Thursday, 10 November 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 Pharmaceutical drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-and place them for cost saving reasons only on a special list requiring Authority from a Canberra bureaucrat; and, that we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to seek permission from a bureaucrat in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann (from 10 citizens), Mr Baldwin (from 27 citizens), Mr N.A. Brown (from 52 citizens), Mr Cadman (from 45 citizens), Mr Chynoweth (from 27 citizens), Mr Cohen (from 26 citizens), Ms Crawford (from 122 citizens), Mr Dobie (from 102 citizens), Mr Duffy (from 82 citizens), Mr Fife (from 26 citizens), Mr Fitzgibbon (from 108 citizens), Mrs Harvey (from 92 citizens), Dr Hewson (from 27 citizens), Mr Hicks (from 27 citizens), Ms Jakobsen (from 27 citizens), Mr Johns (from 54 citizens), Mrs Kelly (from 17 citizens), Mr Lee (from 27 citizens), Mr McArthur (from 13 citizens), Ms McHugh (from 56 citizens), Mr Martin (from 54 citizens), Mr Moore (from 757 citizens), Mr Allan Morris (from 54 citizens), Mr Nehl (from 1,107 citizens), Mr Prosser (from 2046 citizens), Mr Reith (from 54 citizens), Mr Rocher (from six citizens), Mr Sharp (from 27 citizens), Mr Tuckey (from 94 citizens), Mr Webster (from 33 citizens) and Mr White (from 26 citizens). To The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whilst acknowledging the Government's desire to contain the growth in health costs, the introduction of 61 new drugs to the `Authority Required' listing will result in potentially serious delays in patients receiving medication prescribed by their doctors. Your petitioners request the House to immediately reverse the Government's decision and withdraw these drugs from the `Authorities Required' list. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy(from 41 citizens), Mr Prosser (from 203 citizens), Mrs Sullivan (from 290 citizens) and Mr Tuckey (from one citizen). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned at the Government's proposal to reduce significantly the pension and access to fringe benefits of persons who in good faith bought market linked insurance bonds, friendly society bonds, approved deposit funds, deferred annuities and unit trusts to protect their savings. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, amend the proposed legislation to ensure that it will not apply retrospectively and that provision is made to protect savings against inflation. by Mr Cowan (from 26 citizens) and Mr McArthur (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the House to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent (from 387 citizens) and Mr Milton (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: It is the petition of certain citizens of Australia that the surveys of the Australian Bureau of Statistics represent- (1) an unnecessary demand on the time of certain Australians; (2) an intrusion into the private affairs of individuals and families; and (3) excessive penalties for non-compliance. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House- (1) pass legislation making government statistical surveys voluntary; (2) ensure the protection of the privacy of Australians from government departments and authorities. by Mr Prosser (from 58 citizens) and Mr Tuckey (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Forrest respectfully showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely extensively on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infrastructure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Oppose any proposal to absorb road funds into General Revenue Assistance to either Local or State Governments; and Immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Prosser (from 21 citizens) and Mr Tuckey (from 55 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia, in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned electors in the State of Queensland respectfully showeth:- That the introduction of the two dollar coin as a replacement for two dollar note does not have the support of the Australian people and is too easily confused with the existing five cent coin, thereby causing much confusion for both the very young and the elderly in Australia. Your Petitioners, therefore, Humbly Pray that the Parliament of Australia will act immediately to remove the coin from circulation and reinstate the two dollar note as the only two dollar currency. And you Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann (from 64 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House Assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: To meet our educational, social and cultural needs, a university must be established in the ``Sunshine Coast Region'' (This would redress the current imbalance between the States in funding for tertiary places) And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann (from 2,668 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Mitchell draws to the attention of the House. the constant changes to retirement and veterans benefits. Your petitioners therefore request the House to: reject the Federal Government's punitive treatment of those who have prepared for retirement by careful saving and wise investment. by Mr Cadman (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mallee electorate respectfully showeth that: There is too much crime and violence on TV and depicted in videos and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. Urge TV stations to reduce the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. 2. Introduce tighter controls on the sale and classification of videos so as to limit the access of children to inappropriate material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification. call upon the House of Representatives to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X rated video material (and its R rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And Your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker (from 984 citizens). To The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Hawker (from 399 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: 1. They are concerned that in the Tuggeranong Valley area of the ACT, no non-government schools have Year 11 and 12 places. 2. They want the new Catholic secondary school to be built at Isabella Plains to go to Year 12. The petitioners request that the house of representatives in Parliament assembled ensure that adequate resources are provided by the government to allow Year 11 and 12 places to be provided at the Catholic Secondary School at Isabella Plains in accordance with the Government's commitment to a dual system of education and greater school retention to Year 12. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly (from 55 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60, caesium 137, caesium 134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted in Australia. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Parliament ban the importation of any radioactive substances or machinery for the purposes of food irradiation, disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in this country, and ban the irradiation of food in this country. We also call upon the parliament to advise the Federal Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerr (from 96 citizens). To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: A decision has been made by the Romanian Government to completely raze villages where there are fewer than 5,000 inhabitants. This will result in the loss of approximately 7-8,000 villages. This is against the wishes of these people and is a complete denial of their basic human rights. It would result in total cultural genocide of regions and ethnic minorities which have a history dating back to the middle ages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia does all that is within its power and influence to immediately halt this cultural genocide. by Mr Langmore (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we oppose any mineral exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park, the Kakadu Conservation Zone, or the Alligator Rivers Region. Your petitioners ask that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Halt all mineral exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone by revoking current leases and licences and by incorporating the zone in Kakadu National Park; and Prevent proposed mining in Kakadu stages one and two by incorporating the Jabiluka and Koongarra project areas in the National Park and by proclaiming the whole park under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The sale of violent videos, books glorifying violence, and toys of violence encourages violence in the community, and has a deleterious effect on the more vulnerable members of the community who are easily influenced. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ban the sale of violent videos, books and toys of violence, in an effort to put an end to the increasing number of violent crimes committed in this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur (from 55 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to our deep concern at the deaths and illnesses caused by the use of Tobacco. Particularly are we concerned that the youth of this Nation are exposed to extensive and persuasive advertising and other promotions which encourage them to start an addiction to Tobacco. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House enact those Laws and Regulations and do all those things in its power to prevent the further advertising and promotion of all tobacco products in the Commonwealth of Australia. by Ms McHugh (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and all Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Cowper respectfully showeth: That your petitioners deplore the proposed changes to the incomes test under the Social Security Act, as outlined in the Treasurer's Budget Speech. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to reject out of hand the concept of reducing pension payments to individuals on the basis of estimated future earnings as totally inequitable and unjust. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from six citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Cowper respectfully showeth that: The petition of certain qualified electors, residing in the Commonwealth of Australia, petition you to raise the current taxation threshold to $10,000.00 to assist senior citizens to maintain an equitable living standard. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Increase the current taxation threshold in regard to Age Pensions to $10,000.00. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens of the electorate of Cowper respectfully points out: That for the safety of the world's peoples of this and future generations, and for the integrity of our nation, the Government of Australia must initiate positive, independent action in support of world nuclear disarmament. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Denounce the testing, development and deployment of nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and control installations by any country; 2. Dissociate Australia from participation in these operations either directly through the provision of raw materials, logistic support and bases or facilities on our territory connected in any way with nuclear weaponry, or indirectly through tacit approval of the possession of nuclear arms by any country; 3. Endorse, support and emulate the courageous and moral stand of Prime Minister Lange, the government and people of New Zealand in repudiating any involvement with nuclear armaments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 99 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and all Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully draws to the attention of the House the inequities that presently exist in the treatment of pensioners' income. Your petitioners therefore ask that the house request the Government to: Abandon forthwith the changes to the Income Test for pensioners as proposed in the August 1988 Budget; Increase the Age Pension to 35% of Average Weekly Male Earnings; Ensure that married pensioners EACH receive the full pension; Increase the taxation threshold for pensioners to a minimum of $10,000; Allow EACH pensioner $70 per week of `other income' without any reduction of pension, and that this threshold be indexed to the CPI; Assess capital gains in the hands of pensioners only under the Assets Test, and NOT as income; Adjust capital gains in the hands of a pensioner for the effects of inflation over the term of the investment; Establish a superannuation fund to provide age pensions without a means test; and Not assess Bonus Units received by a pensioner until realised, in line with the recent judgment of the High Court (Department of Social Security vs Reid). And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and all Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the activities of the Soviet Union in our region and in particular the South Pacific are detrimental to and threaten the security of our country. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government not to enter into a fishing agreement with the Soviet Union. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl (from 127 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and all Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament the petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we, the undersigned, oppose the introduction of the proposed graduate tax, recognising it as a discriminatory piece of legislation which will, in particular, greatly disadvantage women, that it will act as a disincentive to women's participation in tertiary education and set back women's battle for equal opportunity, that women graduates are lower paid and therefore will suffer this flat rate fee disproportionately, and that the whole economic approach of the green and white papers and the graduate tax will discourage the development of those areas of study where women are now concentrated, which are of such great cultural and social value. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you reject the proposals contained in the white paper and specifically, that you reject the introduction of the graduate tax. by Mr Peacock (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of the Division of Barker points out to the House that there is too much crime and violence on TV and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House urge TV stations to clean up their act and improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programs by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: 1. That we are extremely concerned over the discovery of the bacteria Listeria Monocytogenes in imported cheese found in Australia. The bacteria has been identified with deaths in America and Switzerland and can cause abortion in pregnant women, meningitis and perinatal septicaemia in newborn infants. 2. That the work of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in sample testing and analysis of food products has been severely reduced due to ill considered budget cutbacks. 3. That the public interest functions of A.G.A.L. have been put in jeopardy through these budget cutbacks and through a failure to establish a compulsory programme of regular testing of both imported and domestic food products. Your petitioners therefore call on the House to- (a) Give the highest priority to establishing the Public interest functions of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. (b) Require the Departments of Primary Industry and Energy and Health to put in place a regular compulsory programme of analysis and testing of food products, both imported and domestic. (c) Require that such testing be conducted through the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. by Mr John Scott (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients and calls upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Sullivan (from 67 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia have in past years adopted policies which have been against the opinions of the majority of voters, for example, the Australia Card Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament pass a bill to provide for a Constitutional change so that five per cent of the electorate can demand a referendum to initiate or veto legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the proposed showing in this country of the film `The Last Temptation of Christ'. This film is offensive to Australians because of its anti-christian, blasphemous and sacrilegious nature. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the House take action to ensure that the viewing of this film in Australia is rejected by the Film Censorship Board. by Mr Webster (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament : The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws the attention of the House to the public concern over the creation of human embryos for the specific purpose of fatal experimental research. The citizens are concerned that human life is deliberately being created with the premeditated intention to destroy it. They believe that this is a gross breach of the responsibility that each member of the human race has to another to ensure life is allowed to thrive and develop according to nature. Your petitioners therefore request that the House do all in its power to ban the creation of embryos for the specific purpose of life destroying research. by Dr Woods (from 110 citizens). Petitions received. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(10.08) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the Committee's report entitled Personnel Wastage in the Australian Defence Force, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr CROSS —The Government's 1987 policy information paper, The Defence of Australia, identified the men and women of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) as the Defence Force's most valuable asset and a vital resource in the security of Australia. It follows, therefore, that personnel wastage-that is, loss rates-which exceed a certain numerical and qualitative level will be inimical to the national defence effort. Given that wastage rates in the ADF have for several years significantly exceeded historical levels, this report by the Joint Committee is topical and important. The inquiry attracted a great deal of service, public, academic and media interest. The Committee received 226 written submissions, compared to 35 and 26 respectively for the Committee's preceding two inquiries into defence matters. Public hearings and meetings were held in many different localities across Australia. Overall, more than 4,000 pages of evidence were collected. Committee members found that throughout the ADF service men and women were keenly aware of the personnel wastage issue, usually held an opinion on the subject, and were keen to discuss it. Throughout the course of the inquiry Committee members were fully aware that personnel wastage is the most pressing matter facing the Defence Force. It is an issue which requires prompt but at the same time considered resolution. In order to achieve that end, many individuals have worked with considerable dedication over the past 12 months. We would like to acknowledge their contribution and express our thanks. As Chairman of the Defence Subcommittee I would like to record my appreciation of the efforts of my Subcommittee colleagues who, between them, spent hundreds of hours working on what has been a most demanding inquiry. We would also like to thank those who presented evidence and submissions; in particular, the cooperation of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Chief of the Defence Force was appreciated. The Subcommittee wishes to acknowledge the contribution made by our staff, in particular, our secretary Mr Alan Stephens, and word processor operator Ms Kylie Freer. We are also indebted to the main Committee, its Chairman, the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) and secretary, Mr Peter Gibson. Before turning to the Committee's main findings, I believe it is important to comment first on the nature of this inquiry and, second, on the higher management of the Defence Force. The subject matter has made this a difficult inquiry. Throughout its deliberations the Committee has been aware of the fact that there is a persistent negative overtone inherent in the topic. If people are asked what is wrong with their organisation and why they are leaving it, that is precisely the kind of information they will provide. They are unlikely to say much about the positive aspects of their employment. Because of the terms of reference, this report, unavoidably, is a critical examination of defence personnel management. We believe that is proper, as the question of wastage rates in the ADF has been of concern to this Committee for some years. The very fact that we accepted the subject for inquiry is indicative of widespread public concern. The Committee also believes that while at a superficial level the inquiry may appear to have been a somewhat negative process, it has been necessary and, in the long term, will be of significant benefit to the ADF and Government. Personnel wastage has been the subject of considerable media attention. Indeed, the extent of that attention may even have contributed to wastage. This inquiry has opened up a vexed and contentious issue. In the long term that process will be in the best interests of the ADF. Because of the critical nature of the reference, Committee members wish emphatically to place on record their respect for the Australian Defence Force and its members. As an organisation, the ADF has attractions which few others can match. It offers comradeship, a sense of adventure and opportunities to develop both leadership and specialist skills. Above all, it has a compelling ethos of service. During our visits to many ADF establishments and in discussions with thousands of service men and women, we were continually aware of the high quality and commitment of those people. The Committee's report should be read with those admirable features of the ADF and its members clearly in mind. As far as the higher management and direction of the Defence Force is concerned, several important points must be made. In the form of the 1987 White Paper the ADF has, for the first time in decades, a logical and coherent policy guidance document against which Force development can be directed and assessed. That document has been widely endorsed within the defence community. The central role played by the present Minister for Defence in the development and implementation of that policy deserves the high praise which it has attracted. The Joint Committee supports the re-equipment of the Australian Defence Force as detailed in the White Paper. Since mid-1987 the Minister and the Australian Defence Force have been supported by an energetic and committed Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Again, it is widely accepted that without her untiring efforts many of the conditions of service improvements which have been effected in the past 12 months simply would not have happened. Those are, briefly, the major positive aspects of recent higher defence management. I believe it is most important to note that they have taken place not only against a background of years of benign neglect of our Defence Force by previous governments but also during what is currently a period of extreme financial constraint. I should now like to turn to the Committee's major findings. Like all other government activities, defence must compete for a finite pool of resources. Within the defence vote there is intense competition for a limited number of dollars. Personnel costs must be evaluated against bids for capital equipment, capital facilities, operating costs, defence cooperation programs, and so on. Senior management must decide whether at a particular time one or more functions can perhaps be reduced to a level which may be below the historical average. Such decisions should be taken only after a rigorous appraisal of Australia's strategic circumstances and should be consistent with the broader long term interests of national security. It might be argued that if Australia's defence managers consider that a particular wastage rate is acceptable within the context of our strategic circumstances and broader defence planning then, whatever that rate may be, there is no problem. Such an argument would be facile, for while statistics are an essential management tool, the examination of mere numbers is not in itself sufficient. Any worthwhile analysis of wastage must come to grips with the more subjective but vital factors of defence force quality and effectiveness. A central issue there is the pattern of wastage, that is, who is leaving and when. It is also important to remember that the lead time to replace a highly skilled and trained individual can be at least as long as that required to introduce into service an item of capital equipment. A controlled, manageable personnel separation rate is essential if the ADF's operational capability is to be maintained at the necessary standard. Against that background and after careful consideration of a great deal of evidence, the Committee concluded that the present level of wastage in the ADF is substantially too high and has been so for some time. Further, there has been a clear and consistent trend towards this situation for several years. The Committee does not support the Department of Defence's conclusion that wastage is of concern only in some specific specialist areas. That kind of assessment pays insufficient attention to the qualitative aspects of wastage as well as understating the overall effect and extent of numerical losses. Our assessment is that there is cause for concern across a wide range of ranks and skills. The extent and the magnitude of wastage in some areas are such that wastage will adversely affect the ADF for at least the next decade. In sum, the effects of wastage identified by the Joint Committee amount to a loss of operational capability. It is manifestly obvious that the prevailing excessive level of personnel wastage is damaging the organisational health of the ADF. Wastage is undermining the experience and competence level of personnel. It is impacting on the capacity of the training and personnel management systems to maintain the Force's integrity. The financial costs arising from the abnormal loss of skilled staff and increased training effort is enormous. At the psychological level, morale in some areas is lower than normal and the potential has been created for institutional polarisation. Having reached that conclusion the Joint Committee would like to emphasise that in its judgment the ADF remains a capable organisation staffed by many high quality and committed individuals. The Force continues to attract praise for its performance in Allied exercises. It operates high technology equipment with skill and, as demonstrated by the contingency preparations to evacuate Australians from Fiji in May 1987, can respond rapidly and effectively. Nevertheless, the nation's senior professional single service military leaders-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.18) —The Personnel Wastage in the Australian Defence Force report is the end product of an inquiry which resulted from Opposition pressure on the Hawke Government to investigate the causes of, establish the magnitude and effect of and recommend appropriate action and reforms to redress the high Defence Force wastage rates which have had such a disastrous impact on the defence preparedness and capability of this nation. I would like particularly to draw attention to the foreword of the report, which emphasises the endeavours of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to adopt a positive approach to its task and carry out its responsibilities in an objective and constructive manner. I believe we have achieved these goals. Obviously, it is not remotely possible to discuss even briefly all of the many important and significant aspects of this report. Therefore, on this occasion, I will confine most of my comments to chapters two and three, which cover the extent and magnitude of the current wastage crisis, illustrate how the problem has developed over the past six years and examine the effects of wastage. In table 2.1 on page 23 of the report, details are given of Australian Defence Force (ADF) separations as a percentage of the total strength for the period 1978-79 to 1987-88. These figures illustrate the enormity of the problem which we are now facing. The rate for officers in 1982-83 was 7.14 per cent. In 1987-88 it had risen to 12.58 per cent. In 1982-83 the separation rate for other ranks was 10.16 per cent. By 1987-88 it had risen to 13.3 per cent. From tables 2.2 and 2.3 we learn that at a time when the total number of defence personnel is at one of its lowest levels the total separations for four of the first five months of 1988 are the highest recorded for those months in 10 years. Prior to 1986, monthly separation figures reached 1,000 once only-in January 1982. In the past 2 1/2 years, the 1,000 monthly separation figures have been exceeded on five separate occasions. Of particular concern is the disturbing increase in officer separation rates. As stated in the report, it is clear that the ADF is losing too many of its very best people. These trends are obvious throughout all branches of the Services. The 10-year average male officer separation rates for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has been calculated variously at 8.7 per cent by the Department of Defence and 7.4 per cent by the Navy. For 1986-87 the rate was 9.8 per cent, and in 1987-88 it rose dramatically to 12.6 per cent. In the first nine months of the financial year 1987-88, 155 notifications of intent to separate in the ranks of commander and below were received, compared with a 10-year average of 98 for the equivalent period. Notices of intent to resign from captains and above were following the same pattern. The report notes that the impact of these resignations, both quantitatively and qualitatively, should provide cause for serious concern. An examination of wastage by ranks reveals that for commanders the eight-year average separation rate is 9.8 per cent, and the projected 1987-88 rate is 20.4 per cent. Thirty seamen commanders left in 1987; 23 more than the long term average of seven. Among those officers, five were current or very recent destroyer commanding officers-the core of the Navy. For lieutenant commanders, the average rate is 8.7 per cent and the projected 1987-88 rate is 13.5 per cent. Currently there is a shortfall of 69 in the total number of engineer lieutenant commanders required by the Royal Australian Navy. In percentage terms this is a deficiency of 45 per cent. The report notes that the dramatic increases in separation from those two key middle level ranks is most disturbing in terms of both the immediate hands-on management of the RAN and the long term health of the organisation. Further, it indicates that the Navy's problems in retaining well trained and experienced officers are serious and the separation trend is upwards. Increased wastage is occurring at a time when the Navy's requirement for experienced specialists to staff the new submarine, the Anzac ship project and other projects is also increasing. Shortfalls have so far been met by filling positions with junior, less qualified officers, resulting in lower quality performance and a greater load being borne by those experienced officers remaining. The shortfalls increase pressure on all personnel and become a contributing factor to wastage. In popular terms this can best be described as a vicious circle. The Australian Army has also sustained high wastage in recent years from both soldier and officer ranks. The Chief of General Staff advised the Committee The current high wastage in the Army is of major concern to my senior commanders and myself and has the potential to pose significant long-term consequences for national defence. The yearly average of officer wastage in the financial years 1985-86 and 1986-87 was three percentage points higher than the preceding seven-year average and constituted an increase of 40 per cent over historical levels. The projected wastage rates for all officers for the financial year 1987-88 of 12.1 per cent was the largest for at least 10 years. Of particular concern is the large number of junior officers separating. In the financial years 1985-86 and 1986-87 there was an average numerical increase in separations of 160 above the historical level. Over 84 per cent of that increase was in the ranks from lieutenant to major. The same trend was persisting in 1987-88. The loss rate of lieutenants has been more than double the long term average and that of captains greater by a factor of two-thirds. The report states that, although the number of officers lost is in itself disturbing, the quality and potential of those leaving is of greater concern. The Committee shared the Army's conclusion that this loss of high level talent at the mid-career point is of grave concern. It stated: It must inevitably lead to a severe reduction in the number of quality officers available for promotion in the future. This will have an adverse effect on long-term quality of senior management and leadership in the Army. Perhaps the greatest publicity in regard to defence personnel wastage in recent times has concentrated on the exceptionally high resignation rate of Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) pilots. However, as the report points out, wastage rates amongst highly skilled, specialist technical and logistic RAAF personnel are also causing significant problems. Overall, Air Force's assessment is that `the current separation rate is increasing, and is too high because it is exceeding our capacity to replace our losses with trained personnel'. The 10-year average separation rate for RAAF officers is 8.43 per cent. The wastage rate for 1986-87 was 10.57 per cent. For 1987-88 it had further increased to the unacceptably high level of 12.4 per cent. Once again, junior officers loss rates, including the significant pilot resignation component, have been particularly high over the past three years. As the report points out, the Air Force is arguably the most technical of the three Services, and the acquisition of technological skills can be a time-consuming process. It is in this area that the RAAF is suffering most. High wastage rates among skilled technicians carry a long term penalty, as long lead-times are involved in training replacements. An illustration of this problem is the increase in separation rates of Air Force engineers. The long term average loss has been 56 annually. In 1987-88 it was expected to exceed 80. In ADF terms, the increase of 24 is small, but it is highly significant to the Air Force in view of the difficulty of recruiting engineers and the four-year lead-time to train them at the Australian Defence Force Academy and elsewhere. Although the pilot resignation rate has been, as I mentioned previously, very well publicised, it is certainly worth mentioning it again-if only to reinforce the enormous and critical effect it has on our overall defence capability. The long term average annual pilot loss is 47. In 1985-86, 70 pilots resigned from the RAAF. During 1986-87, 107 left and in 1987-88 123 left. In the first six weeks of the financial year, 1988-89, a further 42 pilots had given notification of their intention to resign. Consider these figures in light of the fact that the number of RAAF pilots graduating each year is between 55 and 65. In April 1988, the Air Force had a shortfall of 171 pilots-that is, actual strength against established posts. By June, the number of pilot vacancies had further increased to 182, including 29 wing commanders and 73 squadron leaders. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain required levels of supervision and training in flying units. The effects of this problem of diminished experience levels were highlighted by the Acting Director of Air Force Safety during an appearance before the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal in June of this year. The officer-a former category `A' pilot and qualified flying instructor with some 6,000 hours flying experience-told the Tribunal: We have had an increasing accident rate in the air force over the last 12 months and especially over the last six months. In fact, the first six months of this year have been the worst introduction to the year that we have had in the last 20 years . . . Time is running out, both for me to make these initial comments on the report and, far more importantly- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Time has run out. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(10.23) —I thank the Opposition for its courtesy in enabling me to complete my statement. I was referring to the fact that the nation's senior professional single service military leaders have all acknowledged that the current high wastage rates have reduced capabilities. Those judgments were confirmed by the Chief of the Defence Force when he appeared before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It is clear that, under the existing organisational structure, capabilities will continue to diminish if wastage remains high. The greater part of the Joint Committee's examination of personnel wastage was spent assessing measures to resolve that unsatisfactory circumstance. In its report the Committee has presented a range of recommendations which, if addressed vigorously and constructively, should enable the Government to reduce wastage to acceptable, more manageable levels. Those recommendations-there are 48 in all-are too detailed to discuss at length here. However, in broad terms they encompass the following areas: policy, leadership and morale, career satisfaction and personnel management, the service family, and conditions of service. A point of particular significance is that, in general, service men and women who leave the Australian Defence Force (ADF) before completing what might be considered a full military career tend to do so for the same reasons, regardless of rank or skill category. For example, while much media attention has focused on the salaries which airlines offer Air Force pilots-salaries which the ADF cannot hope to match-the reality is that pay is only one of a number of factors which influence a decision to separate, even for those who can command much larger wages outside the Defence Force. Changing community values mean that senior defence management must remain dynamic and responsive to change. If the expectations of service men and women are not met on such issues as, for example, job satisfaction, good housing, continuity and stability in the education of children, particularly at secondary school level, work opportunities for spouses and dependants, and child care, then retaining the right people in the Force is likely to remain a problem. Across the ADF the kinds of issues I have mentioned affect all service men and women. It is unlikely that one issue by itself will trigger a resignation; rather, it is probable that a combination of events will eventually generate the critical level of dissatisfaction. We believe, therefore, that it will be necessary for the ADF's senior management to adopt a wide-ranging and coordinated strategy to resolve this fundamental problem. Addressing issues in isolation is unlikely to produce a satisfactory long term outcome. It is also essential that the system by which the ADF's men and women are rewarded for their service recognises the unique nature of the ADF and the special circumstances under which Defence Force personnel and their families live and work. The recognition of those often onerous circumstances must include a substantial element of compensation through a wide range of conditions of service entitlements. The majority of the Committee's recommendations could be implemented at little or no extra cost to the defence budget. In many cases determined and innovative management within the ADF and the Department of Defence could do the job. Nevertheless, it is clear that there will need to be either an extra allocation or a reallocation of resources to service personnel. I should like to conclude by reiterating that this comprehensive and detailed report is the end result of a great deal of effort by a large number of individuals. That effort is indicative of the Committee's concern over the present level of personnel wastage in the ADF and our commitment both to national security and to the men and women of the Defence Force. The Committee believes that continuing, vigorous action is necessary to control the present level of personnel wastage in the ADF which, under the existing organisational arrangements, is excessive and inimical to national defence. The recommendations presented in this report have been framed to achieve that positive objective. I commend the report to the House. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.33) —This report which we are beginning to debate today is one of the great examples of the benefits of the joint committee systems which operate in this Parliament. A report such as this would not have seen the light of day if it were not for the committee systems of the Parliament. I am pleased that it was the Opposition which, in fact, was instrumental in having the reference put to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade last year, and it is a tribute to the work of the Committee that a report such as this, as detailed as this and as extensive as this has come to be debated in the Parliament as quickly as it has. Real benefits can be gained by honourable members on both sides of parliament from the workings of such committees, and this report is an example of that. The report was presented without any dissenting views of any of the members of the Committee and that in itself is a particularly important fact. There is no doubt that the prime responsibility of any government is to maintain the security of the nation. This report clearly points out that the Government is failing in that duty. The Chairman of the Subcommittee, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross)-and I give him credit for this-maintained at all times an objective analysis of the material being placed before the Committee, and the Committee report, when read, will demonstrate a calm and an objective response to an immense amount of material put forward to the Committee over a long period by an extraordinary number of witnesses, both personally and through written submissions. However, I should like to take up some of the matters which are addressed in the report and to which the Chairman of the Subcommittee has already drawn some attention. We state, quite categorically, that the report is predicated on three fundamental points. The first two are that Australia must have a high quality Defence Force and that people are the Force's most valuable asset and vital resource. The third point is that the Australian Defence Force is a unique institution. I underline what the Chairman has said about the analysis of wastage and the requirement that any worthwhile analysis of wastage must come to grips with the more subjective but vital factors of Defence Force quality and effectiveness. A central issue that we addressed in the report is the pattern of wastage-who is leaving, and when. I would like to underline as well this point we made in the report: It is also important to remember that the lead time to replace a highly skilled and trained individual can be at least as long as that required to introduce into service an item of capital equipment. We must not think about the Defence Force as being the repository of untrained people, people who cannot do anything else. In fact, defence forces in modern time are composed of highly trained people whose difficulty in getting into the force is, in many cases, quite extreme. The Defence Force is not the repository of the flotsam and jetsam of the Australian population; it is composed of highly trained and skilled individuals. It does take time to achieve that skill and training. The report refers to wastage rates. I should like to underline, again, the Committee's finding: It is clear that the present level of wastage is substantially too high and has been so for some time. Further, there has been a clear and consistent trend towards this situation for several years. This is not something that has suddenly come about; it is not something that has snuck up on an unsuspecting government. The Government has known about it for some time. My colleague the Chairman has already mentioned the levels of wastage in various areas of the Defence Force. I would like to underline this point, which, again, was brought out by the Chairman: The Committee does not support the Department of Defence's conclusion that wastage is of concern only in `some specific specialist areas'. Clear and unequivocal evidence before the Committee gave the lie to that somewhat complacent attitude expressed by the Department of Defence. The extent and magnitude of wastage in some of the areas that we have outlined is such-and I shall quote from the report again-that: it will adversely affect the ADF for at least the next decade. That is a damning indictment of what has been happening in this Government's management of the Defence Force since it has been responsible for the Force. The report says: In sum the effects of wastage . . . amount to a loss of operational capability. It is manifestly obvious that the prevailing excessive level of personnel wastage is damaging the organisational health of the ADF. Wastage is undermining the experience and competence levels of personnel. It is impacting on the capacity of the training and personnel management systems to maintain the Force's integrity. The financial cost arising from the abnormal loss of skilled staff and the increased training effort is enormous. At the psychological level, morale has fallen and the potential has been created for institutional and community polarisation. In my 19 years as a member of this Parliament, I cannot remember any language from any report that is more damning of a situation than the language I have just read from the Personnel Wastage in the Australian Defence Force report brought down today. It is a credit to the Chairman of the Committee, to the members of the Committee and to those who appeared before it, as well as those who assisted the Committee, that that sort of clear and unequivocal conclusion has been reached and brought forward for debate in this House. The Committee dealt with a great number of issues that were brought forward by the individuals who appeared before it. I shall give one example of something that I, as a member of the Committee travelling around Australia, was horrified to find out. Under the heading `Equipment' the report states: Equipment was an issue about which, like training, most of the criticism was directed at the Army. Comments on the inadequacy of such basic items as webbing, backpacks, boots and combat uniforms were usually made with some feeling, and in many instances anger. In our opinion, that anger is justified. It seems extraordinary that in the Australian Army of 1988 the quality of those essential personal items can be so bad that many soldiers buy their own from commercial outlets, yet that is the case. ... ... ... . . . The importance of this matter lies in the considerable failure of management it represents and its damaging consequences for morale . . . Honourable members might think that that is a minor point to bring out, but when front-line soldiers, people who will be out there facing the shot and shell should that be necessary, have to go out and buy for themselves the equipment that they believe is essential for their well-being and their competence as trained soldiers, it is a damning indictment of the way the Australian defence forces have been run and it is a damning indictment of the Government for allowing that situation to develop. The report goes on to direct its attention to a great number of issues. Let me give just one example which is always talked about when I meet with Defence Force personnel around Australia. I am talking about the Russell Offices, and I quote from the report: Given Russell Offices' unenviable reputation, the Government's continuing refusal to promote more harmonious and efficient working relationships between the broad military and civilian components of the diarchy through fundamental organisational reform remains something of a mystery. As long as senior management continues to subscribe to the absurd euphemism of `creative tension' as a description of the work environment within the Defence complex, the `Russell office syndrome' will continue to generate avoidable wastage. That is tough stuff and it is right. One has only to go around the Australian Defence Force establishments and talk to the people who are actually doing the job to find that that attitude, that response to the Russell Office syndrome, is shared by every Defence Force individual that one comes in contact with. Obviously the defence forces are essential to the security of this nation. This report very clearly demonstrates that there are tremendous problems within the defence forces. I do not want to reiterate the separation rates, as that has already been done. It is a matter of the greatest concern. More importantly, an enormous number of people within the defence forces-in fact I would suggest everyone within the defence forces-have been waiting for this report to be published; have been waiting for this debate; have been expecting and demanding that something be done as a result of the publication of this report. We, in this Parliament, now have an enormous responsibility not only to note the contents of the report but also, much more importantly, to put into effect the recommendations contained in it. It is a responsibility that this Government cannot escape. It is a responsibility that this Government must accept and that we, as parliamentarians, must ensure that it accepts. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(10.43) —It is a very great pleasure for me, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, to speak in support of my colleague the Chairman of the Defence Subcommittee, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), in the debate on the tabling of the Committee's report entitled Personnel Wastage in the Australian Defence Force. Before I make some specific remarks on that report I would like to congratulate the Chairman of the Defence Subcommittee for his outstanding leadership and direction of the work of that Committee in the years since he has been Chairman of that Subcommittee. This report is the third of a trilogy of reports on issues of major defence significance undertaken under his chairmanship. The first report, which was tabled in 1984, dealt with the structure and capabilities of the Australian Defence Force. The second report, which was tabled in 1987, dealt with the management of national defence. This third Cross report turns attention to the most critical commodity in any nation's defence-that is to say, the skills, the dedication and the professionalism of its service men and women. It is a thorough, well-researched, well-presented report which I predict will be not only a best seller but also particularly influential in suggesting lines of policy and administrative reform which need to be pursued in the future. In commending the honourable member for Brisbane, I would like also to express the thanks of the Committee to all members of the Defence Subcommittee. In the debate this morning there was a contribution from the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson)-I notice in the chamber this morning the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay)-and there was also a contribution from the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). Together, those people supported the core of the Subcommittee, along with Senator David MacGibbon who played a very crucial role as a Deputy Chairman of the Defence Subcommittee, in considering the vast quantity of written submissions which were received, to which the honourable member for Brisbane made reference; in conducting lengthy public hearings; in visiting Defence Force establishments, both on a formal and an informal basis; and in discussing relevant issues with men and women in the Defence Force. I commend all those members for their diligence. I also wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Brisbane when he gave warm thanks to the Committee staff, especially Alan Stephens, the Secretary of the Subcommittee; Kylie Freer, who did the voluminous typing and word processing; and Peter Gibson, the Secretary of the full Committee. In my remarks I would like to focus on the central themes which are enunciated in chapter 9 of the report. The Australian Defence Force is a unique national institution and it has to be viewed in that manner by society. Its special role cannot ever be forgotten or underemphasised by the Parliament or by the Government. As the report notes: Members of the Defence Force contribute significantly to regional stability, the law and order of the nation, the maintenance of national prosperity and trade, and the protection of valuable off-shore assets . . . That fundamental reason for the existence of a defence force requires its members to be ready to risk their lives at any time to protect their community. This situation applies to no other social organisation within our national fabric to the same extent. As such, the Defence Force commands our respect and deserves no less than our diligent attention to its well-being and sense of purpose. For those reasons the acknowledged existence of a personnel wastage problem in the report is a cause of considerable national concern. However, I point out-I think to some extent the debate has reflected this-that that concern has to transcend the trivialising effect of party politics. The national interest is at stake here. Governments of all persuasions have permitted this situation to arise. I think it is noteworthy in this context that the report itself is agreed to by all the main parties. One person dissented from one or two of its conclusions, or rather its thrust, but the main political parties agreed to the report. We must now address ourselves single-mindedly to the resolutions of the problems which are adumbrated in the report and which we all recognise. The report makes a number of specific recommendations-48 in all. Of those I want to highlight in particular the recommendations which deal with the social and material conditions which affect the lives of members of service families in fundamental ways. Very few occupational groupings require that the families of employees shift their location frequently, and occasionally at very short notice, move their children between countries, States and/or schools every couple of years, undergo repeated separations and, at the same time, be prepared to defend their country or its interests at any time and possibly risk their lives in the process. Indeed, the only other which, in some respects, meets a number of those same criteria is Australia's diplomatic service which I left a few years ago and which has also become a fairly dangerous occupation. I commend to the House chapter 6 of the report, which starts with the dictum: the Australian Defence Force recruits soldiers and retains families. We make specific recommendations on family-related issues such as education, compensation for removals, defence housing, geographic stability in postings and factors relating to dual career families and child-care. I commend those recommendations to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who is at the table, and note the considerable efforts that she has already made to address and deal with a number of those problems up until now. Without a more acute concern for problems such as these, which at least in part contribute to wastage and originate in these areas, the problems we have identified and brought to attention will only be exacerbated. As the honourable member for Brisbane has noted, the report acknowledges the considerable progress made by the present Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in the development and implementation of a logical and coherent defence policy. In the specific context of this reference we commend, on a bipartisan basis, the effort, the energy and the commitment of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel since her appointment. But a lot still needs to be done. The Joint Committee hopes that this report will serve to focus on a more detailed understanding of the complex network of issues and factors which have contributed to the present circumstances and will be a set of signposts towards a solution to the problems now being experienced. It is as a result of reports like this that we are in danger of giving the Parliament and its committee system a good name. I agree with the honourable member for Warringah that a job of work like this could not have come out of the bureaucracy, and perhaps it is not unkind to suggest that it would have been regarded as too much of a political or bureaucratic embarrassment to go into it in this way. But it is an important and necessary job of work and the report itself does not pull any punches. I know the Government and the Ministers responsible will treat the report and its recommendations seriously, and I commend it to the House. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.51) —There are not many minutes remaining in this debate, so I will keep my remarks short. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) may wish to make a few comments before the time for the debate has concluded. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I would call the Minister only if no other member on either side rose. This time is for private members' business. If any member rises, the Minister will not be called. Mr LINDSAY —Prior to 21 October 1987, members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade had considered, with concern, reports that there was a serious wastage problem in the Australian Defence Force, and it was coincidental that a motion was moved in the Senate shortly after members of the Committee had given this matter consideration. The Committee subsequently decided to adopt the motion referred to it by the Senate. I shared the concerns of the Committee about the wastage in the Australian Defence Force, which had indeed arisen before that motion was moved in the Senate. Nevertheless, as previous speakers have said, this report is of fundamental importance. It is fundamental because it concerns the Australian Defence Force, fundamental because it concerns the most important duty of any government-the protection of Australia and its people-and fundamental because the Australian Defence Force is charged with the implementation of that responsibility. There is no greater responsibility for any government than that. I intend to comment on staff ceilings, personnel management, families, and also the Defence Force retirement and death benefits (DFRDB) scheme. We received many complaints about the limitation on staff-so-called staff ceilings. If ever an issue needs to be addressed quickly, it is staff ceilings. Put simply, money must be made available to ensure that staff ceilings are lifted, that sufficient numbers of people are provided to complete the task at hand and to reduce the demands on unpaid overtime by members of the Australian Defence Force. We found it to be an issue of concern and bitterness among many members of the Defence Force whom we met during our hearings. I enjoin the Chief of the Defence Force to give urgent consideration to the issue of personnel management. That is referred to in recommendation 14 of the report, which seeks to instruct the single Services to introduce a specialist personnel management employment category, and also to establish the post of Assistant Chief of the Defence Force-Personnel within the headquarters of the Australian Defence Force. I was surprised to learn during the hearings we conducted that this issue of personnel management seemed to have been neglected, seemed to have been put aside or even never to have been considered as an issue worthy of top line consideration by the senior management of the Australian Defence Force. It seemed to have been taken for granted that, because it was the Defence Force, the system itself would attend to and look after personnel management. The attitude seemed to pervade that it had worked well in the past, it was working well now and would continue to work well in the future. Of course the fact is that it was not working well and so could not continue to work well in the future. That is why this important recommendation was placed in the report. Chapter 6 deals with families. That is an important matter, and I know the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel has devoted much time and much of her considerable ability to dealing with issues that concern Defence Force families. In regard to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme, recommendation 34 speaks for itself. Nevertheless, I enjoin the Government to restore as soon as pos- sible the 2 per cent that was discounted from the indexation increase, in the 1986 incremental increase given to Commonwealth superannuants, which include, of course, Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme beneficiaries. That is an issue that rankles DFRDB pensioners. They say that they have a contract with the Government with respect to the payment of their pensions. The decision to take 2 per cent off their increase in 1986 is, as they say, a breach of contract. I know that the Government is looking at this issue at present. I know that the matter has been raised within the ranks of the Government, within its party meetings, and I am confident that, as soon as economic circumstances permit-namely, in the 1989-90 Budget-the Government will restore that 2 per cent taken from Defence Force retirement and death benefit scheme recipients in 1986. There must be no reallocation of resources to meet the challenges contained in this report. Put simply, the Government must spend more money to meet the recommendations, to ensure their implementation. The Government must respond positively. This Government is charged with the responsibility of administering the Australian Defence Force and, if that requires more money, so be it. I thank my colleagues on the Committee for the support they have given me, particularly, and for the tremendous way in which they participated in the determination of the report. I thank also the Committee staff, particularly Alan Stephens, who played such a critical role in assisting the Committee to bring down this report. The report is of great significance. The implementation of its recommendations will challenge this Government for many years to come. It is a challenge for us all, as has been said by previous speakers, to ensure that the Australian Defence Force receives the consideration it is entitled to. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.57) —I am pleased to speak on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled Personnel Wastage in the Australian Defence Force. As an Opposition member, I am pleased to be able to agree with members of the Government, because this report is a great example of the work of the parliamentary committee system. It shows that people from both sides, whether in government or in opposition, can come together in a bipartisan way, throw party politics aside and carry out committee work of this nature. Here we have an in-depth examination of a most serious problem, the problem of personnel wastage in our Australian defence forces in our bicentennial year. We have a most comprehensive study, and I might also say that I think the Government was happy to accept the reference to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and it now accepts the important work it has done and that the role of Parliament and parliamentary committees will be important for the resolution of the enormous problems and difficulties that exist in the Defence Force. I note the presence in the House for the tabling of this report of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly). The wastage occurring in the Australian defence forces is cause for great concern. My colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) earlier referred to the Russell Hill syndrome. It is a serious syndrome, and I identify myself with his comments. Another syndrome is the wastage syndrome. When I visited Exmouth in Western Australia with a Committee, I spoke to a very competent and capable Royal Australian Navy technician who had been in the Navy for 20 years-a salt of the earth type that makes not only the defence forces but Australia great. He told us that he was resigning the following week. I said, `Why are you resigning?'. He said, `There is no future'. When asked what he intended to do, he said, `I'm going to Perth. I'm sure I'll get a job'. I am sure that he would, too. He was qualified, capable and competent, But it hit me that that Navy person was resigning because there was insecurity and because it was becoming fashionable to resign. So there is a syndrome abroad, as has been said in this debate. Mr Tim Fischer —That is true. Mr SHIPTON —I thank the honourable member for his comment. A variety of factors contribute to it. It is largely a matter of morale. I guess it is a matter of leadership. The report deals with that point. It is a serious problem and it is not easily solved by quick administrative action. That is the dilemma that faces the Government. There is bipartisan criticism of that point. I hope that the report will be studied by both the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, who is at the table, so that solutions to the problems that face us can be found. There are 48 recommendations. I hope they will be taken seriously. They include the importance of families and the importance of dual career families. It is important to note the problems faced by families with children when they are transferred. I think it is recognised that when half of the Royal Australian Navy is transferred from the east coast to the west coast there are massive dislocation problems. There are problems in relation to children's schooling. This report deals with that very serious matter. It is a problem for children to have to attend eight schools in as many years. Families want stability; children want stability in education. There is an acknowledgment in this report and an in-depth study of the role of the service family. Chapter 6 outlines the problems of disturbance, the need for a disturbance allowance, the need for adequate housing when one moves, the problems of education, the problems of paying for removals, the problems of being posted to isolated and remote locations. There is the problem of careers. I talked to a person-I will not name her because I could embarrass her-in this building yesterday. She has a career in Canberra. On the weekend she will move interstate, to another city, and will have to abandon that career which she enjoys because she is married to an officer in the Defence Force. Families are prepared to make those sacrifices. That is one of the great things that we found during this inquiry. We discovered, in talking to service men and women of all ranks and at all levels, their great dedication to serving their nation. I wish that their example could be followed by those unions and union officials who mess up this great country. Mr Bilney —And big employers like John Elliott. Mr SHIPTON —I heard the interjection; I make no comment on it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —But you ensure that it goes into Hansard. Mr SHIPTON —You made the point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was talking about the question of dual career families. The other comment that I make concerns the recommendations with regard to lateral recruitment. Part of the Russell Hill syndrome-and it happens in the private sector as well-is that, unless a person joins the forces when he is young, unless he attends a training school, having joined as a recruit-or attends the right officer cadet school, the Jervis Bay training school or the Defence Force Academy-unless he embarks on a whole career, he is not appropriate to be in the Defence Force. We must look at lateral recruitment. The report does look at this issue. I will limit my comments to the area of pilots. It seems to me that an enormous number of young men and women are training to become pilots. They are having a hard time getting jobs. They have to go to remote locations such as the Kimberleys and areas in the Northern Territory, including Arnhem Land, where they gain great flying experience. The Royal Australian Air Force takes the attitude that it does not want such people because they cannot possibly have been trained as well as the Air Force pilots. If they have trained under Australian conditions and acquired a licence under Australian regulations and examination procedures, quite frankly, I think they are good enough to fly VIP aircraft, Caribou and Hercules aircraft. I believe there ought to be a scheme for lateral engagement of young pilots, both men and women. I say to the Minister at the table that I would like to see more women pilots in the Australian Defence Force, just as I would particularly like to see more women officers on ships, but that is a side issue. Mrs Kelly —In combat? Mr SHIPTON —Yes; why not? Why should women be denied the opportunity to serve their country at the ultimate level? Mrs Kelly —It is a bit too radical for me. Mr SHIPTON —It is a matter of choice. I am delighted that I am a bit more radical than the Minister on this issue. I was talking about the development of lateral recruitment for men and women to enter the Air Force. I think it could be looked at in other areas. Certainly, in the technical trades there must be similar opportunities. Innovative, imaginative ideas must be adopted by the Government, particularly in relation to the combining of a civilian career with a Reserve career so that people who are skilled in computers, black box technology or electronics can work in their civilian job by day and perhaps, by night, for two or three months of the year, they can work for the Defence Force and impart those vital trades and skills that we need. I am pleased to have been able to speak on this important bipartisan report. I hope that people in the gallery and people listening to the broadcast-if they can ever find the parliamentary broadcast on the radio dial these days-note the important bipartisan work of the Parliament and the committee system. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. Motion (by Mr Cross) proposed: That the House take note of the report. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(11.08) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, I present the Committee's report entitled Efficiency Audit Review: Australian National's Commission Traffic, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr O'NEIL —In presenting the report, I would like to make some brief remarks. Australian National's commission traffic is the transport by AN of its own staff, stores and equipment. It is not a large area of AN's operations and it has received little management attention in the past. The Auditor-General in his efficiency audit made some criticisms of AN's controls and noted that, although some measures had been taken to manage commission traffic more efficiently, these reforms had not been well controlled, nor fully applied in all branches. The Auditor-General also noted that AN had agreed with most of the recommendations of the efficiency audit. The efficiency audit was referred to the Committee on 24 March 1988. On 8 and 9 June 1988 the Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Transport Communications and Infrastructure, consisting of me as Chairman, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), was briefed by AN executives and inspected facilities in the Adelaide area and Port Augusta in South Australia. I would like, on behalf of the Committee, to thank Mr Russell King, AN's Acting General Manager, for the effort he put into our visit. He and his executives arranged the itinerary for our visit, briefed us thoroughly on AN's operations and showed us through some of its more important facilities. We were all particularly impressed by the dedication of AN's work force and its commitment to the future of the organisation. Since the amalgamation of the South Australian and Tasmanian systems with the former Commonwealth Railways in 1978, AN's total numbers have declined from 11,614 to 7,250 at the end of May 1988. Management initiated and voluntary retirement schemes have been very effective in this significant reduction in work force numbers at AN. In the same period, significant new technology and work practices have been introduced for the benefit of AN. We were particularly glad to have the opportunity to hold wide-ranging discussions with significant numbers of union representatives at both Islington and Port Augusta. During these discussions, we noted the concern of the unions that the time had come for the number of tradespeople and apprentices with AN to be re-examined. The unions believe that AN's work force has been reduced to the point where it is having difficulty in maintaining itself. Given the commitment we saw, we believe these views demand strong attention. Although not covered by the terms of reference of the review of the efficiency audit, there were two other matters which arose in the course of our visit to AN. The first is the question of AN's east-west freight traffic and the possible relocation of its eastern terminal from Broken Hill to Parkes in New South Wales. I believe the honourable member for Farrer will deal with this matter during his remarks. The second matter is AN's debt to equity ratio. The Committee agrees with AN that an increase in its equity capital would increase its flexibility in the competitive transport sector. AN's objectives and goals, and its restructuring strategies, mark it as an organisation with its eye on increasing its share of the market and reducing the amount of subsidy by the taxpayer. Such are the economies of its operations that it must continue to look to its commercial activities to achieve the latter aim. Its achievements since 1978, on the basis of the briefings and material given to us, appear to be significant. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the contribution of Mr Patrick Regan of the Committee secretariat for his untiring efforts and commitment to assisting our Committee. His efforts were invaluable and I place on record my sincere personal thanks for his outstanding support. Finally, I would like to thank the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson), the Chairman of the Committee, for giving me the opportunity to table this review. To the honourable members for Farrer, Throsby, Mayo and Hindmarsh I extend my thanks for their assistance and constructive participation during this review. It was indeed a pleasure to be a part of such an enthusiastic team. I commend to the House the review of the efficiency audit into AN's commission traffic. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.14) —I am pleased to follow the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) and I support his comments and the acknowledgments he gave to the staff and other members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure in the production of the Efficiency Audit Review: Australian National's Commission Traffic report. It was a privilege to work on this subcommittee of the Standing Committee. I wish to touch on two matters relating to the report. It is a timely reminder to the House and the nation that there is a justifiable and vital role for rail in this country's economic infrastructure in the twenty-first century. It is a role which is essential if we are to service our expanding economy by the best means possible. That is not only for the key capital city routes, the standard gauge routes by and large, but equally for certain key regional routes as well. This should be done on a basis which must be assessed in accordance with stringent economic criteria. Unfortunately, due to a number of factors which time does not allow me to elaborate on, this concept of a revitalised and revamped rail system quite often becomes derailed because of factors such as State boundaries, work practices and other historic reasons which are not easily rectified. This report, in one sense, is a step along that path to greater efficiency and more rationalisation. Included in this report is a very strong comment that the Committee should go on to look at the very specific question of revamping and improving east-west freight operations between Sydney and Perth along that very long and significant transport corridor. At the moment a train pulling a container or freight van from Sydney to Perth has to be remarshalled or re-engined at Lithgow; have a crew change at Bathurst; have further alterations at Orange; have a complete revamping at Parkes; have another remarshalling at Broken Hill and again at Peterborough-on occasions it will have a crew change there-have a major remarshalling at Port Augusta; have a refuelling stop at Forrest; have a remarshalling at Kalgoorlie; have a crew change at Merredin and/or Northam; and ultimately eight days later, on average, it will arrive in Perth. In 1988 that is not good enough. We have had a standard gauge operating from Sydney to Perth for many years. Yet we still have not extracted the best advantages from that operation. What is required is some simple lateral thinking. What is required is an examination, putting aside State government prejudices and Federal Government notions and looking in a dispassionate sense at transferring the Parkes-Broken Hill section of the main line from the New South Wales Government to Australian National. This would entail shifting its eastern terminal to Goobang Junction just west of Parkes, where the terrain begins to change sharply and where a site has already been identified. That is what the Committee has found in its studies and is desirous of looking at in more detail. It is my hope that flowing from the tabling of this report more pressure will be brought to bear. I am pleased to acknowledge that the Federal Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) has made reference to discussions between Australian National and the State Rail Authority of NSW along not dissimilar lines. Progress is being made. Let me remind the House and the nation that we need revitalised and revamped rail in the next decade and in the next century. It is about time we got about the task of getting in place the right planning and policies to bring this about. It is food for thought. Australian National has made great progress in recent years, not only under this Government but under the previous Government, and will make further great progress. If, in fact, there was a rail lobby equivalent to the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria and the National Roads and Motorists Association preaching the cause relating to modes of transport or anything else, as one has to today, the priority for rail and the modernising of rail in this country might be a good deal higher than it is. I commend this report of the subcommittee. I hope that it will pave the way for an additional term of reference to introduce some lateral thinking, especially relating to the east-west freight movements between Sydney and Perth. