those people who believe that, not just with the Aboriginal population but with the total population, unless we do something about juvenile offenders and teach them that there has to be some type of law and order they will be in real trouble when they get older. I just mention that for what it is worth. What are the main causes of the problems in these areas? Of course, it is unemployment. What does the previous State Government do? It closes down the Department of Main Roads, one of the main employers in that area. This has happened because of government cutbacks. I think all these departments have to get together and do something about the problem. It cannot be dealt with in isolation. I am asking the various government departments to get together and cut out this nonsense and all this bureaucratic bungling. We have talked previously about grants and the waste of such money. For example, it cost $62,000 to clean up around houses and plant vegetable gardens. If I could not do that in, say, two days with 10 good men I would give the job away. I think that is another example of the problems that we have. I must say that the present State Government is trying to do something. In the last three weeks or so three Ministers have visited Wilcannia, so there is some hope. I would like to touch on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, ATSIC, which I think is pretty sick. I think it will divide this nation. I do not think it is a good idea at all. Aboriginal people are Australians and the last thing we want to do is to divide this nation. I think that is what this Commission will do. I think the Minister should look closely at that legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(3.38) —I say at the outset that it is with a real degree of sadness that I rise to speak in this matter of public importance debate today. I am saddened not only by the comments made by speakers on the opposite side but also by the tenor of the debate in this nation on Aboriginal matters. I believe that the tenor of that debate was set back in August this year. The Opposition has taken a confrontationist approach in relation to these matters. This has been borne out quite clearly by the evidence that we have had since August this year. When we introduced a motion on Aborigines into this House in August we thought it would be supported by those opposite. In fact, so did certain people in the clergy. In their discussions with the shadow Minister for Aboriginal affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), they were given the clear indication that support would be forthcoming from the Opposition. However, as a last minute political tactic, the Opposition introduced an amendment to that motion and we had the sad and pathetic sight on the first sitting day in this new Parliament House of the Opposition and the Government divided over a motion which should have been totally supported by those opposite. The condemnation that flowed from the public over the Opposition's approach to that motion covered the full spectrum-the clergy, the newspapers and the Aboriginals themselves. I see within the House this afternoon a number of my colleagues, my brothers, from the Aboriginal people. I ask them to sit and listen and to ponder on the nonsense, the rubbish and the diatribe flowing from those opposite. I point out to them that today the Opposition's spokesman on Aboriginal affairs did not even get a guernsey. He made a mess of it yesterday, so the Opposition brought on the brawler today to try to make more of it. But the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has also failed. In a pathetic attempt he basically duplicated the matter of public importance which was brought forward for debate yesterday. The Opposition copped a hiding yesterday and it is getting another today. In August we saw the pathetic and sorry sight of the rednecks in the Opposition moving an amendment to the resolution introduced into this House by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That was not the end of the sordid approach of those opposite. They have now taken to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) in an attempt to destroy it. That Commission will be in the best interests, not just in the long term but also in the short term, of Aboriginal people throughout this nation. What have those Opposition members done about the treaty? They have attacked and attempted to destroy dialogue between the Government and the Opposition and the Aboriginals of our nation in our efforts to get a treaty together. Nothing positive flows from those opposite in Aboriginal matters; their response is only negative. They should be ashamed of themselves. I think it is a disgrace for Opposition members to come in here and speak in such a way about the initiatives and policies of this Government. If the Leader of the Opposition does not do something positive about it, he should be branded with the same condemnation. When we talk of initiatives and policies, it is unfortunate that this side of House is the only side that has any initiatives and policies. Mr Nehl —Why don't you talk about housing and health? Mr GAYLER —I notice that the honourable member has got off his assets test. He has been a single-issue man for the last five years. I am pleased to hear him pick up another one. We might just have a look at this and I will take it very slowly for those opposite. Once again we were condemned as a government when we announced new initiatives and an increase in this year's Budget allocation. I ask Aboriginal people and the Australian people generally to have a look at the record. We were condemned and criticised for increasing the Budget allocation. Mr Hand —We fixed up the hepatitis B. Mr GAYLER —Yes, hepatitis B. If those opposite took the time to have a look at some of our initiatives they would find that the additional health programs brought forward by the Minister included the eradication of hepatitis B and that additional funds were made available. There are many other initiatives such as special health initiatives, priority community development strategies, Budget expansions for education, employment and training programs for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, an increase in assistance to Aboriginal hostels, special youth, recreation and sport activities and facilities, an accelerated program of initiatives for Aboriginal women and a new public relations strategy for Aboriginal Affairs. These are just a few of the initiatives that were taken by this Government in the 1988-89 Budget. I believe it is now time for serious thought within the community and especially within the Opposition's party room. For too long now there have been many within the Opposition party room opposed to the track being taken by the Leader of the Opposition. They will not say it publicly but they will say it to me. We have the rednecks of the National Party of Australia imposing their ideals and their views on Aboriginal matters on the Liberal Party members of the coalition. It is high time that Opposition members thought seriously about this matter, and, with a little bit of decency, gave due consideration to the Aboriginal people of our nation. It is unfortunate that I have so little time in which to raise some of these issues today. It would take a lot of time to get the message across to those opposite; much more than I have today. I believe we have to look at the introduction of ATSIC. Most of the criticisms raised here today by honourable members opposite will be eliminated by the introduction of ATSIC. It will immediately remedy the situation of bureaucrats becoming involved in the decision process of the Aboriginal communities. It will give those Aboriginal people at the grass roots level the opportunity to make the decisions about their future-about future generations and the programs that they see as priorities within their communities. We will not have to go through a bureaucratic process which has caused difficulties in the past. ATSIC is necessary. Personally, I will push for the acceleration of the implementation of ATSIC. I know that my Government will continue with the firm line of having ATSIC introduced for the benefit and the future betterment of the Aboriginal people of our nation. As I said at the outset, the condemnation of the Opposition's policies and its approach to Aboriginal matters goes across the full spectrum of our community. I think it is appropriate to at least quote from some of yesterday's editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald under the heading of `Buck-passing and Mr Perkins'. I would like to quote from the editorial to those opposite and to the people of Australia-especially the Aborigines. It said: The reality is that turning the sorry condition of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the ADC into a political circus will benefit no-one- and I fully agree with these words- least of all the Aboriginal communities of Australia. Today, as yesterday, the circus continues. We saw another performance by those opposite of the circus into which they have attempted to turn Aboriginal matters. No-one needs any further evidence of this circus than the fact that they produced today, as their main actor, the greatest clown of all, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The following Bills were returned from the Senate without requests: Income Tax Amendment Bill 1988 Medicare Levy Amendment Bill 1988 Assent to the following Bills reported: Industrial Relations Bill 1988 Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 13, clause 13, after proposed subsection 21a (2), insert the following new subsections: `` `(2a) Where: (a) a non-cash business benefit is income derived by a taxpayer in a year of income; and (b) if the taxpayer had, at the time the benefit was provided, incurred and paid unreimbursed expenditure in respect of the provision of the benefit equal to the amount of the arm's length value of the benefit-a once-only deduction would, or would but for section 82a, and Subdivisions F and G of Division 3, have been allowable to the taxpayer in respect of a percentage (in this subsection called the ``deductible percentage'') of the expenditure; the amount that, apart from this subsection, would be applicable under subsection (2) of this section in respect of the benefit shall be reduced by the deductible percentage. `(2b) Where: (a) a non-cash business benefit is income derived by a taxpayer in a year of income; and (b) a percentage (in this subsection called the ``non-deductible entertainment percentage'') of any expenditure incurred by the provider in respect of the provision of the benefit is non-deductible entertainment expenditure; the amount that, apart from this subsection, would be applicable under subsection (2) in respect of the benefit shall be reduced by the non-deductible entertainment percentage.''. No. 2-Page 13, clause 13, proposed subsection 21a (3), after definition of `arm's length value', insert the following new definition: `` `income derived by a taxpayer' means income derived by a taxpayer in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income;''. No. 3-Page 13, clause 13, proposed subsection 21a (3), proposed definition of `non-cash business benefit', lines 31 and 32, leave out ``4 February 1985'', insert ``31 August 1988''. No. 4-Page 13, clause 13, proposed subsection 21a (3), after proposed definition of `non-cash business benefit', insert the following new definitions: `` `non-deductible entertainment expenditure' means expenditure to the extent to which: (a) subsection 51ae (4) applies to the expenditure; and (b) but for that subsection, the expenditure would be deductible under section 51; `once-only deduction', in relation to expenditure, means a deduction in a year of income in respect of a percentage of the expenditure where no deduction is allowable in respect of a percentage of the expenditure in any other year of income;''. No. 5-Page 14, after clause 14, insert the following new clause: Exemption of certain benefits in the nature of income ``14a. Section 23l of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end the following subsection: `(2) Where: (a) in a year of income, a taxpayer derives income consisting of one or more non-cash business benefits (within the meaning of section 21a); and (b) the total amount that is applicable under section 21a in respect of those benefits does not exceed $300; the income is exempt income.' ''. No. 6-Page 20 clause 24, proposed subparagraph 51ak (1) (a) (ii), line 7, leave out ``after 31 August 1988''. No. 7-Pages 39 and 40, subclause 54 (4), line 36 (page 39) to line 7 (page 40), leave out the subclause. No. 8-Page 40, subclause 54 (8), proposed definition of ``once-only deduction'', lines 26 to 29, leave out the definition. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.48) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Although the Government will accept the Bill as amended in the Senate to ensure its passage, two matters need to be made clear. Firstly, there will always be the need to announce government taxation decisions prior to legislation being introduced to prevent loss of revenue. Press releases will continue to be used to stop tax arrangements immediately. The second matter concerns the amendment that was moved by the Opposition to restrict the application of the non-cash business benefits provisions from the date of introduction of this Bill. It should be highlighted that among a few there is a serious misconception that non-cash benefits of a kind that can be convertible into a value have only become assessable as a result of these amendments. On the contrary, these non-cash but convertible items have always been assessable since 1936 under ordinary concepts of income. Examples of items taxable since 1936 are motor cars, television sets, microwave ovens and jewellery received by taxpayers in lieu of cash income. The new law merely provides a valuation rule for all non-cash business benefits and extends the net to include non-convertible, non-cash business benefits. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.49) —I have only just received these amendments. Mr Deputy Chairman, could you refresh my memory as to how far we are going at this stage? Are all the amendments being dealt with now? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Yes, they are. Mr PEACOCK —If we are dealing with amendments 1 to 8, from what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said, that means we are tackling what we would term the double taxation elements. Pursuant to amendments 3 and 6 we must also be dealing with what is perceived to be retrospectivity. The Treasurer and I do not differ if that is the case. I just wish to say a few things to the House. The amendments moved by the Government dealing with double taxation stem from Opposition initiatives in the Senate, and yet again Government legislation would have resulted in what is euphemistically called unintended consequences. A number of these amendments will seek to stop the possibility of double taxation that arose in the Bill as originally drafted. The Opposition does support the Government's amendments. I simply note that the amendments highlight the necessity for parliamentary debate. I recall that when the legislation was before the House I drew attention to both the double taxation and the retrospectivity elements of it, and at the time the Minister then representing the Treasurer disagreed. The reality is that this Government has a dreadful history of ill-considered and slipshod drafting; yet with a mountain of legislation to get through the old democratic debate has already been stifled somewhat in this chamber because after we deal with these matters we will get onto legislation that is being guillotined. In terms of the impact on individuals-and nothing tends to impact more on individuals than taxation-the need for effective parliamentary debate and the role for the Senate itself as a House of review which is able to insist not only on further debate in that chamber but also on having these matters clarified in the way in which we warned was necessary when the matter was before us, are borne out. We were particularly concerned, quite apart from double taxation, with the question of retrospectivity. The Opposition has no objection to the substance of this non-cash business benefits legislation. I said so when the matter was before the House. What the Opposition does object to is the outrageous attempt to apply the legislation retrospectively to a date 3 1/2 years ago. The Government has reluctantly accepted amendments imposed upon it in the Senate by the endeavours of the Opposition, on this occasion joined by the Australian Democrats, to ensure that the legislation would not have that effect. What happened, for those who may be unaware, is that some 3 1/2 years ago the Government issued a press release saying it would do a certain thing and it has taken 3 1/2 years to introduce the legislation, which is far more intricate in its impact than a generalised press release. People who during that period have sought to rearrange their affairs have been thwarted by legislation that goes much further than in fact the press release indicated. There has to be a limit to the number of days or weeks that a government allows an announcement to run that it is going to impose a new form of taxation. As I recall it was a very short Bill of only two pages but it took 3 1/2 years to move from being a press release to being legislation introduced into the Parliament. This really does underline the value of having a second chamber that can be a check on a government that is legislating in this manner. It would have been extremely inequitable for this legislation to have applied retrospectively. What is happening now is that instead of it applying from the date of the press release these amendments will ensure that the day of introduction of the Bill will be 31 August 1988. This is proper. As I noted in my speech at the second reading stage, the press release clearly did not give taxpayers much indication of how effective benefits would be valued. The announcement merely stated: As a general rule the value to be taxed will be the amount which the benefit would have cost the taxpayer in an arm's length transaction. Taxpayers could reasonably have expected that detailed valuation rules would apply to the benefits from the date on which they were announced, not some date 3 1/2 years later. Under the proposed legislation benefits must be valued, broadly speaking, at the amount the recipient would have had to pay to obtain the benefit under an arm's length transaction. Therefore, to determine the taxable value of benefits received over the previous 3 1/2 years taxpayers will have to ascertain the amount they would have had to pay to obtain those benefits at the time each benefit was granted. Administrative nightmares would have abounded. The Government has a shameful record of government by press release and it is an insult to this Parliament and an insult to the people to allow this sort of thing to go through. It is a usurping of the primacy of the executive branch of government. Frankly, I think it is a sign of a pathetic administration. The Treasurer and I had very warm words of friendship to one another on legislation that passed last week. I do not say that I am sorry to have been speaking in these terms-- Mr Keating —Uncharacteristic. Mr PEACOCK —Yes, it was; it was an aberrant day in the life of the Parliament, I suppose. Here we are, joined, agreeing with each other again. But the problem should not have arisen in the first place. The Opposition is not opposing the amendments, but the Government must ensure that it does not allow either sloppy drafting or such lengthy delays in introducing legislation after it makes pronouncements by way of press release. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 3, subclause 3 (1), definition of ``new borrowing'', lines 4 to 6, leave out the definition, insert the following definitions: `` `Loan Council' means the Australian Loan Council constituted under the Financial Agreement referred to in the Financial Agreement Validation Act 1929; `new borrowing' means an amount of a borrowing that is received in the grant year but does not include an amount of: (a) a borrowing from the Commonwealth; (b) a borrowing for the purpose of refinancing debt outstanding on 30 June 1988; or (c) a borrowing that would not have been affected by a resolution relating to global borrowing limits proposed at the meeting of the Loan Council on 12 May 1988 and supported by the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania;''. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.57) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. During the debate on the States Grants (General Revenue) Bill in the Senate, Opposition senators argued that the Bill should be amended to clarify the powers of the Treasurer under clause 7. The Government agreed to move an amendment for that purpose. Clause 7 of the Bill is intended to make it a condition of the payment of general revenue grants to the States that all States should adhere to the global borrowing limit agreed to at the May Loan Council meeting by all States except Queensland. The Treasurer may reduce grants to any State exceeding those limits. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the definition of terms in clause 3 of the Bill so as to specify more precisely what is meant by the global borrowing limits. The amendment expands on the definition of `new borrowing' given in clause 3 to indicate that the new borrowings which are the subject of clause 7 exclude any borrowings from the Commonwealth and include only borrowings that were the subject of the global approach resolution agreed to at the May Loan Council meeting by all States except Queensland, other than borrowings for refinancing purposes. This will ensure that new borrowings exclude borrowings by government-owned financial institutions except when those institutions undertake borrowings for the purpose of on-lending to bodies subject to the global borrowing limit. The amendment does not alter the effect of clause 7 as described in my second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum, which made it clear that the Government would interpret the provision in the way the amendment requires. I commend the States Grants (General Revenue) Bill, as amended, to the Committee. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.59) —The amendment before us to the States Grants (General Revenue) Bill stems from points raised in the Senate; in fact, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said, by the Opposition and in particular by Senator John Watson of Tasmania, who perceptively drew the Government's attention to what could be a misinterpretation and an ill-thought through effect. As was pointed out, this States grants Bill as originally drafted raised serious doubts as to the application of clause 7 (1). The Treasurer referred to that but did not read it out. It states: Financial assistance to which a State is entitled under this Act in relation to the grant year is granted on the following conditions: (a) that the State will not allow the sum of its new borrowings and the new borrowings of the State's instrumentalities to exceed the global borrowing limit for the State . . . The possibility does exist on that reading under the definition given in clause 3 of the Bill, that clause 7 does not preclude the loan component of general purpose capital assistance from being classified as new borrowings. Therefore, the global borrowing limit will be made up of both general purpose capital assistance Loan Council borrowings and global borrowings. The effect of such an interpretation would be that the level of actual global borrowings could be reduced. There was also some doubt regarding the treatment of borrowings by government owned financial institutions which are generally exempt from Loan Council global borrowing limits. As I read it, and as has transpired in the Senate, the amendments should remedy potential difficulties arising with regard to those two aspects. I say to the Treasurer-we may have to stop meeting like this-that the Opposition welcomes the Government's amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.01) —I thank the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), for his remarks. I move: That the report be adopted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Keating for Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill brings forward a series of proposed amendments to the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975. Essentially, these amendments fall into two groups. In the first instance they give legislative effect to existing foreign investment policy by preventing foreign interests from buying Australian urban real estate without approval. At the same time the penalty and enforcement sections of the Act are to be strengthened. The second group of amendments give legislative effect to existing foreign investment policy by increasing the value below which proposals by foreigners to buy Australian businesses are exempt for examination, by excluding from examination foreign acquisitions of mineral exploration rights and by increasing to $20m the threshold above which offshore takeovers are subject to the Act. Honourable members may think that at first sight it is incongruous that the Government is strengthening sections of the Foreign Takeovers Act while at the same time liberalising other parts of it. However, in the context of the Government's broader foreign investment policy objectives, this is not the case. In its foreign investment policy the Government attempts to maintain a balance between two important interests. The first is the natural desire of the Australian community that local people should have the dominant influence in our economy. The second is the very significant benefits that Australia gains from foreign investment. Australia has for many years benefited from foreign investment. This is especially the case because we have a small population relative to the size of our existing economic infrastructure, and we have always needed a substantial flow of foreign investment to help expand our economy. This investment has thus provided scope for Australia's rates of economic growth and job generation to be higher than they would otherwise have been. Foreign capital also provides access to new technology, management skills and overseas markets. This is particularly important now, given the crucial requirement that we internationalise the Australian economy and expand our export sector. For these reasons the Australian Government welcomes productive foreign investment, and has applied its policy flexibly in order to encourage the expansion of such investment. However, we have been concerned that purchases of Australian houses by foreigners with no intention of taking up residence here has in the past contributed to driving up the price of Australian real estate. Distinct from most forms of foreign investment, we see these purchases as providing little or no real benefit to Australia, and consequently this Bill provides a legislative basis for our earlier decisions to prevent such acquisitions. This Bill provides a test for the Opposition parties. In recent times we have heard little from them about foreign investment policy-yet another indication of the lack of attention they have paid in recent times to the detail of economic policy making. However, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has in the past endorsed a policy of virtual total abolition of the foreign investment restrictions, exempting only so-called strategic areas, such as the media. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), specifically opposed our measures last September to tighten policy against foreign purchases of Australian homes. He may have had a rethink in the meantime. This approach is inconsistent with our desire to dampen price pressures in the housing market by preventing foreign purchases of Australian residential real estate. This Bill will provide the Opposition with an opportunity to clarify its position on these issues. I can only hope that it adopts the same constructive approach as we have, and abandons its new found excessive zeal for market forces to be unrestrained in this area. I will now deal in more detail with the amendments relating to urban real estate. Under the new arrangements announced on 29 September 1987, and administered by the Foreign Investment Review Board on a non-legislative basis since then, foreign purchases of developed residential real estate have normally only been permitted in respect of Australian citizens living abroad, intending migrants who have received approval from the immigration authorities to take up permanent residence in Australia and foreign companies buying houses for executives resident in Australia. The September 1987 policy change also abolished the $600,000 cumulative exemption threshold, below which foreign persons were permitted to buy real estate without notification. Under the guidelines applying since that time and to be given legislative effect by this Bill, all foreign acquisitions of urban real estate are examinable regardless of size. I should emphasise that while the Bill provides for the notification and examination of foreign purchases of all forms of urban real estate-both commercial and residential-the relatively liberal approach to approvals in cases other than developed residential real estate is to be maintained. Under a policy change which I announced on 28 July 1986, foreign purchases of real estate for development-both residential and commercial-are approved unless judged contrary to the national interest. Purchases of developed commercial real estate are approved subject to a flexible guideline for 50 per cent Australian equity, with approvals for 100 per cent foreign ownership being granted if Australian equity on reasonable terms and conditions is unavailable. The amendments will provide a statutory power for the Treasurer of the day to examine foreign acquisitions of interests in urban land, to prohibit proposed foreign acquisitions of urban land that are judged contrary to the national interest, and to order the disposal of interests in urban land that are purchased by foreign persons without prior notification under the Act and which are determined to be contrary to the national interest. Interests in urban land are broadly defined in the Bill to include both legal and equitable interests as well as interests in companies and trusts where more than half of the assets of these entities relate to Australian urban land. Hitherto the real estate aspects of foreign investment policy have been administered without legal sanctions for non-compliance. This Bill will rectify that situation. In the first instance, in the event of a breach of the guidelines between October last year and the enactment of the legislation, the Treasurer will have powers to order divestiture of the property where approval was not sought. That apart, there will be no retrospective fines for failing to notify transactions entered into before the amending legislation comes into force. However, from the date of enactment a series of amendments to strengthen the whole ambit of the Foreign Takeovers Act will apply. These involve five main areas. First, the Bill amends the definition of a foreign person to include the trustees of trust estates having substantial foreign beneficiaries and to provide that a foreign national shall be taken to be ordinarily resident in Australia only if that person has actually been in Australia for 200 days in the last 12 months and is legally free to remain in Australia indefinitely. The exclusion of trust arrangements from the Foreign Takeovers Act has long been anomalous and is now to be rectified. The statutory definition of `ordinarily resident' is designed to provide an objective and specific test which will be more satisfactory than the common law meaning of that term. Second, the Bill provides a legal basis for the longstanding practice of allowing foreign investment proposals to proceed by raising no objections subject to certain specified conditions being met. In doing so, the Bill also provides penalties for non-compliance with the conditions. The third area in which the Act is being strengthened is by an amendment which provides for it to be an offence for a person to make false or misleading statements in connection with the Act. In administering foreign investment policy the Government depends crucially on information supplied by the parties to proposals to enable applications to be assessed. The Government has therefore decided that it is desirable that there should be some legal sanction to discourage the supply of false information by foreign investors and their agents. Fourth, the Bill contains an anti-avoidance power against schemes entered into for the sole or dominant purpose of evading the provisions of the Act. Some care has been taken with the amendments contained in the Bill with regard to urban real estate to cut off possible loopholes. Nevertheless, to avoid needless inconvenience for the vast majority of foreign investors who are willing to comply with the guidelines, the Government has tried to keep the amendments as simple as reasonably possible. The general anti-avoidance powers will provide a disincentive for investors or their advisers to enter into convoluted arrangements to avoid the normal scope of the Act. Fifth, the penalties contained in the Act have been reviewed, and in most cases increased. In particular, fines for offences by corporations have been increased to $250,000 and offences by natural persons are to carry a possible penalty of imprisonment of up to two years as well as a fine of up to $50,000. I should emphasise that this general strengthening of the Act does not herald a new tough line on foreign investment: the Bill brings the Act more closely into line with foreign investment policy. The Government remains committed to a generally relaxed approach to foreign investment in all except a few sensitive sectors. Foreign investment is welcome in Australia and policy is administered on a non-discriminatory basis. Over the years foreign investment has made a substantial contribution to Australia's growth and development; to the creation of jobs; to the improvement of technology; and to the creation of export markets. Australia will continue to need foreign investment in the future: it is integral to the steps we have been taking to reform and restructure the economy. Nevertheless, the Government does need adequate powers to deal with the occasional proposal which is contrary to the national interest and to deal with foreign investors who do not comply with the Government's policy. I turn now to the other amendments in the Bill, all of which act to liberalise areas of the policy. On 30 April 1987 I announced that takeover proposals involving Australian businesses with total assets of less than $5m, or, in the case of rural businesses, less than $3m, would be excluded from the Act. Acquisitions below these thresholds seldom raise issues that require detailed consideration. The exemption from the Foreign Takeovers Act of proposals in respect of Australian businesses with total assets below the thresholds represents a reduction in unnecessary business regulation. In anticipation of this amending legislation, the Government has been granting automatic approvals to takeover proposals submitted for examination but falling below the thresholds. As a result, perhaps 500 proposals a year are now excluded from examination altogether. It is to be noted that where more than half of the value of the total assets of a company is attributable to urban real estate an acquisition of shares in that company would be examinable under the urban land provisions of the Bill, even if the company's total assets were less than $5m. Consistent with the relaxed approach of the Government to foreign participation in mineral exploration activities, the Bill also amends the definition of a mineral right in the Foreign Takeovers Act to exempt exploration rights from the provisions of the Act. However, proposed mining developments resulting from successful exploration will still need to be submitted for examination under foreign investment policy. The proposed amendments will also raise the threshold above which offshore takeovers are subject to examination under the Act. Offshore takeovers are those where an offshore company with assets in Australia is acquired by another offshore company. This type of transaction does not involve any reduction in Australian ownership and control and has been found in practice to be unlikely to raise issues contrary to the national interest. At present, the Act provides for the notification of offshore takeovers if the value of the Australian assets involved exceeds $3m, a threshold which has not been adjusted since it was established in 1975. The proposed amendments will raise the threshold to $20m. Where the Australian assets represent 50 per cent or more of the worldwide assets of the business being acquired, the company remains subject to the Act irrespective of the value of the Australian assets. In conclusion, the only financial impact of the Bill will arise from the costs of examining a possible increase in the number of foreign investment proposals submitted to Treasury for examination compared to the current situation. It is to be noted that there has been a net reduction in staff in the foreign investment area of Treasury in recent years as a result of liberalisations of the foreign investment guidelines. I note that the Foreign Takeovers Act has now been on the statute books for over a dozen years with only a couple of technical amendments. The Act has served its purpose well by providing a mechanism by which the Government can screen foreign takeovers of Australian businesses. This Bill contains a series of amendments to the Act reflecting major policy changes in the past three to four years, especially in the urban real estate area. I commend the Bill to the House and present the associated explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(4.16) —It is with pleasure that I stand to take part in this debate concerning the Government's new road program, which will replace the Australian bicentennial road development program (ABRD) and the Australian land transport program (ALTP). Throughout Australia, and in particular in rural and provincial Australia, municipal councils are supporting the various automobile associations in their campaign for increased funds to be allocated for road construction and maintenance. The main thrust of that is to have an increased proportion of fuel excise funds dedicated to road funding. This is a little like motherhood. If we ignore the current budgetary constraints facing Australia the justice of the cause is rather compelling. I, and I am sure the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), would like to see greater funds allocated to roads. On grounds of improving the ageing road network, especially unclassified roads, and also on the arguments for road safety, there must be a prima facie case for increasing funds. I have continually made representations on this matter and over the years have seen this Government become the first to dedicate any of the fuel excise for road funding. In fact, it must have come as something of a shock to the Opposition when that occurred. After a coalition government that for so long maintained the practice of using fuel tax as a source of general revenue, the change initiated by the Australian Labor Party Government was historic. I am fully aware of the concern expressed by a number of local government bodies at the reduction in the amount of excise dedicated to road funding as indicated in the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill before the House. Like those bodies, I am disappointed, but I realise that, in a time of tight budgets and the decision to maintain the allocation in nominal terms when a number of other areas have been cut to reduce the projected Budget surplus of $5 1/2 billion, the principle is still maintained. I and, I believe, many of my colleagues will work to have this locked into the Budget process. When the Government made its decision to limit finance for roads it ensured that the amounts directed to local government were insulated against cuts. To give evidence of this, I refer to the following figures. In 1987-88 the funds allocated to local roads were $261.1m and in 1988-89 the figure will be $272.5m. Local government is, therefore, being looked after in a very special way in the current financial context because the Government recognises the work which local government does in building and maintaining local roads. I do not think there is anyone in this place who would question the sincerity of the local government bodies or the Australian Automobile Association (AAA) and its affiliates in their concern for improving the quality of the Australian road system. Not only that but we also recognise they should be active lobbyists for their cause. If a group does not lobby actively one tends to doubt the quality of its commitment. I believe that the commitment of the AAA and its affiliates is undoubted. It is admirable. But they should not forget that they must be credible in presenting their case. They have referred to the need for budget constraints. In their understanding of the pressures facing government in getting the macro-economic and micro-economic conditions right, they should also recognise that others take a different view of their case. For instance, in a recent speech to the Australian Automobile Association in Adelaide on 4 November 1988, Mr Ian Storey, the Chairman of the Road Construction Authority of Victoria (RCA), had the following to say in relation to the campaign being conducted by the automobile associations: The implication of your campaign is that more money means better roads and I simply don't believe that. Let me quote some figures. Over the last six years the Federal Government has allocated $7 billion to road funding. Add to that the contributions from the States which is normally a matching amount and you have over the last six years an expenditure of $10 billion to $14 billion on roads and that is an enormous amount of money. I suggest that before any of us ask for additional money we have to ask how well spent that money has been and we have to look to how well spent that money will be in the future. He even suggests that inappropriate decisions about sealing some roads have been taken when the traffic volumes do not justify that treatment. There is little doubt that as we in the Federal sphere of politics are subjected to pressure from a broad range of lobby and pressure groups so are State governments and local governments. No government is immune to the temptation to pass on responsibility for making the hard and unpopular decisions to government at another level. This brings me to that part of the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill which refers specifically to arterial roads. If we take both the existing arterials and the new category of national arterials together, the amount of funding for arterial roads has been increased marginally over the amount allocated in 1987-88. There is a hard-edged aspect to this new category of national arterials because now they have to be designated as having the capacity in a specific way to enhance the domestic and export competitiveness of Australian industry. In other words, they now have to meet stringent criteria. As the Minister has said in his second reading speech: The category will fund projects on key routes linking areas of production with ports, airports, freight forwarding centres, rail freight terminals and termini of key arterial roads. The new routes will also provide interstate and international travellers with easier access to tourist routes. This fits in with the Government's economic adjustment policy and gives a meaning to the allocation of road funds that was not adequately addressed in other programs. I recognise the commitment of State and local governments, as I said before. Most of my local councils are genuinely concerned at the difficulties they face in maintaining existing road standards. Perhaps we need a thorough investigation into the significance of our road system to ascertain whether existing thinking and priorities are adequate for the changing circumstances of this time and the future. I recommend to all honourable members that they read the speech of Mr Ian Storey, Chairman of the RCA of Victoria, which I mentioned earlier. He poses questions that should not be put into the too hard basket because they are unpopular or are in conflict with established wisdom. Mr Lindsay —The Minister is well qualified to meet that challenge. Mr MILDREN —That is quite true. I know that the honourable member for Herbert is particularly concerned about the state of the roads in his electorate. As I said, I do not oppose increasing road funds. To do so would be meaningless. In the context of this Bill, which provides a coherence for policy development at all levels, I would like to see more funds spent on roads to accelerate the achievement of the Government's goals. So would the Minister. It is now of considerable satisfaction that the amount of excise receipts is specifically dedicated as a road user charge. The funds are to be paid into a special trust fund operating for the four-year duration of the program from 1 January 1989 to 31 December 1993. In order to gain maximum value for money spent, the Bill establishes a quality assurance system. This is particularly important over the long term and it is innovative. It is concerned not only with road construction but also with road maintenance. As everyone knows, this is an ongoing and expensive business. Whilst quality assurance is not required of State arterial roads and local roads, I am sure that the cost conscious local government councils will watch this development with interest. It is to be hoped that they will apply the principles inherent. The Opposition has levelled much criticism at the Government's road funding record, but the criticism hardly stands up to close scrutiny, given the economic pressures that we face. This is the first year in which the amount of road funds allocated by the Federal Government has fallen to the highest level attained by the Fraser Government. In 1982-83, the Fraser Government's last year, it allocated $1,219m in 1988 prices. The current Government has allocated $1,221.5m. In the previous year, 1981-82, the Fraser Government allocated $1,106.4m in 1988 prices. The Fraser Government had nothing to be proud of at all. Its funding was not based upon any long term planning, which does not surprise. It was low because roads were considered a low priority issue. Let us not have the nonsense spoken here today that there has been an abrogation of our responsibilities for improving and maintaining our road system. I support this Bill. I commend the Minister. I believe that the amendment should be dealt with by the House as I am sure it will be dealt with. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(4.27) —I am pleased indeed to see the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) sitting in the chamber this afternoon because I would like to refer to something he told the House on 28 April this year. He said: On 13 November 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pledged to the Australian people that his Government would undertake the greatest road building and maintenance program in Australia's history. Mr Hawker —Who said that? Mr NEHL —The honourable member for Herbert said it. He went on to urge all parliamentarians to press for increased road funding. What a joke! Increased road funding has not occurred. It should occur, as the honourable member for Herbert knows. I praise him for trying to put the pressure on his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government to do the right thing by roads. But, unfortunately and regrettably for Australia, he has failed. We hope that he will continue to apply that pressure. Perhaps before the Hawke Labor Government is tossed out at the next election he will be able to induce it to spend a little more on roads. The road network is vital to all Australians. It is the vital basis of our economy. Funding to local government, State government and the Federal Government in the 12 months to June 1987 amounted to almost $4,000m, that is, almost $4 billion. But Federal funding in that time was only $1,250m, a little over 25 per cent of the total amount allocated. It is interesting that, in 1987, the State governments produced $1,342m more than the Federal Government. Even local government, out of its stretched resources, provided $1,085m. Unfortunately, the present Government has held road funding at $1,250m per annum since 1984-85. To take inflation into account, as we must, this means that there has been a drop of 25 per cent in road funding in real terms over the last four years. In 1988-89 the amount spent on roads has dropped further, to $1,215m. I would like to make the point-and it will come as no surprise to honourable members-that I will be talking about the needs of the Pacific Highway. I see the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) nodding in agreement. He knows that I will be talking about it. I will be talking about him too in a moment. The point has to be made that if one is looking at the road network of Australia, the Pacific Highway has a special priority and special precedence. I want to praise and thank the Minister for his courtesy a couple of weeks ago in receiving a deputation of people representing the North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils and the Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils, together with some of my colleagues from the north coast. We appreciate very much the fact that the Minister made that time available. We also appreciate the comments he made and the fact that he expressed-and I am sure I am not misquoting him-his belief that parts of the Pacific Highway already are in need of dual carriageway, four-lane divided highway status. He also gave an undertaking that should the New South Wales Government include the Pacific Highway in its list of national arterial roads he would give it very favourable consideration. All of us associated with the north coast of New South Wales thank him. Of course, it is not just the north coast of New South Wales that needs attention. We have to realise that the Pacific Highway is not just my local road or the local road of people living between the Tweed River and Hexham; it is a major important artery which serves the whole of Australia. The Minister comes from the Hunter region, and the Pacific Highway is vitally important to his electors just as it is to the electors of honourable members from Sydney, Melbourne, and the rest of Australia. I also pay tribute to the present New South Wales Government. The relevant Ministers, Bruce Baird and Matt Singleton, since 13 March, have taken action to catch up on what has been quite an embarrassing backlog of work of the Unsworth Government. I instance some work that is going on between Kempsey and Port Macquarie in my electorate. Prior to the change of State Government there were orphan bridges, orphan Annies, in the scrub standing as monuments to Labor's neglect of roads throughout New South Wales. Since the change of Government it is fair to praise-just as I have praised the Minister here-the State Ministers because that road work is taking place and things are actually moving. It is also worth noting that the State Government has allocated additional money for overtaking lanes which are vitally important for road safety. I will come back to road safety in a moment. The Pacific Highway is one of the most important roads in Australia. It carries one of the heaviest concentrations of vehicular traffic of any highway in the country. It is the second longest highway in New South Wales, running for almost 900 kilometres. Only the Newell Highway is longer. It runs through 24 local government areas, nine of them located between Sydney and Newcastle and 15 located on the north coast, which is the most significant and important growth area of this great nation. The Pacific Highway services a region which has one of the highest natural population growth rates in Australia. It not only serves as a route for facilitating interstate trade and commerce but also provides access to industrial, farming, mining, tourism and other developmental locations along its course. As these grow the communities which they support also expand. So there is a need to improve the Pacific Highway and to put it into its ultimate shape, which must be, as the Minister knows, a four-lane, dual carriageway, divided highway all the way through. I do not ask for this to happen overnight. Nobody in his right mind would do so. I do ask-and I know this is gaining wide acceptance-that there be an acceptance of the reality that the Pacific Highway for its full length, from Sydney to Brisbane, from Hexham to the Queensland border in terms of New South Wales, must be a four-lane, dual carriageway, divided highway. The National Roads and Motorists Association, a very respected body, makes the point very clearly that, wherever there is a traffic volume of over 8,000 vehicles a day, safety demands that there be a four-lane, dual carriageway, divided highway. Out of 17 points between Hexham and the Tweed at which the Department of Main Roads monitors traffic volume, 11 already are at the point where the traffic volume justifies that four-lane, dual carriageway divided highway. Time is limited because of the guillotine which, unfortunately, the Government has seen fit to impose on the debate today, but I just want to make some points about road safety. Each road fatality costs the community almost $450,000. The total cost of road accidents in Australia in 1987 was recently estimated at $5.69 billion. That is an enormous amount of money. The vehicle damage in 1987 alone cost Australians $1,690m. If we as a Parliament, as a nation, are fair dinkum about road safety, if we are fair dinkum about the cost not only in money but in pain, suffering and heartache, we have to do more. Mr Cowan —It is a strong argument. Mr NEHL —The honourable member would know better than any one of us. The price is not worth paying in terms of suffering. We have to create an awareness throughout this whole Parliament, both sides of both Houses. We need a bipartisan approach, as my friend the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) would endorse, I am sure. We need to provide the money to improve our roads. It is a great investment not just in road safety but in economics. We know that funding for this new road system, the national arterial road system, will be spent on the basis of economic significance. What we have to do-and I know the Minister wants to do this-is gain more funding so that we can do the right thing not by the roads of Australia but by the people of Australia. This is what it is all about. I would like to make a further point, that the loss or partial loss in the case of non-fatal injuries, of crash victims' ability to contribute at work, at home, in the community, is another $1,710m-$1.71 billion. I could go on with figure after figure, but I will conclude by making the point that the construction of freeway standard roads has reduced the traffic pressure by as much as 80 per cent. Recently, I had the opportunity of driving to Parliament. I drove down the Pacific Highway and then from Sydney to Canberra on the Hume Highway and the Federal Highway. The difference is unbelievable. My constituents and the constituents of the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), if they have not travelled from Sydney through Campbelltown to Goulburn and on, would not believe their eyes. Mr Cowan —Compare the accidents. Mr NEHL —As my colleague says, the comparison of accidents and costs is unbelievable too. When there is a good road, a dual carriageway, four-lane divided highway, the accident rate rapidly diminishes. My time has expired. However, I make one final plea to the Minister-I know he will heed it-to use his best interests, his best endeavours within the Ministry to see that additional funding is provided for roads in this country because it is important to everyone in this country. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.39) —After more than 5 1/2 years of the Hawke Government, the real value of Commonwealth road funding has been over 20 per cent higher than in the last six years of the Fraser-Howard Government. I thought I would mention that statistic to correct an unfortunate mistaken impression that is apparently harboured by my friend the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl). During 1988-89, the Hawke Government will spend $1,221.5m on roads compared with the $851m spent in 1982-83, the last year of the Fraser Government. It is an absolutely shameful record of mismanagement of the administration of highway funds in this country. The Hawke Government's new five-year road funding program will maintain the real value of road funding for 1989-90 and beyond. The Australian centennial roads development program will provide financial assistance to the States and Territories for the construction and maintenance of roads. The Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill establishes the Australian centennial roads development trust fund. A specified share of an hypothecated amount of customs and excise duty on motor spirit and diesel fuel will fund the program over the period from 1 January 1989 to 30 June 1994. The amount of duty referred to in the Bill as the `charge rate' is to be indexed to changes in the gross non-farm product price deflator. The charge rate is to be indexed at six-monthly intervals in April and October. The Commonwealth first provided financial assistance to the States for roads under the Loan Act 1922, although specific road funding legislation commenced with the Main Roads Development Act 1923. Road funding has been provided continuously by the Federal Government since the early 1920s under a variety of Acts. Today road funding represents the largest single specific purpose capital grant made by the Commonwealth to the States, as well as being the largest specific purpose payment from the Commonwealth passed on to local government. Federal fuel taxes have been in existence since early this century. In 1926 these taxes were increased specifically to enable the Commonwealth to increase its funding for roads, although there was no formal hypothecation-that is, earmarking of these additional revenues. Legislation allowing the hypothecation of a portion of fuel taxes for roads first appeared as the Federal Aid Roads Act 1931. This practice continued under various pieces of legislation until the nexus between fuel taxation and road funding was broken under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1959. It was not until the introduction of the Australian Bicentennial Development Trust Fund Act 1982 that formal hypothecation was reintroduced. I must, of course, commend the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) for his efforts in the introduction of that legislation. Under the provisions of that Act, a surcharge on duties of customs and excise on motor spirit and diesel fuel-initially 1c and later 2c per litre-was hypothecated for road funding. This practice was also adopted under the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985, which hypothecated an amount of the existing duties of customs and excise on motor spirit and diesel fuel. These two pieces of legislation are still in force. Under these two Acts, approximately one-quarter of the excise rate on motor spirit and diesel fuel is currently being earmarked for road funding. It is a fact that throughout the long history of Federal Government fuel tax hypothecation, there has never been a time in which there has been 100 per cent hypothecation. There has always been some element of fuel taxation that has been regarded as `general taxation'. With the Australian bicentennial road development program legislated to end of 31 December 1988, the Federal Government has decided to terminate simultaneously the Australian land transport program and replace both programs with the Australian centennial road development scheme, with effect from 1 January 1989. The underlying philosophy of the Australian bicentennial road development program was that it would bring about an accelerated upgrading of road standards throughout Australia. Australian bicentennial road development money could not be used for road maintenance. It could be used only for construction and upgrading. Once such a program has been operating for a number of years, a point is obviously reached where such funding should also be used for road maintenance. Having achieved a significant upgrading of the road network, there is still a need for adequate levels of funding to ensure that appropriate levels of maintenance can be undertaken to preserve the standard of roads, along with funds to ensure an ongoing, if not so accelerated, program of road improvement. Once a program of more broadly-based road development has been undertaken for some years, funding of that mechanism should be introduced to ensure greater efficiency in the use of available funds. Indeed, this is the philosophy behind the Australian centennial road development program. Under this legislation the new funding levels are guaranteed in real terms and every effort will be made to ensure that the `best value for the dollar' is attained. This is done firstly by ensuring that only national arterial projects are undertaken which have high benefit-cost ratios, such as the Townsville to Townsville Airport road, by giving more responsibility to the States, which are after all in charge of the day to day administration of roadworks, and to ensure that projects are completed on budget and to an appropriate standard. With respect to local road funding, real road funding levels are the same as those applying in the early 1980s. Maintenance of real road funding levels for local roads has been promised for the first two years of the Australian centennial road development program. I know honest and intelligent local government leaders are happy that the Government is continuing specifically to fund local roads in the legislation, rather than allowing the funds to be `absorbed' into general revenue assistance, which is one funding alternative which has been discussed from time to time. As with the existing Australian bicentennial road development and Australian land transport program legislation, some road funds can be applied by the States for urban public transport infrastructure, such as bus interchanges and new bus shelters. There are much needed facilities in Townsville and Thuringowa. I now refer to provisions in the Bill relating to determining the charge rate. In some respect, the year 1988-89 might be regarded as a `transition year', since road funding in that year is a combination of Australian bicentennial road development, Australian land transport programs and Australian centennial road development funding. For the purposes of implementing the Australian centennial road development scheme from 1 January 1989, the charge rate will be arbitrarily set at 4.95c per litre. At the end of 1988-89, regardless of the amount of excise that has been paid into each of the three trust funds-the Australian bicentennial road development program, Australian land transport program and Australian centennial road development program-an adjustment will be made by either an injection of funds from Consolidated Revenue funds into the Australian centennial road development trust fund or a payment from the trust fund into Consolidated Revenue funds, to ensure that the total level of funding for the year will be $1,221.5m. Clause 10 of the Bill allows the Minister to set arbitrarily the charge rate that will apply from the beginning of each of the financial years 1989-90 and 1990-91. This rate will be that which is expected to enable the `real terms guaranteed' levels of funding to be met in each of those three years. Once set, these charge rates will be indexed in April and October in each year, beginning in October 1989. Clause 10 requires the Minister to set, retrospectively, a `substitute charge rate' if it is the case that the charge rate originally set does not raise enough revenue to meet the guaranteed level of funding. Presumably, if more than the guaranteed amount were raised, the Minister would be permitted to reduce the charge rate retrospectively to such a level as to ensure that only the guaranteed amount were raised. Road funding in real terms for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 is guaranteed by this legislation. Only an amendment to this legislation, passed by both Houses of Parliament, can alter this guarantee of funding in real terms. The Australian centennial road development scheme is to run for five years; that is, until the end of June 1994. The legislation is not specific as to the level of funding in the years 1991-92 and onwards. Even though the charges set in 1990-91 will continue to be indexed by the provisions of clause 14 of the Bill, clause 10 allows the Minister to override any existing charge rate and impose a rate set arbitrarily by himself after consultation with the Treasurer. The level of funding in the remaining years of the program are thus completely at the discretion of the Minister. There is no scope for parliamentary approval of any action proposed by the Minister in this respect. The Minister is permitted by the proposed legislation simply to gazette his determination. I have full confidence in the Minister ensuring that there is an adequate level of funds for road works in this country during the period I have just discussed. In the two minutes left to me, I should like to touch on one other issue and that is to comment on the revised tendering arrangements that will apply under the new program. The Federal Government considers that the best value for the road dollars is achieved through the operation of market forces, and it has always held that view. For roads, this means that we proceed through the tendering process. The revised tendering arrangements will provide for tenders to be called for all national highway construction projects, all major rehabilitation projects on national highways valued over $2m and all national arterial projects which are for construction only. The extension of the tendering requirement to national highway rehabilitation costing more than $2m, and national arterials, is a widening of the tendering provision that applied under the Australian land transport program. The tender assessment provisions are also being amended to allow the State road authorities more flexibility in evaluating tenders. That will allow State road authorities to choose the contractor that will provide the most cost effective tender, rather than simply choosing the lowest tenderer. All members of parliament will have had experience in situations where the lowest tenderer has ended up in trouble and has then proceeded to institute action against the State road authority, making all sorts of specious claims against the State road authority to try to renegotiate the price. I commend the legislation to the House. It is far-sighted; and it is an example of ministerial competence. It shows that the current Minister is in complete charge of his Department. Before sitting down, I should like to compliment the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) on the excellent contribution he made to the debate. One of the privileges of sitting in the House is to listen to the reasoned and constructive debate on this side of the House, interspersed with contributions such as that by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), who has a sincere interest in road funding in this country. But some of the earlier contributions to the debate on this program by members of the Opposition indicate that they are simply playing party politics and do not have a sincere interest in adequate road funding for this country. Mr PROSSER(Forrest)(4.51) —I am pleased to support the comments of my colleagues on this side of the House. Only this week, a prominent road user organisation, the Australian Road Transport Association, branded the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill as the worst piece of economic vandalism perpetrated by the Hawke Government on the basic infrastructure of this country. In fact, this vandalism has been going on for five years now. Just as a common vandal would render a public telephone useless by severely damaging it, the Government has vandalised yet another public asset, our roads. What should be, by all rights, one of our greatest national assets is becoming a national disgrace. Western Australia provides an example of what the present conspiracy of Labor governments at the Federal and State levels has meant to the road network in this country and to the millions of everyday road users. In the Labor Government's first year of office, $204.6m, expressed in 1987-88 dollar values, was spent on road construction and maintenance. This year, the corresponding figure is only $157.1m. That is a whopping $48m reduction, or a 23 per cent cut in real terms. This year, the excise on crude oil, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and petroleum products is set to raise $6,433m. That is a massive amount of money, approaching one-tenth of all Federal taxation revenue. During the year, the three Federal road programs have been allocated a total of only $1,215m. Even using the estimates of the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), which include figures for the Australian Capital Territory, this figure is only $1,221.5m. That means that only about one-fifth of excise from crude oil, LPG and petroleum products is being allocated to these road programs. The Western Australia State Government cannot be proud of its record, either. After increasing State fuel taxes by 125 per cent, one would think that the State's roads would be paved with gold. Not so, Mr Deputy Speaker. In fact, whereas previous governments in that State had always spent every cent of fuel tax on road works, the Labor Administration had other plans. This year, only half the State fuel tax will be spent on road works. Most of the difference is to be used to prop up the massive losses of Perth's public transport system. It is no wonder that that State Government has been forced to admit that its road works program is totally inadequate. Figures used by the State Government itself show that every 2,500 kilometres of the State's highways and main roads will require reconstruction over the next nine or 10 years-that is, 250 kilometres each year. To date, the State has been averaging only 80 kilometres a year. The Bill before the House could have reversed this situation-or at least it could have started to make up some lost ground. The importance of this should not be underestimated. Roads are, of course, one of the key prerequisites for economic growth. Furthermore, road conditions impact directly on operating costs. Rough surfaces have been estimated to increase repair bills by up to 36 per cent, and fuel consumption by up to 20 per cent. At a time when Australian industries must endeavour more than ever before to increase their competitive standing, it is only right that the Government should be assisting them and not adding to their costs. Substandard roads are a prominent factor in many traffic accidents, as well. Problems such as narrow lanes, broken surfaces, blind corners, soft shoulders and poor signposting contribute to an estimated 30 per cent of all crashes. Only recently, I received a letter from a school bus driver who was concerned for the safety of the children he buses to school every day because of the blind corners and gravel roads that confront him every day; he expressed great concern about the matter. These are powerful arguments in favour of a sensible restructuring of the existing road programs, which place high priority on the need to improve our roads. Clearly, governments at both Federal and State levels must adjust their spending priorities to pay greater attention to the nation's road systems. Experience has shown that good road maintenance costs about 2 per cent of the replacement cost of a length of road. What is more, timely maintenance can double the life of a particular road. In other words, road maintenance is not a cost, it is a saving. Road construction and maintenance is highly labour intensive-it creates jobs. The Australian Roads Outlook report shows that, for every $1m of road construction expenditure, 62 man-years of employment is generated. The roads sector has among the highest employment generating capacity of all sectors-so much so that roads and road transport related activities employ around half a million people, or more than one in 10 of the Australian work force. It is against that background that we must consider the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill. The Government, via this Bill, must be capable of demonstrating a real commitment to our road system if it is to make up for its abysmal record so far. More importantly, any new road program must set the scene for the best possible land transport system to be in operation well into the next century. Already, 77 per cent of all domestic freight is moved by road. By the year 2000, total road travel is expected to grow by 60 per cent, including a 100 per cent increase in road freight. I ask the question: Is this Bill up to the job? The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill states that the new program is to take effect on 1 January 1989. Under the program, the share of excise and customs duty allocated to it under the road user charge system is calculated at $571m for the second half of 1988-89. That is in addition to the $650.5m which will be allocated to the two superseded programs in the first half of the year. One does not have to be a mathematical genius to realise that $571m received over six months is equivalent to $1,142m over a full year. The Government has guaranteed that funding levels for the new program will be maintained in real terms for two years. Also, it has made provision for the amount of road user charge payable to the program to be increased from the current rate of 4.95c per litre, if necessary, to ensure that the overall funding levels set by this legislation are met. Clearly, this will need to be done, unless there is a substantial change in consumption patterns. Yet, in his second reading speech, the Minister provided no clarification of that aspect. There is a massive difference of $79.5m between the level of revenue that the program will receive from road user charges and the level of expenditure guaranteed by this legislation in 1988-89 and 1990-91. Will the Government cover this shortfall by raising the user charge from its present level of 4.95c? Can we really trust the Government on this matter? Certainly not! I vividly recall the Government's promise to maintain expenditure on roads in real terms following the passing of the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) legislation in 1985. Of course it is now history that this commitment was thrown into the gutter. Road funding fell far behind consumer price index rises, and the allocation of excise per litre of fuel was subsequently slashed from 3.66c per litre to 3.241c per litre. What is to stop the Government from applying the same deceitful tactic to the new centennial roads program? There is good reason to suspect that the level of tax revenue to be allocated to that new program will be allowed to drop, despite the Government's claim that the Bill guarantees a secure funding environment. I say this because the legislation indexes the new program's funding using the implicit price deflator for non-farm gross domestic product, not simply the consumer price index, which is used to index fuel taxes. This Bill is called the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill. However, it is not confined to roads. Unlimited amounts of the new program's annual budget which are set aside for arterial roads could be redirected for use on capital railway projects and urban public transport systems. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that this is hardly a secure basis for road funding. Earlier I asked whether this Bill was what we need to set the scene as we approach the new century. I asked whether the Bill was up to the job. Unfortunately, there are too many uncertainties. The funding estimates are not spelt out in enough detail. Indeed, there are no estimates at all for the last two years of the program's life. Furthermore, I do not believe that this Bill reflects a genuine concern on the Government's part for the state of our roads. Certainly the Government has done nothing to try to recover lost ground. As such, this Bill will not reverse the massive decline in real terms of road funding under the present Government. It could even reduce the already low priority given to roads, resulting in less expenditure related to vehicle transport and a greater proportion on more general land transport projects. In any event, the bottom line shows that this new program is to be established from a very low funding base. There is not enough money in the jar in the first place to do the job properly, so it really does not matter how it is distributed. As one local government representative said, `It is just like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic'. Clearly, this Bill is not up to the job. As a result, motorists will continue to ask: Where are the roads our petrol taxes are paying for? Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(5.02) —I rise to support the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill. In so doing, I would like basically to concentrate my remarks on the local level as it affects my electorate of McMillan. Before doing so, I think it is important to say a few words in relation to the debate on road funding that has been going on in Australia. I do not think any other subject has received more attention in local newspapers or more front page coverage in rural Australia. One can almost back it in that at least every two or three weeks a story will be printed in a local paper about some councillor somewhere making statements in relation to roads-some correct, some political and some totally incorrect. I think the public at large is getting rather sick of the constant discussion on this subject. Statistics and figures are constantly quoted, to the point where people have completely lost interest in that side of the argument and want some real discussion as to what is going on in the area of road funding. I commend the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), who is at the table, for providing the facts to many people. Since 1983 there has been a genuine approach by this Government. There has been a 21 per cent increase in the moneys provided by this Government in its six years in office as against the moneys provided by the previous government in its six years in office. I think that is something that has been missed in the debates reported in the country press, particularly where figures which are taken from 1984-85 are related to 1988 and the figures for 1983-84 are ignored. My electorate of McMillan has been one of the real beneficiaries of the money that has been spent by the Commonwealth on the road program over the last six years. In 1979, the Princes Highway east was declared a development road. Since that time the Federal Government has spent an estimated $126m on upgrading a significant portion of the Princes Highway east. More than 70 per cent of the 170-kilometre section between Dandenong and Traralgon is now a four-lane divided carriageway, allowing free access to the rapidly developing industrial sectors along the route and to many tourist areas in Gippsland. It has been very pleasing for me, as the local member, to watch the massive works that have been going on in that area and to see that highway being gradually improved. Major works currently approved on that highway include the Tynong project duplication from Nar Nar Goon to the Bunyip River. The approved funds for that project total $26.2m and it is estimated to cost $39m. It is expected to be completed in late 1989. I was fortunate to be present at the opening of the first section of that project by the State Minister. It is a beautiful highway and the people in our area certainly appreciate it. The next section that has been approved is the Longwarry project duplication from Bunyip River to what is called the Robin Hood end, which will connect with the Drouin bypass which was opened in 1984. The approved funds for that project total $17.5m and it is estimated to cost $24m. The expected completion date is 1993. For the benefit of the Minister, who is at the able, I was recently taken on an inspection of that project. It is a massive project, the first stage of which required $1m-odd to fill in a rather large gully. Of course, this section of the highway requires two completely new lanes which will create a completely new highway through new territory. That is a massive project and I hope it will be completed by 1993. However, I have some considerable doubts about the country through which that highway is going because it is such a terribly wet area. The Government may need to put a lot more funding into that project than expected. The next duplication is from the Moe River. The approved funds for this project at this stage total $3.8m and it is estimated to cost $20m. Completion is expected in 1994. The bypass is to be constructed through the township of Morwell. The approved funds total $19m and the project is estimated to cost $38m. These projects are all in the electorate of McMillan. Completion is expected by 1990. That section ran into some difficulties because it is so close to the open cut mines. In that part of the world we have only 10 or 15 feet of top soil and then 1,000 feet of coal. It is a little difficult to build a solid base for a highway on top of a coal base and, of course, the costs for that project have blown out. When the Minister gets an opportunity to visit the area, I am sure that he will see that for himself. A further $60m is required to fulfil existing commitments and I am sure that this Bill will be vital in that area. As a development road category will not exist under the Australian centennial roads development program, the Road Construction Authority in Victoria has sought completion under the national arterial category, utilising national highway funds. I am sure that that will occur. Recently I was able to lead a delegation from the Central Gippsland Road Funding Committee, which covers not only my area but also the electorate of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), which met with the Minister, as the Minister will remember. One of the things that I want to bring before this House is the major problem that areas such as Gippsland have had in the past in the area of road funding. I strongly support the case that people in local government in this area have been putting. I refer to the fact that the formula structures that have been in place in the past certainly have not taken into account the topography, the hilly nature, of the countryside, and the high rainfall in relation to the needs per kilometre of road. The case that that Road Funding Committee put to the Minister was that the formula structure has always created a climate in which other parts of Victoria with more solid bases to build roads, where it is much cheaper to build roads, were getting an advantage over the Gippsland area. The question that needs to be asked is: Why is that so? Basically, it is because the local government organisations in the country areas which make these decisions and make recommendations to governments are National Party dominated. Where they have a majority they are able to ensure that the money and the formulas suit those areas. Of course, Gippsland has always missed out in relation to the formula style of funding for roads. Whereas 10 kilometres of road can be built for $X in some parts of Victoria, only two or three kilometres can be built in Gippsland. Therefore, we have a difficulty with the formula structure. I have always put forward the case that it would be much better if a method were developed whereby there could be a more equitable approach to take into account the problems that exist in south Victoria, particularly in the Gippsland region. Another change which has taken place and which I think is a good change as far as local government is concerned-it is a positive approach we do not read a great deal about in the press-has been the increased cooperation between the engineers at local level and the Road Construction Authority main engineer, Mr Norm Butler, in my area. He has convinced some of the engineers to take a more moderate approach to some of the road reconstruction. In the last 18 months they have developed an operation by which they actually mix the road that is already there and put it together-a cement stabilisation approach. By this method they are able to do some of the local roads much more cheaply and efficiently. There is a bit of debate between the engineers as to how long these roads will stand up to the traffic that is moving across them. From what I have seen so far, they have stood up beautifully to the first test. Time will tell which engineers are correct and, out of necessity, there may be a development by the engineers of a much cheaper way of putting our roads back into order, rather than rebuilding them from new bases. I hope that some of these efforts by local government will mean that our dollars will go further and some of our roads will be brought back to the standard that is required today. Many of these roads were built many years ago and were not designed to carry big milk tankers and log trucks that are using them today. I believe that there has been neglect of roads over many years-not by this Government, but by previous governments which, for 20 or 30 years, did not have a plan for replacing them at the end of their normal life. I hope that this approach which is now being put together will be successful and, on the evidence so far, I think that will certainly be the case. I do not want to go into the Bill in any great depth as other members have covered that in the debate so far. I just wish to remind the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, who is at the table, of the invitation to visit our area. We hope to be able to give him a couple of days to see the problems that can be caused by a formula approach to road funding and how sometimes some of our political opponents who like to make a lot of noise about road funding create a lot of the problems then seek to blame a Labor government for them, when actually they result from an internal fight amongst some of the local government people who are not able to engineer the numbers to get the formula that they require. I strongly support the Bill. I would like to see much more money spent on roads if possible because at present it would create a lot more work. In the present circumstances this Bill has an indexed amount of funds and I am sure that if the cases can be made as the economy becomes stronger, more money will be made available. In conclusion, the only other point I would like to make is that local government in these areas perhaps could do a lot more in relation to amalgamations and use of its machinery and equipment as is happening now in Gippsland. We have so many shires in Victoria and I am always amazed that all the shires can have so much equipment sitting around that could be used much more effectively. I believe that will happen, I think it is something else that the Central Gippsland committee would like to discuss with the Minister when he visits us. I fully support this Bill and in the next couple of years I look forward to an extension of the funds made available for roads as we improve the economy in Australia and start to pay off our debts which are our No. 1 priority at this time. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(5.14) —In speaking to the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill, I wish to pick up some points made by Government speakers. This Bill replaces the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund and the Australian land transport program which were both introduced by the previous Government. The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund was introduced in 1982-83 and in that financial year had only started to raise money for the funding of roads; it had not come fully on stream. It was not until 1983-84 that the full effect of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund was felt. It is on this basis that I wish to take issue with some of the Government speakers because they are quite deliberately misleading the members of this House by trying to compare the figures of the previous Fraser Government and the current Government and suggest that there are major differences. If one is to make a realistic comparison one has to look at that first year when the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund was on full stream, namely 1983-84, to see how this Government has performed in relation to road funding. Federal road funding money given in the whole of the life of the present Government reached its peak in 1983-84. Since then it has fallen quite dramatically. The funds have been frozen in dollar terms. In fact in the mini-Budget there was a further $33m cut and it was reduced to around $1,215m, and this present Centennial Road Development Fund will continue with its unusual form of indexation. When members opposite get up and try to make a comparison, they are not comparing like with like, they are quite deliberately misleading the public, and I think they ought to be pulled up quickly and made to realise that if they want to be credible they ought to start comparing like with like and not two matters that are quite different. The choice of name for this fund is interesting-from the Bicentennial Road Development Fund to the Centennial Roads Development Fund; obviously a step backwards. In terms of road funding it certainly is a step backwards. It reminds everyone yet again that the Government has cut road funding and cut it significantly in real terms every year over the last four years. In real terms it is a cut of something like 30 per cent. At the same time the Government has indexed the fuel excise, so more and more money is being raised. It is going straight into Consolidated Revenue and proportionately less and less is going back to road funding. I would also like to point out that this Bill reinforces the claim that the Government continues to cut road funding. As pointed out by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) earlier, by using the implicit price deflater-most Australians would wonder what on earth that was; they would think it was a blow-up doll or something-the Government can continue to reduce road funding. It is worse that that. It is not just a question of the Government reducing road funding. We are witnessing the running down of our very infrastructure-an infrastructure that is so important, particularly to people in the country, because in most cases they have no other form of transport. Without decent roads the arteries of their whole lifestyle are removed. This Federal Government continues to reduce road funding, to run down this infrastructure and to ignore the advice of every shire engineer right throughout Australia when warning after warning is given that the roads are disintegrating and that additional funding will be needed if they are to be maintained. It is not just the roads, it is also the bridges, which have so far not been mentioned. In the limited time available today I will not go into that in any detail but the bridges in many places in country Australia are reaching the end of their life. A massive injection of funds will be needed if we are not to see a wholesale failure of those bridges in many parts of Australia. The Government not only continues to let the roads deteriorate but it also ignore the warnings, not just of the engineers but also of all the affiliates of the Australian Automobile Association. It continues to ignore the feelings of people. I will give an example in my electorate. On a cold night in the middle of winter, 252 people came to a meeting in a little country town to discuss road funding and to register their concern about the fact that the local roads in their shire are disintegrating and being returned to gravel. This Government continues to ignore the problem and pretends everything is okay because people in the city have not noticed. As I have said before, excise continues to rise. I put it in the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when he said some time ago, but it is still appropriate today, `the Government has made every petrol pump into a branch of the Tax Office'. Like the Treasurer's best friend, Miss Bracket Creep, these taxes just keep growing. It begs the obvious questions: Is there less use of roads? Are there fewer vehicles today than there were, say, five years ago? Are Australians turning away from cars? Are there fewer trucks on the roads today than, say, five years ago? Obviously, the answer to all these questions is no. Furthermore, not only is the answer no, but there are predictions that by the year 2000 the number of cars on our roads will have increased by 30 per cent and the amount of road freight on our roads will have increased by a staggering 60 per cent. Yet the Government continues to say it will not increase road funding. These are not just statistics. We want to look at why in human terms this legislation is hopelessly inadequate, at why we are short-changing the public by cutting road funding and at why, again in human terms, we have a national disaster on our hands. In the limited time I have available I want to concentrate on the road toll-the needless loss of life, the needless suffering of families and of victims of road trauma and the loss to our country from all these unnecessary crashes. The statistics concerning what inadequate road funding is causing in our country are staggering. The biggest killer of Australians under 45 years of age is not cancer, not heart disease, but road crashes. Last year 2,800 Australian died on our roads and 30,000 were injured, many crippled and maimed for life. A lot were children. Since 1980 25,000 Australians have died on our roads. They are people, not statistics. That is equivalent to wiping out the entire population of a place like Bathurst or Shepparton, or Port Lincoln and Port Pirie combined, or Bunbury, or Alice Springs twice over. Since 1980 nearly a quarter of a million Australians have been injured in road crashes, and the fact is that poor roads contributed to 30 per cent of those crashes. Furthermore, the Australian Road Transport Federation, a well recognised and well respected organisation, has estimated that the cumulative effect of Labor's road funding cuts will cost Australia 7,000 lives through road crashes by the year 2000. So 7,000 lives will be lost unnecessarily because of inadequate road funding. That is about 600 a year from now until the year 2000. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that Australians should have to put up with the disastrously high road toll that we suffer. Daily we see the misery brought about by road accidents that, if not resulting in death, certainly leave their victims with horrible disabilities and the victims' families traumatised. The pity of it all is that many of these accidents are preventable, or at least the injuries and fatalities reducible, simply by providing better and safer roads. Why is it that we do not look at the roads themselves as the solution to road accidents? We seem ever ready to do everything else. We increase police numbers, we reduce road speeds, we legislate for the compulsory wearing of seat belts and we control the legal blood alcohol content for drivers; we do all sorts of peripheral things, some of which are certainly worth while, but we have a hang-up about making enough money available to construct decent roads and hence get to the root cause of much of our road toll. Why do we have such a hang-up? The Treasurer finds it quite easy to reduce the excise on beer but he seems to find it very difficult to increase funding for roads. I could go on and on but as I know we have limited time I will just say in conclusion that this Bill masquerades as the Government's attempt to cover up its inadequate level of road funding, and its continued inadequate level of road funding in the future. Frankly, I support the amendment of the honourable member for Richmond in which he suggests that the Bill should be withdrawn. I also think it should be withdrawn, redrawn and redrafted, and at the same time the Government's commitment to road funding should be increased dramatically to make a more realistic share of Commonwealth revenue available for roads to do something worth while towards reducing the number of road accidents that occur today. Mr Simmons —Where is the money coming from? Mr HAWKER —That is just what I like to hear from the honourable member for Calare. If the Treasurer can find $400m to cut the beer excise, I suggest he has his priorities wrong. Why should he not put another $400m into road funding? Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(5.25) —I support the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill and oppose the amendment so vigorously supported by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). Unfortunately I do not think he understands the process which this Bill went through before it was finally brought into the House. I must commend the Ministers who have had responsibility for the carriage of this Bill over past months, and I say that particularly in relation to the review that took place involving not only the Commonwealth Government but State and local governments, major road and transport bodies, and motorist organisations. I remind the honourable member for Wannon about that. Road funding does not exist in isolation from the general economy. I remind him about that as well. The Government looks toward maintaining its existing road assets and recognises the importance of roads as an essential part of our economic infrastructure. I am sure the honourable member recognises that. This Bill reflects a realistic approach to the question of road funding because, as we are all aware, road funds are limited. The basic purpose of the Bill is to provide a new federal road funding program. From 1 January 1989 that will replace both of the Government's current road programs, the bicentennial road development program and the Australian land transport program. The legislation contains new initiatives which will set the direction of road funding towards the year 2000. I stress that the Government's economic agenda emphasises the need for the structural adjustment of Australia's major industries. Improvement of our land transport sector is integral to this process of structural adjustment. I would have thought the honourable member for Wannon would have recognised that as well. Cheaper, safer and more efficient transport can only mean greater success in our attempts to make industries more competitive, especially in remote areas such as the Northern Territory, which of course is my electorate. The emphasis in the Bill is on roads of national economic significance by establishing a new category of `national arterials' to improve road access to major industries. Secondly, it aims to get better value for every dollar spent on roads by providing for revised administrative arrangements, with the States assuming greater responsibility and accountability for ensuring that projects are completed on budget and to an appropriate standard. This will guarantee efficiency in the delivery of the new road program. The program continues to provide a base level of assistance for State arterial and local roads. Road transport is of fundamental importance to the economic and social well-being of the Northern Territory. Anyone who has been there and seen the distances and isolation faced by many of the rural centres will be aware of this fact. Many centres in the Northern Territory, including Aboriginal communities, are without airstrips and are therefore totally dependent on road transport. Unlike the States, the Northern Territory has a small manufacturing base which means that many basic items, including food and petroleum products, must be imported from interstate. It is estimated that road freight accounts for 98 per cent of all intra-Territory freight. On Monday, in debate on the Australian National Railways Commission Bill I commented on the fact that in excess of 90 per cent of freight into Alice Springs arrives by rail from down south, via Adelaide and Port Augusta. Semitrailers with containers are piggy-backed to Alice Springs on the back of a train, offloaded and transported up the track. It is a very important integrated freight network which has been developed using Australian National's railways and the road transport network of the Northern Territory, and therefore roads are of fundamental and essential importance to the Northern Territory in providing the very necessities for people to exist. Territorians, especially in the smaller inland centres such as Katherine and Tennant Creek, can only benefit from the legislation before the House as the Australian centennial roads development program will facilitate faster, cheaper and safer freight movements into the Territory. The road transport system in the Territory provides the basic infrastructure for the most of the Northern Territory's major industries. I am sure any honourable members who have travelled through the Territory will have seen this. I know the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) has been there recently as a member of the country task force set up by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and he would have been very impressed with the Territory. I must say that the response of the Prime Minister's country task force to the problems evident in the Northern Territory has given me cause to be very thankful that I am involved in that task force, and I thank the honourable member for Calare and the other members of the task force for their efforts. Statistics on the tourism industry in the Northern Territory indicate that nearly half of interstate visitors to the Territory enter by road. Once in the Territory, 87 per cent of visitors use the road system, so as it is improved it encourages travellers to stay longer and venture further. The Australian centennial roads program identifies the importance of roads for the tourism industry. I refer, for example, to the Olgas road. I say to the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), if I may put in a plug, that the Olgas road is probably one of the worst roads in the Northern Territory but one of the most used. I urge the Minister to give favourable consideration to the upgrading of that road when he is considering funding the next Budget. I am told that the upgrading will cost in the vicinity of $8m. I thank him for his support. In terms of developing the north, it is apparent that geographical patterns of expenditure are better spread by road than by other forms of transport which rely more heavily on terminal nodes. The pastoral industry in the Northern Territory also derives substantial benefits from Commonwealth Government expenditure on roads. I am sure that those members who have driven in the Northern Territory will have confronted from time to time semitrailers with three bogies, carrying enormous numbers of cattle. The road transport system is fundamental to the success of the cattle industry in the Northern Territory because by far the major proportion of cattle raised in the Northern Territory are driven out of the Territory by way of the road transport system. This roads program will be of importance both in regard to improved assistance for road trains and improved access for individual properties. Commonwealth road programs have provided vital energy for the social and economic life of the Territory. In fact, since 1983-84 the Federal Government has allocated a total of $234.2m to the Northern Territory for national arterial and local roads. I do not say that we have received enough money, but I understand the restrictions and constraints that have been placed on revenue by the structural changes we have been talking about and the demands on our economy generally. I will continue to pursue the objective of increasing expenditure on roads in the Northern Territory. I assure the Minister that he can expect to see me in his office at some future date. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(5.32) —My concern about the Bill before the House, the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill 1988, is whether it will measure up to the actual demands of transport, particularly road transport, over the years ahead. We have to appreciate that today 54 per cent of our transport requirements are met by road transport. I do not think that there would be a local government body or a State government that would be happy with the legislation that is before the Parliament. There are a couple of factors that I wish to raise this afternoon. I am sorry that, as a result of time constraints, we can only make 10-minute speeches, because there are many matters I would like to raise that would have a general influence on demands for better roads in this continent. When the first petrol tax Bill was introduced in, I think, 1944-it raised a levy of one penny per gallon-the money was earmarked for road construction. After that, various amendments and new pieces of legislation were introduced, and gradually a greater proportion of the excise on petrol and diesel fuel went to Consolidated Revenue. Today, of the 21.4c that the Commonwealth receives from the sale of every litre of petrol only 5c or a little less is spent on roads for construction and maintenance purposes. I know that the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) would argue that we have to look at the priorities of roads compared with other demands in Australia. I do not believe that, were I to go to my electors and councils in my electorate and say, `The petrol tax is not specifically to be spent on roads and bridges', they would accept that. So the Opposition can state realistically that there are very strong reasons why the government in power has to treat roads as a major priority. That is what I want to argue today. I do not want to talk about the fact that road funding has increased since 1982-83. Certainly, that is so. Funding has increased from about $850m to about $1,245m, as part of the Australian bicentennial road development (ABRD) program. Maybe we cannot blame the Government for taking the credit for this extra spending on roads, but we can criticise it for the fact that, after two or three years, that figure has remained at $1221.5m. That is the important point. That is the Commonwealth's contribution to all of the roads in Australia. The States are terribly dependent on this funding. Thank God the newly elected New South Wales Government has said that it will spend approximately $180m a year by putting money received from registration fees into State road funding. Were I to put up the arguments that have been posed by some of the other speakers from the Opposition benches this afternoon, the safety argument alone is the one which should convince the Government to give priority to roads. Irrespective of health, education, defence and other requirements, from an integral point of view every member of this House is dependent upon the money that is to be spent on roads, because transport is such an important part of the cost of production and the cost of the finished article in every store and industry throughout the Commonwealth. I have some figures which are interesting, particularly in the agricultural field. The retail price of sheep today includes a 6.6 per cent transport component. For cereal grains it is 12.5 per cent; for cattle, 13.3 per cent; for dairy cattle and pigs, 7.7 per cent; for meat products, 6.7 per cent; and for milk products, 6.9 per cent. I could talk about minerals and other products and resources that we sell. Transport is a major part of that expenditure. I say to the Government that it has to consider these priorities in light of the huge cost of the safety aspects, approaching $6,000m a year, to cope with deaths upon the roads, damage to vehicles, insurance, and everything else. That is the cost to this nation. Nobody can tell me that there is a greater need for priority of spending than for roads. I ask the Government to consider that point in light of the demands of a continent such as Australia that is so geographically broad. We have mineral resources throughout the land. We have to put roads into those places to service the industries concerned. The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) is sitting beside me. I know he would like to speak in this debate-he will not have time to do so because the time allowed for debate will expire-on the issue of the Pacific Highway. Four Federal members recently spoke with the Minister in that regard, and we were sympathetically received by him. The fact is that that roadway is under pressure. Over 12,000 vehicles of all types travel upon certain sections of that roadway every day. It urgently needs upgrading. The number of fatalities which occur on that road are greater than for any other road of such length and importance. We want to see something done in that regard. We want to know from the Minister the details of the national arterial road program. We know that the States have to put up their propositions to the Minister. We ask him to look sympathetically at this important road that serves this area of growth. I remember years ago Mr Dusseldorp said that that area would be a major growth area-and so it is. People are moving to Page, Lyne and other electorates in that area. The tourism industry will continue to grow, as will primary industry, the area's importance as a retirement area, and the other factors that attract people to that area. We would be most grateful if we could be advised fairly clearly as to the details of national arterial road funding. If the States put up a proposition that the Pacific Highway be a national arterial road, will he agree to that classification? We realise that the Minister has only a certain amount of money in his pocket. He has only $1,221.5m to work with. This is the important thing: What road programs will be cut back? We are concerned about the rural arterial roads, the rural local roads and the urban local roads because they are very important. They carry the produce, our school bus services and all the other things one likes to think about. We are very concerned also about how the Minister will allocate funding under this program after the next two years. We are concerned about clause 10 of the Bill. If the Minister could say a little about that clause in his response I would be grateful. I would like him to tell us how funding will work out under the indexation factor. It is not the consumer price index but that is the term I use. We know that for the next two years the funding level will be maintained. But local government and the Australian community want to know about what the increases will be in the remaining 3 1/2 years. There will be at least a 3 per cent increase a year in traffic on the roads of Australia. Because of the great demand we see for roads we want to know what the increase will be. As I said at the outset, we believe the legislation does not measure up to the requirements for transport in this country. Fifteen per cent of the retail price of imported goods is attributable to transport. Industry-whether rural, natural resources, or service-faces an exceptionally high cost component, up to 15 per cent in some cases, directly related to the cost of transport. I warn the Minister. We know he is sympathetic to our cause; we do not challenge him on that. We know that the Minister will have to be darn strong in Cabinet and in the Government to be able to get the extra money that is needed for road maintenance and construction within this country. The Opposition will give him every support. I am not being critical of the Minister; I respect him. But we will pursue him on these particular issues because we have such a belief in the priority that roads should hold in the Budget. That is what we are fighting for. That is what we are asking to have favourably considered. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(5.44) —The Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill is a very important piece of legislation. All honourable members who listened to the just concluded speech by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) would probably agree with me that it was a very interesting and valuable contribution to the debate this afternoon. I congratulate the honourable member for Lyne on his very constructive comments and his well-deserved praise for the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown). All honourable members, particularly those who represent country Australia, would join with the honourable member for Lyne and others in this House in urging the Minister to prevail upon his Cabinet colleagues in future deliberations to recognise the importance of the road network, particularly for country Australia. It was a refreshing change to hear a very positive contribution from the Opposition this afternoon. However, I must say that the Opposition generally has launched a rather spurious attack on the Government for its record on road funding, spurred on by the Australian Automobile Association (AAA). The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) earlier this afternoon talked about road fatalities and accidents. He sought to blame inadequate road funding. He implied that if we had a four-lane highway system all around Australia this would probably significantly reduce road fatalities and accidents. That is probably true. But I think the honourable member was drawing a very long bow indeed when he suggested that all the problems could be solved in that way. Take, for example, the fine city of Canberra. Most people would agree that there are very fine roads throughout the city. But honourable members should also have a look at some of the accidents that take place on what are some of the finest roads in Australia. There are many other fine highways with significant accident records. It is not a question of attributing road fatalities and accidents generally to the level of road funding. Many members of the Opposition have simply resorted to regurgitating the lines of the Australian Automobile Association and its affiliates. The Opposition needs to consider whether it is living in glasshouses and simply throwing stones. Figures that have been obtained from the Economic Planning Advisory Council paper No. 33, entitled `Economic Infrastructure in Australia', indicate a dramatic fall in Commonwealth road expenditure during the Fraser-Howard years. If we use 1984-85 prices as a constant, Federal road funding fell under the Fraser-Howard Government from $1.350m in 1976 to just over $900m in 1982. The introduction of the Australian bicentennial road development program saw a very rapid increase in road funding. Many people have alluded to that very fine program. In 1984-85 prices, funding was back to almost $1,300m by mid-1983. The ABRD was a great marketing tool and an excuse by the Fraser Government to make amends for its rather pathetic record on road infrastructure in the period from 1976 to 1982. All it was doing was essentially restoring the status quo that existed in 1976. The local and State government road funding, which had also declined during the years of the coalition Government, began to increase after 1982, following the introduction of the ABRD program, in response to the additional funding on a Federal level. Both the Opposition and the Australian Automobile Association have chosen to ignore the positive approach that has been taken by the Hawke Government. For example, the proportion of rural local roads that are sealed is increasing and increasing quite significantly, from 15 per cent in 1981 to a forecast of 19 per cent by next year. As rural local roads constitute nearly 80 per cent of the Australian road network, this increase is a very significant one. It means that an additional 25,400 kilometres of rural local roads have been sealed, which is over 1 1/2 times the length of the national highway system which all honourable members would agree has been one of the great bipartisan projects in national infrastructure this decade. The Australian centennial road development program will ensure that the real value of road funding this financial year is maintained next year and the year after. Naturally, we are keen to see that, as economic circumstances improve, we rally behind the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support because of the importance of road funding to our electorates. Most people expect and realise that it is not a task that can be accomplished simply by one plucking money from here, there or anywhere. It requires a very delicate balancing trick at times. We also need to stress, as many people have stressed here today, the significance of particular road funding projects that they see as important in their own electorates. The Australian Automobile Association and other car clubs would agree that this is still not enough money. I think they have a Mr Micawber approach to the whole question of road funding. They whinge like Billabong Bill the whinger and hope that something will turn up from the Government as a result of their whinging. It just does not operate in that way. Responsible government has to set priorities for spending. More spending on roads either means higher taxes or means that money for other essential services required by the population at large will suffer-things such as hospitals, schools, pensions, care for the aged, child-care and so on. The car organisations would say that much more of the money that is contributed through the fuel excise should go to road funding, as if to say that road users do not use the other, wide, range of government services, and that, therefore, their money should not be contributed to other things. The Opposition and these lobby groups carry on as if the Government is stealing their money for no good purpose, as if excise collected in excess of road funding requirements is wasted. But, as we all know, the money is well spent on much needed community services and facilities. The attitude of some of the local councils intrigues me. A wide range of attitudes is being displayed by councils. Some councils simply write to individual members of parliament or to all parliamentarians throughout Australia and point out that road funding is a tripartite exercise-which it is. When I have taken the trouble to write back and agree with them that road funding is a tripartite exercise, and when I have sought information from those councils as to their level of contribution to road funding from their own sources of funds over the previous five years, I have been met with a deafening silence in most cases. Some local councils would probably be somewhat embarrassed by those figures. One has to keep things in perspective. If one maintains that road funding is a tripartite effort one should be prepared to say that one's bona fides in that regard are realistic. To get back to organisations such as the National Roads and Motorists Association, for example, do they not know that the Hawke Government has demonstrated a much greater concern for road funding and maintenance than the Fraser-Howard Government ever demonstrated? In the period 1983-84 to 1988-89, $2,372.8m has been allocated to New South Wales roads by the Federal Government. I am somewhat concerned at times by the grandstanding of some Opposition members who seem to be blissfully ignorant of the way in which the road funding arrangements operate under our constitution. In many cases we do not have the opportunity at a Federal level to determine where the Commonwealth contribution is spent in a particular State. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lyne has mentioned, often agreements must be entered into by the Commonwealth and the State concerned to the mutual benefit of both parties. I refer to a recent and very positive meeting I had with the Minister and the Sydney Road Links Committee. That Committee is chaired by by alderman of the Bathurst City Council, Alderman Max Hanrahan. The Secretary is Mr Chris Pitken, the Deputy Clerk of the Bathurst City Council. As I said, we recently met with the Minister. We have met with his predecessor, State transport Ministers of all political parties and previous Federal transport Ministers of the Fraser Government. In my view-and I am sure that the Minister agrees with me-State transport Ministers have always adopted a very positive attitude. They are not there haranguing the Federal Minister, saying `We want our money, and we want it now. We want to spend it on this particular road'. They have taken the constructive attitude that the honourable member for Lyne took in his contribution to this debate, that is, that we should recognise that some roads have a very high usage component and that we need to examine priorities from time to time and to convince all the parties involved that a certain step is worthwhile. I hope that all honourable members who make a contribution to this debate will follow the example of the Sydney Road Links Committee which was lobbied very hard and put up a very strong case. I think that, over the next few years, we will see very positive results regarding the road through the Blue Mountains to central western New South Wales. I am sure that we will also see positive results regarding the Pacific Highway in New South Wales. I congratulate the Minister on the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill. I think it will make a positive contribution to the betterment of road infrastructure in Australia. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.55) —I will take only half of my allotted and reduced time, notwithstanding the importance of the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill, because I appreciate the need to allow other members to speak in this debate. I support the second reading amendment moved by my colleague the shadow Minister for transport and aviation, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), which is all about getting a fair dinkum indexation factor into road funding rather than the much narrower and less generous factor which the legislation provides. For too long road funding has been chiselled away at, cut back and reduced in such a way that the maintenance, revamping and reconstruction of major roads have broken down. We will pay an awful price for that, especially in times of extreme conditions such as periods of heavy rainfall. Whole sections of roads will collapse. That is exactly what happened in Balranald Shire earlier this year. I highlight that in the context of this legislation. The wording of the second reading amendment is all about injecting a fair dinkum indexation factor into the Bill, rather than a hybrid factor which would allow the Government to get away with lowering road funding in a disgraceful manner. I refer to the Hume Highway, a national highway, which relates in part to the provisions of the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill. Partly in anticipation of this debate this week, last Friday night I left Sydney at 1.30 a.m. in a small Ford Telstar, which was the car I owned at the time. I drove it through the suburbs of Sydney and down the Hume Highway in all sorts of dry and wet conditions in the middle of the night after a busy sitting week, eventually arriving at Holbrook as daylight broke in time to attend and unofficially open at 8 a.m. the Holbrook Show, before going on to a number of electorate functions. After that experience, I am satisfied that the Hume Highway should be renamed the `Hume hellway', not so much because of the condition of the road-I know that the Princes Highway and other highways are deficient in terms of their construction-but because of the attitude of a minority of truck drivers who have decided to lay down their own laws, to set their own anti-social behavioural patterns in the way they conduct their vehicles down that highway each night in both directions, creating havoc for ordinary motorists in 101 different and very dangerous situations. This was referred to in the Good Weekend magazine in the Sydney Morning Herald of 3 September 1988. It was pointed out that, in 1987, there were 147 accidents involving semi-trailers on the Hume Highway between Sydney and Albury. I invite honourable members to take into account another aspect of this statistic: 135 of those 147 accidents occurred at speeds above the legal limits, resulting in eight fatalities and many people being injured. This does not concern all semi-trailers, by any means-not even a majority of them. But there is a minority of semi-trailer drivers who deliberately terrorise motorists on the Hume Highway, night after night. They deliberately establish a shocking code of conduct. Once they establish that there are no police cars out and about on a particular section of the highway, they deliberately travel at unbelievable speeds of 120, 130 and 140 kilometres an hour. They deliberately tailgate each other, notwithstanding the mist, fog and light rainshowers that might be falling at the time and in my experience notwithstanding the fact that the road was a difficult section of the Hume Highway-or hellway. I refer to the Cullarin range section of the highway between Goulburn and Yass in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). It is not good enough that that conduct is allowed to take place. Certainly, as more divided sections of the Hume Highway are constructed, the problem will ease by degrees; but, in the meantime, we should appeal to the heavy vehicle drivers who utilise the Hume Highway-and the other key highways between Sydney and Brisbane and elsewhere around Australia to behave in the interests of saving the lives of motorists, in the interests of their own safety and those of the nation. Finally, I remind the House that the Bill before us provides funding for rail transport in certain circumstances. That is in accord with what the Australian land transport program legislation provided for. There is provision to fund railway development and that is not without its important ramifications as we start to succeed in getting across the message that the twenty-first century will be all about providing a revitalised, revamped, form of rail transport in this country on certain key corridors. Those rail funding provisions are there. No specific commitment is given to the actual funding, but it allows me to point out again to the House that in terms of direct comparison, a steel wheel on a steel rail has one-tenth of the friction of a rubber-tyred wheel on a bitumen surface. Therein lies the efficiency factor which confers the benefit provided by rail transport. That is why there is a future for rail, a future well into and beyond the next century. It is one we must start planning for. I am pleased that this legislation provides that basis, but it is at the expense of some road funding. I add that for every kilometre of freeway constructed, approximately four times the land acreage is required than is needed for an extra kilometre of double track standard gauge railway line. That is not yet a significant factor in Australia but try the United Kingdom for size where land is very short and precious. That is one factor which is swinging transport planners back to rail as the way to go, ahead of the opening of the tunnel between the United Kingdom and France. That is why it is important that this rail funding provision is in this legislation being discussed by the House tonight. I hope that it will lead to some actual funding, a revamping and a contribution by the Federal Government, especially on those key corridor routes, in particular, the Sydney-Goulburn-Wagga-Albury-Melbourne existing rail route which is now standardised but which is still very antiquated by any means of assessing that. It results in much freight going on the road which logically should go on rail. I commend the amendment so successfully moved to this legislation by my colleague the honourable member for Richmond. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(6.03) —I recognise the hour and the fact that there are other members of the coalition who would like to participate in this debate, so my remarks will be appropriately brief. I was forced into this House by comments made by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), who said, in defending the Government's stand on this legislation, that the excise collected in excess of road funding is spent on essentials. I could not let the opportunity slip without standing in this House and saying, `What is more essential in the electorates of members creditably in the chamber'-all of them, with the exception of the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), represented by coalition members-`than upgraded road facilities?'. The constituents of the electorates of Page, Mallee, Richmond, and my own electorate of Wakefield, depend entirely upon roads for any reasonable form of transportation. Their lifestyle, whether it involves schooling, hospitals, or sporting facilities, is built on the capacity to get from a property to a community. More than that, these same people who live in rural Australia are entirely dependent upon roads in order to get from their properties to the ports the very products that this Government is currently relying on to turn around its balance of payments deficit. So I challenge the honourable member for Calare and ask him what it is that is more essential than roads that justifies his saying that we ought to be prepared to take from the bowser so much money in excise and cream it off into other government facilities. Does he suppose that murals for builders labourers or even child care facilities should have some precedence over road funding? I refer to the statements made by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). He effectively outlined what is the current statistical reality facing the Government and the nation in road funding. In the legislation currently being debated, the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill, we are determining to set aside $1.215 billion to be indexed for the nation's roads. Superficially, that sounds fine. In fact, it is the Minister's intention to earmark 4.95c per litre-variable as I understand it from the legislation-for just that purpose. If more fuel is sold less than 4.95c per litre will be made available. However, this money is to be indexed not according to the consumer price index (CPI) which has been the customary index for government expenditure but according to this figure known as the implicit price deflator for non-farm product. This figure represents 8 per cent less in real terms than the CPI has over recent years. I do not want to delay the House, but I express on behalf of the constituents of Wakefield our concern that the funding currently being earmarked will not in any way meet what will be the need to rebuild roads in order to maintain this national infrastructure. If the Minister needs any evidence of what has happened to road funding over recent times, he might consider for a moment that there was a time when 66 per cent of the excise collected on fuel was spent on national roads. That, of course, was under conservative governments. Today, 23 per cent of the excise collected is spent on roads. Need any more be said to reinforce the point that this legislation simply does not address one of the fundamental needs of rural communities around Australia? I pick up the remarks of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) who pointed out this morning what is the statistical reality of road funding currently facing every resident, particularly residents in rural Australia. The Minister must be sensitive to the plea that comes from local government bodies and motoring organisations around this nation. Clearly the present system for road funding does not meet with the approval of electorates anywhere around the nation. We must be prepared to identify those areas of government expenditure which are no longer as essential as is the building up of our national road network. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(6.08) —I thank the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. As there are only a few moments in which to speak, I will refer directly to the Goulburn bypass, although there are a number of issues of concern in the electorate of Gilmore. Firstly, the Princes Highway running through the south coast of New South Wales and the Olympic Way running between Young, Cowra and Cootamundra are in a shocking condition. As the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) mentioned in his speech, from his drive along the Hume Highway the other day, he can confirm that the Cullarin range is also in critical need of improvement. It should have been improved by now. Work on the Goulburn bypass should have started in 1984. The promise was made to the people of Goulburn that it would begin in 1984 and be completed by 1988. By now, traffic should be going around Goulburn ensuring that Goulburn is able to retain its main street and keep it for itself, saving the city from evident danger. I talk of danger because I can assure the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) that over the last few years there have been an number of major chemical spills in and around Goulburn. Spills have come off the back of trucks as they tear down the main street or drive around the district. If the spills had occurred in different circumstances they could have caused a loss of life or injury in the city of Goulburn itself. It is this very issue which drives not only me as the local Federal member of parliament but also the State member of parliament and the Goulburn City Council to urge the Government to introduce funding for the Goulburn bypass. We recognise that without that funding the city of Goulburn is at risk and the citizens who live within it are at risk. Goulburn is also at risk not only because chemicals are carried down the main street which could tip over and cause loss of life or injury, but also because highly explosive materials are carried down the main street of Goulburn every day. That puts at risk the lives of people in the cities. Therefore, the Opposition is asking that the Government go ahead with the promise made by the former Minister for Transport and Communications, the present Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris) at the opening of the Collector bypass during the election campaign in July 1987, and that it commence the bypass during its current term in office. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 6.10 p.m., the time allotted for the second reading stage of the Bill has now expired. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr D. B. Cowan) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— 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.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, JohnGrace, E. L. Scott, LesGriffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. 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. McGauran, P. J.Aldred, K. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Beale, J. H. Miles, C. G.Blunt, C. W. Millar, P. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Nehl, G. B.Burr, M. A. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Prosser, G. D.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L.McArthur, F. S. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldDuffy, M. J. Katter, R. C.Dawkins, J. S. Shack, P. D.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The time for the committee stage of the Bill has expired. The question is that the Bill and the circulated amendment of the Government to subclause 14 (1) be agreed to and the Bill be reported with an amendment. Circulated Government amendment- Subclause 14 (1), page 13, line 13, omit ``each period after the period commencing on 1 April 1991'', substitute ``each subsequent period of 6 months, being a period after the period commencing on 1 April 1991,''. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Robert Brown) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.24 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 12 October, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.00) —The States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1988 is a most important piece of legislation. Adjustment is a never ending process in the agricultural area. Each year 2 per cent to 3 per cent of our farmers leave the land and the 170,000 farmers remaining drop in number a little each year. That is one of the main reasons why agricultural productivity is two to three times higher than that of our economy generally. It is of great advantage to all Australians that this most significant sector of our export industries has higher productivity. It means that agriculture, through this self-adjustment process, is able to maintain exports during difficult international trading circumstances. It means that at times the income of farmers is very low. For example, in 1985 it was one-third that of average weekly earnings. It means that there are times of brutal adjustment. These times come when there is greater than usual corruption in the agricultural export marketing pricing arrangements, such as the export enhancement program of the United States of America or the support arrangements for surplus production of the European Economic Community. We have had some graphic examples of that with the dramatic switch from wheat production to wool production in this country over the last three or four years. That has been to the advantage of our balance of payments and of Australians generally, even if it has been very difficult for many people involved in grain production. As well as the increased pressure during those periods there has been the problem of an efficient industry becoming non-viable or of individual participants in that industry becoming non-viable because our domestic inflation rate is higher than that of our competitors. Unfortunately for Australia, that is usually the case. Natural disasters can exacerbate the adjustment process that is probably under way to a certain degree because of the market situation. We actually have that in the Eyre Peninsula at present. Adjustment in agriculture in Australia is more brutal than it is in other sectors of our society. Firstly, there is less assistance for agriculture. Most other industries are not export-oriented or weather affected, so they are relieved of that uncertainty. Generally, they have higher protection and they are more likely to have special industry plans. Associated with that, there is now the general acceptance of redundancy payments for those who are forced out of the industry. Finally, they do not have the trauma of having to leave their homes when they leave their jobs. I will come back to that later. There is a need to accommodate and assist this adjustment process so that it is not as brutal for the individuals caught up in it. Nevertheless, it should be allowed to continue, even with more humane circumstances, because that will ensure that our farmers remain world competitive and our ability to trade is maintained. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the then Minister for Primary Industry, Doug Anthony, introduced, to my knowledge, the first of the rural reconstruction or rural adjustment schemes. In fact, my maiden speech in the Parliament in May 1971 was made on the fruit growing reconstruction scheme, which was one of the associated reconstruction arrangements which followed the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market. Certainly the horticultural industry in my area had a very painful adjustment process during the 1970s. In 1977, the then Minister, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), brought in significant changes to the scheme, including the introduction of the rehabilitation grant, which was then set at $8,000. I also want to talk about that a little later. There have been further changes since. Tonight we are seeing further changes to the rural adjustment scheme, and I believe that that is sensible. Government, responding to changing circumstances and priorities in that adjustment process and to the requests of industry, should be making adjustments as necessary from time to time. Generally speaking, the Opposition supports this legislation. This particular round of changes follows the Australian Agriculture Council meeting in February 1987. The consultants Coopers and Lybrand and W. D. Scott looked at the whole question of adjustment, it went back to the Agriculture Council, and tonight we have this legislation. In brief, the new arrangements mean that the Commonwealth will set broad guidelines, but within those broad guidelines the States will have greater management, financial responsibility and flexibility, subject to some overall accounting. I support that. I hope that it will overcome one of the problems for those people caught up in the adjustment process over the years-that is, the buck passing that seems to go on between the States and the Commonwealth as to who should actually make the decision. I understand that it may create problems for some of the States because, as part of the new arrangement, they have to assume responsibility for the consideration of bad debts as well as anything that accrues to them from these arrangements. I do not disagree with that. I gather that this is a retrospective area, which means that the States could still be responsible for debts resulting from arrangements made prior to these new arrangements. There is also provision for financial management advice. That also seems sensible, although it will be interesting to see how practical that will be in implementation. I can think of two situations: in one State, or perhaps more than one State, where the State department of agriculture is not the rural adjustment authority and some interesting crossing of boundaries occurs between two different State instrumentalities. The second is where debt mediation arrangements have been instituted over the last few years following the corruption of the world wheat market and, to a lesser degree, the world sugar market and arrangements were made between banks and those seeking accommodation in the use of consultants. This would seem to me to be an area where consultants could be used. To my memory, household support was introduced in the 1977 amendments of the right honourable member for New England. I believe that this was a very sensible and important addition to the rural adjustment arrangements. Household support is there in place of unemployment benefit while a farmer considers whether he has a future in agriculture. Household support is more important than ever now that the assets test has been introduced by this Government. Basically, it means that it is impossible for even a bankrupt farmer to pass the assets test for unemployment benefit support-that is, the provision of those essential groceries, et cetera, when no other income is coming into the home. At that time a farmer could obtain household support for the first 12 months without having to make a decision to actually leave the farm and that support terminated after three years. That has been reduced to six months and it must all happen within two years. I understand that the reason for that is to put more pressure on the farmer to make a decision. I believe that six months is too short as we sometimes have to consider seasonal situations as distinct from longer term viability situations. Until very recently the figure of $8,000 introduced by the right honourable member for New England more than 10 years ago remained and obviously that was not adequate. It is important that a farmer, who has no future in agriculture and has no cash left after his debts are taken into account, should be able to put a deposit on a house so that he can make a more genuine and realistic choice about getting out of agriculture. Unlike a person in any other occupation, when a farmer leaves his farm he leaves his home as well. Even coal miners in coalmining towns are better off. If they have to leave their industry the value of their houses may decline dramatically but they still have houses even though they may not still have jobs. Therefore, the increase to $28,000, which is on a reducible basis if the recipient gets household support after the first six months, and the fact that this sum is indexed is far more realistic and gives a more genuine choice to the person who faces the dreadful decision as to whether his only skill and his only home should be left behind him. As I mentioned earlier, natural disasters and the arrangements covering them are related to rural adjustment. This is particularly so with drought, which can continue year after year and which, by itself, can trigger the adjustment pressure to force someone out of agriculture. Therefore, we should look at rural adjustment and natural disaster arrangements as complementary in the area of agriculture. One of the problems with natural disaster arrangements is that they are based on financial years and droughts do not follow financial years. Therefore, each year the State has to pay its up-front money before the Commonwealth comes in as well. I am thinking particularly of the present situation in the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia where there has been yet another crop failure as a result of drought in a significant part of that peninsula. I spent a couple of days in that area earlier this year and I shall return before the end of the year. At present there are at least 300 farmers who have been told by their banks that that is the end of any sort of continuing assistance. The South Australian Government is not accepting its dual responsibility or complementary responsibility in this situation-that is, it is not accepting that it has a responsibility for natural disaster relief as well as rural adjustment relief. Those people, who are basically drought affected, or more specifically drought affected than under the ordinary requirements of rural adjustment, will not be able to get any help from drought relief measures. I was interested in the very careful answer given by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) in this House last Thursday on the situation in the Eyre Peninsula because he mentioned both disaster relief and rural adjustment relief. He did not allocate any blame and I can understand his not doing that because the South Australia Government is a Labor Government, but he mentioned the point about natural disaster relief arrangements and the fact that South Australia must meet the first $8m itself. However, the South Australian Government refuses to make any drought declarations and without these there can be no natural disaster relief. For example, at present water is desperately needed west of Ceduna to keep stock alive, but the $50,000 requested by the landholders in the area is not being provided by the South Australia Government. That should be a part of ordinary natural disaster relief. There is no freight assistance either for fodder to come in for livestock or to freight stock out. In fact, the policies of the South Australia Government which are to force early and, in some cases, cruel decisions on those landholders and to force them out, will have the opposite effect. By not providing transport assistance or fodder assistance, the South Australia Government will encourage soil erosion when its overall policy is to restructure that area so that its fragility is safeguard. Last week there was a storm in the area which covered 60 kilometres of local government road with sand, but there is no assistance forthcoming to help that local government body to clear the road. Thus, the farmers in the Eyre Peninsula have been deserted by the South Australia Labor Government. They certainly need rural adjustment assistance and that is coming in an approved form through this legislation. But the South Australia Government is using a brutal method of forcing reconstruction and I believe that this will create a backlash which will rebound on that Government and have the opposite effect. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(8.16) —The States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1988 will put into effect many of the changes to the rural adjustment scheme (RAS) announced by the Government in the May economic statement. These initiatives are designed to increase the flexibility of the scheme; they will also allow RAS to operate in a more innovative way. Changes to the scheme were recommended to the Government following a review conducted by Coopers and Lybrand during late 1987-early 1988. Coopers and Lybrand found that the scope of the scheme needed to be broadened and the direction improved. It was recommended that more flexibility be given to State administering authorities. This would allow them to improve their ability to provide assistance to farmers experiencing financial difficulties. Recommendations included the innovative step of providing grants to help farmers increase their skills and to obtain professional financial and management advice. The introduction of a one-off re-establishment grant was also recommended. The new grant will provide up to $28,000 for non-viable farmers who are leaving the industry. The need for an effective rural adjustment scheme is vital to a State such as Queensland. Its importance becomes more evident following the series of natural disasters which have befallen Queensland recently. Droughts still plague many areas of the State while other areas such as the Lockyer and Fassifern valleys are suffering flood damage. A shire within my electorate has recently applied to the State Government to be declared a disaster area following heavy rains. Boonah Shire recorded a rainfall of 77.4 millimetres in the 24 hours to 9 a.m. on 6 July. This huge amount of rain has resulted in severe damage of public assets and major crop losses. In addition to natural disasters, commodity prices for crops remain seasonal and crops are continuing to fail. The importance of the rural adjustment scheme to Queensland farmers cannot be understated. The Federal Government should be commended on its efforts to restructure the scheme. RAS is directed at promoting positive structural changes in the rural sector. Three categories of assistance are available under the scheme. Under part A, Federal Government funds are available as a concessional interest loan or a subsidy on interest currently being paid on borrowings. These funds are specifically targeted at capital reconstruction or improving productivity. It is provided to farmers who are assessed as having good, long-term prospects. Federal Government money will now, under the new legislation, be available in a grant to allow farmers to obtain appropriate training or professional advice. Part B of the scheme provides carry-on finance to farmers who are in particular industries which have suffered a temporary downturn for reasons other than drought or natural disasters. Dollar for dollar assistance is subject to agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. Part C of the rural adjustment scheme provides funds as household support payments or as rehabilitation assistance. The household payments are provided for up to to two years. They can be paid as an advance which is converted to a grant when the farmer leaves the industry. However, farmers can be required to repay the advance with interest if they do not leave. Rehabilitation assistance of up to $28,000 will now be available under the new arrangements. This payment is indexed and subject to an asset test. It is payable when a farmer leaves the land. It will allow farmers to leave their farms with dignity. Farmers are eligible for assistance under Part A of the scheme if they are considered to be viable. They must also have been unable to obtain finance from normal sources at reasonable market interest rates. Part B assistance is also available to farmers who have been unable to obtain finance through normal sources. Other criteria include being located in an industry which is suffering from a downturn but having sound prospects for long term viability. Part C assistance is only available to farmers who are ineligible under either Part A or Part B of the rural adjustment scheme. They must also have taken steps to leave their farms or be suffering from personal financial hardship. Expenditure on the rural adjustment scheme is expected to total $44.4m in 1987-88. Under the new arrangements introduced by this Bill, expenditure will increase in the 1988-89 financial year to a total $56.4m. The increase in expenditure is in recognition of the importance of restructuring to the long term competitiveness of Australia's primary industries. Other measures to upgrade RAS were announced in the May statement and now will be incorporated into the scheme. Greater emphasis will be placed on targeting of Part A assistance. This will enable struggling farmers to remain in the industry by restructuring their capital, adopting new and improved farming practices or increasing farm size. An amount of $1.2m will be provided by the Hawke Government under Part A of the scheme to assist farmers to gain increased skills and expert financial and management advice. This measure will greatly increase the skills of Australia's farmers and further boost their international competitiveness. It remains true in the rural sector, as it does in all sectors of the economy, that the ability of an industry to compete depends on the skills of its work force. Australian farmers are already considered to be among the world's best but constant improvement is needed to maintain this position. A one-off allocation of $600,000 will be made in 1988-89 to help improve the capability of farm financial and management advisers. Another initiative includes changing the basis on which the Commonwealth contributes towards the cost of administration of the rural adjustment scheme. The States will also assume liability for bad debts arising from the operation of the scheme, both in relation to loans made under the existing agreement since 1985 and under the new agreement. However, the changes made in the State and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1988 will not have a significant financial impact on the cost of the rural adjustment scheme. Another important recommendation arising from the consultant's report and adopted by the Government involved increasing the autonomy and accountability of State authorities that administer the rural adjustment scheme. The farmers of my electorate and the people of Queensland might well applaud the Federal Government's efforts to increase accountability in the distribution of funds under the rural adjustment scheme. However, I feel the changes made in this area may not be sufficient to stop the misspending of Federal money by the Queensland National Party Government. This Bill will provide the Queensland Industry Development Corporation (QICD) with, firstly, sole responsibility for the management and administration or policy measures available under the scheme and, secondly, total freedom, supposedly within the bounds of responsible financial administration, to manage funds provided for the purpose of the scheme. In return, the Federal Government has stated that State authorities such as the QIDC will be required to incorporate adequate audit and fraud control measures into their managerial arrangements. This will not be adequate to prevent the Queensland Government from continuing with its methods of distributing funds. It seems that the accountability provisions depend a lot on the co-operation of the State governments and their adjustment authorities. One thing is for sure: the Queensland Government has never willingly cooperated with the Hawke Government over anything-even when Federal money has been involved. There have been many examples of the maladministration of previous schemes by the Queensland National Party Government, including examples such as the Behan lousy loan affair. I have raised these matters with the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). The Minister has assured me that although no guarantees exist to ensure that there are no abuses by State governments, any State found to have done so will lose Federal funding. I welcome this assurance, as would the people of Queensland, who are sick of hearing about the continuing financial exploits of the Queensland National Party Government. The Government has previously considered transferring administration of the rural adjustment scheme to the Commonwealth Development Bank. This was designed to prevent further abuses. However, it was considered that such a move at this stage would make the scheme more remote from the knowledge and experience of State administrations. The Federal Government has taken some steps to ensure that State governments remain accountable. Several aspects of the new arrangements under this legislation will assist in preventing problems. Australian farmers should remember that the main purpose of the rural adjustment scheme is to assist in maintaining and improving the efficiency of Australian rural industries. This is to ensure that those industries are able to compete effectively on international markets and contribute to the national economy. The rural adjustment scheme provides assistance to ensure that viable Australian farmers who may be undergoing some temporary difficulties are kept in their industries. The scheme aims to help farmers adjust to changing technical, economic and institutional circumstances. The rural adjustment scheme is not designed to be a crutch for those farmers who are no longer viable. It should not be used as a means for farmers to remain within an industry in which they can no longer contribute effectively. The rural sector occupies a privileged place in Government policy. Not many other sectors can claim to have such an effective adjustment scheme as that supplied to primary industry. In other cases, if non-rural industry is unable to compete it goes out of business. I support the Bill and commend it to the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(8.28) —I too support the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill. I endorse the remarks that my colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has made in speaking to the Bill, as I endorse what other speakers have had to say. As has been pointed out, this Bill has two purposes. It will allow the rural adjustment scheme to operate in a more flexible way to react to structural adjustment forces and it will also meet new arrangements for the Commonwealth-State programs. In particular, the Commonwealth's role will be restricted to setting broad policy guidelines. There is no doubt that over the years the rural adjustment scheme has developed into a very worthwhile adjunct to assist farmers in a way that is sensible and worth while. It has worked in a number of ways. It has assisted out of the industry some of those who could no longer remain in it, it has helped some to regain viability and it has also helped some to get more involved in the industry. In each case I would say that without the rural adjustment scheme there is no doubt that those particular individuals would have found it much more difficult and in many cases would have faced considerable hardship. I want to address a couple of changes in the Bill to the rural adjustment scheme, and in particular I want to address one anomaly that the Bill should have addressed and which was alluded to in 1985. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) recognised it in 1985 but for some reason this Bill still has not managed to address it. The aim of the rural adjustment scheme has been very well summed up by the National Farmers Federation. When addressing the issue in its Farm Focus policy document for the 1980s, it said, in part: In a broad sense, the aim of rural adjustment programs should be to `oil the wheels of change'; to assist, rather than impede market forces. The objective should be to promote the long term viability of those remaining in farming. This will often be best achieved by removing impediments either to farm build-up, access to suitable credit, changes to product mix or inputs or obstacles to leaving farming. Those are very worthwhile aims. They sum up extremely well what the rural adjustment scheme is all about. All members on both sides of the House would have no difficulty in supporting those aims. What must be realised when someone is faced with these difficulties in farming is that they are enormous personal difficulties. The cost and dislocation involved for those leaving farming can be enormous. As the honourable member for Murray has already pointed out, when someone leaves a farm, he does not just leave his business; in most cases he must also leave his home. That creates considerable distress and considerable hardship. Obviously, adjustment policies should aim to minimise these difficulties for the people concerned. There should be greater guidance, and more emphasis than in the past should be placed on rehabilitation and also on retaining people, where possible, in the right place. For that reason, I commend the Government for its efforts to address this problem. I believe it has made some very sensible improvements to the program. I also suggest, in following up a point made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), that the various rural adjustment schemes have set an example which has yet to be followed by the manufacturing sector but which ought to be looked at. Obviously, adjustment programs must be carefully monitored to ensure that the intended objective of helping those in need is reached in a way that is fair and reasonable. Clearly, the farm build-up section of the legislation and the farm improvement assistance provided by the rural adjustment scheme should be seen as examples of measures which have already proved successful in facilitating change. As has already been pointed out, there has been considerable consultation in reaching this amendment. The consultants obviously did a very good job and consulted widely. They certainly consulted in every State and in the Territory. One could say that the objectives of the scheme are now more clearly defined in the new legislation. It is clear that the responsibilities of each party are also more clearly defined. What is also commendable is the fact that a State which runs its rural adjustment scheme better-obviously, the States run the rural adjustment scheme in conjunction with the Commonwealth-can expect to benefit from that activity. Conversely, a State which makes unwise decisions will eventually have the consequences fall back on it and have less money to deliver to the recipients intended to benefit from the rural adjustment program. This is a very good principle and is one which could be adopted in many other areas in Commonwealth-State financing. I hope that we continue to assess many other programs under similar criteria. Obviously, it is to the benefit of those who have to provide the funds-in the long run, the taxpayers. I alluded earlier to the fact that in 1985 there was in the legislation an anomaly which was recognised by the Minister at the time and which he suggested he would be able to address. However, unfortunately, for some reason he has not addressed it in this legislation. It has not been addressed in the ensuing period in any other amendments to previous legislation. The problem is that under the 1985 legislation and the agreement with the States the position with respect to continuing payments was legally in doubt, although the Minister had given an unqualified undertaking that the position was otherwise. It was also agreed that the 1985 legislation should be amended, but this still has not been done. Furthermore, this Bill has not addressed that problem. I hope that the Minister, in summing up the second reading debate, might refer to that point. Otherwise, there is some doubt on legal liability arising from the 1985 legislation and, in particular, from some of the obligations that were entered into by the States following 1985. I would also like to draw the attention of honourable members to clause 14 and, in particular, to subclauses (1) and (2). I point out to honourable members that clause 14 contains an extremely complex set of points. They are so complex that it is rather difficult for those who will have to administer the Act to interpret them. There is concern that because of this complexity there could be some misunderstandings. I hope that the Minister will address this point. Those who have to administer the rural adjustment schemes would feel much more comfortable if any misunderstandings or any vagueness in the drafting could be cleared up before the Bill receives assent. I also endorse some of the words contained in part C relating to household payments. The amount has been increased; people can receive household assistance for up to two years; and those who choose to receive household assistance-subject, of course, to a means test-and who, within the first six months, realise that the prudent decision is to leave the farm can receive assistance of up to $28,000. This assistance is means tested. This means that a person could leave his farm with a grant of $28,000, plus up to $28,000 of his own assets. That is not a lot of money for someone who is in dire straits. At least it shows a reasonably humane approach to someone who, as I said earlier, is not just leaving his farm or his business but, in most cases, is also leaving his home. It is more than just a financial wrench for someone who has lived in that home for many years; it is an emotional wrench. It can be devastating for the person involved and his family. This is a most sensible increase in the amount of assistance available to those people. In conclusion, I commend the legislation. I believe it is a sensible improvement to the existing rural adjustment scheme. The point that I raised earlier, that those States who use the scheme wisely will benefit and those who do not use it wisely will be at a disadvantage, is a great incentive for better administration. I hope that such a principle can be applied to many other programs. I think we should continue to monitor the scheme. If there are ways and means of improving it, we should certainly bring those forward and bring them to the attention of the Government so that they can be implemented. Overall, I think it is a good scheme. It is being improved. It serves a very worthwhile function in the farming community. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(8.38) —I thank the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) for his support of the legislation. I guess it shows implicit recognition of the magnificent job that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) is doing. I also compliment the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) for his contribution. He highlighted the necessity for the States to be accountable in the way in which they address matters of agricultural policy. The States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1988 is yet another example of the Government's commitment to both the rural sector and the structural adjustment of Australian industry. Earlier today I had the privilege of being able to speak in a debate on the centennial roads program. In that speech I pointed out the need for structural adjustment. Again, I emphasise the fact that this Government is committed to structural adjustment of Australian industry. This Bill is yet another aspect of that commitment. The States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill introduces flexibility and innovation in the manner in which the Commonwealth works with the States in addressing the changing economic forces which are affecting the Australian agricultural sector. Variability in world commodity prices, exchange rates, interest rates and changing climatic conditions have created circumstances in which rigid policy responses and smothering administrative regulations can no longer cope with the variables in the agricultural sector. This Bill will enable the Commonwealth to maintain its responsibility for defining broad policy parameters for the rural adjustment scheme while devolving responsibility to the States for its management and the administration of the policy measures available under the scheme. The Bill seeks to aid the more effective operation and management of the scheme. It allows ends and means to be more directly related and allows for more efficient usage of funds. This more efficient use of funds, of course, is related to accountability. While the States will manage the scheme they will be accountable for the way in which it is run. Indeed, it places a responsibility upon the States and the Territory in the area of policy development. It is important that they encourage under this legislation industries that are sustainable. I will make a comment in a short time about the way in which the Northern Territory Government has addressed that problem. It will also aid the States in their accounting to the Commonwealth for the effective operation of the scheme, as I have said. The Northern Territory has an agricultural base with a gross value in 1986-87 of $12.3m. There are 270 agricultural establishments within the Northern Territory, the majority of which are pastoral holdings. The rural adjustment scheme allows, significantly, interest subsidies for up to seven years. Debt reconstruction is the most common assistance; that is, consolidating debts into only one loan and getting an interest subsidy. One of the more useful aspects of the amendments is that where a farmer is in strife because of poor financial management the rural adjustment scheme can provide for the costs of a consultant to put in an accounting system. That is very important because it recognises that in terms of contemporary management there may be some people involved in primary industries who do not have the capacity to be able to direct their resources in the most appropriate manner. This provides them with the ability to be able to seek that assistance. In the last two to three years only two applicants under the scheme have actually left the land in the Northern Territory. In June 1988 this scheme was providing assistance to 39 different operators in the form of interest subsidies on debts totalling $8.7m. Of those 39, 16, or 41 per cent, came on stream in 1987-88. Of those 16, 10 were in the beef industry, one was a poultry producer, one a pig meat producer, one was involved in coarse grains and three in horticulture. In terms of Northern Territory agriculture, as I have said previously, the gross value of crops in 1986-87 was $12.3m. The Local Value of all crops in 1986-87 was $9.8m. The local value, as I am sure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are aware, is the gross value less the marketing costs. It is the value placed on the commodities at the place of production. In the Northern Territory crop production in 1986-87 comprised the following commodities: sorghum, 66 per cent; peanuts, 9 per cent; maize, 15 per cent; and other categories, 10 per cent. The number of establishments in the Northern Territory with Agricultural activity in 1986 was 239 while in 1987 there was a significant increase to 290. In 1987, 179 of these establishments were over 50,000 hectares. Fifty-four were less than 100 hectares. That does not include any with an estimated value of agricultural operations of less than $20,000. This Bill is important. But in saying that, I would like to emphasise the need for accountability and appropriate administration of the primary industries within the various States and the Northern Territory. The majority of agricultural establishments in the Territory are pastoral holdings. As I have said, over 60 per cent of those establishments are greater than 50,000 hectares. There are two areas where we have agriculture. They are in the Douglas-Daly area to the south-west of Darwin and in Katherine. There is a history of failed agriculture in the Northern Territory. There were sugar cane plantations at Delissaville across the harbour from Darwin and in the Daly River from 1881 to 1884. There was mixed cropping along the Daly for a few years after 1911. Cotton and peanuts were grown in Katherine between 1923-1939. Rice was grown at Humpty Doo and Marrakai between 1954 and 1966 and grain sorghum was grown at Tipperary between 1967 and 1973. Perhaps the most alarming illustration of the failure of agriculture in the Northern Territory arises out of an article in the Northern Territory News of 25 September 1988. The headline was `Farmers face disaster'. This article is about experimental farms established by the Agricultural Development and Marketing Authority in the Adelaide River and Douglas-Daly areas that I have mentioned previously. The hope in 1980 when this plan was introduced was that we would see 120 grain, oilseed and peanut farms established in the Douglas-Daly area over a period of 10 years and about 45 rice farms established in the Adelaide River region. The Government initially pledged to pump about $52.5m into the Douglas-Daly area and $9.4m into the Adelaide River area. What we have seen, however, is a monumental disaster. I would like to quote from part of that article because it illustrates aptly the concerns of people in the Northern Territory who are involved in primary industry about the way in which the Northern Territory Government is managing its resources: A multi-million dollar attempt by the Territory Government to kickstart new farming ventures south of Darwin is on its knees. A group of experimental farms established by the NT Agricultural Development and Marketing Authority (ADMA) in the Adelaide River and Douglas-Daly areas is reeling after a run of poor seasons. The Primary Industry and Fisheries Department's assistant director . . . said poor rainfalls has caused crop failure on project farms established by the ADMA in the early 1980s. But . . . denied claims by the former owner of Oolloo Station, Mrs Pam Rixon, that ADMA's attempt to create a broadacre cropping industry in the Territory was a failure. The fact is that it has been a failure. The Rixon family is one farming family who have been most dramatically affected by the way in which the Northern Territory Government embarked on this exercise. Before we see this sort of establishment in future, it is important that there be appropriate research into the ability of the areas concerned to sustain the sorts of industries that the Northern Territory in this case wanted to establish. I might add that there is a great deal of feeling within the primary sector in the Northern Territory about the way in which the Northern Territory Government is administering the Department of Primary Production in that area. Indeed, at the moment there is a very low level of morale with the Northern Territory Department of Primary Production. There is a lack of confidence amongst its staff and people involved in the industry. In fact, I had a conversation with some pastoralists recently about their confidence in the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. They said they had no confidence in the ability of the Northern Territory Department of Primary Production veterinary scientists to do their jobs appropriately. That is simply because with the effluxion of time there has been a disastrous movement of veterinary scientists out of the Northern Territory Department of Primary Production. That has been because of the way in which the Northern Territory Government has administered that Department and indeed has administered its responsibilities in the area of primary industry. I would like to have been able to say that the Department had done a better job. It is very important that it get its act together because it is the farmers such as the Rixons who are prepared to put their heart and soul into industries such as that in the Douglas-Daly area-on the promises made by the Northern Territory Government, I might add-who are important to our future economy. I might say, while the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) is at the table, that if the Opposition had the same set of subjective analyses for the Northern Territory Government's management of the Northern Territory economy since self-government in 1978 as it has had for the performance of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio it would be calling for a royal commission into the administration of the Northern Territory Government. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.48) —I too welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill currently before the House. I would like, however, to take up a point or two made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) when he indicated that he welcomed the remarks from the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) because, he said, the honourable member for Wannon's remarks were implicit recognition of the fine job the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) had done in shaping this legislation. I stand here as one who agrees that this is legislation that the Opposition is happy to welcome. But to paint this legislation as the panacea for all of rural Australia's ills or, even more, to suggest that the honourable member for Wannon, who is chairman of the Opposition's rural committee, is ecstatic about this legislation is, in fact, to mislead the House. Mr Snowdon —It appeared as though he was. Mr ANDREW —I dispute that with the honourable member for the Northern Territory. While I am on my feet and the honourable member for the Northern Territory is inviting me to make a comment or two, may I add, as one who is not as familiar with the Douglas-Daly area of the Northern Territory as the honourable member but one who nevertheless knows a number of farmers who are practising there, that he has rather conveniently used one farming family whose circumstances may well reinforce his case and ignored the fact, of which I am well aware, that there are a number of other families farming in the area assisted initially by the Northern Territory Government who are establishing what will be model farms for the Northern Territory. Originally they were designed to be the sorts of farms on which future Northern Territory settlement could be modelled. As I have acknowledged, there may be a family or two in difficulty, but it would be unfair to paint the entire region as a disaster area as a result of that experience. I have a particular concern about the legislation before the House. My electorate is the most northerly South Australian Federal electorate before one reaches the seat of Grey. There may be a good reason for this, and I have no reason to be critical of the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), but I am little surprised that he has not chosen to participate in this debate. His electorate is the electorate most adversely affected by the present drought on the west coast of South Australia. His electorate is the electorate that stands both to win and lose most as a result of this legislation. I recognise that, in the words of the honourable member for the Northern Territory, this legislation introduces both flexibility and innovation into the rural assistance scheme. However, the enthusiasm with which the honourable member has embraced the legislation before the House is less than timely, given that a number of other disasters that are not in any way addressed by this Bill face rural Australia. Flexibility and innovation may be all very well; I welcome them. In addition, I welcome the move from a $20,000 to a $28,000 relocation allowance that is in this legislation to assist farmers who are forced to move from their properties. But a number of other aspects of the Bill ought to be considered before it is presumed to have the overwhelming endorsement of the Opposition. I take up one of the points in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin). In his second reading speech, he said: . . . there is to be a much stronger emphasis on the notion that farming is first and foremost a business . . . We would all applaud that sentiment. The Minister goes on to say: Two provisions are made in the Bill specifically to facilitate meeting this objective. Training for farmers is recognised as an appropriate activity to be funded under the scheme. In addition, provision is made for ongoing funding to improve the quality of financial analysis which is undertaken before assistance is provided to the farmer. In this context the Bill aims to ensure that the real causes of a farmer's business problems are identified before assistance is provided. No one would take issue with those sentiments. But the problem facing many farmers around Australia and the acute problem currently being faced for the third year in a row by drought-stricken farmers on the west coast of South Australia are that their difficulties could not have been identified before assistance was provided. Their problems are not self-inflicted. Their problems are not corrected, as the honourable member for the Northern Territory would have had us believe, by some sort of innovative bookkeeping technique. Their problems are the problems of drought. In addressing the problems of drought on the west coast of South Australia, not only does this legislation fail to come to terms with what those farmers are facing but also the South Australian State Government has failed to recognise the important role that west coast farmers play in keeping the economy of the west coast afloat. Farmers on the west coast must be kept on the land so that they can make provision for future harvests when better seasons return to that part of the State. It is fair to say that the legislation before the House will allow some of the farmers on the west coast of South Australia to be relocated. As the honourable member for Wannon has said, it will allow them to take with them a total of $56,000 as part of that relocation process. The legislation will allow some farmers on the west coast and in other areas of South Australia to choose to undertake an appropriate training program that will help them to trade their way out of their present difficulties, treating farming as a business. What the legislation fails to do is to allow those west coast farmers to stay on their land, which they need to do if they are to be there to farm that land when better seasons return. My colleague Mr Graham Gunn, the State member for Eyre, has discovered that the State Government has denied to his west coast drought-stricken farmers any sort of government assistance in the transport of water. That came at the end of a week in South Australia that saw 38 degree days and hot north winds and a week that saw a loss of at least 50,000 tonnes of the State's barley crop. Imagine how the drought-stricken west coast looks after that sort of hammering. I acknowledge that the Minister has visited that area-or, more accurately, the fringe of that area-as recently as a week ago. But, in spite of that visit, the need those farmers have for some assistance to allow them to remain on their properties until inevitably better seasons arrive is not answered in this legislation. The real need of the west coast of South Australia, as some South Australian radio commentators would have us believe, is not to leave the farmers there and to return the land to its native state. Nor is it the need to take the farmers out of the area with $56,000 in their pockets and invite the land sharks to come in and buy the land at bargain basement prices. Rather is the need to allow those farmers to stay there, farming the farms they know well, so that, when inevitably better seasons arrive and the west coast returns, as it will, to being the grain bowl of South Australia, they are there to capitalise on it and to fuel part of the balance of payments recovery that this nation so desperately needs. I refer to an article which appeared in the National Farmer on Friday, 4 November, written by Bruce Cullen. The article was headed `Farm export boom set to save the economy-again'. It stated: An exclusive evaluation by National Farmer commodity analysts has revealed `hidden factors' which will boost rural exports by about $500,000 a month over expectations, in the second and third quarters. I point out that this article was written before hot north winds lashed South Australia-key rural exporter that it is. Nonetheless, these are valid points. Mr Cullen goes on to say: This would bring an additional $3 billion pouring into the nation's economy-enough to almost wipe out the first quarter deficit of $3.8 billion, and put Keating's forecast of a $9.5 billion end-of-year deficit back on track . . . For the first quarter, Australia's rural exports averaged $1.1 billion a month. In the second and third quarters, the working of these hidden factors is likely to boost rural exports to $1.6 billion a month or more-an economic `windfall' worth about $500,000 a month. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) ought to be very pleased that rural Australia is responding as it is to the present favourable conditions in much of rural Australia and saving his economic bacon. The west coast of South Australia has a similar capacity to be productive. We need to ensure that the farmers remain there to keep it productive. In this legislation before the House, the Minister had a classic opportunity to offer to the State Government additional assistance to address the west coast dilemma. Whilst much of what this legislation does is commendable, the specific sorts of assistance that would allow farmers to remain on their farms are not to be found. I welcome the legislation but I regret that the west coast must continue to search for the assistance it so desperately needs if it is to make the contribution it can make to our balance of payments recovery. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(9.00) —I move: Page 9, Schedule, subclauses 14 (1) and (2), omit the subclauses, insert the following subclauses: ``(1) Subject to this agreement, the amounts of financial assistance to be made available by the Commonwealth to each State for Part C assistance and, except as to amounts provided for by paragraph 2 (a), Part A assistance during a financial year shall be separately determined for each of those Parts by the Commonwealth after consultation with the States. Before the commencement of the financial year the Minister and State Ministers will consult taking into account such matters as are set out in clauses 4 and 5. (2) The amount payable by the Commonwealth in relation to Part A assistance in respect of any financial year shall not be less than- (a) in respect of each of the first seven financial years of this agreement as is a financial year within the first six financial years: (i) after the first financial year of the amended Agreement, the amount of any Determination or Determinations of Part A assistance made in that first financial year under the amended Agreement; (ii) after the second financial year of the amended Agreement, the incremental part of any Determination or Determinations of Part A assistance made in that second financial year under the amended Agreement; and (iii) after the third or any subsequent financial year of the amended Agreement, the incremental part of any Determination or Determinations of Part A assistance made in that third or subsequent financial year as the case may be under the amended Agreement; (b) in respect of each of the first seven financial years of this agreement the amount of Part A assistance determined under this agreement by the Minister as payable in respect of an immediately preceding financial year of this agreement; and (c) in respect of each succeeding period of seven financial years of this agreement: (i) as to the first year, the sum of the increments of amounts of Part A assistance determined under this agreement in respect of the second to the seventh inclusive of the immediately preceding seven financial years; and (ii) as to the remaining six years, the sum of the increments of those amounts so determined in respect of the immediately preceding six financial years of this agreement.'' The amendment makes more clear the extent of the Commonwealth funding obligations under the legislation. The purpose of clause 14 is to establish the amount of financial assistance to be provided by the Commonwealth to the States and the Northern Territory under the scheme in any financial year. A fundamental aspect of the financial arrangements is that annual funding determinations for new part A assistance carry a commitment for the Commonwealth to provide an equivalent amount of funds in each of the next six financial years. The proposed amendment of subclauses 14 (1) and 14 (2) is required to remove ambiguities in the present wording which allow for differing interpretations of the extent of the Commonwealth's obligations flowing from the determinations made under the existing agreement in the period 1985-86 to 1987-88. The amendment clarifies that these obligations will continue under the new agreement, when executed, and will be subject to the same six-year forward commitment. The amendment was developed in close consultation with the States. The amendment basically clarifies the anomaly referred to by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). It clears up all doubts about the whole question. I compliment all people who have participated in this debate for their constructive comments, particularly the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I will not pick up all of his points. He pointed out at one stage that workers who get into a very bad situation when a company collapses or a company takes various decisions, have redundancy payments. I point out that farmers are businessmen and are subject to chance and choice. They enter with their eyes open. The problem for farmers as opposed to other small businessmen in our community is that they are also exposed to the vagaries of international trade, corrupted markets, and the weather. With the so-called rural crisis and the setting up of the National Farmers Federation (NFF) debt mediation and rural counselling grants, we got a very real hold on some of the problems that farmers face and on some of the ways in which we could help them. That is why in this rural adjustment scheme we have moved into financial counselling. We are moving away from debt reconstruction just as a straight interest subsidy to capital reconstruction of the farm. We are trying to put into the hands of the State adjustment authorities a lot more flexibility. The Eyre Peninsula has had a run tonight, and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) will get plenty of cheers for the comments he made. He said something about the land sharks. Part of the reason the South Australian Government is taking the action it is to try to facilitate the amalgamation of farms is to avoid this problem. Queensland has about 1,000 to 1,500 farms in trouble at present. Various assessments say that the Eyre Peninsula has 200 to 400 farms in trouble. We have recently responded to the Queensland Government request for more flexibility under the natural disaster relief arrangement. I would like to put that in with what we know about farms. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics will come out soon with some very good figures on the prospects in the years ahead. The reality is that the grain farms, the cereal farms, that got into a lot of trouble are still in a lot of trouble. If we look at the budgets of those that are in trouble we will see that even if they got $200 a tonne for wheat they would still be in trouble. This is the real problem for farms on the Eyre Peninsula and for those farms in Queensland. Once farmers get to the point of such loss of equity, the schemes available-natural disaster relief arrangements if the problem is drought, or the rural adjustment scheme-simply cannot cope with the problem. A threshold decision then needs to be taken by governments as to what extent the taxpayers should pay to keep those people on those farms. It is a real problem. I have already said that I want to revisit the whole question of drought assistance, the problems of the declaration of drought and the revocation of drought declaration. I think that the National Drought Consultative Committee did not address all of these problems, even though farmers themselves are on that Committee. We have a real problem. We are providing more choice for people who move off farms. I remember well the enormous problems the dairy industry went through in the 1970s. In those times people moved off farms into cities. Because of their skills and because of the expanding economy at that time, the adjustment for those people, so unfortunate to have to move off their farms, was easily facilitated. Again, part of the reason the Government's overall economic strategy takes the form it does is that we cannot get effective restructuring, we cannot get cuts in protection, we cannot get the fundamental restructuring of the Australian economy unless we have a growing domestic economy. So all of these things need to be taken into account. The honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) put forward a very good point on some of the problems of administration over the years. He pointed to the problems with the corrupt Queensland National Party Government. I think some of the definitions he gave were very helpful as were those made by the honourable member for Wannon who picked up the NFF definition. I was particularly interested to hear the comments made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). Many of the problems he pointed to reflected the problems of tropical agriculture. Often there, farmers do not have homogeneous soils, there are all sorts of vagaries with the weather, and there is a drought every season just as many of the colder areas have a drought every year. By and large the comments have been very constructive. As honourable members know, we have changed this scheme once during the life of this Government. Now we are changing it for the second time. We have moved to a situation where the amount of Commonwealth money going in could be expanded by working on the loans principle. I think this year the estimate is about $37m from the Commonwealth which will finance, including the ongoing finance, something between $200m and $300m. We are literally helping thousands of farmers with this scheme. Finally, the rural adjustment scheme is not a quasi drought scheme. The natural disasters relief arrangements must be looked at in terms of handling disasters and drought. Some of these arrangements are short term and some are long term. A bush fire or a flood is a very specific disaster and it can affect a farm quite dramatically, but a drought is a creeping disaster and that is the problem we have. Rural adjustment is really to assist farms that are assessed as being viable. This Bill is about trying to find better ways of keeping those farms just at the margin of viability, over the edge into the viable category. I thank honourable members. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(9.10) —Members of the House will recall that, last year, legislation was passed in this House relating to both the Family Law Act and the Child Support Act of that year. These were significant pieces of legislation because they were a serious attempt by the Government, with the full support of the Opposition, to put into law arrangements that would go some way-we hope a long way-towards overcoming some of the endemic problems relating to children of broken marriages. Some people argue that much of this goes back to the original Murphy reforms of the early 1970s. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that the changes introduced into Parliament last year, and which are now law, are of a significant nature. While we have seen only stage 1 of these new proposals and we wait, presumably until next year, before we see stage 2, nevertheless an important step forward has been made in this area, and I compliment the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) for the action he took in this direction. However, I should also emphasise to him that, contrary to some of the comments I have heard him make in the past-that the previous Government did nothing, to use his words-it is fair to point out that the Joint Committee on the Family Law Act, the Ruddock Committee, in many respects set the ground for the later reforms which have, in fact, been introduced. The fact of the matter is that, following the introduction of the Murphy reforms, irrespective of who was in government, we had to see, on the ground, precisely what the shortcomings of those reforms would be. In that context, to introduce far-reaching reforms on top of the Murphy changes would have been more than the system would have been able to bear at that stage. There would have been a real risk that major errors would have been made. We are dealing with people's lives, not just with pieces of paper, and for that reason it is necessary that there be some delay in the system to ensure that we create as little major disruption to families and individuals, and especially to children, as possible. The Bill will amend the Child Support Act 1988. It is essentially a collection mechanism to ensure that the Act can apply to ex-nuptial children in either the States of Queensland or Western Australia. I understand it is the intention of either State, or hopefully both States, that they adopt the Child Support Act, and therefore join the rest of Australia in a national legislative program in this particular direction. I should point out, however, that at this stage neither Western Australia nor Queensland has yet adopted the amendments to the Family Law Act which passed through Parliament last year. That is quite significant because it means that the handling of maintenance for ex-nuptial children is different from the handling of maintenance for the children of marriages. The latter are covered by the State legislation which is now accepted under the Commonwealth legislation. However, it does not cover the question of children of ex-nuptial relationships. The result of that in monetary terms is that the former will still receive the lower level of maintenance, which is currently set at $20 per week per child; but we hope-and I think we have reason to believe-that in due course both those States will adopt the amendments to the Family Law Act. Along with their agreement to the child support amendments, we will once again have a uniform system of family law across Australia. The main features of the Bill provide for the collection of certain child and/or spousal maintenance payable under court orders and maintenance agreements. To date, the child support registrar, who is also, under the Bill, the Commissioner of Taxation, has only been able to collect maintenance where children are the children of a marriage or, if the child is not the child of a marriage, where a State has referred its power in respect of ex-nuptial children. With the exception of the two States I mentioned earlier, Western Australia and Queensland, the other four States-New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania-have already agreed to refer their powers. Under the Child Support Act the registrar is also able to collect maintenance for ex-nuptial children in Queensland and Western Australia should either State adopt the Act in so far as it relates to the maintenance of children who are not children of a marriage. There is, however, a technical deficiency in several of the provisions for the Child Support Act that would, if unchanged, have defeated this adoption procedures, and it is precisely for that reason that this legislation has been introduced. The Child Support Amendment Bill will effectively enable the operation of a Child Support Act in the States of Queensland and Western Australia, when and if those States adopt the Act in relation to ex-nuptial children, by ensuring that those provisions of the Child Support Act also apply where orders or agreements for the maintenance of ex-nuptial children are made under law of a State. It goes without saying that the Opposition supports the Bill. It is a worthwhile step forward towards the achievement of a uniform system of family law in Australia. However, I should like to take a few moments to comment on a recent Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) report on income support policies and tax incentives, because it has a particular relevance, especially to families and in particular to single families. One of the biggest problems in Australia is to define precisely what poverty means, and while we have indices based on American models and so forth, no-one has yet really developed a truly representative poverty formula for Australia. Perhaps, for that reason, it is invariably a relative concept; but the evidence suggests that many low income people, especially families with children, have to survive on insufficient nutrition, insufficient housing and various other problems related to a simple lack of money. These people are unable to heat their homes in winter and are unable to afford adequate medication and so forth. In many cases these families are denied adequate forms of recreation for their children or the normal opportunities one would expect of normal family life in Australia. In fact it is quite clear that, in many instances, there have been long term adverse consequences for the education, health and, ultimately, the availability of employment opportunities for the children of such families. This leads me on to the question of one of the most difficult and deep-seated problems in social welfare policy and that is the question of poverty traps. The seriousness of the poverty trap in many respects depends more on the average drawback rate on the additional dollars which will be earned, if a person takes a particular employment opportunity, than on the marginal drawback rate. In other words, the problem we are facing is to what extent people make decisions not to seek employment because of the effect that that can have on the availability of social security. In turn we must consider what impact that has, in the macro-sense, on the Budget and to what extent it is possible to alleviate or reduce poverty traps by tapering arrangements or other methodologies, all of which are valid to a degree but all of which, frankly, have built in problems. Nevertheless, the very presence of poverty traps is clearly a disincentive for low income people to improve their station in life. In a sense, this runs counter to the capacity of any government to overcome those problems, even with all the will in the world. Money alone usually creates rather than reduces some of these problems. To give an example of this, which is included in the EPAC report, if a sole parent in New South Wales public housing increases her hours of work from, say, five hours a week to 20 hours a week, that person would attract an average drawback rate of 67c in the dollar. That is a significant reduction in any circumstances, and one can understand the problem that this creates. It is estimated that approximately 40,000 people are in this situation. The effect of marginal tax rates can result in their being some 75 per cent above what would, in fact, be the case. Some 15 per cent of sole parents and some 8 per cent of unemployment beneficiaries experience these effective marginal tax rates which operate at a level higher than the top income tax rate. If ever there were an example of a disincentive, that surely is it. Moving on to two other points, when we debated the Child Support Bill in Parliament in February of this year I drew to the attention of the House and, of course, the Minister two matters about which the Opposition was concerned. On one I actually moved an amendment which, regrettably, was not acceptable to the Minister. The simple fact is this: evidence in place now since the introduction of the legislation shows quite clearly that some 30 per cent of the people concerned have appropriate voluntary agreements with their ex-spouses who make regular payments. They are, in fact, being discouraged and in a sense have a built-in disincentive because of the application of the arrangement as it currently stands. When the Bill was debated in February, I said: In doing so, however, we are concerned about the impact it can have on that not inconsiderable number-probably 30 per cent of non-custodial parents-who are currently the subject of mutually agreed arrangements between the ex-husband and wife in relation to the protection and financial support of their children. I went on to move an amendment which, as I said, has proved to be completely accurate. Simply, what I said was that the Opposition wanted to ensure the protection of the rights of non-custodial parents who had entered into maintenance arrangements to share in the cost of supporting their children at no extra cost to the Commonwealth by not requiring these agreements to be registered with the Child Support Agency, except in the event that maintenance arrangements are not honoured. The Government did not accept that particular amendment, the result of which is that many thousands of people in these circumstances-about 30 per cent of the total-are now experiencing financial delays, that is, delays in actually getting access to maintenance, of two months or longer. In his summing up, I hope the Minister for Social Security will draw the attention of the House to his response to that particular question. I also went on to say that this question needed to be asked: Should those people who have entered into voluntary agreements and who have voluntary agreements in place, for which they are meeting their commitments, be treated the same as people who may not have met their commitments? That question was asked then, and I have repeated it tonight. The evidence coming forward to members of this House and, no doubt, to the Minister suggests that there is the real prospect of a major and unfair disadvantage being built into the system. Perhaps it can be called an unintended consequence of the legislation; nevertheless, that is how it is. For the benefit of the House, I shall read into Hansard a letter which I have received from a constituent in relation to the maintenance income test and the effect it has on supporting parents: I would like to make you aware of the devastating effect of the introduction in June 1988 of a maintenance income test for sole supporting parents. The legislation allows sole supporting parents to receive $15 per week for the first child plus $5 for each extra child. When this amount is exceeded, 50% of the excess is deducted from pension entitlement. The Minister claimed, in the second reading of the bill, that total income of sole supporting parents would be protected by a ``saving provision'' in the act. This was also claimed in supplementary notes to the act, brochures dated May 1988 and letters to supporting parents dated 25 August 1988. The basis of these claims is subsection 21 (4) which protects total income as at the last day of the final pre-amendment period (9.6.88), subject to subsection 21 (5). However, this subsection overrides 21 (4) and protects pension entitlement only as at that date. Since total income and pension entitlements are inversely related, the saving provision operates only when total income is increasing. The effect of ss21 (5) is, therefore, the opposite of that both explicitly and implicitly stated. That is an unintended consequence, I would presume. The letter continues: To reiterate-if total income stays the same or increases after 9/6/88, the saving provision operates, but if total income decreases (and pension entitlement increases), the saving provision does not operate. The only criterion used to determine whether the saving provision applies is pension entitlement at 9/6/88. Therefore it only applies when total income increases. The Department of Social Security has admitted that the brochures are ``somewhat misleading'' and yet continue to use them and the so-called saving provision as evidence that sole supporting parents are not being disadvantaged. Sole supporting parents receiving the full amount of pension at 9/6/88 (not receiving income from other sources), lost cost of living increases payable 23/6/88. They will continue to lose cost of living increases until the calculated ``excess'' maintenance received is eliminated. Claims that these people are `not worse off'- as made by both the Minister and the Department- are absurd. Their dollar income may remain the same but their purchasing power and their standard of living has decreased. My personal situation is this: I finished casual employment on 10/6/88 and my pension entitlement increased to the full amount. Due to the application of ss21(5), I immediately lost $26.20 from my pension entitlement of $352.10 per fortnight. My total income reduced from $270.39 per week to $209.10 due to the loss of casual income and the application of the maintenance income test. For the first time in eight years of receiving a pension I am unable to survive financially. As well as challenging the effect of the saving provision (which I am attempting to do through the Minister for Social Security's Department), I would like to point out that the maintenance income test is discriminating (it cannot be applied to sole supporting parents not receiving a pension). It is also unfair, unjust and a disgrace to a government which regularly proclaims its concern for disadvantaged groups. The maintenance income test does not affect the non-custodial parent and the government saves money at the expense of the supporting parent and the children. I have at the moment before the court an application for an increase in maintenance of $34 per week. If successful, the net result to me will be $4 per week more than the pre-maintenance income test amount because the Government will reduce my pension by $30 per week. I think that the point is made rather clearly. In the second reading debate on the initial legislation which was introduced into the Parliament last year, I identified unintended consequences. Those consequences are now occurring. I think that it is the Minister's responsibility to explain to the House precisely what the Government proposes to do about it. I said in a debate in this House on 23 March 1988 that the Government claims that there will be no losers in this arrangement. I think I have clearly demonstrated that there are losers and unfortunately there will continue to be losers, at least for a relatively short period. Its commitment is that existing pensioners will not have their total income reduced to below what it was prior to the introduction of this scheme. As I have demonstrated from the letter from which I have quoted, at least one person has had a significant reduction in her income. I said on that earlier occasion that this problem will not be met, and this has certainly been proved to be correct. It is because the benchmark used-that is, the amount received prior to the scheme-will not be indexed. For example, in six months if a pensioner who now receives a total income of $118 per week-let us not forget that we are talking about March 1988-had stayed in the old scheme, that amount would be increased with the consumer price index and would be worth slightly more. Under the new scheme the pension will not be adjusted up to the new figures; it will be adjusted only to the original $118 and the pension would thus lose value at the original current rate of inflation. I thought that I was pointing out for the benefit of the Government at that time what was, as I said, an unintended consequence. I am somewhat saddened to have to say that my expectations have been more than justified. While the Opposition supports the passage of this legislation, I hope that the Minister will spend a little time in the House trying to assure us and no doubt the many hundreds, if not thousands, of single parents in Australia that the circumstances in which they find themselves, in which they are suffering a reduction in their income, can, by one means or another, be overcome in the foreseeable future. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(9.29) —The Child Support Amendment Bill is a simple and almost technical amendment to the Child Support Act which was passed earlier this year. Although simple, the very fact that such an amendment is required tells a very disturbing story about the Government of Queensland. It reveals a State government that is hypocritical in the extreme, a government that is anti-family and a government that ranks power for power's sake well above the needs of children and parents. To understand the need for the amendment it is necessary to be familiar with the Government's reforms of both the Family Law Act and the collection of court maintenance awards which have occurred over the last 12 months. Last year the Parliament approved a major rewriting of the provisions of the Family Law Act as it dealt with children. A new part VII was inserted into the Act and put into one place all the provisions, both substantive and procedural, which related to children. The significant feature of the new scheme was the referral of power by the States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania to the Commonwealth pursuant to section 51 (xxxvii.) of the Constitution. The power referred was in terms of, firstly, the maintenance of children and the payment of expenses in relation to children and child bearing and, secondly, the custody and guardianship of, and access to, children. This means that the operation of the Family Law Act is extended to cover all children, not merely those deemed to be children of the marriage under the old section 5 of the Family Law Act. Two States, Queensland and Western Australia, have not referred power to the Commonwealth in this field. However, the situation of Western Australia is different in that it is the only State that has taken up the option to create a State, as opposed to a Federal, Family Court. Accordingly, the State court can exercise full jurisdiction concerning the custody, access and maintenance of children. The importance of this change and the need to combine all jurisdiction involving children was made apparent by a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia earlier this decade. Essentially, the problem is that complicated jurisdictional issues come into play when the custody or access issues involve step-parents, grandparents, second marriages and de facto relationships. In some cases, the Family Court of Australia had exclusive jurisdiction. In other cases, the State Supreme Court had jurisdiction. Sometimes one set of facts, say, those involving a half-sister and a half-brother, resulted in the Family Court having jurisdiction to decide only part of the dispute and the other part of the dispute would have to go to the Supreme Court. While battles over correct jurisdiction are not that uncommon in the Australian legal system, it is inconceivable and intolerable that they should exist where people's lives-and of most paramount consideration, the welfare of children-are at stake. The concern caused by the situation existing prior to the 1987 amendment to the Family Law Act was expressed by the justices of the High Court in the case of Fountain v. Alexander in 1982 to be found at page 615 of volume 150 of the Commonwealth Law Reports. At page 628 the then Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, stated: This case provides yet another example of the confusion and inconvenience that is caused by the fact that Jurisdiction in cases relating to the custody of children is divided between State and Federal Courts. Not only are the parties left uncertain as to the proper forum, thus causing costs to mount and delays to increase, but there is no one court which can determine the custody of the two children in the present case, notwithstanding that they are half brother and half sister. The current Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Mason, commented, at page 637: I agree with the comments of the Chief Justice urging that action should be taken to overcome the serious problems that beset the Family Court's limited jurisdiction. They are problems that this Court cannot solve: Yet they pose formidable obstacles to the prompt and just determination of Family Law controversies. The number of Family Law Cases which have come before this Court involving arid jurisdictional questions only is much too high for our comfort or for that of litigants generally. His Honour Mr Justice Murphy also stated, at page 640: The value of vesting jurisdiction exclusively in the Family Court of Australia is that it avoids the confusion, embarrassment and expense which would occur if different Courts had competing jurisdiction. Many of the unfortunate jurisdictional problems would be removed or diminished if the Family Court were vested with all the jurisdiction in Family Law matters permitted by the Constitution. It took some five years after that case for the Commonwealth and New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania to come to terms with the problems identified by the justices of the High Court. But come to terms they did and, as I stated earlier, Western Australia has already overcome the issue of jurisdiction by having a State Family Court. This leaves Queensland. The National Party Government of Queensland will, no doubt, over the next few days, make an awful lot of noise about how it opposes the Commonwealth classification of non-violent erotic videos and how it supports families and so-called moral values. This is the same pious Government that leaves Queensland families and Queensland children in a situation where many are denied the help and advice offered by the counselling service of the Family Court at the most emotional and distressing time of their lives, when their major relationship has broken down. Instead, the situation in Queensland is that parents, the litigants, are faced with three competing courts handling child disputes: the Family Court which, within the limitations of the Constitution, can deal only with the children of a marriage; the State Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over ex-nuptial children and some disputes involving grandparents and step-parents, but not necessarily all disputes involving them; and the State Children's Court, a court which essentially deals with criminal matters or applications from the State Department of Family Services for care and control or supervision orders for children but which still has some jurisdiction in maintenance, custody and access orders for ex-nuptial children. While both the Supreme Court and the Children's Court have access to welfare reports from social workers, these courts are not designed and are not set up to carry out the role of a conciliator in order to determine disputes without the parties actually going before a judge. That is the hallmark of the Family Court and that is what sets it apart from the State courts. This was one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the Family Court in the first place. The Family Court has attached to it a specialist counselling service which, hopefully, will resolve these sorts of problems. Yet, many parents and many children in Queensland now find themselves denied access to that Court. Why do the States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania find that they can forgo this power and give it to the Commonwealth to solve the problems? Why cannot Queensland do the same? The reality is that the Queensland Government places its paranoiac fear of Commonwealth power miles above any concern it may have for families. The pious concern and the rhetoric that one gets out of the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Government about family values is simply sickening when we look at the reality of this obscene situation, which could easily be resolved. Since the Family Law Act was amended last year there have been many attempts by the Commonwealth Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and officers of his Department to try to negotiate some way to overcome these problems in Queensland. Those attempts have proved fruitless. The same situation has applied. The Queensland Government says, `We will not give away our power to the Commonwealth. Oh no, it is all a question of States rights. The Constitution gives us this power and we are going to keep it'. That is sheer and utter lunacy. The amendment to the Child Support Act before the House tonight predicts that Queensland will pass legislation to allow the Child Support Agency to collect awards from the Children's Court and the magistrates courts made for ex-nuptial children pursuant to the terms of the Queensland Maintenance Act. This means that ex-nuptial children, who should not really have to be blamed for the Queensland Government's pious distaste for the decision of their parents not to get married, will gain the benefits of receiving regular assistance by way of maintenance from the non-custodial parent. This will go a long way towards lifting those children out of poverty, which is the main aim of the whole child support legislation. That is what this Parliament and the Queensland Parliament should be all about. It is certainly what this Government is about; it is what the measures in the Child Support Act are all about. But, even when sole parents are receiving a little more income by way of regular maintenance, what does the Queensland Government do? It determines that this maintenance has to be taken into account in calculating the income of a family. Sole parent families which, prior to this extra income being granted, were getting concessions from the Main Roads Department on car registration, had their rents calculated in a certain way by the Queensland Housing Commission or were getting rate rebates from their local council, if they were fortunate enough to end up with a home as a result of a property settlement or some other circumstances, will now lose these concessions. For every step that this Government takes to try to lift these families out of poverty, the Queensland Government comes in and takes a bit for itself. It militates against this Government's attempts to improve people's lifestyles and that simply is not good enough. It makes me sick when I hear the Queensland Premier and members of the Queensland Government uttering all this nonsense about their support for families when, in reality, if they cared about Queensland families and children they would do something to resolve these ridiculous jurisdictional problems caused by competing courts in Queensland. The other States have got it right. Western Australia has got it right by having its own State Family Court. Why can Queensland not get it right? This Bill deserves the support of the House and I welcome the Opposition's support but I really wish that Queensland Opposition members would try to make some representations to the Queensland Government in order to resolve this ludicrous situation. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(9.41) —When the original Child Support Bill was debated by the House of Representatives earlier this year it was my lot to follow the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) then. On that occasion I recall congratulating him on his sincerity on the general subject of the Child Support Agency which is, of course, the proper support of children. I acknowledged his sincerity then and I do so again now, but I must say that he confuses me a little as does the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). The amendment to that legislation which we are debating today will facilitate the application of the Child Support Act to ex-nuptial children in Queensland and Western Australia. In his second reading speech the Minister said: In the event, both Queensland and Western Australia have now indicated that they intend to adopt the Child Support Act as a means of including ex-nuptial children in their States in the Government's new child support scheme. I would agree with some of the comments made by the honourable member for Fisher about the slowness of the Queensland Government over successive years in recognising that the arrangements with the Federal Government in this area have much to offer families and children of failed marriages, whether legal or de facto. I had taken a rather more optimistic line than the honourable member for Fisher in the light of the Minister's words in the belief that perhaps some progress was being made. However, I say to the honourable member that very little will be achieved if political grandstanding is indulged in at this stage. There has been too much grandstanding on this subject in the past by the Queensland Government, I agree, but grandstanding at this stage when some progress apparently is being made by the present Government, certainly will not help us. The Child Support Amendment Bill provides for an extension of the Child Support Agency arrangements. To date the registrar has only been able to collect maintenance in respect of a child who is a child of a marriage or a child who is not a child of a marriage where the State had referred its powers for ex-nuptial children. Those were the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, an indication has been given that Western Australia and Queensland are now prepared to move in that same direction. The Bill before us tonight is essentially a technical Bill to tidy up some aspects of the Child Support Act to enable that to happen. That gives us the opportunity to address the general subject of child support, and specifically the support of those children of de facto arrangements. I wish to take this opportunity to say a couple of words on that general subject. A couple of weeks ago I was a little distressed to hear the Minister make the statement that the Fraser Government had never done anything about or shown any interest in the maintenance of children of failed marriages or de facto relationships. In 1980 a joint select committee of this Parliament, under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), brought in a report following a total review of the Family Law Act. The Family Law Act had then been in operation for less than five years and, having had the opportunity to operate for those few years, Parliament believed that it was timely in 1979 to review the operations of the Act. It was clear by then that an area that was not operating satisfactorily was that of maintenance and specifically the frequent resort that was being had to the supporting parent benefit in order to support children of failed relationships. In 1980 the Joint Select Committee reported on a range of matters, including the matter of maintenance. As I recall, it recommended that a maintenance collection agency should be established; I think it also recommended a formula for maintenance. This proposal was considered by the Fraser Government in the normal way that governments consider committee proposals. I understand that the examination of this proposal for a maintenance collection agency ran into pretty energetic opposition from the Department of Social Security, which the Minister now oversees, on the ground that the Department did not see its role as one of collection but as one of disbursing government payments. When Senator Chaney was Minister he commissioned a report on the subject of the supporting parent benefit and how parents might better be persuaded to face their financial responsibilities to their children. That report, which was not a public report, came to the Fraser Government only at the end of its period in power. The Hawke Government had that report available to it from the beginning of its time in power in 1983. There is no doubt, and I think the Minister should acknowledge this, that the Fraser Government was moving along the correct path of trying to establish a satisfactory maintenance situation for sole parents and their children in this country. It did not reach that position, but I do not think the timetable was so extraordinary that it deserves any particular criticism for that. I hope the Minister will also recognise that he has had the support of the Opposition on the subject of the Child Support Agency. There were some differences of detail when we debated the Bill earlier this year, but essentially it was supported, and it went through with strong support from the Opposition parties. As I said earlier, the Opposition has welcomed the indication by Western Australia and Queensland that they will accept the child support agency arrangement for ex-nuptial children. I would agree that this anomaly has caused many difficulties for children and their parents, particularly in Queensland. The Minister in his second reading speech on the original Child Support Bill said: We are in a unique position to be able to use our family law, taxation and social security powers under the constitution to integrate a national system. Of course the situation of children of de facto relationships, particularly in those two States, has shown that there were some weaknesses in our constitutional position, and we very much welcome that weakness now being addressed. I think it is relevant in a debate on this subject that we should pay some attention to the fairly modern phenomenon of the growth of de facto marriages and the growth in the percentage of children who are ex-nuptial. It is a matter which concerns me and naturally it concerns a lot of women, certainly those of my generation. My concern is not a censorious one, as the Minister is aware, but it has concerned me for some time that women, particularly young women, allow themselves to be in a situation where they have children who become very heavily dependent on mothers and fathers-such is the pattern of our society-and the parents do not seek some legal protection not only for those children but also for themselves while those children are young and highly dependent. I have been concerned that the trend towards young couples not marrying and not accepting the legal arrangements that formerly obtained in this country under the Marriage Act has not been beneficial to women in the long run. I am not one who believes that people should be married against their will or that they should stay married once they are married against their will. But we seem, in my humble opinion, to have gone too far the other way, and it has become fashionable not to marry, to sneer at the institution and to spurn the very real legal protections that marriage gives without a proper examination of the desirability of those protections. Of course it is always the vulnerable people we have to consider, and it is the children who are the most vulnerable in this case. I am also concerned about the superficial but nevertheless censorious treatment of the subject evident on occasions in this House. I am going to quote one of my colleagues. I regret that he is not in the country because he is doing this Parliament's business overseas. I would never want him to think that I have leapt at this opportunity, because I would certainly be quoting his words if he were here. I cannot let this debate pass by without making some reference to them. In the debate on the original Child Support Bill in February of this year, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) said: Until the mid-1960s, a little under 6 per cent of children were born outside wedlock. Today about 16 per cent of all births are outside wedlock. That information comes from the Department of Social Security statistics section. It indicates that the number of never married mothers in receipt of a supporting parent's benefit has increased from 13,500 in 1974 to 45,000 in 1987. This is a trebling of the number which existed in 1974 at the time of the introduction of this benefit . . . Never married mothers received more than $400m of the $1.5 billion paid out under this benefit . . . Another area of the supporting parents' benefit that has taken off like bushfire is that relative to those who have simply been living together, have had children and are no longer together. In 1974 there were 3,100 women in this group. In 13 short years that number has grown to 17,700. I am sorry to have to say this, because it seems so obvious, but where there is a never married mother there is a father who has not married that mother. If there are 3,100 women accepting the supporting parent's benefit who have simply lived with the father of their children, then there may well be 3,100 men who have fathered those children. That is based on the 1974 figures, and in 13 years the figure had grown to 17,700. I think those figures indicate the trend I was referring to earlier. It distresses me that argument on this matter is always cast in terms of females. It concerns me very deeply that young women-they are not always young women but a large number of them are-will enter into this arrangement without understanding that that sort of censure still will come on them. That, in itself, is enough. In that debate I said: Criticism that has flowed to the female recipients of the supporting parent's benefit has rarely flowed to the unmarried fathers of those children. I think it is worth noting that 85 per cent of recipients of the sole parent's benefit are divorced or separated. It is also worth noting in the context in which so many people choose to put it-a context of immoral young females-that only 4 per cent of all supporting parents are teenagers and that they are not exclusively female; there are some male teenagers who are on supporting parent's benefits. That is fact, and I think that has to be stated. I want to make a couple of other points. I do not know whether this is something the Minister for Social Security is addressing. If it is, I would welcome in his response an indication that he is, and, if it is not something that the Government is currently addressing, I hope it starts to move towards it. We must address the question of simply why this does happen. Why is it that so many of our young women-admittedly, a small percentage of recipients of supporting parent's benefit; nevertheless several thousand each year-enter into arrangements where very clearly there is not a commitment by both parents to the child that results from that arrangement. I have had stated to me, as I know other members of this House would have, by social workers and people who have worked in the past with the community youth support scheme, that they believe there is a link between the number of young unmarried mothers in our community and, for example, female unemployment. They say that in their experience of working with these young hopelessly long term unemployed teenagers they have found that the girls get a feeling of lack of self-worth. These girls believe that through becoming a mother they will be doing something worthwhile, something productive and something which contributes to society. There are too many of these people saying it in all sincerity for me to brush it aside. Unfortunately, I am not aware that it has ever been properly studied. The information that I have is anecdotal. I would welcome it if the Minister for Social Security indicated whether he is aware of any studies of this. If not, to try to measure why we have this phenomenon to the extent that we do could be something worth studying. I would also be very interested to know whether the Government is monitoring the application of the new maintenance arrangements to de facto situations. It has applied ever since the Child Support Agency was set up, but tonight we are talking about the extension of this legislation only to these two States. So already, there are the beginnings of experience of the activities of the Child Support Agency in relation to the children of de facto marriages. I hope that the new maintenance arrangements will in themselves affect the situation. I expect that they will because the very arrangement will bring home to the potential young parents that it is not so easy and that they have a commitment and a responsibility. My basic concern has always been that those young people may not have understood fully the nature of their commitment to another human being-a child-when they decided to become a parent. I expect and hope that the new maintenance arrangements will bring home to these young people the understanding of the extent and the duration of that commitment. As I have said, I am pleased to support the arrangements. I hope that the Minister is having the success with Queensland that I have taken as being indicated in his second reading speech, which is a little more optimistic in tone than that given to us this evening by the honourable member for Fisher. I look forward to the Minister's response on those other personal points I have raised. Mr KERR(Denison)(9.57) —It is very refreshing and pleasing to be able to rise after hearing two excellent contributions to debate in this House, from the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) and the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan). So often the debates in this House are characterised by trivialisation of important issues. Seeing here tonight the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), one cannot let pass the damage done to what would be a great landmark in social reform in Australia with the proposal that the Minister has brought forward for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to look after Aboriginal affairs. Time after time we see sensible proposals being dealt with on a party, slighting and trivialising basis. But tonight we have one of those rare instances where both sides of the House seem to be about the business of addressing an issue seriously and constructively. It is very refreshing. It is coming to a point in time where we can look back over a long period of Australia's history and say that we are proud of the fact that successive governments have brought really very substantial changes to the way in which we deal with the problem of marriages which do not succeed, circumstances where children are left dependent on one parent, and separations and family break-ups occur. It has a long history and one which goes back to the prewar days when social security was virtually non-existent in those circumstances and the sort of support structures that we now take for granted in our community were deficient. Slowly, we evolve mechanisms to cope with the inevitable tragedies that occur from time to time in the break-up of marriages. I guess that we would all like to see most marriages not break up, but we recognise that it is inevitable that some marriages will not succeed. It is inevitable that some children will find themselves the victims of marriages which do not work. We also know that it is a reality, whether we like it or not, that people will bear children out of marriage who then have the responsibility of bringing up those children, caring for them and providing for them a loving and warm environment. Over the years the different legislative means that governments have provided to look after children in this situation have changed. In the past we had the Matrimonial Causes Act. That involved questions of fault which meant that decisions about custody, maintenance and access turned on notions of who was wrong in the broken marriage that had preceded the situation in which the children's needs came to be at issue. Obviously, as our attitudes have changed, we have had to respond differently than was the case under the pre-Family Law Act mechanisms. The Family Law Act brought a breath of fresh air into the way in which Australians dealt with the problems of broken marriages and the needs of children. We saw the institution of a system of counselling, priority being given to the interests of children, and a break away from the idea that retribution was to be meted out to blameworthy partners of marriages that had failed. We got away from that idea and looked instead to the fundamental needs of the parties and, of course, to the needs of children. That has been a very successful and significant step. In the case of children who are born to women who are unmarried, our social services and legislative framework has changed. Originally, pressure was put on such mothers to have their children adopted. They were made to feel the opprobrium of society and, even when adoption was an option, we know that there were some very unsatisfactory outcomes. We now have a very good system of adoption for those single parents who wish their children to be adopted. Such parents can be sure that their children will find loving, warm and caring homes, but if they wish to keep their child and rear and nurture the child themselves, there is a system of support for those parents. That system has been the subject of careful and constructive review. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, needs to be commended for the way in which he has moved to make sure that if one is a single parent one will not be perpetually dependent on the State; rather, that there will be a temporary situation during which priority for care and nurture of the children can be given, but the person who has completed that nurturing role will be encouraged to return to full time employment in the community through innovative schemes such as the jobs, education and training (JET) scheme which the Minister has introduced and publicised following the last Budget. Australia has started to deal with that real social issue in a constructive and positive way. It has moved people away from dependence and encouraged them to return to the work force. It has moved away from some of the negative aspects that have characterised the relationship between the role of supporting parent and the State in the past. There is a commitment to the obligation not only of the State to the custodial parent but also of the non-custodial parent. Frequently, the non-custodial parent will be male but that is not always the case. There are custodial parents who are male and non-custodial parents who are female. But whatever, in the past it was far too easy for non-custodial parents to avoid their responsibility towards the maintenance and care of their offspring. This situation is slowly being remedied. The landmark initiative of the Minister in introducing the Child Support Act in 1988-the Child Support Agency-brings in measures that will ensure that those who foster children, who procreate children, will have the responsibility of their care in the future so that those burdens cannot simply be placed on another human being and on the State. These are important forward steps. They will not be introduced without teething problems. I noted a comment earlier in this debate about some of the transition arrangements. I am sure that the Minister will have noted those comments. There are bound to be other instances where people suggest that review or revision of the arrangements are appropriate. But I think it is important to put this in an historical context because what we are seeing now is a rounding out of a very important process of our Australian history. We have moved from fault and a situation of lack of social support to a situation now where we are looking to have one of the most enlightened, sensible and constructive systems of social security support and family law anywhere in the world. It is one we should be proud of. I suppose that we only see the snapshot, the small part of which we have been involved in, but if honourable members look back over the 40 years of recent history in Australia, they will see that both parties have reason to be proud of these developments. The present Minister, who has taken these fairly important recent steps, has much to be proud of. I will pick up one point that was made earlier in this debate by the honourable member for Fisher. There are still a couple of steps to go before we can say that we have a national scheme or that we have a system that is truly functional and truly effective. It is absurd that Queensland still declines to refer powers over the question of custody of ex-nuptial children to the Commonwealth or to establish a court such as the Western Australian Government has done cooperatively with the Commonwealth. The failure to do this leaves a great weakness in the system and can lead to enormous family tragedies where disputes over important issues of custody, maintenance and care of children degenerates into trivial point scoring between jurisdictions and questions of which court is the appropriate forum. Perhaps even more insidious are the partial arguments, some parts of a question involving custody being resolved in a Federal court and issues relating to other children being resolved in State courts. This is a disgrace. I am pleased, however, to see that, at least in so far as the question of collection of maintenance for ex-nuptial children is concerned, it is now clear that the Queensland Government will come to the party. The Child Support Amendment Bill reflects that willingness. So yet again we have come one step closer to being, I suppose, in relation to this issue, a nation at last. In closing this debate, using the phrase `a nation at last', I commend to the House and to those who may be listening to the broadcast a recent book that was written by a very close friend of mine, Dr Stephen Alomes, of Deakin University in Geelong. His recent book called A Nation at Last looks at the way in which nationalism has been used and abused over the last 100 years of our nation. But certainly we are coming close to a national scheme for the care and protection of those most in need-children of fractured marriages, children whose parents have never married, and children whose parents have separated and perhaps left them dependent on only one parent. This is an historic opportunity. We have moved one step closer to a useful constructive national scheme. We only need the Queensland Government to take a few more steps in the right direction to exercise either the Western Australian option, that is, to establish a State family court which can work in conjunction with the Commonwealth court so that all the disputes can be heard in that State's jurisdiction, or, alternatively, for it to refer powers to the Commonwealth so that the Family Court of Australia can deal with all matters as has been the case in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Either of those options will make sense and will close the door on one of the shonky episodes of Australia's history in which families in distress have been sent forum shopping between the State and Federal jurisdictions. In closing, let me commend the Minister. Let me also commend the previous speakers in this debate because it has been a pleasure to sit through what I believe has been one of the more constructive debates I have had the privilege to participate in. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(10.12) —I too am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Child Support Amendment Bill 1988. Initially, the States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania agreed to refer their powers relating to ex-nuptial children to the Commonwealth. Now, Queensland and Western Australia have also indicated their agreement to refer their powers to the Commonwealth in regard to ex-nuptial children in their States. The purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to amend the Child Support Act to bring Queensland and Western Australia into line with the other States and enable the child support scheme to operate in those States. The child support scheme, of course, is the centrepiece of the Government strategy to eliminate child poverty. Previously, 70 per cent of non-custodial parents failed to make any contribution to the welfare of their children and thus condemned thousands of children to a life of unnecessary hardship and poverty. Stage one of the child support scheme has been operating since June this year. Already there are indications of its success. Nationally, there are 11,000 orders registered with the Child Support Agency with another 2,200 applications now being processed. At the moment without automatic withholding the Agency is experiencing a payment rate of five out of 10 compared with the previous payment rate of only three out of 10. To that degree this scheme is a great success. The Child Support Agency is in the process of issuing 82 notices to employers to start deducting from wages and salaries. There are 14,000 children covered and 700 spouses. Another thing to consider is that of the payment rate of five out of 10 a considerable number of payers who originally were failing to meet their obligations are now doing so. The payment rate is most pleasing when we consider that the scheme has been operating only since June. The Child Support Agency is confident that it will reach the 90 per cent target which it has set itself. Over $1m per month, nationally, is now being paid to the Agency. New South Wales, which includes the Australian Capital Territory, has 2,079 orders registered, with another 990 in the pipeline. Out of those 11,000 orders registered with the Child Support Agency, only 554 have been deemed ineligible because they separated before the start of the scheme and were non-pensioners. Only 41 people have been deemed untraceable which is a good result out of 11,000. We should remember Opposition claims that the scheme would not work. It claimed that thousands would flee Australia to avoid meeting their obligations. At this stage only 41 out of 11,000 are deemed untraceable. The Child Support Agency has another 400 people subject to tracing but it is confident that with the new tax file number legislation, these will be easily traced. We now find that since amendments to the Family Law Act the Family Courts are making more realistic maintenance orders and these orders are now enforceable. This is a very different state of affairs from that which existed prior to the introduction of the child support scheme. One Family Court solicitor in my electorate of Hunter has expressed some reservations about Family Court maintenance orders because he believes that in some instances the orders have been too high. However, without pre-empting the stage 2 legislation, I believe that this legislation will address his concern. Generally the child support scheme has won widespread community support and parents are now much more aware of their obligations towards their ex-nuptial children. In an article in the Australian Law News in June 1988, a contributor acknowledged the aims of the child support scheme as unchallengeable but questioned whether the package of measures would achieve the end sought. However, that contributor was unable to come up with any alternative to the child support scheme. That article was written pre-Budget and the author will be pleased to know that the concerns he expressed about the availability of adequate training schemes for women have been addressed in the August Budget. I am referring to the jobs, education and training (JET) program for women on supporting parent's benefit which will start in the new year. The innovative JET program has been specifically tailored to helping sole parents into the work force. Without going into too much detail, because the JET program and other social security Budget measures will be debated in separate legislation, I would like to make a brief comment on the program. It is a voluntary program whose target groups are sole parents of school age children-sole parents whose youngest child will reach 16 years of age within two years and sole parents who are under 20 years of age. JET will provide special help in the form of counselling, training, education, job search assistance and child care. The program is important particularly because it recognises the special difficulties faced by sole parents when they attempt to enter or re-enter the work force. Turning back to the Australian Law News article, the author said: One thing is certain, appropriate measures must be taken to alleviate poverty among children, to bring home to the progenitors of children the real nature of their obligation and to require them to live up to it and to remove from the supporting parents the poverty traps which have been created. I have no argument at all with this statement for I firmly believe the child support scheme is a positive step in the right direction. The Government has appointed the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) to monitor and evaluate the impact of stage 1. The major objectives of the Institute's research are to measure the effectiveness of the procedures in accordance with its aims. Ms Margaret Harrison, a fellow of the AIFS, is project co-ordinator of the Institute's evaluation of the child support scheme. She states that information is being obtained from people whose dates of separation or children's birthdates predate the introduction of stage 1, as well as those people who pay or receive maintenance via the Child Support Agency. The AIFS also will monitor how employers are affected by the scheme because of their obligation to withhold salaries and transmit money to the Agency. The AIFS recognises that greater financial participation in the rearing of children may have an impact on parenting after separation. This also will be a focus of research. Visiting patterns, the sharing of non-financial responsibilities and any increases or decreases in court disputes about children will be monitored in mailed questionnaires. The Institute's evaluation of this important program will assess the impact it has on a proportion of the population which has for many years been financially vulnerable. The feedback in my electorate of Hunter on stage one of the child support program indicates that the majority of sole parents are extremely happy about receiving maintenance payments without the hassles that previously existed when the courts tried to enforce maintenance orders. Some have indicated that they are now receiving maintenance for the first time. It is also true to say that I have had one or two irate sole parents contact me claiming that they would be worse off under the new child support scheme. When I checked the information provided to me I found that this was not correct. In real terms the average sole parent family will be better off. With the December increase in additional pension for children, sole parents will receive a maximum of $24 a week for each dependent child under age 13 and a maximum of $31 a week for children aged 13 to 15. The Australian Taxation Office has already indicated that it is planning to take court action against a number of non-custodial parents for failing to meet their child maintenance payments. Obviously, the Tax Office is much better placed to locate defaulting payers than was the case under the previous arrangement, whereby State courts made the collections. No longer will maintenance defaulters be able simply to ignore court orders and shirk their responsibilities as they have in the past. Despite having undergone a period of difficult economic restraint, this Hawke Labor Government has implemented sound economic strategies. It has taken positive steps to alleviate the problem of child poverty. The child support scheme means that hundreds of thousands of children will have regular maintenance to depend on for the first time. Now the children in Queensland and Western Australia will benefit from the child support scheme in the same way as children in the other States. I congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(10.23) —In the short time I have available to me I would like to add my congratulations to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), to the Opposition and to the Queensland Government. It is very rare for me to congratulate the Queensland Government, but at least for once in this place I can stand here and say that, perhaps as a result of the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, the Queensland Government is now looking beyond its own pockets and its own self-aggrandisement. It is actually starting to think about the constituency it supposedly represents-the people of Queensland. The Child Support Amendment Bill, if nothing else, will ensure that Queenslanders get the same benefits from the family law system that other Australians have long had. This Bill is but another thread in the fabric of social and legal change affecting families since 1975. All parliamentarians, particularly those of us who have practised the law and those of us who have had experience in the Family Law Courts, would know only too well the great change that was wrought in 1975 and the great need for further changes down the track. From my point of view, as one who has practised in that jurisdiction, it has taken a long time for apparent and needed changes to occur. The fact that ex-nuptial children are still outside the scope of the Family Law Act is, to me, a source of great regret. I look forward to the day when the States collectively understand that the most appropriate way to deal with custody and similar matters regarding ex-nuptial children is under a Commonwealth Act, a Family Law Act, so that all children are treated the same and a similar system of law applies to all questions of custody and maintenance. The child support scheme, of course, brings into effect something which is socially desirable, economically desirable and morally desirable-that is, that those people who create children, the parents of children, undertake the economic support of those children irrespective of whether the couples remain married. For many years while I practised family law the Commonwealth government of the day provided benefits to single parents-single because they were single at the time they bore the children or as a result of divorce. But in calculating the appropriate maintenance to be paid as a result of the separation or the birth of the child, the fact that the Commonwealth Government paid money was always taken into account in assessing the amount that the non-custodial parent would pay. To my way of thinking that was a great shame. Some Family Court judges, counsellors and lawyers still have to answer why they took that attitude, why they did not ignore the fact that a Commonwealth payment was available and why they did not seek the appropriate maintenance payment for the non-custodial spouse at the time of the separation rather than allowing the Commonwealth government of the day to pick up the tab and then work out how much extra should be paid in order that that custodial child should receive a fair maintenance payment. I think it probably still operates that way, although this legislation makes it far more difficult for that to occur. I commend the Bill to the House. I do not want to hold up the House further; I know the Minister for Social Security would like to make a few comments before the guillotine comes into effect at 10.30 p.m. But I am pleased to see all members of this House recognise the importance of the child support program. We can look forward to the day in the future when ex-nuptial children will receive the same protection under the Family Law Act as other children now have. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(10.27) —in reply-I would like to say how much I appreciated the contributions from members on both sides of the House to this debate. We have had a series of very constructive contributions. It is pleasing that the States of Western Australia and Queensland have been able to commit themselves to legislation. In fact, I was just saying to the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Lavarch) that the Queensland Government is actually introducing this legislation, as I understand it, tomorrow, and it is a very important step towards achieving a national scheme. We would like to see a national approach in terms of family law legislation, and we would like to see further changes in relation to Queensland. Without holding up the House, I repeat that it has been a very constructive debate in relation to this further stage of the development of child support legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe) read a third time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —I seek the indulgence of the House to make a statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Indulgence is granted. Mr WEST —I thank the House. In concluding an answer at Question Time today I said, `In any event, Farmer Brothers is a private company', et cetera. I should have said, `In any event, Richard Farmer and Associates Pty Ltd is a private company', et cetera. I said that inadvertently and I have amended the Hansard accordingly. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(10.30) —The legislation we are debating tonight is the Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. The coalition parties do not oppose the Bill. It seeks to amend various existing insurance legislation to levy an annual supervisory fee on general insurers and life insurers and to overcome certain deficiencies in the existing legislation so as to maintain effective supervision over the general insurance and life insurance industries. I understand that these proposals have been the subject of extensive negotiations between the Government and various industry bodies such as the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Insurance Council of Australia, the Institute of Actuaries of Australia, and the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia. While expressing initial reservation about certain aspects of the Government's proposals, for example the question of a levy, I understand these groups are prepared to accept the outcome. However, at this point I would like to register the Opposition's dissatisfaction with the Government's disregard of Parliament in this case. We frequently know that there might be a week between the introduction of legislation and its debate. On this occasion the legislation came in with seven other Bills, some of them making extensive modifications to the tax law in Australia. It may be that there are few problems with this legislation, it may be that there are significant problems, having to consider eight pieces of legislation introduced late last Thursday, we would have little chance of knowing. It is now only Wednesday and we are expected, given the heavy legislative program and other parliamentary business, to debate this Bill in an informed and intelligent way. It shows an arrogance by this Government towards the role of Parliament-something I have mentioned before-and towards the people of Australia whom this body represents. Such haste leads to bad and slipshod government. We had two further instances of legislation this afternoon, to which I was responding that had to be amended in the Senate. Too often legislation introduced into the Parliament has been ill considered and badly drafted. I trust that is not the case with this Bill. The taxation area, which like this Bill falls under the responsibility of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), is a classic case of foul-ups and rewriting. Last year we saw close to 10 Bills amending taxation laws, many running upwards of 50 pages. This year is just as bad. Without mentioning other legislation, we are expected to debate Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) tomorrow. That came in only last Thursday and makes about 13 significant amendments to the law, including the gold tax. There is the classic case of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who last month had to introduce 280 amendments to legislation that he himself had brought in only a short time before. I trust that this Bill we are debating will not need 280 amendments. As this is a Bill to amend the law relating to insurance, there is a particular point concerning the treatment of the insurance industry that I would like to raise with the Government. Prior to the May economic statement this year, the tax system treated life offices and friendly societies on a concessional basis. Life offices were taxed at 49c in the dollar, but on a concessional tax base because of certain tax deductions under sections 46, 115 and 116 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Friendly societies were taxed at 20 per cent, albeit on a more comprehensive base. Following the May statement, the deductions allowable for life offices will be severely cut back. As from 1988-89 they will now be subject to the 39 per cent tax rate and dividends received by life insurance funds are to be subject to the imputation system. The rate of tax applying to the life insurance business of friendly societies is to be increased from the present rate of 20 per cent to 30 per cent from the 1988-89 income year. It would seem that, as a result of these changes, most taxpayers would be better off not investing in ordinary life insurance but investing in their personal accounts. The Government's assumption that this will not be the case is based on a familiar story to all of those who have been interested in the new 15 per cent tax on superannuation funds. With the various tax concessions removed, life offices will have to take significant advantage of the newly applying imputation rules to maintain them in a neutral position-that is, not a worse position. It has been estimated that it necessitates life insurers holding 35 per cent of their portfolio in assets which would yield franked dividends. Most life offices say they do not hold such a mix, nor will they, given their duties to follow prudent investment practices. I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris), who is responsible for this piece of legislation: Until and unless they attain such a mix, is it true that the ordinary taxpayer paying an average tax rate of, say, about 30 per cent would be penalised for investing in ordinary life insurance? For this year, will thousands of taxpayers suffer greater tax because of their existing investment in life insurance? Indeed, there is yet again the same old question: When will we see the legislation in that arena and how long must we wait? Returning to the Bill at hand, I note that it will be introducing an annual supervisory levy for the insurance industry. The Opposition supports such a move. The concept of user pays is a profound one. It is one of the bases of the rational economics which the coalition parties have adopted. We welcome the Government's often belated steps into the realm of rationality. It is so much more satisfying and coherent compared to the Government's usual knee-jerk damage control on economic issues. In his second reading speech the Minister said: The proposed fee reflects the Government's view that, generally, where a service is designed to benefit a particular group, the cost should be borne by that immediate group of beneficiaries of the service rather than by taxpayers in general. As I said, the principle is correct, but there is something strange about such a statement coming out of the mouth of one of this Government's Ministers. The reference to relieving the burden on `taxpayers in general' is nothing more than the crying of crocodile tears. Nothing can hide the fact that this Government and its Treasurer have not the slightest regard for the taxpayer in general. After all, this is the highest taxing Government in Australia's post-war, if not entire, history. The Grim Reaper, in the guise of the Treasurer, has slashed away at the living standards of Australians. As I have noted before in other debates, by mid-1989, when our long awaited tax cuts are due, a person on average weekly earnings with a dependent spouse and two children will need a tax cut of $56 per week to restore his or her disposable income to what it was in March 1983 when this Labor Government came to power. That is a statistic that has not been and cannot be refuted by the Government. It will take a tax cut of $56 a week simply to restore an average family to the situation they were in before the Labor Government came to power. Given that I have quoted a passage from the Minister's second reading speech which refers to the liability of taxpayers and the insurance industry, I now turn to a gross attack on taxpayers by an insurance institution in this country. I am, of course, refer- ring to the activities of the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission (SGIC) and its role in WA Inc.