Wednesday, 23 November 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —On behalf of the Committee of Members' Interests I present the Committee's report relating to the need for oral declarations of interests by members. Ordered that the report be printed. Dr KLUGMAN —by leave-Madam Speaker, the report which I have just tabled recommends an amendment to those resolutions of the House which require the registration and declaration of members' interests. Under the standing resolutions adopted by the House on 9 October 1984 there are two distinct requirements imposed upon members. The first requirement is for members to provide written statements of interests within 28 days of making an oath or affirmation as a member and to notify any alteration of those interests within 28 days of the alteration occurring. The second requirement is for members to declare orally any relevant interest if they should participate in debate or proceedings in the House or a committee. It is this second requirement which the Committee has recommended should be deleted or, alternatively, substantially amended. The requirement for oral declarations of interests is contained in resolution 4. The wording of the relevant part of the resolution is as follows: That, notwithstanding the lodgment by a Member of a statement of the Members' registrable interests and the registrable interests of which the Member is aware (1) of the Member's spouse and (2) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, and the incorporation of that statement in a Register of Members' Interests, a Member shall declare any relevant interest- (a) at the beginning of his or her speech if the Member should participate in debate in the House, committee of the whole House, or a committee of the House (or of the House and the Senate), and (b) as soon as practicable after a division is called for in the House, committee of whole House, or a committee of the House (or of the House and the Senate) if the Member proposes to vote in that division . . . The only exception provided to the requirement is that it shall not be necessary for a member to declare an interest when directing a question seeking information in accordance with standing orders 142 or 143. The Committee received legal advice that the term `relevant interest' used in the resolution should be read as `registrable interest'. This means that, in addition to having to provide written statements of a whole range of interests covering such diverse matters as shareholdings in a company, ownership of real estate, disclosure of assets or liabilities and even being a member or patron of a local community or sporting organisation, members are required to remember to make oral declarations of those interests if they participate in debate or proceedings in the House or a committee. The effect of the requirement is that it would be necessary, for example, for a member to have to remember to declare orally the fact that he, his or her spouse or dependent child was a member or patron of a local community organisation if any matter remotely relating to the aims of that organisation were to be considered in the House or in committee. This is a quite ridiculous situation which, the Committee believes, goes way beyond what was intended by the House when the requirements were adopted. The written statements of interests provided by members are included in a publicly available register. In addition, copies of the statements are tabled in the House. Any oral declaration is effectively a duplication of this publicly available information. Failure to make oral declarations of interests could be considered by the House to be a contempt. However, the Committee believes that there may well have been occasions both in the House or in a committee when members have unwittingly failed to make such declarations. It believes that this additional requirement is unnecessary and confusing and places a burden upon members which can be overlooked and which serves no real purpose. The Committee recommends that the requirement for oral declarations of interests should be abolished. This could be achieved simply by deleting resolution (4) of the requirements. Alternatively, if the House is unwilling to abolish the requirement completely, the Committee recommends that resolution (4) be amended to require an oral declaration to be made only when a member, his or her spouse or dependent children hold a pecuniary interest which could conceivably bring the member into a potential conflict of interest situation in proceedings in the House or in committee. This is a matter which the Committee believes requires prompt correction. Accordingly, it requests urgent consideration of the matter by the House in the belief that any new requirement should be effective from the first sitting day in 1989. Bill presented by Mr Humphreys, for Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill's genesis is a request from the South Australian Government that the National Crime Authority Act 1984 be amended to enable the appointment of additional members to the National Crime Authority for specific investigations. The South Australian Government has indicated that such an amendment would allow the appointment of an additional member to undertake a proposed South Australian reference to the National Crime Authority in relation to allegations of criminal activity and corruption in South Australia. Further, the South Australian Government has formally agreed to fund the establishment of a National Crime Authority office in that State. The National Crime Authority is a highly skilled body working in the most complex areas of organised crime. It is a relatively small body which has demonstrated an ability to investigate across the broad spectrum of criminal activity. The Authority was established, in part, as a viable alternative to the then growing proliferation of royal commission-type inquiries which were undertaking investigations into a variety of subjects, and in particular various aspects of organised criminal activity. The Authority's independence, coercive powers, knowledge and expertise in the fight against organised crime together with its focus on the gathering of admissible evidence make it the best alternative to deal with allegations of criminal activity and corruption of the kind being made in South Australia. The South Australian Government has already had the benefit of a report from the National Crime Authority on certain South Australian investigations during 1986 and 1987 so that the Authority has a knowledge of the South Australian criminal environment. The Inter-Governmental Committee has considered this Bill and supports the Commonwealth introduction of this Bill. The Inter-Governmental Committee will consider approving a South Australian reference pursuant to section 14 of the National Crime Authority Act on 24 November 1988. It is against this background that this Bill amends the National Crime Authority Act to allow the Inter-Governmental Committee, which consists of the Commonwealth Minister and a Minister from each participating State, to create additional offices of member of the National Crime Authority in relation to a specific Commonwealth or State reference. These additional offices can only be created where a reference to the Authority has been made and the Inter-Governmental Committee, having regard to that reference and any related references, thinks that the appointment of an additional member of the Authority is necessary to enable the Authority to perform its functions. For example, where the Inter-Governmental Committee concludes that a reference requires that the member undertaking it have special skills or expertise or that the Chairman's and two members' resources are fully utilised, then it can create an additional office of member to conduct that reference. These amendments will provide the Inter-Governmental Committee with the power to increase the number of members of the Authority to enable the Authority to deal with additional matters warranting referral to the Authority without impeding the Authority's current activities. The Bill provides that the additional member will be appointed to undertake a particular reference and any related references nominated by the relevant Commonwealth or State Minister. For example, where an additional member is appointed to undertake a South Australian reference and the criminals involved in South Australia also operate or have connections in Victoria, the Victorian Minister may state that a resultant Victorian reference is related to the South Australian reference. The additional member would then undertake both the South Australian reference and the related Victorian reference. It will be the function of the Inter-Governmental Committee to recommend unanimously a person for appointment to an additional office of member and any advice to the Governor-General with respect to the appointment is required to be consistent with the recommendation under proposed new subsection 7 (8AB). An underlying premise of the Bill is that the facility to appoint additional members will be used for dealing with additional Commonwealth or State references and will allow the number of members of the Authority to fluctuate in response to the number, nature and status of the references made to it. The powers and functions of the additional member are limited to the original reference or any related references. The Bill provides that an additional member ceases to hold office upon the withdrawal of the original reference in relation to that member or the completion of the original reference or any related references. I commend the Bill to the House. Explanatory notes will be circulated. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Debate resumed from 22 November, on motion by Mr Punch: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.12) —The Australian Sports Commission Bill 1988 establishes the Australian Sports Commission as a statutory corporation with responsibilities for coordinating the national sporting effort at all levels and assisting elite athletes. The establishment of the Commission will merge the functions and administrations of the Australian Institute of Sport and the current Australian Sports Commission and some functions of the Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. The establishment of the Commission will remove the existing overlap in responsibilities for sport that has arisen. The Institute of Sport and the present Australian Sports Commission were set up separately to fulfil separate functions at that time. It has now been thought better to bring them together under one statutory corporation. The Bill will focus responsibility on the Commission for sports development at all levels. The Institute of Sport will retain an identity within the Commission, remaining responsible for the development of elite athletes and other existing programs within the current Commission, such as Aussie Sports and sports development, drugs and sports, sports talent development programs and the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, and will continue many of those programs, of course, developed under the former Minister, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), who is in the chamber at present. I think Australian sports should congratulate him on the wonderful work he did for sport over so many years. Mr Humphreys —A great sportsman. Mr CHARLES —He is a great sportsman and he was a great Minister. The objects of the Commission are listed in clause 6 of the Bill and include providing leadership in sports development, encouraging participation in sport, assisting elite athletes, improving coaching standards-which is very important in Australia across the whole range of sports-fostering international sporting cooperation, and encouraging private sector funding. The latter, of course, is important as we develop our links with the private sector to encourage it to enter into many sponsorship deals for sports, not only the big name sports but other sports. Of course, that will include the Olympic Games if Australia is successful in two years' time. The functions of the Commission are listed in clause 7. They include advising the Minister, undertaking research and development in relation to sport, including sports science and medicine, another very important area. I have some very good friends in the sports medicine area, two excellent physios whom I know well, Ross Smith and Mary Toomey in Melbourne, who are connected with the Olympic movement. Ross was one of the physios who attended the Olympic Games and Mary is connected with the ladies hockey team. Although she did not attend the Olympic Games, she has been with the team through many programs. Of course, that team was successful in winning a gold medal at the recent Seoul Olympics. The Commission manages its facilities and acts as an advisory body raising money through the Australian Sports Foundation and other bodies set up by the former Minister. It assists other bodies, including State and Territory organisations and the Australian Olympic Federation. As the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) said last night, to hold the Olympic Games in Melbourne would bring benefits. I support the member for Gilmore when he referred to the lack of policy by the Democrats on the Olympic Games. I suppose we should expect no more from the Democrats when they say that they will support the bid by Athens for the 1996 Olympics. That comment is easily put down by quoting remarks made on several occasions by the President of the Australian Olympic Federation, Mr Kevan Gosper, who has said on many occasions in the past couple of weeks that 1996 will be the centenary not of the Greek Games but of the Olympic Games. If Athens is unable to put together a submission that is worthy of the Olympic movement, it is most likely that the 1996 Olympics will not be held there; if it can put together a good submission, obviously its bid will be favoured. However, I think Australia has an excellent chance and will probably be favoured if Athens is unable to put together a successful bid. The Olympic Federation of Australia recently selected Melbourne from three excellent Australian bids and I am quite sure, as Mr Gosper has said, that any of the three cities that nominated-Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne-could have held the Olympic Games, albeit a little differently in each city, reflecting their different characters. I believe that Melbourne won the bid for a number of reasons, one being that at present already half the facilities are available and there has been a separate announcement in connection with the Victorian Football League and cricket authorities that $100m will be spent on upgrading the Melbourne Cricket Ground to make it into probably the world's finest stadium with seating for 110,000 people. That is a separate issue altogether from the Olympic Games. I believe that there will be a proposal for work additional to the $100m to be spent now if Australia is successful in Tokyo in 1990, where a decision will be made on the venue for the 1996 Olympic Games. Under this Bill, the Australian Sports Commission will have a lot to do with the Olympic Games if the Australian bid is successful and in the time running up to that the coordination of many programs for different sportsmen will be an integral part of the Commission's work, in conjunction with Federal and State governments of the day and the city of Melbourne in order to put together a successful submission. If we are successful, there will be great benefit not only to Melbourne and the Australian sporting world but also to the Australian economy, particularly on the east coast, because I envisage a number of packages being sold. One could incorporate a week in Melbourne for the Games, a visit to Sydney for four or five days, a few days in Brisbane and then the return trip home, in all two weeks to 2 1/2 weeks. The east coast will see massive development if Australia gets the 1996 Olympic Games. Many people have forgotten that, if Melbourne wins the bid, a number of infrastructure improvements will be required not only in Melbourne but also in Sydney and Brisbane, particularly in terms of accommodation, because I suspect that many of the 300,000 or 400,000 people who are expected to come to Australia will visit those cities as they travel up and down the east coast. The injection of billions of dollars into the Australian economy right across the country will be of great benefit for many decades. Whilst the Melbourne committee, as did the other committees, brought forward proposals with varying degrees of profitability, that is beside the point. The Melbourne committee's bid has a profitability of slightly in excess of $80m but it would not matter if it broke square or finished a fraction in the red because one would never, in effect, finish in the red as massive amounts of money would come into the economy because of the invisibles through tourism and infrastructure development, and it would go on and on for the next decade at least. It would be absolutely astronomical and would amount to billions of dollars. It is a project that Australia and all Australians will get behind because we can not only win the bid for 1996 but do a very good job for Australia and the Olympic movement. The Bill to establish the Australian Sports Commission as a statutory corporation sets up the Commission to assist in the many sides of sporting administration today and the many fields that we have in sports science, coaching and other areas. It is a very big and growing industry. I use that word industry deliberately-sporting administration and sport in general. I am quite sure that, under certain guidance, we can quite happily abide by the rules that we have laid down and that the former Minister, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), laid down, particularly in relation to drugs. We can have a thriving sporting industry that will not only benefit sportsmen and elite athletes but the whole of the community and the health of the community. I commend the Bill to the House and I am sure it will see a quick passage through both Houses of this Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for the Arts and Territories)(10.23) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 54, page 19, line 4, omit ``or''. (2) Clause 54, page 19, line 5, omit paragraph (c), insert the following paragraphs: ``(c) the Executive Director; (d) the Director; or (e) a person employed under section 41;''. (3) Clause 54, page 19, line 8, omit ``28 (1),'', insert ``28 (1), 29 (1),''. (4) Clause 55, page 19, line 13 to 15, omit subsection (1), insert the following subsection: ``(1) The Executive Director may, by signed instrument, delegate to: (a) the Director; or (b) a person employed under section 41; all or any of his or her powers under this Act.''