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(11.19) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, I present the Committee's report entitled A tale of three cities-A review of the efficiency audit of the Australian Taxation Office: Taxpayers in unincorporated businesses, together with the minutes of proceedings and the evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MARTIN —The report which I have just tabled deals with an investigation of provisional taxpayers in three industries in three cities. The investigation was an efficiency audit by the Auditor-General's Office of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). It is the twelfth audit report on the Australian Taxation Office and commenced in November 1985. It was tabled in the House on 7 December 1987 and referred to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for examination. The industries chosen and the locations examined in the efficiency audit were: luxury holiday units on the Gold and Sunshine coasts, restaurants in Hobart, and Canberra builders. The inquiry was both disappointing and encouraging-disappointing in that there were no startling discoveries during the course of the inquiry, but encouraging in that it is evidence of the improvement taking place within the ATO, since the report of the Expenditure Committee in September 1986. The Audit Office advised the sub-committee that, had it now been considering the audit, it would not have undertaken it. Audit did, however, change the focus of the audit during the course of the investigation. The report contains 54 recommendations and the ATO has agreed with most of these or has indicated that they have been accepted practice. As the ATO witness said at the first hearing: Virtually all . . . have been acted upon either prior to or following the audit report. The investigation was productive as far as the Commonwealth revenue was concerned. The audit report noted that the investigation discovered omitted income of over $3.4m which resulted in additional tax and penalties of $2.7m. Since the audit report was tabled, these figures have been revised. As of 27 July 1988, the omitted income stood at $4.5m and the additional tax and penalty at $3,337,000. The cost of the audit was $321,000. In spite of these returns, the ATO suggested that the results achieved were well short of those achieved in other projects. For the record, the Queensland luxury units project returned $296 per hour of work done in the efficiency audit; the Hobart restaurants, $67 per hour; and the Canberra builders, $141 per hour. The ATO suggested that the average dollar per audit hour figure, which it admitted was a crude measure, was $363 per hour. A feature of the luxury units project was not the discovery of loss in income from the rental of the units that led to the undisclosed rental income but rather that undisclosed income was discovered when people were asked to account for how they obtained the funds to purchase the units. During the course of the inquiry, the Subcommittee was informed of other potential industry projects or targets for the ATO. I suppose that in some respects this is giving fair warning to those industries which the ATO believes in the future will be the subject of audits of this nature. They are abalone fishing, rental properties, the racing industry-which I am sure will affect some honourable members in this place-plumbing and real estate, as well as a couple of perennial favourites, barristers and solicitors. One of the values of the audit report is the coverage it gives to initiatives within the ATO, particularly the score system which ranks professional taxpayers by allocating scores for variations from industry standards and from the previous year's performance. The returns with the highest scores are generally expected to be, and here I quote from the audit report, `those with the best audit potential'. As noted in the audit report, the ATO will reduce the resources allocated to the unincorporated business sector. However, this does not mean that the area will be neglected, as there will still be an audit force of around 800 directed at the unincorporated business sector. There will be a greater concentration on the large corporate sector. The Committee endorses the ATO's policy of concentrating on the top end of the market. The most important priority, according to the audit report, was the development of a high integrity, unique identifier for all taxpayers. The audit recommended at recommendation 44: The AAO recommends that the ATO develop a high integrity unique identification system for all taxpayers which will provide full cross-referencing of relationships among companies, partnerships, trusts and individual taxpayers including those whom the ATO exempts from having to lodge returns. This index should be readily accessible to ATO officers in their compliance activities and should be exploited fully by automated procedures in such routine processes as the issuing of assessment notices and the analysis of lodgment histories. The Committee draws the attention of the Parliament to that recommendation and to the recommendation of two earlier reports by the Committee, A Taxing Review and A Taxing Problem-in fact a report by the former Expenditure Committee which was tabled in September 1986. Both of these reports, as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will be well aware, recommended that the ATO take the necessary steps to establish a high integrity identification system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance. I guess it can be said that the third time proves it. I note that the Parliament has already accepted the idea of a high integrity tax file number and that it has been debated and passed through this House with the assent of both sides of the Parliament. This also is a reflection of the work of the Committee as the report on this occasion, as on previous occasions, has been a unanimous decision of the Committee. The Committee has noted in its report some of the changes taking place within tax administration. We have referred to the tax amnesty, self-assessment, the non-lodger strategy and the extension of the prescribed payments system, which my colleague the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), will comment on shortly, and welcomed these initiatives. I pay tribute to my fellow committee members, particularly the honourable member for Sturt, the Deputy Chairman, and the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), both of whom have served on the three subcommittees which have looked at the 12 audit reports on the ATO and each time have suggested a high integrity identification system. I also place on record my thanks to the Committee Secretary, Mr Phil Bergin, and Sharon Fisher, who prepared the manuscript, on a number of occasions with rewrites. Both are in the chamber and, on behalf of the whole Committee, I extend our sincere appreciation to them. I also place on record the Committee's thanks for the assistance received from both the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Audit Office. The Committee has a current inquiry into the thirteenth efficiency audit of the ATO. I hope to be able to present an interim report on that inquiry before the end of this period of sittings. I suspect that the recommendations of that report will have far more direct impact than this report on unincorporated businesses. The report I am referring to refers to international profit shifting. I think that is an issue which is just coming into focus and the Committee, I am sure, will sharpen that focus. In conclusion, I commend the report of the Committee to the Parliament. I believe that it shows how members of the Parliament can work together effectively to examine an issue and to make specific findings, although in this case no recommendations as a result, I think, of the acceptance by the Australian Taxation Office of many of the recommendations put forward in the efficiency audit. Nevertheless, I believe that it has sharpened once again the focus of the Parliament on the improvements presently taking place in the Australian Taxation Office. I commend the Taxation Commissioner on the initiatives we have seen over the last 18 months or so in that office. I commend this report to the Parliament. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(11.29) —I join the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration in commenting on its report, A tale of three cities-A review of the efficiency audit of the Australian Taxation Office: Taxpayers in unincorporated businesses. In the time available I do not propose to canvass the whole range of issues that came before the Committee when it examined these particular efficiency audits by the Auditor-General. I want to focus attention for a few moments in particular on those sections of the report that deal with the prescribed payments system (PPS). Honourable members will be aware that this system commenced its operation in May 1983. It was a system by which income tax was deducted at source from some forms of income not subject to pay as you earn (PAYE) tax deductions or other instalment deductions prior to its introduction. The system was introduced to overcome tax avoidance, tax evasion and so on in what had been identified as an area of tax loss. It was introduced to overcome the tax evasion that was identified as occurring in certain industries where cash payments were prevalent. The system required people brought into it to make deductions from those cash payments and send them directly to the Australian Taxation Office. The tax payments were deducted by the person in an employing relationship-not only the employer, some cases involving a contractor paying a subcontractor. That person would deduct the tax that would have been payable by the subcontractor or the employee but was not deducted because they were not caught by the PAYE system. The system was designed and set up to exempt the good taxpayers from the prescribed payments system-those who had a sound taxpaying record. On that basis one would have expected that, as the scheme became effective and collected tax raised the level of compliance, PPS tax collections would have begun to decline. That has not happened. The very reverse has occurred. In 1983-84, $251m was collected in five months; in 1984-85, $412m was collected; in 1985-86, $515m was collected; in 1986-87, $765m was collected; and last financial year $935m was collected. Given the origins of the scheme, one could well ask what has gone wrong. Why are we collecting more and more tax? Is there more and more tax evasion and avoidance in these industries? I do not believe that is the case. What the Committee discovered-I certainly did by listening to the evidence-was that a significant number of taxpayers who were brought into the prescribed payments system have found it to be a convenient way of meeting their tax obligations. They prefer it to the provisional tax system where they are liable under the annual payment system or the quarterly payment system. That being the case, it is important that the Parliament, the public and the Tax Office begin to change the basis upon which the prescribed payments system is now founded. It should not be seen as a means of collecting tax from those who were formally non-compliant. It should be seen as one of the general mechanisms for withholding tax at source-like the PAYE system, the imputation credit system that operates in the same way and withholding taxes in their relationship to the income of people overseas. During the period that the PPS has been in operation, the Tax Office has improved its methods of collection. It is introducing personalised deduction forms for PPS payees. This is becoming a standard administrative practice. The Tax Office is printing forms for these taxpayers with their PPS numbers on them. I agree with what the Chairman of the Committee has said about the Committee's clear, unequivocal view about the need for a high integrity tax file number-not an ID card, but a high integrity tax file number. This number could appear on the PPS forms. I hope that, as a result of providing numbered forms to PPS taxpayers, the Tax Office's system will be so efficient that it will help taxpayers. I hope that it will be seen as a cooperative effort, bringing together the information that is collected under the PPS stationery with the PPS deduction numbers on it. At the end of the financial year the Tax Office could produce, not only for its own internal use but also for the assistance of and use by the taxpayer, a list of the prescribed payments and a quantification of the PPS tax deducted. This would be done in order to tell the taxpayer, `This is the minimum income which we expect you to disclose to us'. One would hope that this assistance would be extended to PAYE taxpayers in general and to those who pay interest. Banks now provide the information. The Tax Office could help the average citizen and small businessman in preparing their tax forms, although still leaving it an an obligation on the taxpayer to disclose income from sources that have not already been recorded on the Tax Office's database through the prescribed payments system or other withholding tax mechanisms. When this cooperative attitude is pursued further, aided by the use of computerised equipment, I am sure that it will add to the level of compliance of taxpayers and the spirit of cooperation which one must have between honest taxpayers and a fair, understanding Tax Office. Along with the Chairman, I was pleased to note that some of these improvements are in train. I hope that A Taxing Problem, The Taxing Review and now this report A Tale of Three Cities will encourage the Tax Office to pursue this more positive relationship with those who have tax obligations. There were one or two other matters relating to the report which I wanted to bring to the attention of the House but I know that one of my colleagues wants a few minutes to present another report before the time allocated for the discussion of reports expires. I would like to give him that opportunity. I conclude by thanking the Chairman and other members of the Committee for the way in which we have been able to develop a common sense of purpose and direction in the recommendations and reports that we have been writing on these issues relating to the Tax Office. I also thank, as did the Chairman, the staff of the Committee and, in particular, its secretary, Mr Phil Bergin. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(11.38) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, I present the Committee's second report on proposals for variation to the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LANGMORE —I thank the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) for his courtesy in allowing me time to make this brief statement. This is the second report this year of the Joint Subcommittee on the Australian Capital Territory on variations to the plan of Canberra. The variation provides for a road and four service lanes in the Tuggeranong Town Centre service trades area to facilitate the progressive release of commercial sites in the area. Inadequate information about the variation was provided in the first advertisement so, following an objection, the Australian Capital Territory Administration readvertised the variation with an explanation about the location and nature of the proposed changes. The time for lodging submissions was also extended. Following this mistake, the Australian Capital Territory Administration has set up new procedures for public comment on proposed variations to the city plan of Canberra. I will read these procedures now and would welcome any comment on them from the public. The procedures as laid down by the Australian Capital Territory Administration are, for day one: the Australian Capital Territory lands section receives advice that the instrument has been signed by the Minister, refers the variation details to the Joint Subcommittee, determines which day the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette will be published, contacts public venues to arrange displays for a period open for comment, prepares displays, sends draft advertisements to the public information section which provides for 14 days for comment for a normal series or 21 days for a large number of items or an item with expected high community interest, and sends a draft press release to the media relations section. On day three the Gazette is published; the press release is issued; the advertisement is cleared for publication on the following Wednesday and Saturday; and displays are set up on the ground floor of the National Capital Development Commission building and the ground floor of the south building in London Circuit and in other public venues; and on day 18 displays are taken down and all letters concerning the variation series are referred to the Joint Subcommittee. The ACT Administration, in preparing these new procedures, has attempted to ensure that the correct balance is drawn between the need to ensure that the public has adequate time to consider any proposed variation and the need minimise the total time frame for consideration of variations so that private enterprise land development package developers are not unduly delayed from developing and selling residential and/or commercial parcels of land. As I said, if any Canberra residents are uneasy about any part of these procedures, I would like them to let me know. The Joint Subcommittee has approved the proposed extension of commercial sites in Tuggeranong. They are simply an addition to the number of sites available for commercial use and, as such, will increase opportunities for business close to Tuggeranong Town Centre. The Committee's only concern was to ensure that there is no intrusion of the proposed roads into the footpath, cycle path or foreshore landscaping around the lake. We were assured that this would not happen. Therefore, I commend the report to the House. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.42) —I should like to direct the attention of the House and, in fact, the nation to this matter, and I have no objection to the revised procedures and the fact that the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) has brought this report forward as an additional item on this occasion. It is relatively minor in many ways but it is, nevertheless, a step along the path to a more efficient approach to these variations. As I happen to sit on this Subcommittee on the Australian Capital Territory, I have had a passing interest in these types of matters. What in fact is buried in this is yet another error by public servants who have not been named in the consequence of their proceeding about their duties. In fact, the honourable member for Fraser alluded to this. In questioning in the Subcommittee, I eventually reached a stage some months ago, after narrowing down an error with regard to the United States Embassy fence and the regazettal and readvertising and the whole repeat of that procedure following mistakes made in the ACT Administration, of establishing a cost of these errors. Errors, one might say, are made every day and therefore why be fussed about them? Well, it is about time that the House and the nation became fussed about this type of error. And the way to stamp out these administrative, clerical, descriptive errors of one kind or another is to bring in a degree of lateral thinking and accountability by naming the public servants directly responsible for their handiwork in creating those errors in the first place. I bet that one would soon see a great improvement, if that were done, in the accuracy of the documentation flowing from this particular aspect of governance-namely, incredible variations to minor fence lines and roads and other situations. Important as I am sure they are to the honourable member for Fraser, to be fair, nevertheless in the scheme of deliberations of the national Parliament they are relatively minor matters, yet they are matters which have now been codified as being in error in terms of the way in which they have been handled, leading to an additional cost and an abuse of taxpayers' funds. Therefore, let us name the public servants responsible for those errors, to inject a degree of exact accountability into deliberations of this kind. Let us perhaps take that even a step further and consider a dockage of pay, where it has been a gross error involving incompetence, to regain the costs associated with the error involved. It is not unreasonable; it would be required in certain private enterprise companies where a hopeless error was made, one which could have been avoided and one for which there was no justification. The public at the grassroots level, away from the Taj Mahal of the new Parliament House in Canberra, are sick and tired of this lotus land approach to the governance of this country, be it on the small matters of ACT administration or be it on the larger matters of macro-economic policy, the higher rates of interest, higher taxation rates, and the like. It is part of this arrogant, out of touch and now X-rated Government which is governing the country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member for Farrer is proceeding beyond the statement which has been made. If he wishes to make further remarks, I ask him to stay within the confines of the statement. Mr Langmore —Has the honourable member for Farrer never made a mistake? Mr TIM FISCHER —I have owned up to my mistakes. That is what I am asking for on this occasion-that there be an owning up to the mistakes, because the way to eradicate those mistakes is to see the names of the public servants involved embraced in the reports. We came close to that aim, as honourable members will recall, in the old Parliament, in Senate committee rooms 1 and 2, when we had some officers sweating. That is a good thing, because that is what our parliamentary committee system is all about. Too often the bureaucracy goes its own way with regard to its modus operandi, yet it is accountable and that is what I am on about. Of course, we all make mistakes, but those mistakes which fall into the category of being careless mistakes, of being unacceptable mistakes for which there was no real excuse, are the ones which should involve a degree of naming and a degree of direct accountability, because that is what the vast majority of Australians would like to see. They are pretty sick and tired of the alternative approach. Bill presented by Mr Nehl. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(11.47) —I present the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1988 in what I believe to be a thoroughly bipartisan spirit without a strain of antagonism towards the Government. I do not seek to embarrass the Government by doing this; rather, I seek to resolve some ambiguity and an anomaly. The Bill does not seek to reduce a tax or to change the substance of the law; rather, it is designed to clarify the interpretation of the existing law. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Because of the deficiencies of the sound system, as a courtesy to the honourable member for Cowper, it would be best if he moved closer to the microphone. In that way, the House will be able to better hear him, and he will receive better coverage of his comments. Mr Cohen —If we can't hear the honourable member for Cowper, we are in real trouble. It is about time we got the sound system looked at. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I take the point of the honourable member. To be fair to the honourable member for Cowper, I want to ensure that he receives the best possible coverage, and the sound system is not doing him a service. Mr NEHL —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Gifts to the Life Education Centre Incorporated and life education centres have been accepted as being gifts to a public benevolent institution in terms of section 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. However, some claims have now been disallowed, contrary to the earlier position. The purpose of the Bill is to give the House an opportunity to remove the ambiguity that has arisen and so clarify the situation. There is a need, in the public interest, to clarify the position and so give some certainty to the organisation in respect of the interpretation of the law in so far as its funding arrangements are concerned. For 14 years, life education centres have been accepted as public benevolent institutions, until a change in interpretation made in March 1988. I do not attack the Taxation Office for that; it is a question of interpretation, and again I stress that the purpose of the Bill is to remove the ambiguity. At present more than 600,000 children have contact with or see a life education program every year, and in the next 1 1/2 years that number will double. Approximately 1.2 million children will have contact with an anti-drug program which is effective, which is working and which is in the best interests of Australia. It is interesting to note that, of those 600,000 children who currently are in contact with the life education program, some 30 per cent had already begun to get involved with some substance of addiction. It is important that this program should carry on. The whole thing hinges on the definition of a public benevolent institution. I am delighted to see the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris) at the table, because in his letter of 20 September 1988, he said: Although the phrase public benevolent institution does not have a statutory definition it is generally understood to be an institution for the relief of poverty, sickness, suffering, distress, destitution, misfortune and helplessness. I can do no more than go through those words again, because drugs-drugs affecting our children-do cause poverty and crime, too. Drugs do cause sickness; drugs do cause suffering; drugs do cause very great distress; drugs cause enormous destitution; and drugs cause misfortune and, certainly, helplessness. Every child counselled by the Life Education Centre is provided with both the knowledge and the motivation to avoid drugs. I repeat: the Bill does not seek to reduce a tax or to change the substance of the law. Rather, it is designed to clarify the interpretation of the existing law. I commend the Bill to the House. Bill read a first time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I think it would be appropriate if I now mention a procedural question in respect of the Bill introduced. Standing order 293 provides that a proposal for the imposition, or for the increase, or alleviation, of a tax or duty, or for the alteration of the incidence of such a charge, shall not be made except by a Minister. The provisions of this Bill, as I understand them, do not seek to impose increases or to alter the incidence of a tax, nor do they propose to alleviate a tax. The Bill seeks to clarify the meaning of the term `public benevolent institution' and, in particular, to ensure that gifts to the Life Education Centre movement should continue to be accepted as deductions, as they have apparently been in the past. I note the assent of the honourable member for Cowper to that. It could be agreed that, in seeking to restore an earlier interpretation of the provisions of the Act, the Bill would cause an alleviation of the sum a person may in fact pay in taxation. However, it would seem that the proposal is not to alleviate a tax, to return to the words of standing order 293. In procedural terms it is certainly a grey area; but in the circumstances it was felt appropriate to permit the honourable member for Cowper to initiate the proposal. If the Government wishes this matter to proceed, and if it has any doubts about the validity of the Bill, it can, of course, introduce its own Bill. I thought it might assist the honourable member for Cowper to make that statement. In accordance with sessional order 104a, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(11.54) —I move: That, in view of the massive stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, conventional and other types of weapons and of the continued technological escalation of the arms race, notably into space, this House calls on the Government to use every possible means to encourage disarmament through measures which would enhance global security including: (1) continuing to advocate a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty; (2) continuing opposition to research on, or deployment of, space weaponry; (3) supporting establishment of a permanent, effective international verification organisation; (4) supporting strengthening of international disputes settling procedures through mediation or adjudication under international law; (5) supporting establishment of permanent United Nations peacekeeping forces; and (6) seeking permanently reliable sources of revenue to fund these activities. In the last few decades, our planet has been wired to explode. The reality is that there are 50,000 nuclear warheads in the world with 1 1/2 million times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb. More are built every day, and more countries are gaining the ability to build them. The reality also is that, while the world spends a trillion dollars a year in search of military security, our security in virtually every other aspect of life is being eroded as global, environmental and economic problems go untreated for lack of adequate funds and political attention. Security from the threat of war cannot be achieved by nations accumulating ever more frightening mountains of weapons; nor can it be achieved by their elimination alone. It can be achieved only through a common enterprise among nations to develop international security institutions based on a system of enforceable international law that can create the confidence and stability needed for disarmament. This requires commitment to the goal of global security. The United Nations Charter was signed in a different world. It was a world without nuclear weapons or jet engines. Whole regions were still colonised. It was a world at war. War has continued, but other things have changed. Fifty thousand nuclear weapons have been assembled. One hundred new states have joined the international community, countries that had no voice in San Francisco. Each year the world has grown smaller, linked together into a single community by aeroplanes and satellites, and by an interdependent world economy and a shared global environment. Just as the world institutions of 1919 were inadequate to prevent World War II, so the institutions of 1945 are proving inadequate today to protect an increasingly global civilisation. Nowhere is this more true than with the problem of war and peace. Only by building stronger common institutions can nations regain their sovereignty over decisions about whether their own people will live or die. Today, even for the most powerful nations, those decisions are taken finally by men and women and machines, in cities far away from their own borders. The time has come to begin to create a third generation of world institutions. We are approaching the year 2000, which will be the start of a new century as well as the beginning of a new millennium. But we may never cross that threshold unless we find alternatives to the outdated doctrine of balance of nuclear terror and mutually assured destruction as the basis of national security. However, it is not enough to consider only measures for arms control. Disarmament, even in the relatively short term, will inevitably require that we confront the practice of war itself, because it is evident that, so long as the practice of war continues and the possibility of war remains, the motivation to do away with the instruments of war will be undermined. Even if we could imagine that nuclear disarmament had been achieved in a world in which the vagaries of war continued, we could hardly imagine that as a stable condition. The pay-offs to a country that could secrete a few weapons would be too great. Distrust would run high, as would the likelihood of defection from an arms control agreement. If a war broke out, which might be more likely in a world where there were still wars but no nuclear weapons to induce dread, the rush to build nuclear weapons would be on again under circumstances so unpredictable that those weapons might well be used. To that extent, those who have argued that nuclear disarmament cannot, by itself, bring peace make an important point. George Kennan put it succinctly when he said: While the earliest possible elimination of nuclear weapons is no less vital in my eyes than it ever was, this will not be enough, in itself, to give civilisation even an adequate chance of survival. War itself, as a means of settling differences . . . will have to be in some way ruled out. The key to the prevention of war has been acknowledged time and again by leaders and thinkers down through the centuries-from William Penn to John F. Kennedy, and from Immanuel Kant to Albert Einstein. It can be stated simply, even if it is hard to achieve: The prevention of war requires the rule of law among nations. Wars occur, whether between tribes or superpowers, when parties in conflict have no system of law between them for the just settlement of disputes. This century has seen advances in the rule of law among states; but much more remains to be done before nations can entrust their security to the reliable operation of the due process of international law and security institutions. Regrettably, political leaders have devoted themselves in earnest to the creation and strengthening of international institutions only in the aftermath of our most devastating wars. Those who stood among the ruins of the First World War founded the League of Nations. It helped, but it was a flawed institution-a first effort which proved too weak and unreliable. The United Nations was established at the end of the Second World War. Its founders affirmed again that the key to peace is a collective will to suppress war through enforceable law among states. But the founders of the UN recognised that its charter was an incomplete document and not a final solution. They intended the UN to evolve through review conferences every 10 years. These conferences, like many of the UN's other intentions, have gone unrealised, and so the world today is left with the institutions of a global security system cast half a century ago, before the nuclear age began. Once nuclear weapons were developed the machinery of the United Nations was left behind. The major powers quickly forgot their commitment to developing further the international legal and security apparatus of the UN and put their faith instead in nuclear deterrence and regional alliances. By the mid-1960s all expectation that the UN could prevent war and provide for the security even of non-nuclear countries had evaporated. We certainly cannot afford a third world war to supply the political motivation needed to start thinking about a third generation of international organisations. But since the 1960s, tragically, little thinking has been done on how to create a fuller and more reliable international security system. However, there are signs today that a new generation of political leaders may at last be ready to return to the unfinished job of the founders of the UN. Many countries have begun to demonstrate a new attitude towards multilateralism. The Soviet Union has taken steps that may signal a profound shift in its attitude towards multilateral approaches. In the past six months it has gone as far as calling for improvement in the UN's peacekeeping ability, a UN role in verification and even the mandatory jurisdiction of the world court. It is also catching up with its arrears to the UN. President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, in their joint statement of the summit last December, `emphasised the importance of enhancing the capacity of the United Nations and other international institutions to contribute to the resolution of regional conflicts'. The pendulum is swinging back towards a more constructive view of the role of international organisations. In the last year we have seen the UN and multilateral efforts playing a more active role in resolving regional conflicts. Perhaps the most impressive example is the mediating efforts of the UN Secretariat for a settlement in the Afghanistan war. UN peacekeeping forces are operating now between Iran and Iraq and in Lebanon, and are likely to go to Angola. There is a growing interest in a UN sponsored conference on the Middle East dispute. With the political climate improving for multilateralism, consideration of a third generation of international security institutions is essential, as is building the political will for their creation. Some of the most important actors on the international scene are rediscovering that their national security interests may be best served by a strengthening international system. We may have ahead of us an opening, an opportunity, which absolutely must not be missed. I want to outline six points which I think would contribute to this third generation of international institutions. The first is a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. A comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty would stop the development of weapons by currently non-nuclear countries and also prevent further technological escalation of the nuclear arms race. A comprehensive test ban barring testing for all nuclear and near-nuclear nations would be a monumental step towards curtailing not only the arms race but also the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries. Australia has for a long time been a strong opponent of nuclear proliferation on a bipartisan basis and a committed advocate of such a treaty. Continuation of such advocacy is essential. The second proposal is opposition to star wars. One of the most dangerous policies enunciated in the last few years, principally by President Reagan, has been the so-called strategic defence initiative, or star wars. Star wars is a dangerous initiative because it involves extending the arms race to space. So far there has been no space weaponry and the anti-ballistic missile treaty has constrained research on defensive space weaponry. Star wars threatens both those limits to the arms race. Inevitably the Soviet Union is also actively researching these types of technology. A space weapons race is now under way. All Australians should wholeheartedly support the Government's opposition to this seriously threatening development. Opposition from allies of both the superpowers will constrain what they can do. Such opposition may also contribute to reducing the enormous financial and human waste which such research involves. The third proposal is verification. A central element of a global security system must be the establishment of an international means to verify compliance with disarmament and security agreements. In a world of multilateral disarmament there will necessarily have to be a multilateral verification process. Most countries will not be satisfied to leave this to the superpowers alone. An international verification organisation would have to be able to operate through everything from satellites to on-site inspection. The information collection abilities of a verification organisation could further be used to monitor crisis areas and military build-ups. They could provide intelligence to peacekeeping forces and help them in their monitoring role. Satellite information could even be redirected towards other UN agencies to help developing countries with resource monitoring of deserts, forests and crops. The beginnings of such an agency could be made today. Putting a multilateral verification system in place now, before the process of disarmament truly begins, would give the necessary lead time to train staff and build the confidence of states in the institution. It would also pave the way for arms control treaties that require multilateral verification by solving the verification problem in advance. Again, Australia has given a lead in verification through a lot of work that has been done here on seismic verification technology. The fourth proposal is conflict resolution. A global security system would operate on the premise that countries would make binding commitments to settle their disputes peacefully either through mediation or through adjudication under international law. At present the UN has virtually no machinery to mediate disputes and the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is recognised by less than one-third of the world's countries. Obviously, stronger agreements are needed among states to improve the institutions for the peaceful settlement of disputes and to oblige states to use those institutions. Not all nations will live up to these undertakings. The enforcement of court decisions is a particularly difficult issue which must receive careful and creative attention. The fifth proposal is peacekeeping. Unless countries can feel secure with the guarantee of international military protection, it seems likely that they will continue to amass national militaries as large as they can afford. Disarmament requires that there be assurances for countries fearing an attack that the international community will not fail to defend them and assert the rule of law. I dealt in a similar speech last week with the importance of building up UN peacekeeping forces. The sixth proposal is that it is necessary that there be reliable and substantial revenues for these activities. Without such revenue it will be impossible for these activities to be assured. This summary of the functional requirements gives some idea of the range of issues which must be addressed in the creation of a global security system. Many ideas have been put forward on all of these issues. It is vital that we develop the third generation of multilateral institutions which are necessary for creating conditions for strong global security. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Is the motion seconded? Ms Jakobsen —I second the motion, and reserve my right to speak. Mr TAYLOR(Groom)(12.10) —I thank the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) for his very commendable, albeit idealistic, motion. I agree in large part with the general thrust of the motion but it will come as no surprise to him that I disagree with his comments on the strategic defence initiative (SDI), or Star Wars aspects. I would like to say a few words in the time that is allotted to me and in particular, I would like to draw heavily on, in my view, the recent highly persuasive views of the American Secretary of State, George Shultz. Twenty-five years ago experts assumed that the spread of nuclear weapons was inexorable. They predicted that between 15 and 25 countries would have nuclear weapons by the late 1980s. These earlier prophets of gloom did not anticipate the ability of countries, such as the United States of America of President Reagan, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of Secretary-General Gorbachev, to control this threat to world peace through a web of institutional arrangements, through legal commitments, through technological safeguards and through alternative security means. They did not understand that the will of people throughout the world is embedded heavily in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In promoting non-proliferation efforts we should be mindful of the underlying reality that basic nuclear knowledge cannot be kept secret. The futility of trying to do so was recognised by President Eisenhower in 1953 when he proposed a program of international nuclear cooperation-the fundamental principle behind the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is that peaceful nuclear development can be secured by agreement not to engage in the development of nuclear weapons. However, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology is, in my view, not enough. The Reagan Administration has worked hard and, I suggest, quite successfully, on arms reduction agreements through creative and sustained diplomatic dialogue which has led to fair and mutually beneficial agreements to provide for greater international security-in other words, substantive achievement through a combination of strength and diplomacy. But arms control and arms reduction are not enough. There have to be unprecedented efforts on all aspects of human rights, bilateral relations, arms control and regional conflicts. I would suggest that the starting point is the concept of President Reagan, agreed to by Soviet Leader Gorbachev at their first meeting in Geneva in 1985, that nuclear war must never be unleashed and there can be no victors in it; that any conflict between the USSR and the USA could have catastrophic consequences, hence there was a necessity to prevent any war, nuclear or conventional, between them; and that both sides would seek not to attain military superiority. To this end the USA has negotiated the historic intermediate-range nuclear force agreement-or INF agreement-the first agreement to require reductions in nuclear arsenals rather than simply slowing down increases in nuclear capability. This sets out to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. It reduces and reshapes nuclear arsenals, it has rigorous provisions of inspection, monitoring and data exchange which will result in effective verification and, of course, it sets valuable precedents for future agreements. These provisions will produce openness and cooperative contacts on sensitive military matters that, over time, will, in my view, profoundly affect how the superpowers perceive one another. The strategic arms reduction talks-or START-are pursuing this course of reducing nuclear arms. This has proceeded a long way down the road towards completing a treaty calling for 50 per cent reductions in strategic offensive arms, although some key issues remain unresolved. But the outlines of the agreement and many of its details are already in place, providing a sound basis for completing the treaty early in the Bush Administration. With the indulgence of the House I would like to congratulate President-elect Bush on yesterday's result. START will contribute to the policy of deterrence. It will require substantial reductions in both US and Soviet forces, including a 50 per cent reduction in Soviet heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles. Its objective is to stabilise reductions, structured so as to decrease incentives to launch an attack. The draft treaty being worked out in Geneva will do just that. The sooner it is completed the better off we will all be. Continued efforts on non-proliferation and intensified negotiations on arms control and arms reductions can help meet the challenges of the nuclear age. However, two new dangers appear. The first is the increasing availability on the world arms market of relatively long range surface to surface missiles. Weaponry of enormous destructive potential is reaching the hands of parties with little regard for traditional inhibiting controls. I am reluctant to single out areas but I think we have to look towards the Middle East. Secondly, the renewal of chemical warfare would surely be the most despicable and abhorrent development of our day. Nations are now confronted by violations of the oldest and most widely observed arms control agreement-the 1925 Geneva protocol that prohibits poisonous gas and chemical warfare. I regret that the scourge is spreading and the protocol is repeatedly being violated. The most frightening nightmare would be the eventual combination of chemical warheads on ballistic missiles in the hands of states with little regard for international opposition to their use. For this reason, the United States has taken the lead to curb the proliferation of both technologies. In bilateral talks with the Soviets and in the United Nations Committee on Disarmament there have been negotiations on a comprehensive chemical warfare ban based on a United States draft convention tabled in 1984. On 26 September last, President Reagan called for a conference of parties to the 1925 Geneva protocol and other concerned states to strengthen norms against the use of those abhorrent weapons. This conference will be held in Paris in early January. The efforts of the superpowers in non-proliferation, in arms control and in arms reduction have helped to confront the challenges of the past and those of today. George Shultz suggests seven ingredients for success in confronting the challenges that lie ahead of us. Today time does not allow me to go into those in detail other than to mention point 7, in which he stated: . . . we need to establish priorities. NATO's ministers agreed in June 1987 that the leading arms control tasks for the period ahead were concluding a S.T.A.R.T. agreement, achieving a more stable balance of conventional forces, and negotiating an effectively verifiable global ban on chemical weapons. It seems to me that those priorities are very sound. In addition, George Shultz stated: . . . we must continue to strengthen our efforts against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other destabilizing weapons technologies. In conclusion, on the point of SDI or star wars I would like to quote from President Reagan's State of the Nation address in 1986 where he said: As I told the British Parliament in 1982, we seek to rid the world of the two great nightmares of the postwar era-the threat of nuclear war and the threat of totalitarianism. And that's why, by pursuing SDI, which is a defense against offensive missiles, and by going for arms reduction rather than just arms control, we are moving away from the so-called policy of mutual assured destruction- or MAD- by which nations hold each other hostage to nuclear terror and destruction. So, too, we are saying that the postwar policy of containment is no longer enough; that the goal of American foreign policy is both world peace and world freedom; that as a people, we hope and will work for a day when all of God's children will enjoy the human dignity that their Creator intended. I thank the House for its time. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(12.19) —It is a pleasure to second this motion. I thank the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) for the opportunity. I also thank him for the benefit of his earlier contribution to the debate. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor) on the question of the strategic defence initiative. I do not believe that Star Wars has any future, nor should it in this universe. We do not want to establish a system which will put nuclear weapons into space. I certainly do not agree with that. In seconding this motion, I totally endorse the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Fraser in his motion and in his speech. It was an excellent speech, a far-sighted speech, and one which expresses sentiments that we ought to hear more often in this House and around the nation. I think people have to start thinking about new generations of international bodies that can deal with the problems confronting the world today. Mr Hollis —It was statesmanlike. Ms JAKOBSEN —It was very statesmanlike; I thank the honourable member. The honourable member for Throsby has sat in the chamber and listened to the speeches, and he is now making his own contribution. If the nations of the world are to pursue lasting peace and stability, they must work together with greater cooperation and understanding. Armaments are a symptom of the suspicion and distrust which exists in international relationships, as much as they are a hangover of an expansionist past era. Agreements to reduce arms must not be seen in isolation. People and nations have to learn to resolve their differences in non-violent ways. Mediation, compromise and cooperation must be firmly implanted in the international lexicon if we are ever to reduce the occurrence of conflict and war. Without an improvement in trust disarmament will not be possible. Trust of each other is important, but trust of an independent arbiter is even more so as a transitional arrangement, especially for the resolution of disputes or the verification of disarmament agreements. Effective international verification will require the pursuit of possibly intrusive inspections in a number of sensitive technical areas. The complexity of obtaining workable verification agreements was recently outlined in an article by Lynn Hansen, the Assistant Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. It was pointed out in the article that both the Stockholm document and the intermediate-range nuclear forces agreements, the United States-Soviet Union treaty on the elimination of intermediate range and shorter range missiles, were reasonably simple to verify-the former because, while it involves 35 states, it demands an annual calendar listing of notifiable and observable events such as troop and equipment movements in Europe, and the latter because it involves only two nations and covers the complete elimination of a specific category of weapon which is produced only for military purposes. Sadly, I do not think we can expect such simplicity to recur in the international disarmament scene. Lynn Hansen went on to contrast the verification procedures of the two agreements with those that would be required with the proposed agreement on strategic arms reduction and the prospective comprehensive global ban on chemical weapons, which the 40-nation Geneva Conference on Disarmament is currently negotiating. They would certainly be considerably more comprehensive and intrusive and require the establishment of an acceptable, independent, international verification agency to be successful. The United Nations is currently the only body with any ability to carry out such a task. I agree with the member for Fraser's comments on the shortcomings of the United Nations, and I also believe that its role requires recasting. On 18 February 1988 a Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister proposed to the new session of the United Nations Convention on Disarmament. The States participating in the talks agree to allocate each, on a voluntary basis, one facility at which a specially formed international expert group would test procedures being developed at the negotiations for systematic international monitoring over the non-production of chemical weapons in the commercial industry. That is where the problem will lie. However, the United States remains concerned about Soviet trustworthiness and is also increasingly worried about achieving a wide measure of ratification by a number of other countries and verifying their compliance. Of all the actual and potential arms control agreements, the chemical weapons convention probably poses the greatest difficulties for verification because it is potentially so easy to hide the manufacture of chemical weapons within normal industries, chemical production and because so many countries possess the capability for chemical weapon production. However, that is no reason for us in Australia, or for international bodies, to stop seeking a verification mechanism. There is little point in calling for disarmament on a world scale if a peaceful means of settling disputes cannot be devised. There are a number of ways for countries to solve conflicts between themselves, starting with direct negotiations and including the various United Nations mechanisms. The International Court of Justice stands out as the pre-eminent place to find a solution, if countries are willing to accept its jurisdiction and verdict which sadly they have not always been willing to do in the past. Widespread acceptance is the key point of any such judicial system and it is the major weakness of all international bodies. International law attempts to regulate the actions of states, primarily their external relations with other states and much less so their internal activities. The nation state stands as the most significant political entity in people's experience and they are resistant to proposals which seem to restrict their state's power. However, I submit to the House that this has to cease in the future, and people and nations must learn to trust an independent international body. The value of a stronger system of international law would be that states could settle their disputes at lower cost and less disruption to their internal policies, except where their internal policy is based upon external aggression. States would know that their neighbours were subject to the same processes and restrictions and could set aside their fears of violent intervention. Trust in the system, as I said earlier, is crucial and depends upon agreed principles being followed and enforced upon all. The International Court of Justice suffers because countries are willing to use it for cases which favour their position, yet deny its jurisdiction in cases where it rules against them. Enforcement has always been a problem for international agreements and judgments because enforcement agencies are state based, which blurs the distinction between international enforcement and the interest of the states involved. This has been accentuated by the tendency of states to lend support when, and only when, they agree with the action; that is, sadly, the interest of the state remains paramount over the wider issue of world good and world peace. Forty years ago an active collective security role was envisaged for the United Nations. The formation of rigid Eastern and Western blocs and the development of the Cold War prevented articles 39 to 51 of the charter ever being developed in the way originally foreseen. The United Nations, or a body extending from it, should be given the teeth and the authority it needs to resolve disputes between nations. The continued acquisition of conventional and nuclear arms poses a threat to prospects for economic development, as well as world peace, particularly in the Third World. Between 5 per cent and 8 per cent of the world's total output had been allocated to military purposes over the past 30 years. The Third World accounted for 75 per cent of all conventional arms imports during the 1970s, such purchases being made at the expense of limited foreign reserves and the well-being of their indigenous populations. Those familiar with elementary economics will recognise the classic opportunity cost scenario involved; that is, guns or butter. It could just as well be guns or bread, guns or schools, or guns or housing, for these are more likely to be the choices which are made when military expenditure comes up against the practical requirements of a poverty-stricken Third World population. As well as the measures outlined in the motion being debated, there is a role for Australia in convincing the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund to take action to ensure that military budgets in debt-burdened developing countries are kept to a minimum so as to maximise the benefit to economic development of moneys made available. This matter has been discussed in the United Nations over a number of years. I think the concept of an international development fund was first raised in 1955. The idea is worth reconsidering, given the change in the climate of international affairs and also the change in economic development in the international scene. The improvement in international relations, particularly between the United States and the Soviet Union, is noteworthy and laudable. I believe that the United Nations, or the third generation world institution proposed by the honourable member for Fraser, has a role to play in maintaining the existing climate of compromise and change. Australia should use its influence in international affairs to promote the United Nations as an independent arbiter which can be trusted in order to maintain the momentum for a peaceful world. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(12.29) —In the one or two minutes remaining, let me just say that there are a couple of members and senators in this Parliament about whom in can be said that they are committed peacemakers. The honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) is one of them. I commend him for bringing this motion before the House. One of the unfortunate realities of the 40-year debate on nuclear weapons around the world has been that people committed to a just, free and peaceful world have differing views as to which paths to that world are right and prudent. They do not acknowledge one another's good faith. I am sorry that that intruded a little into this debate today. There is a view-and it is one which I share; I hope in the future to be able to expand on it-that in the dialectical process of debate between doves and hawks, what eventuates is a policy for wise owls. I hope that that will be the end product of the debate which is about to conclude and which will continue at some future time. I will reserve the rest of my comments for when the debate resumes at a later date. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member for Macquarie will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. X-Rated Videos Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(12.30) —Today in this grievance debate I would like to talk about the situation in Western Australia. I was never particularly enamoured of the Brian Burke style, but I want to place on record my support for the actions of the Government with respect to the rescue operations it was forced to undertake, especially the decision to guarantee Rothwells Ltd following the stock market collapse of 1987. One Liberal senator said to me yesterday, `You won't hear me criticising the Government over the Rothwells decision, as I believe that there was no way it could have known it was anything other than a liquidity crisis'. In any case, I believe that the Government had very little choice. Had it allowed Rothwells to go under, there is simply no way of knowing where the panic would have stopped. There could have been as many as 7,000 jobs lost, not to mention the 10,000 investors, large and small, who made up the shareholders of that bank. The investors include church and charitable organisations and local government authorities. There is no doubt that, had they lost their money, the Government would have had to meet a lot of the costs for services they now provide. So the Government would have had substantial demands imposed upon it. The Government was damned if it did and damned if it did not. If one looks at the editorials of the time, one will see that even the hypocritical, smug and sanctimonious publication the West Australian, on 17 October 1987, when commenting on the possible effects of a Rothwells collapse, stated: . . . and that would have been little short of disastrous for business and the economy as a whole. The economics observer Max Walsh, on the 7.30 Report, said: There was a risk of a crisis of confidence, in Perth in particular, and as we saw in that report there a significant number of people who doubtless were quite important employers in Perth are dependers upon finance from Rothwells to keep going and so it could have had a domino effect . . . Those are the considerations that the Government had to take into consideration when it looked at this issue in a very short period, over a weekend. Even the Leader of the Opposition agreed that something should have been done for Rothwells. He said: . . . Allan Bond, Laurie Connell and others who put their money on the line, I think they are to be congratulated. It is interesting to note that at the time he also said that he believed that there had been no mismanagement of Rothwells. The Executive Director of the Confederation of Western Australian Industry, Mr Bill Brown, said of the Government's involvement: . . . this seems to be a prudent exercise in damage control and not for the sake of the particular company but for the sake of the wider community. The more than $200m committed by leading Australians as part of the October rescue package appears to have been swallowed up. The Government was advised that its $150m guarantee would be unlikely to be called upon. As Premier Dowding has said, only a full investigation by the liquidator will reveal the full details of what happened. That investigation is being held. However, by earlier this year, Rothwells appeared to be benefiting from a restructure and the consolidated financial statements for the half year ended 31 January and released in March showed that the company was in a sound position. With the benefit of hindsight, it is all too easy to say that the Government should not have become involved. I reject this argument because I believe that the Government has nothing to be ashamed of. All the decisions were made on commercial grounds. As I have already observed, there was a very substantial cost in the Government simply doing nothing. As it was, over 8,500 of the 10,000 investors have been able to get their money out. Any small investors who left their money in really deserve no sympathy because the Government has been sending out signs that only the stupid or the greedy could have ignored. The woman who was recently featured on the front page of the West Australian, lamenting that she had lost her life savings, had taken her money out and then put it back in again. That the West Australian should feature her says more about the west than it does about anything else. The Fairfax Press can be discounted, because little Lord Fairfax is locked in a court battle with Laurie Connell over the payment of fees he incurred when this born-again egomaniac tried to take over the family newspaper. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I suggest to the honourable member that he may be transgressing on matters that are sub judice. Mr CAMPBELL —No, I do not think so, but I will leave those things for the court to decide. That is why there is a vested interest on the part of the Fairfax group in discrediting Rothwells. I want to return to the hypocrisy of the west as I see it. Let us look at what is happening in Western Australia. As a result of the Government's action-timely action, I would say-to limit the damage that was done on that occasion, the taxpayer will not be called upon to make any additional payment. That is not to say that there will not be a cost; there is potential for a cost. The potential cost to the Government ranges between virtually nothing and $100m. But it is not money that can be called on to be made up by the taxpayer. Yet we see in the west and in other places people jumping on the bandwagon in a most blatantly political manner. I can excuse the Opposition for being political and short-sighted and engaging in all sorts of outrageous and high-flown rhetoric. That is what we expect of it; that is what we are used to. I had hoped that we could have expected more from the only daily newspaper in Western Australia. Let us contrast the situation with that which occurred under the Court Government when Charlie Court, against the advice of every competent consultant, signed a contract with Woodside Petroleum Ltd-a very small and, in those days, quite obscure explorer-to supply gas to Perth on a take-or-pay contract at prices substantially more than the ruling rates and then to build a pipeline at taxpayers' expense. That exercise had the potential to cost the taxpayers of Western Australia $7 billion. I have copies of all the papers that detail the dilemma in which the Government was left. The Western Australian Government has had to renegotiate many of those leases and has certainly been able to contain the cost. But the cost is still substantial and it is being met by the taxpayers of Western Australia, who are paying more for their gas and electricity. So the people of Western Australia are paying for this piece of madness by Sir Charles Court. It is, incidentally, a decision that makes gas in the Pilbara more expensive than gas in the metropolitan area. It is this, principally, that has precluded the development of a chemical industry in the Pilbara. We have heard nothing from the West Australian on this. It has accepted this and, in fact, it has lauded it as an example of development. It was a foolhardy development, a development whose time had not yet come. The Western Australian Government has taken a very responsible attitude on this. The Liberal Party of Australia obviously felt that it could get out of it by simply closing down the coal industry in Western Australia, which would have had a traumatic effect on the 2,000 jobs involved-even if we disregard the fact that we would have had to pay much more for the electricity generated by gas. It is a wasteful way to use gas, which is certainly much more expensive than coal. The Australian Labor Party has opted to maintain the more efficient coal industry and to seek to use the gas by renegotiating the contract and by developing a petrochemical industry in Perth. This is a sensible decision which will provide jobs to the community and contribute to the overall wealth of the State. This is the sort of leadership that the Labor Party in Western Australia has shown and is being criticised for. I am not saying that the Government has not made mistakes; it clearly has. But they have been mistakes of commission, and the Government has done these things in the best interests of the State and getting it moving. This attitude compares very well with that of the previous Government. It could be argued that when Mr Mensaros was the Minister he was acting, in a sense, from a limited information base. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.40) —I promised a couple of people that I would not talk about Tasmania, but I will. Let me say from the beginning that I have been here for 13 years and I have never known of very much personal stuff being thrown around this House. The amount that has been thrown around this House has not been liked by the majority of us. I could name a couple of occasions but I will not. It saddens me to think of what has happened in my State of Tasmania. I do not want to allot any blame in Tasmania. I remember when I was first married a long time ago. Dr Charlesworth —Where were you married? Mr GOODLUCK —I was married in Tasmania and we were only very young at the time. Dr Charlesworth —You are still young, Bruce. Mr GOODLUCK —I thank the good hockey player, the honourable member for Perth. We lived opposite a nice young couple and we got on extremely well with them. They became friends. I remember walking into a shop, and before I could ask for what I wanted the shopkeeper said to me, `Have you heard such and such about your friend opposite?'. I said, `I am sorry. I am not interested in that'. As a matter of fact, I said to my wife when I went back home, `We won't go into that shop any more'. Rumour and innuendo can kill people and make it very difficult. We are all sinners in this place. So are the people in the gallery. There is nobody in this place who is not a sinner; rest assured of that. When people start throwing stones they have to be very careful. I have had my arguments with the Premier of that State; I argue with everybody. What has happened in that State and what I read in the papers today absolutely shocked me and made me feel sick inside about the sort of level we can get down to in the political arena. I am not going to allot blame. I do not know who started it in Tasmania. Some of the people in Tasmania ought to be ashamed of themselves-on both sides of politics, both north and south. It is sometimes a rotten State-that State I love so much. Tasmania's parochialism sometimes kills a lot of good people. I read of what has happened in Tasmania as I ate my breakfast in my room today, as I drank a nice cup of coffee and an orange juice, and I thought to myself, `Boy! What's happening in my State of Tasmania?' I felt sorry for the Premier of Tasmania but I felt very sorry for his wife, Judy, who is in hospital at the moment recuperating from a fearful accident which has left her with many broken bones. To read of and hear of what I saw in the paper today appals me. To think that we have got down to that sort of a level. We are making it very difficult for ourselves. Once one starts throwing a bit of dirt, a little bit comes back, and more goes over. There are lots of people in the Tasmanian Parliament who are sinners just like we are. So when one starts throwing it around one has to be very, very careful. My heart goes out to Judy Gray and her family and my heart goes out to the Premier of the State, irrespective of whom he was or whom he is. I think that we have started on something, and so have the media. They love a bit of gossip down in Tasmania, and they love it everywhere. Regrettably, it hurts and it hurts a lot of very good people and if we started it in this House, God help us! It has been started and thank God it was curtailed fairly quickly. We do not want any more of it because once it starts it is very hard to stop and we are not liked by the people outside. They do not like politicians any more. There is enough going on up in Queensland to make one wonder where it is all going to finish. I am not allotting blame up there but once it starts, once we start bringing ourselves into disrepute, once we start allotting blame and start getting personal about the lives of ourselves and our wives and our families, we are in real strife. A lot of people out there would love to bring us down to the lowest common denominator and if they get a little inch they will take a proverbial mile. Dr Charlesworth —It is just as well that you are squeaky clean. Mr GOODLUCK —I am not squeaky clean and you know it. You are not squeaky clean, either, and you know it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member will address the chamber through the Chair. Mr GOODLUCK —Okay, but I know that he meant that only in jest. We are none of us squeaky clean and that is the reason I am saying that I feel sorry for the poor Premier of Tasmania and his wife. I cannot express exactly how she must feel. I know that he is in it; he is at the top of the scale; he is the leader and he has to take it and regrettably it is not very nice. I will get off that and back on to Tasmania again. Dr Charlesworth —A great place. Mr GOODLUCK —It is a great place. I have noted that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) applauded the introduction of the Wesley Vale Mill in Tasmania; a consortium between Australian and Canadian interests that will provide 2,500 jobs for Tasmanians. I have said before that Tasmania today is being dominated by single issue politicians who do not really worry about all the problems that we have, but to suit their cause they become very vocal. Regrettably the media give them a hell of a lot of attention and sometimes forget the bread and butter politicians who are trying to make the lot of Tasmanians a little bit better. Honourable members know that I disagree with the Prime Minister most of the time, but he did say publicly that it was good for Tasmania that there were to be 2,500 jobs provided. Here is going to be one of the biggest consortiums and one of the biggest enterprises commenced in Tasmania. What happened? I waited for it and sure enough they came out of the woodwork; Dr Bob Brown-and I am not being personal-and Bates. I could name them every time. I do not even have to look at the newspapers. They are back into it again. The protest rallies begin; 2,000 people protest in Sydney. What the hell would the people of Sydney know about Tasmania? The greenies up there did enough damage over the dam. They stopped that and they have stopped nearly all the timber industry in Tasmania. Good, hardworking Tasmanians are being protested against by some proverbial socialists or greenies or whatever you like to call them up in Sydney. Two thousand of them rallied up there and 500 rallied in Melbourne to stop the Wesley Vale Mill that is going to employ 2,500 Tasmanians and provide a lot of work. The Prime Minister said it was great; it was great for Tasmania. I saw it, I read it, I heard it. Right, that is number one. Huon Valley is in my electorate. They are at it down there too. They are trying to get a chip mill down there. They are trying to get a licence. They are doing everything humanly possible to make it easy for the people of the Huon. They are trying to provide jobs where there is high unemployment. But the same group is active again, the same single issue politicians, the same ones who have protested year after year and have put Tasmania behind, have made it a laughing stock for the rest of Australia. They have created us with two heads and six fingers and have made it difficult for us to provide jobs for our families and those ordinary hard working people down there. I note that somebody is coming from overseas, a Mr Clive Jenkins who has always looked like the cat who got all the cream. Clive Jenkins looks like a cat which has cornered the international market in dairy produce. A trade union man, he is coming from England to settle on the east coast of Tasmania, being given a grant by the Federal Government. I ask the question: Why a grant for him? The trouble with this damn place is that you cannot get up to ask a question; once a year you get called to ask a question. I would like to ask the Prime Minister: why a grant for this fellow coming from England, who failed over there? He is settling in Tasmania; he is going to get involved with the Wilderness Society; he is going to get involved with the trade union movement in Australia. He failed over there yet the Government has given him a grant to go round. I would like to ask the question why and a lot of Tasmanians would like to ask the question. Mr Robert Brown —Write a letter and you will get the answer. Mr GOODLUCK —I will get the answer, do not worry about that. But I want to find out why this bloke is coming down there thinking he knows all about Tasmania; coming to create trouble, that is all. He failed in England and now he is going to retire in Tasmania like that stupid Bellamy did, like Yehudi Menuhin, the great violinist. Like Prince Charles or Prince Phillip-whatever his name is-they are the ones who say they know all about Tasmania. They know nothing about Tasmania and, remember, I am here to try to get jobs for my family and the families of ordinary working people of Tasmania. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(12.50) —Recently there has been much comment, both in the press and this Parliament, on the issue of visits by nuclear capable warships to Australian ports. The Opposition has repeatedly attacked this Government over our handling of this issue, in particular with regard to the treatment of the British aircraft carrier Ark Royal. According to the Opposition, this Government has failed to fulfil obligations to our allies on defence cooperation. Rarely did the arguments of the Opposition raise any new points on this issue. The whole exercise seemed to be just another opportunity for the honourable members opposite to publicly prostrate themselves before our allies. Their actions can only serve to give comfort to a lunatic fringe element on the right of the political spectrum in Australia which continually hinders rational debate on these issues. For example, on 28 October that infamous right wing rag, News Weekly, published an article on the visit of Ark Royal to Australia. It was titled `Moscow's hand behind ban on Ark Royal'. Someone perhaps needs to inform the cold war warriors at News Weekly that this year is 1988, not 1954. I do not propose to waste the time of the House responding to such absurdities. The issue of whether or not we should allow nuclear capable warships into our harbours has often been canvassed in this place and government policy on that issue is clear to everyone. However, the issue of safety plans in the event of an accident involving one of these warships in our harbour remains a vexed question and it is this issue which I wish to address in the time given to me today, particularly the state of accident planning in the Port of Sydney. The first concern to be expressed with regard to accident planning for the Port of Sydney is that no plan is publicly available. Presumably the purpose of an accident plan is the protection of the residents of Sydney in the event of an accident involving a nuclear capable warship. Yet it seems that the residents of Sydney are not to be informed of the details of this plan unless the worst possible scenario arises. This state of affairs could hardly be described as forward planning, as the term would normally be understood. The reason given by the Greiner Government for refusing to release details of the plan is security. What an utterly ludicrous excuse. There is no suggestion from any quarter that in the process of releasing details of an accident plan there would be any need to release military or nuclear secrets. Clearly the New South Wales Government would not be privy to any United States military secrets anyway, so it would be impossible for them to be released as part of an accident plan. All that needs to be released are clear details of potential evacuation plans for the population in harbourside suburbs and some details of the coordination of civilian emergency services. Failure to release such details raises the clear suspicion that no plan exists. However, plans by Australian officials to cope with any disaster are only one side of this issue. We must also ask what actions would be taken by the nation whose warship was involved in any accident and, importantly, how the efforts of Australian and foreign officials could be coordinated to best cope with an emergency situation. It is the Navy of the United States that poses the greatest possibility of either a nuclear fuel or a nuclear weapons accident in both Australian waters and the Pacific as a whole. There is reason for grave concern as to how the United States would respond in the event of an accident involving one of its warships. This concern exists for a number of reasons. It is well known that the policy of the United States in relation to its nuclear capable warships is neither to confirm nor deny whether nuclear weapons are being carried by those vessels at any particular time. What is perhaps less well known is that in the event of an accident involving one of those vessels it is likely that the United States Navy will continue neither to confirm nor deny whether nuclear weapons have been involved in the accident, thus making it impossible for local emergency services to assess the danger of radiation spills. Indeed, it has been reported by the United States Defence Nuclear Agency that, in an exercise conducted by the United States military in 1983 which simulated an accident involving nuclear weapons, it was the practice of military officials to spread false public information in order to divert attention from the nuclear spill. It must be remembered that in the event of a nuclear accident security remains the top priority of the United States military officials. The protection of local populations is subordinate to this consideration. Another area of concern in relation to the response of the United States in the event of an accident is its policy of immediately sealing off the area of the accident and allowing access only to United States military personnel. This is consistent with the United States objective of preserving security in relation to its nuclear forces, but raises huge problems for local emergency services in the event of an accident. They may simply be refused access to the site. In an accident involving nuclear forces on United States territory, the immediate area of the accident is defined as being all areas giving direct visual access to the accident, including air space up to 5,000 feet above the accident site. This is the area that is sealed off. Is this also to be the case in the event of an accident on Australian territory? The security of the area around an accident is taken most seriously. In 1981 exercises were held in the United States to simulate a nuclear accident. A number of military personnel were assigned the role of demonstrators. In the words of the United States Defence Nuclear Agency report on these exercises, it was simulated that one demonstrator was shot. All these facts raise an urgent question. In the event of an accident involving a United States nuclear warship in one of our ports, are we expected to temporarily relinquish sovereignty over the site of the accident and its surrounding area? Are we expected to entrust the protection of our harbours and surrounding populations to United States military officials who have as their top priority the protection of the United States nuclear secrets? This would seem to be a heavy price to pay for the alliance. It is in fact a gamble. We are hoping that in the event of an accident there will be no great conflict between the interests of the Australian people and the interests of the United States military. On the balance of previous evidence this seems to be a very doubtful gamble indeed. In its 1981 report, the United States Defence Nuclear Agency recommended that joint exercises should be held between the United States military and any nations that host United States nuclear forces to prepare for any potential accidents. To date this certainly does not seem to have occurred in Australia. Indeed, the United States Navy has not held a major exercise designed to plan for the problems of nuclear accidents since 1983, let alone holding joint exercises with host nations. This is despite the fact that the handling of nuclear weapons at sea is, as acknowledged in the words of the United States Navy manual, `One of the most hazardous of all shipboard operations', because it `contains all the dangers found in conventional ammunition transfer plus the grave consequences of accidental loss or contamination'. How much greater is the risk of an accident in a crowded port, as opposed to the open sea? We should be seeking to hold joint exercises as soon as possible. Only this can guarantee the development of an adequate contingency plan for it to cope with an accident in our ports. It is frequently the case that those of us who question the wisdom of visits to our ports by nuclear capable ships are accused of sticking our heads in the sand, or of attempting to abdicate our responsibilities under the ANZUS agreement. I would argue that it is equally a case of sticking our heads in the sand to pretend that nuclear capable warships in our harbours are not carrying nuclear weapons. It is an abdication of responsibility to pretend that they do not pose a potential threat and it is naive to think that the Greiner Government in New South Wales has the capacity or the political will to devise an effective emergency plan to deal with that threat. For too long the debate over visits to our ports by nuclear capable warships has been narrowed to the question of whether we allow the visits to continue or whether we ban them. Too little attention has been given to safety aspects. I am pleased to note in this regard that the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has been conducting an inquiry for some time in this area. I am certain that its work will prove to be of great value. In 1976 the Fraser Government produced guidelines for the visits of nuclear warships to Australian ports, after that Government took the decision once again to allow those warships to visit Australian ports. These guidelines were supposedly the result of exhaustive consultation and research. Part of this process involved sending a delegation to the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The purpose of this delegation, which left Australia in 1972, was ostensibly to investigate safety aspects of nuclear-powered and capable warships. Documents published in June 1987 showed that this delegation was able to do nothing of the sort. Security restrictions, particularly in the United States, meant that it was able to investigate nothing about safety aspects of nuclear-powered warships. It was in fact limited to `The investigation of overseas policies regarding acceptance of nuclear propelled merchant ships and the study of the status of light-water reactors'. Is this any base on which to build an adequate set of guidelines for dealing with the dangers posed by nuclear warships? The situation that currently exists in this country in relation to contingency plans for a nuclear accident is seriously inadequate. We cannot allow ourselves to rely upon a foreign government to have as a primary concern the protection of populations potentially affected by an accident. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(1.00) —Mr Deputy Speaker, tomorrow Australia commemorates Armistice Day, or Remembrance Day, and we recall the end of World War I but we also think of the tragedy of World War II. Fifty years ago today in the early hours of 10 November 1938 the nazis burned down the synagogues throughout the length and breadth of Germany. Jews were murdered and injured and their homes were destroyed by violent racists. The streets were littered with broken glass and the nazis called it Kristallnacht-Crystal Night. Many Australians alive today remember that and they remember even worse. There are examples of nazi racism fresh in the minds of many Australians today and, of course, six million Jews died in the Holocaust which demonstrated humanity's inhumanity far more horrifically than ever it has been demonstrated in humanity's cruel history. Australians died in World War I in the hope that no further wars of that magnitude would arise again. But less than 30 years later one did, caused by the same power which had caused World War I. Allied losses are frequently repeated but it is often overlooked in the West that 20 million Soviet citizens died as well. How did it happen? Analyses often refer to the severity of allied reparations, coupled with the Depression which provided ground which was fertile for the rise of nazism. But its rise was certainly facilitated by a massive concentration of media ownership which served the cause of the nazis very well. David Bowman has just reminded us again of this in his book released this week entitled The Captive Press. Rupert Murdoch, the American newspaper publisher, said at Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe on 6 October of this year that the media must watch politicians, but Bowman asks what is really the age old question: `Who guards the guardians?' Who watches the Press? Who watches the media?'. I have warned repeatedly in this House and elsewhere in Australia in the last two years that once this Government started pandering to greedy media proprietors we were in danger of having no-one to watch either the government or the media. Now Bond has been caught out at the very kind of behaviour which I have warned of in this place and elsewhere. David Bowman calmly reminds us that the concentration of ownership of a narrow and unrepresentative press worked against democracy in Germany after World War I. We would be mad to ignore that lesson. Bowman warns: When governments and media proprietors can be mates we have a conspiracy at the expense of the public. Perhaps a new generation of politicians will have the guts to do something about the rod that Hawke and Keating have made for their country. There must be no perhaps about it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The concentration of both print and television ownership must be reduced greatly if our basic right to information is to be enhanced and preserved. I ask all who are here today and listening today to recall Kristallnacht and tomorrow when remembering our fallen to ponder the link between a press mouthing its own interests hand in hand with its mates in government and the disinformation which can cover up criminal conduct, produce internal conflict, or even get us into a war. Only a resounding demonstration of public concern is likely to produce a government courageous enough to fragment the concentration of media ownership which this Labor Government has gleefully and irresponsibly created and permitted. Caucus asked for the Trade Practices Commission to conduct an inquiry into the concentration of print media ownership but the Trade Practices Commission's request for more resources was rejected by the Government and so nothing will be done. This Government has sold its soul. It has forgotten history. This Government is trying to prove that George Bernard Shaw was right when he said that we learn from history that we learn nothing from history. But we must never forget the Holocaust and the horrors of war. Australia must do all that it can to help the President-elect, Mr Bush, and the Secretary-General, Mr Gorbachev, to continue the process of disarmament. We must continue to remember the horrors of war so that no future generation will find glamour in war. We must continue to remember the Holocaust so that those sick revisionists who say that it could not happen and did not happen are exposed as liars and apologists for racism. We must continue to celebrate the heroes of the Holocaust such as Schindler and Wallenberg. Some of us have had the privilege of going to Yad Vascheun in Jerusalem and seeing the memorial, the museum for the Holocaust. Those who cannot do that ought to go to the Holocaust museum in Elsternwick, in my electorate. The Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, and I were there at the opening of that museum. Apathy is our enemy. We have to keep informed. If we are apathetic about our freedoms, they will soon be eroded. If we do not have free media, we cannot be informed, and if we are not informed we cannot decide objectively what is correct. Professor Ian Kershaw from Nottingham University reminds us of the horrific consequences of the interaction of a racist totalitarian regime with a compliant, concentrated media ownership. Writing in the Guardian in London, and it is reproduced in the Canberra Times on Tuesday of this week, Professor Kershaw has this to say: However widespread anti-Semitism had become in Germany, the German people had been found wanting-in the eyes of Nazi leadership-in their reactions to Kristallnacht. They had not shown the necessary `understanding' for these `radical measures' against the Jews. Years of Nazi propaganda had unquestionably deepened anti-Jewish feeling in Germany, but it had not produced in most Germans the depths of inhumanity sufficient to approve of open violence against the Jews. The lessons drawn were twofold. Anti-Jewish propaganda would have had to be intensified to prepare people better for the merciless treatment of the remaining Jews in Germany, and (once war had begun) in the conquered territories. At the same time, Jewish policy had now to be carried out in a coordinated fashion and in conditions of the greatest secrecy. Control over that policy was now to be centralised in the hands of the SS. The organisational framework within which the `final solution' would be implemented was put in place after Kristallnacht had revealed to the Nazi leadership the limits of an uncoordinated Jewish policy. The long-term significance of Kristallnacht was a double one. The program marked the end of the vulgar rabble-rousing attempts to `solve the Jewish Question' through displays of public barbarity, and the beginning of a transition to a `rational' course of action, in the hands of the SS and with the public as far as possible excluded. Among ordinary people the shadow of brutality by the regime that November, enhancing a feeling that the individual was powerless to combat the terror, strengthened the tendency to shrug shoulders and retreat into the comparative safety of a depoliticised private life-where everything to do with the `unpleasant' topic of the Jews was excluded from consideration. Most of the people for most of the time would carry out their lives without thinking about the Jews. The only time that the `Jewish question' fell fully under the spotlight was after Kristallnacht. But interest in the fate of the Jews rapidly evaporated again. The apathy and indifference which had characterised the behaviour of the great majority of the German people in the face of the persecution of the Jews was only momentarily stirred by the brutality of the program. In later years, as the Jews of Europe were being murdered in their millions, most Germans had other things on their minds. The relevance of that is to remind us that in this community very few people want separatism; most people want integration; few have imported their problems into Australia. The problems with the Croatians and Macedonians are largely settled, but one irritant does remain and that is at the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney, where the Imam, Sheik Tajeddin Al Hilaly, continues to circumvent efforts to deport him and continues to be controversial. He does continue, whether he is sometimes misinterpreted or not, to provoke Jews and Christians, to embarrass more liberal Moslems, and he becomes the sort of isolated example of separatism and lack of cohesion which those who want a discriminatory immigration policy seize upon so that they can say that the exception proves the rule. I call upon Australian Moslems to help to moderate the behaviour of the Lakemba Mosque and, if they do not, I call upon the Government to remember the lessons of the past and to act so that that one potential irritant does not become a major sore. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(1.10) —The recent suggestion by the National Health and Medical Research Council that heroin be made available to intravenous (IV) drug users has caused considerable debate and discussion in this place. Earlier this week in an adjournment debate I suggested that of course it was a worthy idea and one which we should support in a trial form, because it is my belief that the theory behind this suggestion is that there is great concern about the spread of the AIDS virus through IV drug users into the heterosexual community; and thence we open a Pandora's box if that virus should become a significant part of the heterosexual community. So there is certainly a great deal of concern about that. But today in the Australian I read an editorial headed `Nonsense about Heroin'. It states: No matter what risk AIDS may pose to our community, it is nonsense to suggest that we should fight the spread of the virus by accepting the added and unknown risks of legally supplying heroin to drug addicts. In that editorial comment there is much, I think, that is sensible but that particular statement I see as being facile nonsense. Firstly, it clearly underestimates the extent of the AIDS virus and the pernicious nature of that virus in our society. There are over 1,000 people who are known to suffer from the full-blown AIDS virus syndrome but equally concerning, or of much greater concern, is the fact that it is estimated that 50,000 Australians already have the virus and, as such, are HIV positive and potentially will suffer from the syndrome in the future. On top of that we already have 500 Australians dead as a result of this disease. So it is a very significant disease and one which, I think, if it continues the way it is going, will certainly outmanoeuvre or take over from heroin addiction as a cause of death in our community, unless it can be controlled. That is the first thing. The second thing is that we are already using a very addictive substance, methadone, in the treatment of IV drug users and so as such there is a contradiction in the view that we should not release this substance. Of course, no-one is suggesting that heroin should be freely available, but there is concern, because presently the illegal status of heroin makes the drug user a covert, isolated person, and, indeed, out of contact with mainstream society and with no chance of breathing space or opportunity to reassess perhaps the possibility of rehabilitation. In fact, our total attitude towards the drug problem in this country is one of hypocrisy. Clearly, the biggest pushers of addictive drugs in our community are the tobacco industry and the brewers and, indeed, we revere these people for their business acumen and one aspires to be Prime Minister of this country. The motivation of these people is no different from the Mr Bigs, the triads and the drug pushers that abound in our country. The motivation is no different; it is profit. The reasons that these substances are acceptable are historical and cultural, I suppose. No-one would seriously suggest, I do not think at this stage in this place, that we should consider prohibition. It has shown not to work. It would be inhumane to those many, many people who are already addicted to those substances. But do we ostracise in the same way the tobacco or alcohol junkies or even the valium junkies? I think what we do is accept that they have a health problem. We know that many of them function very well in our society, even considering that problem. Certainly they are not considered as criminals. When they are out of control they are treated with compassion. It needs to be understood that not everybody who smokes dope or marijuana becomes a junkie. Not everybody who sniffs cocaine becomes a junkie. Not everybody who shoots up on heroin becomes a junkie. In fact when practising as a medical practitioner I often saw young persons at night with unexplained nausea. Very often the cause of this was the fact that they had earlier in the evening had a go with heroin. Many of them were warned off it because of the terrible side effects that the drug caused on those occasions. Clearly the experience from Vietnam is that of those GIs who were repatriated back to the United States and who were addicted to heroin when they left the United States. Only 50 per cent of them ever used the drug again when they arrived back in the United States and of those only 14 per cent ever became fully addicted again. Clearly it is a problem but we need, I think, to put it in perspective. The more I read about the problem, the more I realise what a complex issue it is. There are cogent cases for and against the legislation of those presently illicit drugs. How one sees it depends on one's perspective. The economist looks at it and says, `The pillars of the market are prohibition and price and the illegality has not changed the availability of these substances; all that it has done is increase the price'. So there is a very pragmatic view put by economists. I have been reading an article, `A freer market for heroin: Alternatives to subsidising organised crime', by Robert Marx from the Australian Graduate School of Management at the University of New South Wales. He argues the case, referring to the costs to society, those of the hidden economy, those of the non-productive citizenry, the crime, prostitution, theft and the massive money which entrenches the organised crime that is involved. The cost to society in all of those areas is greater than the problem of addiction. The law enforcers look at it another way. Some of them are attracted to the economic model. Others believe that what is necessary is more resources. If they are going to deal in the area of drug abuse, it is necessary for them to have the sort of resources that allow them to infiltrate that area. Most of them, of course, would take the view that the less pernicious cannabis problem should be decriminalised, because that blocks the courts and provides criminal records for many people who would be considered by all of us, I think, as not being criminals. The medical fraternity takes another view. They are in direct contact and fear an expansion of this problem. They see the ruined lives and the disease that are associated with alcohol and tobacco and they do not want any more of these pernicious substances available or any more readily available, and I understand that concern. Those people who work in clinics believe in the programs that they are operating. The methadone program and the protocols that are involved with that offer for drug addicts an opportunity to break the cycle of addiction and allow them a chance to reassess their lives and very often move on to rehabilitation. Of course, there is an inherent contradiction in their view because they are using an addictive substance to solve this problem. At the same time, they are saying that we should not be increasing the availability of heroin for users. The medical fraternity is also very concerned about the problem of the spread of AIDS into the heterosexual community and that is why this suggestion has come about. I suppose the most interesting view is if one puts oneself in the position of the drug dealer, Mr Big or whatever we want to call him. Perhaps it is the most revealing view if one does put oneself in that position. He fears only two things. He fears getting caught and he fears legalisation. Very few of them seem to get caught, it appears, but if there was legalisation or decriminalisation, or whatever way we want to see it, then clearly that would destroy his market and the price advantage that he can presently obtain. There is concern and fear that legislation to decriminalise or to legalise these substances could lead to a mushrooming and growing number of addicts, and the suggestion that the Government thinks it is okay is one that concerns. But that is not what people are suggesting at all. They are suggesting strictly controlled trials and the availability of these substances only to registered users. What I believe is beyond dispute is that many of the users are driven by desperation to prostitution, robbery, assault and theft. Many of them are driven underground and become completely unproductive. Many addicts become pushers to support their habit and thereby recruit new users. The money that is generated entrenches organised crime and the possibility and the reality of corruption. We have seen recently in South Australia a very good example of that; and the risk to the spread of AIDS is significant. I think the case for legalisation, decriminalisation or restricted availability in controlled circumstances warrants our attention. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(1.20.) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of the critical problem facing nursing homes with the introduction on 1 July 1988 of the Federal Government's new nursing home policy. These problems have arisen despite the fact that this nation has a major problem in relation to care for the aged, and the situation gets worse day by day. Whilst I agree that as far as possible the aged in our community should be supported in their own homes, there certainly comes a time when many of our elderly citizens are no longer able to care for themselves. It is then that suitable hostel or nursing home accommodation should be provided in order to give those people the greatest quality of life and perhaps the greatest expectation of a longer life. It is important for that quality of life that those elderly citizens be allowed to remain as far as is possible within their own community, close to loved ones and to friends. This applies in the major metropolitan areas as it does in small communities. Today, however, I particularly want to inform the House of the plight of smaller nursing homes, most of which are in rural and isolated areas of Australia. I will read a letter from the President of the Voluntary Care Association of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, a Mr Noel Howard, to the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, Mr Staples: Following a meeting with the New South Wales State manager of the Department of Community Services and Health on Monday 17 October, I feel I must again write to you concerning the invidious position of small nursing homes. There is mounting concern in the community and among care providers that the date of 31 March 1989, is rapidly approaching with no indication from Government as to the future of these small facilities. Whilst the Voluntary Care Association of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory is aware and appreciative of the fact that your department is preparing a paper on the subject of small nursing homes and their future, this does not assist the residents, relatives, staff, communities, or care providers in overcoming their fears that the facilities may be closed. Minister, I believe that it would be most appropriate for you to issue a press statement copies of which should be mailed to all small nursing homes throughout the country, giving reassurance to all residents, relatives, staff and care providers that no resident will have their care jeopardised in any way by whatever policies are pursued by your Government. And the letter goes on. More particularly, I want to address the problem facing the Lilliane Brady Village, located in the mining and pastoral town of Cobar of western New South Wales. Apart from the Lilliane Brady Village, which includes a 14-bed nursing home and nine self-care beds, the only other residential establishment for Cobar senior citizens is the Brennan Centre which, while it is a wonderful facility, does not have self-care utility and no permanent nursing home care is provided. The Cobar hospital is for acute care patients only, and any other longstay patients have to be transferred to Dubbo which is 300 kilometres, or 3 1/2 hours drive, from Cobar. The Lilliane Brady Village was established in 1982 with over $70,000 being raised from the Cobar and district community in addition to loans from the Cobar Shire Council and funding from the Department of Health. Today all running costs not met by government are met by the Cobar Shire Council or, in effect, by the ratepayers of the Cobar Shire. As honourable members would know, under the Government's new nursing home scheme which came into effect on 1 July this year, all nursing home residents are now categorised by geriatric assessment teams based on standards established on what is known as a resident classification instrument, or RCI. We in the coalition parties have already expressed strong reservations about this system of setting artificial standards to limit the number of nursing home residents. Unfortunately, our worst fears have now been realised and are being reflected in the difficulties now being faced by the Lilliane Brady Village in Cobar. In the past, the nursing home has traditionally been deficit funded by the Federal Government and has maintained a high standard of both health and personal care for the elderly. The new funding arrangements for nursing homes have resulted in a massive and ongoing deterioration in funding for the Village. During 1989 the recently announced government funding will result in a reduction of an excess of $110,000. As I said before, the new funding arrangements provide for the categorisation of residents. When the new funding arrangements were announced, the Cobar Shire Council recognised the significant reductions that would be made to the small nursing home due to the introduction of the category payment system. Cobar Shire Council subsequently deferred transfers to the new system until 1 March 1989. On 1 March 1989, the Department of Community Services and Health funding will be reduced from $92.79 per resident to approximately $62.80 per day, based upon half category four and half category five residents. The Lilliane Brady Village Nursing Home is expected to cost $480,230 to operate in 1989, exclusive of loan repayments and depreciation. The Department of Community Services and Health funding for the Village in 1989 is expected to total $304,000, based upon two months category six at 90 per cent occupancy and 10 months at 90 per cent occupancy of half category four and half category five residents. Cobar Shire Council is unable to fund the federal responsibility of care of the aged to the level of $176,000. Residents of the village will therefore be required to leave not only family and friends but the region to live in Dubbo to obtain necessary care. On top of this, we know that the Federal Government announced in the 1988-89 Budget that charges for the lodgment and processing of requests for reviews under section 40ae of the National Health Act of nursing home fee determinations would apply. At its meeting on Thursday, 13 October 1988 the Cobar Shire Council considered the introduction of these measures which provide for a lodgment fee of $500 to be paid by nursing home proprietors for each request made after 23 August 1988. Also an additional fee of $500 is to be paid by a nursing home proprietor for each day or part thereof taken by a nursing home fee review committee to consider after 23 August 1988 a request referred to it by the Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, while I understand that both lodgment and processing fees will be refunded in full where a request for a review is wholly or substantially successful, concern is expressed at the manner for determination of genuine appellants. The recent funding initiatives of the Department of Community Services and Health has resulted in a significant transfer of costs to the Cobar Shire Council and the introduction of a lodgment fee and processing fee, along with the matters I have already raised, appears to confirm the perceived Department of Community Services and Health determination to close small nursing homes. The Lilliane Brady Village is an establishment essential to the people of Cobar and district and while it might be expedient to the Federal Government and the health bureaucrats to close the village as part of an overall plan to downgrade aged care facilities as a cost saving measure throughout Australia, I remind the Government that Australia has an ageing population. Nursing home care cannot simply be switched on and off at the political whim of any government. Keeping this in mind, it must be said that the Hawke Administration at one stage did not give approval for one nursing home bed in almost 18 months. Nursing home care is needed in Australia today-it is needed in Cobar today-and it will be needed more in the future. Because of the new funding arrangements the Cobar Shire will find it impossible to meet the additional costs placed on it by the Federal Government's new funding arrangements and at about this time today the Cobar Shire Council, at its ordinary monthly meeting, will be making a decision either to close down the Lilliane Brady Village nursing home beds or increase shire rates by 15 per cent in order to meet the cost of its nursing and personal care component alone. Obviously for a host of reasons the second alternative is impossible and therefore, once again, our elderly citizens will be the losers. My plea on behalf of the residents of Cobar and district is that action will be taken immediately by the Minister to save the Lilliane Brady Nursing Home and others like it throughout Australia that are trying to provide adequate nursing home care for our nation's fragile but valuable elderly citizens. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(1.30) —My grievance today relates to startling allegations that have been made over the last couple of days in the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct in Brisbane, particularly by the former senior National Party Minister, Mr Don Lane. The sorts of practices, the lack of public accountability, and the now obvious misuse of taxpayers' funds by Ministers wrongly claiming from their ministerial allowances, as admitted by Mr Lane, are nothing short of a disgrace and constitute nothing short of a public scandal. The Queensland Government for the last 30 years, despite numerous calls from the Opposition, has refused to set up a proper public accounts committee. It has now, after so long, agreed to set up a type of Claytons committee but lacking the necessary teeth to be a success. As a result of the revelations made in the Fitzgerald inquiry over the last day or two, one can understand the reluctance of and see why the Queensland Cabinet has refused to set up this committee. What was revealed in Queensland yesterday by Mr Lane, a former senior Minister and a very powerful figure in the Queensland National Party and, in fact, until recently, well known as Sir Joh's numbers cruncher, is nothing short of extraordinary. I quote from Australian Associated Press reports of yesterday: Former Queensland Cabinet Minister Don Lane has told Queensland Fitzgerald inquiry that he and other Queensland Ministers had been ripping off the public purse for years. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I interrupt the honourable member. I trust that he will be sensible to the rulings that relate to prejudicing the rights of any party to an inquiry. Whilst he may make some passing reference to matters, I would ask him to bear in mind particularly that he should not prejudice the rights of any party to an inquiry presently under way. Mr SCIACCA —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am aware of that. I am quoting in fact press reports that are quite public and there is no suggestion of any inquiry at the moment, apart from the Fitzgerald inquiry which, according to my understanding, is only a commission of inquiry and not a royal commission and one that is not at least sub judice. But I do understand what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker. I continue: Mr Lane made his confession and the allegation against other Ministers after an inquiry analysis of his financial affairs showed he had a large amount of money that could not be accounted for. Mr Lane told the inquiry that the money was not from corruption payments he was alleged to have received but were amounts that were made up so he could falsely claim expenses on his tax returns. He went on to allege that it was common practice for Queensland Cabinet Ministers to use their ministerial expenses improperly to pay for restaurant bills, alcohol, accommodation, travel, car hire, gifts of flowers for their wives and bottles of perfume for the girls in the typing pool. Mr Lavarch —They should resign. Mr SCIACCA —They should resign, exactly, and I will be calling upon them to do so shortly, as the honourable member for Fisher suggests. This morning some startling allegations were made and questions asked in the Queensland State Parliament with respect to other serious matters. A question was asked of the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs, Mr Lester. From information I have received today, the revelations that have been made by Mr Lane are only the tip of the iceberg. There are numerous rumours and stories circulating around Queensland that very senior Ministers have been also misusing their ministerial allowances. According to Public Service sources within the Department of the Minister, Vince Lester, another senior National Party Minister and one who aspires to the Premiership, there has been a long term practice in his office for Mr Lester to have a $50 cheque raised, made out to cash. These vouchers would then be acquitted by the Minister, picking the name of a restaurant from the local telephone directory, and then advising his Department through his office that the cash advance had been expended for official purposes, namely, that restaurant. No receipts were ever produced. Further, I am informed that Mr Lester's former private secretary, who no longer works for him but, in fact, works for a National Party senator here in Canberra, objected to this practice. I am told that she was forced to resign as a result. Mr Lester's former steno-secretary, who previously had been responsible for making out these $50 cheques, was subsequently promoted to the position of private secretary. I have their names but I will not give them out at this point. In State Parliament today when Mr Lester was asked this question, when the facts were put to him by Mr Neville Warburton, the former Leader of the Opposition, he did not deny the contents of those allegations. Mr Courtice —He should resign. Mr SCIACCA —As the honourable member for Hinkler says, he should resign. He simply replied that no objection had been raised to his accounts by the government auditors. What a joke! Ministerial answers are not probed. No mechanism is in place in Queensland at present such as we have in Canberra, with the Public Accounts Committee and with Senate Estimates committees. There are no restrictions on ministerial allowance spending in Queensland. It is virtually unlimited. A number of other disturbing reports have recently come to light. One Minister is said to have regularly taken his wife to a seafood restaurant at Ascot, which I understand is a very expensive one, and to have charged it to his ministerial credit card. Another Minister is said to have used his allowance to raise cash to use for betting money on quite a regular basis. Perhaps the most damaging allegations are being made in government circles and from quite reliable sources. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am quite sad to be saying these things; nevertheless, they are true and they are things that have to be brought out at least in this Parliament if they cannot be brought out in the Queensland Parliament. These allegations relate to the highest level of the Queensland Government itself, even at the feet of the Premier. These are serious allegations and they cannot be summarily dismissed. If Mr Ahern wants to clear the air I ask him to table details of his own ministerial expenses, particularly those that relate to a trip he took to New York in March or April of this year. When allegations were made against former Ministers Don Lane and Russ Hinze, they were forced to step down. When allegations were made against judges of both the Supreme and District Courts, they were asked to step down. Now that allegations have been made against Ministers who served in the Joh Bjelke-Petersen Government, along with Mr Lane, and who include Mr Ahern, why are they not agreeing to step down? Mr Lavarch —Double standards. Mr SCIACCA —It is a case of double standards and I join and support the strong call made yesterday and today by the Queensland Labor Opposition leader, the undoubted next Premier of Queensland, Mr 58 per cent, as they are starting to call him, Mr Wayne Goss, for the 13 Ministers who served with Mr Lane, including the Premier, to stand down while a full inquiry is held. That is what Mr Ahern required of other Ministers who served in his Government and were named in hearsay evidence at the Fitzgerald inquiry. Now that direct allegations have been made by a former senior National Party Minister, a person who was a numbers cruncher and a close confidant of the former Premier, I ask this Parliament: What difference is there between Mr Lane, Mr Hinze, the two judges and all of the other 13 Ministers who served in that Government? There is no difference whatsoever, Mr Deputy Speaker. I call upon Mr Ahern to do the noble thing. For some time now Mr Cleanskin, Mr Ahern, the new broom that was going to sweep everything clean, has been trying to let the Queensland public think that he had nothing to do with all of this. It reminds me in fact of the Nuremberg trials when members of Hitler's armed forces used to say, `But look, we were under orders, we did not know what was going on'. What is the difference? What is the difference in what is occurring in Queensland today. These were Ministers in a government that has now been seen because of public admissions on the part of very senior and important people in the police force, in the community and even in the Government to have in some way been involved in questionable practices. Some years ago in Queensland a man tried to do everything he possibly could to expose criminal activities in that State. I refer to a very dear personal friend of mine who is now deceased, the late Kevin Hooper. In Hansard on 30 August 1977 he made a number of allegations. He went on to say what was happening and that the massage racket in that city was a cottage industry. This is what Premier Ahern had to say in the Hansard of 1 September 1977: I believe that he, Kev Hooper, put forward a complete fabrication. He, Kev Hooper, has done this to obtain better headlines in the Press and to prostitute the institution of Parliament. He, Kev Hooper, is engaged in the lowest form of parliamentary life. This member Kev Hooper I believe is a disgrace to the parliament. He, Kev Hooper, is a mudslinger of the worst order. He, Kev Hooper, is parliament's arch enemy. In fact, he was parliament's best friend. If Mr Ahern has any decency he will step down, he will heed the call of the Opposition Leader and he will do something about what has been happening. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(1.40) —I welcome the opportunity, albeit for only a short time, to participate in the grievance debate today. I particularly welcome the opportunity to stand and to protest at the decision taken by the Labor Party Caucus this week not to proceed to ban X-rated videos issuing out of the Australian Capital Territory. I want to refer to press reports both in the Canberra Times and the Adelaide Advertiser. If those press reports have but a shred of accuracy about them, it is fair for me to suppose that only the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and a neighbour of mine, electorally, although on the other side of the House obviously, the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) were in fact prepared to move against the action that the Caucus proposes to take. Only those two, I am led to believe, were prepared to oppose the move of the Caucus in in fact allowing X-rated videos still to be distributed from the Australian Capital Territory. I have a great respect for Senator Collins and I note with interest the remarks attributed to him in yesterday's Canberra Times. Senator Collins said, `I am a practising Christian but I am not arrogant enough to shove it, that is my view, down 16 million throats'. I can identify with Senator Collins's sentiments, for I too, claim to be a practising Christian. I, too, do not intend to shove my particular philosophy of life down 16 million other throats. I, too, am embarrassed by the antics of other practising Christians in Parliament such as the Reverend Fred Nile and the line that they take. What I stand for, and I believe Senator Collins stands for, and so should every other practising Christian in the House, is a measure of accountability for what we determine in this place. What I have to decide is whether what I vote for effectively elevates society or depresses society. I refer to another comment that Senator Collins made. He said that his greatest concern was the effect on children but the prime responsibility for what children viewed resided with their parents. I have no difficulty with that. As a parent, I accept the prime responsibility for what my children view, but I cannot deny the responsibility I have as a legislator to ensure that the access my children-- Mr Fitzgibbon —I take a point of order. My point of order is that by quoting from a newspaper which gave a very, very abbreviated outline of what occurred at the Labor Party Caucus meeting, the honourable member is inferring that only two members of the Labor Party-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The matter remains open to debate but it is not in contravention of the Standing Orders. Mr ANDREW —Mr Deputy Speaker, as is usually the case, the honourable member opposite has managed to take up even more of the limited time that I have available to me. I simply reinforce the point that I accept the responsibility that I have and all other members have to accept a measure of accountability for the sort of legislation that passes through this House. I refer, too, to the statement that was made by Mr John Lark of the Adult Video Industry Association when he said that he was delighted at the decision and at the sales that would follow. Need I say any more? All we have done is further encourage the adult video industry in this capital and, by implication, across the nation. But before honourable members opposite take issue with me on the question of censorship, let us look at what really condemns the actions of members opposite. When my Leader, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) stood here wanting a debate on this issue this week, the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) gagged the opportunity he had for debate. That is the sort of censorship we should protest at. Here we were, prepared to debate openly a subject of concern to every constituent and were denied the opportunity to debate because the Government frankly did not want what had been said in its Caucus room restated in the Parliament. If the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) has anything he is concerned about it it ought to be that sort of censorship. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I would like to draw the House's attention to the practice of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) of showing its television news at 6 o'clock on Saturday and Sunday nights. I must say that I am getting absolutely fed up with the ABC. Radio National has been semi-destroyed. It is quite possible to get roughly the same kinds of programs of light music being played on ABC FM at the same time as Radio National when we want some classical music, and we used to be able to get it. I must say that I am distracted beyond measure by this new onslaught on the senses of having all the news services over the weekend at the same time, at 6 o'clock. The ABC news was always at 7 o'clock. If you came in a bit late you could always watch it, or if you wanted to check whether the commercials were running a different story from the ABC, which is often the case, or if you wanted more international news, you could watch the ABC later. I think it is an absolute disgrace. I do not know what is happening to the ABC. I think members on both sides of the House will join me in complaining about this ridiculous placement of the news over the weekend. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler) —On Monday, 7 November, Bundaberg lost one of its sons, the late Bill Cunnington. Bill was 93 years of age. He served in the First Australian Imperial Force in the Camel Corps of the 14th and 15th Light Horse Brigade in the Middle East. He met and married his wife Emily at Port Said in Egypt; he returned to Australia and then to Bundaberg where they raised 10 children. Bill worked for the Bundaberg City Council for 33 years in the Parks and Gardens Department and was responsible for the establishment and beautification of both Buss Park and Alexandra Park, a monument that will stand forever to Bill's hard work and planning. Bill was a keen racegoer and he trained thoroughbreds for most of his adult life. It was only three years ago that he relinquished his licence, at the age of 90 years. Bill was a life member of the Bundaberg Race Club, his best horses being Transvaal and Silver Burgh. Bill is survived by his 10 children, 33 grandchildren and 30 great grandchildren. He represents one of the last of the great generation, a true blue Aussie. He will be lovingly remembered by his family and friends. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —I wish to voice my strong concern and certainly disappointment that the Government is not actually proceeding with the legislation concerning X-rated videos. In my electorate, every decent Australian is very concerned that the Government has failed, I would say, to meet the requests of the State Attorneys-General. This nation realises that most of the X-rated video material is coming through Canberra and the Commonwealth outlets throughout Australia. Unless the Government takes action immediately, decent Australians will still be the subject of this awful material. I ask the Government to move on behalf of the community, particularly the churches, community organisations and many others who want to see this action taken as soon as possible. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter) —Mittagong is a nice southern New South Wales town, but if you drive a car it is an expensive place to live. Locals in Mittagong are socked in the pocket when they buy petrol in that town. Passing motorists should ignore Mittagong like the plague. Petrol prices never fluctuate in Mittagong; they are always in the top bracket. You will pay 6c or 8c per litre more for your petrol in Mittagong. Today the price of petrol in Mittagong is 58.9c per litre. Service station proprietors in Mittagong do not hate motorists; they just believe in ripping them off. Proprietors take advantage of the 70-kilometre no petrol freeway between Mittagong and Sydney. There is never a petrol price war in Mittagong. Service station proprietors are too smart and too united for that. There is no reason that petrol should be so expensive in Mittagong; no reason, that is, except greed. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —All members, on this side of the House at least, would be well aware of the problems afflicting the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation specifically and the science community generally due to a total neglect by the Hawke Government, but I wonder whether the Government itself is realising the implications for Australia's industry and competitiveness on world markets. One would not think so, looking at the transcript of an interview by Kerry O'Brien on the Face to Face program with the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) last Sunday. It really is quite laughable except that tragically it is a very serious issue that nobody on the Government side seems to be taking seriously. Mr O'Brien asked the Minister about being summoned to visit the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) the other day. This is what the Minister said about his visit to the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister indicated that he was sympathetic to what was happening, and recognised that there was a very grave danger of losing the scientific constituency and their friends and their families and indeed a lot of people in what you might broadly describe as the intellectual community. The cynicism with which this Government approaches any of the problems that afflict Australian society today is bad enough but on this issue it goes beyond mere politics. It is in the country's national interest to pursue a vigorous, innovative scientific policy, none of which criteria are satisfied under this Government's neglect. It is also hilarious when the Minister for Science does not deny the allegation put to him by Mr O'Brien that both the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) are opposed-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell) —I wish to draw to the attention of the House a discovery by a constituent of mine, Mr Roley Pleming, who lives in Berkeley Vale, which is within my electorate. Mr Pleming has brought to the attention of many people living in my electorate the beneficial effects of a plant called candelabra, which goes by the botanical name of arborescens. I have part of this plant in my hand. The sap from the leaves of this plant, in Mr Pleming's opinion, has proved to be very effective in stopping the pains from sciatica, lumbago, gout, rheumatoid arthritis, tendonitis, arthritis, RSI, migraine headaches, hangovers-for members of the Opposition-burns, sunburns, spurs, bunions, asthma, multiple sclerosis, perforated veins and trigger finger. I am not quite sure how it could fix trigger finger but that is also one of the ailments that it may fix. Also some people suffering from cancer and strokes have also found that the juice from this plant has been of some assistance to them. Mr Pleming has recommended to people who wish to try the effects of this plant that they split the leaf and put the juice on the affected spot until the pain eases. I have to say that I have not carried out any scientific tests myself on the effects of the juice of this plant but I do know that Mr Pleming has had many good reports. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —In my electorate of Wakefield I am receiving hundreds of complaints regarding a proposed change in responsibility for repatriation hospitals. Every day another 20 or so letters from concerned veterans and their families arrive. Changes over the last few years by the Hawke Government have convinced my electorate that the veteran is to be brushed under the carpet. Australia's lack of involvement, thankfully, in active combat over recent years, has enabled the present Government to hope that the decreasing number of veterans will eventually disappear. Even the action of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in condoning the laying of a plaque commemorating those Japanese aircrews lost in action over Australia during World War II has offended some returned men and women. At the same time, we have supposedly responsible people advocating awarding our Olympic athletes a pension in line with that awarded to war veterans. How much longer have the war widow and the war veteran to put up with these types of insults when they or their close ones were prepared to make the supreme sacrifice? This Government and this country should give a reassurance to veterans and their widows that they are not forgotten. It is time to give our veterans something to celebrate in 1988. Tomorrow, Madam Speaker, is 11 November and an appropriate time to recall that all that veterans seek is predictability and recognition that the spirit of Ben Chifley has not been exorcised from the Hawke Australian Labor Party. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde) —I wish to acknowledge the National Women's Art Award which was held on 6 November and is currently still being exhibited at the Centre Gallery in Surfers Paradise until 27 November. The exhibition is the first of its kind in Australia and, in fact, aside from inviting numbers of women from all around Australia to participate, it also took the opportunity to put together an exhibition called `A complimentary caste; a homage to women artists in Queensland, past and present'. In fact, it displayed work from people such as Ann Green who painted in 1897, through the weavers of the 1930s, sculptors, potters, photographers, quilters and others. Because for many, women's art often uses media and subject matter which are less frequently used by men, the national committee behind which Bronwyn Larner was the driving force took the opportunity in this our bicentennial year to acknowledge the very real contribution which women have made to the art in Australia. Betty Churcher was invited to open the exhibition and I certainly was delighted to be there as one of over 500 people to participate in what we hope will become an annual event. Let me just say that the efforts of Irene Amos and also, of course, Fran Considine, the gallery director, do very much for women's art in Australia and in particular in Queensland and I think it important that we in this Parliament acknowledge their work and contribution to Australian art. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —I congratulate the New South Wales Government on its decision to return all the registrations on motor vehicles amounting to approximately $180m a year back to the roads and the bridging of the State. I do this, Madam Speaker, in the face of the legislation that came before the Parliament yesterday. Over the last three years there has not been an increase in actual money value of the funds available from the Commonwealth to all the States and local government for road works generally. Under the legislation there is no hope of any increase for another two-year term and some doubt as to the future of the three years remaining of the five-year term after that. The roads of this country are the lifeblood so far as our Australian people are concerned, particularly those on the land and in industry and it is so important that the Government does recognise the importance of transport to production and sales. I appeal to the Government to re-examine the legislation in the light of the demands and to give a reasonable priority to road funding. The States and local government generally are most disappointed in the action of the Government and undoubtedly they will be pressing the matter. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I drew the attention of the House to the irresponsible attacks made on myself and the Government by Mr B. A. Santamaria in the Australian newspaper and Mr Michael Barnard in the Age newspaper. The attacks arose because of my appointment by the House as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and question my integrity as a member of the Australian Parliament and my loyalty to Australia and the Australian people. I have sent copies of my grievance debate speech to the editors of both newspapers with a request that my comments be published, as I believed that I should be given the right to reply to such unwarranted and irresponsible attacks. On previous occasions the editors have responded that I have plenty of opportunity in the Parliament to raise issues of political importance. However, it is a sad fact that far more people read our national newspapers than listen to the parliamentary broadcasts or read the Hansard. Whilst the editor of the Age did say that he might consider publishing a letter, I believe that it is deplorable that both editors have seen fit to refuse to publish even an edited version of my rebuttal of the mischievous attacks on my integrity made by their columnists. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I would like to draw the attention of honourable members of this House to the fact that in far western Victoria, in my electorate, there is a little town called Merino. It has a bush nursing hospital which has struggled on, despite the fact that the Government cut the $20 bed subsidy off last year. I am now going to present to the House a petition which contains 247 signatures, all of which were gained around the district of Merino. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m, in accordance with sessional order 106a, the time for members' statements has concluded. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a courtesy, I inform the House that the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support (Mr Punch) is absent from Question Time today on Government business. Questions normally addressed to him should be directed to the portfolio Minister, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis). Mr PEACOCK —What is the Treasurer's estimate of the impact of a rise in mortgage rates to 15 per cent on private dwelling investment? Mr KEATING —I can only draw from the question the inference that the shadow Treasurer is bidding for an answer about reductions in disposable incomes-that is, some impact on living standards-when for weeks the shadow Minister for finance has been out urging a tightening of monetary policy and higher interest rates and when the Opposition has opposed every national wage increase since 1983. Members of the Opposition should get their act together. Either the honourable member believes in a managed change in real unit labour costs, which the Government has presided over since 1983, and a sustainable level of growth in the economy, with the emphasis on `sustainable', or he does not. But the honourable member should not ask me questions which beg for an answer about some impact of mortgages on disposable income when, in fact, his colleague is out there arguing strenuously, week in and week out, for an increase in interest rates. Mr BILNEY —Will the Prime Minister outline the Government's reaction to the recent election of Mr Bush as President of the United States? Mr HAWKE —I believe that Australia can look forward with great confidence to the presidency of Mr Bush. His background as Vice-President to President Reagan, and before that as a successful businessman, congressman and holder of senior posts in the Administration, I believe, will prove extremely valuable in tackling the range of international, economic, security and political issues which the United States and the rest of the world have to face in the next few years. I am very hopeful that under his presidency we will see further advances in arms control, building on the intermediate-range nuclear force agreement achieved between President Reagan and Secretary-General Gorbachev, and that we will see further progress towards removing the threat of nuclear catastrophe. From the discussions I have been able to have previously, I believe that this will be a major goal of the new Administration. It is also important to Australia to understand that George Bush himself understands very much the importance of the Asia-Pacific region. In particular, he knows Australia and he knows Australians very well. He regards Australians as good friends and as firm allies of the United States. I note that, like President Reagan, President Bush will face a Democrat majority in the Congress. I can assure the House that the Government will work closely with the new President and will continue to focus the attention of the Congress on matters affecting Australia's trade and other interests. Our views on these issues are already very well known to the President-elect following extensive discussions that I have had with him and that many of my Ministers also have had with him and other members of the Administration. They were, for example, set out very precisely in the address I made to the joint session of Congress earlier this year. I also note that James Baker has already been named by George Bush as Secretary of State in the new administration. He has impressive credentials for this important task. I know Mr Baker well and I am confident that the Australian Government will be able to have a very close working relationship with him as, it is well known, we were able to have with the present holder of that office, George Shultz, who, I might say, I believe has made an absolutely outstanding contribution during his period as Secretary of State. I conclude by saying that the very best wishes of the Government as well as, I am sure I can say, of the whole of this Parliament and of all Australians will go with George Bush as he prepares to assume this most important of all positions of political leadership. Mr HOWARD —I seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —You have my indulgence. Mr HOWARD —The Opposition joins the Prime Minister in conveying congratulations to George Bush. I welcome his election very warmly, and I know that all members of the Liberal and National parties do also. I particularly welcome the fact that he will bring a world view and not just an Atlantic view to the conduct of American foreign policy. I also welcome the fact that he will continue the essential thrust of the Reagan years in world foreign policy leadership. On the question of trade matters, it is an appropriate time for me to say that, whatever our differences may be with the Government on other issues, there is a united Australian view to the United States and other parts of the world in relation to achieving a fair deal, particularly for Australian primary producers. In every respect, I wish George Bush well. I think he brings to the office enormous experience. He is a man I have respected for a long time and I personally am very happy with the result. It is a triumph of the American electorate's faith in mainstream free enterprise, conservative values. Mr MOORE —My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, relates to the ongoing Rothwells affair. It is probably worth pointing out that a week ago the Prime Minister said that the Western Australian Government was handling this in an appropriately prudent manner. Has the Attorney seen the comments made by the Chairman of the Perth Stock Exchange, Mr Poynton, where he suggested that international confidence in Australia would be damaged if the Rothwells affair was not properly dealt with? In view of the serious concerns in the marketplace and the strong indications that the intitial report of the provisional liquidator will go beyond the worst expectations, will the Attorney now honour the Government's legislation obligation under section 291 of the Companies Code and order a full inquiry forthwith? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman has asked questions before on the basis that this might be a matter which should have been investigated by the Commonwealth even though the matters relate to State administration. Mr Moore —Why did you not have a Commonwealth investigation into-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Ryan has asked his question; he will now listen to the answer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Thank you, Madam Speaker. Rothwells Ltd, as a matter of interest, is incorporated in the State of Queensland. That, of course, immediately gives legal capacity for that State to have an investigation. It is well know that the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) has an overall responsibility for the administration of corporate activity. So the present situation, as I have told the honourable member before, has been the subject of continual investigation and supervision, we understand, by the National Companies and Securities Commission. The Ministerial Council gets reports from the National Companies and Securities Commission as and when the Ministerial Council meets. I do not know whether there has been any detailed report about Rothwells other than the fact that the matter was the subject of continued investigation. It is inappropriate for the honourable gentleman to suggest that something has not been done when, apparently, the matter has been under continual supervision and investigation by the National Companies and Securities Commission. Mr Moore —Why do you want-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to standing order 55. I warn the honourable member for Ryan. He is not heeding the Chair. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is an interesting question. The Opposition opposes any national interest in the matter until something goes wrong, and then says to us, `Why aren't you doing it?'. I have no legal responsibility in the matter unless it was made very clear that the honourable gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition started to consider what would be in the national interest from the point of view of legislation. Mr Howard —A split scheme. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Oh, yes! None of the States want a split scheme. Why? It is because the States want the privilege, the power and the profit from running the present scheme. If they have the power, if they have the privilege, and as they have the profits, what are they doing about administering the scheme? I am not here to criticise the States as such in this case. The matter has been the continual subject of investigation by the National Companies and Securities Commission. Under the Queensland Supreme Court-note, State law-eventually a provisional liquidator was appointed. I am advised that the auditors, Peat Marwick Hungerfords, have been keeping the National Companies and Securities Commission informed and will shortly be handing a report on the financial position of Rothwells to the National Companies and Securities Commission. At least some progress is being made. The Commission is to get a report as to Rothwells' financial position. The NCSC, under section 291 of the Companies Act, has the power to request that a special investigation be held. No such request has yet been made. It would not be the first time a request for a special investigation had been made. We have a request now to investigate a company which, I think, is closely associated with the State which the honourable member represents. The request for a special investigation was made on the basis that the National Companies and Securities Commission does not have the financial resources to carry out an investigation. That is interesting. Every State has the profit, the liability and the responsibility but the National Companies and Securities Commission is unable to carry out that investigation. The NCSC is carrying out this investigation. I do not know whether the honourable member is satisfied with that. However, any report will go to the meeting of the Ministerial Council, which will be held on 1 December. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, I apologise to the House for this late announcement of ministerial arrangements, but it had not been brought to my attention that the Minister for Health and Community Services (Dr Blewett) is absent on Government business. In his absence, questions normally directed to him should be directed to his portfolio colleague the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, Mr Staples. Mr FITZGIBBON —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the outlook for Australia's current account deficit? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. Whilst the July and August current account figures exceeded the equivalent figures for the previous year, the September deficit figure of $990m was more encouraging. In interpreting the current account numbers, we need to be aware of the volatility and the seasonality of the monthly figures. For example, I think all honourable members would know that results so far this financial year have been affected by the low opening stocks for wool and wheat. There is no doubt that exports should improve as the wool clip and the wheat harvest begin to come in. When considering the outlook for Australia, we need to look both at the import side and the export side. I think honourable members will appreciate that so far this year import figures have remained relatively flat. As to export volumes, it is appropriate to quote some recent statements by certain leaders of the mining industry. The chief executive of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd, Mr John Ralph, was recently reported as saying that the fundamentals for the mining industry were the best for 15 years. Mr Ralph said: We are also furthering capacity expansions committed, or in the feasibility study stage, in coal, copper and diamonds. Another industry leader, Sir Arvi Parbo, Chairman of Western Mining Corporation, recently said: In spite of all the technological changes and substitution, the consumption of all the main metals and minerals continues to increase . . . There is every indication that demand will continue to grow. If we are considering the outlook for Australia, these predictions and analyses by leaders of the mining industry are of considerable comfort for Australia, as I would suggest also is an analysis that appeared in today's press by another leader of the mining industry, Mr Hugh Morgan. Mr Hugh Morgan was talking about the future of Australia also. He made an equally prescient and, I would think, accurate analysis relevant to the future of Australia when he said, speaking about members of the other side of the House-- Mr Tuckey —Come on, Madam Speaker. Mr HAWKE —This is relevant to the future of Australia. I know that honourable members opposite do not want to hear it because he dobbed every one of them in. He made an analysis of every honourable member sitting opposite. He said: At this time the public generally find him- he was talking about the Leader of the Opposition- and the present leadership-and I include his parliamentary colleagues-as not being the leadership that they would like to have available to select to lead the nation. One could not have a more accurate analysis by a leader of the mining industry of the alternative government of this country. Mr Hugh Morgan says that the Opposition is not up to it-the leadership and the whole lot of them. In regard to the future of the current account deficit, it is quite clear that the responsibility for the management of the current account and the external situation of this country-the total economic management-will remain in the years ahead where it should, and that is with the people on this side of the House because the others are hopeless, as indicated by Mr Hugh Morgan. Mr CADMAN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs aware of the case of Lebanese drug smugglers and their families given two-year temporary residents' permits in Australia which was reported in the 60 Minutes program on 6 November? The report alleges that the decision must have been made at the highest levels. Did the portfolio Minister make the decision? Was that decision influenced by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or any other Minister and if so, who? Was the decision in accordance with departmental advice? Mr HOLDING —I am aware of the circumstances surrounding this matter. The decision that was made had nothing to do with the Prime Minister. It was based on advice from the Australian Federal Police who regarded this family as critical to giving evidence in a very important drug case. That was the basis upon which the decision was made. Mr UREN —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It relates to former prisoners of war of the Japanese in the Second World War. I preface my question by reminding honourable members that in the Second World War 550,000 troops in all theatres of war served Australia and 19,000 of those were killed. Of the Australians who were taken prisoners of war by the Japanese-some 22,000-only 14,000 returned home. Is the Prime Minister aware that, due to the barbaric conditions and the malnourishment, about half of those 14,000 now survive? Would the Prime Minister agree that this group of Australians suffered more than any other in the defence of their country in the Second World War? The Prime Minister will recall that I wrote to him recently seeking to have a survey or inquiry into the health, future treatment and remuneration of the former prisoners of war. Has the Prime Minister reached a decision on my proposal? If not, will he give consideration to reaching an early decision? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, nobody in this House or elsewhere can or will dispute the unbelievable severity of the conditions endured by those who were held captive by the Japanese during the Second World War. I might make the observation that I believe it is true that the honourable member for Reid is now the only remaining member in this Parliament who had first-hand experience of those conditions. Therefore, I and, I think, all honourable members would appreciate the intensity of his concern and commitment to his former comrades. It is in recognition of those severe conditions that the prisoners of war of the Japanese have, in the past, received sympathetic treatment and consideration from the Repatriation Commission, and it is proper that that should be so. The honourable member has called for a survey. I can tell the House, and particularly the honourable member, that a number of major reviews are currently being undertaken by the Department of Veterans' Affairs which will be of considerable relevance to all ageing veterans, including those ex-prisoners of war to whom the honourable gentleman refers. The more significant of these involve a fundamental review of the Department's treatment program and the development of a corporate plan designed to deliver services better to veterans and their dependants. Beyond that, as I indicated in the discussion with the honourable member subsequent to the letter he sent to me, I have asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to consider the matter which he has raised and to let me know what specific initiatives, if any, might be appropriate in responding to the particular issue raised by the honourable member. The essence of my reply is that there are these general reviews taking place which will be of benefit to the ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese. In addition to those general views, I have asked the Minister, in the light of the letter from the honourable member to me on this issue, to investigate and to report back to me as to whether there is anything further in particular which should be done, and I will keep in touch with the honourable gentleman in the light of those inquiries. I thank him for this question. Mr MILES —I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I remind the Minister that I asked him a question in regard to the disappearance of Aboriginal artworks, to which the Minister replied that he was unaware of the events that surrounded it and would refer it to one of the six inquiries into Aboriginal administration. Has the Minister now acquainted himself with the events surrounding the disappearance of the artworks? Secondly, is the Minister aware that, of the 353 items that were missing, approximately 200 remain unaccounted for and that it has been estimated that, at today's values, their worth could approach anything up to $1m? Is it true also that, following Question Time on Tuesday, the former Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment contacted senior people in the public administration of the arts and expressed his deep concern about the likely implications if the Opposition pursued this matter? Fourthly, to which inquiry of the six will the Minister refer the matter? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. The actual matters to which he refers are within the framework of my portfolio and not that of my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Mr Gear —You have to make allowances. Mr HOLDING —I forgive the shadow Minister for not understanding that simple fact. The fact is that some artworks which were the property of the Aboriginal Arts Board are missing. In stocktakings undertaken annually prior to June 1987 no significant losses were identified. Mr MacKellar —No significant losses? Mr HOLDING —Well, we are looking at a large number of items and these matters were the subject of examination by the Auditor-General, and nothing there would bring that fact to the attention of the Australia Council or even to the Aboriginal Arts Board. The results of the stocktakes were incorporated in the annual financial statements of the Council. No adverse comment was made by the Auditor-General concerning these stocktakes. The annual stocktake undertaken in June 1987 revealed 353 items, values at approximately $38,084, which could not be accounted for. Opposition members-Oh! Mr HOLDING —Of course, I should point out that for most of the relevant period the person who had been Secretary of the Aboriginal Arts Board was the person who has been relied upon by members of the Opposition as their informant for the allegation of corruption-Mr Foley. Honourable members interjecting- Mr HOLDING —I am not making any allegation about that gentleman. I just simply say this: the person whom those opposite relied on and referred to in terms of their accusations about corruption against my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was for almost the whole time in a position where either he knew or he should have or could have known about these matters and disclosed them. As soon as this matter was brought to the attention of the Council, it immediately issued and made arrangements for stricter security. It reported the matter to the Australian Federal Police, to my ministerial colleague Senator Richardson, and to the Auditor-General. As at 9 November, 112 items, valued at some $15,988.96, have been located at the National Gallery of Victoria, although specific identification of these works has not been completed. In some cases some of these items have been identified by the Federal Police. They had been returned quite legitimately to some Aboriginal communities, who had decided that they did not want to keep them and made them available for sale. As of now, work is continuing to locate the balance of 189 items, valued at some $22,095. Three of those items were purchased at $7,600 and the remaining items average out at $78 each. So again not only has the shadow Minister really got the portfolio wrong; he has the sums wrong, he has the items wrong, and the person who is in the best position to advise the honourable gentleman opposite is the person that those opposite called as their witness to substantiate a very generalised allegation of corruption against my colleague and me and against this Government. Do your homework and get it right in future! Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I draw the attention of the House to standing order 55. Mr LAMB —My question is also directed to the Minister for the Arts and Territories and Minister Assisting the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Is the Minister aware of the offensive, anti-Jewish remarks allegedly made by the Imam of the Lakemba Mosque-Sheikh Al Hilaly? Can the Minister say whether these remarks represent the views of the Muslim community in Australia? Mr Howard —How on earth can you answer that? Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I understand the significance of the remarks but I would question whether the Minister is responsible for determining the views of the Muslim community in Australia. He cannot be asked a question of opinion on a matter like that. Nobody agrees with Sheikh Al Hilaly, but I seriously suggest that the question is totally out of order. Madam SPEAKER —He is asking for information, I would imagine. The Minister is in order. Mr Sinclair —He should be in order, and he is not. Mr HOLDING —Madam Speaker, I direct your attention to the statement made by the Leader of the National Party, who indicated that, although you have just ruled on the matter, I am not in order. I suggest he be asked to withdraw that, as it is a reflection on your ruling. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair is not quite as touchy. Mr HOLDING —I am aware of the remarks that were made by Sheikh Hilaly, and on behalf of the Government I repudiate those remarks. More importantly, if we are to make some judgments about those remarks, then I think we should not look to the views of the Government or of a Minister but, more importantly, to the views expressed by leaders of the Islamic community around Australia. I am pleased to say that very shortly after those remarks were made, Australian Muslims and their leadership not only made it perfectly clear that they did not support the views of Sheikh Hilaly, but also distanced themselves from those remarks; and in several telegrams and letters to the Government the following points have emerged. In a telegram to the Prime Minister, Dr Hague, the President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC), Australia's largest established Muslim organisation, said the Federation: will have nothing to do with unwarranted remarks that might hurt the feelings of fellow Australians of any religion or race. He continued: AFIC is committed to the enhancement of a multicultural Australia under your leadership where the views and faiths of all Australians, irrespective of their origin, must be respected. Professor El Eriam, the former President of AFIC, who represented Muslims at the opening of the new Parliament House, says that he `repudiates any statements which are likely to cause discord or dissonance in our peaceful nation'. Dr Ahmed Shboel, a member of the Advisory Council on Multicultural Affairs, said that he is `personally shocked at the statement attributed to Sheikh Hilaly'. He said: It's utterly unacceptable and is anathema to the principle of Islamic tolerance and the ideals of our multicultural society. Finally, the press itself has reported that the National Federation of Islamic Societies `rejects and condemns' the Sheikh's remarks. It is perfectly clear that racism of any sort-particularly anti-Semitism, which is an international scourge-has no place in a multicultural society such as ours. Of course, the Government will continue to pursue the policy of multiculturalism; and it welcomes the support that has been given and expressed on behalf of the Islamic community of Australia. Those statements ought to be noted, not only by the House but by all Australians. They show that those of the Islamic faith who have come to Australia are not prepared to countenance remarks which attack the very basis and the very ethos of multiculturalism and on both a spiritual basis, in terms of their Islamic religion and in terms of their perceptions and their willingness to be part of a broader Australian society, they have not only distanced themselves from those comments but also seriously condemned them. I believe those statements are enormously significant and ought to be taken into account by all members of the House and by the Australian community in general. Mr IAN CAMERON —I ask a question of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Can the Minister explain to the House why there has been a massive increase, in his Government's terms in office, in the number of people claiming to be Aborigines receiving special benefits? I shall quote these percentage increases for each State: in Tasmania, there has been a 150 per cent increase in people claiming to be Aborigines; Victoria, a 108 per cent increase; New South Wales, a 66 per cent increase; the Australian Capital Territory, a 50 per cent increase; South Australia, a 45 per cent increase; Queensland, a 37 per cent increase; Western Australia, a 22 per cent increase; and the Northern Territory, a 19 per cent increase. I would like the Minister to explain to the House why it is that we have seen these massive increases. Mr HAND —In answer to the honourable member's question dealing with the increased numbers of Aboriginal people recorded on government documents in each State, I would suggest there could be a number of reasons. One reason could be that people are proud to be Aboriginal; and it could be because censuses have been conducted more accurately than they have been in the past. Mr O'NEIL —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is the Minister aware of deep concern in the ex-service community about the intention to integrate repatriation general hospitals into the State system? Will the Minister inform the House of the consultative machinery which has been set in place, as well as the guarantees that have been given to the ex-service community? Mr HUMPHREYS —I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. It is a very important question, and one in which I hope all honourable members would be very interested. I am aware of concern in some veterans' communities, especially in South Australia in the electorates of the honourable member for Grey and the honourable member for Hawker. One might ask why the concern is being felt. I can assure the House that the reason for that concern has not come from this side of the House but from the other side of the House. The concern has come from the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer; a senator in another place, and the honourable member for Adelaide. What they have reverted to is the typical old tactic of the Opposition-scaremongering; scaring those aged and infirm veterans and war widows by running around the countryside saying that the Government is not looking after veterans. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HUMPHREYS —Opposition members are not interested in what the Government has to say about veterans. When we tell the House the truth, they start jumping around. What they have been doing is absolutely contemptible, scaring those aged and infirm people, as well as war widows, by saying that they will be badly treated in relation to the integration of repatriation hospitals into the State hospital system. The debate about integration has been around for some 15 years. It was not this side of the House that started it; it was the other side of the House. We continue on. It is a very important issue and one that must be dealt with, one we must come to grips with. The Prime Minister and I have given guarantees to the veterans' community, guarantees that are ironclad. If the veterans' community has any problems whatsoever in relation to integration and the rationalisation of the repatriation hospital systems, we will deal with those problems. The Government has formed committees with the involvement of the veterans' community-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HUMPHREYS —Opposition members are not interested in knowing anything about it. In relation to the consultative committees concerning the integration of the repatriation hospitals, the Returned Services League is represented, the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council is represented, Legacy is represented-all the veterans' communities are represented. Any of the problems they have and any of the fears stirred up by the scaremongering tactics of the Opposition will be dealt with. The integration of the repatriation hospital systems will not take place until all of the concerns of the veterans' community are dealt with. That is an unequivocal guarantee that is given by this side of the House. It is about time the members of the Opposition got on with doing the job of supporting integration. We have one policy of four pages from the Opposition relating to the veterans. Mr Reith —What about-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Flinders will cease interjecting. Mr HUMPHREYS —Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Flinders whinges to you all the time. He is a typical whinger in the Opposition. Nevertheless, the honourable member for Farrer can speak to me at any time about integration without running around this country scaring those people who deserve better treatment, as the honourable member for Reid and the Prime Minister said today. We look after the veterans. We are proud of our record in the veteran community. What did the Opposition do for the veteran community in all the 23 years or more that it was in government? It did nothing. Mr COWAN —Will the Minister for Transport and Communications confirm or deny that an early commencement will be made to the proposed Badgerys Creek airport? If so, when is work expected to commence? Will international aircraft be expected to use Badgerys Creek? Will appropriate ground transport be developed between the airport and the city? Mr WILLIS —The House will be aware that, some time ago, the Government decided that there should be a second airport in the Sydney region at Badgerys Creek. Indeed, a land acquisition program has been in place for the last couple of years and $15m is allocated in the Budget this year for further land acquisition. So the long term policy is quite clear. However, the assessment of the more immediate airport needs of the Sydney region is a matter of some concern to the Government. We have established a joint task force with the New South Wales Government which will be reporting to us in a few days on the airport needs of the Sydney region. Following receipt of that task force report the Government will decide what further steps need to be taken to address those assessed airport needs and what increase, if any, needs to take place in the pace of the development of Badgerys Creek. Mr WRIGHT —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Aged Care. I refer the Minister to the activities of State National Party members of parliament in Queensland announcing and presenting cheques in relation to the home and community care program (HACC), particularly meals on wheels, as well as funding for accommodation projects for the elderly. Is it not correct that the bulk of these moneys come from the Hawke Federal Government? Will the Minister take up this matter with his State counterparts in the health, aged and housing areas to ensure that, when announcements, presentations and project openings are made, due credit is given to the Federal Government for its funding role in all these areas? Will the Minister advise the House what action he can take regarding these unfair practices? Mr STAPLES —Funding and administrative procedures are issues associated with joint programs between the Commonwealth and State governments. Unfortunately, at the moment the Queensland Government, probably in its desperation, has started a practice of giving cheques for quarterly payments-not simply making an announcement at the time under the home and community care program-to National Party members for distribution to organisations. This is a sad but true story of the sort of cheap abuse of our philosophy and what has generally been the case in Australian political and governmental circles in respect of joint projects. In addition, in this specific case it is an abuse of the spirit of the HACC agreement. I understand that, on occasions, cheques have even stayed in the offices of National Party members and have not been properly handed over to the organisations. Normally, honourable members with an understanding of community organisations would realise the importance of getting these funds through on time. The sad part about this is that last year the Commonwealth Government contributed over 60 per cent of funds to the home and community care program in Queensland. In fact, this year it will provide more than that-about 62 per cent. Unfortunately, the Queensland Government does not have the same commitment to the home and community care program as the Commonwealth Government as the Commonwealth Government has offered 20 per cent for growth indexation. Last year it provided only 8.84 per cent. This failure of the Queensland Government to index by 20 per cent last year has meant a loss to the Queensland community of approximately $3m in joint funds. Because of the Queensland Government's failure to commit itself to the home and community care program, those people in the Queensland communities who are caring for the frail aged and young disabled have lost about $436,000 which would have been their share of the Commonwealth Government's unmatched moneys. The Queensland community has not only lost this money but also has been forced, at the behest of the Queensland Government, to take part in its stupid political games. From today's papers it seems that the Queensland Ministers are quite good at spending money on self-promotion. It is a shame that they did not spend more money and did not put more effort into looking after Queensland's frail aged and disabled. Mr Tuckey-Madam Speaker, I seek your advice regarding the incorporation of items in Hansard. Is it possible, under the printing arrangements and under your ruling, to incorporate a photograph of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Photographs cannot be incorporated in Hansard. The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat at once. Mr Keating-Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor is persistently seeking indulgence from the Chair under the Standing Orders. He has now sought to abuse the Standing Orders by putting a question to you which is outside the Standing Orders. He should, therefore, be dealt with accordingly. Mr Cadman-Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the photograph. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mitchell will resume his seat. Madam SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House that the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings met this afternoon and adopted the following resolution: That the Committee supports the temporary transfer of the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings to the ABC's standby transmitter network. The Committee has also sought advice on the possibility of broadcasting Question Time and the adjournment debate live on Radio National and also a summary of the day's proceeding at 7.15 p.m. Mr Spender-Madam Speaker, might I inquire as to whether you ruled that the honourable member for Mitchell could not table a photograph? Madam SPEAKER —I ruled that the honourable member for O'Connor could not have his photograph printed in Hansard as we do not do such things. Mr Spender-Madam Speaker, when the honourable member for Mitchell got up and sought leave to table the photograph-- Madam SPEAKER —He sought leave. Is the House prepared to give him leave? Mr Beazley-No. Madam SPEAKER —The House is not prepared to give him leave. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission for 1987-88. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —Madam Speaker, during Question Time the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) accused me of callously stirring up veterans and war widows during a recent visit to Adelaide. I wish to advise the House that I did properly attend a public meeting convened by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) on Sunday morning, 30 October, and at all times adopted a constructive approach to the complex issues involved, in sharp contrast to this Government imposing a $5,000 levy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not debate the issue. He will simply explain his own position and not attack anybody else at the same time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, immediately after Question Time you made a statement regarding a report from the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. In the normal course of events when a Minister makes a statement we can ask that the statement be noted. I would like the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) to move that your statement be noted so that an opportunity can be provided for members in this place who have an interest in this debate to pursue it at an appropriate time. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the House take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HUMPHREYS —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HUMPHREYS —The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) just claimed to have been misrepresented. I have a document here that proves he was not misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is not a personal explanation. Mr HUMPHREYS —He claimed I misrepresented him. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will resume his seat. This is not a personal explanation. Mr HUMPHREYS —Can I seek leave to table the document? Madam SPEAKER —Ministers can always table documents. Ministers do not need leave to table. The Minister will resume his seat. He did not have a personal explanation. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr COURTICE —Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr COURTICE —In a letter to the editor in today's Bundaberg News Mail, a former alderman of the Bundaberg City Council, Mr Aaron, accused me of raising matters dealing with the sale of the Bundaberg rifle range as part of a smear campaign against the Council. On 22 September 1988 the Council of which Mr Aaron was a member requested that I undertake investigations into the sale of the rifle range. I might add that this resolution occurred two days after aldermen of the Council had met with officers from the Department of Administrative Services who were carrying out an internal investigation. As a result of discrepancy in the public statements, of the Council as well as information supplied to me, I detailed information to the House. Attempts were made by people on the Bundaberg City Council to mislead the Opposition spokesman, Senator Boswell, as shown by his questions in Senate Estimates Committee hearings. His response, as well as a response from Alderman Lohse in the News Mail of 4 October, shows that, with respect to Council interest in the site, aldermen have been untruthful and other misled. This is not a smear. Mr Aaron misrepresented what he and other aldermen asked me to investigate-namely, the sale of the rifle range. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The deliberate neglect displayed by the Government in the administration and care of Australia's servicemen and women as shown in the Report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Personnel Wastage in the Australian Defence Force. 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 WHITE(McPherson)(2.54) —This morning the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Personnel Wastage in the Australian Defence Force was tabled. It is appropriate that this report, this thick volume, has been tabled today, the day before Armistice Day when we remember the sacrifice that has been made in the past, as the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) reminded us, by Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel. It is a damning indictment of the Government's administration of the Defence Force and the present level of Defence Force capability in this country. In particular, it is a condemnation of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and his four-year policy of deliberate neglect and starving of funds for the Defence Force personnel of this country in favour of some of his toys, as he describes them; some of the big ticket items. Mr Howard —Where is the boy wonder? Mr WHITE —Where is the Minister? That is a good question. He has been posturing in fine clothes for four years as the Minister for Defence, and today his pants fell down. He has a glib tongue but he is short on any understanding of defence issues. He has shown in those four years that he has no concern for the people he commands. He has no understanding of the vital importance of service men and women in the Defence Force. He is a man obsessed with his big ticket toys, as he calls them; he has no understanding of the relationship involving defence equipment, personnel, training and facilities. He is the architect of what is now a toothless White Paper, made toothless by the low funding that defence has been given by this Government. This year 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product-the lowest proportion of GDP since 1950-will be allocated to defence. He does not understand the effect personnel wastage has on the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force. I suggest that this is the end of the Minister's prime ministerial ambitions, because he will be known as the man who relegated the service men and women of this country to second-class citizen status and the man who has presided for four years over the dismemberment of the Australian Defence Force-a dismemberment that will take at least 10 years to put right. He is a failed Minister for Defence, joining a growing list of failed Ministers in this Government. He will be remembered as the Minister who has put Australia's security at risk. It is not as though he does not know. Two years ago, in a very detailed report from the Chief of the Defence Force, he was told exactly what effect this personnel wastage is having on the Australian Defence Force. For four years this Minister has presided over this deliberate policy of neglect of personnel in favour of the purchase of items. The Opposition has been constant in its criticism of the effect this is having on the Australian Defence Force. In late 1987 the Opposition decided to take the matter out of the hands of the Government, because it was not acting, and place it in the hands of this Parliament by asking the Senate to direct the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to have a look at it. Today we have the results of its labours. I congratulate the Committee on producing a thorough and honest report and thank the Chairman and members of the Committee, all those who made submissions and all those who appeared as witnesses-except, of course, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who appeared before the Committee and made a typical attempt to cover up what was really happening in the Australian Defence Force. There were 226 submissions, 4,000 pages of evidence and a visit to numerous bases, which shows the level of concern in the community about this issue. The report totally supports the Opposition's claims about the state of the Australian Defence Force. The report also, I might say, gives the Opposition a bit of a serve for neglect in some areas, and that is fair enough. But the Government can no longer ignore this major problem. This defence report has highlighted the problem areas, and the Government must act. I want to make special mention of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. In August 1987, shortly after she took up this job, she said, `Frankly, I think the whole issue is incredibly exaggerated'. I suspect that she still does not understand the extent of the problem. She has been reflecting Minister Beazley's views, which have been ignorant and misguided. At various times she has blamed this wastage on the trainees, the number of women in the Services, the Vietnam hump-or the Vietnam god, of course-the airlines' poaching, demographic changes and recruits on full time duty. Even the Opposition's comments are supposed to have caused the problem as well. The fault lies in everything but the deliberate policy of Minister Beazley of running down defence personnel. The Minister has been asked to act by an all-party committee. The Minister's actions to date have been pathetic. The report notes that point. It states that the Minister's actions have been reactive and applied in a random fashion. For example, the pilot retention bonus has caused far more problems than it set out to solve. This Minister has joined the list of failed Ministers. The report notes that people are the most important ingredient in any defence effort. In 1983 we lost 6,500 people from the Australian Defence Force. In 1987 the number was 9,000. In the first six months of this year the number was 5,000, so it will be 10,000 this year. The loss of pilots has been well documented. In particular, these enormous losses have been of people who have not reached pensionable age, so all the younger, better members of the Australian Defence Force are the ones who are leaving. The Minister has consistently stated that there are shortages in some areas. The report condemns the Minister for saying so, because the shortages are right across the board. They include trainees, officers in all the Services, Army non-commissioned officers, Navy engineers, Navy warfare officers, technical sailors, submariners, signal officers, Army tradesmen, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) engineers, pilots, technical airmen and flight engineers. The list goes on and on. The report states: The extent and magnitude of wastage is such that it will adversely affect the ADF for at least the next decade. All service leaders have acknowledged that point to the Committee and have also told the Minister. RAAF units are not operational. Army has a limited capacity in the field. The report makes particular mention of morale in the ADF. Low morale spreads like a cancer. Morale is low because of Government neglect, because of lack of self-esteem, because people feel they are not required, because of the long hours of work-55 hours a week on average at the last survey-and, as one witness said, because more and more is being asked of loyal and committed people with little or no giving back. Job satisfaction is nil. As witnesses said, `It is abysmal; career planning is abysmal; there are continual crises-it is moribund'. In relation to equipment deficiencies, as the report rightly notes, in 1988 soldiers, sailors and airmen are shopping in secondhand stores to purchase boots, combat clothing and ammunition. People stationed at Holsworthy recently bought their own paint to make their barracks habitable. The report notes that the Minister has given no recognition to the fact that this is a separate profession of arms. Training deficiencies are well listed. The Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme needs to be reviewed. Pay and conditions of service are abysmal. Every time there is a legitimate pay claim before the Tribunal, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel says it is not warranted. The one person to whom they look to support their case is the one who is knocking them. There are cuts in operating expenses. I come to the question of Russell Offices. The report states: . . . the Government's continuing refusal to promote more harmonious and efficient working relationships between the broad military and civilian component . . . remains . . . a mystery. This is not the first time that this Committee has mentioned this point. In its last report relating to the management of the ADF it said exactly the same thing. It said civilians were in the ascendancy. It said that the Minister for Defence was not taking note of his military advice. It said, `For God's sake, fix it up'. Minister Beazley said that the last report was a lot of nonsense. The witnesses who gave evidence before this Committee, time and time again were asked about working conditions and the relationship between the military personnel and civilians at Russell Offices. Many of them said, `I would rather resign than work at Russell'-and so they did. Nothing has been done about that situation. The Minister has constantly bypassed military advice. Whenever there is an important job to be done the Minister hooks in a few civilian cronies to do the job, because he has a fundamental dislike and distrust of service personnel. The report takes particular note of manpower levels and recommends that action be taken to provide satisfactory levels of staffing. General O'Donnell said, `We have a 38,000 man task but only a 32,000 man army'. General Jeffery, of the First Division, after last year's Diamond Dollar exercise, said `I'm supposed to be able to take to the field for 12 months, but where are the men? At best we might last between four to six weeks'. Mrs Kelly —He didn't say those things-- Mr WHITE-The Minister thinks this is a joke. She has been sitting at the table giggling and trying to fill in for the Minister for Defence, who is not here. He has been passing the buck to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel for at least 12 months and he has not been passing it successfully. He is not going to pass this one. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel might have some responsibility for this area but the ultimate responsibility rests with the Minister for Defence. Admiral Hudson, Chief of Naval Staff, has advised a shortage of 1,200 men. I am un- aware of what the Chief of Air Staff thinks. Every time he is asked he says that the Air Force does not have a problem. However, in the last week or so he has echoed the statements of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and is now saying that there might be a problem. The report condemns the Minister's activities regarding looking after families. It recommends the production of a White Paper on families. That is how important the Committee thinks this issue is, and I agree with it. All the Minister has done is to make some minor cosmetic changes. The list goes on and on. The cost of training because of this wastage is enormous. The experienced levels have dropped to disastrous levels, so that many of the units in the Australian Defence Force are no longer operational. This is a most serious indictment of any government department by any joint parliamentary committee report that has been tabled in this House. All of the things which have been said by the Opposition, the Returned Services League, the Defence Welfare Association and the Armed Forces Federation are true and are now confirmed by this report. Most of the recommendations in the report could be carried out at reasonably low cost. The Government must act on this report. The first thing it should do is to clear out two useless Ministers who have presided over this disintegration and appoint someone capable of doing the job. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(3.09) —This matter of public importance has come about as a result of a parliamentary committee report tabled in this House only a few hours ago. The report, which is over 400 pages long and encompasses almost 50 recommendations, I believe, is to be commended, and I do so as the Minister responsible for implementing many of the recommendations. I was absolutely appalled by the Opposition's performance during this matter of public importance. The shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), in his speech merely raised all the old points and did not pick up any of the constructive points raised in this very constructive report. Instead, he quoted from I do not know what. The points that were made in this report are quite congratulatory of my personal efforts and the efforts of this Government in the area of the Australian Defence Force's conditions. Instead of noting those comments, the shadow Minister for Defence used this opportunity to introduce party politics into debate on this very constructive bipartisan report a few hours after it was tabled in this House. This report deserves much better treatment than to have it debated in that way four hours after it was tabled. I want to thank all the members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for their contributions because there is no doubt that many of the recommendations are very constructive. Unlike the shadow Minister, I do not intend to make quick decisions in relation to this report four hours after it has been tabled. Instead, I intend to have a look at it in detail and make a constructive and considered report to this House. I was again disappointed by the Opposition's absolute lack of constructive policies to deal with what is considered and acknowledged by me and by the Government to be a problem. Obviously, that has been endorsed by the Committee's report. We get from the Opposition time and time again negative comments that affect the morale of the Defence Force. Opposition members should ask members of the Defence Force bases what they think of the shadow Minister. Service people will tell them that the shadow Minister is very negative and that he still lives in the 1950s. It is a joke to compare him with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in the same breath. What an absolute joke. Opposition members should ask any single person on our bases what he or she thinks of the Minister for Defence. Service people will tell the honourable member that he is the best Minister for Defence this country has ever had. Why? It is because he has made them proud to be members of the Australian Defence Force. He has given them the defence White Paper, which sets the parameters for defence into the next decade. What did the Opposition ever do when it was in government? What does it do now in opposition? What is the Opposition policy? What does it stand for? Nothing. All the Opposition does is get up in this Parliament and complain, whinge and gripe. The Opposition gripes about the Minister for Defence and it gripes about me. Of course now the Opposition is using the opportunity of the presentation of a bipartisan, well-constructed report to this Parliament to raise the same old issues again. It introduces not one new or constructive idea about what to do about the report. Opposition members just get up and whinge and say, `There is a problem'. We know there is a problem. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Government is getting on with the issues and resolving them. That is acknowledged in the Committee report. I want to thank the Committee's Chairman and the members of the Committee for their very constructive comments. For example, paragraph 56 refers to the work that the Government has done: The Committee notes that in the past year the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the ADF and the Department have taken a number of initiatives which appear constructive, but which may not as yet have had time to impact on separation rates. We are seeing a change in those separation figures. I do not want to raise expectations in relation to them but I want to make a few points on the figures for the last couple of months. Indications are-they are only indications at this stage-that they have bottomed out and that the situation is improving, particularly in the category which had been of concern to us; that is, officer resignation levels. The initial figures for the last few months indicate some improvement in that field. But I do not want to follow that through any further at this stage, because I think it is better to wait until we get endorsement of further months. We have been dealing quite constructively with conditions of service. I just want to take honourable members through some of the things that have been done in the last few months. There have been substantial improvements in pay and conditions of service. There has been prompt and full flow-on of the national wage case. There have been substantial and specific increases in service allowance, field allowance, submarine allowance, seagoing allowance and disturbance allowance. The flying allowance, as honourable members know, is up by 75 per cent. Obviously, it is not just money that is the problem. This is one of the things highlighted by the Joint Parliamentary Committee's report. The report highlighted the complexity of the problem. That is something that the Opposition has not come to terms with. There are so many issues that contribute to this problem. They have all been raised in this Committee report. A lot of the problems relate to families and family expectations; there is no doubt about that. That is why this Government has given priority to dealing with family issues. In relation to that, we have set up an elaborate family support system. We now have formal mechanisms for the spouses to be able to put their views to the chiefs and also to me. Mr Taylor —More committees. Mrs KELLY —They are not about more committees. They are about letting us know and getting action. When the Opposition was in government it took no notice of Defence Force spouses. The Opposition was totally dismissive of their attitudes and most Opposition members still are. We see the Defence Force as a family. The families must be considered. That is what we are doing and that is what we are addressing. There are issues that relate to the family, including specific ones such as education. We have dealt with that issue. I take note of the point that the Committee has made about the education allowance. Mobility is a problem. It will always be a problem. But we are trying to ease that problem by a new three-year posting policy, with back to back postings if possible. I have been dealing with State governments, as is acknowledged in the Committee recommendations. I am trying to get better conditions for the people who have to cross State boundaries all the time. Single members of the Defence Force have also been helped. It is critical that we give consideration to the single members of the Defence Force because 50 per cent of members of the Defence Force are single. We have had better removal entitlements, better accommodation and better entitlement to disturbance allowance. The key area where we have seen dramatic progress is in housing. When the Opposition was in government it deprived the Defence Force of decent living conditions. We have spent at least $2 for every $1 that was ever spent under the Opposition. One of the reasons we have got such a backlog with housing is the Opposition's years of neglect. We have established a proper mechanism for getting housing maintenance done. We have bought houses all over Australia. We have considerably improved our housing stocks. We have not solved the problem-I acknowledge that-but we are making progress. Everyone out there on the Defence Force bases would give us credit for making progress. Let me tell honourable members that we have a long way to go after all the Opposition's years of neglect. But attention to families and conditions of service is not enough. One needs to look at other issues too. One of the key issues is job satisfaction. The shadow Minister referred to it principally as the Russell syndrome. There is a lot to be said about the problems associated with moving people from operational commands to Russell. This is an issue that is being very seriously examined and dealt with in the administration of defence in each of the services. We have increased the devolution of responsibility. Devolution of financial responsibility is one of the big initiatives this year. It is critical. Obviously it is taking time to filter down to the units. But devolution of financial responsibility, moving responsibility to the operational unit, is the key to job satisfaction. In respect of open-ended engagements, open reporting systems and more responsive crew management, I acknowledge that, as is indicated in the Committee report, we have got further to go. I thank the Committee for its very constructive points in that area. Improved communication through the system is another area. I also welcome the recommendations that the Committee has made, particularly in relation to improving the public relations image of the Defence Force in this country. I just want to make a brief point about the pilots' bonus because that was referred to by the shadow Minister. The pilots' bonus was never intended by itself to fix the pilots' problems. It is one part of a package. It is a commitment of this Government to deal with what we see as a critical problem. If we had not brought in the pilots' bonus, I know what we would be talking about today: it would be the need for a pilots' bonus. We brought it in. We have had a take-up rate of just over 50 per cent. That is what I expected from the beginning. There was consultation about that bonus. A visiting American general was discussing it with us this morning. He said that his main criticism is that the American Congress has taken too long to introduce it. We have acted. Pilots can see that we are committed to dealing with the problem. We did not need a detailed parliamentary committee report before we acted. We decided we would make the bonus part of our package to encourage pilots to stay in the Defence Force. It is only one part of the package. It was never intended by itself to be the total solution to the problem. There are many other aspects that have to be dealt with regarding pilot retention rates. One approach with which I am particularly pleased is the aircrew specialisation program which will be introduced next year. These are very important initiatives. I endorse the comment in the report that this is a complex issue. We are taking action to resolve the issue. As I said, it looks as though the problem is bottoming out. I believe that morale in the Defence Force has improved dramatically in the last six months, but it is not helped by the constant negative comments from the Opposition. That point was endorsed by the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) in his comments in Parliament this morning when he said that personnel wastage has been the subject of considerable media attention and that the extent of that attention may even have contributed to the wastage. Mr White —Are you blaming us? Mrs KELLY —I am blaming the Opposition for its constant negative approach. The Defence Force of this country is a defence force of which we can be proud. This Government has provided leadership in dealing with its many problems. I am the first to acknowledge that the Defence Force still has them and that many personnel have a very hard life. But, instead of having positive points coming from the Opposition that can add to the morale of the Defence Force, we have negative comments. If Opposition members were members of the Defence Force, how would they feel if they were told that everybody is leaving? One would start to wonder what one was doing there. That is the sort of attitude that the Opposition is encouraging. The shadow Minister for defence is beating up the whole issue. Today's example is typical. A constructive report has been brought down by a parliamentary committee, yet he makes the same old negative comments in this Parliament which add nothing to the debate. I congratulate the Committee for its very constructive report. I will be reporting to the Parliament in a short time on those very constructive recommendations. I deplore the Opposition's cheap political tactics of making negative comments about a defence force of which this country is very proud and to which this Government is very committed. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(3.24) —We have just had from the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) a total abrogation of her responsibility, of her ministerial oath and of the role of the Government in looking after the defence forces of this nation. She attempted to blame the Opposition for the situation arrived at after five years of Labor Government whereby the resignation rate, the wastage rate or whatever one wants to call it had become such a factor in the defence forces of this country that it was necessary to produce a special parliamentary report. I reject the Minister's criticisms. I will return to them shortly. The previous coalition Government took a number of courageous decisions, in contrast to what the Minister has had to say. For example, it created Norforce, the North-West Mobile Force. It made bold decentralisation moves against considerable odds, such as to the Albury-Wodonga military area from Melbourne. It built up the Townsville area, and so forth. So the Opposition rejects utterly any responsibility for the situation which has now been arrived at. We have a bipartisan report from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Personnel wastage in the Australian Defence Force-bipartisan except for the useless dissenting report of Senator Vallentine that is not worth commenting on in any detail. We heard the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) refer to the following comment in the report: The extent and magnitude of wastage in some of those areas is such that it will adversely affect the ADF for at least the next decade. That is like putting up a sign around our coastlines which says to any enemy heading towards Australia, `Don't come now: come back in 1998. We might be ready for you then'. We have heard officially in the context of this report that we are not ready to defend our country for at least another decade as a consequence of the personnel wastage. The report further states: In sum the effects of wastage . . . amount to a loss of operational capability. It is manifestly obvious that the prevailing excessive level of personnel wastage is damaging the organisational health of the ADF. Wastage is undermining the experience and competence levels of personnel. It goes on to say: At the psychological level, morale has fallen and the potential has been created for institutional and community polarisation. The truth is now out as to where we have arrived in terms of the state of our defence forces, in terms of their morale, in terms of their conditions and even in terms of their re-equipment which has come about as a consequence of the role played by not only the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, who is at the table, but also by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). In this regard I reiterate the point that these two Ministers have now joined the long list of Ministers who have failed in the administration of their portfolios. They have failed in the same way as have the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), and the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples). They are all in that list together. The Defence Minister has a lot to answer for in terms of our defence forces, their morale and conditions as so carefully laid out in this report. Let me examine two aspects relating to these two Ministers. As the honourable member for McPherson indicated, the Minister for Defence openly admits that he is all about re-equipment, to the disadvantage and the downgrading of manpower resources, priorities and policies. We are now paying the price for that approach by this rapid and record rate of resignations. Let me turn to the Minister at the table. She is known around some of the Australian Army, Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) units as the `cocooned Minister for Defence Science and Personnel'. That all came about following that famous visit to Townsville. One afternoon during the visit the Minister went to meet the spouses of personnel, which was not unreasonable. Some off-duty serving personnel turned up. Do honourable members know what happened after that? We had to have cocooned guidelines for future visits by this Minister to any Army, Navy or Air Force unit in Australia. There had to be a special set of guidelines to ensure that the Minister was protected, taken away from hearing any direct criticism. I will give the Minister credit for having travelled far and wide to meet armed forces units but she has done so in a cocoon, a cocoon officially laid out in guidelines approved and drawn up by the armed forces. So the true digger is unable to get across to the Minister in the course of those liaison visits. When I went to Shoalwater Bay two months ago, I sat down for one hour with Delta Company 6RAR. It was open slather-questions and answers-on a hilltop in the Shoalwater Bay exercise area. I learned a great deal from that about what the personnel are thinking at this time. I will tell the House what they are thinking and what stage they have reached. They have run out of trust. They have a total lack of trust in the Government-in the Parliament, by degrees but in the Government in particular-and in what they denote as the system. Why do they have that lack of trust? As was accurately pointed out by the honourable member for McPherson, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) and others, the difficulties have been created by the huge windback that has occurred in the five years of Labor government. It has created difficulties in the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme. It has created difficulties in housing. Some attempt has been made to overcome the problems but they have not yet been rectified. It has created difficulties in the pay scales and the remuneration problems have gone on far too long without being rectified. It has created difficulties, as we learned yesterday, in the rations. Do honourable members know what this Government has done to our defence forces in recent times? It has said that grilling steak is far too good for our soldiers, sailors and airmen. They are to come back to mince and chuck steak. Grilling steak is to be taken off the menu, along with a series of fresh vegetables and the like. I will not dwell on that detailed aspect of what is clearly an horrific administrative order which, hopefully, will be rescinded. But it is symptomatic of the approach of this Government. Soldiers, sailors and airmen no longer trust the system and are, as a consequence, voting with their feet and leaving the Services in large numbers, as identified and recognised in the Cross report. There has been a huge downgrading of the level of experience in our Navy, Army and Air Force. Because of this lack of trust so many have departed the scene. As a consequence the Government is up for even more costs because it will have to train hundreds of new recruits to try to make up for the experience wastage rate. Clearly, the difference cannot be made up. In a sense-dare I refer to it?-the situation is not dissimilar from the situation of certain mining industries, such as the gold industry, rapidly mining high grade ore rather than proceeding on a more systematic basis. The high grade ore of manpower in the Navy, Army and Air Force is leaving in huge numbers. The low grade ore of new recruits, who need years to get up to the same level of proficiency, are coming in, but not in sufficient numbers. There is an element of danger in all this-real danger in peacetime. Because there is such a lack of experience at various levels and in a large number of units, the peacetime fatality rate of our armed forces is increasing in an alarming way. I refer to the submarine tragedy of last year. I refer to the incident involving the armoured personnel carrier in Victoria last month. I refer to the RAAF statistics mentioned by the honourable member for Casey earlier today when the report was tabled. Leaving aside wartime for the moment, we are not even making a go of it in peacetime. Lives are being put at risk in peacetime as a consequence of the equation which now obtains. I say to the House that the Government must act, and must act now, on the Cross report. Not to put too much of a point on it, our defence forces are at the crossroads in terms of their future. Unless action is taken, the whole of our Navy, Army and Air Force will be gutted. There will be no turnaround, not even within 10 years. We cannot turn the clock back so we should look to the future. We should reject all the mistakes that have been made in the past. The Government has to get it right this time or it will pay an enormous price. This arrogant, out of touch, X-rated Government must act on defence this time around. It has the blueprint. It is now or never. The soldiers are looking for the right signal, and I am not confident that this Government will give it. It is for that reason that we have brought forward this matter of public importance today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(3.34) —I speak on this subject for the second time today. This morning it was my privilege to present the report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled Personal wastage in the Australian Defence Force, which was debated in the House. I had hoped that this debate would have taken place when the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) had made a response to the report. It is an objective report. It has tried to be fair. It has made some criticisms of a range of matters affecting the Australian Defence Force because it reflects the evidence that we took from members of the Australian Defence Force. We would have been failing in our responsibility to those men and women, who spent a good deal of time talking to us about their concerns and problems, if we had not registered those concerns and problems. I congratulate the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) on the generous way in which she has made an interim response to that report in what she has just said. It would have been no pleasant task to have received a report on a matter as complex as this. The problems have not just come out of the woodwork. They have been around for years. Some have been extremely difficult to solve because they relate to societal changes. I thank the Minister for her generous response. I would also like to reply to some of the criticisms that have been made of her. I have had the opportunity to be present with the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel amongst Defence people I know at places such as Enoggera and elsewhere. She has responded to those people in an absolutely marvellous way. She is a great communicator. On a number of occasions I have seen her sitting down with former service men and women, and serving men and women discussing their problems with them. When the Tange report came down in 1973 I was one of the people who were keen to have a Minister for defence personnel appointed because I was aware of the workload carried by the then Minister for Defence and member for Bass, Mr Barnard. I was delighted when, for the first time, this Labor Government appointed a Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. If the Opposition is so interested in Defence personnel why, in its long period of government, did it never appoint a Minister with that responsibility? I ought to say a few things about the criticisms in the report. The armed forces have adapted to changing circumstances over the years. Pilot wastage in the forces reflects the demands of civil and international aviation. We have been through a period when international air travel was at a fairly low ebb. Now, particularly with Australia's Bicentennial and World Expo 88, there is a great demand for pilots in Australia for our domestic airlines, for our international airline, Qantas Airways Ltd, and for other international airlines. Over time the Defence Force has felt that its problems were cyclical, that one addresses the problems of the day and eventually the system works out all right. The thrust of our report is that we have to deal with and accommodate the changes that have taken place in society. Visiting the various Defence establishments, one noticed the extent to which education was advanced, particularly the education of secondary school children. Everybody today is concerned about the education of their secondary school sons and daughters. That is not a new problem. We discussed it in the Whitlam Government days. I remember discussing it with the father of the Minister for Defence, who was then the Minister for Education. No Federal Government has gone down the track of trying to sort out those problems. In recent times, with the encouragement of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), on behalf of this Government, has placed on the agenda of the State education Ministers the matter of a common core curriculum across the nation and that of a common school entry age. Tell me that that is something that has just come out of the woodwork. It was always put into the too hard basket because it did not involve only the Commonwealth. It involves discussions with the States. We all understand the sensitivities involved in trying to get the States to agree on such matters. I would like to see much more done in the way of education allowances and other provisions in the Defence Force budget. There is no doubt that we lose many talented people because of the secondary education problem in defence. I was interested, and a little amazed, to hear the Opposition introduce housing into this discussion. In the Defence Force, it takes some time to get a new and innovative project up and running. After the election of the Labor Government in 1983 we looked at the problems that obviously existed in the area of Defence housing. Studies were undertaken. An interdepartmental committee was set up. A report came back. It went to the Department of Defence. A model was eventually developed and trialled. Legislative support was given to that model last year and provision was made for it in the Budget. Perhaps it takes more time than any of us would wish to get those things in place, but consider what has happened. Everybody who understands the Defence Force knows that the old system of putting defence personnel into welfare housing has failed. Everybody knows that that decision by the Menzies Government in 1953 has resulted in defence personnel living in depressed areas throughout Australia. I am not reflecting on the people who live there. I accept that there is a great deal of importance to public housing and that there should be more of it, but we want a better type of housing. Let us examine what the Government has done in the last couple of years since that decision has been in place and reflect on the previous Government. I asked a question of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel which was answered on 22 August. I asked her what had been spent on defence housing over the past 10 years. Let me go back and look at the figures under the previous Government. The figure for 1979-80 is $4m. The figure for 1980-81 is $5.3m. For 1981-82 it is $16.7m. One can then look at what has happened in the last couple of years. We have been rolling along at more than $50m. Last year it was $270m, and this year it is $250m. We now have a structure in place; it now has a budget; it is operating in a decentralised way. But the problem is so vast that it will take many years to solve. I have the honour of representing Enoggera, and anyone serving at Enoggera would know that some of the old houses have been pulled down and new townhouses are being erected. One would also be aware of the update of the singles service accommodation at a place like that. At other places it has not happened yet, but the Government is now spending each year, more than 20 times what the Opposition spent for many years in its term in office. These are the sorts of problems with which the Government has had to contend. I should like to say a couple of things about some of the comments that were made. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), mentioned big ticket toys. I did not notice which of them he would like to see cut out of the Budget, but the Joint Committee believes that all of that capital works program and all of the money spent on facilities is money well spent. The Government would like to see more money spent on personnel; we suggested some ways in which we believe it could be done. The comment was again made in this House that the best have left, and that is a disgraceful reflection on the people who have stayed. We had evidence about that and we asked people about that, and some very good people have left. But it does nothing for the morale of the Defence Force and it does nothing to help those people who are staying there, working hard and long hours and carrying important responsibilities to be told that they are the dregs; they are the people who are left behind when the best have left. The shadow Minister and other members of the Opposition should be ashamed of themselves for saying that the best have left. Thank heavens we know that that is not true. They talk about units no longer being operational. We have problems-they are serious problems-but this report addresses those problems. The Minister has indicated that she will come back in a timely way. Let us have this debate once again when we have the Government's response. A great deal has been done under this Government and this Minister and we give them credit for that. What we are really saying is that more has to be done. We have to persuade the people that operate the Treasury purse strings in this nation to be more sympathetic in matters like the ones we are discussing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 24 November 1988. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Tuesday, 22 November 1988. The report read as follows- Pursuant to sessional order 28d, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 24 November 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. Committee reports Statements upon presentation Standing Committee on Community Affairs Counselling for Vietnam veterans [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Is this when I pay the electricity bill-Review of efficiency scrutiny into regionalisation in the Australian Electoral Commission. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Canberra leasehold system [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] Standing Committee on Procedure Publication of tabled papers [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted *1 Mr HICKS: To move-That this House notes with concern the problems confronting nursing homes, aged persons hostels and other aged persons facilities as a result of the most recent changes to Commonwealth funding of those facilities. (Notice given 2 November 1988.) 30 mins *2 Mr CLEELAND: To move-That this House: 30 mins (1) commends the Dalai Lama for his past efforts to resolve the problems of Tibet through negotiation with the People's Republic of China and for dissuading the Tibetan people from using violence to regain their freedom; (2) commends the Dalai Lama for his new proposal in his continued quest for peace and expresses its support for the thrust of his proposals; (3) calls on the leaders and the Government of the People's Republic of China to respond positively to the proposal of the Dalai Lama and to enter into earnest discussions with the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, to resolve the question of Tibet along the lines proposed by the Dalai Lama; and (4) calls on the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to express the support of the Australian Parliament for the proposals of the Dalai Lama and to use their best efforts to persuade the leaders and the Government of the People's Republic of China to enter into discussions with the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, regarding the proposal of the Dalai Lama and the question of Tibet. (Notice given 18 October 1988.) *3 Mr HAWKER: To move-That this House deplores the continuing high levels of personal taxation and the distortion which when coupled with assistance to low income families has seriously lowered incentive for people to reduce their dependence on fellow taxpayers. (Notice given 2 November 1988.) any remaining private Members' business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day LEO McLEAY 10 November 1988...Chairman Mr JENKINS(Scullin) —I present the tenth report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Mrs Kelly) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 22 November 1988, at 2 p.m., unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Motion (by Mrs Kelly)-by leave-agreed to: That Dr Klugman be discharged from attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and that, in his place, Mr Les Scott be appointed a member of the Committee. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill amends several Acts within the Attorney-General's portfolio and a related Act administered by the Minister for Housing and Aged Care. The Bill contains amendments of a minor policy nature. Other amendments tidy up, correct or update existing legislation. None of the amendments concerns major new policy proposals or sensitive policy issues. None have any significant financial impact. The amendments to the Law Officers Act will have a slight financial impact. They provide for a pension for a Solicitor-General based on a judge's pension, deferred until age 60 and discounted both for shorter term of service and the difference between age at cessation of office and 60 years. The removal of the current entitlement of a lump sum equal to twice annual salary at the end of a seven-year appointment, represents an offset against the cost of the new pension. The proposed amendments are explained in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. I propose to confine my comments to the more noteworthy amendments. Amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 Amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act will provide for term appointments as an alternative to the existing situation of appointments to age 70 in the case of full-time Deputy Presidents and to age 65 in the case of full-time senior members. The maximum term of such appointments would be seven-years, but reappointment could be made. At present the option of term appointment is only available for part time Deputy Presidents, part-time senior members and ordinary members. The inclusion of term appointments as an alternative to tenured appointments for full-time Deputy Presidents and senior members will provide greater flexibility in staffing the Tribunal, primarily by enabling appointment of members on a short term basis to handle particular backlogs or initial peaks in work when new jurisdictions are conferred on the Tribunal. The amendments are also expected to result in a widening of the pool of potential appointees to include those who might not wish to consider a career appointment. A consequential amendment to section 16 of the Act will exclude the application of the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 to term appointees. At present, the Judges' Pensions Act applies to a full time Deputy President as if he or she were a judge. Part time Deputy Presidents are excluded, and the amendment means that full time Deputy Presidents who are term appointees will also be excluded. Other amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act will ensure that in proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the States and the Northern Territory will have the same entitlement as the Commonwealth to claim public interest privilege in respect of documents subpoenaed by the Tribunal and questions asked in the course of a proceeding which relate to Cabinet documents or the deliberations of Cabinet, or otherwise support a claim of public interest privilege. Amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 One amendment to the Australian Federal Police Act will give greater flexibility in administration, as the Commissioner, and not the Minister, will be empowered to determine the number of officers in the various rank levels of the Australian Federal Police. Other amendments, based on provisions in the Public Service Act will ensure that all persons eligible for appointment have a reasonable opportunity to apply for appointment to the Australian Federal Police. They will ensure equity and fairness in appointments, promotions and transfers, apply the merit principle and prohibit patronage, favouritism, and discrimination on various specified grounds as well as unlawful or any other unjustified discrimination. Also provision is made for review of non-appealable promotion decisions by the Merit Protection and Review Agency. Amendments to the Customs Act 1901 An amendment to the Customs Act will specifically abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination in respect of a statement furnished to the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy pursuant to a court order. However, evidence obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of furnishing such a statement to the Official Trustee will not be admissible in civil or criminal proceedings, other than a proceeding in respect of falsity of the statement, or a proceeding for the recovery of a pecuniary penalty. In the latter case it will be admissible only for the purpose of facilitating the assessment of the amount of the penalty. This places information contained in such a statement in the same position as information obtained pursuant to a court-ordered examination of the person. Amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 An amendment to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act will remove any doubt that may exist that the Director has the right to seek review of a bail decision. Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 An amendment will make a minor jurisdictional change in relation to the application of the Family Law Act in the Northern Territory. It will remove jurisdiction from the Family Court of Australia, in matters arising under a law of the Northern Territory, thereby treating the Northern Territory in the same way as a State. Other amendments to the Family Law Act will ensure that a lawyer appointed by the court as a separate representative for a child, in proceedings concerning the child's welfare, has adequate and effective powers to obtain a report by a psychologist or psychiatrist for use in the proceedings. The repeal of subsection 78(3) of the Act will enable the court, in appropriate cases, to make orders that are binding on third parties as well as the parties to a marriage. Many family law property disputes involve adjudication of the rights of the parties to a marriage as between themselves and third parties, such as banks. As the Act presently stands, third parties may intervene in proceedings under the Act pursuant to section 92, but may not be bound by any order of the court as a consequence of subsection 78(3). The present lack of power to make binding determinations about the existence and extent of the rights and liabilities of third parties can be frustrating for both the court and the parties as well as adding to the expense of proceedings. For example even if a court concludes that particular property does not belong to either party to the marriage but to a third party, the court cannot, because of subsection 78(3), make any declaration or order in favour of the third party. The repeal of subsection 78(3) will also ensure that the Commonwealth and State cross-vesting legislation which came into force on 1 July 1988 has full effect in relation to the Family Court by enabling that court to determine the rights and liabilities of third parties in proceedings before it where it is appropriate and convenient for it to do so. This amendment gives effect to a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission in its report on matrimonial property and to comments by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia and the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia. Amendments to the Law Officers Act 1964 Currently, unless a Solicitor-General completes 10 years service he or she is not entitled to a judicial pension. However, under provisions in the Law Officers Act, a Solicitor-General who has completed seven years service-the normal term of appointment-receives a lump sum payment equal to twice annual salary. This provision was intended to assist a Solicitor-General who is not reappointed at the end of that term to re-establish himself or herself in private practice. While, the sum may be adequate for that purpose, it does not adequately cater for the Solicitor-General's security or that of his or her family if the Solicitor-General dies or become incapacitated after ceasing to hold office. Accordingly, the Law Officers Act is to be amended to provide for a deferred pension for the Solicitor-General, payable at age 60, after completing seven years service, or on prior death or invalidity, based on similar criteria for a judicial pension. The pension at age 60 is to be discounted by 2.5 per cent per year for the difference between the age on cessation of office and age 60. Amendments to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act was amended by the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1988, to insert new foreign law testimonial immunity provisions intended to preserve the foreign testimonial immunity of witnesses who come to Australia to give evidence, and to confer similar immunity on persons who give evidence in Australia at the request of foreign countries. This Bill amends the Act to make it clear that such immunity will not apply in any case where its application would be inconsistent with the applicable Mutual Assistance Treaty. Amendments to the National Crime Authority Act 1984 Amendments to the National Crime Authority Act will streamline the method of appointing members to the National Crime Authority by allowing recommendations to be made within three months before or after the occurrence of a vacancy. At present, recommendations for appointment of members can be made only after the actual occurrence of a vacancy. Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 There are several amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act most of which have been requested by the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy and the Director of Public Prosecutions in the light of practical experience with the Act. Some amendments provide protection to bona fide third parties whose property interests are affected by registered foreign forfeiture orders, broadly similar to the protection provided in relation to domestic forfeiture orders. There are also a number of machinery amendments that are necessary having regard to experience with the Act to date, dealing with such matters as the meaning of the term `effective control of property', permitting the court to make composite restraining orders covering both known property of the defendant as well as property acquired after the making of the order and abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination with respect to court-ordered statements furnished to the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. An indemnity, similar to that contained in the amendments to the Customs Act, is included. The opportunity has been taken to generally improve the wording of a number of existing provisions. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(3.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the provisions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: Australia can then ratify the Protocol. Also, the legislation will put in place measures whereby the emissions to air of substances that deplete the shield of ozone gas in the upper atmosphere will be substantially reduced beyond the minimum requirements of the Protocol, thereby safeguarding to the maximum practicable extent human health and the environment. Protection of the ozone layer is one of the Government's highest environmental priorities. While the Montreal Protocol requires a 50 per cent reduction in the use of ozone depleting substances over 10 years, the proposals contained in the Bill should enable Australia to achieve those reductions in half that time. Honourable members are undoubtedly aware that small amounts of ozone gas in the upper atmosphere shield living things on earth from the harmful ultraviolet radiation present in sunlight. Emissions to air of some synthetic chemicals-certain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons are the main ones-can break down this ozone shield, with serious implications for human health and the environment. CFCs are also powerful greenhouse gases and would be worthy of control on this account even if there were no concern about ultraviolet radiation. Emissions of CFCs arise from their use in about 20 per cent of aerosol sprays, in refrigeration and air conditioning, in some plastic foams, in some dry cleaning machinery and as degreasing solvents in the electronics and other industries. Halons are used in specialised fire protection. Most industries, notably aerosol filling and foam packaging, are already converting to ozone-safe alternatives. The main body of scientific advice shows that there has been a global decrease in stratospheric ozone of between 2 and 3 per cent over the last 9 years, approximately half of which is not attributable to natural causes. The seasonal decrease in stratospheric ozone over Antarctica is now well known. In 1977 the `ozone hole' was the worst ever-with around a 50 per cent reduction from normal levels of ozone. Although this year's rate of depletion is not nearly so strong, there is, nonetheless strong evidence that links the presence of CFCs to this phenomenon. The unique meteorology during winter and spring over Antarctica sets up an isolated air mass, the polar vortex, which is accompanied by very low temperatures. The low temperatures lead to the formation of stratospheric clouds which appear to greatly increase the potency of CFCs to destroy ozone. Protection of the ozone layer is an environmental issue of world importance which requires urgent action. The implications for Australia arising from ozone depletion are especially important in terms of a possible increase in the already high incidence of skin cancers, possible damage to primary industries, and our interest in preservation of the Antarctic environment. In 1987 Australia became a party to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. In June 1988 Australia signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Protocol which is due to take effect from 1 January 1989 establishes a requirement to limit the domestic supply of the specified CFCs according to a tightening program which will freeze supply at the 1986 level, with effect from mid-1989; reduce supply by 20 per cent from 1993; and reduce supply by a further 30 per cent from 1998. The Protocol also requires that the supply of halon gases be frozen at the 1986 level, with effect from 1990. The commencement date for the first control action for both the CFCs and halons will be delayed if the Protocol does not enter into force on 1 January 1989. The Protocol also provides for periodic reviews of its control requirements based upon scientific, technical and economic considerations. The first review is to be completed by 1990. Recognising that the latest scientific findings indicate that chlorofluorocarbons are responsible for the Antarctic ozone hole and are also implicated in the small global losses already identified, it is likely that the Protocol will be significantly strengthened after the review is complete. The provisions of the Bill have been the subject of extensive liaison between my Department and industries which manufacture, import and use CFCs and halons. For example, in May this year Senator Richardson met with industry representatives. As a result of that meeting, a series of action plans were produced and the Bill's provisions reflect the recommendations of those plans. Liaison has also been maintained through an interdepartmental working group on ozone and with the industry group, the Association of Fluorocarbon Consumers and Manufacturers. State governments and consumer and conservation groups have also been consulted. I am advised that industry supports the proposals in the Bill. The Bill provides for a system of licences and tradeable quotas for the production, import and export of scheduled substances, and controls on the applications of scheduled substances so as to limit, so far as is practicable, the emissions of these substances to the air. The licence and quota provisions relate to Australia's obligations under the protocol. Licences will be granted to persons who produced, imported or exported scheduled substances during the year 1986. Quota will be granted to the same persons according to their market share in 1986. Once they have their quota, they will be free to buy and sell their share of quota on the open market. Total quota on issue will be adjusted according to the provisions of the protocol. The second category of restrictions gives effect to Government's determination to take all reasonable steps to exceed the minimum requirements laid down in the protocol. These controls on applications include: prohibition from 31 December 1989 of the manufacture or import of aerosol sprays containing scheduled substances, except for some limited essential uses where there is no practicable alternative; for example, a limited range of medical, veterinary, defence, industrial safety or public safety purposes applications where CFC-powered aerosols are the only practicable way to meet legal requirements the calibration of warning, measuring or scientific equipment. (It is Government's intention that an expert committee will be set up and consulted when considering applications for exemptions under this provision.) prohibition from 31 January 1989 of the manufacture or import of `do-it-yourself' kits for recharging automotive air-conditioning systems prohibition from 1 July 1989 of the manufacture or import of disposable containers, five kilograms or less, of scheduled substances for recharging air-conditioning and refrigeration systems prohibition from 31 December 1989 of the manufacture or import of extruded polystyrene packaging produced with or containing a scheduled substance prohibition from 31 December 1989 of the manufacture or import of extruded polystyrene insulation produced with or containing a scheduled substance prohibition from the date of effect of this proposed Act of the manufacture or import of dry cleaning equipment which uses a scheduled substance. But these controls are only the beginning. It is the Government's firm intention to continue with the joint industry-government working group so as to develop practical measures to further reduce Australia's consumption of scheduled substances. Additionally, a representative of the environment movement will be appointed to the working group to ensure that environment interests are kept abreast of developments and to ensure their views are taken into account in future action plans to further limit applications of these substances. The Protocol generally has no controls on exports and in fact allows production to be increased by up to 15 per cent under certain circumstances. However, the Government proposes that exports first be frozen and then gradually reduced by 5 per cent a year. If this was not done, industry could simply convert Production for domestic consumption into exports. The Bill has no continuing financial implications as fees will be levied on each kilogram of scheduled substance manufactured or imported to recoup the costs of administering the legislation. Until the scheme is operational three positions have been funded at a cost of $185,000 for the first year within my Department. Australia has always been at the forefront of international action on this issue and I believe this Bill continues to show the way to the rest of the world. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(4.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill, when taken with the Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Manufacture) Bill, is to recover to Government the costs of administering the Ozone Protection Bill 1988. The fees are to be payable quarterly and will be based on the amount of scheduled substance, weighted for its ozone depleting potential, that is produced in a quarter. It is proposed that the regulations will set out a scale of the fees such that between the two licence fees Bills the estimated cost of administration of $185,000 per year in present terms will be recovered in the course of a year. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(4.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill, when taken with the Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Imports) Bill, is to recover to government the costs of administering the Ozone Protection Bill 1988. The fees are to be payable quarterly and will be based on the amount of scheduled substance, weighted for its ozone depleting potential, that is produced in a quarter. It is proposed that the regulations will set out a scale of the fees such that between the two licence fees Bills the estimated cost of administration of $185,000 per year in present terms will be recovered in the course of a year. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Staples, and read a first time. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(4.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I bring before the House a Bill to amend a number of areas affecting human services within the Community Services and Health Portfolio. This Bill seeks changes under the first home owners scheme to better ensure that assistance is properly targeted at those in need and is not used, for example, for investment purposes. It also tightens eligibility to Medicare entitlements to exclude a range of people such as visa overstayers, illegal immigrants and the like. This is in recognition that Medicare is primarily a health insurance system for Australian residents. As well, from 1 January 1989, Medicare benefits will not be available for overseas medical treatment. Unfortunately, many people have previously travelled overseas without comprehensive travel insurance on the incorrect assumption that Medicare would cover any hospital and medical costs they incurred. This change removes any such confusion. Instead the Government will concentrate on extending its network of reciprocal health care agreements. The Bill will overcome a recent problem which has arisen in Victoria where some private health insurance funds have threatened to cease payment of hospital benefits for certain long-stay nursing home type patients. These patients have been paying contributions to their health funds for many years and have a right to expect that whey they are admitted to hospital their health fund will contribute towards their hospital charges. This change reinforces the Government's belief that the funds have both a moral and a legal obligation to continue the long-established practice of payment of benefits for nursing home type patients. The legislation also establishes the framework for the new Medicare hospital funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. These arrangements not only guarantee eligibility of all Australians to free public hospital treatment, but also will help improve access and throughput for Medicare patients. In addition, the Bill honours Government commitments to provide for a limited number of exempt nursing home beds, and to increase availability and access to respite care services in nursing homes and hostels as part of its aged reforms, and imposes lodgment and processing fees for appeals against nursing home fees determinations. This Bill firstly seeks to amend the First Home Owners Act 1983. The proposed amendments to that Act authorise the recovery of assistance paid on the basis of an applicant's intention to reside in a dwelling, but where that intention was not realised. The amendments will provide that where a person has not resided in a dwelling and no longer intends to reside in that dwelling, the Secretary shall direct that the person be deemed not to be a prescribed person for the purposes of the Act. The amendments further provide that once such a direction is made, the assistance which has been paid becomes recoverable. The amendments will enhance the Secretary's ability to prevent assistance being paid in relation to homes which are not owner-occupied. In addition, in cases where only one of two or more owners ever occupies the dwelling, the moneys paid under the first application may be recovered or offset against the remaining entitlement. This leaves the party who never occupied the dwelling free to reapply in relation to another dwelling. This aspect will be of assistance to couples who separate prior to one party occupying the dwelling. There are no financial implications arising from these amendments. A further amendment involves the definition of an eligible person in relation to Medicare entitlements. For some time now the Government has been reviewing the key elements of Medicare eligibility. The major focus of the review centred upon the principal eligibility issue-that is, who should have access to the Australian health care system. Since its inception in February 1984, Medicare eligibility has been conferred on all Australian residents. An Australian resident is generally defined in the Health Insurance Act 1973 as a person who resides in Australia, including a person domiciled in Australia, but not including diplomatic-consular staff, or their families. The effect of the existing definition is that in addition to conferring eligibility on bona fide Australian residents, that is, persons who have a legal entitlement to reside in Australia, it also unintentionally permits access to a range of categories of other people on whom Medicare eligibility should not be conferred-for example, visa overstayers, illegal immigrants and the like. The proposed new definition limits Medicare access to persons who have a legal entitlement to remain permanently in Australia. The change of eligibility for Medicare benefits made by this amendment is consistent with the changes of the eligibility for social security benefits and veterans' entitlements that were made by the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Act 1987. In addition to the principal definition, there remains in the Act a discretionary power available to the Minister for Community Services and health to confer medicare eligibility upon individuals or classes of persons in exceptional or unusual circumstances. Consistent with that discretionary power and with other measures being taken administratively, and the repeal of section 21 of the Act relating to the payment of benefits for overseas treatment, it is the Government's intention from the date of effect of this amendment that non-residents of Australia, whether they be Australian citizens residing abroad or long term visitors from overseas, shall henceforth be excluded from Medicare eligibility. Only people who actually reside in Australia legally should have access to Medicare. This proposed amendment is not expected to achieve immediate savings. Moderate savings in Medicare benefits are, however, expected in the future. The Bill also repeals section 21 of the Health Insurance Act 1973. Since the inception of Medicare in 1984, Australian residents have been able to claim Medicare benefits in respect of the cost of medical services incurred overseas. Where there is an equivalent item in the Medicare benefits schedule, such medical services have attracted benefits at the Australian schedule fee rate. No financial assistance is available in respect of hospital costs incurred overseas. The average Medicare benefit paid in respect of medical services rendered overseas represents approximately 40 per cent of the actual cost of the service provided. Australian travellers are thus required to pay about 60 per cent of the cost of the medical services and, if hospitalised, they are responsible for 100 per cent of these costs. In some countries, the Medicare benefit is only a small proportion of the costs. The Government has decided to discontinue the payment of Medicare benefits for medical treatment received overseas which in practice is often very little more than a token payment against very high costs, and to extend the network or reciprocal health care agreements with other countries. Such agreements provide Australian residents with access to both medical and hospital treatment on the same basis as residents of the host country. Reciprocal agreements are therefore a more appropriate and effective means of providing health care cover for Australian travellers abroad. Australia is currently party to agreements with the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Malta and Italy. Agreements with Sweden and Portugal are close to being finalised and I expect them to be operational in the near future. Negotiations are also under way with several other European countries. It is of great concern to me and to my ministerial colleagues that many Australians undertake overseas travel without making appropriate arrangements concerning comprehensive travel insurance which includes a health insurance component in the event of illness overseas. Indeed, less than 50 per cent of Australians travelling abroad take out adequate insurance with health insurance cover. Health costs overseas are often high, particularly in the United States of America where hospital charges in excess of $2,000 a day are not unusual. Thus, a 10- to 15-day stay in hospital can result in a devastating outlay of $20,000 to $30,000 for the patient. Very often people who incur these costs have no insurance whatsoever. The Government is unable to assist, and nor should it. It is the responsibility of the individual to purchase appropriate travel insurance cover, just as it is to make arrangements covering all other aspects of overseas travel. The former availability of Medicare benefits provided what was at times quite a false impression in the minds of travellers that they were adequately protected against such costs. Henceforth, from 1 January 1989 medical benefits will not be available for overseas medical treatment, and the Government will focus its efforts on further developing reciprocal arrangements with countries which have health care systems which are compatible with, and comparable to, Medicare. This amendment is expected to save approximately $5m a year in Medicare benefits from 1 January 1989. The Bill also seeks to ensure that nursing home type patients who are accommodated in hospitals are entitled to receive benefits if they are privately insured. Recent actions by some health insurance funds in Victoria have threatened longstanding and well understood arrangements that patients who have private health insurance who exceed 35 days in an approved hospital and are not classified as acute patients receive health insurance benefits appropriate to long stay nursing home type patients. The Government is not prepared to allow the uncertainty which this has created to continue for these patients, who have contributed to those funds over many years. It is the Government's intention to ensure that these long stay patients continue to receive hospital benefits at the nursing home type patient level, which is appropriate to the type of care they receive. This principle was established by amendments to legislation in 1979, following general agreement between Commonwealth and State Health Ministers that long term patients accommodated in hospitals who no longer require the same level of care and attention as acute care patients were to be reclassified as nursing home type patients. In recognition of this a lower health insurance fund benefit level was determined. The proposed amendment in the Bill will ensure that registered health benefits organisations continue the payment of benefits to persons who are long stay nursing home type patients in approved hospitals. A further purpose of the Bill is to establish the framework for the new Medicare hospital funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. Of course, the cornerstone of the Federal Government's contribution to the improvement of Australia's health care delivery system has been the introduction of Medicare, our universal health insurance scheme which is now nationally and internationally recognised for its social and economic successes. Medicare is providing access to health care for two million Australians who were previously outside both the private health insurance arrangements and government-funded cover for pensioners, the unemployed and low income earners. This has been accomplished at no additional cost to the community. Not surprisingly, Medicare's social and economical advantages to Australia are reflected in the level of community support for the health insurance system. One area in which substantial future enhancement is now being undertaken is the Medicare public hospital funding arrangements, under which the Commonwealth is entering into new five-year agreements with the States and Territories from 1988-89 to 1992-93. In this the first year of the agreements, the Commonwealth will provide specific public hospital funding of $3,063m distributed on a per capita basis, consisting of a base grant of $3,007m, a special $15m component to help meet the additional treatment costs of AIDS patients, and an incentive package of $41m to encourage more efficient use of public hospital resources. The proposed amendments to the heads of agreement under schedule 2 of the Health Insurance Act allow definition of the purpose for which funding is provided, allow States and Territories flexibility in the use of resources to provide improved access of Medicare patients to public hospital services, and provide for the Commonwealth to make financial adjustments where States or Territories do not meet agreement conditions. The Government is confident that this major increase in the hospital Medicare grant, with its much improved growth index, combined with the additional incentive package and measures to ensure equality of access to public hospitals for both public and private patients, will ensure a significant improvement in State public hospital services. The package is designed to ensure that the Medicare objectives of access, equity, universality, simplicity and cost containment are met. The Bill also gives effect to a decision made in the context of the 1988-89 Budget, when the Government announced that it had decided to introduce lodgment and processing charges for the review of nursing home fee determinations under the National Health Act. Section 40ae of the National Health Act permits nursing home proprietors to request the Minister to review nursing home fee determinations. The legislation requires the request in the first instance to be investigated by a nursing homes fees review committee of inquiry. These committees are established in each State to assist the Minister's investigations by providing a detailed professional and independent review of fee determinations, where proprietors are unable to reach agreement with the Minister's delegate on the level at which fees are set. The Government has become concerned at the escalation in the number of requests for review received since 1 July 1987, the date from which the Government's aged care reforms were introduced. The number of requests for review has risen from an average of about 20 a year to a total of about 600 in 1987-88. The industry has indicated that the increase in the number of requests is largely an orchestrated form of protest against aspects of the nursing home reforms. The process of review is a thorough one involving the gathering and analysis of complex information. The length of time for each review varies but on average consumes almost 100 hours of Public Service time. In the past, the cost of a review, estimated at about $4,000, has been met entirely by taxpayers. There is a statutory obligation on the Minister to consider these requests for review. However, to address the current extraordinary volume of appeals will involve the diversion of significant departmental resources from implementing other necessary Government reforms in aged care, some of which have been requested by industry associations, to handle many non-genuine appeals. There is no way of distinguishing between protest or vexatious appeals and those which are genuine. It is in the interests of the taxpayer and nursing home proprietors with genuine grievances to free up the nursing homes fees review mechanisms by ensuring that only those cases which are genuine become the subject of review and that those appeals are expeditiously handled. There is a further need to prevent the situation from worsening by avoiding future protest or vexatious appeals against fee determinations. The Government considers the introduction of a lodgment fee of $500 and an additional processing fee of $500 for each half-day a committee meets to consider an appeal will achieve those objectives. Administration of these arrangements, for which provision is made in clause 29, will be facilitated by fees being deducted from payments due to a nursing home under part 5a of the National Health Act on authorisation by the proprietor. To safeguard the position of genuine appellants both lodgment and processing fees will be refunded in full where a request for review is wholly or substantially successful. Provision is also made for the lodgment fee to be refunded in full to a proprietor who withdraws a request within 84 days following a decision by the Secretary. As indicated previously, the Government is committed to the provision of respite care services as part of its strategy of responding positively to the needs of the aged and to the needs of the often forgotten husbands, wives, relatives and friends who care or assist in the caring for aged persons in their own homes. Respite care is essential to assist aged persons to live for as long as possible in the community. The Government's program of reforming aged care seeks to increase the availability and accessibility of respite care services in nursing homes and hostels. The long term objective is to provide two respite care places per thousand persons in both hostels and nursing homes with an additional 4,000 places available by 1995. Clause 42 of this Bill allows regulations, which are subject to disallowance by the Parliament, to be made which allow the formulation and implementation of a scheme for providing respite care in nursing homes. The scheme being developed, and which is to be defined in the regulations, is expected to be implemented in the second half of the 1988-89 financial year. Honourable members also will be aware that the government has introduced a major reform program in aged residential care to overcome serious criticisms of the nursing home program which have been made by representatives of the industry, aged people, unions, Commonwealth parliamentary committees and other representative bodies. The reform program has been phased in to ensure that the process of adjustment is smooth and avoids disruption of the care of the 110,000 frail aged residents and the employment of the thousands of people providing that care. The reforms to the nursing home funding arrangements introduced on 1 July 1987 and 1 July 1988 will result in non-government nursing homes for the aged being phased to a standard fee and standard benefit arrangement by July 1991. The standard fees and benefits will embody funding for uniform nursing and personal care staffing levels linked to service needs of residents and a standard aggregated module for infrastructure costs. Currently, approximately 26 per cent of residents across Australia are required to contribute more than the minimum statutory contribution towards the fees set by the Commonwealth. The minimum statutory contribution is equivalent to 87.5 per cent of the sum of the maximum single rate pension and rental assistance. Under the arrangements introduced on 1 July 1988 these additional contributions will be gradually eliminated so that by July 1991 no resident will be required to contribute more than the minimum statutory contribution. Previously, in introducing the amendments to the National Health Act to enable the implementation of the reforms to the nursing home funding arrangements from 1 July 1988, including the phasing out of the excess amounts over the minimum statutory contribution, the Government advised that the only exception would be in relation to residents of exempt homes. It was also foreshadowed that, in these sittings, legislation would be introduced to enable the exempt nursing homes arrangement to be implemented. The Bill also amends the National Health Act 1953 to enable the introduction of an exempt nursing homes arrangement, under which a number of non-government nursing homes for the aged will be permitted to charge their residents fees which are higher than the maximum that would otherwise apply. The amount of Commonwealth daily benefit payable under this arrangement will be reduced by a minimum of 50c in the dollar for each dollar by which the fee charged exceeds the fee otherwise payable. The exempt nursing homes arrangement will provide scope for a small proportion of residents, who so desire, voluntarily to buy a higher level of accommodation and services than that provided by non-exempt homes. It will also provide flexibility for service providers who wish to cater for these residents to generate additional income to fund the additional costs that will be involved. It is proposed that only a small proportion of nursing homes in each State-comprising initially up to 6 per cent of beds-be granted exempt status. The Bill provides, in clause 23, for the Minister to determine the maximum number of nursing home beds that may have exempt bed status in a State or Territory. Clause 24 of the Bill inserts a new provision in the National Health Act empowering the Minister to grant exempt status to a nursing home for a specific period following consideration of a proprietor's application for such status. Among the matters that the Minister is required to consider in deciding whether to grant exempt home status are: the level of the additional fee that the proprietor proposes to charge; the extent of the benefit discounting that the proprietor is prepared to forgo with the minimum 50 per cent of the additional fee; and whether the granting of exempt status would unreasonably deny access to nursing home care to financially disadvantaged persons. A nursing home granted exempt status will not be permitted to charge, for a period of at least 12 months, more than the additional fee specified in the proprietor's application for exempt status. The proportion of benefit discounting specified in the proprietor's application will remain constant throughout the period of exemption granted by the Minister. The Bill further provides in clause 27 that the proprietor of an exempt nursing home may vary the additional fee only once in every 12 months and that the redetermined fee requires the Commonwealth's approval. Under clause 28 the rights of existing residents of a nursing home which is granted exempt status are protected. Existing residents will be given a period of six months within which to decide whether they wish to participate as exempt residents and consequently be subject to the additional fee. If an existing resident decides not to participate then, for a period of two years after the home is granted exempt status, the resident is to be charged no more that what would have been payable had the home not been granted exempt status. The Government is also concerned to ensure that existing residents who elect to participate in the scheme make that election freely and the Bill contains provisions to place a firm onus on the proprietor to establish that fact. Clause 33 of the Bill empowers the Minister to revoke a home's exempt status if it violates the conditions attached to that status. It is estimated that when the system has been fully implemented, savings in Commonwealth benefits of $10m a year will accrue. I commend the Bill to the House. I now present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Debate resumed from 28 September, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Before calling the honourable member for Richmond, I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos 3 to 6. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(4.35) —Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have mentioned, this is a cognate debate. The Opposition has no objection to that because we recognise the mechanical nature of some of the Bills. Notwithstanding the fact that there are policy implications with respect to some of them and, in one Bill-that is, the Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988-we will move a second reading motion amendment which states our position on the Government's approach to this piece of legislation. As you said, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are debating a number of Bills: the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill, the Broadcasting (Limited Licences) Fees Bill, the Broadcasting (Retransmission Permits and Temporary Transmission Permits) Fees Bill, the Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill, and the Radio Licence Fees (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill. This package of legislation provides more evidence of the Government's confusion and its piecemeal approach to policy development and legislation for communications in Australia. Whilst the Opposition is not opposing any of these Bills, we feel it is incumbent upon us to highlight some of the areas where there is community and industry concern about the Government's approach. The Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988 and the Radio Licence Fees (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988 have attracted some comment from the industry. These Bills are the first stage of the Government's plan to provide an additional four commercial FM radio licences in capital cities throughout Australia. The initial proposal at this stage is for commercial AM radio licensees to transfer to the FM band and their AM frequencies will be used to provide a parliamentary broadcasting service and a service for print-handicapped people throughout Australia. There has been some debate in this place earlier today about the broadcasting of Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to say that the Government has taken a very cavalier approach to the broadcasting of Parliament. It has accepted statements made by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). As far as I am aware, there has been no independent corroborating evidence to support the views expressed by that body or its Chairman. It is understandable that the ABC, in its relentless pursuit of ratings, irrespective of what that means to the philosophy of alternative broadcasting and the standard of programs-that includes news and so-called current affairs-is keen to do away with the inconvenience of being required to broadcast the proceedings of the national Parliament. Legislation of this Parliament provided that the proceedings should be broadcast at least to the capital cities of Australia, for one very good reason; that is, the people of this country should be able to hear the unedited debates of their representatives in Parliament, have an alternative source of news and access to the proceedings of this Parliament, and not have to rely on edited reporting which is a necessity if it is simply part of a news or current affairs reporting service provided as part of a total and comprehensive broadcasting facility. The great difficulty that I and many other members on this side of the House have with the approach of the ABC to broadcasting Parliament at present is that it will deny access to parliamentary broadcasts to those people who are non-residents of the capital cities and who were lucky enough to pick up that broadcast as a result of the transmission strength of the previously used ABC transmitter. The ABC proposes to put its metropolitan broadcast on a more powerful transmitter. That will spill over into regional areas. It will put the parliamentary broadcast on to its so-called stand-by transmitters which are of considerably less power. Their capacity to disseminate the signal beyond the boundaries of the metropolitan areas is considerably limited. It would have been entirely possible to maintain the parliamentary broadcasting on the stronger frequency. It would have provided a service to the capital cities, as is required by the legislation. It would have gone further and provided that service to some regional and country areas throughout Australia. Using the standby transmitters for the purposes of broadcasting the metropolitan signal still would have provided access to that signal to metropolitan residents. But, of course, this Government, reflecting its continued commitment to arrogance, is not prepared to extend access to the parliamentary broadcasts to people who live outside the capital cities. Let me say that I think that is a great pity because-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —I just call the honourable member for Richmond to order for a moment. The decisions on parliamentary broadcast, in fact, are decisions of the broadcasting committee of the Parliament chaired by Madam Speaker with Mr President as deputy. I suggest to the honourable member for Richmond that he make it clear in his remarks whether he is talking about Government policy in broadcasting or decisions of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Mr BLUNT —Mr Deputy Speaker, I can understand the confusion but let me assure you that I am not in any way-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am not confused, but I do not want there to be any confusion in your mind. Mr BLUNT —What I am trying to say is that, because it is Government legislation that the ABC is required to broadcast under, the Government should take an active interest in the policy of the ABC when it comes to broadcasting the Parliament. I am well aware of what Madam Speaker has said. I am not ware of what transpired at the Committee meetings, of course, and I should not be. I am just stating a view: in my opinion, the government of the day, with its statutory broadcasting corporation, has the opportunity to exert policy directive and it should. That issue is only part of these Bills and that was going to be the conclusion of my remarks. I will not pursue the debate any further on that matter. It is a view that I hold very strongly. It is simply further evidence of one level of service being available for people who live in capital cities and another level of service for people who live in non-capital city areas throughout Australia. When we come to the other provisions of this Bill we see that the Government is proposing to extend the ABC service in capital cities and provide access in cities such as Adelaide to the JJJ popular music format of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I simply draw the House's attention to the fact that the Government is again reflecting its priorities; that is, a continuation of extending a public broadcasting service to capital cities, where there is already considerable choice in entertainment available through radio. If we move to regional centres the choice available from the ABC is extremely limited. The Government may say that it has a plan and that it is going to introduce new frequencies to regional Australia. But I simply say to the Government that its priority is doing the capital cities first. Capital cities already have considerably enhanced services over those available to regional Australia and the Government is enhancing those services further. I question the priorities of this Government. Let me just make a reference to my particular region of New South Wales. We have an area from the Queensland border down to perhaps south of Coffs Harbour with a population equivalent of Tasmania. That region of people has access to one ABC radio signal. It takes a mix of programming from Radio National through to regional services and, of course, from the second service. Residents of a capital city, under the normal circumstances, have access to ABC National, the second network, ABC Fine Music and in some capital cities JJJ. The Government is proposing to extend that JJJ service to other capital cities. Yet people who live on the far north coast still have access to one hybrid ABC signal only. They are being told that things will change; they just have to live a bit longer and the Government will finally get around to reprogramming and reorganising the spectrum so that there can be an extension of services. The Government has been saying that for a long time. Mr Jull —Nothing has happened in the last 20 years. Mr BLUNT —It has been saying that for a long time. This is the sixth year it has been in government. It rings a little hollow when the ABC itself starts running advertisements on its own behalf saying, `The ABC service costs the Australian taxpayer 8c a day. Isn't it worth it?' I am not going to enter into the merits of that debate but let me say that if it costs 8c a day for a taxpayer in the city to get ABC television plus a full range of ABC radio services, why are taxpayers on the far north coast of New South Wales and in other regional areas paying 8c a day for one service? Where is the equity in that? If the true function of the ABC is to provide a community service to Australians, why does it not provide that community service? Or have we totally walked away from that and are we now relentlessly chasing the commercial networks in their pursuit of ratings? That is something that this Government seems a little confused about. It is the same sort of confusion, of course, that is evident in other aspects of its communications policy. As I have said, aspects of this proposed so-called national metropolitan radio plan have drawn some comments from the industry. Because this particular Bill is designed to facilitate the provision of additional commercial radio services on the FM band throughout Australia, it is relevant to understand the economic background in which this legislation is brought in. In 1986-87, 50 of Australia's 130 commercial radio stations lost money. In 1987-88 the figure jumped to about 70. When more than half of Australia's radio stations are trading in the red, we wonder what sort of enthusiasm and economic sup- port there will be for the Government's proposal to invite existing AM operators to tender to acquire FM licences. There is some speculation about what sort of support there will be within the industry. There was a report in the Business Review Weekly on 9 September that talked about the Hawke Government's plan to auction AM-FM conversion licences to the highest bidder. The Hawke Government expects them to sell for between $12m and $15m each in Sydney, $8m to $10m in Brisbane and Perth, less than $8m in Adelaide and $15 to $20m in Melbourne. The report went on to say: AM operators recognise the financial stress such prices will create (to convert from AM to FM will cost a station a comparatively low $1 million). Some of the established industry figures are already expressing their public concern. One said: I'm happy we now have the option to convert to FM, but with 50% of radio stations losing money not many AM operators will be able to afford it. It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Mr Jull —It will be interesting to see whether 2KY makes a bid. Mr BLUNT —The honourable member for Fadden has made reference to the Australian Labor Party owned radio station 2KY in Sydney. It remains to be seen what that station does. In the past it has been an embarrassment to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) because of statements made by one of its personalities on the issue of immigration and race. It will also be interesting to see what the attitude of that station is and its financial position with respect to this Government's legislation. The honourable member for Fadden might be having something further to say about that. Let me go on to quote further from this article in the Business Review Weekly. It quotes a Mr Glenn Wheatley, head of Hoyts Media. Hoyts Media is notable because it actually went ahead and bought a string of radio stations in advance-might I say in anticipation-of this Government actually changing its legislative approach to radio ownership in Australia. That station was very lucky. Mr N.A. Brown —Just coincidence? Mr BLUNT —It probably had a crystal ball or maybe it thought it was on a winning streak or it might have got a nod or a wink from somewhere. Let me advise the House of just what Mr Wheatley said: It's ill-conceived and insufficiently thought through . . . The Government sees it as a way to make money. I wonder whether that radio station will realise quite as much money as it anticipated. It would be interesting to hear the comments of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) on the report in this article about the anticipated price that the Government will get for these licences when they go to tender. What must be highlighted is that there is considerable space on the FM band in most capital cities throughout Australia. I am a long way from being a technical expert on this issue, but it is my understanding that in most capital cities there are about 22 spaces on the FM frequency, maybe fewer in some places. I would be interested if the Minister at some stage would provide me with that detailed technical information. I think it should be available not only to this House but also to the public. The public is entitled to an explanation as to why the Government does not have a comprehensive plan. We have two types of radio signal in Australia-FM and AM. For some years-and the previous Government was part of this policy-community access or public broadcasting licences were issued for the FM frequency. We have a number of those operating quite successfully throughout Australia and providing a niche broadcasting facility for special interest groups and local communities. There is a very strong argument that the FM band is probably the best band for high quality music and commercial broadcasting and that perhaps the AM band should be used for this public access facility. Given the number of spaces that are apparently available on the FM band, why can the Government not come to grips with it on a total basis and say, `Our objective is to move the high quality music of the ABC, where appropriate, and commercial broadcasting in general to the FM band'. For most purposes, the AM frequency is more than adequate for the type of broadcasting undertaken by community services and they should be moved. If the whole lot were moved, the community would get a better standard of service. If the Government wants to extract an economic rent it can do it by way of licence fees, but it does not have a commitment to a total approach to broadcasting policy in Australia. The whole thing is done piecemeal. Even this legislation has been in the pipeline for a long time. In fact, the precursor to this legislation chopped and changed about four times. It was announced in the Budget and by the time the Bill actually hit the House the Government had changed its mind twice on it. It is an issue which should be addressed. Another issue that should be addressed in terms of this legislation is the philosophy that underlies the extension of a publicly funded and ABC sponsored broadcasting facility-that is, JJJ-to Adelaide where there is already operating, again publicly sponsored, a popular music broadcasting facility through the public access community broadcasting facility. So the Government is actually facilitating the establishment of a broadcasting station which will compete with an already established government sponsored broadcasting facility. There is no argument, of course, with the desirability of providing specialised music for young people in Australia. In fact, I find listening to JJJ broadcasts quite refreshing at times. It is not necessarily my music of choice after a stressful day, but on some occasions JJJ is quite refreshing and worth listening to. Again, this proposal highlights the lack of a comprehensive approach and a fully thought through approach of this Government to broadcasting policy at large. There is some justification for criticising the Government for lack of consultation. The particular broadcasting station in question in Adelaide has, I believe, publicly voiced its concern at the lack of consultation and the lack of time in terms of warning of this proposal so that it can prepare and change its operations in order to compete. It is something which I think the Government should recognise when it develops its proposals in this area. The other Bills that I have not spoken about at length are quite interesting. They do such diverse things as clarify the legality of rebroadcasting radio transmissions on telephones to people who are stuck in queues. I am sure that all of us in the modern world find when ringing anything from an airline to someone in this building that if we are put on hold we get something that is rebroadcast. It is just part of the technology of our society. There can be no argument with clarifying the legality of that sort of issue. For that reason, the Opposition has no objection to those Bills. In conclusion, I highlight again that the Government is adopting a fairly piecemeal approach and an unconsultative approach to the development and implementation of its broadcasting policy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Does the honourable member for Richmond have an amendment that he seeks to deal with? Mr BLUNT —There is an amendment, but it relates to the Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill and I am advised that I am in a position to formally move that amendment only when the second reading of that Bill is before the House which, under the provisions of the Government's guillotine, will not be until about 6.10 this evening. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —From the point of view of the debate, the Chair is happy to let the honourable member include the amendment as part of his speech. Mr BLUNT —With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I advise the House that I will formally move at a later time: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House (a) is of the opinion that insufficient time has been allowed for proper scrutiny of the contents of the legislation and (b) expresses its concern with the extension of JJJ FM without adequate consultation with other publicly funded radio networks'. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(4.56) —As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), said, this debate covers quite a few pieces of legislation on broadcasting and a wide range of subjects. Firstly, I will talk briefly about the parliamentary broadcasting issue and the comments made by the honourable member for Richmond, who attempted to blame the Government for certain decisions the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings have made. It is ironic that the honourable member for Richmond should suggest in this House that the Government should be interfering with ABC management decisions as Opposition members have come into this House in the past and alleged that the Government had interfered with management decisions and should not be doing so. They cannot have it both ways. The ABC has requested that certain things be done regarding parliamentary broadcasting. I agree that it is ludicrous to have one of the most popular stations in Melbourne-and I am speaking as a Melburnian-3LO, which has a high rating, being interrupted by parliamentary broadcasts. It is an absurd situation. However, when the Broadcasting Committee of this Parliament responds to that situation and makes certain decisions, the Opposition suggest that those decisions should be overridden. That should not be the case. The Broadcasting Committee is an independent committee of which, I think, you are a member, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was a member at one stage. Whilst we may not always agree with every decision that the Broadcasting Committee makes, it is an independent committee of members from both sides of the House. It is ironic that the honourable member for Richmond did not address the legislation. For most of the time he talked about other things that were not related to the legislation. At one point he was really talking about stage two of the FM radio plan for which legislation is proposed in the autumn session. We will probably hear the same speech again in four or five months' time. The legislation before the House relates basically to tendering for two FM stations by AM broadcasters, with the two highest bidders taking those two new FM stations in the metropolitan area. That is, I think, an acceptable situation. It is different from regional arrangements we have had previously. I opposed the decision which was originally announced by the previous Minister for Transport and Communications and, fortunately, we eventually won the day. But this legislation is appropriate. Not all AM broadcasters will tender. I suggest that some of the talkback stations and the racing station would not benefit at all in going to FM. But three or four music stations may see a great benefit. The logic of the plan is to push most of the music stations onto the FM band. We will, therefore, have a variety of stations on the FM band-from talkback radio to sport. Parliamentary broadcasters and radio for the print-handicapped will be on the AM band. The Government should be congratulated for doing something constructive with the two AM stations that will be left vacant. One of the two AM stations will be used for parliamentary broadcasts. The honourable member for Richmond did not really refer to the fact that we are allocating a prime spot on the AM band to the ABC for parliamentary broadcasts. Another thing that was never mentioned in the previous speech was the fact that we are allocating a prime station for the print-handicapped-a very worthwhile cause-who have been asking for a station for some years. The Government has found a way of achieving that in this package of Bills. The station for the print-handicapped will operate in the near future. The print-handicapped will have one of the AM stations and the parliamentary broadcasts will be transferred to one of the metropolitan AM stations which broadcasts already. The station that will broadcast parliamentary proceedings will have a similar range to that of the ABC station at present. As I have said, it is ironic that the honourable member for Richmond spoke at such length but did not really talk much about the legislation. He fronted up with criticism of the overall plan. Basically it was criticism of stage 2 of the plan by the Managing Director of Hoyts Media Ltd, Mr Wheatley. Heaven knows, there would not be much self-interest in that, would there? Not much! At the latest count, I think Hoyts Media owned about 13 stations in its group. The maximum number of stations it is allowed to own is sixteen. That is all part of a plan that had been discussed for quite some time. Hoyts knew, when it bought that group, that at that time-it was approximately 12 months ago-the Government was contemplating expanding ownership in the radio area, which it did. It doubled the maximum number of stations allowed to be owned from eight to 16, which brought Hoyts, and anyone else for that matter, who wanted to expand their ownership, under the legislation. Proposals centring upon this legislation have been discussed for quite some time. It is not new. Mr Wheatley has been screaming, `We do not want any more competition'. I do not believe that he is fair dinkum in his criticisms because he must have known that there would be more competitors at some stage. Looking through recent editions of the Australian Financial Review I see that Hoyts Media-Hoyts Entertainment has a large interest in Hoyts Media-has a few financial problems. Its profitability is not as good as it should be and its gearing is a little higher than it would like. All this relates to the honourable member's criticism of this legislation. It is ludicrous to come in here and quote one person who has criticised the legislation, and say that he has no self-interest in it. What a lot of nonsense! Of course there is self-interest in it. We would all like to have no competition but there is going to be competition. The Government has found a constructive way to provide for that competition with this program for new FM licences and the delegation of the old AM band. There are a number of Bills before the House. I would have liked to have touched on the ABC. There are quite a few changes in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation which affect its employees. They are generally very good changes. They provide more flexibility to the ABC and give it more powers to borrow, with the permission of the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance, and with the Commonwealth guaranteeing that borrowing. We are noticing that flexibility in some respects now, especially with ABC radio programming. I mention radio 3AR and 3LO in Melbourne. Radio 3LO-shall we say, the more popular of the two stations-is rating very highly. It is a formidable competitor of the commercial networks. I support all the Bills that are before the House. They make up a credible and important package which the Government has thought through. They are part of a package of radio and television decisions, of which there have been many-there have had to be many-over the last few years. There will be more changes in this area, particularly in television, in the years ahead. Whoever is in government will have to tackle those changes from time to time in the quickly evolving telecommunications world. This is a very well thought through package of proposals for FM and AM radio bands. I believe that it will be a great success. We will possibly see two music stations go on to the FM band and the AM licences go to two very important areas such as parliamentary broadcasts and radio for the print-handicapped. I support the legislation before the House. Mr JULL(Fadden)(5.07) —We are debating five Bills, all of which are under the guillotine: the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill, the Broadcasting (Limited Licences) Fees Bill, the Broadcasting (Retransmission Permits and Temporary Transmission Permits) Fees Bill, the Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill and the Radio Licence Fees (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill. We are debating five Bills, some of which represent some of the most significant legislation to come before this House and yet we are restricted in the time in which we can debate them. It does this House no credit that we are facing this situation this afternoon. Some aspects of these Bills are most significant. I say that because what we are doing today is effecting a major change in the face of commercial broadcasting in Australia. In the history of FM radio this place, this Government and previous governments do not have much to be proud of. The FM band, since it first came into operation in a very shady sort of set-up under the old Wireless Telegraphy Act when the Whitlam Labor Government was in power, has been squandered. The Wireless Telegraphy Act was used to get certain types of radio stations on the air. Since then we have seen some legitimate broadcasting go on to the FM band. We have also seen a complete squandering of the FM band because of the nature of some of the stations that have been granted licences on the band. The development of the FM band has been slipshod. It has not been treated terribly professionally. Now we are trying to do something about it. The way we are tackling the problem is not going to do us much credit, once again. It has been mentioned this afternoon that the FM radio band is the ideal band for musical broadcasting. That is correct. But we have no guarantees that we will get any specialist use of this band at this stage. We have heard not one iota from the Government on, for example, what will happen in terms of the future of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) AM networks and their translation to the FM band. Nothing has been said about that at all. While we can sit here and talk about the prospect of two of the existing AM operators going on the FM band, the ABC would seem to be completely in the dark as to what its future might be in terms of its present AM operations. It is true that, as the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) said, we have in Australia a situation in which a number of our radio stations-better than 50 per cent of the commercial stations-have been operating at a loss over the last year. We have been through the most tremendous upheaval in radio broadcasting in recent years. A large number of stations has been purchased. We have seen the formation of a number of super-networks. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, this legislation will ensure that the whole face of commercial radio and broadcasting generally in Australia will never be the same again. Again it is rather a pity that one of the fallouts from this Bill will obviously be that a number of existing radio stations will go broke and will probably have to hand back their radio licences, because that is what it is all about. It is a fact that, because of the very nature of the FM broadcasting band and the fact that the commercial stations have been allowed onto it, a disproportionate amount of the advertising revenue spent on radio has gone to the FM radio stations. Consequently, over the past few years there has been a major drain of revenue and profits out of the existing AM operators. That is a pity, because one of the great things about the development of AM radio in Australia is the fact that we have led the world in our creativity, that we have built up some of the finest broadcasting stations in the world. But in the past few years we have been prepared to let a lot of that go for the sake of a couple of jukeboxes on the AM band. I wonder whether we will allow ourselves to just throw away all that expertise and all that know-how and dedication by the radio pioneers of Australia, and not take full advantage of what could be had if we had played the FM radio band properly. In many respects it is a great pity that many of those pioneers of radio broadcasting stations will literally go down the plughole because we have not tackled the FM radio band properly. I agree with the honourable member for Richmond that one of the things we should have done a long time ago was ensure that the band was completely clear so that we could have had an orderly translation of all the existing AM stations onto the FM frequency. It is true that we could have in excess of 20 FM stations in most of the capital cities of Australia, if we really wanted it that way. It is amazing to go to the United States and flip around the FM band. There are in excess of 50 FM stations to be picked up in Los Angeles. While we have some technical problems with the FM band here, it is absolutely amazing to me that the Department has been examining the FM band, to my knowledge, for a minimum of 15 years, and in those 15 years we do not seem to have developed the capacity to work out exactly what we want to do with it. And that really is a disgrace. I apologise for being so critical about this area, but we have a lot to answer for in terms of the attitude this country has taken to the whole broadcasting industry during the past decade and a half. What are we going to see? We will see, in the first stage, bids going in from existing AM operators for an FM station. It would be fairly obvious just which station. It would be fairly obvious just which stations will have the financial clout and the financial capacity to obtain those licences. One can probably count on one's left hand the number of bids that may be anywhere near successful. I would suggest that that figure could probably be reduced from, perhaps, five bidders to just two bidders that will have the financial clout and capacity to get to a stage where they would be successful in one of those bids. To back up my story, stage two of the plan, which we understand will come in early next year, will dilute the present radio situation even more. A lot of new bidders will be coming in-and that is probably well and good-but it will mean less and less revenue available because there is disproportionately less advertising revenue going into the whole radio area at the moment than there has been in the past; and this will lead to a situation in which many of the operators will go out of business. My suggestion would always have been that, certainly in the case of the metropolitan areas, the translation from AM to FM should have gone ahead and freed up the AM band completely. On that AM band one has a great capacity now to do a number of things. We have heard about the parliamentary network which, rightly or wrongly, will be established on the frequency of one of these AM stations that will presently go over to FM. We have also learned of developments in radio for the print handicapped. I congratulate the Government on its efforts to ensure that the radio for the print handicapped in the metropolitan areas around Australia has the capacity to broadcast on a decent frequency and with decent power. The service being provided by those radio stations, certainly in Brisbane on radio 4RPH, is making a real contribution not only to those people with sight and other problems but also to the standards of radio, by virtue of some of the programs being played. The biggest difficulty for radio for the print handicapped is that it has been stuck down around the 1520 mark on the dial, and that does not allow for good transmission. Therefore, it has had weak power; so these aspects of it are good. Low powered community stations may be able to be used, perhaps not on the FM band but over on the AM band. If all those metropolitan stations were cleared off the AM band, one could enhance many of the services that are presently inadequate in some of the country areas. But obviously, like Topsy, we will just let the whole thing grow willy-nilly, and still we do not have a completely satisfactory resolution in the whole area of FM radio in Australia. As I said, I think that is a pity. Because of the limited time given for the debate, my time has just about expired. As with the previous speaker, I also would have liked to have examined the prospect of what the ABC could do with the loan guarantees from the Government. It is something about which I am not completely happy, and I certainly hope that Government members or, indeed, the Minister in his reply will be able to give a fuller explanation of some of the implications of the guarantee that the Government will give to the ABC so that we have some indication of exactly how it will be used, where it will be used, whether it is to be used in the guarantee of loans for the purchase of more buildings, or whether or not we will have a dedication for the improvement in the nature and quality of the programs of the ABC. That may come out a little late in the debate. I will stop where I began, by saying that in the Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill honourable members will see a major revolution in the radio industry in Australia, and we parliamentarians should be pretty aware that there will be some major fallout in the next few years, with a number of stations handing back their licences. We should be prepared for that and perhaps we should not be too proud of some of the legislation brought into this place in the past 15 years. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(5.18) —I should like to make a few points in relation to some of the major changes to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and also in relation to the national plan for metropolitan radio. I must say I am a bit intrigued by the remarks of the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), who spoke about what should have been done and what the Government had done wrong and where we should be going. I make one point: the Opposition parties have been in office for some 30 years since the Second World War, and virtually nothing was done by them in the area of broadcasting. Mr Downer —What did the Whitlam Government do? Mr SAUNDERSON —The Whitlam Government was in office for three years during that period, and it concentrated on a whole range of social problems that had developed in the previous 23 years. It did not have the opportunity of dealing with this question, although I might say that it did move towards the introduction of a number of areas of public radio and public broadcasting. It did make some reforms. On the question of how the AM and FM frequency bands should be used, for instance, the honourable member for Fadden said that the FM band should have been cleared years ago. That is correct. But who was in power for the majority of that period of years? Which government did nothing about this issue? Which government did nothing about ownership levels? Which government did nothing at all about increasing the range of alternative services? All I can say is that since 1983 this Government has tackled a whole range of problems that were left unanswered and which resulted in a deterioration in and a lack of, services, particularly in rural areas, for many years. This Government has tackled those questions. We have seen a whole range of changes in television. We have seen aggregation in rural areas. In the area of radio licences new licences have been issued, and there has been a change in ownership rules. Concerning the question of national planning, the Government should be applauded for what it has done in relation to the expansion of FM services. Firstly, that expansion will give the opportunity to some existing AM licensees of transferring to the FM frequency. I think there is no-one in this House who does not recognise that an enormous degree of concern has been expressed by existing licensees about the difference in competitiveness between the AM band and the FM band. Existing AM licensees have expressed an enormous desire to have the opportunity to move to the FM frequency. In my view-and I think the Government has made the right decision-it is not sensible to allow all existing AM licensees to transfer over to the FM frequency. The AM frequency band is a useful one and should continue to be used. We should not diminish the amount of choice that will be ultimately possible simply because some people want to transmit on only one frequency system. In allowing two existing licensees on the AM band to bid and to have the opportunity to transfer, the Government will overcome two other problems that have existed. One concerns assistance to that very necessary service, radio for the print handicapped (RPH). That is an area where the Government ought to be congratulated by the community at large. Here is a service which caters for those people who, for various reasons-whether they by physically handicapped or have other problems-are unable to read, enabling them to gain information and other services via the radio. Unfortunately, until very recently the service was forced not only to operate in areas of the frequency spectrum that were not easily obtainable by many listeners, but also to transmit on low power. With the transfer of that AM licence to the FM band, one of the existing AM frequencies and the equipment will become available for radio for the print handicapped stations. This will make them more accessible and will provide them with more powerful transmitters, which will enable more people to enjoy the service they provide. The other AM licence will be used for the broadcasting of Parliament. Since the ABC has been experimenting with the transfer of the Parliamentary broadcast to other frequencies, it has been able to provide better scheduling of programs on its national radio stations. The trial process has meant that some people have not been able to receive parliamentary broadcasts satisfactorily. That will be overcome with the release of the second AM licence, which will then allow for wider broadcasting. In terms of changes to the ABC and its powers, I think the Government has done quite a good job in providing support to the ABC, in encouraging it to become more responsive to community needs; and in encouraging it to improve its overall performance. I am not necessarily unhappy with the new powers that we are providing them with, including the capacity to act more as a corporation free from constraint. But I do have some reservations about the use of its borrowing capacity to finance some of its projects. In particular, I would be concerned if the ABC, having been given these new powers, utilised them simply to overcome problems and difficulties that they had in the past while they were under scrutiny. For instance, in Melbourne, the ABC has had property at East Burwood for some time, which has been available to the corporation to provide new premises and buildings for its radio and television services. Because of some middle management concerns, particularly in radio, that project has not progressed for some 12 to 14 years. Radio Australia was moved out quite some time ago, and it enjoys the provision of good facilities in a modern building at East Burwood. But the radio people have continued to enjoy very poor service in terms of the building environment and working conditions, because some people have simply not wanted to travel from the inner suburban areas to East Burwood. Spurious arguments have been raised as to why radio service would be damaged if this project were to go ahead. There is no doubt that the ABC could provide better working conditions for its staff, it could modernise its equipment far more cheaply, and it could reduce the overall maintenance and running costs of its radio services in Melbourne if it were to transfer to, and provide new services at, East Burwood. The fact that it owns the land and the fact that the project has been part of its plans for many years are things that I hope would not be altered simply because the ABC is now in a position to borrow money by issuing bonds to finance projects, and so forth. Because it could do that, it would ultimately look to more expensive projects simply to satisfy some of the desires of the middle management, as well as producers and so forth. It would be a backward step for the ABC not to integrate its services at East Burwood. Because of the process by which the Government is moving towards increasing services on the FM band, as well as providing necessary services such as RPH on the AM band, the Government ought to be congratulated-with the reservation I have expressed with regard to the ABC. I add one more criticism. I recently had a letter from a constituent complaining about the fact that he was now having difficulty in receiving parliamentary broadcasts. I was most disappointed to find that the response from the person in the ABC was to simply blame this Government for it. It is my understanding that that was done at the request of the ABC itself-a request by ABC management-which wanted to institute a better service for its listeners on the national broadcasting system. Given the shortness of the debate, my time is running out, so I will not linger on the other matters that I wanted to raise. I support the legislation the Government is proceeding with. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Employment and Education Services)(5.30) —by leave-I move: (1) Schedule 3, page 62, omit: ``Section 126: Repeal the section.''. (2) Schedule 4, page 66, after the proposed amendment of subsection 125b (2), insert: ``Section 126: Repeal the section.''. These amendments have arisen as a result of a minor technical matter that needs to be corrected to ensure that existing provisions for test transmission permits are repealed on 1 March 1989, which is the same day as the provisions for the temporary transmission permits, which replace them will commence. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(5.31) —In speaking to these amendments I would like to say, firstly, how important this legislation is to the electorate of Maranoa and particularly the people of Queensland. Changes are being made, mainly from AM to FM radio in metropolitan Brisbane, and also to the financing and staffing arrangements of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The Corporation will be able to borrow funds commercially with the approval of the Treasury. Obviously this is important for the Corporation as it wishes to extend its operations around Australia. The national Parliament, through the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, controls the licensing of radio and television stations and applies a fee mainly to police the frequencies that are allocated to radio and television in the broadcasting spectrum. People cannot start broadcasting when they feel like it. They have to apply for a licence and they have to be slotted into the spectrum so that their radio broadcast will be heard. Approximately $80m in revenue is being collected from these fees. Secondly, these new arrangements will affect our parliamentary broadcasts. Unfortunately the new arrangements will disadvantage isolated Australians, as usual. Australians living in metropolitan areas will be able to get parliamentary broadcasts on an FM frequency. Today Madam Speaker announced in the House that there has been a transfer of parliamentary broadcasts from the existing high-powered broadcasting stations to the stand-by stations around Australia controlled by the ABC. Those of us who live in isolated Australia, like I and my constituents in Western Queensland do, were able to pick up parliamentary broadcasts. People are always very interested in what I in particular have to say on radio. Unfortunately, now it will be much harder for them to hear those broadcasts. As far as I am concerned we, as parliamentarians, ought to be looking very closely at extending the system into inland Australia via the satellite. I suggested to the ABC management that was here a couple of days ago that the FM channels on the satellite could be used. I do not see why the ABC cannot broadcast an edited version of the day's proceedings via the satellite so that people living in isolated areas would be able to pick up the broadcasts of the proceedings of this Parliament. In our democracy it is very important for all Australians to have an opportunity to listen to the broadcasts, not just the privileged millions who live in metropolitan Sydney and in other big cities. Those people have an enormous range of television, radio and FM stations to listen to, whereas when we move further inland we get fewer stations. In some parts of my electorate people still cannot listen to the ABC, particularly in the middle of the day. As the day heats up the stations cannot be heard. I congratulate those people in the Department of Transport and Communications who have recently been involved in establishing an ABC radio translator at Charleville and the near completion of an extension of that translator at a small place called Cunnamulla in south-west Queensland. For the first time people living in that country town will be able to hear ABC radio. Beyond Cunnamulla, and further inland towards Birdsville, one cannot get any ABC radio at all during the day. Obviously, at night there is an awful lot of skip and massive radio interference. People are able to pick up radio in those parts of Australia at night but during the day they cannot pick up market reports, parliamentary broadcasts and the other interesting things that they wish to hear. The honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) more or less lambasted the Opposition parties for not doing anything when we were in government. That is not true. The previous Fraser Government put that satellite program into place. About $350m of taxpayers' money has been spent on that program. That has been of tremendous help to people living in isolated areas. We now get ABC television via the satellite and AM and FM radio channels are available through the satellite. We are now receiving commercial signals for the first time. I would just like to point out to honourable members on the Government side that legislation has gone through this chamber dealing with the rationalisation and amalgamation of television stations along the coast of Queensland and other States but nothing seems to have happened. The idea was to give viewers in rural Australia, and particularly those viewers in the more isolated areas, a second channel. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa is proceeding beyond the amendments with which we are dealing. He is now talking about television coverage. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am sorry about that, Mr Deputy Chairman. I will get back to the radio broadcasts. My main concern has been that, under the new arrangement, we have not been getting the parliamentary broadcasts. I think it is understood that the translators the ABC were using were very powerful and these translators had a long penetration. The stations established in the capital cities were using these frequencies to broadcast parliamentary proceedings. They have now switched from that channel to the stand-by transmitters which are nowhere near as powerful. Many Australians who now go to the polls, who support us and who pay their taxes are not able to receive this broadcast. I think that is a disgrace and it is something at which this Government should be looking. The Government should not just be putting more parliamentary broadcasts on the FM network because FM has a very limited signal. It is like UHF radio. The latest citizens band radio that is used are line of sight radio, in the same way as a television signal are line of sight. That is why aerials are put on the top of a large hill. It is the same in the case of FM radio. A hill or a high antenna are needed to get a big spread. One does not get a large coverage with FM; it goes into the town or into the country for five, 10 or 20 kilometres and then the broadcast finishes and one does not receive it. An FM station in Toowoomba goes out just to the edge of my electorate. A local FM community station is also operating in Roma and business people have applied to set one up in Dalby. Although we welcome the opportunity to put in these broadcasters, people must understand that they have a very limited range. Australia is a large place and these broadcasters just do not give a very big coverage. Although the FM signal is a high frequency signal and it is much clearer and better than the AM signal, it is very difficult for those who live further out in isolated areas and in much smaller towns. It is just not economic to run one of these stations there. About 5,000 people are needed to warrant the operation of one of these stations. Many townships in Australia are not big enough to operate an FM station. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! The time allotted for the committee stage of the Bill has expired. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The question now is that the Bill, as amended, be agreed to, and that the Bill be reported with amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Willis) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(5.41) —I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill because it is certainly a Bill of great importance to everyone in Australia, and of course that includes those people who are fortunate enough to live in the balmy, equable climate of Cowper. It is interesting to note that the advent of FM stations has really produced a tremendous change in radio. I believe that the introduction of FM radio stations has marked a great move forward for good in terms of entertainment, instruction, and cultural understanding and appreciation of people in Australia. My electorate of Cowper is well served by the stations it has, but there is a need to improve. We have two existing FM stations, 2CHY and 2BBB. Radio 2CHY FM began broadcasting via landline as a student radio station in 1973. It was the brainchild of an officer of the Salvation Army. In January 1983 it began official FM broadcasts, after receiving a community broadcasting licence several months before. It is interesting that this particular student radio station draws on the efforts of students from the five high schools in the area, and up to 120 schoolchildren a year work at the station in one capacity or another. In fact, hundreds of youngsters have had great benefit from their time at the station and many have gone on to careers with commercial stations in regional or capital centres. Radio 2BBB, situated at Bellingen, is also an FM station, and began broadcasting in 1983. It is run by the Bellingen Community Communications Cooperative. It plays all styles of music, and also has a strong community news and information profile. As with 2CHY, 120 volunteers-not children this time, but adult members of the community-are involved in running the station. There are no full time employees. People come from all over the Bellingen Shire to put in their very worthwhile work at the station. It broadcasts, on average, for about 18 hours a day, longer at the weekends, and it does a great job. Those two FM stations are indicative of the great work that can be done within a community by FM stations. I want to refer briefly to the two other stations, which are not yet licensed. One is Radio Nambucca which is not as well advanced as the other station, Radio Hastings. Radio Nambucca is already doing its share of broadcasting with 2BBB and the people associated with it are getting some very worthwhile experience. Radio Nambucca originally was quoted a hearing licence date of 1992, but I am pleased to note that it was recently advised by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) that the hearing will be held sometime in 1990. I understand it is happy with that. The other group is the Hastings Community FM Radio Association Incorporated. I recently wrote to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) on behalf of this group. The point that I made in that representation, and that the Hastings Community FM Radio Association has made in its submission to the Minister, is that, even with the Department's changed policy regarding tandem hearings, while Hastings is listed on the current timetable for 1991 a commercial FM licence hearing will be conducted by the ABT in about mid-1989 for the Kempsey region. That region covers the Kempsey-Hastings area. While the community station certainly will not be contesting the commercial FM licence, I contend that it is only sensible, and would be very efficient, to hold a tandem licence hearing while the ABT is in the area, particularly since the Department has a policy to encourage tandem hearings. Community radio in Hastings is ready to go to air and is prepared for the hearing. It can see no reason why it should wait until 1991. I take this opportunity to commend to the Minister the proposition that a tandem hearing for the commercial FM station in the Hastings-Kempsey area and for Radio Hastings FM would be a very sensible and economic way of handling both applications. We are also served by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) through 2KPTR, based at Kempsey with other studios as Taree. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the personnel associated with the ABC regional service in my area. They are hard working, efficient and very dedicated, and do an excellent job of providing programming which is of interest to a great many people. The two commercial stations, 2MC based in Port Macquarie and 2CS based in Coffs Harbour, are also first-rate local radio stations and deserve high praise, which they do get from the communities they serve. I also point out that the ABC had indicated that it would provide an FM station for Coffs Harbour. The land had been bought but I understand now that, because of a change in planning, the land originally purchased for the FM station was sold some time ago. That is rather disappointing, especially when the ABC had demonstrated such flourish about having a national FM network which included a transmitter to be sited in the Coffs Harbour region. It is very disappointing indeed and I hope that at some time in the future funding will permit the reallocation or priority to that-although, as I say, it is disappointing that, as a result of taking a very short term view, the land has been sold. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) made reference in his speech to 2JJJ FM. I add my praise for that station. I believe it is a tremendous station for serving the music interests of young Australians. Perhaps I should declare an interest, because one of my sons has recently been appointed manager of that station. But I liked it before then and certainly that does not influence my appreciation of what that station has done for the young people of Australia. I also note with a great deal of interest that it is about to extend its coverage to other capital cities. I would just like to throw in this thought, or fly a kite, if you like: As the honourable member for Richmond said, it might be a duplication to have JJJ in Adelaide but the North Coast of New South Wales might be considered an appropriate place to install a JJJ transmitter. The number of young people we have is quite high, we have the highest growth area in Australia, and there is no doubt in my mind that it would be a valuable addition to the radio service on the north coast of New South Wales if a JJJ station could be provided. Parliamentary broadcasts have received quite a deal of attention, and I am rather interested in a letter I received from the Managing Director of the ABC, Mr David Hill, dated 26 October 1988. In it he said: There is no provision in the Act requiring the ABC to broadcast Parliament in, say, the Mid-North Coast of New South Wales. I think that is a regrettable attitude. The fact that there is no provision in the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act is no reason why people should not be served. Mr Hill also said: Over the years, the ABC received many complaints from listeners in capital cities about the loss of regular programs when Parliament was sitting. Country listeners also complained . . . I think that is rather unbalanced. I cannot really believe that the ABC has only received complaints about Parliament being on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 September, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 September, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.53) —On behalf of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House (a) is of the opinion that insufficient time has been allowed for proper scrutiny of the contents of the legislation and (b) expresses its concern with the extension of JJJ FM without adequate consultation with other publicly funded radio networks'. This amendment which the honourable member for Richmond has circulated draws attention to two factors that are of concern to the Opposition. The first is that the Government has not provided sufficient time for proper scrutiny of the contents of this legislation. In not providing sufficient time the Government is not showing the right kind of respect for the institution of parliament. The reality is that if legislation is to be introduced it is only reasonable that the Parliament should have time to consider that legislation before it is debated. The Bills that we were debating cognately are complex Bills. Once their details have been seen by honourable members, they require consultation with industry and discussion with the community in general, particularly on areas as sensitive as the national metropolitan radio plan, which is of interest and affects so many people around the country. It is of no tribute to the Government, its attitudes to the community and to Parliament, that it has not allowed for proper scrutiny of the contents of the legislation. The second part of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Richmond, which I have moved on his behalf, relates to concern about the extension of 2JJJ FM without adequate consultation with other publicly funded radio networks. In my State of South Australia there is one very successful FM radio station-there are other FM radio stations-which has the highest ratings in South Australia on both the FM and AM bands, called SAFM. The market that JJJFM would wish to carve out for itself in South Australia is a very similar market to that which at the moment is held by SAFM. My concern is that JJJFM is part of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), is a publicly funded radio station and is therefore not part of the private enterprise system. Whilst I am a strong advocate of the principle of competition, I think that the ABC has a different function than just existing to provide competition. Too much of the debate about the ABC in both the radio and television fields has lost sight of what the true objectives of the ABC ought to be. I do not think this Parliament has given that matter the consideration that it should be given. If the ABC is simply to be a body which competes with the commercial sector to maximise its ratings, there is no question that it is not performing a significant public interest role. That, it would appear to me, is what is happening here in the extension of the role of JJJFM. If, on the other hand, the ABC is to provide a public service, is to get an example in raising standards and is to be a pacesetter, that is altogether another matter. It is interesting to look at the contrast between what the Australian Government is doing and what has occurred in the United Kingdom in recent years. There was the case many years ago when I was a student in Britain-this dates me a bit because it was a long time ago-when the British Broadcasting Corporation set up pop radio station, BBC Radio 1. I make no apology for the fact that it was the only radio station I ever listened to when I was a student. It was certainly a popular station, but it competed directly with the private sector rather than providing a unique, if you like, culturally superior service to what the market might naturally provide. I note that the present British Government has come to the conclusion that just providing competition should not be the role of the BBC. Consequently, it has moved to ensure that the BBC divests itself of Radio 1 and that that radio station becomes part of the competitive private sector. That, of course, is why we have some concern about the ABC expanding these sorts of operations throughout the nation. As I said, I have some concerns about the implications for stations such as SAFM in South Australia. I do not believe-nor does that station-that there has been adequate consultation; nor has there been adequate consultation with other radio networks. That is a matter of regret to members on this side of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr White —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.59) —I wish to make a few comments about the Opposition's second reading motion amendment. The Government, of course, opposes this amendment absolutely. I do not understand the first part of it which states that insufficient time has been allowed for proper scrutiny of the contents of the legislation. The legislation was introduced a week ago. All the normal conventions regarding the introduction of Bills and the period of time that the Opposition has to consider their contents, including the opportunity to discuss them at a party meeting, have been met. There has been no undue haste in putting this legislation before the House. Many Bills go through in that time frame. A further point relates to the extension of JJJFM to Adelaide and other places. It seems that Adelaide is the cause of concern. The Opposition seems to be in an acute state of division over this aspect. A couple of speakers have said that JJJFM is a very worthwhile station to listen to. Indeed, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who spoke first in this debate, was praising JJJ while indicating a second reading amendment expressing concern about its extension. The concern seems to be that in Adelaide there is a public radio station-it is not so heavily publicly funded-which has rock music as its basic content and that JJJ would cut across it. Let me say that the people who run that station have indicated that concern to me. I must say that I do not feel a great sense of concern about that. In Sydney, for instance, where JJJ has operated for quite some time both on the AM and more recently on the FM band, there are other rock stations, including public radio stations which have a rock music base, and they all exist reasonably well. I am sure that in a city the size of Adelaide there is room for more than one such station. I would have thought that the extension of JJJ would have been welcomed by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), who presumably, as one of the younger members of the parliament, should be concerned to see a service like this provided to the people of Adelaide. I will now mention a couple of other factors that have been brought up in this debate which relate to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill. Some concern has been expressed about parliamentary broadcasts. This Bill tries to provide for the arrangements for the permanent frequency for parliamentary broadcasts by enabling two AM stations in each capital city to be moved off the AM band onto FM bands. They will vacate two frequencies, one of which will be used for radio for the print handicapped, and one for parliamentary broadcasts as a permanent network. That is a very desirable and sensible move. I must say that in running through the comments that have been made in this debate about the change in parliamentary broadcasting procedures has been the assumption that there is a public out there that is desperate to hear Parliament and that there will be mass concern if the public cannot hear it. All of the evidence points the other way. In wanting to have Parliament broadcast we should not be so selfish as to think that it is only Parliament which is important. There are other people in the community who wish to hear the programs which Radio National provides, which are not provided by any other station. There are no commercial stations providing the kinds of programs that Radio National provides. There is a substantial audience for that kind of program. I understand about 6 per cent of the radio audience listens to Radio National. Overwhelmingly, the evidence is that those people do not want to have Parliament on Radio National. Of course, it is important that we have some parliamentary broadcast. There is an Act of parliament requiring it. The Act requires it for the capital cities and Newcastle, and other cities may be added by regulation. One such city has been added, and that is Canberra. Any other areas which receive the parliamentary broadcast do so fortuitously simply by the power of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation extending from the capital city out into the country areas. Parliamentary broadcasts have never been on the ABC regional network. With the temporary arrangements and Parliament moving to the standby transmitters, the vast majority of the audience who could previously have tuned to the parliamentary broadcast will be able to do so. Some people in country areas who previously had fortuitously been able to receive it will no longer be able to do so. That is a pity. On the other hand, one must look at the other side of the equation, and that is that a much larger number of people, in my view, who are normal Radio National listeners will be greatly pleased that they will be able to hear the programs they like to hear at the normal time that they come on and not have them interrupted by parliamentary broadcasts in which they are not interested. While the ABC has been doing testing over the recent weeks, Parliament has been broadcast on the standby transmitters and on some days and evenings has been taken off Radio National. There has been a testing period in which the ABC has invited comments from people about the change in arrangements. Overwhelmingly, the comments that have come to the ABC have been strongly in favour of that change. Overwhelmingly, those people are saying, `Thank goodness Parliament is no longer on Radio National. We want to be able to hear the programs that we normally listen to at the normal times and not have them interrupted by parliament'. Of course, there is a group of people who want to listen to Parliament. Those people will, by and large, be able to hear it on the new parliamentary network. Unfortunately, there will be some people who will miss out. Once we are able to relocate stations from the AM band to the FM band by the arrangements in this legislation and put the parliamentary broadcast on the new AM frequencies, not on the ABC standby transmitters, it may well be that we will be able to provide a more powerful transmission and one which will go further than is the case with the standby transmitters in some of the capital cities at present. I might also add in that respect that in Perth the coverage of the standby transmitter is greater than that of Radio National. More people in the Perth region and in the Western Australian countryside can hear Parliament on the standby transmitter than has been the case with broadcasts on Radio National. It should also be understood that the ABC has agreed, at my suggestion, that there should be some form of summary of Parliament on Radio National each week. It has agreed to a half-hour broadcast to be run on Friday night and Saturday morning. It would be a summary of events in Parliament of that week involving excerpts from parliamentary debates and Question Time. It would highlight the important issues that have come up in Parliament that week. That will provide a good service and importantly-I say this to members of the National Party of Australia-it will also go on to the second regional network. This Government has taken the decision to establish a second regional radio network so that we can have two ABC frequencies around the country. In so doing, we will gradually extend a form of parliamentary broadcast, the weekly summary, to the whole nation. The people in remote areas have never before had that kind of service. But they will have it through the summary. They will have for the first time a program that will give some assessment of what went on in Parliament, with some excerpts of parliamentary proceedings of the previous week available to them. That is a very important development. I hope that the Parliament will see that there is much merit in the changed system. We cannot simply disregard the rights of others who wish to hear the normal Radio National programs which are not available anywhere else in the spectrum. One cannot get similar programs elsewhere. It is important that we bear in mind their needs and that the great majority of people who want to listen to Parliament will still be able to do so. Finally, may I say in relation to the tendering process that there seemed to be some concern by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), on the one hand, that we were going to be exploitative by charging terrible prices for people who wished to go from the AM band to the FM band. On the other hand, he was saying that there were lots of frequencies available and that we should have a lot more people on the FM band. The reality is that a limited number of FM licences have been granted so far. Some of those stations have been sold for very substantial amounts of money indeed. There is no need for what is obviously a valuable commodity, that is, an FM licence, to be given away cheaply. We should give it away at a price that the market will bear. That is what the tender process that is instituted in this legislation brings about so that the people of Australia, who are the owners of that commodity, can get a proper price for it and not give it to someone to make a substantial profit out of it for their own purposes. It is really something that is for the national good. The Government, I repeat, rejects the second reading amendment and advocates support for the Bill. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 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. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(6.12) —The Naval Defence Amendment Bill will enable civilians who are employed at Garden Island in the Office of Defence Production (ODP) to be transferred to a new company, which is to be established next year, called Australian Defence Industries Pty Ltd. The Opposition approves of the establishment of this new company. We support the Bill because it will enable staff to be transferred to that company so that they can be productively employed. We hope that they will be. It will make what is now the Office of Defence Production much more competitive in the civilian market, and, hopefully, it will be successful. It is strange that, on a day when the Cross report on personnel wastage in the Australian Defence Force is tabled in this House-a report which tips an absolute bucket on the Government for its neglect of Defence Force personnel-we have the Government saying, through this Bill, that it will look after its civilian employees, which it should do. It says that it will negotiate with the unions about the transfer of staff to the new company and that it will make every effort to ensure that the transfer is effected expeditiously. The 70,000 uniformed men and women of the Defence Force do not have the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to speak for them; they do not have any union to speak for them. I am not advocating that they should. It is the Government's responsibility to look after its own employees. The report condemns and damns the Government and is an indictment of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and his side-kick, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), for their treatment of Defence Force personnel. Having said that, I congratulate the Government on the way it has approached the task of introducing efficient methods into the Office of Defence Production. Over the last few years it has reduced civilian numbers by some 5,000. It has reduced the number through efficiencies it has introduced and by way of sales-for example, of the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. That is all going in the right direction, and that is good. However, some of the claims made by the Minister for Defence in relation to efficiencies in the Department of Defence are highly suspect. The Williamstown Naval Dockyard reportedly was sold for $100m, yet the Budget Papers indicate revenue from the sale as only $66m. There is a discrepancy which may be easily explained; but I certainly do not understand it, and nor does anybody else to whom I have spoken. The Minister also claims that $100m can be saved each year in the logistics area. Where are these savings? It is a bit hard to understand these reported savings when, in a press statement and an announcement throughout the Army less than three weeks ago, the Chief of the General Staff announced that operating expenses were to be cut back by 10 per cent. The Minister also claims that the ODP has increased productivity by 30 per cent. I find that very difficult to estimate on any rational grounds. While I applaud the reductions and efficiencies the Government has made in the Office of Defence Production, there is a limit to the reduction in the number of civilians. If the Government goes too far, obviously it will be asking service men and women to take up the slack. It has been demonstrated today that the uniformed part of the Department of Defence, the Australian Defence Force, is on the bones of its backside as far as personnel are concerned. I hope very much that while the Government continues to cut back civilian appointments it is not suggesting that servicemen should take up the slack of those jobs when civilians who do not have to undergo the same degree of training could easily do them. While we are on the subject of civilians in the Department of Defence, I must mention the shameful episode of the employees who were made redundant when the Government Aircraft Factories were absorbed into Aerospace Technologies of Australia in October 1987. In February 1988, some five months later, it was revealed that 150 of those redundant employees were being paid for sitting around in Melbourne with absolutely nothing to do. It was not until June 1988 that all those 150 people had been found jobs. I applaud the Government's attitude in trying to get increased efficiency in Government owned enterprises. It is very difficult when we look at cases such as the one I just mentioned, in which 150 people or more sitting around and being paid to do nothing and at the same time the Government has cut back on uniformed personnel in the Australian Defence Force to the tune of some 3,000 in the last three or four years. When servicemen are asked how they feel about being asked to do more work and to work longer hours while their pay and conditions deteriorate and they are asked, `Do you know that there are 150 civilian employees of the Department of Defence in the Melbourne area getting full pay to play cards'?, they nearly go off their brains. They know about it all right. They look upon it as a complete abrogation of the responsibility of the Department of Defence and the Minister towards them. I want to say a few words about Garden Island Dockyard. In the past Garden Island and the Williamstown Naval Dockyard have been absolutely notorious for the intransi- gence of some of the unions there, for rorts, thuggery, low productivity, restrictive work practices and all that is bad about the union scene. I will come back to Garden Island in a moment. There have been some very great improvements there. I want to compare what has happened at Garden Island with what is happening at Williamstown. Williamstown Naval Dockyard was sold to a company called the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation (AMEC) earlier this year. When AMEC took it over there were 1,300 employees and 27 unions. Productivity was at an all time low. Demarcation disputes were rife. There was a whole series of work categories and pay levels. AMEC, with the help of the ACTU and a number of unions, has reduced its work force to 400, instead of 1,300. Productivity is up. AMEC has reduced the number of unions from 27 to 3. There are now two work categories-trades and non-trades. The pay levels have been reduced to four. If an employee wants to move from a lower pay level to a higher one all he has to do is to increase his range of skills-at the company's expense-through training courses. What has happened at Williamstown is remarkable. I give credit to the management of Williamstown-particularly the manager, Dr John White-to his staff, and to the unions and the ACTU which have been involved in the transformation of what was a notorious black hole in Australian industry. That black hole has now been transformed into what is probably one of the most productive industrial enterprises in Australia. There is a new spirit at Williamstown. When one goes there, people are cheerful, happy and anxious to get on with the job. That is because it has gone from being a government-owned enterprise to private enterprise. We cannot do that with every government enterprise. I am not suggesting that it should be done in the case of Garden Island. But one cannot help but compare what has happened in the past at Garden Island with what is happening now at Williamstown. At Garden Island there has been great improvement. I give credit to Admiral Berlyn, the manager, and his team. Some unions are cooperating to the fullest at Garden Island, as is the ACTU. But it still has a long way to go. The Federated Ironworkers Association, which is represented in South Australia, generally has been helpful, as the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan) who is at the table would probably know, in connection with the eventual construction of the new submarine. I ask the union why it is taking such an intransigent position with regard to the new Australian Defence Industries. I quote from the Pacific Defence Reporter, November 1988. A letter written by John Ryan, the national research officer of the Federated Ironworkers Association, Sydney, states: Although the Government has given six months notice of the intended change to its own operations, together with a commitment to consult with unions on the change, it would be unrealistic to expect that such a significant change affecting over 8,500 workers will be achieved without any industrial disputation. I am not sure what he means by that. He seems to be waving a red flag unnecessarily. I would have thought that it would have been better to say, `We will see if we can achieve significant change without industrial disputation'. What the union has to realise is that, in the end, there is the possibility of more jobs, higher productivity and, in particular, defence exports. One has to ask why, if it can be done at Williamstown and South Australia, it cannot be done at Garden Island. Productivity at Garden Island is up by some 15 per cent. Work force numbers are down but productivity is up. In the future it will have to consider the trades and non-trades categories. It will have to get more flexibility into the work force so that it is not plagued all the time with demarcation disputes. That applies not only to the blue collar work force but also to the white collar force. In relation to Garden Island, I mention the shameful episodes-shameful as far as this Government is concerned-of HMS Invincible in 1983 and HMS Edinburgh this year. The story about both of those ships, which needed repair in Australia but were turned away by the Government, is somewhat confusing. I am not blaming the work force at Garden Island. My understanding is that the workers were prepared to do the job. The problem was that the Government was not prepared to allow the ships to dock. This Government refused two ships belonging to Britain-in 1983, and again this year-in need of repair to have those repairs undertaken in Australia. In both cases the repairs should have been done at Garden Island. We should have offered to do them. We should not have been forced reluctantly to make a decision, which eventually was to refuse. They were disgraceful episodes. Still very vivid in the mind of most Australians is the sight of Ark Royal bouncing around Port Phillip Bay for two or three days because the Seamen's Union of Australia would not dock the ship. We support this Bill. We look forward to seeing the new company which will be formed next year playing a constructive and productive part in Australian industry. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(6.26) —The Naval Defence Amendment Bill is an important Bill. It continues the Government's changes with regard to defence and the defence industry. The previous speaker, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), has mentioned the privatisation of Williamstown Naval Dockyard and the great changes that have taken place there. This Bill takes things a step forward in regard to Garden Island. It involves the transfer of the 10 defence factories at the Garden Island dockyard to the newly established company, Australian Defence Industries, which is a company wholly owned by the Australian Government. It is important legislation because Australian Defence Industries will be looking after the employment of Garden Island workers and the defence factories. The changes that have taken place in the defence industry over the last few years are remarkable. The Government has made major changes. It sold the Williamstown Naval Dockyard to the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation (AMEC). Having been a recent visitor to Williamstown, I fully concur with what the previous speaker, the Opposition spokesman in this area, said. I am glad that he spoke so highly of Williamstown. Things have changed dramatically there. I saw a piece of equipment there worth millions of dollars-a large paint instrument. Certain parts of ships were put into it and it would take between six and 10 weeks for those parts to come out the other end. That equipment is now used in such a way that the parts go through in five days. That might seem incredible, but it is absolutely true. It shows the cooperation there has been between the Government, the defence industries and private enterprise. It can be done. This Bill is concerned with a company wholly owned by the Australian Government, Australian Defence Industries. This Bill enables the transfer of the Garden Island employees to that company. In talking about Williamstown and a whole range of changes in the defence industries, the Opposition has talked about all the things that we should and should not be doing. The Opposition had 30 years on this side of the House and it did not do anything. I remember, in my earlier days in this House, the Defence Minister, Mr Killen, coming in here and saying that he had made X amount of changes to Williamstown and how it was all going to be wonderful. But it never was. It took this Government to make the important decisions regarding changes to the defence industries. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(8.00) —Tonight the House is considering the Naval Defence Amendment Bill 1988 and, as my colleague the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) indicated before the suspension of the sitting, the Opposition is not opposed to the Bill, which is basically a step in the right direction. In fact, the debate is running approximately half an hour ahead of the guillotine schedule proposed by the Government. I welcome this and would make the point that it will at least allow some other important Bills, such as the Defence Service Home Loans Amendment Bill, known as the Westpac-ing legislation, to be introduced slightly earlier than was otherwise anticipated. I know a lot of people have an interest in that defence legislation as some people have an interest in this Naval Defence Amendment Bill. This Bill relates to making an amendment to the Naval Defence Act of 1910, to enable persons employed at Garden Island Dockyard to be transferred to Australian Defence Industries Pty Ltd. It is a step along the path of boosting productivity in defence production, to provide privatisation of a kind in relation to that defence production and to move Garden Island in the same way as Williamstown was moved. As such, the Opposition welcomes the measure. I might add that I last visited Garden Island some two months ago on an important and historic occasion, and I had a good look around Garden Island. The exact purpose of the visit was to see for myself the scope of two modest plaques erected in Garden Island, the subject of this Bill, to a conning tower of a Japanese midget submarine. I will not dwell on this, because it is somewhat peripheral to the Bill, other than to say that the two plaques are just that-they are extremely modest plaques to commemorate those who lost their lives on those midget submarines. They are not that far from yet another major memorial-to those who lost their lives on HMAS Kuttabul sunk by those midget submarines. The pity about that saga is that apparently there had not been a great deal of consultation. If the people who were concerned about that special matter had had the opportunity to see what was involved and to see the small size of the two plaques which have been erected on that conning tower, they could have made their own judgments. I do not believe the operators of those midget submarines can be blamed for the huge Japanese war effort of World War II, as some would have us believe. Of course, hundreds of plaques are erected to Australian service personnel in countries around the world, even in countries which do not share very happy relations with Australia, but those plaques are still maintained because of the nature of what they commemorate. I refer even to war graves in places like Libya, Bangladesh and Burma. So it is of more than passing interest that, as the House considers this essentially Garden Island legislation I make the point that I did front up, perhaps at some risk in terms of the veterans constituency. But I do not walk away from a situation such as was existing at that time in relation to those two modest plaques, and I was just sorry that there was no Government representative at the occasion and that the Navy was left to carry the can, which it did very well. Turning specifically to the Bill, I should like to comment on clause 4, which in many ways goes to the heart of this small two-page Bill. I will not delay the House unduly, but I refer to subclause 4 (3), which reads: For the purpose of facilitating a transfer of persons to the employment of a Commonwealth authority, the Commonwealth authority may, notwithstanding anything in any other law (other than an industrial award), determine special terms or conditions of employment that are to apply in relation to the persons (other than terms and conditions with respect to superannuation).''. I should like to make two points only. Firstly, I reiterate my concern about drafting phraseology in legislation today, which makes it very hard for members of the public to understand so much that is going on with the governments of this country. I know there are legal reasons why the phraseology has to be carefully constructed, but in one other sense Canberra, the bureaucrats, the parliamentarians and the Government Ministers ought to be deeply conscious that there is an increasing gulf between mainstream Australia-the people of Dean Street, Albury or Harding Street, Deniliquin-and the people working in this magnificent new parliamentary building in Canberra. As a member representing an electorate which actually covers an area quite close to Canberra, I am conscious of the need to break down that gulf. In the context of this Bill, we have yet another clause which, although it covers what it seeks to do in a correct and legal sense, contains such language. I do not argue against that, except to make another appeal that, under the Acts Interpretation Act, under legislation generally and under the modus operandi of government, we ought to be much more conscious of the need to use plain English, to quote the plain English insurance policies of the National Roads and Motorists Association, rather than using the gobbledegook which can flow from the bureaucracy and which, if the parliament is not mindful, will mean even more complicated legislation when it is not necessary. Just in passing, I mention, for example, that famous question put from the Chair: `The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question'. All that is saying is: the question is that the amendment be agreed to or rejected. So why not say it like that-without tearing up too many of the conventions which I know are dear to the hearts of the Clerks, to myself and to others? But returning to the actual wording in the last clause of the Bill, I ask the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), through the Minister representing him at the table, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), for an assurance that, by virtue of that clause, there will not be a perpetration of the rorts and inefficient work practices which so dominated Garden Island and all its operations and which have been the subject of comments by other honourable members. On a cursory reading of the clause it would seem that it does give an ultimate degree of great flexibility to the arrangements which will pertain. If the clause results in so much flexibility as to perpetrate those horrific rorts which have dominated Garden Island for so long, that, of course, defeats the purpose of what the Government is about in bringing the Bill before the House. I highlight that point. I believe that the Government will advise the House that that is not the purpose of this clause but, because of certain circumstances, it may be that there will not be an answer in this House on this Bill. If that is the case, perhaps it can be taken up in the Senate debate by way of response at an appropriate stage. As the honourable member for McPherson indicated, the Opposition is not opposed to the Bill. It is a step in the right direction. The Opposition hopes it will provide a great and needed boost to productivity, especially in our dockyards and our docks right around Australia. Hopefully, the legislation will enjoy a quick passage through the Parliament, so that the transfers covered by the Bill will be able to be implemented. 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. Variation of Allotment of Time Motion (by Mr Hand) proposed: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be varied as follows- (1) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5)- For the second reading of the Bill, until 10 p.m. For the committee stage, until 10.15 p.m. For the remaining stages of the Bill, until 10.25 p.m. this day. (2) Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill- For the remaining stages of the Bill, until 10.30 p.m. this day. (3) Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2)- For the remaining stages of the Bill, until 10.35 p.m. this day. (4) Lands Acquisition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill- For the remaining stages of the Bill, until 11.15 p.m. this day. (5) Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2)- For the remaining stages of the Bill, until 12.25 a.m. on Friday, 11 November. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.11) —Madam Speaker, I think it is deplorable that the Government is continually, session after session, getting into these guillotines. I think it is bad news. The Government has done nothing from the beginning of this session. It is now varying the guillotine. Honourable members do not know where they are up to. Madam Speaker, as a matter of protest, there being only one member of the Government here, I draw your attention to the state of the House. A quorum not being present and the bells having been rung- Madam SPEAKER —Order! A quorum not being present, the chair will be resumed at 8.25 p.m. Sitting suspended from 8.17 to 8.25 p.m. Madam SPEAKER —A quorum is present. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos 9 and 10. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(8.26) —The Bills we are at last debating tonight are the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5), the Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2). The coalition parties will not be opposing the Bills. However, we will be moving committee stage amendments to oppose the removal of the tax exemption for gold mining income. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) is a very large Bill covering changes to a great variety of areas dealing with the imposition of tax. In a typical example of the way in which legislation comes before Parliament under this Government, and of the contempt with which this Government holds the parliamentary processes, barely a week has passed since these Bills were introduced. That can frequently happen. But when one of these three Bills, with at least 13 changes to the income tax laws, was introduced in a package of eight Bills last Thursday night, it is almost ludicrous to think that a thoroughgoing analysis of such a complex Bill, and of the other two Bills being debated with it tonight, can be done in such a short space of time. Given this Government's poor record of slipshod and ill-considered drafting in the past, there is a likelihood that there will be numerous unintended consequences flowing from these Bills. However, let me turn to a case that is not an unintended consequence, that is, the decision to tax the goldmining industry. On 26 June 1987 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said: We are totally opposed to the introduction of a gold tax. He went on: A gold tax would jeopardise the future of many existing mines and prevent the opening of new ones. Exploration and the level of investment in this important sector would also decline rapidly. We have a particular concern about the effect a gold tax would have on our balance of payments. Australia's level of overseas debt and the appalling deficit in our overseas trade account make it imperative that we encourage one of the main industries contributing positively to reducing the deficit. Then he added: The Liberal Party has a firm commitment on this matter. We are opposed to the introduction of a gold tax. So, clearly with such firm commitments being put down only last year, I can say to honourable members that the Opposition will not break those commitments on this matter. It is interesting to contrast our statements with those of the Government. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the then Minister for Resources and Energy , Senator Evans, made similar statements on 16 November 1986; there is hardly a contrast. When announcing the Government's decision to maintain the income tax exemption for goldmining, Senator Evans said: The Government has concluded that the importance of encouraging active exploration and development, and of maximising production and the consequent export income generated by the goldmining industry, outweighed the arguments in favour of removing the industry's long-standing exemption. Furthermore, on 7 July 1987, no less a person than the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave the goldmining industry and the Australian public an undertaking that he would `not introduce a gold tax during the next three-year term of the Labor Government'. What has changed other than the effluxion of time? What has changed since the Government made these statements? The reality is, nothing. We still face the same balance of payments constraint and we still face a huge foreign debt. Apparently, the Government has discovered the concept of level playing fields since the last election and I will have more to say about level playing fields later. So the Opposition opposes the Government's removal of the tax exemption for goldmining income. The Government is introducing legislation which it may not even be able to implement in the next term of government, for it may not be the government. This brings me to one of the most important problems with this legislation. The Government has introduced a large degree of uncertainty into the goldmining industry and into the economy in general. Put simply, as the Leader of the Opposition said in June 1987: We- that is, the Opposition- recognise the need to provide a climate of certainty for investment. The Government, as is evident from its past record of changes in rules and regulations with regard to tax, simply does not understand the role of certainty with regard to investment decision-making. Just witness the Treasurer's disastrous removal and his subsequent reinstatement of negative gearing for housing. How can an industry make plans for the future when the Government canvasses large changes in tax arrangements-changes in arrangements in this instance that it may not even be in power to deliver? There is already evidence that, following the Treasurer's May economic statement when he first canvassed the removing of the gold tax exemption, serious disruptions have occurred in the gold industry. By announcing the introduction of a gold tax so many years in advance the Government has provided a huge, and frankly artificial, incentive for miners to exploit the richer ore and neglect lower grade ore-get it out while they can before the tax comes on. Such a situation is almost unprecedented and will certainly lead to an inefficient use of the nation's gold resources. Moreover, many goldminers have been forced to revise their investment strategy in anticipation of Labor's gold tax. It is clear that the removal of the tax exemption for goldmining will force many marginal mines out of business. Some of these mines are operated by large companies and some by smaller organisations, many of which are unincorporated enterprises. In short, the Government's decision to remove the tax exemption will lead to a winding down of activity in gold mining. This additional element of uncertainty in the decision-making process of miners comes at a time when Australia faces a difficult balance of payments and foreign debt situation. Last year, gold was the third largest export behind coal and wool. It represents around 6 per cent of total merchandise exports. In other words, the Government's decision to levy a gold tax comes at the very time when we can least afford to have one of our major export industries thrown into chaos. Of course, the Government has argued that the tax exemption for goldmining should be removed to place gold on a `level playing field' with other industries in Australia. I would like to make two points here. Firstly, there are two ways of levelling the playing field. Secondly, there are two playing fields: one at a point in time and one over time. These are important conceptual points that the Government has simply failed to address when introducing this legislation. If we take the first point, there are two ways of levelling the playing field. Obviously, the tax on gold can be raised to the level of the tax on other activities-this is the easy option and the one preferred by this Treasurer who, incidentally, is the highest taxing Treasurer since the war-or one could get serious and start cutting some of the Government's expenditure programs, as called for not only by the Opposition but also by Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, and reduce the overall tax burden. This would permit the Government to bring the taxes on other activities more in line with that on gold. The Government can raise the tax on gold or it can reduce taxes on other activities. The Government, and especially the Treasurer, are big on raising taxes but they are not so big on cutting expenditure. Honourable members might remember that the selfsame Finance Minister I just mentioned talked only last year of the 200 programs that he and his Department had slated for large expenditure cuts. We have heard little more since then apart from his annual post-Budget resume of the economy when he normally warns of the dire consequences of not having followed his advice. He mused again, after this Budget, that the Government may well have to engage in further frantic fiscal activity to reduce expenditure. Apart from Senator Walsh, this Government simply focuses on raising more revenue. The second point I made also concerns level playing fields. The Government has directed its arguments to levelling the playing field at a point in time. It simply does not address the important point of levelling the playing field over time. The removal of the tax exemption for goldmining will introduce yet another tax on the income from savings and investment. In short, it will consolidate the bias in Australia's tax system against both savings and investment and in favour of current consumption. With our balance of payments constraint and our huge foreign debt Australia certainly needs more savings, not less. From a macro-economic point of view, we need a tax system which does not discriminate so heavily against savings and investment. Because of the undertaking that I read and because of the additional factors we will, therefore, be opposing the removal of the tax exemption for goldmining income. In the committee stage I will be moving amendments to that effect. There are two other aspects of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) that I will mention out of the range of amendments that are contained within that piece of legislation. The Bill will make amendments to section 10b of the Income Tax Assessment Act to reduce the rate of deduction for investment in Australian films from 120 per cent to 100 per cent. We are told that future Government assistance to the film industry will be given primarily through the Australian Film Finance Corporation, oft referred to as the Film Bank, which has been established as a wholly government owned company to fund qualifying Australian films. This bland statement hides the months of uncertainty that preceded this decision. The Government's treatment of the Australian film industry has been greatly disruptive and particularly insensitive. As I noted before, the Government simply does not appreciate the need for certainty and consistency of business operations and certainly business operators. The Government's key role as far as business is concerned is to create a stable environment in which savings and investment decisions can be made. Its turn around on negative gearing and innumerable taxation laws amendment Bills are just part of this sorry story. This Government has created uncertainty in the gold industry and it has created uncertainty in the film industry. To some people the film industry is a minor industry. It is not to me. It has been of enormous importance in terms of the subliminal promotion of this nation. It may well be that the Government can argue justifiably for changes in the tax deductability arrangements, but the uncertainty created both in regard to that measure and in regard to the creation and operation of the so-called Film Bank is yet another uncertainty for those operating in the private sector. They are operating in a high tax environment. The Keating-Hawke Government, the highest taxing government since the war, unquestionably is more interested in raising revenue than in encouraging savings and investment. The taxation of the goldmining industry and other measures in the Bill such as the reduction in the tax deduction for the film industry will all go to increasing taxation revenue by over $7 billion, or 10 per cent, this financial year. The total tax in 1988-89 is estimated to be $82 billion-an enormous amount. Of course it is coming from people and corporations participating within the Australian community. A large proportion of it is in fact accounted for by what has become known as bracket creep, tax creep, as taxpayers move into higher and higher tax brackets. The Government is plundering this bracket creep, plundering the wage packets particularly of low and middle income earners. It is estimated that, since 1985-86, $7 billion has been ripped off taxpayers through the insidious effects of bracket creep and that taxation by stealth is expected to grow to $10 billion by the time the long overdue tax cuts are delivered in July next year. It is a cruel attack, a most extensive attack, on the living standards of Australians-probably the most extensive and the cruellest attack on low to middle income earning Australians in the history of this country. And it deserves condemnation. As I have noted before, the extent of the effect on low and middle income earners is quite staggering. By 1 July next year, when the Prime Minister says those long overdue tax cuts will come in, a person on average weekly earnings with a spouse and two dependent children will require a tax cut of $56 a week to restore his or her disposable income to what it was in March of 1983, when the Keating-Hawke Government came to power. The last points I want to raise on Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) concern the changes affecting employee share acquisition schemes. The Bill gives effect to the proposal announced in the May statement to exclude from income tax up to $200 of discounts on shares or rights acquired by employees under certain employee share acquisition schemes. Honourable members should note that the Government is simply taking up an Opposition proposal. It is simply parroting part of a private member's Bill introduced into the Senate earlier this year by the Opposition, through Senator Chaney. As such, we have no objection to these amendments. What the Government does not admit is that it is not adequate to stop at these relatively minor amendments. To obtain the maximum benefits from such a scheme far greater flexibility in the labour market is required. Labour market reform, which is needed for the effective restructuring of the economy, is simply not forthcoming from this tired and discredited Government. It is a government, particularly in this arena, which is hamstrung by its close affiliations with the union bosses. In contrast, the Opposition has a comprehensive industrial relations policy which, when implemented, will contribute greatly to improving the flexibility and efficiency of the labour market and therefore the productivity of the Australian economy. I want finally to comment quite quickly but directly on the other two Bills being dealt with, the Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2). Consumers should note that the sales tax Bill will put into effect measures announced in the Budget; namely, to facilitate the imposition of 20 per cent sales tax on goods used by retailers to wrap or secure goods for marketing, to facilitate the imposition of a 10 per cent sales tax on thick shake mixes and ice creams, and to facilitate the taxing at the rate of 10 per cent of accessories to takeaway food containers, such as spoons and serviettes. These are further increases in taxation which I fear will fall disproportionately on the poor and the elderly, and of course on children. Mr Hand —What? Paper serviettes? Mr PEACOCK —Of course, with all the takeaway food. It is being treated in the same way as food consumed in restaurants. The tax is moving from zero to 10 per cent and, if the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) does not think that many of the elderly and many children eat takeaway food, he is nearly as far removed from the real world as the Treasurer. In contrast, the Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill will reduce the company tax rate from 49c in the dollar to 39c. However, companies, their owners and their customers are not as lucky as that reduction would make one think. On the other side of the equation, the removal of various accelerated depreciation provisions and other tax concessions will take the edge off the changes. The Government's own figures show that within four years the company tax rate cut will decrease revenue by $1,700m a year while the so-called base broadening measures, for which we can read in the words `tax increases', will increase revenue by $2,785m a year. Therefore, by the end of the day the Government will be collecting $1,085m a year more in revenue. So much for tax reform. After all, tax reform to this Government means nothing but tax increases. It must realise the crippling effect the huge tax burden is having on the incentive to both work and invest in Australia today. Tax cuts funded by expenditure cuts are needed to stop the assault on the living standards of Australians, especially those on low and middle incomes. The Opposition recognises this. The Government, in its arrogance, ignores it at its peril. In conclusion, I simply reiterate what I said at the outset: we will not be opposing the Bills, but I am moving a second reading amendment and will be moving amendments at the committee stage to oppose the removal of the tax exemption for goldmining income. I now move to the second reading motion: That all words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) This is the highest taxing government in the post-war history of Australia; (2) through the insidious effects of `bracket creep' an estimated $7 billion has been ripped off Australian taxpayers since 1985-86; (3) despite the additional revenue gained through `bracket creep', the Government continues to attempt to raise more tax revenue by imposing new taxation on the gold mining industry despite a firm and unequivocal commitment by the Prime Minister prior to the last election not to do so; and (4) the Keating/Hawke Government should be condemned for its indefensible action in breaking its pledge not to impose a tax on the gold mining industry''. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a brief statement. There is a minor error on page 21 of the explanatory memorandum presented to the House on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5). The error appears in the paragraph entitled `Introductory note to clauses 9, 10, 16 and 17'. The reference to clause 13 in line 5 of the paragraph should be a reference to clause 26. Mr Cadman —The Opposition notes the explanation. It is typical of the sloppy drafting contained in this tax legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member should not approach the table and just make a statement-- Mr Cadman —We have to acknowledge it somehow, surely. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should know that if he wishes to comment on a statement that a Minister has made, he should seek the indulgence of the Chair as well. The House needs the forms of the House to be dealt with. The honourable member should know that a member should not just stand up and speak. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(8.50) —It is quite amazing that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has moved this second reading motion amendment. I want to comment on his claim in the substance of his amendment that the Hawke Labor Government is the highest taxing Government, which is a quite ridiculous and nonsensical claim. Mr Tuckey —You can't add up. Mr WRIGHT —I can add up. The interest shown by the Opposition was reflected by the fact that the honourable member for Kooyong was not present in the chamber when this debate began. A quorum had to be called so that he could be given time to get to the chamber. That shows his real interest in this issue. The honourable member's amendment contains a rather ridiculous statement about this Government being a high taxing government. The people of this country are aware that it is the Hawke Labor Government that has moved to address the problems of taxation in this country. During all the years that the Opposition parties were in government-under the leadership of Fraser, Menzies or anyone else-they did nothing to try to reduce the amount of tax paid by the ordinary pay as you earn taxpayer. Mr Cadman —Nor have you. Mr WRIGHT —I hear the honourable member say, `Nor have you'. Let us look at the facts: when we came to government the highest tax rate was 60c in the dollar; today it is 49c. The third rate has come down to 29c and the bottom rate has come down from 30c to 24c. The threshold has been raised to $5,100. This Government has also acted to address the problems faced by those on low incomes, those on restricted incomes, such as pensioners. The Government this year has acted to overcome the provisional tax problem for pensioners. Honourable members who bothered to read the May statement and the Budget would appreciate that under the previous Government the provisional tax threshold for pensioners was $1,000. If pensioners had a few thousand dollars in the bank-they could have $8,000 or $9,000 after selling their home and moving into a home supplied by a church or other organisation-and earned more than $1,000 in interest, under the previous Government, of which the honourable member for Kooyong was a member, they would have paid provisional tax. This Government has moved to overcome that problem so that now, a pensioner can earn $10,332-a combination of pension, interest or dividends or other income-and not pay provisional tax. This Government has also acted to ensure that there is a decent rebate for pensioners. It has been increased from $6,142 to $6,892. It is quite ridiculous for the honourable member for Kooyong to make these claims. It is typical because the Opposition is trying desperately to find something about which to criticise the Government. I ask the people of Australia who listen to the broadcast of this debate and who read Hansard to look at the facts. They will understand that it is this Government, despite the difficult economic circumstances that it has faced since coming into government in 1983, that has moved to address the problems. It has not been easy. We have had to take those problems in line, in order of priority. That is what has been done. The legislation removes the present income tax exemption that applies to income from gold mining. There is a parochial part of me that says, `I don't like that because Mount Morgan is in my electorate'. But every other mining industry faces a tax system. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to why the gold industry ought to be exempt. I have heard from some of my colleagues of the export importance of the gold industry. We have given a signal to that industry. The tax is being phased in, and I think that is reasonable. There is a reduction in the rate of deduction for investment in the Australian film industry from 120 per cent to 100 per cent. There will still be those who say that that measure will take away the investment potential of the film industry. But there ought to be equity and fairness in the tax investment and tax deduction systems. The Government has moved-honourable members will note that this measure is contained in one of the cognate Bills-to establish deductibility for gifts to the Australian National Gallery. I note that this is being supported by the Opposition. There is also a minor fine tuning of the fringe benefits tax. Surely, this fine tuning should go on. Regardless of the wisdom that exists on the Government benches, there will always be the need, as anomalies arise, to fine tune the laws that are on the statute books. There is also a clarification of the law that relates to the refund to overpaid sales tax. These measures are part of an ongoing program to bring about equity and fairness in the tax system of this country. We are achieving that. It has been a long hard road, but we are moving down the fast track to bring about the clarification, to fine tune and to remove those anomalies. It takes great courage, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be well aware from your part in those discussions and being one of the prime movers to ensure that equity does prevail. It takes courage to tackle the problems that exist in this country. I am sure that all honourable members who understand the difficulties that have been before us will understand that they are not always palatable decisions but they have to be made. Thinking Australians will understand what has taken place. The Hawke Labor Government has addressed problems that have prevailed in this country for over three decades. We have revamped the tax scales, as I said earlier. We have introduced policies to remove the rorts in fringe benefits and have introduced an assets test to bring about fairness. We have introduced measures to stop tax avoidance and tax evasion. It is people's money we are talking about. So often I hear from members of the Opposition that it seems to be something for the Government, as if it is something for Labor members. The money saved is for the people. It means more services for the people and a cut in the national debt. It means more roads and a better and higher quality education system. Everyone realises that there is a need to bring into place a system in which people pay their way based on their ability to do so. I find it quite amazing that Opposition members stand up in this House time after time and talk about the sorts of problems that are supposed to exist under this Government. Let us go back to the Fraser-Howard-Peacock Government and look at one simple tax system: the income tax zone rebate system introduced by Malcolm Fraser and then Treasurer Howard. It is a tax system that is iniquitous and totally unfair. I notice that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) is in the House this evening. I am sure he would concur with the points I raise. The anomalies are myriad. That is the system that the Liberal and National parties put in place to, as they say, bring about some special rebate for those who live in the remote areas of this country. Honourable members who know something of history will appreciate that the system put in place by the Fraser Government was a zonal system based on four zones: zone A; a special zone A; zone B; and a special zone B. This system is anomalous because it is based on a concept of distance from a populated area of 2,500 people. I spoke recently with the honourable member for Kalgoorlie about the sorts of areas he has in his electorate. The situation is quite atrocious when it comes to the minor rebate that is available for people who live in remote areas, who live in isolation, who face difficult, uncongenial climatic conditions, and who face the high cost of living. Let us be mindful that it was the Fraser Government that put this system in place. I argue that there is now a need for change. We have had six years to see that this system has not worked. The zone arrangement that the Liberal and National parties argued for and legislated for is no longer fair and equitable. I have some figures ragarding the sorts of problems that exist. From looking at the maps that I obtained from the Australian Taxation Office, one finds that a person who lives within 250 kilometres of the central Australian town of Alice Springs does not obtain the full tax rebate. It is quite amazing that one can live in any of those small areas around Alice Springs but does not receive the full tax rebate. One receives a miserable $270 as a rebate; in other words, from a tax debt of $4,000 one subtracts $270. One can also claim a 50 per cent add-on of the rebates allowable under the Tax Act. That is quite an amazing situation. The same situation does not exist only for those people who live within 250 kilometres of Alice Springs; the same thing is true of anyone who lives within 250 kilometres of Katherine in the Northern Territory. It just amazes me that the Liberals and Nationals get up here and talk about equity and fairness when this is the system they introduced. In my own State of Queensland, again I refer to zone A. If one lives within 250 kilometres of Mount Isa-and one can imagine the sorts of townships that exist in that area, towns such as Camooweal, Dajarra, Urandangi and Cloncurry-one is not eligible under the previous Fraser National Party system. The National Party are the people who are supposed to represent the country people. They never deemed that one was eligible for the maximum rebate in the zonal tax system. One hears these honourable members opposite stand up and say how wonderful things were under their regime and how things are supposed to have deteriorated. The maximum for zone A, for special zone A, is $938 plus a 50 per cent add-on for the relevant rebates. But if one moves into zone B one comes down to a pittance of $45. Can anyone imagine receiving $45? It would not even pay the extra cost on potatoes for a year or, for those who have a drink, the extra cost on beer, let alone petrol and all the other everyday needs of people. The sort of thing that angers me as a Queensland member is that if one lives within 250 kilometres of the far western township of Longreach one does not get special category A, zone A, or special zone B. One ends up with a $45 rebate. That is pathetic. It must be changed. It is the same when one looks at Charleville. If one lives within 250 kilometres of Charleville one is not eligible from the proper zone rebates. If we move from Queensland to New South Wales we find the same thing. One can be within 250 kilometres of Bourke and not be eligible for the rebate. One is not eligible for zone A; there is no chance of getting that. But one cannot even get special zone B, because one is within 250 kilometres of a township that has 2,500 people or more. Further south, at Broken Hill, the same is true. In Western Australia-I know the special interest of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell)-if one lives within 250 kilometres of Kalgoorlie one does not get the full zonal rebate. The same is true for Newman and Broome. Imagine a tax rebate system under which someone who lives within 250 kilometres of Broome in the north-western parts of Western Australia is not eligible for the maximum zone rebate. I am asking members of the Government to consider very carefully a proposition that we have this matter referred to the expertise of our economic committee that the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) used to chair. I also ask that it be referred to the rural task force, because we need to bring down a new policy. We have isolated townships in my State of Queensland-Urandangi, Duchess, Hughenden, Julia Creek, Quilpie, Cunnamulla, Dirranbandi, Augathella and Tambo-which are not eligible for the top rate because of the rules that exist. We have anomalies. Mining towns in my electorate such as Moranbah, Middlemount and Dysart are not eligible for any tax rebate. But because of the way the zones have been drawn across the nation, people in a coastal town like Mackay, which is a beautiful place to live, receive zone B rebate. It does not make sense. It certainly is not fair. I know it is a matter of concern for many members of the Government. It is a matter that must be addressed. I argue that, as we move down the track to bring about equity and fairness in the tax system across this nation, we must address the problems facing those people who live in country and central Australia. One only has to travel in these regions. One only has to have an electorate like mine, Capricornia, which covers 53,000 square kilometres. It takes 7 1/2 hours to drive from one end to the other. That gives one a good understanding of what distance is all about. I have no understanding of what the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has to put up with because his electorate, I believe, is about 10 times the size of Ireland and other such countries. I know from my own experience of the sorts of problems that exist. I know from talking with people in the consumer movement that one can buy potatoes in Brisbane for $1.99 a kilo but in Mount Isa the price is $3.99. If one goes into my own electorate one pays almost twice for the ordinary newspaper. One will pay 64c a litre for fuel, yet in Brisbane one can sometimes get it for 49c. These are the sorts of problems that the income tax zone rebate system is supposed to address. If one looks at the documentation that is provided by the Treasury-I thank it for the information it has provided-we see that we aim as a Government and as a Parliament to try and give some sort of assistance and subsidy to those who live in remote parts of this nation. We try to address the problems of the high cost of living and the problems of remoteness and distance that in themselves cause a great cost in travel. But the present system is unfair. It must be changed. I give special credit to the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I give special credit to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for the thrust of the campaign that he has embarked upon to bring about a new system of fairness for every Australian. We have had our priorities. But I argue that those priorities now ought to target people in country areas. It might be said that $938 is a lot of money as a tax rebate. It is okay if one can get it, but $45 is a pittance. Unless we can raise the quantum, unless we can change the zonal system and unless we can bring about a new system that is based on a local authority structure, population and the elements of distance I do not believe we will meet the needs of those people in country and rural Australia. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(9.08) —In this cognate debate I intend to concentrate particularly on the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2). The House will recall that during the Government's 1985 National Taxation Summit the Treasurer (Mr Keating) favoured proposals for a broadly based consumption tax, proposals eventually killed off by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) after concluding a back room deal with the Australian Council of Trade unions. Undeterred by his failure to secure support for a consumption tax policy, the Treasurer instead set about imposing a covert consumption tax. At this point I think it pertinent to add that personally I have strong reservations about the introduction of a consumption tax. Theoretically, when a consumption tax is introduced there is a concurrent reduction in rates of personal taxation. In other words, there is a trade-off. That is to say, the cost of a consumption tax is offset by a reduction in personal rates which should leave taxpayers no worse off than before. That is the theory. However, once a tax is established the rate of tax applied inevitably begins an upward climb as government seeks to increase its revenue take, as happened with value added tax in the United Kingdom. The least that can be said for the introduction of a consumption tax is that by announcing its intention to impose such a tax the Government is being honest. It is telling people what it is proposing to do and giving them the opportunity to present their views. This dishonest way of introducing a consumption tax is to do it the way the Hawke Government has done. Since 1985 the Treasurer has set about expanding the wholesale sales tax base. This has had three major effects: firstly, it has adversely impacted on the living standards of all Australians, particularly families; secondly, it has resulted in a huge increase to Consolidate Revenue; and thirdly, it has placed an onerous burden on Australian small businesses. In effect, the Treasurer who failed in his efforts to have a consumption tax brought in in 1985 has, since that time, been introducing a consumption tax by stealth. I should at this point remind the house that the Budget estimates an overall increase in sales tax revenue of 14.4 per cent during this financial year. Sales tax will represent about 10 per cent of all revenue collected. The Treasurer's policy of introducing a consumption tax by stealth, in which he is aided and abetted by the Prime Minister, particularly angers me as I represent an electorate that is predominantly made up of growing families-the group hardest hit by this dishonest policy. The most dishonest factor in all of this is, of course, that, with the introduction of the Treasurer's consumption tax by stealth, there has been no tax trade-off. Personal tax rates bracket creep has already amassed over $7 billion since 1985-86. The now familiar picture of the Grim Reaper is an apt personification of the Treasurer. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) is firmly in the record books as the highest taxing Treasurer since the Second World War. This Government's economic policies, overseen by the Treasurer, have crushed the living standards of Australian's, yet the Government has not batted an eyelid. As I and my colleagues in the Opposition have said many times before, Labor has savaged Australians, and in particular Australian families. So savage has been the Labor Government's attack that a family on average weekly earnings, with a dependent spouse and two children, would need a minimum tax cut in July 1989 of $56 per week to restore household income to its March 1983 level. If we strip away the language of the draftsmen, it becomes clear that this Bill represents yet another attack on the hip pockets of Australian consumers and a further administrative impost on small business. No one, it seems, is immune from the Treasurer's great tax grab. From the man who has not seen the inside of a supermarket or a corner milk bar since 1983, we now have the decision that even the little pleasures of life enjoyed by Australia's children are to be taxed, albeit through the cash registers of small business so as not to have the appearance of a tax. Thickshake mixers used in the manufacture of thickshakes and ice-creams are henceforth to be taxed at the rate of 10 per cent. The biggest consumers of these two products, as we all well know, are Australian children. It was bad enough when the honourable member for Blaxland imposed an iniquitous sales tax on soya bean milk, a product that is vitally important to the health and well-being of the 25,000 children in this country who are unfortunate enough to be allergic to dairy products. In that particular case, it took a long campaign by me, as chairman of the Opposition treasury committee, and various other people to persuade the Treasurer to see sense and have some understanding of the problems faced by those 25,000 children. He finally showed sense in the last Budget when at long last he exempted plain soya bean milk from the 20 per cent slaes tax he had so callously imposed earlier. The repeal of the sales tax on soya bean milk was indeed a triumph. However, it seems that the Treasurer remains intent on getting children to contribute to Consolidated Revenue one way or another. This time he has turned his attention to two products that children consider fundamental: thickshakes and ice-creams. How low can the Treasurer go? Convenience foods are designed to make life easier and the products themselves cheaper. The trends indicating an increasing use of convenience foods by consumers was not missed by the Treasurer in the last Budget. Noting the trend was one thing; finding a way to get in and capitalise on it was another. The Treasurer knew full well that taxing foods, particularly staple foods, would be very unhealthy politically. This left him with a problem. Just how was he going to add a slice of this expanding market to his ongoing tax grab? He solved the problem in a most deceitful way. He simply further broadened the sales tax base to include a 20 per cent sales tax on all goods used to wrap or secure products for marketing, delivery and household use. That includes everything from cardboard boxes to plastic wrap and masking tape. Furthermore, containers for marketing biscuits, snack goods and ice-creams are now to be taxed at 10 per cent. For those parents encouraging their children to stay off lollies and instead to eat muesli bars and similar health food bars, the news from this Government is all bad. The Treasurer has introduced a sales tax on these items as well. So much for good health in the Australian community. Other items falling within the Treasurer's broadened tax base include all pre-packaged coffee. Chocolate and malt-flavoured milk drinks with less than 95 per cent milk content will now be taxed at the rate of 20 per cent. The extensive broadening of the indirect sales tax base, overseen by the honourable member for Blaxland, has, in effect, given Australia a consumption tax without any personal tax trade-off. In concluding, I call on the Treasurer to stop this surreptitious use of the sales tax system. Were the Government's sales tax policy in any way honest, there would have been a personal tax trade-off of substance long ago. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(9.17) —Tonight we have heard from the Opposition the usual carping criticism of the Government's taxation policies. The Opposition does not recognise the degree of reform that has been carried out by this Government in the area of taxation. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred), gave examples of changes to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act without recognising the sales tax changes that were announced in this year's Budget. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and a Bill that was debated earlier represent an attempt to bring some consistency into the way different items are treated by sales tax. That is never recognised by the Opposition which, for the period of the Fraser Government, was in charge of a tax system which was out of control. The typical sort of second reading amendment has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, shadow Treasurer and honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). With every taxation Bill, similar amendments are moved by the Opposition. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) will put into place changes announced in the May economic statement, which include repealing the exemption from taxation of income from goldmining, with effect from 1 January 1991. Again, it is an inequity of the present tax system that this Government is trying to correct. What did the shadow Treasurer have to say about that? He talked about the levelling of the playing field. He suggested that, instead of going about the changes in the exemption from tax of income from goldmining, we should be looking at different expenditure cuts. When we look at the financial impact of just that one measure, we see that in 1991-92 it will raise $70m and the full year effect will be $300m. The Opposition has a problem. It consistently puts forward amendments to the present tax regime that will cost substantial amounts of money. Then all the eager, young shadow Ministers, such as the shadow Minister who is at the table, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), want to push the barrow of their shadow ministries. There is one amazing thing about pushing the barrows of shadow ministries: it usually means spending more money. The honourable member for Gippsland the self-styled cranium crusher of the Opposition who wants to stomp around kicking heads, in defending the scientific community is really on about spending more money. Mr McGauran —Absolutely, in this case. Mr JENKINS —There may be an argu- able case for that; but yesterday his colleague-interestingly enough, also from the National Party-the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), as shadow spokesman on transport, said that there should be additional spending on roads. Another colleague of the honourable member for Gippsland the shadow Minister for veterans' affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), comes into this place and asks for more money to be spent on veterans' affairs. Where is all the money going to come from? The key shadow economic spokesmen, such as the newly appointed shadow Minister for Finance, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), come into this place and say that what we need are quality cuts in expenditure. So, whilst the Opposition's economic managers come in here saying that there should be cuts, all the eager beavers, who perhaps think that they are moving somewhere-I am not too sure-come in here saying, on behalf of their constituencies, that we should be spending more. I hazard a guess that, if Australia suffers the misfortune of the Opposition becoming the Government, these eager beaver shadow Ministers will be stomped on from a great height and will not get their way. It will be interesting to see how well they fare in protecting the expenditure in their respective areas. It is the same sort of carping attitude we get all the time. This Government is engaged in an ongoing reform of the taxation system. A whole list of things has been done to tax. The tax system that was inherited by the Hawke Government was grossly unfair, riddled with inequalities and characterised by rorts and evasions which were not being chased by the previous Government. Recently, when the Commissioner of Taxation suggested that he should be having a look at the ways in which big business goes about avoiding tax, we had the spectacle of the Opposition saying that he was getting overzealous. Opposition members have to be fair dinkum. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong, comes into this place often and talks about ordinary Australians. I do not know how many ordinary Australians he would associate with, but I certainly cannot see why ordinary Australians would be particularly taken by the Opposition's attitude in saying, `Please, Mr Taxation Commissioner, do not pursue big business. Do not force them to pay their proper tax'. It is a complete nonsense. Honourable members opposite have criticised a number of other tax measures this Government has put in place: the abolition of entertainment expenses as business deductions, the requirement that taxpayers substantiate their tax deduction claims, the introduction of a capital gains tax, the introduction of tax on non-cash fringe benefits, a foreign tax credit system, the ending of the double tax on company dividends through a full imputation system, the ongoing review and rationalisation of the sales tax regime, which I mentioned earlier, an historic reduction of the rate of company tax, the delivery of genuine tax cuts to all income earners in 1986 and 1987 and, next year, the delivery of further real cuts in taxation. Then we had the toing and froing, the gut-wrenching by Opposition members, over whether they would support the tax file number which was a further step in the process of reform and which represented a further attack on what, under the Fraser-Howard years, was a growth industry-tax evasion and avoidance. Perhaps the real problem is that the Opposition has become used to the luxury of being in opposition-the ability to sit over there and just criticise and oppose for the sake of criticism and opposition. Opposition members have become comfortable advocates of lost causes, without the responsibility of government. Many of them are doomed to spend their entire careers on that side of the House. Those opposite who remember being in government know very well the responsibility that it carries, but they have degenerated to the level of the more recently elected members on that side of the House-the level of policy-making by whim. If ever we have seen policy-making by whim, we see it here. I feel sorry for the scientific community due to the present whim of the shadow Minister. The Opposition has made rash and irresponsible promises without having any ability of convincing its colleagues that it can put in place the statement that it makes. It really is a shame that after five years of opposition, we still see a coalition that cannot get down to being constructive and putting into place appropriate alternative policies. That is really what being in opposition should be about. I regret to have to say that in some of the years that the Australian Labor Party spent in opposition, it perhaps ignored that as the main game. But with the actions that we on this side of the House have seen in the life of the Hawke Government, people can be assured that a responsible attitude has been taken to all policy matters, including the area of taxation. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.26) —In speaking to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) before the House, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), the shadow Treasurer. Let me remind the House of paragraphs (3) and (4) of that second reading amendment. Paragraph (3) states: despite the additional revenue gained through `bracket creep', the Government continues to attempt to raise more tax revenue by imposing new taxation on the gold mining industry despite a firm and unequivocal commitment by the Prime Minister prior to the last election not to do so; and Paragraph 4 states: The Keating/Hawke Government should be condemned for its indefensible action in breaking its pledge not to impose a tax on the gold mining industry. I join the honourable member for Kooyong, and indeed the Opposition, in, firstly, supporting this amendment and, secondly, condemning the Government for the imposition of yet another tax in line with a whole series since it came to Government in March 1983. I want at the very start to place the gold tax in its context. Those who have not visited outback Australia, principally Western Australia or Queensland, do not fully appreciate the cultural development of the gold mining industry. It is deeply ingrained in the consciousness of West Australians and many Queenslanders that there should not be a gold tax, otherwise those parts of their States simply will not be developed. It is not just a question of the Government bleeding yet another resource-based industry. But it is rather a question of: What sort of Australia do we want? Unless we have visited those areas and seen the make-up of those isolated, remote communities of Mount Magnet, Leonora and Kalgoorlie-there is a whole string of them that have grown only in the last few years because of the boom in the gold mining industry-we would not be able to appreciate this. Those areas would never have been developed, at least not to the same extent, but for a tax-free gold industry. The people who make up those areas are, for want of a better word, the really true Australians. I met hundreds of them in all of the public meetings I have attended in gold mining towns. They are mainly young people who are prepared to suffer the harshness of those areas for a couple of years, build a stake, move back to Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney and start from a solid basis. Many are not educated as they have left school young. None are very qualified, yet they are able to get ahead in life because they represent the best things about this country: individualism and effort in working in a team. This gold tax is going to turn those cultural values on their heads. We are going to stop an industry in its tracks, one that is booming for the benefit of individuals, for the benefit of communities and whole States and at the end of the day, for the benefit of our nation. The Government should explain to me the logic of destroying an industry that is conferring such benefit and such wealth on Australians. Mr Cowan —What about the balance of payments argument? Mr McGAURAN —What about the balance of payments, indeed! As we have reached 40 per cent of the estimated $9.4 billion annual balance of payments deficit-$3.8 billion-in 25 per cent of the time, our balance of payments figures are shot to pieces. Indeed, the Treasurer has admitted as much in recent days. I move now to the economic arguments that surround the rejection by the Opposition of a gold tax. I cannot stress strongly enough on Government members the underlying values which apply to the debate and which cannot be ignored. It is not just a matter of 7,000 people directly involved in the goldmining industry now being placed at risk. Whole communities, many shopkeepers and small businesses and many qualified and unqualified people, will quite frankly desert those parts of Western Australia in droves. The imposition of a gold tax by the Government shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the gold industry. One has to understand that it is not like a jam factory. One must keep building the factory. One does not just roll off easily manufactured bottles of jam whose cost pricing is easily estimated. Because one is forever building the factory, one is totally dependent on exploration. The imposition of the Labor Government's gold tax is already destroying exploration efforts and, quite frankly, will be the final nail in the coffin of a great many explorers in a very short period. In gold production we are world leaders, but we are world leaders only because of the tax regime that has existed until now. Make no mistake about that: we could not be in the position we are in but for the freedom from the same corporate tax so heavily imposed on other industries. The reason for that is, of course, the low grade ore that exists throughout most of Australia. A comparison of ore grades with those of other countries shows that Australia, because of its previous tax structure-about to end, because of the Labor Government-has been allowed to mine that ore on a large scale. Of course, in all mineral ventures there will be a grey area; there has to be a cut-off line. There will always be low grade ore and low grade minerals. The point with the gold industry is that so much of it is low grade. Very little of it is high grade comparable to other countries. Because this ore is mined in remote areas, the goldmining industry has to overcome location difficulties. The point to bear in mind is that we are not the only producers of minerals in the world. We are very competitive at the moment, but we have to compete for this investment dollar. The changing of rules by the Government, in a complete diversion from its earlier commitments-made at election time, of course-creates instability. Look at the figures on gold production. In 1983 it was 17 tonnes, in 1988 it will be 140 tonnes. Next year it is expected to be 170 tonnes. Of course, from then on the slide down the slope will be dramatic when the industry starts paying the gold tax. Mr Smith —It will stop! Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Bass, a man knowledgeable in this area, says that it will stop. Forget the expansion; it will stop the normal operating of the gold industry. Let us deal with some of these economic arguments. I am amused when people argue that there has to be equity in the tax system and, for that reason, the gold industry should be paying the same tax. That is a very Whitlamesque statement worthy of a Jim Cairns or a Rex Connor, because it means that everyone is dragged down to the same level. The tax regime for the gold industry should stand as the model, not as the anomaly. When are we in this country going to try to structure our tax regime so as to allow our resource industries to reach their full potential? Mr Cowan —Take taxes off; don't put them on. Mr McGAURAN —As my colleague says, take taxes off; do not put them on. This is a new tax. People should understand the comparison between the coalition and the Government. We object to the imposition of new taxes. It is a nonsense to say that the gold industry does not pay tax. It pays fringe benefits tax, payroll tax, sales tax. Its employees pay income tax; the industry pays State government costs and charges. But, most importantly of all, shareholders pay income tax on dividends from earned gold mining profits. One has to take into account the fact that although other companies pay corporate tax, they can pass on an imputation credit to shareholders, who then obtain a corresponding credit against those shareholders' income tax assessments. Therefore, the gold industry does pay tax. Moreover, it is argued in some sophisticated reports-which incidentally have not been challenged by either Treasury or the Department of Finance-that the Government by putting a brake on this booming industry will lose more tax than it will gain by the corporate tax. I refer to the reports by the very respected financial institutions Ernst and Whinney Services as well as J. B. Were and Son. Time will not allow me to examine or read into Hansard large extracts from those reports, but it is a respectable, legitimate argument, which the Government has failed to counter, that the Government will lose more tax by killing off this industry. It saddens me when people like the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, bitterly, in vindictive tones, describe those who would argue against a new gold tax as being spivs and political operators. The truth is that he should get out among the gold mining towns and find for himself the battlers who make up that industry. Let him see the young people trying to get ahead without qualifications. Let him see the service station operators, the townsfolk, all of whom are battling in very harsh conditions to make a go of their lives. He went on to say that some 35 per cent of investors are from overseas. That is utter nonsense. At best, the figure is about 18 per cent. Therefore, that factor must also be taken into account. Because of the guillotine imposed by the Government earlier today, we shall have no chance to examine this important issue at length. But let no one be under any misunderstanding that we fully support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and oppose the Government's new gold tax. Things have gone bad for exploration in the gold industry since the announcement in the May economic statement, the serious downturn in exploration has left drillers upset and rigs are being unused. Of course, production companies are going flat out before 1 January 1991 but the barometer of the future health of the gold industry is exploration. I very much regret that I cannot examine in detail the crucial issues before this House, but one thing to bear in mind through all this is that the Opposition is not alone in rejecting the new gold tax. The member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), a man of no little honour and decency, is placed in a very difficult position, Indeed, in the Kalgoorlie Miner of today's date he said that he has not changed his mind on his stand on a gold tax. If we can read between the careful crafting of those words, that means that he opposes a gold tax. That is what he has said up and down the length and breadth of his constituency. But he was a bit coy. He did not tell the Kalgoorlie Miner exactly how he would vote. He simply said, `You will just have to wait and see what happens'. There will be a division on this matter and the member for Kalgoorlie will be put to the test, as will other Western Australians. What comes first, the interests of their constituents or their own political careers within the Australian Labor Party? There are economic and social reasons why the Opposition opposes the imposition of this new gold tax. Debate (on motion by Mr Campbell) adjourned. (No. 2) 1988 Variation of Allotment of Time Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be varied as follows- (1) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5)- For the second reading of the Bill, until 10 p.m. For the committee stage, until 10.45 p.m. For the remaining stages of the Bill, until 10.55 p.m. this day. (2) Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill- For the remaining stages of the Bill, until 11.00 p.m. this day. (3) Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2)- For the remaining stages of the Bill, until 11.05 p.m this day. (4) Lands Acquisition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill- For the remaining stages of the Bill, until 11.45 p.m. this day. (5) Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2)- For the remaining stages of the Bill, until 12.55 a.m. on Friday, 11 November. Debate resumed. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(9.42) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I intend to contain my remarks to that section of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1988 that deals with the gold tax. I speak on this Bill with some grave doubts and some grave reservations. Tonight I have listened to hyperbole of the highest order. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) came into the House and talked about taxation on gold. I ask: Where was the shadow Treasurer when the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) and I were moving the charge against the gold tax? He was nowhere to be seen. It was not until there was an election in the air and the Liberal Party was effectively bludgeoned that it decided it would oppose a gold tax. I am opposed to a gold tax for reasons that I have already enumerated. In 1987 I believed that the right thing to do in the national interest was to oppose a gold tax in the Budget. I did that because there were certain circumstances prevailing at the time. There was a clear need for funding the current account; and gold had the capacity to earn a lot of overseas revenue. Also, I was aware of the uncertain and emotional nature of the industry, and I was not at all sure about how the industry would react-and I did not think it was worth taking the risk. I was also aware of the perilous state of the heavy engineering sector; and I was aware that the gold industry was the only thing driving it at the time. I think they were all good, sound reasons. I did not have a lot of support for that view. I acknowledge that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was one of the few in our Cabinet who recognised the political value of this at the time; and I thank the Prime Minister for that. I also acknowledge the help that Senator Richardson gave me in that regard. I might say that at the time that was won entirely on political grounds. Had I, or Brian Burke, or Julian Grill waivered for one moment there would have been a gold tax, because the mining industry waged a pathetic campaign. I might say that the performance of Mr Duncan Bell was loud, brash and ineffective. In regard to the Gutman report, the evidence that the mining companies lodged with Gutman was just trash. Gutman, rightly and quite soundly, brought in his recommendations on the basis of what the mining companies said. There was a lot of good evidence presented to Gutman; and that evidence was produced by the Western Australian Government, which got leaders of the mining industry together and said, `Look, you are not being effective; we will do it with you.' The Western Australian Government, and in particular Julian Grill, did the work, and it was a very good document indeed. In the final analysis, the reason there was no tax was that the decision was entirely a political one. I might add that despite the millions of dollars that Western Mining Corporation Ltd paid into this campaign, and its employment of Mr Duncan Bell, it was singularly ineffective. I shall go into a few things that have been said in the debate tonight, because I actually care about the industry and I also know about it, which members opposite clearly do not. The honourable member for Kooyong, posing as he usually does, said that the gold tax will destroy the industry. It will not destroy the industry. The honourable member said that it would destroy exploration; that there would not be any money for development. The truth of the matter is that the goldmining industry failed in Western Australia when there was no tax. It failed because the price of gold fell. It failed because the mining companies had not undertaken any development. Do honourable members know why mining companies had never done any development? Those companies had not done any development because in the gold mining industry it is not tax deductable. Quite clearly, if there is a regime of tax deduction, companies will explore and develop because that is where they reduce their tax. It is true that there has been a downturn in drilling in the goldfields. This is not as a result of the tax; it is the result of the failure in October last year of the stock market. All the money that was funding a lot of these things has dried up. However, high quality exploration is still continuing. The good quality drillers are still working very well indeed. I might add also that there are some people that one simply cannot help. The goldmining industry was offered an out by the State member for Kalgoorlie, Ian Taylor. He said to the gold companies, `Without public support, you are lost'. That is quite clearly true. I remember what happened during the last campaign. I have a large file of letters on the gold tax. Most of those letters I wrote myself. I had to send those letters to people and say: `Sign these letters'. For every genuine letter I got in opposition to the tax, I have a dozen from people saying, `You are a self-interested little so and so. We should have a tax'. There is no support outside the goldfields for this issue. Anyone who saw the campaign waged by Mr Bell in Bendigo will know that that is the case. The truth of the matter is that the mining companies were offered an option by Ian Taylor. He said: `If you contribute $10 an ounce from the open cuts, $2 from your deep mines and $2 from your tailings, we can get public support behind you. You can be on the board that distributes this money. We can get public support for you and fight for you'. Those people would not be in it. Those people could not even determine their own self-interest. One gentleman at the meeting we convened at the town hall got up and said, `The South Australian Government understands the mining industry. It charges only 30c a gram State royalty'. Incidentally, that is 30c more than the State of Western Australia charges. Do honourable members know that 30c a gram is equivalent to $9 an ounce? So we said quickly, `We will settle for $9 an ounce'. That was not good enough. Although that charge showed great understanding on the part of the South Australian Government, it was not good enough for the companies I am talking about. Only two companies agreed to pay that levy. The Bond Corporation agreed to discuss it. Goult Pro Partners in Kalgoorlie immediately said that it would pay. Jack and Chris Savage from Goult Pro understand their obligations to society. They immediately agreed to pay. The Bond organisation negotiated and has now agreed to pay $2 an ounce. That is not much but a lot better than ever offered by other companies, particularly Western Mining which raped and plundered in Kalgoorlie for years. Without that public support there is no hope of holding up a gold tax. I intend to vote against this legislation. Honourable members should not worry about that. I intend to cross the floor to vote against the legislation for a lot of historic reasons. I do it without any great enthusiasm, and I do it with a sense of shame for the attitudes I have heard tonight from members of the Liberal Party. It was said to me yesterday by a member of the Liberal Party, `At least you can say that we will not lose any votes on this. Nobody will vote against us if we vote against the gold tax'. That might be true in isolation, but I think that a lot of people will see the duplicity of the Liberal Party. They will see its cynical opportunism, and could very well vote against it for that reason. Many honourable members opposite have expressed that view to me. Honourable members opposite know in their hearts that they are doing the wrong thing. I add that the man honourable members opposite tout in here tonight, the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong, directly after the 10 May economic statement, was all in favour of the gold tax, as was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Recently in New York the Leader of the Opposition said the he could not see any reason for not having a gold tax. What a difference a little bit of silver makes to honourable members opposite. I ask honourable members opposite to look at the royalty applying in the Northern Territory. This is a front end royalty of very substantial dimensions. It has not stopped exploration of the Northern Territory. It is going ahead apace. The gold industry is lamenting the introduction of a gold tax-a gold tax which is paid only on profit; only after all expenses have been deducted. I might add in this respect that the Hawke Government is as pure as driven snow, because the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that there would not be such a tax in the life of this Government. Clearly there is not going to be one. Furthermore, all expenditure from 10 May can be carried forward as deductions. On 11 May I was in my office and I was a little upset about what had happened. I got a call from London from the chairman of the board of one of the top 10 gold producers in this country. He said to me, `I would not worry. Wherever the money comes from from overseas for the gold industry-whether it comes from Europe, America or Britain-it is probably in reality coming from Britain'. He said, `In the board rooms of Britain the Hawke Government is held in high regard. It is a very responsible manager of the economy'. He said that for a long time they had factored a gold tax into their calculations because, frankly, they could not see any reason why there was not a tax because of the gold tax in every other gold producing country. He said that they would continue to put money into the goldmining industry because they had confidence in the Government. At a time when there was no suggestion of a gold tax in this country, Alan Bond removed his gold operations and centred them in America where there has always been a tax. Mr Ian Cameron —Why wouldn't he? Mr CAMPBELL —Because there has always been a tax there; he obviously considered that it was better, for whatever corporate reason, to operate in a climate where he was going to pay a tax. I ask honourable members opposite to consider also other imposts on the industry. The price of cyanide, which is essential to the industry, has quadrupled. We have been taken to the cleaners on cyanide-a contrived arrangement. We were victims of a cartel. The price of cyanide has dropped back to about three times the price that prevailed at the time, but it is still a substantial cost and this impost will be harder for small miners to bear than income tax. If honourable members opposite understood anything about business they would know that. Where have our great mining companies been in the development of the cyanide industry? Clearly, they are the users of the cyanide. I would have thought that some of them would have had a little foresight and they would have put their money into developing this industry. There are a lot of other things that I would have liked to have covered but, being aware of the limited time available, I reiterate that I will be voting against the imposition of a gold tax. I certainly wish that it had been otherwise. I do this with no great enthusiasm; and I am not inspired by the sordid little campaign run by people opposite. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.53) —It would appear, from all the interjections we have had from honourable members on the other side of the chamber, that they like their high taxing Labor Government a lot more than I and my constituents do. Tonight we are facing more tax impositions on top of a whole range of tax Bills that went through the House last week and the week before. We have seen a $1 billion clawback in depreciation allowances; last week we saw the imposition of the tax file number which will affect the mining industry probably as much as any other; and we will see a new tax imposed on gold. This country has been built on gold and wool. After 200 years, the year of our bicentennial celebrations, what do we see the Labor Government doing under the guise of a tax equity or some other economic jargon that comes from the Treasurer (Mr Keating)? The Government is using this excuse to impose yet another tax. I am totally opposed to it. I support the amendment which the Opposition will be moving tonight to oppose this new gold tax. Who needs it? Can someone come into this House and explain to me why we need more taxation when a $5 billion surplus was announced in August? It is beyond my imagination and I am sure that it is beyond the imagination of every taxpayer in Australia. The Labor Government has promised tax cuts. Every day we hear the Government saying that we will have tax cuts. We have tax bracket creep imposed on our personal tax system. We have seen massive increases in personal taxes and taxation has increased at the highest level ever in the history of this country in our bicentennial year. The Government is clawing in roughly $85 billion in tax revenue. Our economy is dependent on how we spend the taxes. We do not need a surplus of $5 billion. Mr Sciacca —Why? Mr IAN CAMERON —We do not need that sort of surplus. It is just a nonsense. The Government has taken $5 billion out of the economy. Supposedly it was intended to bring down interest rates. We were told that in August, on the night of the Budget, and in the subsequent weeks. What have we seen since then? Within eight weeks of the Budget being brought down we saw interest rates go through the roof again. They climbed by 2 per cent or 3 per cent. They dropped to 11 per cent for 10 days after the Budget and are back to 15 per cent and 16 per cent. The Treasurer told us on Budget night that this massive surplus was needed to keep down interest rates. It just has not done that. The reason for the massive surplus is to enable the Government to pay back some of the debt of the early years of the Hawke Government. It is not the previous Government's debt. All governments rack up some debt, but this Government has accumulated debt at the highest and fastest rate of any government in our 200-year history. We started digging for gold in 1850, and we built this nation on gold. We were at the peak of our standard of living in the 1880s, and gold was the substance that put us there-gold and the big increase in beef, wheat and wool growing. It was gold more than anything that brought that prosperity and tonight, for the first time in 200 years, that industry has to suffer yet another tax. As previous speakers have pointed out, it is not the only tax the industry pays. It pays a whole range of other taxes that have been introduced, as well as the normal personal income tax, taxes paid by workers in the industry and the massive sales taxes. In Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) for the first time the Labor Government is imposing a tax of 20 per cent on wrapping goods. The government is not happy; it has to tax everything that moves. It is going to tax every bit of plastic that blows about the place. Sales tax will be imposed on thick shakes and ice-cream. I thought we were on a health kick in this nation. We saw the Government reduce the tax on light beer; one can buy a light beer with less sales tax than applies for a thick shake. On thick shakes and ice-cream people now have to pay 10 per cent sales tax. What is this doing to the dairy industry? Why should that tax be imposed? Farmers have been producing milk for 200 years without having to pay sales tax. Milk has always been regarded as a health product and one that we should encourage our children to drink. We have had schemes throughout the nation where State governments have subsidised the distribution of fresh milk to school children. But what do we see these measly, scroogy Australian Labor Party people doing? They want to impose a 10 per cent sales tax on ice-cream and milk. What a measly, scroogy thing to do in this our 200th year-our bicentenary year. The government has placed a 10 per cent sales tax on spoons and serviettes. We cannot even spill our food now without paying sales tax. It is ridiculous. There are all sorts of other impositions. I must give credit where credit is due. We are seeing a 10 per cent reduction in the company tax rate, and I think that is excellent. The only thing we would like is for that rate to match the personal tax rate. We would like to see personal tax rates at the top level-not just the bottom level that the Treasurer was talking about-brought down to 39 cents in the dollar. If taxation is brought down and the economy is stimulated, the Government will take just as much tax revenue out of a bigger cake. But the Government is continuing to impose more and more taxation, making it harder and harder for people to produce, and they continue to run into this massive trade deficit. Surely to goodness in the future we will need every ounce of gold we can produce in this nation. As time goes by we will need the gold to survive the crash that the Labor Government is heading us towards. We cannot continue to run a deficit of $1 billion a month. We cannot continue to trade at that sort of rate. Something has to give; something has to crack. This nation will not survive with the sort of deficit trading it has now. This Government must give more stimulus to business to produce and more stimulus to exporters. It cannot be about knocking off the incentives that the previous Government put in place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —Order! It being 10 p.m., the time allotted for the second reading stage of the Bill has expired. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the Bill be now read a second time. Those of that opinion say `aye'; to the contrary `no'. I think the ayes have it. Mr Smith —Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no-one speaking so can I talk about the gold tax to get on the record that I support the amendment moved by the shadow Treasurer? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House has to resolve itself into committee. Mr Smith —You are still in the chair though, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr McGauran —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: some confusion appears to have arisen just at the moment because two speakers were jumping simultaneously. With the greatest of respect to them, they were speaking at the same time, while you, frankly, were also attempting to make a point. In all of that confusion to which you, with respect, contributed no little amount, you did not hear a call for a division. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There was no confusion on the part of the Chair; there was no call for a division. Mr Smith —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will hear the honourable member for Bass. The Chair did not hear a call for a division. Mr Smith —Mr Deputy Speaker, I understood I had the call to speak. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, you did not have the call. Mr Smith —I was speaking at the time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have heard the point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —Mr Deputy Speaker, you said there was no call for a division on the second reading. It was not the intention of the Opposition, because of the time constraints, to divide on the second reading amendment, but it is our intention to divide on the amendments we will be putting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Chair, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Government were quite aware of the proceedings; no direction from other members of the Opposition was required. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 9-by leave-taken together. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(10.03) —I move: Clause 9, page 3, lines 27-30, omit paragraphs (b) and (c). The Opposition has no argument with paragraph (a) of clause 9 but wishes to omit paragraphs (b) and (c). In view of the time constraints that we are faced with, I also foreshadow that the Opposition will be opposing clauses 10, 16, 17 and 26. We intend to seek to divide the Committee, if there is time, given the constraints of the guillotine that the Government has imposed, on clauses 9, 10, 16 and 17. In any event I want it recorded that we are opposed to those clauses, plus clause 26. It is the time constraint that requires me to speak beyond clauses 1 to 9 at the moment. The two paragraphs of clause 9 that we seek to omit are the first of the measures relating to the Government seeking to impose a gold tax. I said earlier that we are opposed to those elements that impose a gold tax because we gave a very firm commitment only last year that we were opposed to the introduction of a tax on gold mining. We keep our word, in contrast to certain other people. I discern in particular, quite apart from the remarks that I made in my speech in the second reading debate, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating), Senator Gareth Evans, and therefore the Government. It seemed evident to me from the remarks of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) that he will not be supporting the Opposition's amendments. Mr Beazley —He is. Mr PEACOCK —I was going to plead with him at this late hour that he change his mind. Mr Campbell —Do you want me to change my mind? Mr PEACOCK —If that had been correct I was going to ask him to change his mind and vote with us. I am pleased to get the indication from the Leader of the House that he will be with us when we move these respective amendments. I oppose the way in which the House is being run tonight with the guillotine down. It is outrageous when yet another tax is found to be dumped on Australia because of the effect it will have on our balance of payments. I am also interested in seeking to divide and put the Opposition's view by way of voting on as many of these amendments as possible. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.07) —The gold tax issue has been around for a considerable amount of time. I would like to make the point, given the remarks of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), that the Opposition's position has been consistent since as long ago as June 1986 when we pledged to repeal a gold tax. That is exactly what we are doing tonight for the reasons that have been enumerated by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and by the shadow Minister for science and energy, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). I think it is important to recall that in principle it might be correct for the Government to argue in favour of a gold tax but it reminds me of the debate we had here over a long period concerning the resources rent tax. The Government has tried to apply an in principle tax but in its implications it has ignored the realities and the historical context in which this tax is to apply to a particular industry. It has refused to identify and acknowledge the investment requirements with regard to the matrix between exploration needs and risks. In doing so and in imposing this tax, which is only going to return somewhere in the vicinity of $300m in a full year based on all the estimates that we have seen from the Industries Assistance Commission, the A.C. Goode and Co. Ltd survey, the J.B. Were survey, the Bain and Co. survey, the expense it is going to in collecting the tax, the estimated return, is going to be outweighed by the damage it is going to do to the industry. That is the very point that has been made time and time again by the industry and in this House tonight. It is interesting to listen to reasons why the honourable member for Kalgoorlie is going to cross the floor. We feel for him. It is no small matter to cross the floor in this House from either side but the reasons he gave for doing so lack some consistency. He says that he supports the Hawke Government in this gold tax but finds himself personally unable to support it. That is as far as he goes. He does not substantiate any arguments either way. He does not stand up and say that it is going to have a dramatic effect on the community which he represents which I visited some 10 days ago. Eighty per cent of the gold in this country is found and mined there. I find that his arguments and accusations about the Opposition taking pieces of silver are offensive, unnecessary and, of course, inaccurate. Our position has been consistent since 1986, when the shadow Minister, Senator Durack, put down in quite concise terms our position with regard to the gold tax. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie is the only one who has the courage to be able to see what a gold tax will do to an industry which, historically, has supported this country. In recent years we have seen the benefits to our balance of payments position-a move from $500m a year to $2,500m. It is a massive increase and of massive benefit to this nation. To impose a tax which is incorrect and improper and which will damage an industry that has dramatically helped our balance of payments indicates the shortsightedness of this Government and its inability to understand the industry in a very vital area from which we as a nation can benefit. For Senator Walsh to say in the Senate that we are letting $100m go to the benefit of foreign treasuries is a fallacious argument. All that that does is acknowledge his inability to address that particular problem. The Government is pursuing 36 per cent of the industry that is foreign-owned, the money from which goes to other countries rather than to our Treasury. It is ridiculous to then penalise the two-thirds of the income that is earned by Australian companies. I find the whole argument by the Government in favour of this proposal lacking in substance and in logic and, more importantly, lacking in understanding of what this country needs in a tax regime. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.11) —I point out that in this legislation the Government has very carefully made sure that it does not tax income received from the sale of gold leases. I have heard some lamenting about prospectors. These days most prospectors make their money by selling their leases to companies to develop and mine them. This legislation does not tax that income. I think that is a very important consideration. I point out to the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), who has just spoken, that I did not at any stage in my speech say that I supported the imposition of the gold tax, for very special reasons. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Peacock's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Campbell, G. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Ruddock, P. M.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Smith, W. L.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Taylor, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Klugman, R. E.Bilney, G. N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Blanchard, C. A. Langmore, J. V.Bowen, Lionel Lavarch, M. H.Brown, Robert Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. 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.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Snowdon, W. E.Howe, B. L. Staples, P. R.Humphreys, B. C. Theophanous, A. C.Jakobsen, C. A. Tickner, R. E.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Wright, K. W. Cameron, Donald Darling, E. E.Carlton, J. J. Duffy, M. J.Katter, R. C. Dawkins, J. S.Howard, J. W. Hawke, R. J. L. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clause 10 (Exemption of certain income from sale of gold). Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(10.21) —For reasons I have previously given, we oppose this clause. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Klugman, R. E.Bilney, G. N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Blanchard, C. A. Langmore, J. V.Bowen, Lionel Lavarch, M. H.Brown, Robert Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. 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.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Snowdon, W. E.Howe, B. L. Staples, P. R.Humphreys, B. C. Theophanous, A. C.Jakobsen, C. A. Tickner, R. E.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Campbell, G. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Ruddock, P. M.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Smith, W. L.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Taylor, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldDuffy, M. J. Carlton, J. J.Dawkins, J. S. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 11 to 15-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 16. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Klugman, R. E.Bilney, G. N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Blanchard, C. A. Langmore, J. V.Bowen, Lionel Lavarch, M. H.Brown, Robert Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. 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.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Snowdon, W. E.Howe, B. L. Staples, P.R.Humphreys, B. C. Theophanous, A. C.Jakobsen, C. A. Tickner, R. E.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Campbell, G. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Ruddock, P. M.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Smith, W. L.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Taylor, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldDuffy, M. J. Carlton, J. J.Dawkins, J. S. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 17. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Klugman, R. E.Bilney, G. N. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Blanchard, C. A. Langmore, J. V.Bowen, Lionel Lavarch, M. H.Brown, Robert Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. 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.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Snowdon, W. E.Howe, B. L. Staples, P. R.Humphreys, B. C. Theophanous, A. C.Jakobsen, C. A. Tickner, R. E.Jenkins, H. A. West, S. J.Johns, G. T. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Campbell, G. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Ruddock, P. M.Connolly, D. M. Shack, P. D.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Smith, W. L.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J.Fisher, Peter Taylor, W. L.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldDuffy, M. J. Carlton, J. J.Dawkins, J. S. Katter, R. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 18 to 25-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 26. Amendments (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: (1) Clause 26, page 17, lines 17 and 18, omit all the words from the beginning of the section heading of proposed section 159gzzp to and including ``160zk (1):'', substitute the following: Eligible gold mining expenditure-modified application of Part IIIA `` `159gzzp. (1) Where: (a) a taxpayer owns an asset at the end of 31 December 1990 (in this section called the ``changeover time''); (b) before that time, the taxpayer incurred eligible gold mining expenditure in relation to the asset; (c) the only use of the asset by the taxpayer before the changeover time was solely for the purpose of producing exempt income; and (d) the market value of the asset at the changeover time is greater than the amount that would be the indexed cost base to the taxpayer in respect of the asset if the taxpayer disposed of the asset at that time; the following provisions have effect: (e) for the purposes of any application of Part IIIA, the taxpayer shall be taken to have disposed of the asset at the changeover time for a consideration equal to the amount of the indexed cost base referred to in paragraph (d); (f) for the purposes of ascertaining under that Part whether a capital gain accrues to the taxpayer in the event of a subsequent disposal of the asset by the taxpayer-the taxpayer shall be taken to have immediately re-acquired the asset for a consideration equal to the market value of the asset at the changeover time; (g) the reference in subsection 360Z (3) to the day on which the asset was acquired by the taxpayer shall be taken to be a reference to the day on which the asset was actually acquired by the taxpayer. `(2) If the asset is disposed of within 12 months of the time of its actual acquisition by the taxpayer, subsection (1) of this section has effect as if the references in that subsection to the indexed cost base to the taxpayer in respect of the asset were references to the cost base to the taxpayer in respect of the asset. `(3) Expressions used in subsections (1) and (2) that are also used in Part IIIA have the same respective meanings in those subsections as they have in that Part. `(4) For the purposes of any application of subsection 160zk (1):''. (2) Clause 26, page 23, lines 35 and 36, omit all the words from the beginning of the section heading of proposed section 159gzzza to and including ``160zk (1):'', substitute the following: Modified application of Part IIIA ```159gzzza. (1) Where: (a) a taxpayer owns an asset at the end of 31 December 1990 (in this section called the ``changeover time''); (b) before that time, the taxpayer incurred eligible gold transport expenditure in relation to the asset; (c) the only use of the asset by the taxpayer before the changeover time was solely for the purpose of producing exempt income; and (d) the market value of the asset at the changeover time is greater than the amount that would be the indexed cost base to the taxpayer in respect of the asset if the taxpayer disposed of the asset at that time; the following provisions have effect; (e) for the purposes of any application of Part IIIA, the taxpayer shall be taken to have disposed of the asset at the changeover time for a consideration equal to the amount of the indexed cost base referred to in paragraph (d); (f) for the purposes of ascertaining under that Part whether a capital gain accrues to the taxpayer in the event of a subsequent disposal of the asset by the taxpayer-the taxpayer shall be taken to have immediately re-acquired the asset for a consideration equal to the market value of the asset at the changeover time; (g) the reference in subsection 160z (3) to the day on which the asset was acquired by the taxpayer shall be taken to be a reference to the day on which the asset was actually acquired by the taxpayer. `(2) If the asset is disposed of within 12 months of the time of its actual acquisition by the taxpayer, subsection (1) of this section has effect as if the references in that subsection to the indexed cost base to the taxpayer in respect of the asset were references to the cost base to the taxpayer in respect of the asset. `(3) Expressions used in subsections (1) and (2) that are also used in Part IIIA have the same respective meanings in those subsections as they have in that Part. `(4) For the purposes of any application of subsection 160zk (1):''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(10.39) —I will not delay the House. I simply want to advise that, with the time constraints, I did not call a division on clause 26 following the amendments moved by the Government. Because Government members voted against our amendment to clause 9 and because we were unsuccessful in our opposition to clauses 10, 16 and 17 the gold tax is effectively in place. Clause 26 relates only to the transitional arrangements and various deductions. I will say, however, that it is yet another example of the sloppy drafting that at this late stage amendments are being moved by the Government to its Bill. It is an unfortunate day for Australia that yet another tax has been imposed on a significant industry, with ramifications for the nation. Furthermore, I can at least close on the note that we on this side, together with one of the Government's number, have at least kept our word. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: 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 Peter Morris) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: 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 Peter Morris) read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Humphreys, and read a first time. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1988 gives effect to the Government's decision to sell the assets of the Defence Service Homes Corporation to Westpac Banking Corporation and to put in place arrangements for the delivery of Commonwealth-subsidised housing loans by that bank. This major change in the way benefits under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 are delivered is of the greatest importance to the Australian veteran community and to present and former members of the Defence Force. In this context, representatives of the veteran and service communities have been involved over the last two years in looking at ways of improving both the benefits available under the defence service homes scheme and their delivery to the client group. There has been close consultation with these groups during development of the revised arrangements. The arrangements with Westpac involve the sale of the interest of the Defence Service Homes Corporation in its portfolio of about 134,000 mortgages and terms contracts for an amount equal to the face value of those assets. At 31 October 1988 the face value was approximately $1.39 billion including accrued interest. In addition, Westpac will pay a premium of $100m to participate in the defence service homes scheme. Under the new arrangements, Westpac will take over responsibility for all future lending under the scheme; this will include delivery of certain ancillary benefits such as instalment relief and special loans for widows in hardship. For several years the Government has been unable for budgetary reasons to make necessary changes to the defence service homes scheme including: removal of the 10-month waiting period for loans to buy homes, now costing borrowers several thousand dollars in bridging finance interest charges; and an increase in the maximum first mortgage loan from the present level of $25,000, which was set in 1980, to a more reasonable proportion of the cost of acquiring a home. There will be no waiting period for Westpac loans, which will be repayable over a period of up to 25 years and will be portable from one home to another. Home buyers will be able to borrow in excess of $25,000 as a first mortgage with the Commonwealth subsidising the repayments on the first $25,000 of any loan; borrowers will also save by not having to meet two sets of loan establishment charges or pay second mortgage interest rates on the amount borrowed in excess of $25,000. The revised arrangements will remove the need for a statutory corporation and the Defence Service Homes Corporation will cease to exist once the handover to Westpac is complete. The future administration of the defence service homes scheme will be undertaken within my portfolio. It is estimated that under the revised arrangements there will be resource savings of up to 360 staff and $11.5m per year. The revised defence service homes scheme will involve: the assessment and determination of the entitlement of eligible persons for benefits under the scheme; and the payment of subsidy in relation to both the assets sold to Westpac and those new loans made by Westpac. The subsidy will be an amount paid to the bank, not the client, on a monthly basis, reflecting the difference between the interest paid by clients on their loans-6.85 per cent on new loans and various rates below that rate on mortgages sold to the bank-and an agreed rate of return to the bank. It is estimated that the subsidy cost in a full year will be $145m. The revised arrangements agreed with the bank do not involve any change to the status of people who are already eligible under the Defence Service Homes Act-any of these people who have not previously sought assistance under the scheme will be able to apply for the new benefits. The Bill will give effect to the Government's decision that persons who enlisted in the Defence Force after 14 May 1985 will not become eligible for benefits under the scheme-the form of housing benefit to be provided for these persons is being considered. The defence service homes insurance scheme is not included in the business sold to Westpac. This business will continue as a self-funded cooperative home insurance scheme, being operated by the Commonwealth and administered within my portfolio. Other benefits under the scheme will continue to apply and be delivered by the Commonwealth or the bank as set out in the agreement which is attached as schedule 1 to the Bill. When announcing the proposed changes to the scheme the Government promised that eligible persons and borrowers would not be disadvantaged under the new arrangements. The agreement with Westpac and this Bill provide for a considerable improvement in the range and quality of benefits available under the scheme. I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr FIFE(Hume)(10.50) —This Bill is complementary to, and a necessary part of, the Lands Acquisition Bill 1988 legislative package. As it will facilitate the implementation of the new legislation, with its greatly improved provisions, the Opposition will not oppose it. Our concern is that the new legislation is promulgated as quickly as possible. In the earlier debate I referred to the situation at Badgerys Creek. It is essential that acquisitions are completed without delay so that the new airport planned there can get under way. There has been enough political bickering and delay. It is time that all the necessary acquisitions were concluded, not only out of justice and fairness to the landowners, but because the airport is needed urgently to relieve the pressure on Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support (Mr Punch) has made a commitment on behalf of the Government for phased development of a new airport at Badgerys Creek. It is time for the Government to get on with it and for the compensation provisions of the new Lands Acquisition Bill to be applied to those acquisitions which have not yet been concluded. Most of this Bill's provisions are of a consequential procedural nature which are necessary for the operation of the main Bill. They should be implemented as soon as possible. In the interest of `justice' and `fair treatment' for people whose land is acquired, I would again ask the Minister to monitor carefully the operation of the new legislation, and to promptly correct anything that creates an anomaly. Let us not wait for years before doing something about it. For the information of honourable members, I would like to acknowledge that, following the debate on the Lands Acquisition Bill 1988, I received a message from the Minister saying that he had not just brushed aside some points I had made about mining regulations and the proclamation of the Bill. He informed me that the regulations did not have to be completed before proclamation of the Bill, as this contingency was provided for under clause 124 (8) of the Bill. The Minister also indicated that it was expected the Bill would come into force in December or early January. I ask the Minister: Can he now say exactly when the Act will be proclaimed? Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(10.53) —As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), has just indicated, the Lands Acquisition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill is related to the Lands Acquisition Bill passed earlier by this Parliament. The Bill has two primary purposes: firstly, to provide a legal framework for the transition period between the new Lands Acquisition Act and its 1955 predecessor, and, secondly, to repeal and amend other related legislation, including the Airports (Business Concessions) Act 1959, the High Court of Australia Act 1979, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 and a number of other pieces of legislation which make reference to the 1955 Act. The transition from the existing regime to the new lands acquisition provisions will be biased in favour of those landowners whose property is currently subject to a resumption proceeding; that is, the advantages outlined in the new legislation will be made available to any landowner whose land is being resumed, but in respect of whom the actual process to date has not quite been finalised. As a result, the sorts of protections outlined in the new scheme will be available to these landowners. These protections include the issuing of a pre-acquisition declaration. This is a statement of intention for the resumption and specifies the reasons for which the Government requires the land. It also details-and this is extremely important-the rights of the owner so that the owner knows that he can appeal against the Government's decision as to whether the land should be taken. If there is no great dispute on that point, there are certain rights in regard to the calculation of compensation. As a solicitor prior to my election to this place, what I find particularly important is the fact that once such a statement is given by the Minister of his intention to resume, a note will be made on the title of the property. This is an extremely valuable safeguard for prospective purchasers so that that information is known. In the past, there have often been long delays between the time that the Government indicates its intention to take land and the time when the process is completed and there is transfer of title. I certainly welcome that change. The other change outlined in the major legislation relates to specific time limits as to when certain steps have to be taken during the resumption proceedings. Again, this is a major step forward. I hope that the framework outlined in this package of legislation will be seriously looked at by all State governments, in terms not only of their own acquisition programs but also acquisition programs by other boards or local councils even, all of which from time to time go through the process of acquiring property. Rights of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal after an initial approach to the Minister are also guaranteed. These are extremely valuable provisions. I have had the opportunity of seeing both sides of the resumption procedure, firstly as a solicitor acting for people whose land is being resumed and, on the other side of the fence, as a shire councillor on occasions when the council went through the resumption procedure. In Queensland there is no real right to challenge the purpose for which the State Government or local council is claiming the land. Certainly, there are rights of appeal to the Lands Court if there is a dispute as to the level of compensation to be paid, but one cannot challenge the purpose. If there is any suggestion that the land is not needed for the purpose for which the council wants it, that is too bad. One has to accept that at face value and cannot challenge it, but one can argue about the level of compensation. I hope that this excellent legislation will be looked at by State governments with the idea of introducing some of these provisions. The detailed compensation regime outlined in the initial legislation, the advantage of which will be given by this Bill to land owners in the transitional stage, is also worthy of support and comment. I was impressed with the idea of a solace payment to compensate for intangible values attached to the property being taken. Under the old regime and the standard regime that is in place throughout the States, intangible values, such as the family history attaching to the land and things of that nature, are not taken into account. Normally if there is a battle about compensation between a couple of valuers in the Lands Court arguing about the value of the land, what it could be sold for and its development potential, there is never any suggestion of taking account of the sentimental or other values that might attach to the property. The fact that that element is provided for in this legislation is a great move forward. Certainly, it means a greater cost to government in its resumptions program, but it is far fairer to landowners. That is a move to be greatly welcomed. Given the lateness of the evening and the limits on time, I will not go on at great length. The Bill is a relatively non-controversial piece of legislation. It is really an adjunct to legislation which the House has already approved. I understand the Opposition will not oppose the Bill. When the final Act comes into play-and I accept the point that hopefully it will be as quickly as possible-it will set in place a model piece of legislation for the Commonwealth which hopefully will become the norm throughout all Australian jurisdictions. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(11.01) —in reply-I thank the participants for their brief contributions. This Bill, of course, is all about the transitional and consequential arrangements which will apply to the introduction of the use of powers under the new Act, the Lands Acquisition Act 1988. I should pick up a couple of questions raised by the shadow Minister for Administrative Services, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife). He raised the issue of the application of the new Act to Badgerys Creek. I can inform the House that the Government identified the site for the second Sydney airport back in 1986 and offered to acquire, by agreement, any property in the selected area. There are 243 properties on the site; and by the end of October this year, 108 properties had been purchased for an expenditure of $25.6m. In the context of the 1987-88 Budget, the Government undertook to provide $15m, in real terms, each year for four financial years for the acquisition of all properties on this site. The Government wants to apply the 1988 Act to any remaining acquisitions on that site from the time the new Act commences. Acquisitions on that site have been proceeding within an established order of priority-namely, hardship cases, followed by proposals to be acquired submitted by owners in the order in which they have been received. Pre-acquisition declarations will be issued to owners in the order of that established priority listing. These declarations will give owners the right to appeal decisions to acquire their properties as provided by the 1988 Act. I might inform the House that the application of this process will highlight one of the ways in which this Bill goes further than the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Commission was concerned that, in a multiple acquisition project, an owner who wished to appeal the decision to acquire his property, but who was served a pre-acquisition declaration late in the course of the project would find his case prejudiced by the number of acquisitions that had already occurred. To overcome that problem, the Government has included in the Bill subclause 31 (2), which states that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in hearing any appeal, must disregard any acquisitions that have already occurred. Furthermore, if an owner on the Badgerys Creek site finds that, due to his particular circumstances, he needs the Commonwealth to acquire his property immediately, special considerations will still be able to be applied. The case would be considered by the community-based hardship panel. If that panel recommended priority purchase, and the required timing would not allow for the normal pre-acquisition procedure specified in the 1988 Act, then the urgency provisions of clause 24 could be used. So, regarding the matter of compensation, to this date none of the properties on the Badgerys Creek site has been acquired using the compulsory process. All of the properties acquired so far have been acquired by agreement-that is, at a price agreed to by the owners. Given the special nature of the acquisition at Badgerys Creek, the Government decided, before it had acquired any properties, that it would apply special terms to these acquisitions. So, as well as paying the market value of each property, disregarding any influence caused by speculation of the timing and location of the new airport, the Government has agreed to pay the costs involved in the vendor obtaining legal and valuation advice; legal and survey costs and normal out of pocket expenses involved in the sale to the Commonwealth, including mortgagees' solicitors' costs for the discharge of any existing mortgage; legal and survey costs and normal out of pocket expenses incurred in acquiring a replacement property of similar value to the one acquired by the Commonwealth; and reasonable removal expenses. These are all items of compensation identified by the Bill that will be paid following a compulsory acquisition. Although none of the properties at Badgerys Creek have been acquired by compulsory process, these costs have been paid on all properties acquired so far. They will be paid on all properties remaining to be acquired. The issue that concerned the Opposition on the debate on the major Bill, the Lands Acquisition Bill 1988, was what conditions would apply to mining and exploration licences issued under the 1955 Lands Acquisition Act up to the time that the regulations contained in the new Act were ready. Any mining and exploration licences issued under the 1955 Act will continue to apply. The Lands Acquisition (Repeals and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988 does not contain any transitional provisions relating to mining and exploration licences because the Lands Acquisition Bill 1988, when introduced, already contained the required transitional provision. That provision states that until such time as the new mining regulations are available and after commencement of the 1988 Act the current provisions of section 51 and subsection 53 (2d) of the 1955 Act will still apply. Consequently, enactment of the 1988 Lands Acquisition Bill does not have to wait for the preparation of the mining regulations. I expect that the new Act would commence early in 1989. Once the new Act is passed by the Senate regulations will need to be drafted, delegations will need to be prepared and the Department will need to be geared to adopting the new procedures. However, none of these tasks will give rise to undue delay-provided we get it through the Senate with minimum delay. The only extensive regulations required by the major Bill are those relating to the mining and exploration provisions. However, subclause 124 (8) of the 1988 Bill will allow for commencement of the Act before those regulations are available by stipulating that the pertinent sections of the 1955 Act will continue to apply until the new regulations are available. The delegations under the 1988 Act required to permit ongoing government business need to be identified and documented. These delegations are extensive, allowing as they do for the processing of literally thousands of leasehold agreements of a standard commercial nature entered into by the Commonwealth, particularly in regard to office accommodation. The Department of Administrative Services needs to be prepared to adopt the new procedures which can become quite complex because of the protection being provided to owners with whom the Commonwealth is negotiating. Of course, forms need to be prepared and officers who will be undertaking acquisitions need to become familiar with the new documentation. All of these processes have already begun. I am happy to inform the Opposition, the House and the public that I expect that this 1988 Lands Acquisition Bill, to which this transitional and consequential Bill applies, will be proclaimed very early in 1989-I expect by about February. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr West) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Holding. That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.10) —The Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 seeks to make three changes to the Migration Act. Its objectives are, firstly, to speed up the processing of visas through ports of entry into Australia; secondly, to allow immigration clearances of certain direct flights into Australia to be completed at an overseas airport; and, thirdly, to ensure that statutory visitors are properly covered by the Act. These amendments in regard to visas have a double goal; the first part of the goal is to simplify the process and the second part is to speed up the processing of the entry of people into Australia. The target that the Department has set at airports is 30 seconds per passenger rather than the current 70 seconds. That time saving will be highly significant for visitors and tourists coming to Australia. The objective is to endeavour to retain the integrity of the system but, at the same time, provide a simplified and a speedier process. The Opposition will not be opposing or amending these provisions. We think that they are sensible and desirable objectives but we have some qualifications that we want to make that the Government should be aware of because they really hinge on the integrity of the process. It is not just the tourists we need to be catering for; the whole process of permanent entry and the possible abuse of the system also have to be considered because of the changes that are being made. The current process for entry into Australia for a visitor, an overseas student or a permanent resident is that a visa is issued at a foreign port. An Australian official approves the right for somebody to travel to Australia and that person then takes up a visa. As I have indicated, this visa may be a visitor's visa, a temporary visa, a student visa, or a resident visa. That gives the people the right to travel to Australia. On arrival at our front gate another process is gone through-that is, the process where permission to enter Australia is granted. Therefore, we have a twofold process: the grant of a visitor's visa, or the grant of a visa of any sort, and the permission to enter. The adoption of this process is a sensible one and, historically, one can see the reason for establishing the grant to travel to Australia. The second check is the grant to enter for the purposes stated by the person seeking to travel to Australia. The proposed changes are a simplification whereby the grant of the visa for permission to travel is not changed but the grant of entry takes place within the same document. So instead of a two-step process we have a 1 1/2 step process-a process where the right to travel is granted and, almost automatically, that same document becomes the document for entry into Australia. But within the changes entry is retained to the degree that permission stands but the processes by which entry is granted are varied under the new arrangement. It requires in practice for the travel document to be stamped but it is no longer a requirement for the officer at the front gate of Australia to select the appropriate stamp and process to match the visa. The officer does not have to say, `Is this a visitor's visa? I will approve a visitor's visa, select the right stamp and stamp the passport'. All he has to do is stamp the passport with the date and the port of entry. So that becomes an entry permit, as the Bill proposes. However, at the same time, the officer granting entry must make a computer registration. The two things-the stamp and the computer registration-constitute the grant of entry. That will speed up the process; it will also limit the chance for abuse. Once that person granted entry makes a decision-for example, a visitor arrives travelling on a visitor visa and the grant of entry by chance happens to be a permanent residency grant-that permanent residency grant cannot be overridden. Once permanent residency is given, be it by mistake or design, that person cannot have that status revoked. So the visa issue becomes the critical part of the process. It is the front-line decision at the foreign port that establishes the status of the person travelling to Australia under the new proposals. That status is checked at the front gate, and the simple process of computer entry and a stamp showing the port and the date concludes the arrangement. There are some flaws in this process. It does mean that the front-line decision has to be absolutely accurate. If false information is fed in about the status of the person seeking to travel to Australia, then there is little check that can be made on the person's arrival in Australia. With the increasing sophistication of computers and telegraphic links it is hoped that the registration of a desire to travel to Australia and the grant of a visa will be transferred to Australia and computerised here so, when the person arrives on the aircraft, the information held about his visa and his travel desire is checked against the passports they hold. The man at the front gate ought to be able to key into the computer the details of the visa in front of him on the visitor's or resident's passport, which should be matched by the information gathered from overseas. This does mean that that overseas information is critical, so staffing levels and capacity at our overseas posts are a critical factor. It means, too, that we need good information from a number of sources, whether from security sources or departmental records. We must be able to identify people seeking to come into Australia and determine whether they pose a risk of being likely to try to defeat the system or whether they have criminal intentions. That information will be computerised and theoretically should be sounder. The second proposal in this legislation is the offshore clearance of intending migrants. It is sensible and I can see little problem with it. The concept is that where Australian officers may be required to fly to a port such as Hamilton Island, where there is no regular immigration clearance, they will be able to approve people for entry into Australia at an overseas post. They will be able to go to the airport and, as people walk onto the aircraft, approve migration entry into Australia. Of course, there will need to be Customs checks and, in some instances, health checks. The conditions that the changes to the Act impose are that it must be a non-stop flight and that there must be no capacity for the person to corrupt the process. It allows the prospect of tourists being processed in New Zealand or, maybe at some time in the future, in Japan for entry into Australia. They will arrive and be able to go straight from the aircraft, having been approved prior to their entry onto the aircraft. The final provision is one that strengthens the situation in regard to statutory visitors-those people brought to Australia for a special purpose, perhaps to appear in a court case, where they have no real claim on Australia and are required by the Minister or the court to leave immediately they have fulfilled their duty here. Those amendments are sound amendments. I come back briefly to the integrity of the scheme, and refer the House to discussion paper No. 12, on computer crime, by the Gibbs Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law. It makes interesting reading because it examines what sort of penalties should apply and what processes in law should apply to those people seeking to abuse computers. The report contains sections on unauthorised access to computers, the damaging of data, computer related fraud, unauthorised use of computers, and omission to introduce or record data. All of those areas in immigration processes are critical. The fact that we can have multimillion dollar movements of drugs means the price for Australian officials and the prospect of paying for the unauthorised use of computer systems increase. It means that people will be willing to take the risk of either making a false entry or failing to make an entry at some stage or other in the system. As best I can establish, there would need to be a conspiracy between two people. Two operators would have to conspire to allow couriers or other seeking to abuse the system through the system as it now stands. The Opposition is concerned about information that has come to it about the security of the computer system serving Melbourne and the ease with which it can be penetrated. That has come from reliable sources, and we were informed that we should know that. We were informed not by departmental officers but by people who are related to the Department's operation of those computers. That is a matter of concern because the more we become reliant on computers the more there will be the temptation for people to act fraudulently, to damage, make unauthorised use of or omit data from computers. The Gibbs review examined all of these factors with great care. I note with interest that the penalities in the legislation appear to be substantial. We will be keeping an eye on this part of the legislation because, whilst the penalties for a person other than an authorised officer appear to be substantial, in today's terms they may not be. The penalty for a person other than an authorised officer tampering with or modifying data is $20,000 or imprisonment for 10 years, or both. That appears to be substantial but the sums of money we are talking about are substantial, too. I remember, as the Minister at the table, the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding), would remember, that the computers in Sydney just happened to break down on two occasions at one gateway when Robert Trimbole was passing through. Nobody has ever been blamed for that. The culprit-because I believe it was deliberate-has never been identified. Australia knows what that man and his network did to the lives of young Australians, in Sydney and Melbourne in particular, and it raises the whole Donald Mackay episode again. The computers went down at the very time that man was passing through Customs. That is known to the Government, it is known to the people of Australia and it is known to the press We are now establishing a process which becomes even more reliant on computers, and the prospect of corrupting them has been identified by the Gibbs review. I am not certain that the Department has seriously considered what it is going into and the prospects of corruption. I have been somewhat assured by the check systems within the proposed computer plan, but again I say that the gains an individual can make are great. The gains will amount to hundreds of thousand of dollars from a small change of information or a failure to register information. The Government has to decide whether it is going to legislate in this area and whether it will carry across into areas such as migration those penalties and that legislation. Something needs to be done at this point because it not only applies to immigration but it will start to apply more and more to the Australian Taxation Office with the tax file number and the possible abuse or manipulation of that system. I commend to the House the report of the Gibbs committee. I also commend it to those who are concerned about these matters. I refer in particular to some of the findings of the committee. The Scottish Law Commission identified eight different categories of computer misuse and has recommended legislative action in respect of one. I will read to the House the possible abuses that can occur. In this instance they can assist people seeking to profit from drugs brought into Australia where there is a simplified system. Some of the categories of misuse are: erasure or falsification of data or programs so as to obtain a pecuniary or other advantage; obtaining unauthorised access to a computer; eavesdropping on a computer; taking of information without physical removal; unauthorised borrowing of computer disks or tapes; making unauthorised use of computer time or facilities; malicious or reckless corruption or erasure of data or programs; and denial of access to authorised users. Within the last week we have had serious reports about what hackers have been able to do to computers. If the National Aeronautics and Space Administration program can be penetrated by hackers, nobody can tell me that Australia's Department of Immigration computer cannot be accessed by hackers and similar people. If they cannot get into those systems to adjust, change or manipulate then I am very surprised. What this House needs is the assurance that every possible step will be taken by the Government, starting today. It should not just make the normal commitment it often makes that it will look into it-the mirror response-and that it will make sure the protections are there. We have heard enough of those excuses. They have led to a lot of problems in Australia's immigration program. Australians need the assurance that the improved system will have maximum safeguards. The rewards for people abusing Australia's immigration programs are substantial and every step must be taken to prevent that occurring. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(11.28) —The legislation before the House is not opposed by the Opposition. While it has set out some concerns it has, generally the suggestion is that there is support for the moves that have been initiated. There has been a dramatic growth in international air travel in recent years. It has presented tough problems for many nations. Since 1985 Australia has welcomed more tourists than ever before. The key to our success in managing the increasing international visitors is an integrated computerised visa system called IRIS. IRIS stands for immigration, records and information system. We have found that by the end of this year nearly 90 per cent of all Australian visas will be produced by computer. This computer system is at the very cutting edge of technology in this area. It has been accepted, along with our new computerised passport format, by a number of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, which will be followed to try to internationalise our passport and visa structure within our international framework. It offers for Australia a very efficient system, a system that can be quicker and streamlined and also one that can maintain the integrity of our immigration process. As was mentioned by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), presently at peak times there are difficulties with immigration at our ports of entry. There are large queues. It sometimes takes as long as two hours to process those who have arrived in this country. That can be very annoying and disconcerting and certainly creates an unfavourable impression of Australia-one which, we hope, is soon changed after those people who arrive here have seen what Australia has to offer. This new visa system and the legislation which amends the 30-year-old Migration Act will bring into effect some of those changes. The legislation allows visas issued overseas to operate as an entry permit if a person is allowed to enter Australia. At present, the visa allows on to travel to Australia, but an entry permit must be granted once one arrives. The front line officer is often a customs officer working as an immigration agent, and in the 60 or 70 seconds that he has to assess the person in front of him there are a large number of things that he must do. Most of them at the moment are done manually. He has to examine the passport of the prospective visitor. He has to look at the details on the entry card that has been filled out by that person. He has to enter some of those details into the computer. Checks are done on alert lists for those who are to be stopped or not allowed to enter the country. He must then translate information on to the passport and he has to stamp the visa. There are six different stamps that he can use. He can use a stamp which authorises entry for permanent residents; one that authorises entry for permanent resident status after temporary entry; one that allows for a temporary stay as indicated, where employment is not allowed; one that allows for a temporary stay until the date shown where employment is allowed; one that allows for an extension of the original entry period but does not allow employment; and another that authorises extension to the original entry period where employment is allowed. There are a number of decisions that that officer must make in a very short period. Clearly, the new visa proposal and, when it is in place, automatic scanning of those visas will allow much more time for that officer to make an assessment from the passport as to the identity of the person. Presently he is pressed trying to do all of these other things. The view is taken that he does not have the opportunity to make a visual assessment of the passport and the person in front of him. Indeed, contrary to what the honourable member for Mitchell has said, I believe that this process will reduce the number of errors that are being made. Certainly, scanning and the provision of information on alert lists will allow the same integrity in the system. I believe that the additional time that is allowed the officer will give him the opportunity to make a better assessment on visual grounds. Clearly, that is very important. One of the reasons that we have introduced this legislation is the belief that it will streamline and simplify the process and also reduce the number of errors that are made. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Mitchell, once that passport is stamped with the permanent entry visa, it cannot be revoked. So some of these decisions are very important. The legislation also allows for the pre-clearance of direct flights into Australia. This has special implications because, if one looks at the recent history of visitors to this country, one finds that in 1975 half a million people came to Australia as visitors. Nine years later, in 1984, the figure was one million. Four years after that, we are expecting over two million visitors. There has been an exponential increase in the number of people coming to Australia. Indeed, the countries from which tourism is growing most rapidly-New Zealand, the United States and Japan-are all countries in which it would be possible for these pre-clearance issues to be determined. Indeed, it would be possible for the procedures on arrival in Australia to be greatly improved. Certainly, because of the massive impact that our policies have had on tourism in Australia, it is believed that this measure will increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of our dealings with those people who come to Australia as tourists. I was interested to read in today's Bulletin magazine that new charter flights will arrive in Cairns and Perth. I am sure that those people who go to Perth will enjoy what they find there. Britannia Airways, which is one of the largest charter companies in the United Kingdom, has proposed to operate weekly charter flights from Luton to Perth and Cairns alternately, providing about 5,000 extra seats. This will occur during the peak tourist time in Australia-the summer-when a large number of people, particularly from the United Kingdom, want to come to Australia. The other aspects of the legislation relate to penalties for misuse of computer facilities. I believe that the honourable member for Mitchell raised one or two valid concerns that would concern all of us in this House. I believe that the legislation will make a difference to the effectiveness and efficiency of processing visitors to Australia at airports and I commend it to the House. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(11.36) —In this debate I want to touch very briefly on the detailed proposals contained in the legislation which are designed to improve and accelerate the processing of people who come to Australia. They fall largely into two categories: firstly, visitors to this country who come here for a short period without any intention, or publicised intention anyway, of staying here permanently and then return to their place of permanent residence and, secondly, those who come here as migrants. I was interested to observe in some newspapers today that in reference to the overall question of migration there was a suggestion that current immigration levels may have to be cut dramatically in the 1990s if living standards are to rise and a community backlash is to be avoided. Similarly, they raised the question of the nature of our migration program. This year, our bicentennial year, tourism has increased and that has made a wonderful contribution to communities in all parts of Australia. They have benefited from that tourism. I hope that the growth rate continues. However, I recognise that 1988 has provided some particular attractions to tourists from all parts of the world to come to Australia. We should be realistic about the future. I hope that the level of tourism continues to rise, but I suspect that there will be a levelling out as a consequence of 1989 not having the special celebrations in Australia with a whole feast of attractions that have drawn people, like a magnet, to Australia from many parts of the world. Therefore, we face this processing of visitors and those who come to Australia as migrants. I agree with the idea expressed in the newspapers that we could have to ask ourselves what the migration level should be; therefore, what the level of work that the migrant element of entrants to Australia will provide through the facilities dealt with in this legislation will be. I want to use this opportunity to broaden out that issue and to say, as I have said before, that we need to determine a population strategy for Australia. If we wish to replace our population, I would prefer the replacement to come from those born in Australia. If we want to increase our population, those born here along with those who come as migrants to this country should form the basis of our increasing population. In other words, I advocate that more children rather than more migrants should be our objective. This is the way in which Australia should be replacing its population. Migration should be relied upon only to the extent that it is in the national interest to increase our population. Before we concern ourselves with population increase, we should decide how we want to achieve population replacement. We should set population objectives not only for next year but also for this and the next century. The serious problem of Australia's fertility rate was again highlighted in the release recently of the Births, Australia data for 1987. One measure of our population is the fertility rate. This tells us the number of children a thousand women would bear if they experienced the fertility rates of the year shown. A fertility rate of 2.1 is required for the population to replace itself. The annual average total fertility rate for the period 1966 to 1970 was 2.866. This was well above the total fertility rate of 2.1 necessary to replace a population. However, in 1987 the total fertility rate plummeted to 1.851, well below the replacement rate. This is evidence of a birth dearth which Australia is currently experiencing. There are no signs that that birth dearth is about to change. An alternative measure of population growth is the female net reproduction rate. This indicates the average number of daughters a woman will bear during her lifetime. A female reproduction rate of 1.1 ensures that women are replacing themselves. In 1971 the female net reproduction rate was 1.362, well above the replacement rate. However, in 1987 the female net reproduction rate of 0.883 indicates that there will be fewer women to bear children in the future. There are four factors which determine Australia's population. These are births, immigration, emigration and deaths. At a time when Australians are concerned as much about the number of people migrating to Australia as they are about who is migrating and what they can contribute, we should be paying far more attention to the causes of the dramatic decline in our birth rate. There are a number of causes for the birth dearth that Australia is experiencing. One of the causes is the hostile treatment of families by the taxation and social security systems of the present Government. The totally inadequate allowance made by these systems for those who maintain children denies many the choice of increasing their family size. Many young families would like another child but they feel they cannot afford it and cannot give an extra child a fair start in life. If young Australians were given the choice they would opt for larger families rather than an increase in the migration program. If young Australians could afford it many would choose to have three children rather than two, two children rather than one. Some call for increased migration to lower the average age of the population and, therefore, overcome some of the difficulties, so these advocates think, of an ageing population. The answer to an ageing population is not migration but a higher birth rate. Thirty thousand extra births in 1987-88 would have decreased the average age of Australia's population by the same amount as 143 migrants who came in or were expected to come in in 1987-88. The harsh impact of this Government's policies on family incomes is evidenced by the following figures: the family allowance has fallen by 36 per cent in real terms; the dependant spouse rebate for a family with children has fallen by 27 per cent in real terms; average home repayments are now more than $675 per month, a 93 per cent increase over the March 1983 figure. The costs of giving children a fair start in life are not adequately recognised either by the tax system or by the social security system. Many couples would, if given the choice, have more children. However, the present Government has taken this choice away by implementing policies which are unduly harsh on couples wanting to have another child. In my view the Labor Government's promised tax cuts should be directed towards families with children as a priority over tax cuts for all. The decline in Australia's fertility rate will continue unless family equity is restored to the tax system and the price of choosing to have more children is substantially reduced. This important issue lies behind the question of the need for facilities that are dealt with in this legislation. Dramatic figures are confronting many countries. West Germany, with a population of 60 million today, will, in the view of some experts, have a population of 50 million in the year 2000 if the present fertility rate continues. Again based on the current fertility rate, 100 years from then the population will have declined to 16 million. If that is happening, one can well ask what numbers of people and tourists from not merely West Germany but Western Europe will be visiting Australia in the year 2100. We may well say that this is not going to be a concern for us. I believe it is a concern for those who make policies today that will have an impact on the future destiny of this country. In conclusion, I want to emphasise what my colleague the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), has drawn to the attention of the House. I believe that we must take advantage of technological advance and speed up the processing of entrance to this country. We must make that simple by using the modern technology of the computer. But it is very important that we ensure that the systems that are in place have adequate security. It is very important that information which is stored in computer databanks in the migration area and which is linked with other areas, as must happen in order to monitor those who might attempt to come into this country illegally or bring in illegal imports, be available only to those who need to know and not to those who think they need to know. The Government is introducing legislation which is designed, it is argued, to achieve a sufficient level of security. I think this Parliament will have to monitor continuously the effectiveness of those security arrangements. In addition to having adequate security and access to information for only those with a need to know, it is terribly important that the systems that are in place are accurate. Much harm can be done to individual citizens if by accident, or worse still, by any malicious design on the part of someone with access to the computer entry database, inaccurate information about an individual is put onto the database. One is faced with a difficult dilemma. On the one hand we want to ensure that information is available only on a need to know basis. On the other hand, if information is to be accurate, how do we ensure that adequate checks are made? We are concerned here with information which is sometimes sensitive in regard to individuals and in regard to the security of Australia in terms of protecting it from illegal immigration and illegal imports. How can we be sure that the system is designed in a way that does not put any honest Australian at severe personal risk and disadvantage because for some reason or another inaccurate information has been put on the files and kept secretly because it was necessary that only a close group of individuals have access to it? When that hapless citizen comes into Australia or seeks to leave Australia as a tourist the information is brought up to the embarrassment, disadvantage and prejudice of the citizen. I reinforce what the shadow Minister has said about the importance of making sure that this legislation works effectively not only to achieve its objectives but also to protect Australian citizens from the misuse of information about them and to protect them from the disadvantage and prejudice that could arise consequential upon inaccurate information being recorded against their names. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(11.51) —Because of the lateness of the hour, I will not expand on the comments I would like to make. I am sure that will please not only you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but also the Minister Assisting the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, and both sides of the House. Nevertheless, this is an important debate and one should say at the outset that we are a very popular country. Many people want to come to Australia to live. Last year about 1.3 million people wanted to come here. We only had an immigration program for about 140,000 people. There are always many people who are very much left out in the cold. If they have relatives here, the relatives feel that they are being disadvantaged. The Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) relates to the new master plan of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. The plan is for the rapid processing of passengers. Passengers on international flights are well aware of the frustrations and delays caused by paperwork in entering foreign countries. These frustrations and delays are compounded in the case of prospective migrants to a country. Some members of this House, including me, have in the distant past experienced as a migrant some of these frustrations and delays. This Bill is aimed at eliminating the frustrations and delays by amending the Act to allow for entry to Australia using one document only in contrast to the present visa and entry permit. The first amendment will allow the holder of the visa that is in force to travel to this country and, upon entry at a proclaimed airport, enter in accordance with the conditions endorsed on the visa. After arrival at a proclaimed airport, the visa will now have the status of an entry permit. The visa can, however, be cancelled at any time prior to entry as can now be done under section 11b of the Migration Act. There is no doubt in my mind that by having the conditions of entry and length of stay specified on the visa, and the visa operating as an entry permit, processing time at the point of entry will be greatly reduced. This will help to overcome at least some of the frustrations to which I referred earlier. This proposal will not entirely eliminate the use of entry permit provisions because it is clear that these will still be amended for a number of reasons. For example, the new arrangements are only to operate at proclaimed airports which handle most of the migrant traffic. So they will still be used at those airports not so proclaimed. The second amendment will take account of persons who apply for change of status, from temporary entry to permanent entry. The third reason is that it will take account of the fact that not all persons travelling to and entering Australia will be holders of the visa in the new form. The second amendment is also welcomed. This allows for prospective migrants to be examined for immigration clearance before departure for Australia on certain designated flights. It is on this matter that I seek guidance from the Minister. Clause 6AA (6) states: The Minister may, by instrument in writing, declare a specified flight by an aircraft on a specified day between a specified foreign country and Australia to be a pre-cleared flight for the purposes of this section. Whilst there is a discretion-`the Minister may' not `the Minister shall'-I am wondering what problems could be caused if a Minister declared a flight to be a pre-cleared flight and that flight had engine trouble at the port of departure, causing passengers to be transferred immediately to another flight which has not been pre-cleared. Will there be a process by which the Minister can immediately revoke the instrument in writing and reissue a new instrument in writing? As I said, this is a small matter but it is worth examining. I note in this connection that if the pre-cleared flight lands at another country prior to arrival in Australia, the pre-clearance has no effect and passengers will be processed in the normal way. Other members in this debate have referred to the need for safeguarding the integrity of the electronic records and systems in the Department. I am sure that the Department has taken notice of the Gibbs Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law and will take appropriate measures to see that there are no abuses of the system. There are penalties attached and I feel that the wider community does require these penalties. Whilst they may be regarded as substantial by some people, I think those penalties are very much warranted in this instance. I do not wish to pursue the matter any further. I support the Bill before the House and welcome the fact that it is a positive measure. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(11.58) —in reply-A number of points made by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), dealt with his concerns about some of the provisions of the legislation, although he indicated that the Opposition was basically supporting the thrust of the legislation. Like anyone who knows anything about either immigration or the tourist industry, he would know that the objectives of this legislation are primarily to provide easier access for legitimate tourists coming here. The first consideration the honourable member raised was the question of checking visa decisions. I point out that the decision is checked on two occasions following its issue overseas. The first time it is checked is when the data arrives in Australia, and that is checked against the stop list. That stop list is drawn up after consultation with police forces in the country of origin, so that information is available. Secondly, it is checked when the passenger arrives at the airport. The migration visa can be cancelled at any time prior to the point of entry into Australia and up to exit out of the airport only after entry. The honourable member seemed to imply that if someone fraudulently managed to come in with a resident permit that could not be rectified. Mr Cadman —Under the current system. Mr HOLDING —Under the current system any person who obtains a visa by fraud or by misrepresentation can have his resident status nullified by the operation of section 16 of the Act. So a provision exists in the current Act which, on discovery of that kind of activity, provides for that person to face expulsion from Australia. The offences in the Migration Act relate to unauthorised tampering. There can be unauthorised tampering that is not necessarily associated with fraud or with intention to cause damage. But in considering the seriousness of this offence, one must also consider that tampering, in this sense, is covered not only by the provisions of the Migration Act and this legislation but also by the Crimes Act, which provides very serious penalties for tampering involving fraud with the intention of causing damage. The provisions in the Migration Amendment Bill do not purport to implement the Gibbs Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law. The recommendations of the Gibbs report are being considered at the moment by the Attorney-General's portfolio. The system is designed to facilitate entry into and exit out of major points of arrival for passengers from specified countries where there will be no interruption in the journey to Australia. Japan will be a major area where these provisions will operate. Frankly, they are directed at facilitating the movement of what are essentially tourists from Japan. If the honourable gentleman considers the provisions in the light of those comments he will see that the general approach has been thought through. Many of the concerns which were raised by him clearly have been considered by the Department and the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) in the preparation of this 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 Holding) read a third time. House adjourned at 12.03 a.m. (Friday) until Tuesday, 22 November, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following notices were given: Mr Scholes to move- That this House: (1) notes that the honourable member for Reid completed 30 years as a Member of the Australian Parliament on 22 November 1988; (2) notes that during his 30 years membership of the House of Representatives the honourable Member for Reid, who was a prisoner of war held by the Japanese in World War II, has served the Australian people well as a Minister in the Labor Governments of Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke and also as Deputy Leader of the Opposition; and (3) offers its congratulations to the honourable member. Mr Snowdon to move- That, while mindful of the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had owned and occupied Australia for thousands of years prior to the first British settlement at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788, and recognising that as a direct result of the occupation of Australia by non-Aboriginal people, Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders have been dispossessed of their land and have been denied many basic human, civil, political and economic rights, this House: (1) is committed to a process of reconciliation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia and to the recognition of their basic rights as articulated in the various United Nations covenants to which Australia is a signatory, including particularly the rights of self determination and self management; and (2) considers it appropriate that a treaty or compact is negotiated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in recognition of their rights as the prior owners of this country and of their dispossession and denial of basic human, civil, political and economic rights. Mr Beazley to 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 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: Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1988; International Arbitration Amendment Bill 1988; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1988; States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1988; Higher Education Funding Bill 1988; Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1988; Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1988; Overseas Students Charge (Collection Amendment) Bill 1988; Australian Sports Commission Bill 1988; Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1988; National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill 1988; Federal Airports Corporation Amendment Bill 1988; Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988; Copyright Amendment Bill 1988; Circuit Layouts Bill 1988; Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1988; Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 12) 1988; Sales Tax Bill (No. 12) 1988; Sales Tax Bill (No. 1A) 1988; Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988; Ozone Protection Bill 1988; Ozone Protection Bill (Licence Fees-Imports) 1988; Ozone Protection Bill (Licence Fees-Manufacture) 1988; Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1988; and Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1988; Mr Beazley to move- That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Speaker calling on questions without notice at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 23 November 1988. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 November 1988: Civil Aviation Act-Civil Aviation Orders-Parts- 105-Amendments, dated 24 October 1988. 106-Amendments, dated 24 October 1988. 107-Amendments, dated 24 October 1988. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1988-No. 18-Export Control (Animals) as amended (Amendment). Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981-Amendment made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1988-1 November 1988. International Finance Corporation Act 1963-9 November 1988. South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act 1986-Sections 8 to 35 (inclusive)-7 November 1988. Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 2) 1988-Part II, section 37, sections 39 to 53 (inclusive) and subsections 55 (15) to (25) (inclusive)-1 November 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 524) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) What are the (a) names and (b) addresses of all (i) pastoral (ii) agricultural and (iii) other real estate purchased for the use of Aboriginal people or individuals since 1970 in which the Commonwealth has had some financial involvement. (2) In each case referred to in part (i) what is the (a) total area of the property, (b) purchase price (c) Commonwealth contribution and (d) purpose for which the property was bought. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) has provided details of property acquisition funded by the Commission since its establishment in 1980. These details are provided in Table I hereunder. Some of the properties were transferred to the ADC by its predecessor, the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. In addition to the properties listed, from 1981/82 to 1986/87, the Commission has provided $201.2 million for the acquisition or construction of 3,498 dwellings which normally includes acquiring title to the land where a dwelling is constructed. Major renovations, repairs and maintenance are also included in this expenditure figure. The Commission also provided 2,488 home loans in the period 1980-81 to 1986-87 totalling $104.8 million. Aboriginal Hostels Limited has also provided details of properties acquired by the company. In each case, the property has been acquired to provide hostel-style accommodation for Aboriginal people. All property purchasers are fully funded by the Commonwealth. Table II hereunder refers. REGION: N.S.W. Table 1 PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO. 524) Name Address Area Purchase price Commonwealth contribution Purpose of purchase $ $ Balranald Balranald 834 km2 129,987 129,987 Social/Economic-Operates as Sheep/Cropping Enterprise Bridgeview House Windsor 1739 m2 80,000 80,000 Community Centre Bundjalung Alstonville 87 Ha 82,797 82,797 Social/Economic-Operates as Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre and Lychee Farm Cabbage Tree Island Properties Cabbage Tree Island, South of Ballina 163 Ha 272,605 272,605 Two Sugar Cane farms run in conjunction with Cabbage Tree Island. Held by Local Land Council Campbelltown/Tharawal Aboriginal Corporation Campbelltown 1.42 Ha 242,000 242,000 Social Centre (Multi-Purpose) Chippendale Chippendale 82m2 280,143 280,143 NSW Legal Service Office Collum Collum Station Baryulgil (between Grafton &Casino) 40.47 km2 250,511 250,511 Social/Economic-Operates as a Beef Cattle Enterprise Boomerang Housing and Advancement Condobolin 1679m2 64,623 64,623 Social Centre, and for Administration Penryn Coonamble 48.6 Ha 75,287 75,287 Social Centre, and has operated a Citrus Orchard Coraki Coraki, Box Ridge 8.9 Ha 12,002 12,002 Social &being considered as site for Plant Nursery Corolamo Island Corolamo Island 5.7 Ha 27,500 27,500 Social purposes; has been used for Market Gardening Dareton Property Dareton 22.84 Ha 131,424 131,424 Dried Fruit Block run in conjunction with another property, Thorpes Dubbo property Dubbo 560.4m2 92,500 92,500 Land upon which building built for Western Aboriginal Legal Service Jiggamy Property Pambula Lake, near Eden 61.50 Ha 93,658 93,658 Social use and used for some Market Gardening MacLean Property MacLean 4.0 Ha 34,267 34,267 For Housing, Community Hall and Playground Menindee Property Menindee 24.64 km2 108,700 108,700 Operates as a Horticultural Enterprise-Grapes and Melons Moonacullah Deniliquin 4.9 km2 500 500 Aboriginal Cemetery Area Mungindi Property Mungindi 21.5 km2 168,881 168,881 For the benefit of Mungindi Aboriginal Community-operated as rural enterprise Cotton, Pigs, Sheep Nardoola Farm Moree 35.5 km2 585,132 585,132 Land for Moree Community to operate tural enterprise New Angledool Goodooga 79.53 km2 113,258 113,258 Land for Goodooga Aboriginal Community many of whom had association with New Angledool. Operated as a sheep station Nowra Property Nowra 800m2 94,870 94,870 Office accommodation for South Coast Legal Service Old Burnt Bridge Kempsey 78.0 Ha 110,000 110,000 Purchased for social and economic purposes. Not presently used Penryn Peak Hill 1071 Ha 172,635 172,635 Wheat/Sheep Property. Operated by Community Purfleet Purfleet 0.31 Ha 2,000 2,000 A meeting Hall (former Church Building) used by Community Redfern Renwick Street 300,000 300,000 Economic and social development; Community radio, child care St Marys Property St Marys 1078m2 62,000 62,000 Office for District Aboriginal Legal Service Tom Thorpe's Fruit Block Dareton 12.96 Ha 147,793 147,793 Dried Fruit Block run in conjunction with Dareton Property Trelawney Farm Tamworth 749 Ha 601,300 601,300 Cropping and Livestock Property Wagga Wagga Property Wagga Wagga 1628m2 131,000 131,000 Social Facility for the Wiradjuri Regional Aboriginal Land Council. Includes Child Care and Office for Aboriginal Legal Service Walgett Property Walgett 3092m2 329,000 329,000 Oasis Hotel Warren Property Warren 14.2 Ha 12,513 12,513 Small rural block Wickham Property Newcastle 874m2 69,000 69,000 Awabakal Aboriginal Co-operative run a Child Care Centre Windsor Property Windsor 6.5 Ha 140,000 140,000 Non-commercial. Horticultural training and youth development programs Cummeragunga Barmah 398 Ha 65,000 65,000 Farm Adjacent to the Reserve purchased for use by the Community REGION: QUEENSLAND Bloomfield Property Bloomfield River 38.4 Ha 85,000 85,000 Social uses. Charleville Community Centre Charleville 898 m2 65,000 65,000 Community Centre/Offices. Daintree Property Daintree 1.76 km2 90,000 90,000 Social and Rural enterprise. Mackay Coloured Building Mackay 202 m2 205,385 205,385 Administration, Legal, Health. Mareeba Property Mareeba 33.8 Ha 85,000 85,000 Primarily for Horticultural purposes. Morr Morr Station Normanton 4002 km2 1,986,000 1,986,000 Social (Kurtjar People) and economic (operation of Morr Morr Pastoral Co). Mount Morgan Property Mount Morgan 503 m3 30,000 30,000 Social purposes. Jumbun Murray Upper 28.4 km2 210,047 210,047 Social and the operation of large banana plantation. Ngoonbi Farm Kuranda 34.4 Ha 86,000 86,000 Social and training. Murrie-Mura Property Brisbane 1365 m2 695,000 695,000 Building to be developed as offices for various organisation. ``Alma Vale'' Toowoomba 43.75 m2 575,000 575,000 Social facility, horse spelling. Redlynch Property Cairns 0.732 Ha 3,600 3,600 Social. Rockhampton Property Rockhampton 1199 m2 250,000 250,000 Social, Administration. Townsville Property Townsville 1012 m2 425,000 425,000 Social purposes. Trinity Beach Cairns 14.2 Ha 60,697 60,697 Various social and training purposes. Quilpie Property (Lauriston) Roma 434 Ha 185,000 185,000 Social and Economic. REGION: WESTERN AUSTRALIA Albany Property Albany 824m2 29,498 29,498 Social facility. Bow River Station East Kimberley 3023km2 450,000 200,000 Land base and cattle project for Juwulinypany Community Inc. Carson River Station East Kimberley 3202km2 595,000 595,000 Land base and cattle project for Kalumbaru Community Inc. Coonama Station Eastern Goldfields 1530km2 178,000 178,000 Land base for Upurl Upurlila Ngaratja Community (formerly located at Cundeelee). Killer herd. Coongan Station Port Hedland 1783km2 150,719 150,719 Operated by Strelley Group in conjunction with other leases (cattle). Land base. Dingo Strings Excision Kununurra 516km2 25,000 25,000 Land base for the Mirriwung people-Yardungal Aboriginal Corporation. Djidja Farm Kununurra 273 Ha 70,000 70,000 Irrigation farm but not operating. Doon Doon Station Kununurra 4279km2 190,512 190,512 Land base. Also operated as non-viable cattle project. Frazier Downs Station Broome 860km2 59,681 59,681 Additional traditional land for La Grange Community. Cattle project. Lake Gnangara Perth 64 Ha 201,620 201,620 Community Centre used for various purposes. Lake Gregory and Billiluna Stations Halls Creek 4592km2 275,778 275,778 Cattle projects and land bases for the traditional owners. Leonora Property Leonora 3040m2 12,124 12,124 Social. Presently used as social and administrative centre. Medina Property Medina (Perth) 4.05 Ha 65,350 65,350 Training facility for alcohol rehabilitation employment. Mount Anderson Station Broome 941km2 339,300 339,300 Cattle project operated on traditional land. Morrells Farm Broome 1.5km2 40,965 40,965 Social. Did operate as a nursery. Noonkanbah and Milliejiddie Stations Fitzroy Crossing 4728km2 340,544 340,544 Traditional land for two communities. Cattle projects operating. Pandanus Park Broome 87,2 Ha 23,000 23,000 Social (Housing) and operation of mango farm (and other crops). Walgunya Station Mount Newman (Jigalong) 1744km2 42,281 42,281 Traditional land adjacent to Jigalong. Small herd of cattle (local use). Robertson Range (Purchased by DAA) 240km2 50,000 50,000 Traditional land adjacent to Jigalong. Small herd of cattle (local use). Pantinjan Station Broome 1744km2 14,500 14,500 Traditional land base. Wild cattle harvested. Mount Welcome Station Roebourne 1771km2 261,500 261,500 Sheep station operated by local community. Pippingarra Station Port Hedland 720km2 140,000 140,000 Small property run in conjunction with cattle project on Yandeyarra Reserve. Peedamulla Station Onslow 2245km2 250,000 250,000 Traditional land base and operation of a sheep/cattle project. Desert Farms Wiluna 852 Ha Land and Enterprise for resident community (Ngangganawili)-operating a citrus orchard and emu farm. Mount Barnett Derby 1253km2 585,000 585,000 Cattle station and tourist leases. Also traditional land base. Koongie Park/Elvire Halls Creek 1032km2 198,000 198,000 Small cattle leases on traditional land. REGION: NORTHERN TERRITORY (CENTRAL) Chilla Well Station Alice Springs (West) 2991 km2 26,073 26,073 Social; Land base. Mount Allan Station Alice Springs (North West) 7359 km2 200,068 200,068 Land base and continued operation of cattle enterprise. Ti Tree Station Alice Springs (North) 3587 km2 214,442 214,442 Land base and continued operation of cattle enterprise. Utopia Station Alice Springs (North East) 1598 km2 156,861 156,861 Land base for numerous traditional owners. Willowra Station Alice Springs (North) 4,885 km;ks 316,000 316,000 Land base. Social purposes and pastoral operations. Amburla Excision Alice Springs Region 1.6 km2 22,000 22,000 Excision-Social purposes. Bath and Hartley Streets Alice Springs 1.02 Ha 1,288,750 1,288,750 Site of Shopping Centre. Bazzo's Farm Alice Springs 0.734 Ha 7,838 7,838 Social use and housing Mount Ebenezer Excision Alice Springs (South West) 20 km2 24,302 24,302 Excision. Mt. Skinner Alice Springs 207 km2 32,969 32,969 Excision (adjacent to Utopia). Narwietooma Excision Alice Springs 2.59 km2 13,000 13,000 Excision (living purposes) Kenmore Park Station South Australia 7368 km2 458,996 458,996 Land base and pastoral operations-part of Pitjantjatjara Lands. Mimili Station South Australia 4535 km2 399,251 399,251 Land base and pastoral operations Tangentyere Council Inc. Alice Springs 0.909 Ha 322,744 322,744 Social/Administrative. Todd Street Alice Springs 1232 m2 232,000 232,000 Shop operated by Aboriginal Arts Australia. Kurlamburlpa Tennant Creek 40 km2 4,000 4,000 Economic. Amanbidji Station SW of Darwin 2831 km2 829,000 829,000 Land base and operation of cattle enterprise. Kalano Farm Katherine 68 Ha 80,000 80,000 Social facility used for health, training, administration and horticulture. ADP Building Darwin 2.57 Ha 343,165 343,165 Social/Administration. Kybrook Farm Pine Creek 97.1 Ha 15,000 15,000 Agricultural/Community use. Tara Orchard Darwin 64.8 Ha 27,500 27,500 Mango Orchard operated by an ADC borrower. Robinson River Station Borroloola 5196 km2 670,000 670,000 Traditional land of Garuwa people. Cattle also grazed. 15 Mile Camp Palmerston, Via Darwin 8.0 Ha 35,000 35,000 Town Campers. Dagaragu Wave Hill 3072 km2 262,987 262,987 Traditional land base and cattle operation. Pine Creek Pine Creek 6190 m2 10,000 10,000 Social: Town Camp. REGION: S.E.A. Swan Hill Chapman Street, Swan Hill, Vic. 838 m2 10,000 10,000 Shop Swan Hill Livingstone Court, Swan Hill, Vic. 715 m2 18,500 18,500 Housing Valley Halfway House Shepparton, Vic. 0.4 Ha 70,000 70,000 Rehabilitation Centre Rio Park Tolamba, Vic. 4.5 Ha 185,000 86,650 Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Ninja Ulupna St Kilda, Vic. 929 m2 89,000 89,000 Alcohol Rehabilitation Lake Condah Lake Condah, Vic. 1347 m2 135,000 135,000 For construction of Units Walthaurong Aboriginal Co-op. Norlane, Vic. 196 m2 50,000 50,000 Administration/Community Centre New Norfolk Lindenow South, Vic. 14.8 Ha 58,000 58,000 Foster Parents Home Alrm Building King William St, Adelaide, SA 200 m2 355,000 302,764 Head Office of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Mount Searle Station Nepabunna, SA 505 km2 550,000 550,000 Economic/Social. Sheep project on traditional land Bartletts Farm Point McLeay, SA 902 Ha 292,390 292,390 Additional farming land for Point McLeay Reserve Trefoil Island Trefoil Island, Tasmania 1.03 km2 199,654 199,654 Economic/Social; A mutton bird project Baroona Farm Echuca, Vic. 128 Ha 194,815 194,815 Social/Economic. A small cattle herd Bartsch's Farm Gerard Reserve 1265 Ha 40,000 40,000 Additional land for Reserve Area Bells Farm Port Augusta, SA 30.0 Ha 38,500 38,500 Alcohol Rehabilitation Oodnadatta, ANR Property Oodnadatta 77.2 Ha 12,215 12,215 Housing and Tourist Facility Transcontinental Hotel Oodnadatta 3035 m2 100,000 100,000 Economic/Social (Control of Liquor Outlet) Oodnadatta Store Oodnadatta 4047 m2 68,000 68,000 Economic/Social A.C.A.P. Inc. Port Augusta 870 m2 480,000 480,000 Economic Venture. Shop rental Chalmers Street Hall Launceston, Tas. 756 m2 122,567 122,567 Community Centre/Social Support Warwick House Hobart, Tas. 1295 m2 185,000 185,000 Community Centre/Social Support Cape Barren Island Cape Barren Is. 19.8 Ha 3,110 3,110 Market Garden Lindsay Street Building Launceston, Tas. 0.1 Ha 31,025 31,025 Child care facility Port Lincoln Port Lincoln 0.21 Ha 55,000 55,000 Sold in 1984/85 TABLE 2 Hostel Address Area Cost $ Beemidaar ... 52 Olivia Terrace Carnarvon 1170m2 20,205.52 Nollamarra ... 50 Tarcoola Street Nollamarra 1073m2 73,000.00 Allawah Grove ... 133 Great Eastern Highway Guildford 4000m2 103,000.00 Trilby Cooper ... 12-14 Hannan Street Kalgoorlie 4025m2 28,075.00 Galawu ... 10 Finnis Street Darwin 50.10 perches 145,000.00 Silas Roberts ... 21 Packard Street Darwin 1 Rod 6 1/2 perches 340,000.00 Corroboree ... Kilpatrick Street Katherine 1 1/4 Acre 493,000.00 Nhulunbuy ... Gove 4810m2 291,025.00 Daisy Yarmirr ... 37 Glencoe Crescent Tiwi 3000m2 Transferred Kuiyam ... 162 Grafton Street Cairns 1/2 Acre 390,000.00 Iris Clay ... 261-269 Sturt Street Townsville 1 1/4 Acre 81,000.00 Kabalulumana ... 39 Pamela Street Mt Isa 1012m2 76,000.00 Junula Dubbins ... Victoria Parade Thursday Island 1998.15m2 54,000.00 Cathedral ... Cnr Pearl &Tully Sts Thursday Island 2023m2 145,150.00 Joe McGinness ... 234 Spence Street Cairns 2029m2 79,000.00 Camooweal Village ... Kennedy Street Camooweal 9588m2 1,300.00 Yumba - Lot 1A - Lot 1 55 Grey Road Hill End 4001- 2 Rods 4009-24 perches Celia Smith - Lot 2A - Lot 2B - Lot 2C 4010-48 perches 4011-16 perches 4012-16 perches 298,000.00 Jane Arnold ... 155 Moray Street New Farm 1215.4m2 215,000.00 Elley Bennett ... 501 Brunswick Street New Farm 916.8m2 235,000.00 Kath Walker ... 41 Marine Parade Redcliffe 852m2 78,000.00 Jodaro ... 45 Enoggera Road Newmarket 1168m2 364,000.00 Neville Bonner ... 5 Bridge Street North Rockhampton 2 Acres, 1 Rod, 29.1 perches 230,000.00 Woongarra ... 11 Reaney Street North Rockhampton 1012m2 58,000.00 Jim Hagen ... 110 Mary Street Toowoomba 1659.2m2 61,750.00 Musgrave Park ... Cnr Boundry &Bayes Streets West End 838m2 136,551.60 Mark Ella ... 18 Hewlett Street Granville 1500m2 122,575.65 Cobra Street ... 25 Cobra Street Dubbo 1688m2 56,000.00 Warrina ... 121 Cobra Street Dubbo 1592m2 60,000.00 Brewongle ... 17 Daniel Street Granville 840m2 39,000.00 Chicka Dixon ... 90 Liverpool Road Enfield 1119m2 65,000.00 NASH ... 2 Greenbah Road Moree 25 Acres 112,590.00 Careers-in-Dance ... 43 Liverpool Road Enfield 1940m2 60,000.00 Illawarra ... 92 Curry Street Mereweather 2 Rods 36 1/2 acres 75,000.00 Shirley Smith ... Kensington Road Summer Hill 1500m2 117,642.78 Doug Scott ... 37 Theodore Street Curtin 29 1/2 perches 72,000.00 Bennelongs Haven ... 321 Livingston Road Marrickville 842.86m2 53,000.00 Tony Mundine ... 203 Catherine Street Leichhardt 983m2 160,000.00 Val Bryant ... 21 Grantham Street, Burwood 812.5m2 Transferred Wandendi ... 124 Ben Boyd Road, Neutral Bay 1500m2 Transferred Military Road ... 117 Military Road, Lismore 1000m2 58,296.00 Orana Haven ... Brewarrina 5 Acres Transferred William T. Onus ... 75 Westgarth Street, Northcote 1650m2 55,000.00 Lionel Rose Centre ... Buckley Street, Morwell 4552m2 Transferred R. Roy Harrison ... 12 King George Pde, Dandenong 1577m2 Transferred Meerindoo ... 10 Day Street, Bairnsdale 1303m2 Transferred Harold Blair ... 3 Williams Street, Greensborough 5611 sq yds 59,500.00 Harry Nanya ... 362 Deakin Avenue, Mildura 1300m2 167,865.73 George Wright ... 66 George Street, Fitzroy 304m2 195,707.13 Allan Bell ... 221 Henley Beach Road, Torrensville 3117.50m2 66,835.00 Luprina ... 2 Clements Street, Dudley Park 3800m2 180,000.00 Mulgunya ... 307 South Terrace, Adelaide 517m2 63,000.00 Karinga ... 430 Payneham Road, Glynde 15,000 sq ft 72,000.00 Ngurrampaa ... 359-361 Bromide St, Broken Hill 2009m2 Transferred Yari Miller ... 71 McKenzie Street, Ceduna 2000m2 Transferred Lois O'Donoghue ... 1 Johnson Street, Port Augusta 2591m2 31,000.00 Gladys Elphick ... 39 Second Avenue, Klemzig 2931m2 169,357.00 Topsy Smith ... 18 Renner Street 1160m2 69,800.00 Meuller Street ... 13 Meuller Street, Alice Springs 1500m2 32,000.00 Ayiparinya ... Lot 3682, Larapinta Drive, Alice Springs 1 Acre, 3 Rods, 35 Perches 285,000.00 Sid Ross ... 15 Gap Road, Alice Springs 2094.71m2 39,600.00 Hetti Perkins Home ... 24 Warburton Street, Alice Springs 3630m2 3,144.50 Tennant Creek ... Tennant Creek 3850m2 Transferred (Question No. 1009) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: (1) How many times have the cost of abortions been claimed in (a) each year and (b) total from Medibank and Medicare since their inception. (2) What was the cost of those claims (a) each year and (b) in total. (3) What was the average cost each year of the claims. (4) What percentage of the total cost did the Government health schemes pay each year. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) The items included in the Schedule to the Health Insurance Act which may result in the termination of pregnancy appear in the Medicare Benefits Schedule as follows: Item 274(G)/275(S)-Induction and management of second trimester labour and, Item 6469-Evacuation of the contents of the Gravid Uterus by curettage or suction curettage not covered by item 6460/6464. While items 274/275 were introduced on 1 October 1976 and item 6469 was introduced on 1 April 1975, it is only possible to make available utilisation data for the period 1979-80 to 1987-88. Although my Department still holds data tapes, comprising records of individual medical services processed by the Health Insurance Commission for the period from July 1975 to October 1978, there is no such information available for benefits paid by health funds during the period October 1976 to October 1978, when individuals had the option of paying the levy or insuring privately. Further, there has been insufficient demand in recent years to justify the cost of maintaining the data files and computer programs required to access them. Data for claims processed in the period 1979-80 to 1987-88 are attached. Financial year Number of services Total Commonwealth Benefits paid(a) Total fees charged(b) Average fee charged per service Cost paid by Commonwealth (a)/(b) $ $ $ % Items 274/275- 1979-80 ... 442 32,696 42,731 96.68 76.52 1980-81 ... 449 38,817 48,678 108.41 79.74 1981-82 ... 632 33,563 74,544 117.95 45.02 1982-83 ... 641 25,714 85,571 133.50 30.05 1983-84 ... 615 39,707 86,309 140.34 46.01 1984-85 ... 579 79,384 89,446 154.48 88.75 1985-86 ... 604 88,473 98,999 163.91 89.37 1986-87 ... 558 79,796 96,283 172.55 82.88 1987-88 ... 674 85,025 122,248 181.38 69.55 Item 6469- 1979-80 ... 41,391 2,323,099 2,923,034 70.62 79.48 1980-81 ... 44,308 2,836,820 3,410,487 76.97 83.18 1981-82 ... 43,309 2,146,809 3,745,946 86.49 57.31 1982-83 ... 38,880 1,919,829 3,716,353 95.59 51.66 1983-84 ... 48,355 3,421,194 4,928,025 101.91 69.42 1984-85 ... 55,441 5,839,937 6,217,244 112.14 93.93 1985-86 ... 57,106 6,261,718 6,605,464 115.67 94.80 1986-87 ... 61,215 6,433,962 7,021,533 114.70 91.63 1987-88 ... 61,205 6,305,088 7,166,922 117.10 87.97 Total- 1979-80 ... 41,833 2,355,795 2,965,765 70.90 79.43 1980-81 ... 44,757 2,875,637 3,459,165 77.29 83.13 1981-82 ... 43,941 2,180,372 3,820,490 86.95 57.07 1982-83 ... 39,521 1,945,543 3,801,924 96.20 51.17 1983-84 ... 48,970 3,460,901 5,014,334 102.40 69.02 1984-85 ... 56,020 5,919,321 6,306,690 112.58 93.86 1985-86 ... 57,710 6,350,191 6,704,463 116.18 94.72 1986-87 ... 61,773 5,513,758 7,117,816 115.23 91.51 1987-88 ... 61,879 6,390,113 7,289,170 117.80 87.67 1979-80 to 1987-88 ... 456,404 37,991,631 46,479,817 101.84 81.74 (Question No. 1132) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review on 8 August 1988 which has raised doubts about the status of contracts held by Denison Mines of Canada for its Koongarra Uranium deposit. (2) Did he see the contracts in April 1988; if not, when did he first see the contracts. (3) is he able to say whether other Ministers have seen the contracts; if so, which Ministers have done so. (4) Is it a fact that Denison Mines claimed they had firm contracts and could choose between $1.76 billion of export income for Australia or meet their supply commitments for their Canadian mines. (5) Did he express reservations about the legitimacy of the contracts to the President of Denison Mines, Mr J. Fowler, at a meeting in April 1988; if so, what was the nature of his reservations. (6) Is he able to say whether other Ministers have expressed reservations about the contracts; if so which Ministers have done so and what are the details of their reservations. (7) Did Mr Fowler state in a letter to him in May 1988 that Denison's new contracts ensure the sale of the total production from Koongarra over a 10 year period. (8) Is it a fact that in his response to Mr Fowler's letter he stated his belief that the new contracts were a photocopy of an agreement to supply uranium from 1984 to Japanese firms. (9) Does the agreement referred to in his letter relate to an existing Denison contract; if so, is it tied to production from one of Denison's Canadian mines and not applicable to Koongarra. (10) In view of the fact that the existence of new contracts worth $1.76 billion were used as a basis for a campaign to change the ALP policy to allow new mines, will he make a public statement on the status of the contracts; if not, why not. (11) Does he still stand by his position paper issued in April 1988 which states that there is no overwhelming economic justification for changing the 3 named mines policy of the Government; if not, why not. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) A document purporting to be a Denison contract to supply uranium to a Japanese utility was fleetingly shown to me at a meeting with Mr J. D. Fowler on 19 April 1988. I have stated on a number of occasions that I was unsure of the status of the document I was shown. I have advised the company of my views on this matter. (3) No. (4) I am aware of reports that Denison Mines has made such claims. (5) See answer to (2) above. (6) No. (7) Denison Mines' letter to me of 26 May 1988 was tabled in Parliament on 2 June 1988 so that the matter to which the honourable member is referring is now well known. (8) Yes. (9) See answer to (2) above. (10) See answer to (2) above. (11) The honourable member will be aware that a Review Committee has been established by the National Conference of the ALP to review its uranium policy. The terms of reference of the Committee cover all aspects of the policy including the three named mines policy. The honourable member has accurately described my views on the matter of immediate expansion of the policy. (Question No. 1207) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: In the context of the World Bank review of the valuation of its capital and the issue of the voting power of small member countries, does Australia, as a neighbour of the small Pacific Island countries, support the provision of special shares which will protect the voting power of those countries. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In discussions leading to the recent general capital increase of the World Bank, the Executive Directors noted that voting power in the Bank should reflect, to the maximum extent possible, members' subscriptions to the Bank's capital. The Executive Directors also recognise that dilution of the voting power of small members caused by a general increase in the Bank's capital was an issue requiring further consideration. Australia recognises the problems of smaller members of the World Bank, particularly of the small Pacific Island countries and shares their concern about possible losses of voting power. The constituency system of representation in the Bank Board of Directors is a major way in which the smaller or poorer member countries can join with larger or more developed members and have an input to, and influence on, Bank policy at the Board level. Within its constituency Australia has taken a genuine and particular interest in the problems of its Pacific Island member countries and in the problems of the Pacific Island countries in general. Australia proposed a special additional quota increase for smaller countries, including the small Pacific Island countries, at the time of the Eighth Review of IFM Quotas, in recognition of the fact that quotas based on their small economic size provided inadequate access to the resources of the International Monetary Fund. This point was reflected in the results of that quota review. Australia supports similar treatment for smaller member countries under the current Ninth Review of IMF Quotas. (Question No. 1238) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 October 1988: Does the miscellaneous sum of $177.2 million listed as estimated receipts in 1988-89, shown in Table 4 of Budget Paper No. 2, include the proceeds from the anticipated sale of defence assets; if so, which assets are involved and what are their budgeted sale values. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The $177.2m estimate of miscellaneous receipts in 1988-89, shown in Table 4 of Budget Paper No. 2, includes sale of larger items of warlike stores, principally Mirage aircraft and Centurion tanks, and it is estimated that proceeds in 1988-89 will total some $43m. (2) The sale of Defence property and other surplus/obsolete etc. assets do not form part of that sum. They are included under the Department of Administrative Services in Table 2 of Budget Paper No. 2, in the categories of Australian property real assets and surplus assets. The amounts concerned are $25.844m and $26.502m respectively. The former comprises estimated proceeds in 1988-89 from the disposal of: Australian Government Aircraft Plant, Bankstown, N.S.W. Schofields Aerodrome, N.S.W. Stores Depot, South Kensington, Vic. 21.800m ``Majella'' property, Melbourne, Vic. 17 minor properties 4.044m 25.844m The $26.502m covers on-going processes of disposal of such items as used vehicles, plant and machinery, C130A spare parts and other similar material. (3) It would not be in the Commonwealth's interest, at this stage, to make public details of the estimated sale values for individual items. (Question No. 1271) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 October 1988: (1) What sum did the Minister's Department outlay in 1987-88 for (a) radio advertising, (b) television advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) public relations and (e) the publication and distribution of journals and magazines. (2) What is the projected expenditure for each of those categories in 1988-89. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $614,498, (b) $65,000, (c) $1,497,302, (d) $2,615,184, (e) $32,307. (2) (a) $850,000, (b) $750,000, (c) $2,421,000, (d) $4,127,156, (e) $40,844. In relation to items 1 (d) and 2 (d) above, the expenditure for ``public relations'' refers to all outlays by the Department for publicity and information initiatives under its National Information Program, other than advertising and publication and distribution of journals and magazines. The increase in expenditure in 1988-89 is associated with major initiatives announced in the Budget. These are the Jobs, Education and Training (JET) program ($1,500,000), the New-Start program ($630,000), the Child Support Scheme ($1,085,000) and the Family Allowance Supplement scheme ($700,000).