-Western Australia Incorporated-and also the failure of the Rothwells merchant bank. The State Government Insurance Commission was originally involved in the rescue package to save Rothwells following the stock market crash in October last year. At the time I raised publicly the Opposition's concerns about this use of government funds to prop up an ailing finance company. Serious doubts were raised by the Opposition, both here and in Western Australia, about the shadiness of the deals done, the lack of public disclosure, the secrecy and backroom deals of Premier Burke, the SGIC and other government bodies. Of uppermost concern was the extent to which taxpayers' money was being put at risk to prop up the mates of the Western Australian Government. But the dirty linen usually ends up in the open. Last week Rothwells went into receivership. Mr Milton —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I find what the honourable member for Kooyong is talking about to be very interesting but I put it to you that it has nothing at all to do with the provisions of the Bill, and the honourable member should get down to the actual aspects of the Bill instead of talking about the Government of Western Australia. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has been inclined over some time, as have previous occupants of the chair, to allow a certain latitude. I am sure the honourable member for Kooyong will not go beyond that latitude-I am sorry, I should have said `the Deputy Leader of the Opposition'. Mr PEACOCK —Madam Speaker, there is no need to apologise; your words are taken and received with the consideration they deserve. But on the point of order, and recognising what you said-I thank you for any expressions about latitude-as I am talking about the State Government Insurance Commission, which, as an insurance corporation, is affected by this legislation, my remarks are relevant to the Bill. All insurance corporations have to pay a levy. One of those insurance corporations is the State Government Insurance Commission and it is having to pay a levy for the general supervision of it and other associated insurance bodies, I am entitled, therefore, to direct attention to the activities of an insurance body which is under the jurisdiction of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The reason for the Bill coming before the Parliament is to apply the principle of user pays so that the Government can recover some of the cost of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner's activities in scrutinising and scrutineering insurance corporations. I am merely singling out one particular insurance corporation which is under the ambit, I would suggest, of insurance generally. But I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your references to latitude and may I take them up on another occasion when they are necessary. Madam SPEAKER —Have a raincheck! Mr PEACOCK —Thank you. Again, that is warmly received. We now find, as I said, that last week Rothwells went into receivership. We now find that $100m of taxpayers' funds are in jeopardy. Some say that figure could go as high as $400m. Premier Dowding and ex-Premier Burke may think that they stopped a run on Rothwells bank, which, as I said, was propped up by an insurance corporation-the State Government Insurance Commission of Western Australia. However, as one commentator noted, what they really ensured was that the big corporate depositors had time to arrange their affairs securely while the small or naive ones were lulled into a false sense of security. I am informed that about 1,200 small businesses and individuals stand to lose substantially from Rothwells' collapse. Such government intervention which has resulted in these individual and taxpayer losses is anathema to the philosophy of Opposition members. Of course, it is a government's duty to maintain a strong financial market, but the corporatism of the Government of Western Australia and, indeed, of this Government in Canberra, reaches far beyond this and sets off a warning bell for the future of this country. For example, why should the Western Australian Government-owned State Government Insurance Commission have a shareholding in Perth's main daily newspaper-the West Australian? No matter the answer here, fortunately the Western Australian voters will soon have a chance to register their disgust at such activities in the forthcoming State election. In a wider context I have raised concerns on a number of occasions about the apparent blow-out in the net borrowing by public financial enterprises. Last year's Budget Paper No. 1 revealed, on page 418, that the total annual run-down in insurance office assets-that is, net borrowings-is estimated to have increased from just under $200m in 1982-83 to more than $2,000m in 1986-87. The Budget Paper went on to note: However, as some State governments are in the process of addressing this problem the current situation may not persist. Such faith is possibly touching, but does not disguise the fact that when I asked the Treasurer in this House about the progress State governments are allegedly making to address the problem virtually no response was forthcoming. I was informed later by correspondence from the Treasurer that due to discrepancies between recent developments in the funding of insurance schemes and the unchanged national accounts statistical treatment of these schemes the raw numbers exaggerate the problem. Nonetheless, the Treasurer simply went on to restate: To the extent that some insurance schemes had been running down financial assets, reforms are being put in place by the States to remedy the situation. The point is that if a public financial enterprise, such as an insurance commission, experiences difficulties by failing to reduce its net borrowings State governments, and possibly the Commonwealth Government, may be called upon to bail it out. The reality there is that it is not the State Government's money or the Commonwealth Government's money that is used to bail it out. It is the taxpayers' money. That might be an original thought for members of this Government, who assume an endless flow of revenue to prop up their large spending programs, but in the main what flows to them is flowing from the taxpayers. State Government owned insurers are not subject to the provisions of the Insurance Act, and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner has no supervisory role in regard to those insurers. Therefore, the extent to which I affirmed that before is technically incorrect. Nevertheless, they set a model for those public institutions to follow in terms of prudential management. There may not be, as I affirmed earlier, the overall control, but the model is there. Finally, I simply restate that the coalition parties do not oppose this legislation. We hope that the improvements to the administration and supervision of the insurance industry will effectively strengthen that industry into the future and provide an example that publicly owned insurance institutions will try to emulate in an effective and non-partisan manner. That would be a departure from the norm in the behaviour of the State Government Insurance Commission in Western Australia. There are examples around Australia that probably set a pattern that others could follow. In the case of the State Government Insurance Commission in Western Australia, there should be a large sign hanging on the door, `Don't let this happen to you'. To the extent that there is any moral qualm on the part of honourable members opposite about the treatment of taxpayers' money, one would have thought that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), who sought to take a point of order during my speech, would now be rising, bearing in mind the faction he represents and the stances he has taken on behalf of alleged downtrodden people in the community, and would have taken a stance in the Caucus earlier, to ensure that the rapacious rip-offs that have occurred in Western Australia did not go without some intervention on his behalf. Mr Milton —It is a matter for the State of Western Australia. It is not a matter to be brought up here. Mr PEACOCK —I hear the honourable member in this Parliament year in and year out proclaiming the rights of leftist movements overseas. He should not sit there and say that this is in the State of Western Australia. It is part of the federation of Australia. I reiterate, therefore, that rather than holding up the House at this hour of the night, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. I trust that the remarks that I have made in regard to Western Australia, though they may not stir the conscience of the honourable member, may stir the Treasurer through the fiduciary controls that he can bring to bear as well as the prudential controls and the straight element of proper management of taxpayers' funds, and might stir this Government, if not in legal terms at least in political terms, into nudging its colleagues in Western Australia back on to the straight and narrow path. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.51) —The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who has just resumed his seat, made the thrust of his debate, in the latter part of his contribution, an attack on the Western Australian Labor Government. It always amazes me that members of the Opposition will stand up in this House and both criticise and challenge any role played by a Labor government with private enterprise, but members opposite never seem to put the spotlight on Queensland. It seems to be hypocritical for the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Kooyong, to keep talking about Labor States-in this instance, Western Australia, which has done so much for the people of that State. Members opposite do not seem to worry about Queensland. Maybe they ought to. If they want to talk about the insurance industry and the way in which it has been used by a government, they ought to target Queensland to see what has taken place there. I do not intend to dwell on that issue but I think it would be a fair comment. Mr Lloyd —I wouldn't dwell on it, otherwise you will have a quorum called on you. Mr WRIGHT —Well, you can call a quorum. It is typical of you people over there. You like two sets of rules-one for yourselves and one for us. Your Deputy Leader spoke about all sorts of issues but you sat back dumb, with your thumb in your mouth. Madam SPEAKER —Speak through the Chair, please. Mr WRIGHT —Members opposite do not like it when they are shown to be hypocritical. The Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill is an important one because it is based on the user pays principle, and one might even say on the ability to pay. It will amend the Insurance Act of 1973 and also the Life Insurance Act of 1945, to enable an annual supervisory fee to be imposed. That fee will be levied on both general insurance companies and life insurance companies to recover the cost of supervision that is carried out by government in the realm of the Insurance Superannuation Commission. I do not think that anyone would argue with that; and I am pleased to see that the Opposition will not oppose the Bill. Unfortunately, the insurance industry is too often the butt of criticism. That is a pity. Although it is often considered as an aspect of the private sector that is making multi-million dollar profits, the insurance industry also plays a very important part in our community. It is important to state in this House that, in more recent times, the insurance industry has become very consumer oriented. It is rather fitting that I speak in this debate, because only this day I met with members of the Insurance Council of Australia to talk about a number of issues that are affecting the consumers of this country. It was most fitting and most important that at the discussions that did take place, we had representatives of the Insurance Superannuation Council-in fact the Insurance Commissioner, Mr Beatham, as well as Mr Richard Smith and Mr Frank Keenan, all of whom have great expertise in this area. They sat down with members of this Government, members of the consumer affairs committee, and members of the Trade Practices Commission (TPC) as well as members of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) and the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs. In fact, I suppose that anyone who was anyone in this field was at the meeting, trying to resolve many of the problems in the insurance industry. There are problems, but when people come together, and when there is dialogue, many of the problems that do exist can be overcome. I want to place on the record my personal appreciation of the willingness of the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) to work with others in the industry to resolve the problems that do exist. Surely one such problem is the issue of consumer credit insurance. It was the subject of a major study by the Financial Counsellors Association in Victoria. I notice that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) is here. He would be well aware of that because of his special interest in consumer affairs. I refer to the role played by Colin Kent and others in bringing the attention of members of Parliament to the problems that exist in consumer credit insurance such as the high cost of premiums and the commissions paid to retailers, particularly in the second-hand car industry but in the broad motor vehicle industry as well. Concerns were expressed about the ignorance of consumers when they walk into a sale unconcerned about the sorts of premiums and commissions they are paying as long as, at the end of the day when they sign the document, they are up for a certain amount of money that they believe they can repay. There have been problems of high pressure tactics being used by some. Regrettably, a number-it is minute-have caused a dilemma for the total insurance industry. Of the 100 different insurance companies which are part of the ICA, it is regrettable that one or two, such as HFC Finance Services Ltd, cause major problems in terms of profile and public perception because of their high pressure tactics and attitude to get massive penetration within the consumer area. We will not resolve those problems by legislation alone. We will resolve them only when industry sits around the table and talks through the sorts of solutions that are available. The industry argues, and I can understand it, that unless there is high penetration and a number of consumers form a very broad base, up goes the cost of individual premiums. I suppose it is like Medicare. If Medicare were available only to certain people, as the Opposition would argue, there would be a massive unit cost for those covered by Medicare. But if the cover can be broadened the overall cost per person, per unit, will be reduced. I therefore understand some of this idea for high penetration. It is also argued that high penetration brings about efficiency, maintains costs and also maintains viability. However, there is some concern that if an industry does not have true competition it is the consumer who suffers. Concern is also expressed that where there is a close link between the retailer of consumer credit insurance and the wholesaler, true competition does not necessarily prevail. Those are the sorts of issues which I suppose, in the past, would have been cast aside and members of Parliament would have had to stand up and criticise insurance companies. But I give some credit to people such as Mr Harold Levick, the President of ICA; Graeme Bond and Ray Willing-men who have sat down over a period and tried to find the solutions, who looked at the various models, understood that there was concern and realised that it is not just a matter of responding, when someone attacks the insurance industry, by trying to attack the Parliament and politicians. Those people were willing to sit down and come up with an approach. Whilst we have a long way to go in talking through a code of conduct, which has been the subject of long discussion for many months, we are getting there. I think we need to say publicly that members of the insurance industry are not a group of ogres; they are not a group of people trying to rip off every consumer. Instead, they are a group of people who in many instances, representing their shareholders, are trying to provide a service. Again, it is regrettable that there are those in the industry who are out for the quick buck. Most of those companies-there are only a few-seem to be foreign-owned and foreign-based. They come to this country to ravage the market-place, to make the quickest profit that they possibly can. One suggestion that has been put forward by the ICA, and which I think must be canvassed further, is for a code of conduct. Part of that code of conduct would be to have a cap on commissions. There are those who say that if we put a cap on commissions all that does is force everyone else in the industry to move towards the cap: if we set the commission at 25 or 35 per cent, everyone moves towards that 25 or 35 per cent. But it must be appreciated, from some of the current surveys, that the commissions are extremely high and in some instances are well over 35 per cent. At the same time, whilst we can argue about the cap on commissions, the real essence of success in the industry is when an appeals system works and is seen to be independent, instead of being one of Caesar until Caesar. As one who has worked in the consumer industry for a long time that seems to be one of the main criticisms about the insurance industry. There are those who argue that the easiest way is to legislate, to set up the structure of an ombudsman to follow the British model. Others say that we need to look at the Singaporean model; that we should have an ombudsman-like committee made up of a representative from the insurance industry, someone from the Insurance and Superannuation Commission (ISC), someone from the consumer affairs field and an independent chairman who could be a lawyer who is well versed in the insurance industry and particularly in contract law. But whatever happens we must end up with a system of appeal, a system whereby consumer complaints can be dealt with. When I first took this issue on I believed that there were tens of thousands of complaints about the insurance industry. The facts do not establish that. If one looks at the Bureau of Consumer Affairs, not only federally but also on a State by State basis, one finds that one could limit the number to probably 2,000 at the very most. In fact, whilst the complaints received across Australia amount to almost 10,000 judging from the reports those that have been unresolved in recent times bring the figure back to about 1,300. When we weigh that against the number of contracts that are written and the number of people who have entered into policies we see that it is a minute amount. It does not matter to me whether it be 300 or 300,000; there has to be a proper appeal system if one has a complaint. I am hoping that, as we continue to canvass this issue with those various players in the industry, we can come up with some model. The Trade Practices Commission is very keen to do this, as is the Insurance Commission. Honourable members may be aware that the Insurance Commission has taken upon itself a reference. It has to report back to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), I think by the end of this year and put forward some models as to the way in which we might resolve the complaint system problem. Another issue is that of disclosure and transparency. I think consumers have a right to know the in-built costs in any premium that they are paying. Regrettably, this has not been the case in many instances in the insurance industry. So there is a need for greater disclosure. There is a need to know what sort of commissions are being paid, particularly to the retailers. I say that because the retailers have an incentive to get people locked into credit insurance. If that incentive is worth while in monetary terms-it could be worth far more than selling the car, I suppose, to stretch the limit a little-the retailers will try to get everybody into credit insurance. It is no wonder that some companies have gone for high penetration, paying high commission to those people who work in second-hand car dealing firms to try to get people locked into credit insurance policies. I am not sure that consumers always understand what they are getting into. I have had some examples presented to me where people might buy a car for $10,000 and the cost of the credit insurance is another $3,000 on top of that, and sometimes far more. People have a right to know. They have a right to true competition. When they walk into a car yard and they are offered credit insurance, they ought to be given the opportunity to walk away, go out in the marketplace and find providers of credit insurance who will offer them a cheaper policy. As honourable members would understand, that is not always possible. Half the time, people who go to car dealers on a Saturday morning or a Saturday afternoon have spotted the car and tested it out mechanically, and that is all they are concerned about. They know that they can afford the $70 a week, the $240 a month, or whatever it is, and that is their main consideration. But we need to educate consumers more. We need to educate them as to their rights and their responsibilities. I suppose we need to come up with some objectives. Whilst the Bill does not pertain to this, the Insurance Commission has a special interest in these issues. From talking to Mr Peter Beatham I am very much aware not only of his expertise but also of his special interest in this field. We need more informed consumers. Obviously we need an efficient and viable industry otherwise we will not have the insurance industry prevailing. We need the lowest possible cost to consumers. We need fairness in the commission system. We certainly need a true choice when it comes to the provision of insurance credit. We need limited controls-and I stress `limited controls'-over the marketplace because those controls ultimately result in cost to the consumers. Finally, we need a complaint resolution-type system that will bring justice to the consumer and to the insurance industry. I have spoken to people in the general insurance industry in Queensland, whose concern is that too often they have to bring down a judgment on the side of the consumer because they are afraid not to. They are afraid that if they do not bring down that judgment they will be criticised as being the crooks and rorters in the system, so they tend to move towards the consumer's position irrespective of the validity of the claim made against them. In recent times I have had a lot of confidence in the executive members of the ICA, the executive members of AFCO such as Robin Brown, and members of the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, the Bureau of Consumer Affairs and the credit council group. I am confident that as these groups continue to work together we are going to solve many of the problems that exist. I would hope that more members of parliament will get involved in this area, because all of us have in our electorates people who have particular complaints. We need to bring down a model which will be in the best interests of everybody. As I said, we could follow the British model of using an ombudsman. We could come up with our own Australian model. But we have to keep in mind the costs of establishing such a complaint mechanism. We have to ensure that the industry is still given the incentives to continue to be the provider of general insurance, life insurance and particularly, in this instance, credit insurance. I am extremely confident that, in view of the calibre of people involved in the industry-I mention John Tamblyn from the TPC, Darryl Maddern from the Bureau of Consumer Affairs and the people involved in AFCO, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission and ICA-we can achieve our aims. But, if we do not resolve the problem, we will have to act in a legislative way. My final message to the House of Representatives this evening is that we have a special responsibility to ensure that the consumer is protected. I personally believe that we can do that with an industry-based scheme. But if we cannot get that cooperation and that consensus, we must go down the legislative path. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.07) —in reply-I would like to thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) for their contributions to the debate. I was disappointed with the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition which, like his contribution last evening, was mostly irrelevant to the matter before the House. The contribution of the honourable member for Capricornia was constructive and thoughtful. I would like to add that the insurance industry of Australia is increasingly looking to the insurance of our international trade. That is an area that it should properly aspire to. The development of industry in that area will provide considerable benefit to this country in the production of our invisibles. In summary, this legislation provides only for the recovery of the costs of supervision of the general life insurance industries. Its measures will also provide worthwhile increased protection for the insuring public and, consistent with the Government's broad approach to regulation, it will not impose undue burdens on the industries involved. Two matters were raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Firstly, the Bill does not deal with the taxation of life offices or friendly societies. Secondly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised the matter of the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission. I just say for the record that the Constitution does not give scope for the Commonwealth to supervise the operations of State government insurance offices. I think that is very well known to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. As I said, most of his contribution was irrelevant to the legislation before the chamber. I welcome the support of the Opposition and I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Triticale Levy Collection Bill, the Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill and the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill: There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(11.10) —The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill is the major of the four Bills which are before us tonight, but they are all connected with grain or rural research. All the Bills are supported by the Opposition. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill implements those aspects of the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport which refer to grain handling and storage and which are implementable at Federal level. The Royal Commission made three sets of specific recommendations-one concerning storage and handling, one concerning land transport and a third concerning ports and shipping. This legislation alters the requirements of the Australian Wheat Board by removing the sole receiver requirement for the Board in dealing with wheat storage in each of the States-that is, it removes the State bulk handling monopoly for the storage of wheat relating to the Wheat Board in each State, Secondly, it requires the Australian Wheat Board to maximise net returns to growers and, thirdly, it requires the Board to disaggregate costs. All these proposals have the strong support of the Government-obviously, as it is its legislation-and equally of the Grains Council of Australia, the Australian Wheat Board and the Federal coalition. The reactions of the State governments and the State bulk handling authorities vary from hostility to acceptance. Some are concerned about the effect that this legislation will have on the operations of the State bulk handling authorities and some are concerned as to what it will mean for the profitability of the State rail monopolies and also the potential weakening of the power of the States through the State rail monopolies to direct grain to certain ports. However, I point out that the States continue to have constitutional responsibility over the bulk handling monopolies although that could be contestable, using the foreign affairs or export power in relation to the Wheat Board and the movement of grain for export. In spite of the reactions, which have varied, the response by the bulk handling authorities has been very good. For the harvest that is under way in Queensland and northern New South Wales we already have in place all those reforms that can be implemented by this legislation. These were negotiated in advance by the Wheat Board, the Grains Council and the State bulk handling authorities and they have been achieved in a remarkably short time. This is a great achievement and those bodies should be congratulated. What is being implemented in practice this season as a result of this legislation? First of all, with storage and handling, the statutory charges have been replaced with actual costs or charges and the deductions of those charges will be made at the time they are incurred-that is, disaggregation of costs. Secondly, there will be a warehousing or storage facility provided for wheat growers. They will have possibly until next July to make up their minds when they store the wheat in the approved storage facility whether they sell it for cash, particularly for domestic stock feed through the Wheat Board, put it into the pooling system or use it on a grower-to-buyer arrangement which itself is improved by the flexibility of these new provisions. The legislation also allows the Wheat Board to return to the domestic stock feed market which it has been shut out of for several years. One million tonnes of wheat has been sold for that purpose. Because of the flexible storage and handling and better cash payment arrangements, the Wheat Board can once again become a force in the domestic stock feed markets, and it is already. In Queensland it has lifted the price by at least $5 a tonne compared with what was being offered by the traders. It also puts a floor into that market. Months ago the coalition shadow Ministry supported in principle these proposals for more flexible marketing, storage and handling arrangements and for the Wheat Board to retain it export monopoly. I am pleased that the Government at least appears to be accepting the commonsense of the export monopoly by the Wheat Board and the practicality of it by backing off its original proposal to remove the Wheat Board's export monopoly. What we have seen so far is fine. It is all positive and remarkably quick action by the wheat industry and those organisations involved with it. But that is only one-third of the Royal Commission's recommendations. The other two-thirds relate to transport and ports and shipping. In fact, the major part of the $10 per tonne saving that the McColl Royal Commission claimed could be made by the implementation of its recommendations comes from surface transport and competition at that level and not from grain handling and storage. So once again we see the double standard of this Government. When a problem relates to farmers, to rural people, action is required instantly, but when it relates to the other sectors of this society there is a very long timetable and sometimes a never-never timetable. I want to support the point I am making by referring to the speech by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in Ballarat during the last week of the election campaign in July last year. He repeated the comments he made in Ballarat in his speech to the Business Council of Australia on 11 October this year. He indicated that micro-reform of the economy would be the chief priority of this Government. He listed grain handling, transport, the two airlines agreement, the waterfront and coastal shipping as those areas of micro-reform. What is the Government's record so far? We know what it is with grain handling. It is abrupt action. In spite of problems and difficulties for those State bulk handling authorities and for the growers, whether directly as growers or as shareholders or users of the bulk handling authorities, everything is in place in remarkably short time for this harvest. But after that, the achievement record of this Government shows very little. Very little has been achieved for transport, nothing for the airlines, nothing for the waterfront and nothing for coastal shipping. In regard to surface transport, the Royal Commission indicated that the main savings to growers could come from competition between road and rail for the transport of wheat. With the exception of South Australia, which has had no restrictions on competition-it has been easy for South Australia, because it does not own the State railways, the Commonwealth owns them-and I understand now New South Wales, there are very severe road restrictions in all of the wheat growing States because the State governments rely on the controlled transport of grain to prop up their inefficient railways. In New South Wales and Victoria alone the State railways incur deficits each year of about $1 billion in each State. One of the few profitable sections of those State railways is the transport of grain. In Victoria it is estimated that there is a cost recovery on grain transport of 110 or 120 per cent. Of course, they are also able to control the port destination. Mr Tim Fischer —Such as Geelong. Mr LLOYD —Yes, Geelong versus Port Kembla or Brisbane versus Newcastle-or South Australia versus Victoria, for that matter. Mr Tim Fischer —Southern Riverina wheat to Geelong. Mr Hawker —No, Portland. Mr LLOYD —I acknowledged all of those points made by my colleagues. For road transport to be competitive, the restrictions on the limits of road transport, not only for contractors but also for growers, to carry grain have to be lifted, that is, up to the 42.5 tonne maximum limit for ordinary semi-trailers and the introduction of B-doubles in a more general form, because two B-doubles will carry the same as three maximum weight semitrailers and do less road damage. This can be done by the Federal Government either through Federal interstate registrations or, as the Grains Council of Australia and the Business Council of Australia have recommended, through the introduction of Federal international registrations, once again using the export power. Progress has been made with the 42.5 tonne limit but I understand that, instead of the Federal Government unilaterally allowing Federal interstate B-double registrations so that they can take on State railways, there are negotiations taking place with the States. Once again we see the double standard-introduce it to expose the farmers, the wheat growers, but, when it comes to things that would help them in the other related industries, do not introduce it abruptly but discuss, negotiate and take years to achieve it. Of course, if there is to be more use of road transport, there will be some damage to roads, but, as McColl was suggesting, instead of putting more finance into road construction and maintenance there has been a dramatic reduction by this Government; and that continues even under the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill, which was debated earlier today. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) referred in his speech to the recommendation of the Royal Commission for Australian National to remove the $2.50 per tonne levy when wheat is transported by road in South Australia. I certainly want confirmation that that has happened, or is happening and is not just being promised, because the South Australian harvest is fast approaching. What about the waterfront? Absolutely nothing has been done. We can go back to the Webber task force of 1984, the first of the so-called reform committees. Four years later there is no progress whatsoever. The Inter-State Commission has released its preliminary report, and it is the third body to have investigated the waterfront in the last four years. A symposium was arranged to discuss that matter, and even some of the major employers boycotted it. How about the Government taking some action on the waterfront similar to that which it has taken in rural areas, whether in relation to sugar and the embargo, or the wheat growers-- Mr Hunt —Let's have a bit of adjustment on the waterfront. Mr LLOYD —That is right. Four years have been wasted; nothing whatsoever has been achieved. The same action should be taken by the Government in relation to the waterfront as it has taken in the rural sector, which it has quite often exposed to corrupt world trading practices. Mr Hunt —The industry sector has to adjust to the problems the unions have caused. Mr LLOYD —My colleague the honourable member for Gwydir will be very interested in this. The Prime Minister indicated there would be micro-reform in the two airlines agreement. Three years' notice was given for the termination of that agreement, and this Government even wasted nine months before it actually made that decision. Mr Duncan —Your Government put the three years into it-- Mr LLOYD —But this Government supported it, and it also wasted nine months before it even made the decision. I would keep quiet if I were the Minister, unless he is prepared to take similar action in those related industries that the Prime Minister talked about. I acknowledge that there has been some progress in coastal shipping, and I acknowledge that the parties to coastal shipping are willing to talk and introduce further reform. But it is a painfully slow timetable and they want some Government cash in there as well. Rural people are aware of this Government's double standard: that their costs are loaded and that they are exposed to world risks while all of these related measures that would assist them to be profitably competitive are on the never-never. I now move to the Triticale Levy Bill and related Bills. The triticale industry is a developing grain producing industry in this country. Triticale is a cross of wheat and rye and can be grown in harsher or more marginal areas than wheat can be grown in. Until now there has been a voluntary levy arrangement, which is to the credit of those growers. This is a legislative levy under the special rural research fund arrangements, the dollar for dollar matching system which is part of the rural industry research funds. I understand that it will raise $160,000 from growers and the same amount from the Government for this year. Mr Peter Fisher —It is a pity manufacturing industry did not do the same. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia needs no assistance from those sitting on the back benches. Mr LLOYD —I was coming to that. Associated with it is the Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill which corrects some of the anomalies and also introduces the user pays system in the sense that the costs of the administration are deducted from the levy. The Opposition parties support both pieces of legislation as well as commending the triticale growers. The point I want to make is that which the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) made: that is, the remarkable way in which the farmers of this country contribute to research. They contribute far more to research than any other sector of our society. That is why they remain the most efficient. Although there has been an increase of the Government's commitment, through the rural industry research funds, because the farmers themselves are prepared to put in more on the dollar for dollar arrangement, that is no substitute for the dramatic reduction in research funds, particularly to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which has now suffered a reduction of over 30 per cent under this Government. We now have a badly skewed balance on research because of the greater amount of money going into the rural industry research fund arrangements with not an adequate amount going into CSIRO and the more basic research. I conclude by saying that the coalition supports the legislation but criticises the Government for its double standards and its failure to maintain an adequate contribution to the research requirements of this country. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(11.27) —I also rise to support this legislation and the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Lloyd). The Australian Wheat Board (AWB), as we know, is a marketing cooperative. Its only goal is to serve the Australian wheat growers. The main functions of the Wheat Board are to market and control marketing of Australian wheat; to encourage and promote the use and sale of Australian wheat; and to consult, cooperate and enter into agreements with authorised receivers. The Australian market is without doubt one of the most important and largest to the Wheat Board, with sales in 1986-87 totalling 1.6 million tonnes. Total domestic sales in that period were worth $326m. Export sales through the Wheat Board were worth $1,982m. Export sales of wheat continue to be affected by the subsidies of European Economic Community countries. In 1986-87 some of Australia's markets were lost. The Australian Wheat Board has just released its latest harvest forecast at 13.9 million tonnes-some 400,000 tonnes and $82m less than previously anticipated. Wheat prices today remain at close to their highest levels on record in Australian dollar terms, with the Wheat Board quoting Australian standard white at $US170 as of yesterday. The importance of the industry can be seen from these figures. This cannot be overemphasised. The current debate before the Parliament on the proposed restructuring of wheat marketing is of great significance to this large and important industry. The McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport was formed with separate terms of reference issued by the Commonwealth and the States to report on the nature of the most efficient and cost-effective system for meeting Australia's future grain distribution needs and to make recommendations to implement such a system. The final report of this Royal Commission has made a number of recommendations for change. The Commission believes that the changes which affect the responsibility of marketing boards concerning the minimisation of storage, handling and transport costs, the ability to appoint more than one licensed receiver, and the disaggregation of the costs of port services and sea transport, should be implemented immediately. There are a number of areas in which the present transport and handling system does not provide maximum benefits to producers. McColl concluded that up to $10 per tonne in savings could be achieved by a more flexible and competitive system of handling, storage and transport; in fact, a possible annual benefit across Australia of $100m could be achieved. It should be noted, however-and this was emphasised by the Deputy Leader of our Party-that the Royal Commission kept out of the marketing area by intent, but seemed to avoid the industrial issues, I assume, because of their difficulty and potential for controversy. This is to be regretted, as industrial practices and restrictive working arrangements have cost the Australian wheat grower dearly over the past few years. I turn to the main thrust of the legislation, which I fully support and which has the support of the Australian Wheat Board and the Grains Council of Australia. The Bill provides for the AWB to enter into contracts for services related to grain storage and transport and includes all bodies corporate with whom the AWB has a contract for wheat receival. No longer will the AWB be disallowed from dealing with bodies other than the sole receiver authorised in each State. The Board will be able to contract with whoever will provide the best returns for growers. The Board must also provide disaggregated charges for these services in its accounts to growers to the extent that this is possible and does not incur significant net additional costs. Growers will therefore be more aware of the costs associated with each individual service employed to receive, handle and transport their grain and will be in a better position to make choices. Such changes will allow the AWB more flexibility, a capacity to exercise choice between various receivers, the removal of sole receiver rights, the commercialisation of bulk handling authorities, and it will bring them under the Trade Practices Act. While this Bill does not have the authority to implement recommendations of the Royal Commission on other aspects of our transport system, I place the Government and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) on notice that this legislation will not have full impact if action is not taken to provide adequate funding for local roads or to attack the abuses and corruption of our ports and shipping. Rural people and primary producers in particular have borne the full brunt of cost cutting, restructuring and the harsh winds of corrupt markets over the last few years, and they have had enough. This issue is most vital. It affects the very heart and soul of the wheat growing industry in Australia, particularly and specifically the Mallee and Wimmera regions of my electorate. Wheat growers have been plundered by the greed of governments through excessive rail costs that have not been imposed on urban transport users. They have been plundered by the taxes imposed on growers' facilities. It is a crime for which any commercial company ought to be thrown in gaol, particularly the taxes imposed on our handling authorities in Victoria by the Victorian Government. We have seen inefficiencies in handling and storage, particularly on wharves and, as I have already mentioned, restrictive work practices and in some cases industrial blackmail. State and Federal governments are therefore on notice that the McColl report's recommendations are a stark reminder of the rorts and rip-offs that have brought the most convenient, extensive and efficient handling system into disrepute and decay. Compounding this issue have been the worst economic conditions in the history of our economic development. Low commodity prices and corrupt world trading conditions are out of Australia's control, but those that are within our control include high fuel prices and social policies such as the assets test discrimination which requires the asset of land to earn income. This Bill is fully supported by the Opposition. It is one step forward. Unfortunately, if the other recommendations of McColl are not implemented, it will be two steps backwards. I refer very briefly to other matters in this cognate debate, particularly the Triticale Levy Bill. This legislation provides for the imposition and collection of a levy on growers of triticale to finance research. It is similar to many other research Acts that are already in operation for other rural industries, such as grain legumes, cotton and sugar. It allows for a levy of $1 per tonne to be applied, with provision for the rate to be varied to a maximum of $2. As my Deputy Leader, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has already mentioned, rural industries participate fully and cooperate under these research Acts in order to assist both their own industries and the general economy of Australia. It is therefore appalling to me that our major research organisation, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, has seen a 32 per cent cut from its last five budgets. We know that rural industries fund 22 per cent of its overall research effort and it has, unfortunately, been subsidising through this research into manufacturing industry over the years. Yet in the CSIRO we see the Division of Plant Industry research capacity has been cut by 33 per cent. The Division of Entomology has had a loss of some 20 scientific staff this year and there have been some cuts in the Division of Animal Production of 50 per cent over the last six years. Rural industry is worth $22 billion to this country and it is worth $15 billion in exports. It is vital to Australia's future. Because of what has happened in the area of scientific research over the last few years in this country there will be serious consequences. I support this legislation. I believe that it will bring long term benefits to the Australian grain industries. Mr Tim Fischer —More flexibility. Mr PETER FISHER —I hope that it also brings more flexibility from the Government particularly in the transport sector. It should be recognised that grain should have more flexibility on its routes to the various ports particularly from southern New South Wales, Riverina to Geelong and in my area from Victoria into the port of Portland. I support the legislation and I sincerely hope that the sort of legislation that we see here tonight is also brought forward in the area of transport in the very short term. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(11.37) —In speaking in this cognate debate I must comment that in listening to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) one would think that it is all doom and gloom. That is not the case and there is probably a revitalised interest in farming and I think farmers have probably got more confidence than they have had for a long time. This is largely due to the excellent season and also I believe due to the actions taken by this Government. Both the honourable member for Mallee and the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) lamented the lack of action on behalf of this Government. This is a joke. What did these people do when they were in power? They did nothing, nothing at all. When in government they had the power to do it and they did not act. I want to address my remarks initially to the Triticale Levy Bill. I think that this is a very sensible piece of legislation. It will set up a fund for research into triticale. I think there is a lot of potential there, and it will be funded on an equal basis by the Commonwealth up to a value of 0.5 per cent of the crop. Many people believe that triticale is a port in Sri Lanka; it is actually a grain cross between rye and wheat, a fertile hybrid, and it is very useful particularly in the chicken feed industry because of its higher digestibility. It is also very useful in my State of Western Australia which is the biggest wheat growing State in the Commonwealth. The varieties used there mainly are, kooyong, triala and currency, all of which I understand are South Australian varieties. There is a very good reason for doing research to find types of triticale which will grow even better on the acid sand plains that exist in Western Australia in quite large areas. It has the added value that it grows on fragile sands and I believe has a part to play in rehabilitation in those areas that have perhaps been overcropped before or do not stand up too much chemical cropping. As I said earlier, I think that this is a very commendable move. For this reason I know that it has the complete support of the Opposition, perhaps a little churlishly given. Mr Hawker —Oh, come on! Mr CAMPBELL —I think that is quite fair, given the constant criticism by those opposite. I now turn to the wheat marketing aspects of this Bill. I strongly support the direction of this Bill and support entirely what it endeavours to do. Unlike the Opposition, however, I have great reservations about the deregulation of the domestic market. This was not mentioned by the Opposition. I want to take issue with a few things that were said. For instance, we heard the great cry that we must see more road transport of wheat. The Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport itself pointed out that there was a massive subsidy by the taxpayer of the levy haulage of grain by road. From memory, it estimated that the subsidy was something like $33,000 per eight-wheeled truck. It is a significant cost. If we are to talk about costs we have to talk about real costs. Somebody has to end up paying. That is what honourable members opposite seem to forget. They lament that the Government is seeking to implement these changes by negotiation. They should bear in mind that most grain is carted over local roads. The Government has increased funding for local roads. But no organisation, no government could increase funds to counter the degradation of those roads by heavy trucks. The wear is simply enormous. I believe that we must look at the real costs of that haulage. It may be that with the real cost to society grain haulage is still cheaper by rail. When we look at raid costs we see Opposition members lambasting the Government. They imply, of course, that the Federal Government controls rail freight but, of course, the State governments do so. It is interesting to know that the worst offenders are in eastern Australia where the inefficient railways are. Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have all had their share of Liberal governments which have maintained extortionate rates for the haulage of wheat. In Western Australia, on the other hand, where we have arguably the most efficient rail system in the world, the railway has managed to keep down the cost of grain haulage and is very competitive against road transport. There has probably been a greater measure of deregulation in Western Australia than in any State except South Australia. I think it was the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) who pointed out that South Australia no longer owns railways and therefore no longer has to worry about these issues. It is commendable that the Western Australian railway, Westrail, has managed to keep down its haulage costs on grain. In fact, for two years it has actually reduced the costs. Credit should be given there. Other aspects of this Bill are very important. Opposition members have alluded to the chaos on the water front. This clearly is a problem that the Government has to face. I am sure this Government will not run away from those problems as the previous did. Mr Hawker —Oh, come on! Mr CAMPBELL —The honourable member for Wannon says, `Come on' but the Opposition was in government for a long time and it did nothing. It took no action whatsoever. This Government will endeavour to take action. We are already starting to see a shift in attitudes. For instance, the Seamen's Union of Australia is probably more amenable to change and increases in efficiency than it has ever been in its whole existence. It is a trend that I hope continues. I agree that waterfront inefficiencies are there and they have to be tackled. But to lambast this Government for failing to act when the Opposition had so much opportunity itself is manifestly unfair. It will be seen as unfair and hypocritical by the people of Australia. It is clear that the initiatives benefit the Australian Wheat Board, its ability to offer new services and its ability to choose who will receive and handle its grain. They are initiatives that are long overdue. I do not think it will make much difference in Western Australia which has the facilities and where bulk handling has a good record. I do not expect to see many changes there. But it has certainly served notice on the various handling authorities that there will be competition and already we have seen a dramatic improvement in efficiency and a willingness to explore new ideas in this regard. I believe the overwhelming bulk of the savings identified by the Royal Commission can be achieved without deregulating domestic wheat marketing. It is an area that concerns me greatly. I would like to be sure, before I support that proposal, that the benefits will flow to growers. At the moment, I am certainly not convinced of that. It is my view that if these benefits cannot be identified, they probably do not exist. I would like to spend more time on this legislation but with the agreed allotted time of 10 minutes I have probably covered all the ground I can. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(11.45) —In addressing the Triticale Levy Bill, the Triticale Levy Collection Bill, the Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill and the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill I would like to start by taking up a few points mentioned by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). I thought it was amazing that he would criticise the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), when he was not even in the House to listen to him. He then went on to say how the Government had increased funding for local roads. We debated in the House earlier today the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill, which pointed out very clearly how the Government has cut funding for roads. The honourable member also accused the previous coalition Government of doing nothing to try to reduce the waterfront costs. The first thing I point out to the honourable member is that the present Government has been in office now for 5 1/2 years and has done nothing. On the other hand, the previous Government set about reducing the manning levels on the waterfront. It is my understanding that under the previous Government the number of waterside workers was reduced from 23,000 to about 5,000. Therefore, to say that that Government did nothing shows an extraordinary amount of ignorance. Furthermore, that Government, to its very great cost, had the courage to institute the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to look into some of the worst practices one could ever see when it comes to dishonesty on the waterfront. To say that the previous Government did nothing I think shows sheer, utter ignorance. I would like to address a few points in regard to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. As has been mentioned by previous speakers, this Bill will, in fact, give the Australian Wheat Board the opportunity to allow growers to benefit from the Board no longer having to have a sole receiver in each State. Of course, this will have the advantage of giving the growers the chance to see what their real costs are because these will be disaggregated. Also there will be options for growers in regard to warehousing. For those growers who want to take advantage of this it will allow them to store things such as feed wheat and to market their wheat to their best advantage. There will also be other opportunities for introducing special segregations for the domestic market. Clearly, the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport highlighted that there are indeed substantial savings available for wheat growers in the storage, handling and transport area. Obviously, this legislation is a first step. We wish that the Government could move a bit faster on this, but at least it has started to move in the storage area. The thing that concerns me is whether the Government will be prepared to take the next step in the transport area. One of the reasons I raise that point is that earlier this year the Australian Railways Union in its re-election manifesto was very quick to boast: The ARU leads the way in the fight to keep Grain Regulated to Rail in this state of Victoria. When there is something like $10 a tonne riding on various excess costs it is clear that rail is one of those significant factors. The other factor that has been alluded to by other members is, of course, the ports. As I have already mentioned earlier in response to some of the comments of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, I am very concerned that the Government will not have the strength or the determination to act on the ports. Some of the rorts in the ports and in the railways really have to be seen to be believed. I think it is worth reminding honourable members of some of the things that have been going on. When we look at, say, the waterfront, we find that over-regulated, union-controlled coastal shipping and waterfronts are costing dearly. Of course, the grain industry is just one industry that is paying a very high price for this. In fact, research by the McColl Royal Commission showed that shore based costs associated with the export of grain amount to about $1 billion annually or nearly $60 a tonne. That is equivalent to around 36 per cent of the f.o.b. value of wheat. As the McColl Royal Commission has pointed out, at least $3.50 a tonne could be saved by abolishing restrictive work practices and putting an end to the disputes that have been going on at the waterfront. We are often reminded of the stupidity which went on in New South Wales a couple of years ago and which cost grain growers in that State, and to a lesser extent in other States, at least $200m-in fact, more than the total amount of annual savings that the McColl Royal Commission outlined. As ACIL pointed out in its submission to the Royal Commission, some of the excessive costs of restrictive practices have to be seen to be believed. ACIL outlined just a few, which I will describe to honourable members tonight. The State Rail Authority of New South Wales still changes the crews of its modern diesel electric locomotives at the same times and places as it did for its long gone steam engines; that is, at the points of taking on coal and water. The result is an unnecessary reduction in the effective operational hours of trains and a corresponding loss of productivity. It sounds almost unbelievable, but that is the sort of thing that has been going on, not only in New South Wales but also in other States. As ACIL pointed out, train crews are paid for a seven-hour shift, even if they have to work only one to two hours. There is also the enormous cost of ferrying them around the country in taxis. Again, that does not occur only in New South Wales. Mr Peter Fisher —They don't even have alarm clocks to wake up with. They have to be woken up. Mr HAWKER —That is right. On occasions cheaper and more flexible private sector port terminal and loading facilities have been opposed because they have conflicted with the entrenched position or future plans of the railways or the bulk handling authorities. When the continuous running of grain loading facilities, offsetting the problems of staggered working hours-which is a story in itself-was introduced in Sydney in May 1986, productivity rose by a staggering 35 per cent, the gain being equivalent to Newcastle's traditional grain shipments. However, because it reduced the overtime worked, the unions kicked up a fuss and the policy was discontinued after only two months. Some of these things are so outrageous they are almost impossible to believe, but they are the sorts of things that have been going on. They are the sorts of things that the Royal Commission was alluding to when it said that savings would be available if some of the restrictive work practices were removed, together with the disaggregation of costs and the removal of sole receiver rights for storage. We have now to see whether the sole transport rights that are still available in a number of States are removed by the Government. The Government should do a little more than just talk about how it is going to do something to clean up the waterfront. We have seen the Government bring out report after report. In fact, there has been about one a year for every year of this Government. Each report tells us the same thing. Each time the answer is, `We had better have another report because we do not know what to do'. Another point that has been raised by a couple of honourable members tonight is funding for research. Clearly, the primary industry sector can be proud of its efforts in research. This Government certainly has been prepared to support the rural industry research funds. However, I cannot say the same for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. For five years in a row its funding has been cut. Each year the Government has ignored the pleas of the Opposition, when we have pointed out the damage the cuts would do, not only to our research effort but also to long term increases in productivity, that it do something positive to improve our export performance in areas other than primary industries. Yet, despite this, the Government has continued to ignore our pleas until now-just this year-when the pressure has finally built up. What has the Government done? It has announced another inquiry. A committee will consider the matter. It has taken five years to reach this point and now we are going to have another inquiry. Apparently, the Yes, Minister syndrome is alive and well. I conclude by saying that we support the Bills. I hope that the changes in the Wheat Marketing Act will bring substantial savings to growers. These savings are long overdue. Clearly, the growers have been paying far too much of the costs associated with getting their crop onto the ships. This one step is welcome, but there are many more steps to go. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.54) —I have much pleasure in speaking to the Triticale Levy Bill, the Triticale Levy Collection Bill, the Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill and the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. I am pleased to see the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) at the table. Often when we speak to Bills such as these we do not have the Minister present. It is good that at least the Minister has been prepared to give up his time to be here tonight. First of all I should like to express my amazement at some of the speakers on the Labor side who have spoken in the debate this afternoon on the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill. We have heard some nonsense from them. The report of the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport recommended that there be a freeing up of the grain industry, yet the Labor Government has seen fit not only to reduce spending on local roads throughout Australia and the roads we use to cart grain to our rail heads or to port, but also there has been a massive increase in fuel taxes in that time. People on the Government side conveniently forget that the Government has introduced the indexation of fuel excise, and there have been increases of billions of dollars coming into Consolidated Revenue from the road users of this nation. Yet tonight we are asking the grain growers of Australia to look to other traders in the market, to free up the system and to use our road system more. I put it to the Minister that unless his Government and Cabinet are prepared to allocate more funds to roads, the whole system will collapse under the weight of tonnes of grain moving across our now inadequate road system, the maintenance of which is falling way behind. The Minister need only travel across the electorates of Mallee and Maranoa to see what is happening. In addition, all sorts of cuts have been made to the rural industries across Australia, particularly the wheat industry and people growing triticale. There have been massive cuts in support for primary industry. It is amazing to think that primary industry is one of the few industries that contributes dollar for dollar to research, and the Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill deals with research. There has been a $37m cut in the superphosphate subsidy; a $50m cut in road funding; a $190m cut in the depreciation allowances; a $124m increase in levies and charges; a 4.5 per cent increase in fuel excise; a $5.4m cut in assistance for isolated children, and so it goes on and on. There has also been the introduction of assets testing in respect of isolated children. Wheat farmers have to send their children to boarding school in many instances. There has been an 8.7 per cent cut in finance to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which is dealt with in the Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill. I have two other pages of examples to refer to. Since 1972 when the Labor Government came to office there has been a massive removal of up to $1 billion from various aspects of primary industry and wheat growing across the nation. Yet Government members continue to crow and think we are doing better than ever, but we are not. The industry needs support and encouragement, particularly in the taxation area, to encourage it to invest and produce. While all these things have been going on we have seen a massive increase in our debt structure and a massive fall in our balance of payments; we are running at $1 billion a month in debt. The only people who are really trying to get us out of that problem are those in the farming industry. If it were not for the increase in the price of wheat, wool and beef, we would be in severe financial difficulty in this nation; so we must thank the farmers once again. Australia still rides on the sheep's back, and that situation is gong to continue. It is the job of those of us who represent rural electorates to support rural industry. The Triticale Levy Bill has been introduced. Triticale is a cross-breeding of barley and rye, and for the first time the growers of this grain have asked the Government to set up a research regime to which the three cognate Bills make it compulsory for farmers growing this grain to contribute. The Government's intention is to pick up $160,000 to be used in research. We do not oppose the Bill. Those of us in primary industry are prepared to contribute to research. The government puts up a dollar and we put up a dollar, and get on and do the job. We hope that at the end of the day we will see some improvement. That is the only way we can continue to keep ahead of the rest of the world. We have to be efficient and we have to earn the export dollars that are so badly needed to help the Treasurer (Mr Keating) put his Budget in place. The initial levy rate will be set at $1 a tonne, with provision for the rate to be varied to a maximum of $2 a tonne. In other words, the levy is in place at $1 to start with and it can be increased to $2 without the need to introduce a Bill for a $50 increase. That is something that has happened in most of the research Bills and it saves a lot of work within the Department and within the Parliament. We support that concept, provided the Government does not take the opportunity to increase levies at too fast a rate. There are two Bills associated with the main Bill, the Triticale Levy Bill, which sets up the regime, and the Triticale Levy Collection Bill, which strikes the rate for the research levy on the industry. One of the other Bills is the Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill. The Government cut $8.7m from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's allocation in the last Budget and we have heard all sorts of screams coming from that organisation. At a time when emphasis needs to be placed on research in rural industries we seem to have a push towards high-tech industries. I do not know what they have come up with of late. Barry has been in here pulling a few things out of his pocket, but nothing much has happened to help the balance of payments. The people who have been helping, the balance of payments are the farmers, but all we have copped is a kick in the guts and a decrease in the amount of money the Government is prepared to put up. I remind the House again that while farmers put up their dollar for dollar share, the great CSIRO, which is now being run by an ex-Premier of New South Wales, is being ripped apart. Every scientist working in that area will vouch for that. The CSIRO is no longer the world leader in research into primary industries, as it used to be. It was set up and financed and run exceptionally well under various heads, but now it is falling away and is attempting to concentrate on other areas of industry-secondary industry, if you like. Primary industry is being affected by the lack of research. The CSIRO has been at the cutting edge of all sorts of new fly sprays, new drenches, new everything, but this Government does not seem to wish to support it as previous governments used to. I think that is very poor. The explanatory notes on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill state: The proposed amendments will provide for the Australian Wheat Board to enter into contracts for the provision of grain storage, handling, carriage and port services. This is part of the McColl report-the first part that the Government has introduced. The Minister is suggesting all sorts of radical changes in the wheat industry. We have had rallies across the country, some of which the Minister has attended. At some he has been howled down and at others he has been supported. Basically, the wheat growers of this nation have told the Minister in no uncertain terms that they do not support the concept he is putting forward. He has already backed off on the export of feed grains. He was going to let Elders-IXL and other big companies get involved in feed grain export, but he has backed off that concept and has allowed the Australian Wheat Board to remain the sole exporter of all grains. I think that is a good thing. The Board has been set up for many years and does a very efficient and good job. My main purpose tonight is to point out to the Minister the problems that the Queensland grain industry has with this legislation. As he knows, some years ago the State Wheat Board, which is the agent of the Australian Wheat Board, appointed Bulk Grains Queensland as its agent. The growers, who own Bulk Grains Queensland, have a through put with that organisation of about 2.5 million tonnes. The interest and redemption costs about $8 a tonne. The interest and redemption of the $80m which they have borrowed is now $18m a year. This is the problem with the industry in Queensland. The Queensland Government is prepared to prepare separate legislation to appoint the Wheat Board as the sole handler of wheat in Queensland and to appoint the Australian Wheat Board as the agent to export. This is the only way that we can see around this piece of legislation. I remind the House that it is the growers that own the wheat boards across this nation; it is not some bogey in the Government or any other person. The grain growers are levied each year. When they deliver their grain there is a storage levy. They contribute and collect millions of dollars that are reinvested into storage facilities across the nation. This has been done in Queensland. They have had to build new port sites. They have set out to reorganise the industry and have borrowed a lot of money in doing so. They are $80m in debt. This Labor Government turns around and says to them, `Well, we are going to put some more players in the market for you. We are going to level off a few wheat fields and give you a bit of competition'. That would be all very well it we did not owe the sort of money that we owe and if we had not spent the money previously to try to increase the efficiency of our industry. We now find that we have an $18m interest and redemption payment per year. We cannot afford to lose a grain of wheat, sorghum, triticale, barley, oats or whatever it is that is put through Bulk Grains because Bulk Grains handles all grains in Queensland that come through the system. Some grains are still traded privately-there always has been and there always will be-but we cannot support the concept of allowing the Australian Wheat Board and the Australian Government, the Labor Government, to foist upon Bulk Grains Queensland and, indirectly, the Wheat Board this sort of legislation. Fortunately, in Queensland we have the National Party in Government. We are not going to accept the sort of suggestion that is on board in this piece of legislation. The other thing we must remember is that the more we force people away from the existing arrangements which have been set up-and I agree that there are some inefficiencies-the dearer the system becomes for those who stay in it. That is the other problem we have. We will find that, instead of paying $8 a tonne to move grain, growers will be will be paying $10 and $12 a tonne to move the same tonne of wheat. I would like to impress very much upon the Minister that we in Queensland are finding it practically impossible to live with this legislation. It is the intention of Bulk Grains and the State Wheat Board not to allow any other agencies to receive the grain that is produced in our State, because we have an established responsibility to Bulk Grains and we have to pay off the $80m, debt before we can contemplate any other agents coming into the market. I have much pleasure in speaking to these Bills. My brother, Brian Cameron, is a member of the State Wheat Board in Queensland and Bulk Grains. I have spoken with Don McKechnie, who is the Chairman of the Queensland Grain Growers Association, and with Don Christmas, who heads the Queensland Grain Growers Executive. I have also spoken with many members of the industry and those in my electorate. I represent practically every wheat grower in Queensland, because Maranoa covers the whole of the Darling Downs and central Queensland where the high protein quality grains are grown and we cannot accept the proposal put forward in the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. 9-10 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 9-10 November 1988 9-10 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, 10 November 1988 Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(12.10 a.m.) —I want to refer briefly to the new proposal in the Triticale Levy Bill 1988 to establish a triticale levy for research purposes. This represents, of course, as does the whole ambit of the research levies, a combination in the interest of the grower and user, and I believe this is an admirable move in an evolving smaller grain industry. It is aimed, as indeed research is, to increase the profit of the grower and the quality of the goods put to good use in processing by the user. Achieving the profit for the grower and the quality for the user requires a matching of the productive capacity of the land with the correct plant variety, and research in grains continues a long process which began with selection and then evolved into breeding, and it is a good thing that the support of the research has been extended into the triticale grain industry. It comes, of course, with fairly draconian measures to support a levy, as all levies must be so supported in law. However, we know that other industries have shown quite clearly the value of research, and as we look at the wheat varieties and barley varieties today we are grateful for the input of research scientists and the previous support given by the industry and the Government in those areas. I am particularly interested in the triticale, not that my State is a large grower by national standards. Figures I have show that South Australia produces only 7 per cent of the triticale in Australia. However, notable research has been conducted at the Waite Agricultural Research Institute. I have been contacted from time to time by those involved with that research. Dr Kath Cooper is a research fellow at the Waite Agricultural Research Institute. She is responsible for the national triticale breeding program and has been working on the program for six years. She works under the supervision of Professor D. Marshall, who is professor of agronomy and project chief investigator. 9-10 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 9-10 November 1988 9-10 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES In 1982 the Reserve Bank of Australia funded a program for the development of a drought resistant triticale. The funding terminated in 1985 but the work continued under the Australian special rural research fund. In 1984 a new stem rust strain affected all but one of the triticale cultivars. This meant that the selection of a rust resistant strain became a high priority. The Waite breeding program became a vital source of disease free material for Australian triticale programs. There have been regular dispatches of cultivars from the Waite to other projects since 1986. The Waite triticale program has continued to expand, and the emphasis was changing to cultivars for specific problem areas. In 1987 the most advanced generation yield data indicated an advantage over traditional cereals on soils deficient in zinc and manganese, infected with cereal cyst nematodes and those subject to waterlogging and toxic with boron. The best performing lines from 1987-88 were advanced to trials for 1988-89. It was anticipated this year that two more seasons would lead to new triticale cultivars adapted to specific environments. However, in April 1988 the Australian Special Rural Research Council conducted an inquiry into the funding of triticale research and found that the industry had developed to the point where it could reasonably be expected to contribute significantly to funding its own research. No funds were approved for continuation of the Waite program and no funds were approved for any triticale research in Australia. Dr Cooper's work is of the highest scientific quality, and she was given a grant of $20,000 to close down the program over a six-month period, which was called a final `rationalisation'. The news, however, of the proposed introduction of the levy caused Dr Cooper to keep working, without salary, as funding finished in June and the $20,000 was not given until September. She has now obtained a one-off grant from the South Australian wheat and barley committees to continue her work until 1 July 1989. She is one of a number of scientists who have been involved in research programs on triticale. I certainly commend the work that she has put into this new industry. I trust that the funds which will be disbursed under this collection and the Government's support will be available for her in the sense that she will be able to put up a program which will be worthy of support on behalf of the industry. 9-10 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 9-10 November 1988 9-10 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The industry, I am told, in 1986-87 grew 220,000 tonnes on 140,000 hectares and that 60 per cent of this was grown in New South Wales. However, the industry is spread in smaller amounts: in Western Australia, 16 per cent; Victoria, 9 per cent; South Australia, 7 per cent, as I have already indicated; Queensland, 5 per cent; and Tasmania, 3 per cent. Therefore, although it is a specialist line of cereal, it is spread across Australia. No doubt it will remain a minor component of the cereals grown in Australia. We are well aware, as in all productive activities, that there are specialist areas which can use specialist plant varieties. I am sure that triticale will fulfil that role. It is interesting to read that the first serious research into triticale began in Manitoba when the Seagram family was interested in a new flavour, so I am told, for its whiskey. I do not know whether it was successful but certainly the research has lead to a new cereal variety. I commend the triticale levy research Bills and trust that the Waite research program will be supported by them. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(12.17 a.m.) —in reply-I wish briefly to comment on some of the points made by honourable members. I particularly thank the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) for his very informative words on triticale. I want particularly to talk about the wheat Bills, part of this package being debated cognately. This legislation relates to the Commonwealth part of the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport recommendations. As we all know, these matters are mainly the responsibility of State governments. It is important to realise that since the McColl report came down, and since I announced various Government moves on wheat marketing in general, we have had a Green Paper from Queensland which indicates that Queensland will take some steps with respect to its wheat marketing. The New South Wales Government has implemented, or is in process of implementing, much of the McColl recommendations, which is very welcome. The Australian Wheat Board is doing a range of things that I believe it could have done before, and even the Grains Council of Australia is also moving and making various suggestions. This makes the point that a little pressure every now and then gets things moving. I would point to the hotel analogy mentioned by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). If one protects industries too much with regulations, they do not change and other things take over. The in-principle part of the wheat package which will be debated in the autumn session is to get continuing savings, general economy-wide efficiency and also to look to the future when we will have more and more a livestock-grain sector rather than a traditional wheat-sheep belt. 9-10 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 9-10 November 1988 9-10 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Lloyd) made several points about reform in other areas. He said that this one was being done pretty abruptly but that in other areas the Government was being tardy. I am sure that he would accept that there are many areas where one just cannot get synchronisation of every reform at once. He instanced transport, waterfront, shipping and airlines. In respect of airlines, there is quite an amount of deregulation policy in place. As to shipping, the maritime unions have moved an enormous way, and much credit should go to the present Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris). I would point to the fact that Mrs Thatcher is just introducing cabotage on the English coast, and there are only two countries in the world which have done away with it I refer to the Netherlands and Belgium, which do not have a big coastal shipping problem. The waterfront package is being addressed by the Government. Decisions have been taken, so we are moving. In regard to road funding, I would relate that back to the general thrust of wheat marketing reform in this Bill. It is aimed at providing a competitive spur. At the end of the day the traditional system will be used, but I think it will be used more efficiently. The problem is that we have about $45m tonnes of storage, and there is probably a lot that we do not need. The means are available for designation for road funding and specific assistance to national arterial roads. I think that we will see that coming into better and better shape. I do not have time to comment on the contributions of other honourable members who made suggestions or asked questions. I will respond on the question of $2.50 mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) used the old double standard that cuts should not apply in certain areas. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 12.20 a.m., the time allocated for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that this Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. 9-10 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 9-10 November 1988 9-10 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)(12.21 a.m.) —in reply-I shall just finish my comments. I was speaking a while ago about the points made by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) about cuts and all the rest of it. I simply say that this year, for the first time, there is a big Budget surplus-the biggest Budget surplus for 35 years. The public sector borrowing requirement is down to nil. The Government is restructuring the Australian economy and it has put in place a 30 per cent tariff cut, which is worth between $350m and $400m in savings on costs to the farm sector; so it is not as if there is no quid pro quo. The honourable member asked me about high technology and research. A lot of it is in wool, a lot of it is in primary industries, and a lot of it is in wool textile production areas; it is in those areas that a lot of high technology is being put into place. It is important that the Government gets that message through to those who are not so wise in this matter. There is a lot of high technology research in our primary industries. The honourable member for Maranoa talked about all the rallies that had occurred. Recently I saw a poll which showed that 41 per cent of wheat farmers support me. I do not know where I have gone wrong! I am used to 3 per cent or 6 per cent support. I am a bit worried about that. The growers do own the wheat; that is quite true. There is a big public investment in wheat, and that is through underwriting and the national interest cover. The honourable member for Maranoa said that Queensland growers own $80m. I will just say that the McColl recommendations showed where savings could be made. If any State wishes to do what I think the Queensland Government will do, which is not to put itself in a position to pass on those savings to wheat farmers then so be it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Howe: 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 the motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. House adjourned at 12.26 a.m. (Thursday) The following notices were given: Mr Humphreys to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend various Acts relating to law and justice, and for related purposes. Mr Staples to present a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to community services and health, and for related purposes. Mr Andrew to move- That this House acknowledges the essential role that agricultural and veterinary chemicals have played in the development of agriculture in Australia and condemns the proposed Senate inquiry into agricultural chemicals as prejudicial and alarmist. Mr Nehl to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to clarify the application of the provisions of section 78 in respect of the Life Education Centre Incorporated and Life Education Centres. Mr Smith-to move- That this House: (1) recognises the need for Australia to develop urgently a national energy policy; (2) acknowledges the significant and vital contribution to the national wealth provided by our energy based industries such as oil, coal, uranium, gas and hydro generation; and (3) notes the complacency of the Government in not providing a taxation regime and other policies to foster the best development, exploration and utilisation of Australia's energy assets for the greater community welfare and accepts an urgency to address the situation. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 9 November 1988: Australian National Railways Commission Act-Australian National Railways Commission-General By-laws-Amendment No. 2. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1987-Directions-1988-Nos. 12, 13, 14. Social Security Act-Determination-1988-No. 1-Fees and Allowances Payable to Witnesses Appearing Before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.