. All amendments are circulated and standing in my name. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to debate cognately the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 with the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988? There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.25) —The House is debating cognately two pieces of legislation-the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. The Opposition is not opposing either of these pieces of legislation, although I will have some more trenchant criticisms to make about the second Bill in a few minutes. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill contains a number of standard amendments to the Social Security Act. We are particularly concerned about the amendment that relates to the application of an assets test to the family allowance supplement (FAS) and I shall be moving a second reading amendment to that. The Government intends to apply an income test to recipients of FAS, but we point out that income alone is not necessarily a complete test of financial need. For example, families which have substantial net assets that for various reasons they may not be able to realise at the appropriate time cannot necessarily rearrange their finances in such a way as to minimise income to qualify for the FAS. This would be particularly the case with farming families during a period of drought, of recession due to economic circumstances over which they have no control whatsoever. The Government has argued that FAS is a supplement, not a basic income support. It has been in place for only the last eight to 10 months and is seen by the Government as one of the centrepieces of its social welfare policy. It is in that context that the Opposition parties are concerned that the compassionate elements of the Government's apparent policy are totally ignored in the application of this proposal. The measure has a sudden death effect, in that families whose assets are deemed to be worth more than $300,000 will get no FAS, regardless of the circumstances in which they are currently placed. Furthermore, there is no provision for a tapered withdrawal. Assets other than those defined as a family home will be subject to assessment. The savings from this proposal will be $41m in a full year. The assets tests on FAS and also Austudy have caused us some difficulty because, effectively, they are two different tests. A family on a farm worth, say, $400,000 and earning little real income would not qualify for FAS for its 13-, 14-, or 15-year-old children because, as I said, the assets test cuts out at $300,000 and, therefore, they would be disqualified. However, when the same child or children turn 16 they could qualify for Austudy because the assets test would allow a discount of 50 per cent; that is, the farm asset would be deemed to be worth only $200,000, although notionally it is worth $400,000. Quite clearly, there is no consistency whatsoever in this approach and that is why we are strongly suggesting that the normal provisions should have been included in the Act by which hardship could be taken into account if families found themselves in difficulties through no fault of their own. The Bill does not amend section 7 of the principal Act to include FAS in the list of pensions, benefits and allowances to which this financial hardship provision should apply, as it does to aged, invalids', wives', carers' and widows' pensions, supporting parents' benefits, unemployment and sickness benefits, sheltered employment and mobility allowances. In fact, it covers everything except access to FAS. This is an anomaly which we have drawn to the attention of the Government. I think we need to ask: Why is there no hardship provision? Accordingly, 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 condemns the Government for introducing an assets test on the family allowance supplement without providing a mechanism to enable benefits to be payable to those families who may fail the test but still suffer genuine financial hardship. The proposal we have put forward in this amendment is consistent with the coalition's policy. We are not opposed in principle to an assets test on other social security benefits. We have opposed Labor's assets test on the age pension for reasons which I enunciated in our recently released retirement incomes policy. We have said there that a modified assets test will be administered to ensure that persons in genuine need are not precluded from the age pension, and in particular we have referred to the effect of the assets test on people living on family farms which they intend passing on to their close relations who are already working on the farm and drawing their primary income from it, who are unable to sell their property due to market conditions; who remain or settle on relatively small or non-viable land holdings on which they cannot generate an income beyond the age pension income test limits; or who are unable to subdivide and sell their land due to government restrictions. We have emphasised that under those circumstances the assets test will not apply to those retirees. Therefore, one can genuinely question why it is that people under FAS are being treated differently from all other recipients of benefits. This is a matter which we once again draw to the attention of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) I refer also to clause 8-the secrecy provisions. At the committee stage I will be moving a substantive amendment which I understand has the support of the Government. I move on to the second Bill, the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, we are not opposing this Bill. However, we are not at all happy about the elements in the Bill relating to the income assessment of market-linked investments. It is fair to say that one of the reasons we are not opposing the Bill in its entirety is that one of the cunning acts of the Government over recent years has been to put together an omnibus Bill which contains all sorts of other things, as is the case in this Bill. It has included rent assistance, a reciprocal social security agreement with New Zealand, and amendments to the Commonwealth Employees (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act. Since we cannot oppose those elements of the package, it makes it extremely difficult effectively to oppose the Government's proposals in relation to income assessment of market-linked securities. However, I must emphasise that the Opposition is thoroughly disturbed and concerned about the background to this particular set of changes. It represents the seventh change to the income test in the last 5 1/2 years. It is seen by pensioners and by representative organisations across Australia as an outstanding example of how the Government has made an art form of creating concern in pensioner communities about the long term objectives of its non-policy in relation to these matters. The emphasis has been consistently on revenue protection and on increasing revenue at all costs. While we do not object to that as a principle, one has to say that it is the role of Government to sell its policy and let everybody know well in advance precisely what its objectives are and what it is trying to achieve, and in that context to be able to explain the objectives and the changes it makes. The Minister has said on numerous occasions that he wants retirement income policy to be based on such undoubtedly pristine principles as adequacy, fairness, security and sustainability. These are his own words; his four central principles of any retirement income policy. He talks about the need for level playing fields and for a fairer system. Pensioners, especially, look at the changes which came out of the Budget proposals and ask, `What is fair about this? What is fair about establishing three sets of pensioners?'. What is fair about saying to pensioners who take market-linked securities as a means of protecting their long term asset position and creating some income as well, compared with a pensioner who is able to put his money in real estate or on the stock market independently, while they are subject to the provisions of capital gains tax, they are not subject to the same onerous provisions proposed in this amendment? One can go further and say that if pensioners are really smart they could invest their money offshore and would not be caught by any of the Government's tests or proposals. Therefore, the Minister's allegation that he wants to have a level playing field is simply nonsense when we actually see what the Government's proposals are and the direction of its policy in recent months. The Budget, when it was announced, said that the Government's intention was to change the treatment of market-linked investments for pension income tests, that it intended to apply a formula that would take account of unrealised investment growth over the previous three years which would then be deemed income for the current year. This formula was different from that applied over the previous eight years. Since 1976 the Department of Social Security's own manual of instructions has stated: If the investment is market-linked; i.e. the value can vary up and down, income is assessed only on maturity or where a withdrawal is made, regardless of when the investment was purchased. I quoted that for the benefit of the House because when the debate was in full swing and shot and shell were flying backwards and forwards on this issue, the Minister said publicly that that statement was never made. Mr Howe —When you were scare- mongering. Mr CONNOLLY —He claimed that nobody had ever told pensioners who were involved in market linked securities that they were subject to those provisions. In other words, they had imagined for the last eight years that what they were doing was legally correct. The Minister was determining-incorrectly, as I pointed out-that they were acting incorrectly when in fact that was not the case. I point out once again to the Minister that it would be very useful if he got accurate advice on what are the provisions in the regulations before he goes off half-cocked about these things. The change was intended to correct the situation which, according to the Government, saw many investments, particularly property trusts, marketing products which effectively disguised the income component in capital growth. Again, according to the Government, it simply maximised leverage on the invested funds so that no income was generated, thus no dividends were available for distribution to the investor and, consequently, the income test was not activated. Some pensioners were able to protect fully their capital investment and gain access to the maximum pension at the same time. We objected to these proposals principally because of their retrospective nature and the effect they would have on people who had purchased those market-linked securities over at least the last eight years. I think the record is quite clear that the Government had no choice but to back down in the face of concerted pressure from the coalition, from pensioner groups, and from the investment industry. The Minister said only a few moments ago that I was scaremongering. I obviously had good company because the Premier of Victoria was clearly doing precisely the same thing. I have not heard the Minister suggest for one moment that the same rule should apply to the Premier as obviously applies to me. He was extremely concerned about the impact on pensioners and their attitudinal position in relation to the State election. He knew it would have been to his disadvantage because of the frustration and growing concern in pensioner communities throughout Australia about their inability to plan ahead when faced by a government that constantly changes the rules of the game halfway through the match. That was the basis of our complaint. That was the basis upon which we argued the case. I am pleased to say that we were able to prove our credentials to the pensioner community on that issue. We still have the serious anomalies which the Government has found some difficulty in facing up to. The Minister would agree that there are a number of exemptions to these proposals which are included in the Act. These will be shareholders in private companies or in shares listed on the stock exchange, or private holdings of real estate. When will the Government extend the Bill to cover all other direct investments? If it is serious about a level playing field I argue, as do pensioners, that one of the areas of major concern which the Government has completely ignored is the protection of pensioners' assets in the face of major inflationary pressures. No doubt the Minister has seen, as I have, tables of figures which demonstrate very clearly that when we take into account the impact of the 50 per cent loss for every dollar which is obtained above the pensioner income threshold, the effect of direct income tax and inflation and the effect of the new 11 per cent denied income which will be taken into account in these new proposals, many pensioners face a loss of up to 70c in the dollar on the additional income which they can earn from various investments. Fortunately, the marketplace has adjusted to some extent and there has been a trend in recent months towards capital protected securities and, no doubt from the Government's point of view, for a number of reasons these have some real attractions. If investments are made in such capital protected securities, the rate of return is known in advance and the pensioner knows precisely what he will get and the Government knows precisely what it should take into account; there is no room for variation. Our major concern is that by making market-linked securities less attractive, the Government has effectively required pensioners who have relatively small amounts of money-and I am told by the Department that the average amount is $18,000, so we are not talking about rich pensioners, which has been the tendency of the Minister in the past-to invest in capital stable products. If a person has $18,000 he or she is not unreasonably interested in trying to get the `biggest bang for the buck', because he or she cannot depend on the level of the pension or part pension. People want to maximise their capacity to earn money and at the same time maximise the protection of their investment and, in particular, their capital. I am afraid that in the context of the Government's proposals these two clear objectives do not appear to be adequately covered. We think it is both naive and myopic of the Government to maintain the view that the inconsistencies it is creating through the exemptions in this provision will not create the opportunity for future income test avoidance. Managed investments should not be singled out when they had very tangible benefits which require recognition and endorsement by the Parliament. Professional management and portfolio diversification are two of the most obvious benefits which can considerably reduce the overall risk of pensioners making relatively small investments and who have no other means of financial support, apart from possibly their homes on the one hand and their access to the pension on the other. If it is the objective of the Government-and I strongly doubt that it is-to minimise access to the pension for those who have the capacity to remain independent of it, the approach the Government has taken in recent months to this whole area of pensioner investment has been thoroughly unsatisfactory. The lack of any indexation for inflation-the 11 per cent deemed rate of return-will be a major disincentive to pensioners to enter into market-linked products which have sold badly since 9 September and most funds are now being invested, as I said, in capital stable products-investments which provide a regular income and greater security and which we would support. The coalition believes that the preservation of pensioners' hard-earned capital can only be achieved by assessing the real return on an investment. The Minister will no doubt claim that the 11 per cent figure which he has used means that if one gets investments which return say 25 per cent or so-and there have been cases of that over the last two or three years-the remainder is not taken into account and for all intents and purposes a significant degree of capital protection is provided. One of the debilitating characteristics of this proposal is that where the return is less than 11 per cent the company may apply to the Department for a variation in the requirement below that amount which at least gives some flexability in the market. I should also note that it cannot go above 11 per cent without an amendment going through the House. In the final analysis, I simply put to the Government the proposition which I hope is being examined in the context of the work which I gather the Cass inquiry is still doing on the question of the definition of income. It is a fundamental fact that there are major variations in the definition of income under the Income Tax Assessment Act on the one hand and under the Social Security Act on the other. While I do not for a moment resile from the reality that the Government is not dealing with the same issue in all respects, nevertheless there is very real concern in the pensioner community as to why some pensioners, investing privately in real estate or in the share market, are subject to the indexation provisions of the capital gains tax which effectively protect the growth of their investment while others with a similar level of investment in market-linked securities will now be subject to this 11 per cent rule. It is these inconsistencies which cause such confusion among pensioners. Certainly, it would be to the advantage of the Government and the Parliament as a whole for these matters to be rationalised. I am therefore concerned that the Government has rushed into this matter. The saving which the Government anticipates making is extremely small. In a full financial year it will be $4.2m. The original Budget proposals were estimated to save $18m in 1988-89. The Department got its numbers very wrong in terms of the anticipated effects. The Minister claimed that only 33,000 people would be affected. I find it very difficult to understand how he reached the figure of $18m if only 33,000 people were affected. The average investment, according to the Department, is only $18m. This merely demonstrates the fact that when the retirees responded to the proposals of the Government, the reaction made it absolutely clear that we were talking about hundreds of thousands of people who either were going to be affected or would be affected in the future, and not the 33,000 that the Government was claiming would be affected. It is because of the effect of those changes that there were such major concerns in the community. In addition, the perception of the objective of the Government-which is greater equity in the system-was not being adequately addressed. I end my remarks on this particular aspect of the Bill by emphasising that, as far as the Opposition is concerned, the equity aspects are still not being addressed. Maybe we will wait forever for the Cass inquiry to come up with something more useful in this particular area. Quite clearly, it is the responsibility of the Government to come up with a formula which affords pensioners better protection for their assets in retirement while at the same time ensuring that they are encouraged to maximise their return, which in turn may trigger the income test where that would be applicable. There is a fundamental inconsistency in the Government's approach. On the one hand it says it would prefer fewer people to be absolutely dependent on the pension. We agree with that objective. At the same time it can be strongly argued that it has not taken the necessary action to enable and encourage people to use their money as wisely as possible and to achieve much greater independence. The second point I want to raise relates to the question of rent assistance, which is also covered in this legislation. Rent increases facing many pensioners in fairly tight financial circumstances in our metropolitan areas, especially in Sydney and Melbourne, are well recorded. The increases in rent assistance which the Government is making are not grand in terms of their size. They are particularly slow in that they are not to be introduced this financial year. They will not come into effect until the next financial year, although that was not stated in the press release put out by the Minister. He was less than honest on that particular point. The fundamental difficulty we are facing is not just the provision of rent assistance but the actual provision of housing. One of the great crises we are seeing in Sydney is that with the record increases in real estate values low cost rental accommodation is virtually something of the past. Many people on low incomes, whether they be pensioners or single income families of mothers with children, run the major risk of being forced out to the periphery of the community, where they have no communication and very little, if any, capacity to get employment. In other words, we are putting them into a situation of geographic isolation where the problem will be compounded, not solved. I am surprised-in fact, I am disturbed-that the Government appears to have ignored one major possibility; that is, encouraging organisations such as the Smith Family, the Sydney City Mission, the Salvation Army, the St Vincent de Paul Society and other excellent community organisations around Australia which have over the years demonstrated a great capacity to support people in need by providing low cost accommodation. There is nothing in the Government's programs, either in this Department or in the Department of Community Services and Health, which adequately addresses this fact. It might have been much wiser to have allocated more of the hundreds of millions of dollars involved in this bandaid approach to rental increases next year to encouraging those organisations to buy old buildings, to refurbish them and to rent them out to people requiring low cost accommodation. By doing that we would at least stem the rot in terms of the fundamental diminution in the community's store of low cost accommodation. We could hold the position and then try to rebuild on it, using the private sector organisations, which are so able in this area. Instead, the Government has depended absolutely on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. I think the record would suggest that there are weaknesses in the handling of low cost accommodation through that means. I think some basic lateral thinking is well and truly overdue. I return to two other subjects, one being the reciprocal social security agreement with New Zealand. The Opposition welcomes that agreement. There has been major community concern for a long time about New Zealanders coming to Australia, allegedly immediately going onto unemployment benefits paid for by the Australian taxpayer. As I said, there has been great community irritation at clear evidence in some suburbs of Sydney that precisely that situation has been occurring. The Opposition welcomes the fact that the provisions have been significantly tightened up. The New Zealand Government is accepting responsibility to pay its own citizens in Australia for the first few months after they move here. The deliberate intention is to minimise the access of New Zealand citizens to Australian unemployment benefits and, hopefully, other social security benefits. I have no comment to make about the amendments to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. They are obviously necessary changes to legislation which went through the House some months ago. While we did not support some aspects of that legislation it is a subject of considerable importance in terms of expenditure and the need to give every encouragement to people who are forced out of the work force due to work related injuries to be rehabilitated and to re-enter the work force if that is at all possible. I conclude my observations on that point. As I said, we will pass both Bills. We are very concerned about the Government's handling of the market linked securities issues. It is a classic example of the shambles that this Government has allowed to be created by its inability to establish in advance the clear principles against which it wants its own policies to be tested. I have quoted from Hansard the Minister's own words as to what he claims are the objectives of Government policy. The record will show that his objectives have not been achieved in a sensible and coherent way, above all in a way which gives equity-the very word which he gives much weight. Above all, he has not required or established a level playing field-again a concept which was very dear to the Minister's heart. There is every reason for the pensioners of Australia being thoroughly dissatisfied with the way in which this Government has handled these affairs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr White —I second the amendment. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.53) —The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 before the House this morning are a continuation of the major review that this Government has made in the area of social security legislation. It should be remembered that the Social Security Review, which was established in 1985, is the first major comprehensive review of Australia's social security system since it started over 40 years ago. It was a system that governments of the complexion of those who sit opposite had allowed to grow like Topsy. It seems a little strange that the shadow Minister for social security, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), talked about elements of confusion about the direction of this Government in the area of social security. It should be acknowledged that, through the Social Security Review, this Government has commenced a very steady and logical review of a number of the areas in this portfolio. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill does a number of things in the area of payments for children and sole parents. It also includes programs for the long term unemployed. I will speak about some of those matters, but I want to address my remarks mainly to the Social Security and Veterans Affairs' Legislation Amendment Bill. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill implements the first step in achieving an integrated child payment system, which is important. Whilst everybody acknowledges that a wide range of good things have been done in this area, there has been some inability to put all the pieces into place and to understand how they associate with each other. This Bill goes some way towards ensuring that the things that are being done will be more understandable. The Bill also puts into place the social security elements of the two schemes that were announced in the Budget, the jobs education and training scheme for sole parents and the new start scheme for the long term unemployed. These schemes are quite exciting because they target people who are in need of special assistance but who, for some reason or another, have been prejudiced by other programs. The Government has tackled many of these problems in a targeted fashion. It has tried to put in place programs and schemes which will benefit those most in need. One of the elements of the new start program is the allowance that will be payable to people recommencing work. The employment entry payment of $100 will go towards the short term costs of going back into the work force. This provision arose out of the social security review and will be of great assistance to people re-entering the work force. As I have said, I want to address my remarks mainly to the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill and in particular the rent assistance provisions. Before doing so, however, I do not think I can leave uncommented upon the remarks of the honourable member for Bradfield and his second reading amendment. In addressing the Bill, he continued to engender unnecessary concern in the community. Most people who consider the income and assets provisions of the legislation will realise that the Government has attempted to be as fair and equitable as possible in its implementation of the various schemes. That is perhaps what we need to consider. Market-linked growth investment packages and other such packages have been pushed upon pensioners to allow them to get around the present provisions. It does not seem fair that those who have the opportunity to go into such schemes should be treated differently from those who do not. The honourable member for Bradfield talked about the Government's failure to create a level playing field, but he has to realise the honest attempts in this legislation to do that and to treat these investment packages fairly and equitably in regard to social security benefits. The rent assistance provisions in the legislation were announced in the Budget. Housing-related poverty and inadequate housing are problems not only in Australia but internationally. It is estimated that 100 million of the world's population have no housing at all. The General-Secretary of the United Nations, Perez de Cuellar, marked the inauguration of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless by reminding us that the problem of shelter posed an immediate and long term threat to the welfare and development of the international community. He went on to say: Let us bear in mind that a society is judged not so much by the standards attained by its most affluent and privileged members as by the quality of life which it is able to assure for its weakest citizens. By international standards, Australia can be regarded as a well-off, well-housed nation; but it may surprise many to learn the extent of the housing problem in Australia. A study by the Department of Housing and Construction into homelessness and inadequate housing which was released in 1985 indicated that an estimated 40,000 people slept out of doors or in refuges and an additional 60,000 were on the verge of homelessness. A further 100,000 lived permanently in caravan parks. At the same time, over 700,000 households were estimated to be living in poverty. Housing costs, particularly for people in the private rental market, have long been recognised as a major cause of poverty. Extensive research has shown that the level of poverty, after taking into account housing costs, has increased since the early 1970s. In 1972-73, the first main report of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty found that the number of people living in poverty after housing costs were taken into account was 6.7 per cent. In 1981-82 it was 10.7 per cent. The 1970s saw an increase in housing-related poverty of about 60 per cent. Research has given every indication that this alarming trend has continued during the 1980s. In an article in the National Economic Review last year, King estimated that by 1985-86 the number of people living in poverty, after taking into account housing costs, had increased by a further 10 per cent. The burden of housing costs falls heaviest on single parents and, in particular, on those single parents in the private rental market. In 1981-82, 40.8 per cent of all single parents were living in poverty after taking into account housing costs. Of single parents in the private rental market, 61 per cent were found to be in poverty after taking into account housing costs. At the same time, 20.6 per cent of young single people aged 15 to 24 years were found to be living in poverty after taking into account housing costs. This Government has taken several major steps, as an integral part of an attack on poverty, to provide assistance to low income families renting privately. In its historic family package, the Government increased the rate of non-taxable rent assistance to unemployment beneficiaries with families from $10 to $15 a week and extended eligibility for rent assistance to low income working families. From June 1989, maximum rent assistance to pensioner, beneficiary and low income working families with one or more children will be increased by 33 per cent, or $5 a week. From December 1989, the maximum rate of rent assistance available to beneficiaries without children will be increased from $10 to $15 a week. In June 1990, a further $5 a week increase will be paid to all recipients, with an additional $5 for those with three or more children. The honourable member for Bradfield described these proposals as not grand and their implementation as being slow. It is always interesting to ponder, when those in charge of the Opposition's economic policy talk about the need further to reduce government outlays, in what areas the Opposition would cut back. In what areas would the Opposition not provide increases? Perhaps the increases implemented in this legislation are the sorts of increases that would not get through the rigorous test of the economic leaders of the Opposition. I suppose that there is some hope. At least the honourable member for Bradfield recognised that rent assistance alone was not going to cure the problem of housing-related poverty. But he was not gracious enough to concede that the Government is attempting to tackle this problem with a multi-disciplinary approach. It is not, as he said, just a matter of being able to ensure, by increasing the amount of income payments, that we cure this. Of course it is by the provision of adequate housing, and the Government has in place a review, under the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), which will be looking at these matters. The honourable member talked about other programs using non-government organisations. If I am correct, the Opposition went into the last election with a policy of washing its hands of public housing; that it would allow public housing to go back into the administration of the States. One has to wonder what its real concern is and whether it wants to put into place a national program to really address these problems. Through all the measures since the election of the Labor Government in 1983, there has been an increase of 150 per cent to 200 per cent in rent assistance for low income and pensioner beneficiary families. This Government has a landmark commitment to social justice. The Government has recognised that access to adequate and affordable housing for all is a fundamental element of social justice. The measures in the legislation which increase rent assistance to low income families are part, and, as I said, only part, of the strategy aimed at achieving these social justice objectives. I think that the New Zealand reciprocal agreement provisions of the Bill are welcomed by all members of the House. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the progress that is being made with a reciprocal agreement with Malta. This is very significant for a number of people living in my electorate, and I think they are pleased that there has been at least some movement on this particular agreement. The provisions of the Italian reciprocal agreement, which are being put in place in practical terms, are another part of our measures that have been well received in the electorate. This Government, through the Cass Social Security Review, has embarked upon a wide-ranging review of social security legislation. But it does not just finish at the level of having some body of government review policy; it also allows for consultation. That is very important. The paper on retirement incomes has been well received, but it is very much a paper that is put forward to the community for discussion. It is to be hoped that that opportunity is not ignored and is taken into account. It is unfortunate that, throughout the whole process of the social security review, the Opposition has done little to participate and has not taken the opportunity that has been offered. The other matter I mention by way of talking of consultation is the Prime Minister's task force. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, are a member of that task force in your capacity as the honourable member for Moore. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who was previously in the chair, is involved. I see in the chamber the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey), who is also on the task force. This is again a bridge, another opportunity to bring the actions of this Government to the community and provide consultation and participation in decision-making, which is also a very important aspect of social justice-being able to involve those who are subject to requirements of government policy in a say in the formulation of that policy. Sometimes, at this place, because of the remoteness of the national Parliament, that is overlooked. That is not so in the area of the range of social security measures and in veterans' affairs, where the Government has gone out of its way to ensure that the opportunity is given for participation. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting these two Bills. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(11.10) —I want to spend the few minutes that are available to me in focusing attention on two aspects of the legislation before this House, the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill and cognate Bill. However, before doing so, I want to read the amendment to the motion for the second reading which my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) proposes to move in respect of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. That Bill is being debated cognately, so, of course, the honourable member is unable to move the amendment until we later come to deal with that Bill specifically. Due to the limits on time that will arise on that occasion, I have indicated to him that I will read the amendment to which he briefly referred. His amendment is: 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 condemns the Government for the confusion it has caused to pensioners and those planning their retirement incomes by its many changes to the income test during its period in office and for its failure to create a level playing field for pensioners in respect of their investments'. The honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) said that the previous Government allowed social security, in particular the arrangements for the age pension, to grow like Topsy. I do not believe that that was the case; but even if it was, the present Government has committed an offence far worse in terms of the confusion that is now arising in the area of the administration of the age pension. This Parliament has seen the development of our retirement incomes policy over a long period. The age pension has been in place for many years. It used to be a combined assets/incomes test. Then there was a period when that combined test was separated so that there was an assets test and an income test. At that time the penalty for having assets or income beyond a particular threshold was 100c in the dollar. In other words, if one exceeded the income threshold by $1 per week, one lost pension at the rate of $1 per week. Similarly, if one had assets beyond the assets test threshold and a 10 per cent earnings rate was assumed, one lost pension at the rate of $1 for every $10 of capital that one had. So one had to be investing one's funds at better than 10 per cent in order to be better off. Then it was recognised that that type of testing was punitive and it discouraged people from saving because there was no reward for effort, no benefit from getting beyond the threshold. So a major reform was introduced-the tapered means test. The purpose of that reform was to give reward for effort, reward for saving, reward for postponing current expenditure to one's retirement years. So if one did have a nest egg of investments, of income earning resources, one would at least benefit by 50c in the dollar in respect of one's savings as compared to the person who had made no savings and no postponement of earlier expenditure. This Labor Government is going back to the punitive 100c in the dollar days. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) looks and queries. I draw to his attention two things. First, when the tapered means test was introduced there was a substantial area of clear water between the tax threshold and the income test threshold. Now that is not the case. There is very little clear water between the tax threshold and the level of income at which the pension is received. The clear water was previously created by virtue of the fact that the pension was tax free. Pensions were, sensibly, made part of taxable income, because they are people's income; but that was done against a policy background of the Minister's predecessors in the Whitlam Government of planning to abolish the asset and income test. Therefore, it seemed sensible to take the logical step of treating pensions as part of people's normal income that should be subject to tax. However, by virtue of the reimposition of the assets test, the tightening of thresholds in terms of the incomes test and the lowering of the tax threshold in real terms, pensioners are now being faced with an effective marginal tax rate not of 50c in the dollar-the withdrawal rate of the pension-but of 62.5c in the dollar, which is the combined effect of the income test and the income tax test. But worse still, this Government has reintroduced an assets test. In doing so, it has set moderate thresholds, but it is now doing a number of things; first, to convert what in the past have been counted as assets into income. Why? It is because the income test threshold is lower than the assets test threshold. Mr Howe —Market-linked investments have been income tested since 1980. Mr WILSON —I am not disputing that; of course they have. But the income, not the capital growth, has been tested. Under the legislation that the Minister is introducing, albeit without a retrospective effect, he is deeming the capital gain within the market-linked investment as income. The Government deems it to be income without any benefit of indexation which it provides to taxpayers and to its wealthy friends, who get the benefit of a capital gains tax that is inflation proofed. The Government is imposing on poor pensioners who achieve some savings and seek to maintain the real level of their income by going into market-linked investments a test on the nominal gain that is achieved by those market-linked funds. Worse still, if a small investor feels that he or she does not have the know-how to go into the market and buy a portfolio of shares but goes through a managed fund, the Government requires that that person be assessed not only on the income received by the fund but also on the capital gain received by the fund. I would not mind if the Minister said, `Those funds can't get the benefit of negative gearing, because that is a distortion designed to postpone not only the realisation of the capital but also the realisation and receipt of the income'. If the Government treated the real income of those funds as though it were the income of the pensioner, I would not object. The private investor can go to a portfolio, publicly listed investment company, invest direct and be subjected only to the income test. That is totally unfair as between various groups of pensioners. I suspect that, in order to catch a larger number of small investors, the Government will bring in an assets test by deeming the capital gain within a portfolio investing public company to be income, and another large group of pensioners who postpone expenditure in their working lives until their retirement will be penalised and punished as a consequence of their prudence and desire to maintain their real standards of living in retirement. I refer now to the second point, the way in which the Government is returning to the old, vicious 100c in the dollar assets and income test. With the assets test, we bring into account assets as though there is an assumed yield of 10 per cent; thus there is 100c in the dollar withdrawal of the pension for someone who has assets yielding 10 per cent. It is necessary for those retirees to obtain a substantially higher yield than that. On average, the yield of small investors about whom I am concerned would not average much more than 10 per cent, even in these days of high interest rates. We find that this legislation introduces a whole lot of artificial definitions. I have said before and I will say again that for income test purposes the same definition of `income' should be used as is used for income tax purposes. If it is good enough to use one definition of income for tax purposes, it is good enough to use it for income test purposes. It might well be said that the reverse is true, but the aged, the retirees who need permanent, long term income support, require some degree of certainty. They must put in tax returns and they must put in returns to the Minister's Department for their social security entitlement. They should be able to put in the same return and be assessed for income tax liability and income test pension reduction. If there are to be exceptions, it would be fairer to make those exceptions specific; they should be made clear and there should be some justification of why cases are to be separate and distinct. I have given an illustration, that is in the use of negative gearing, where there would be justification to postpone not only the capital gain but also the income receipt. While the Government is allowing other pensioners to benefit from capital gain by not realising their assets, it should allow those who invest in market-linked securities to do the same thing. The honourable member for Scullin referred to the topsy way in which, under previous governments, social security policy arose. There is utter and complete confusion amongst the pensioner community about the definition of income and assets for pension purposes. There is confusion in the legislation on a number of other factors as well. It is interesting to look at the manuals that the Department puts out. In relation to beneficiaries the manual states: In contrast to the situation applying to bank accounts, bonds et cetera where interest accrues over a period of time, the dividend on a share is determined and declared at a point in time. Only those persons who are registered as shareholders on the day the relevant share register is closed for dividend purposes have an entitlement to the dividend. Accordingly, share dividends should be treated as income only in the fortnight of receipt. That is all right for a beneficiary and it is some explanation. However, we find that under chapter 5 of the directions given to social security offices in relation to pensions, the instruction is as follows: In contrast to the situation applying to bank accounts, bonds etc., where interest accrues over a period of time, the dividend on a share is determined and declared at a point in time. Only those persons who are registered as shareholders on the day the relevant share register is closed for dividend purposes have an entitlement to the dividend. Share dividends that have been paid are taken into account in calculating the amount to be maintained on an annual basis. Why? What is the legal justification for counting a dividend on an annual basis for a pensioner but on a fortnightly basis for a beneficiary? The system is crazy and it is time these anomalies were closely examined to achieve some coherence. Then we find-and this is something that the Minister may take up, because it would probably save him revenue if he were to pursue it-that there is a lack of logic in the topsy way in which the definition of income has arisen and interest received by a pensioner is brought into account before tax. No allowance is made for the tax that a pensioner pays on interest. We find that the Department has given careful, coherent and logical thought to dividends. It states: Dividends are accompanied by a `Shareholder Dividend Statement' which may also include a figure under the heading `Imputed Credit'. This figure should be ignored and regard had only to the cash dividend. In fact, those pensioners who invest in interest income find that the income is brought into account at a pre-tax value, and those who bring their dividends into account find that that occurs at a post-tax value. I ask what is the logic of that. I am not suggesting which way we should go but it is yet another illustration of the many confusions that exist in the definitions now being used because the Department has constructed a whole range of artificial definitions. It would argue that it is doing so on the basis of some legislative authority because, under the Act now, income in relation to a person means personal earnings, moneys, valuable consideration or profits, whether of a capital nature or not. So every profit of a capital nature is brought into account in determining a person's pension entitlement if he realises-that is the result of the High Court decision-the asset. The exception is in relation to managed funds. There, legislatively, we are about to say that unrealised gains are to be calculated. We make this special exception for those who happen to choose that form of investment. There is a series of exceptions that relate to a capital gain, including the exception of a domestic asset and I raise, and I have raised before, some concerns about that. Interestingly enough, the Department administratively-it may be based on some legal ground and I cannot see the authority for it-argues that a house is a domestic asset. I would have thought that a domestic asset was more of the nature of furniture, garden tools and crockery in the house. But a house is being regarded as a domestic asset, and if it has been lived in as the domestic asset of the family for a period of up to 12 months it is not brought into account if it is disposed of. But if the poor pensioner goes into a nursing home and uses the entitlement of not selling his or her house for 12 months because it is then still being counted as the home, when that house is sold, and if it is sold for a capital gain, under this interpretation that pensioner could be denied the pension for upwards of 12 months, I presume, because I cannot find in the manual whether that gain is to be attributed to a fortnight as it is with the beneficiary or is to be spread over 26 fortnight periods, a 12-month period. There is the anomaly. It is clear that, if a pensioner has a beach house and reaches the age when he can no longer take advantage of it and decides to sell it, and if that beach house is sold for more than its purchase price, the capital gain is brought into account as a profit under that definition and it is not clear whether it is to be fortnightly or spread over a 12-month period. There is a significant number of pensioners who could be rearranging their affairs because of their personal needs and who, in the rearrangement of those affairs, could be totally denied a pension for 12 months; and there is another anomaly which needs urgent clarification. Although one can see perhaps the reasons why the Minister has introduced this proposed legislation about market-linked securities, it has been done in a patchwork, bandaid way and there is an urgent need for a major review of how income should be defined for pension purposes. Income should not be redefined to achieve a de facto lowering of the threshold applicable to the assets test. I believe that every person aged 65 and over should be entitled to a pension except to the extent that he has benefited from a tax concession through superannuation schemes. People should be entitled to one thing or the other, the tax concession or the pension. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(11.30) —It is a pleasure for me today to be able to speak for the Government on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. As the member of parliament who has the oldest electorate in the country, that is, the electorate with the highest number of retirees and the highest mean age of any electorate, questions of social security and veterans' affairs, particularly the area dealing with age pensions, are of great interest to me and, naturally, of great interest to my constituents. The whole question of pensions and retirement income and the way in which this Government is treating retired people has been very much in the media lately-with good reason, of course-but there has been a lot of misinformation and a lot of rumour that has not been answered and a lot of untruths that have not been answered. Some of these are due simply to ignorance but a lot are due to deliberate campaigns of misinformation which are spread in some cases by our political opponents and in other cases by other politically motivated groups in the community. As a result of this I have been speaking to a lot of pensioner and senior citizens groups in my electorate as well as to individuals, finding out what they think of the whole thing, also allaying some of their fears, and correcting some of the misinformation and wrong ideas prevalent in that group. One thing I have discovered in the last few weeks by going around and talking to pensioners is that on the whole they are a very reasonable group of people. They understand that our population is ageing. They understand that, as a result of that our age pension bill will of necessity increase to a large extent in the next few years and they understand that, as a result of the population ageing, the number of people in the work force and the number of people paying tax to support that bill is not growing at the same rate. They understand, therefore, that a certain degree of income and assets testing is necessary. There are, of course, many unreasonable people who think that, irrespective of what their assets and income are, they are entitled to a full pension. Their usual argument is, `I paid tax all my life and therefore I deserve a pension'. I usually say to them, `Didn't you get anything else for your taxes during your life? Didn't your children go to school? Didn't you get health care? Didn't you get hospital care? Didn't you get roads and didn't you get the myriad of other community services that come directly from the Federal Government or through the State or local government? Is that all you expect your taxes to go towards: a pension when you retire, irrespective of your other assets and income?' Some are quite irrational and unreasonable and stick to that view but the vast majority of people realise that the amount of money available for pensions is not unlimited and there must be a certain degree of income and asset testing and targeting. The Cass Social Security Review, which was recently released, identified particular groups of pensioners and retirees who need special attention and have special needs. One of these was a single pensioner, a person in receipt of a single rate of pension, whether that person has never married or is widowed. Professor Cass acknowledged that people in this group in particular had difficulties because they cannot benefit from the economy of scale as a married couple can. This is one of the things and one of the complaints that I come across as I go around to pensioner groups. Even though one person does not eat as much as two people, that does not mean to say that the electricity bill is less or that the other overheads are any less than they would be for two people. This is a reasonable grievance and it was addressed and recognised by Professor Cass in her report. The other group identified as being in need was people who do not own their own homes and who are paying rent, particularly people paying rent on the commercial market who are renting privately. I am pleased to say that in South Australia there are not a lot of people in this group. The South Australian Housing Trust, our local public housing authority, manages, to its credit, to look after the vast majority of pensioners who do not own their own homes and they, therefore, are paying a very moderate rent. I understand that in other States a greater proportion of pensioners are paying rent at commercial rates, and they are in great difficulty. So the question of rent allowance and rent assistance and a possible increase in that area is something that should be very much to the fore in the minds of Government members. When I go round to pensioner groups and say that those people who are paying rent are in need, all the home owners jump up and say, `Even though we are not paying rent we, too, have considerable expenses in maintaining our home. We may not have this regular payment going out once a week or once a fortnight, but we have big lump sum payments when the hot water system breaks down, when the gutters need replacing or when we need to do some painting or some major repairs'. Perhaps we should be looking at this, not necessarily with any sort of house maintenance payment in mind but with a view to providing further assistance through local government authorities to provide these handyman services. As far as pensioners are concerned, we recognise that they have needs and there are things to be done-in particular the rate of the pension could be increased; Professor Cass has suggested that over the next few years it could go up to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings-and we have done important things for pensioners. One for which I still do not think we get enough credit is the effective raising of the tax threshold for 1988-89 and onwards. That has now been increased to about $6,800 before a pensioner has to pay any tax. I think it is worth pointing out to pensioners that they are favoured in this respect. Low income workers, or any workers for that matter, have a tax threshold of $5,100, so pensioners are actually advantaged in this respect. The other group which I am particularly concerned about is people who are on a modest superannuation payment and a part pension. These people often find that, when all is said and done, they have very little more net disposable income than people on a full pension, even though they have been paying into a superannuation fund all or part of their working lives. While their gross income may be considerably higher, by the time they are taxed, and when we take into account that they do not get fringe benefits or any sort of concession, in the end, effectively, they are not that much better off. The problem here is partly the criterion under which we award fringe benefits. We award them on other income-that is, income other than the pension-rather than total income. Usually only one partner who is in receipt of a superannuation income pays the full tax on that income, but that superannuation income cannot be split between partners for taxation purposes. This Bill deals with the new provision to assess for social security purposes income from market-linked investments. When this was first mooted by the Government in the last Budget there was a huge outcry by the Opposition and by groups in the community. There were sensational headlines in the newspapers to the effect that once again the Government was hitting the poor old pensioners. As I have said before, the fact is that only 2 per cent of pensioners have been affected by this. Many of the other 98 per cent have other kinds of investment which are assessed-- Mr Tuckey —You are not worried about the 2 per cent? Mrs HARVEY —I did not say that that 2 per cent does not matter; all I am saying is that only 2 per cent of people were benefiting from this provision; the other 98 per cent who had other kinds of investment income which was assessed were not affected by it. I think adding this provision for assessing income from market-linked investments makes the whole assessment system much fairer and much more equitable now that all investments will be treated in the same way. As the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) mentioned, as a result of the Cass report and as a result of consternation in the community, the Government has established a retirement incomes task force which consists of 11 backbenchers from different States who will be going around the country talking to pensioner groups and individuals about their concerns. I said `talking', but actually its main role will be to listen to people's reactions to the Cass report, take them into account, and come up with some sort of report early next year on which the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) will report. I am very pleased to be a member of this task force. I look forward to joining with my colleagues in talking to groups around the country over the next few months. The last thing I would like to refer to is the question of grey power, as it is called. As I have said, there is reasonable consternation in the community about the whole area of treatment of retired people and the elderly, but there is also a huge degree of hysteria and irrationalism in this area. Certainly there is a great degree of inconsistency. For example, at the last Federal election, one of my opponents was a Joh Nationals candidate who was standing on a platform of a better deal for pensioners, at exactly the same time as one of his Party's candidates for the Senate-now Senator John Stone-was going around the country advocating about $11 billion in spending cuts. At the time Senator Stone was actually aspiring to be the Minister for Finance. So we had the National Party candidate for Hawker standing on a platform of a better deal for pensioners while his Party's aspiring Finance Minister was talking about $11 billion in spending cuts. Where that $11 billion worth of spending cuts was supposed to come from without touching the major areas of expenditure such as pensions, I do not know. These totally irrational and inconsistent aspects of the grey power campaign have to be exposed and dealt with by this Government, and that is certainly one of the things that our retirement incomes task force will be doing. I commend the legislation to the House. I trust that over the next few months the task force will address many of the concerns of elderly people in Australia. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.44) —Due to the tight timetable relating to legislation and the fact that I have to carry the responsibility for the defence service home loans legislation-a very important piece of legislation which is now scheduled for midnight tomorrow-I will not detain the House greatly in the hope that that legislation will come on slightly before midnight tomorrow. It is vital to the whole equation relating to veterans and elderly citizens, as is the legislation before the House at the moment, which contains Budget related measures flowing from the previous Federal Budget, with particular reference to means testing. It is that aspect which I wish to focus on in the course of my comments. Before so doing, I just mention to the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) that we have followed with interest her comments on veterans and elderly citizens and we listened with particular interest to the reference to the 2 per cent cut back on Defence Force retirement benefits imposed by this Government in 1986 and yet to be rectified. It is an acid test of the Government's credibility whether it will rectify that matter. Our commitments and our expenditure priorities are far more learned than anything offered by this Government. For example, we would not be about spending $100m on additional aid to black African states in a continent with no direct reference-although there is certainly an indirect reference-or linkage to Australia. If one wants to look for $100m to fortify assistance to veterans and elderly citizens and protect their situation, one could start with the $100m of aid that the Government has provided in the last 18 months in a boosted package to the black African states. What sort of a priority is that in terms of our true national interest? I add in passing that the recent referendums cost $41m, as the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has pointed out. That resulted in four massive No votes to protect our Constitution. Honourable members will not see the next coalition government embarking on courses of action which are so arrogant and so out of touch as has been the Federal Labor Government throughout much of this bicentennial year. I could list other matters but will not, because I want to focus in particular on the income assessment arrangements embraced by this legislation. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) told the House in introducing the legislation: Growth on market-linked investments, which is currently assessed on realisation or maturity, will now be assessed on an ongoing basis. From 1 December 1988, pensioners and beneficiaries who, on or after 9 September 1988, invested or invest in institutionally managed market-linked investments which yield capital growth will have a rate of return calculated on their investments and counted as ongoing yearly income. There will be a statutory rate of return on all market-linked investments of 11 per cent or such other lower rate not below zero per cent as is specified by the Minister from time to time. That is an extraordinary statement, because what happened-and it is very important to recount this-is that the Budget in effect provided a retrospective attack on elderly citizens and on our veterans who served in World War II, Korea, Malaya, and Vietnam and in other conflicts. It was a retrospective attack on the precious arrangements which they had made to protect their retirement income circumstance. This Government came forth with yet another Budget proposal, which followed a litany of Budget proposals in recent years which have cut back many of those programs. On this occasion there was a massive grassroots reaction right across Australia-even in Western Australia. Indeed, the shadow Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), helped in leading that campaign. He attended meetings in Albury in my electorate, and I attended meetings in Sydney and elsewhere, to focus concern over this despicable retrospective attack on so many people associated with grey power. It is educational for the Government to realise that is what it was taking on in terms of its Budget announcement. What happened? There was another meeting of Cabinet. It was held during a non-sitting week, as I recall, and Ministers had to flock back from all over Australia, as they were going about their portfolio duties. I acknowledge that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), who is at the table, travels a great deal in non-sitting weeks to cover those important portfolio responsibilities. They all had to come back to Canberra for an unscheduled Cabinet meeting. It was one Cabinet meeting in which they actually had some business to discuss. We are learning of late that they are running out of things to place on the agenda as the Government runs into that tired, decaying mould that it seems to be approaching at this time. There was a special Cabinet meeting to alter this Budget decision, to remove the retrospective elements embraced by the original announcement associated with this legislation. We in the coalition had a great win in the interests of focusing grassroots reaction to this attack by the Government. We have that confirmed by this legislation before the House, as the worst of those retrospective elements have been eliminated from the package. I will give credit where credit is due, because I know that the Minister at the table was probably batting in the fight for the removal of this retrospectivity. He would have recognised the damage that the original Budget decision did for so many in this portfolio. Certainly, we in the coalition proudly claim victory on this occasion, as the Government has wound back its Budget decision by altering the policy with regard to income assessment and, by so doing, very much improving the nature and impact of that proposal. I highlight that aspect in particular to the House. There is in this country a live and viable democratic process. Even when governments have majorities in the lower House, as inevitably they do, and believe that they can force through proposals against the will of the people, they can come unstuck when they tread beyond a certain line. In this case the Government was caught redhanded. The Opposition went in to bat, and batted strongly. The Returned Services League of Australia, many veterans' associations and many organisations associated with grey power also went in to bat strongly. The outcome is that we have much better legislation before this Parliament as a consequence. I support the amendments which are to be proposed by my colleague the shadow Minister for Social Security and I reflect his concern in respect of certain other parts of the legislation, particularly the impact of rent assistance arrangements on so many of the elderly. I conclude by saying that it is essential that governments become conscious of the massive concern they create for many elderly people with changes that are proposed from time to time and the complexity of those changes in relation to taxation, veterans' affairs arrangements, social security arrangements and income assessment. The cry I hear time and again as I move around my electorate of Farrer, as I move around my portfolio constituency, is that people can no longer understand what is going on, except that it always seems to involve another attack on their net position and the assistance package by the government of the day, the Federal Labor Government. I appeal to governments at all levels to be very conscious of the need to inject simplicity into the complex arrangements that they devise, particularly with regard to the various application forms, brochures and informational documentation prepared by governments and departments. For example, documentation on this income assessment should be written in such a way that the public can understand it and it is not frightening to them. I ask the Government to take this matter into account in the further consideration of this legislation. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(11.53) —The amendments contained in this legislation are important components of the Government's reforms in the area of social security and they aim at producing a system which is easier to administer and clearly targets those most in need. The first important set of amendments contained in the legislation is in the area of family assistance. Increases in the level of benefits, changes in the administration of the incomes test, the introduction of an assets test as well as other assorted amendments in this area are contained in this legislation, with the aim of targeting improved benefits to those most in need. I will return to these changes in a moment. At this stage it might be appropriate to make a couple of observations about the way the debate has gone so far. Some Opposition speakers have talked about the problem of very high effective marginal tax rates that confront certain categories of pensioners and beneficiaries as they start to acquire private income. That is a very major problem, and dealing with that is something that really needs to be a significant government priority. However, it is important to recognise that there are significant dilemmas. To the extent that one tries to alleviate the position of pensioners and beneficiaries by easing the action of income tests, obviously there is a substantial revenue cost. To the extent that one does that, one limits the capacity to improve the basic adequacy of pensions, benefits and associated payments to those most in need. There is a genuine policy dilemma, and it is not an easy one to resolve. It is discussed in the Social Security Review paper on retirement incomes. There is no easy solution to it. The Social Security Review paper favoured utlimately going down the path of some kind of integration of the tax and social security incomes tests. Various proposals have been put forward to do that, the first being the guaranteed minimum income scheme arising from the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. A more recent proposal is that of Dixon and Foster. These are discussed in the Social Security Review paper. It is impossible to pretend that it is a simple matter that admits of an easy resolution. Whatever is done in the area of income testing or in easing the income tax system on pensioners involves enormous revenue implications and a number of very difficult choices have to be made. For the Opposition to pretend or imply that there is a simple solution is quite wrong and inappropriate. It typifies its approach to this type of debate. It is not interested in doing things which ensure the basic integrity of the income test. The recent kerfuffle about market-linked investments is an example of that. Obviously, just how tough the income test is to be is a policy decision the Government has to make. Whatever level of application it decides that the income test should have, whatever rate of withdrawal and whatever cut-off points are considered to be appropriate, the one thing that ought not to be a topic of serious policy arguments is the integrity of those tests. It must be guaranteed. When these matters come up, the Opposition automatically goes for the easy political point scoring exercise. In that sense it fails to make a helpful or significant contribution to policy debate in this area. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill contain changes in relation to the administration of unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed. Some aspects of the work test will be waived for unemployment beneficiaries in order to allow these people to undertake approved full time training courses for a maximum duration of up to eight weeks in any one year. This is consistent with the Government's policy of creating more training opportunities in order to encourage people back into the work force. Also contained in this Bill is the introduction of a payment of $100 to any person who returns to the work force after a period of unemployment of 12 months or more. This is designed to cover the many assorted costs of returning to the work force. These changes, along with the others contained in this Bill in regard to the treatment of unemployment beneficiaries, reflect this Government's commitment to dealing with the specific problems created by long term unemployment. The Bill also introduces a number of changes in the treatment of the widow's pension, as well as other amendments too numerous to elaborate on in one speech. Instead I will pay specific attention today to the package of changes in relation to the family allowance supplement (FAS). With effect from 29 December 1988 family allowance multiple birth payment, double orphans' pension and child disability allowance will be integrated into the family allowance supplement pay day cycle. This will greatly simplify the current system, creating the one payment which will be of assistance to an estimated 80 per cent of Australian children. This Bill also raises the rate of payment of FAS. From December this year the amount of FAS payable for children under the age of 13 will rise by $2 a week and for children between the ages of 13 and 16 the payment will rise by $3 a week. The estimated cost of this measure in the remainder of the 1988-89 financial year is $71.4m, and in the full 1989-90 financial year will be $132.9m. The Government has a longer term commitment to adequate child support payments. We have set the benchmarks at 15 per cent and 20 per cent of the combined married rate of pension. That is the target the Government has set itself. The achievement of that target obviously will involve very substantial revenue implications. When the wage tax trade-off is being considered next year it is important that proper attention be given to the need to build further on what the Government has already done to alleviate child poverty and to ensure that we have a package which consists of not only tax cuts but also significant improvements in the social wage provision. Child support payments are obviously a key part of that. These measures are part of this Government's often stated commitment to the elimination of child poverty by the year 1990. The simple but shameful fact is that in a survey of eight major Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries conducted in the early 1980s, Australia had the second highest rate of children living in poverty-16.9 per cent of our children were living in poverty, second only to the United States, which had a rate of 17.1 per cent. Those figures go back to 1980, 1981 and 1982. Since then the Government has implemented a range of measures that have sought to redress that situation, particularly the family assistance package. As a vital part of our commitment to the concept of social justice, this Government has set about redressing that situation. However, the scale of the task before us is enormous. In May this year the Australian Social Welfare Impact journal quoted results from two major studies in the area of child poverty and the estimated impact that the package of changes announced by the Government in 1987 would have on the situation. One study was conducted by Peter Saunders and Peter Whiteford from the Social Welfare Research Centre in New South Wales, and the second was a paper delivered by Helen Brownlee and Anthony King at a child poverty conference. Though the studies varied in their methodology they came to remarkably similar conclusions with regard to measurement of the poverty gap. The poverty gap is measured as the total amount by which the income of families with children falls short of the poverty line. These studies estimated that gap to be between $348m and $380m before the changes were announced in 1987. Both studies estimated that the Government's package of assistance to families would reduce that gap by just over 40 per cent. That must be considered a significant achievement. What must also be recognised is the continuing magnitude of the task which we face in meeting our pledge to eliminate child poverty by 1990. It is a challenge we need to meet with firm polticial will. The success of FAS in alleviating child poverty is, I believe, a testament to the efficacy of carefully targeted Government expenditure as a policy instrument. I referred earlier to the dilemma and the conflict that exist in the degree to which we target payments of that sort and the scope to ease income tests and the combined operation of income tests and the tax system, and to the problem that poses in terms of limiting the availability of funds to improve the adequacy of basic payments. Our opponents would have us believe that the only method of improving living standards is by reducing the level of personal taxation. Of course, what is implied but left unstated by the Opposition is that its policy on tax cuts would undoubtedly give the highest level of cuts to the highest income earners. The Opposition has stated that it would change the base broadening measures in the income tax system which have been so important in ensuring the integrity of that system. Measures such as capital gains tax, substantiation, fringe benefits, and so forth have been implemented by the present Government. The effect of the Opposition's proposals concerning the tax system would be grossly inequitable. I think that is fairly clear. This Government remains committed to delivering tax cuts to lower and middle income earners but it is also committed to direct expenditure measures designed to achieve social policy goals. What we need, I believe, at the time of the wage tax trade-off next year is an appropriately balanced package which, as well as tax cuts, includes an array of improvements in the social wage provision that are designed to target those least well off and those who do not stand to benefit greatly from cuts in the income tax system. The fact the Opposition ignores is that directly targeted payments to low income earners provide a much more effective method of alleviating poverty for low income earners than do cuts in personal taxation rates. To ensure the correct targeting of FAS payments in the future, this Bill introduces important changes in the administration of the income test for those applying for FAS. Currently, the test is based on income received by applicants in the preceding four-week period. This is both a difficult system to administer, and it can cause unnecessary difficulties and hardships for low income families whose income is subject to considerable fluctuations. As from 29 December this will be replaced by a test based on taxable income over the period of one financial year. This test will be indexed to increases in the consumer price index over the preceding 12-month period. In addition to this revised income test, the legislation introduces an assets test from 29 December this year. This will exclude from FAS any applicant who, with his or her spouse, has combined assets of more than $300,000. As is the case with the pensions assets test, property such as the family home is exempt from consideration under these measures. Proper targeting of welfare payments is a key component of an equitable system. These measures are designed to produce that equity by delivering the largest benefits to those most in need. Earlier in my speech I quoted a figure which placed 16.9 per cent of Australian children as living in poverty earlier this decade. I would like to expand briefly upon this point, because that single figure does not give a full picture of the situation which exists. A broad figure measured across the entire Australian community can often hide significant areas of poverty. In a recent article in the Current Affairs Bulletin, Dr Judy Yates reproduced a table which showed that in 1981-82 40.8 per cent of single parent families were living in poverty after meeting the costs of their housing. Taking an even closer look we find that of those single parent families living in private rental accommodation, a staggering 61.7 per cent were forced to live in poverty after meeting their housing costs. It is a basic philosophy of Labor that no group in our community should be forced to endure such misery. No Australian child should be forced to start life with the crippling handicap of poverty imposed on them. This Government has recognised the particular plight of single parent families, a group growing in numbers in our community. We have gone forward to develop a package which offers assistance targeted to meet the needs of this group, a package free of moral judgments on the worth of one type of family unit above another. The Government has already announced the jobs, education and training scheme, which is aimed at overcoming on a number of levels the difficulties single parents often face in entering the market-place. To complement this package the Government now announces the introduction of a sole parent's pension to replace the previous supporting parent's benefit and widow's pension class A. This removes an administrative anomaly which grew from an inappropriate moral judgment on the worth of different categories of beneficiaries. Such judgments are incompatible with the thrust of the Government's review of the social security system. This review of the social security system is the most comprehensive undertaken by any Australian Government. It is proving a demonstration of the political will possessed by this Government to deal with the problems of poverty. It is also a demonstration of the considerable political will of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and I believe that this House should commend him for his work. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(12.07) —The time for debating these two Bills, the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill, is extremely limited, so I cannot spend much time talking about the remarks of the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin). However, I cannot let one thing pass. At the end of his speech he was giving some figures in relation to child poverty. It is a matter of record that the number of children living in poverty rose substantially in the first term of the Hawke Government. In the last election the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that child poverty would be eliminated and that finally sparked the Government into some sort of action. The attack on living standards of families in this country, particularly one income families, has been very marked under the Hawke Government. I welcome anything it might be doing now to alleviate poverty, but the record shows that a great deal of that poverty is thanks to the Hawke-Keating Government, and particularly to its economic policies. If I had a little more time I would spend some of it congratulating the Government on a number of aspects of this social security legislation which deserve credit. This credit has been given by Opposition members. There are a couple of matters in which I have a particular interest but I will be able to refer to them only briefly. Because of the guillotine and the limitation on time of speakers, one simply cannot do justice to the very wide-ranging effects of these Bills. The areas provide for expenditure of approximately $20 billion and yet we are to have less than two hours in this Parliament to debate these major Bills. I would have liked to say quite a bit about pensioners and I certainly echo the words of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who spoke a little earlier this morning about pensioners, particularly aged pensioners. In the time available I can only say that I do agree with him and with the statements of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I confine my remarks on age pensioners to those very brief comments. There are a couple of areas of the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) that I want to pick up and make a quick comment on. They relate specifically to the jobs, education and training (JET) scheme and the new start program. We are told that JET is to provide comprehensive advice, assistance, labour market training, education and child care for sole parents, and I certainly welcome that. This is a subject on which I have often spoken during my time in the House of Representatives. I remind the Minister of the number of times I have referred to an undertaking in an earlier Budget that sole parents and widow's pensioners would be given counselling to find employment. When the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training undertook this year an inquiry on access to training and employment by social security recipients, it was discovered that this word `counselling' did not have the meaning that one might have expected it to have. It was only a policing function. People were invited to come and be checked up on-whether they were working or whether their financial circumstances were such as would continue to qualify them for the pension. These were people who needed counselling and advice on the available government education and training programs. That counselling was not given in the past but I hope it will be given in the future. I want to tell the Minister, however, that despite the report of that House of Representatives Committee, there are still major deficiencies in the matter of informing social security recipients as to their entitlements, and I can speak on that from first-hand knowledge. The report of that Committee included this recommendation: Commonwealth Employment Service employment counselling should be upgraded to give priority to assisting long-term social security recipients to return to the workforce. I know I am talking about the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) and I understand that the Minister's speech was essentially about the Department of Social Security, but nevertheless it is the attitude that `this is the Department of Social Security's job and this is the CES's job' which means that we do not get the effectiveness of government programs that we are entitled to expect. The counselling, information and training that social security recipients are entitled to is not being passed on to a large number of them at present. As I said, I speak from first-hand information because I had an interest to see whether that report might have had some effect on the provision of counselling. I do not have any evidence that it has yet. I want to congratulate the Government on the introduction of the new start program. I was very pleasantly surprised by this announcement in the Budget Speech. The social security review made some recommendations to this effect, but the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training also said: There is a need for special payment to ensure people have an incentive to move from welfare benefits into employment, and to tide them over in their new situation. People who have been out of employment for a long time, for whatever reason-whether it be on unemployment benefits or because they are sole parents rearing a family-are in a very poor position to basically physically equip themselves to attempt to get employment. The Committee's report recommended: Consideration should be given to the provision of a return-to-work allowance, paid as an advance, for social security recipients who had been out of the workforce for a long period of time. As a member of that inquiry, I can say that the range of suggested means by which that might be achieved was very wide and varied indeed and I did not envy anybody making the decision about how one would facilitate it. The Government's decision to give people a once-off payment of $100, after a long term of unemployment, to meet the reality of their situation, is to be welcomed. In the very few minutes left to me I must take this opportunity to make some comment about family allowance. I quote what the Minister said in his second reading speech regarding changes to the assessment methods for the family assistance scheme: The basis for income testing of FAS will be changed. Currently the income test, which operates on income received in the previous four weeks, encourages perceptions of the payment as a welfare measure. It is difficult to administer and creates anomalies for many low paid workers whose income fluctuates. The Bill will implement an income test based on the taxable income of the claimant and her or his spouse. . . Payments in 1989 will generally be based on taxable income for the year ended 30 June 1988. On 2 November I asked the Minister a question in this House about the means testing of family allowance. The Minister did not initially understand the import of my question but picked it up on his way through his answer. I was actually referring to the fact that means testing on the basis of taxable income creates some anomalies. I mentioned in my question that whilst people who have incomes of less that $50,000 may think they are entitled to family allowance, a number do not get it. However, families which have a much higher income than them may be getting family allowance. This is because the payment of family allowance is linked to the income tax system and, except in cases of hardship, there is not a means by which one can adjust for the inequities this system creates. I only became aware of this problem because I was approached by a constituent about it. This was a case where the husband and wife had one child and both were full time in the work force. Their income was in excess of $52,000. When the wife dropped out of the work force in order to have a second child their income almost halved. They did not qualify for family allowance as they believed they would even though his income was only $28,000. Because of the timing of her dropping out of the work force, there was not the required 25 per cent reduction in their income for their 1987-88 taxation return. In other words, she dropped out of the work force late enough in the financial year for their income not to be reduced by the mandatory 25 per cent. I was not aware that people's income had to reduce by 25 per cent for one financial year before they qualified to receive family allowance in the subsequent financial year. Because she dropped out fairly late in the financial year they have to wait to qualify until the end of the next financial year, when their income tax return for 1988-89 would show that he earned only $28,000 during the year. For 18 months he will have supported a wife and two children but have received no family allowance. It is a real anomaly. I contrast that with the situation of an age pensioner or someone who stands to lose an allowance. I know that this does not apply to the family allowance. Age pensioners are bombarded all year with letters from the Department of Social Security asking whether their income situation has changed or whether their assets have changed. The Department is looking for a change for the better so that it can take some pension off them. I contrast that with the family allowance benefit, which is meant to support families in genuine need. For it, the instant adjustment mechanism does not exist. I am not suggesting that the Government should be writing to families every three months saying, `Are you earning less and therefore can we give you some money?' People are quite capable of going to the Department of Social Security, particularly in the case of family allowance, and saying, `I think I am entitled to some family allowance whereas before I may not have been entitled to it'. There needs to be a shorter term adjustment mechanism. There are very real inequities at present. As I pointed out in my question without notice to the Minister, some families with incomes below the means test level are not receiving any family allowance-for example, I mentioned the case of a family earning $28,000-but someone earning in excess of $50,000 would be getting it. This leads to the inequity of a family needing to have both parents working to earn an income of $52,000. Another family may have one income earner getting $52,000. That one income earner family with the same number of children is in a much better position than the family where two incomes are needed to receive the same amount of money. Because of the method of administration of this means test the lower income people, the average working people, are very substantially disadvantaged. The Minister has had much to say in relation to income testing of the family allowance. I do not agree with him because I do not believe that this payment to a mother should be based on her husband's income. It should be based only on her income. Nevertheless, the Minister has justified this in terms of equity. However, the method of administration leads to straight-out cases of inequity. It is also arbitrary in that chance of the date of cessation of employment of the wife, particularly when she is dropping out of the work force in order to have another child, leads to all sorts of financial disincentives that I do not believe the Government would want to have built into what is supposed to be a family support payment. I certainly know that the Opposition would not want to have that built in. Time precludes me from saying very much more. I welcome moves by the Government to alleviate child poverty. I say very briefly-particularly following some of the things that the honouable member for Sydney said that concerned me a little-that we have to look at this report on poverty traps we received this week. We must be careful that, when trying to help people in need, we are not actually putting people into need and building in situations in which there are very heavy pressures against people who are trying to help themselves to get out of need. Those measures in the Bill that assist people into the work force and into better working circumstances are to be welcomed. I just hope that the pressures of the poverty traps, which seem to be with us forever, do not diminish the opportunity for the success of those measures. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 12.20 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to yesterday. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.20 to 2.30 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a matter of courtesy, I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, will be absent from Question Time today due to flight delays. Mr Fife —Sydney Airport? Mr HAWKE —As distinct from the Opposition with ideas, there was a blow-out of a tyre of the plane and the Attorney-General cannot be here. Mr Blunt —I thought it was Sydney Airport. Mr HAWKE —No, we cannot blame Sydney Airport for that. Any questions normally addressed to the Attorney-General should be directed to the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy. Madam SPEAKER —Yesterday at Question Time the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) put forward a proposition based on standing order 144 that a question was out of order because questions cannot refer to debates in the current session. I ruled that the question was in order. I draw the attention of the House to page 492 of House of Representatives Practice, which states: References in questions to debates in the current session, concluded or adjourned, are out of order . . . The rule does not preclude questions on the subject matter of such debates, which may be so broad as to cover, for example, the country's whole foreign policy, but rather precludes reference to the debate itself and to specific statements made in it. This confirms that my ruling was correct and that there was no substance in the point of order. Mr CADMAN —I refer the Prime Minister to further publicity given to the anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist statements of Imam Al Hilaly and, in particular, to the criticism of those statements by the head of the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission, Dr Paolo Totaro. The issue has now been formally referred to the Commonwealth by the New South Wales Government. Is the Prime Minister so compromised because of the personal association between himself, the Treasurer and the then Premier of New South Wales with the Imam-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will not cast aspersions on any member of this House. He will rephrase his question, leaving out that part which impugns another member. Mr CADMAN —Is the Prime Minister so concerned, because of past associations between himself, the Treasurer and the then Premier of New South Wales with the Imam before the last New South Wales election, that he is now unable to prevent the Imam from pursuing his dangerous and inflammatory course of racial hatred? Mr HAWKE —I am not in any way compromised by the fact, which seemed to agitate the small minds of those opposite when we were last sitting, that there exists a photograph-a remarkable thing!-in which I appear and in which my friend and colleague the Treasurer appears, as do other colleagues of mine in the Labor Party, with the gentleman in question. As I said across the table to the Leader of the Opposition, I have had my photograph taken with the Leader of the Opposition but I can assure him, members of this House and all members of the Australian public that that fact does not in any way indicate that I embrace any of the nonsense associated with his position. This is a most remarkable situation: trial by photograph, assassination by the camera. One is at a function and one happens to have one's photograph taken. I make no apology for the fact that before the last Federal election, as part of the great surge of support for the Labor Party, the Moslem community in the city of Sydney indicated its support for this Government-as well it might-at a function which I attended. There was a great range of people at that function, a number of whom I have had significant arguments with in regard to aspects of the Middle East situation. The fact that I have had those strong arguments with them and that they are aware of the deep disagreement I have with them on particular aspects does not mean that I cease to attend functions where there will be people who have different points of view from mine. It is about time the Opposition got its mind onto serious issues of policy and stopped trying to pollute the Australian political debate by this particular form of character assassination. Mr BILNEY —My question also relates in some sense to events in the Middle East, but by contrast with the previous question it is a serious one. I draw to the Prime Minister's attention the recent decision of the Palestine National Council to recognise implicitly, through its acceptance of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, the existence of Israel, and also its decision to establish an independent Palestinian state. I ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the Australian Government's reaction to these-as it seems to many people-hopeful events, and whether he would use his influence to bring about some end to the conflict which has beset the Middle East for so many years. Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Kingston for his question. He is indeed correct in the basis of his question: that the events and the decisions at the Algiers meeting are such that they should be applauded, with the qualifications, in some respect, that I will go to in a moment. I believe that it is the case that this Algiers meeting saw a significant movement by the Palestinians on some of the very contentious issues which have hindered the important search for a peaceful settlement of some of these tragic issues in the Middle East, and particularly, of course, the Israeli-Arab dispute. In that respect, let me say on behalf of the Government that we particularly welcome the Palestine National Council's acceptance of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The National Council has accepted those two intrinsically important resolutions as a basis for the holding of an international conference on these issues. Of course, as anyone who is acquainted with the complexities of these issues knows, the acceptance of those two Security Council resolutions implies the recognition of the state of Israel-something that those of us who over the years have been concerned with this complex issue have indicated is a fundamental requirement for a sensible furtherance of discussion in this area. If there is to be the possibility of a sensible furtherance of discussion, with the possibility at the end of those discussions of a peaceful resolution of this dispute, then there is the requirement on the part of the Palestinians that they recognise the existence of the state of Israel. So, as I say, the reference and the recognition by the Palestinians in their Algiers decision of resolutions 242 and 338 involve an implicit recognition of the state of Israel. We would hope that this would lead in the near future to an explicit and unequivocal acknowledgment on the part of the Palestinians of Israel's right to exist. But I do not quibble about that. It is a significant step forward. In the same sense, a very significant step forward in the Algiers decision is that aspect of the declaration which referred to the rejection of terrorism as an instrument for the achievement of the objectives of the Palestinians. That again is something which should be unequivocally welcomed. We do note that rejection of terrorism was to some extent qualified in terms of what they referred to as their rights to pursue their objective of the Palestinian state. We would hope that this important step that was taken would lead on in turn to an unequivocal rejection of the use of terror. This Government has frequently noted its support for the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, including their right, if they so choose, to independence and their own independent state. Having said that, we continue to believe that the question of a possible Palestinian state can only be resolved as part of an overall settlement of the Middle East dispute involving all the parties who are legitimately involved in and concerned with that dispute. Let me say in consequence of this that my Government continues to support the convening of an international conference on the Middle East as a means of resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute. Notwithstanding those appropriate qualifications to which I have referred, the Government believes that the meeting of the Palestine National Council in Algiers represents a positive step forward in the search for peace in the Middle East. One must say that to this stage the response of Israel has been negative. In some senses, of course, in Israel at present there are difficulties in the formulation of a response. Mr Tuckey —It should be a statement. Mr HAWKE —I have not finished my answer yet. Mr Tuckey —You are taking too long. Mr HAWKE —I will finish very quickly, but I believe that the honourable member understands the importance of this issue. Mr Tuckey —I understand the importance, but it should be a statement. Mr HAWKE —I appreciate the point, and I will finish quickly. So far, the response by Israel has been negative. We recognise the difficulties at this point in time in the process of government formation that is there; nevertheless, it is the position of my Government-and I hope it would be the position of this House-that we believe Israel should make a positive response. It should at least recognise that a new and positive step has been taken. Israel can acknowledge properly, as we acknowledge, some of the qualifications that must be attached, but we hope that there will be a positive response on the part of Israel not only in terms of the broader interests of the region but in terms of the interests of Israel itself. The situation cannot continue in which agitation in the occupied territories is held down by force. I believe, and the Government believes, that a failure on the part of Israel to respond positively would not be acceptable to the world community. It is in the interests of the Middle East and, particularly, the people of Israel that they should match the positive step taken by the Palestinians by themselves taking a positive approach. Mr MILES —Will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs confirm that a sit-in at the Aboriginal Development Commission offices on 9 November 1988 led by Mr Ray Robinson was welcomed by a senior officer of the ADC, Mr Michael Stewart, who provided people with access to the ADC boardroom and subscriber trunk dialling telephones, and gave them 25 cakes, 100 sandwiches and drinks which cost $186.34? Did the sit-in include Mr Adam Perkins and Miss Hetti Perkins? Who paid the bill for $186.34 that was sent to the ADC? Will the Minister guarantee that it was not paid by the Australian taxpayers? Mr HAND —I do not know the answer to the cakes and sandwiches question. This afternoon I will write to the ADC and obtain a formal response, and I will inform the honourable member in writing. Ms CRAWFORD —Is the Treasurer aware of recent commentary suggesting that the Government should alter its fiscal policy? What are the reasons for the current stance of fiscal policy and will the Government change that policy stance? Mr KEATING —I thank the honourable member for the question. There will be no change to fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is bearing down on demand and is providing scope for increased private sector investment, which is now running very strongly through the economy and, of course, underpinning its long term restructure. Indeed, fiscal policy is now as tight as it has been in 35 years. Last year's Budget surplus of 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) was the first in 35 years for which comparable records have been kept. This year's Budget surplus in prospect of 1.7 per cent of GDP even builds on that surplus. Yesterday's announcement of the Forward Estimates confirms the tightness of policy already in place; that is, the decisions already taken by the Government mean that as a percentage of GDP outlays will continue to fall progressively until 1991-92. In other words, the profligacy in Federal Government spending in the 1970s and early 1980s will have been wiped out and wound back to 1972-73 levels, and that is validated in the $11.7 billion of expenditure reductions which I referred to yesterday, nominated in the Forward Estimates. Yesterday, in commenting on the Forward Estimates, the shadow finance Minister said, `The Forward Estimates presented today serve to perpetuate and exaggerate the illusion of expenditure restraint under the Hawke-Keating Government'. Just for the benefit of the shadow treasurer and the shadow finance Minister I table-one for each of them-chart 7 from the Forward Estimates, which shows the estimates of the outlays falling back to their early 1970 levels. It is interesting that the honourable member for Wentworth says that he is a person who understands the numbers and the technical arguments-- Mr Carlton —He is. Mr KEATING —Is he? Yet, he says it serves to perpetuate and exaggerate the illusion of expenditure restraint. We have Commonwealth outlays down 5 to 6 percentage points of GDP, back to the early 1970s levels, and we still have a shadow finance spokesperson in the relevant portfolio saying that it is an illusion. He is saying that a 6 percentage points shift, $11.7 billion of nominated expenditure reductions by the Department of Finance, is an illusion. This is intellectualism within the Liberal Party. Dr Hewson —What about your asset sales? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Wentworth will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —We are looking for a sane debate in this country, yet the shadow finance spokesman says-- Mr Carlton —Why didn't you come into the debate yesterday? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Mackellar. Mr KEATING —The shadow finance spokesman says, `Well, a 5 to 6 percentage points reduction in Federal Government outlays is an illusion'. Worse than that, we have a competition in policy, this different view of fiscal policy in the Opposition. In the Sunday newspapers in an interview by Mr Peacock with former Senator Chipp, Mr Peacock, the shadow Treasurer says he does not believe the economy is as overheated as the Government wants people to believe it is. Then the shadow finance spokesman said last Wednesday that the Government has just not been prepared to admit that the economy was overheating. So on the one hand one says the economy is underheated and that the Government is exaggerating and on the other hand the shadow finance Minister says the economy is overheated. Dr Woods —He didn't say that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Lowe. Mr KEATING —Is it any surprise to anybody that there is not a policy response from the Opposition because it does not know what are the cause and effects. It does not have any agreement about what the state of policy ought to be. Then at the Press Club, immediately after this year's Budget, the shadow treasurer said that the coalition would deliver a lower Budget surplus than the Government. In other words, the fiscal policy was too tight and ought to be relaxed. Then the shadow finance spokesman said in an interview on 2GB on 16 November that the public sector was still kicking growth along. Contrary to the shadow treasurer, the shadow finance Minister told Michelle Grattan of the Age of 19 September that he would keep the surplus intact. So he will keep the surplus intact and the shadow Treasurer says that fiscal policy should be relaxed and that it was too tight. One says that the economy is overheating and the other one says that it is underheating. Is it any wonder that the Opposition has no fiscal policy? Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Before members opposite come out with their manifesto about feelings, intuition, premonitions and values, what about some policy on specifics, about fiscal policy, the stance of fiscal policy, budgetary cuts, taxation and coming clean with the Australian electorate, instead of this shabby kind of press statement that went out yesterday talking about the illusion of expenditure cuts for a government that has reduced Federal government spending more than any government in the Western world. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call attention to a rule which is one of the most stringent that we have for the guidance of business-standing order 84. I may say that an ordinary interjection here and there is not usually taken notice of by the Chair and has not usually been taken notice of by previous Chairs. A constant stream of interjections is decidedly disorderly. If it continues I will name without warning. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: will that same admonition apply to those who do not maintain answers which are relevant to the question asked? Madam SPEAKER —The Chair made the statement very explicit. Mr Sinclair —So it will apply both to the relevance and to the individual? Madam SPEAKER —It will apply to interjections which become decidedly disorderly. I thought I had made that very clear. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I am asking: will it also apply to relevance, as does another standing order-- Madam SPEAKER —As I have already said, it will apply under standing order 84, which I ask all members of this House to take note of. The continued barrage of interjections that I am getting from my left is decidedly disorderly. If it continues I will name without warning. That is a very clear statement. Mr Sinclair —Not to relevance? Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, on the point of order and on your statement: there is only one reason why this sort of thing occurs on this side of the House. When you tolerate members going on for over 10 minutes-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. He is now quite outside the Standing Orders. Mr MacKellar —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. In response to one of the points of order, you mentioned the speakers on your left. I hope that you will apply the rule equally to speakers on your right. Madam SPEAKER —That is exactly what I said in the statement I made to the House. Mr MacKellar —It was not what you said to the House. Madam SPEAKER —If you would listen instead of interjecting consistently you would hear the Chair. Mr MacKellar —Madam Speaker, you mentioned interjections on your left alone. Madam SPEAKER —When I made the statement I asked the House to take note of my statement. I then made a further statement, in answer to the honourable member for O'Connor, that the interjections on my left had been decidedly disorderly. Mr Blunt —Madam Speaker, on the point of order: the conduct of this House takes place within the framework of Standing Orders. On the basis of the ruling you just gave you are giving precedence to one particular standing order, which could be regarded as an attempt to intimidate the Opposition. The point of order taken by my colleague the right honourable member for New England and Leader of the National Party of Australia suggested that the standing orders applying relevance to answers to questions should also be enforced with equal vigour. I ask you to give the House an assurance that you will give equal attention to that standing order as you will to the interjections. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has put up with a very disorderly House over a fairly long time now. It does not intend to put up with it any longer. Mr Sinclair —Hear, hear! Both sides. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to those in the House on my right and my left that there are other standing orders in this House that should be adhered to. Standing order 84 and standing order 55 are two which they seem to totally neglect and ignore. Other standing orders are being used, misused or abused, depending on who is using them. The Chair will no longer tolerate it. That is the end of that. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Do I take it from that comment that we on this side of the House have your assurance that you will enforce with equal vigour and resolution-- Dr Klugman —She always has. Madam SPEAKER —Those who are interjecting on my right are not assisting the Chair. They will cease immediately. The statement the Chair made is that standing order 84, under which continued interjections are disorderly, will be applied by the Chair. The Chair will no longer tolerate it. Mr Howard —Do I take it from that comment, Madam Speaker, that we on this side of the House have your assurance that you will enforce with equal vigour and resolution-- Government members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Those who are interjecting on my right are not assisting the Chair and will cease immediately. The statement that the Chair made is that standing order 84, which relates to continued interjections becoming disorderly, will be applied by the Chair. The Chair will no longer tolerate it. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, could I resume the question that I was asking of you before I was interrupted? Madam SPEAKER —Certainly. Mr Howard —On behalf of the Opposition, can I have your assurance that you will enforce with equal vigour and resolution the standing orders relating to relevance of answers as you have so clearly indicated that you will enforce with vigour and resolution the standing order relating to persistent interjections? It is that equality of treatment and an assurance relating to it that we seek. It is necessary for members of the Opposition to be satisifed that the affairs of this House will be conducted fairly and in a balanced manner. Madam SPEAKER —In my opinion the Chair has always enforced the other standing orders with complete impartiality. I call the honourable member for McPherson. Mr Howard —I take it, Madam Speaker, that you are not prepared to give me that assurance. Madam SPEAKER —You may take it that the Chair will do as it has always done and will apply the Standing Orders with impartiality. Mr Howard —So you are not prepared to give me that assurance? Madam SPEAKER —The Chair will apply-- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —The Chair will apply the Standing Orders as the Chair has been applying them. They will be applied with impartiality to both sides of the House. I point out to the House once again that there is no standing order on the length of answers. The House has never had the guts to give the Chair one. I suggest that once again the House goes back to its Procedure Committee and gives the Chair the right to cut down long answers. I totally agree with those within the House-- Mr N.A. Brown —The Government wouldn't allow it. It's for making sermons. Madam SPEAKER —I warn you that if you continue to interject while the Chair is on its feet, you are in trouble. That is the type of discourtesy that I am talking about. Mr N.A. Brown —It is not, with respect, discourteous, Madam Speaker. Government members-Name him! Mr N.A. Brown —Enough of your sermons! Madam SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Menzies. Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the honourable member for Menzies be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. 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. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McCFisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Menzies thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr Shipton —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to your ruling on standing orders 84 and 55. Is your ruling an extension of the practice and an extension of the ruling of Deputy Speaker John Chanter who, in 1920, commented on the equivalent of this standing order? I call your attention to a rule which is one of the most stringent and that is standing order 84 for the guidance of business, upon which you have just ruled. Standing order 84 states that no member may interrupt another member while speaking, et cetera. You have interpreted that standing order in a stringent way. I ask you whether your ruling is more stringent than that of the 1920 ruling which said: I may say that an ordinary interjection here and there is not usually taken notice of by the Chair, but a constant stream of interjections is decidedly disorderly. I also ask you what is your interpretation of a `constant stream of interjections'; are they from the same person, or from people on both sides-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr Shipton —This is a serious point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I know it is serious. Mr Shipton —Thank you. Madam Speaker, I will continue. Does the constant stream of interjections have to be from one person, people from one side of the House or from people from all sides of the House? I ask whether you would still apply the interpretation on page 469 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice of the discretion that the Chair has, and I quote: The Chair, although recognising all interjections as disorderly, has also been of the opinion that it should not interfere as long as they are short and do not interrupt the thread of the speech being delivered. Is that still in your mind? My further point of order relates to standing order 84. I refer you to standing order 85. You have interpreted standing order 84 to apply to Question Time. I invite your attention to standing order 85, which says: The Speaker . . . after having called the attention of the House . . . to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition . . . Will you apply that standing order, which relates to irrelevance and tedious repetition, to answers by Ministers at Question Time? Madam SPEAKER —The standing order actually says `members in debate' but I take your point. I do not think you were here or were listening when I first read out Deputy Speaker Chanter's ruling. I agree that the ordinary interjection here and there is part and parcel of what takes place in Question Time and in this House. It would be ludicrous to expect everybody to sit dumb. As I said, I am perfectly prepared, as every previous Speaker has been prepared, for the odd interjection. I regret that we do not have any humorous ones anymore. Mr Griffiths —What about mine? Madam SPEAKER —Yours we can do without. A constant stream of interjections is decidedly disorderly and I think any fair-minded person would say that in the last few weeks we have had a constant stream of interjections. That could be from an individual or it could be from a number of people one after another. I do not intend to apply standing order 84 or 55 any more stringently than other Speakers have. I do intend that the House will come to order. Mr Carlton —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a serious matter. In the 10 years or so that I have been here I have not felt under immediate threat from the Speaker of being named without warning. I do not recall that having been raised in the time I have been here. Madam SPEAKER —I raised it about six weeks ago. Mr Carlton —I do not recall it under any previous Speaker. I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether looking back over the last few weeks there would have been anybody left on this side of the House without having been named, had this particular new procedure been in place? Madam SPEAKER —I would expect that, the Chair having spoken as it has, it would be the responsibility of this House to accept what the Chair has said. The House is becoming disorderly. Each single member has a responsibility to ensure that the House operates with maturity and with some commonsense. I would imagine that the Chair, having drawn attention to the matter, will allow interjections to continue but they will not become disorderly. Mr Shipton —On a further point of order, Madam Speaker: I ask whether you will look at standing order 85 as it relates to irrelevance and tedious repetition in relation to answers at Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —I certainly will. Mr Spender —I raise a point of order on the same issue, Madam Speaker. In the Standing Orders there are provisions which deal with relevance in debate. Frequently, members are directed by the Chair to be relevant and told that, if they are not relevant, effectively they can be sat down. The members always then become relevant. May I ask the difference between relevance in debate, when the Chair seems to have no difficulty in determining whether a person is being relevant or not, and relevance in Question time? It is the same word: it cannot have a different meaning. Madam SPEAKER —At times it can. Some of the Bills that come before the House are broader than others. Some go on to say `and for related matters', in which case we have a wider debate. So the matter of relevance is not so urgent. Other Bills are very narrow and that constrains the debate. Mr Spender —On a further point of order, Madam Speaker, I point out that if the question is a clear and specific one we can expect the Minister answering to be relevant, and that should occasion you no difficulty in ruling him to be relevant. Mr Beazley —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Question Time is not a place for debate. This is a debate on a ruling. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will let me hear the finish of this point of order. Mr Spender —In the interests of the way in which Question Time is going to be run, can I get an answer from you, Madam Speaker? Madam SPEAKER —The Chair has always ruled on relevance and will continue to rule on relevance when it is raised. Mr WHITE —The Minister for Defence will be aware of the following statement by the Acting Director of Air Force Safety: The first six months of this year have been the worst introduction to the year that we have had in the last 20 years . . . What we have found . . . is that inexperience has been a major factor in aircraft accidents to date. We now have senior Royal Australian Air Force officers complaining of further cuts in flying hours, which will make it impossible to maintain current experience levels, let alone improve them. In the face of these facts and given that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has had evidence from the Government's most senior officers in the Defence Force about the continuing decline in capabilities of the Defence Force, how can the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel keep saying that there has been no loss in Defence Force capabilities? Mr BEAZLEY —There has been no loss in Defence Force capabilities. The quotation by the honourable member amounts to a partial quotation which has since been qualified by the individual concerned. Obviously, in training more pilots, with the loss rates that we have at the moment the training exercise is larger. Where a training requirement is associated with the introduction of a new aircraft, as we have with the F18, priorities will be assigned to that exercise over and above exercises elsewhere. That is a natural concomitant of those circumstances. I point out to the honourable gentleman that the loss rates we have in our Air Force in no way compare to the much more significant problems being experienced by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation air forces. For example, in the case of the United States, where one moves beyond the six-year return of service obligation, as far as pilot retention rates are concerned critical areas of the United States Air Force are losing something like 50 per cent of their pilots per annum. Nothing like that loss rate is occurring in the Royal Australian Air Force. Whilst outlays have been falling as a percentage of gross domestic product under this Government, whilst there have been real reductions in the way the Treasurer outlined earlier in Question Time today, there were real increases in the defence area in the last Budget. There were real increases in the amounts of money devoted to the defence forces. There is no doubt about the commitment of this Government to the defence of this country. The honourable member ought to bear that in mind when he puts forward his own defence policy-at last-as I am told he will do over the next couple of weeks. He is in the wonderful position of saying, on the one hand, `We are going to spend more money on operations and personnel' and, on the other hand, having to explain how he will pay for his promises to introduce air-to-air refuelling for the F111s, expanded amphibious capability, nuclear-powered ships and submarines, and an aircraft carrier which he does not describe as an aircraft carrier but as a `seagoing platform capable of operating fixed-wing aircraft'. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The point of order gets back to relevancy. I point out to you that the answer that has just been given has been given by the Leader of the House, whose job it is to run the business of the House on the part of the Government and who therefore should have close regard to Standing Orders. He is talking about Opposition policy in answer to a question which has been put to him concerning flying time and training. I bring you back to the point that I put to you: relevance has to have the same meaning, whether it is in debate or in Question Time. The Minister should confine himself to the question and not debate the question or engage in sermons, of which we get so many from the Government side in Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —I find the Minister to be in order. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member asked me questions about the resources we were prepared to devote to the training requirements of the Air Force. Any question related to the allocation of resources in the defence budget involves a trade-off between one function and another. The fact that the Opposition even questions the relevance of my answer is an indication of the sort of ignorance that informs the Opposition's defence policy. The fact is that the honourable member does not comprehend and therefore is able to produce these absurd promises. On the one hand he says he will reduce the equipment vote in order to spend more money on operations. On the other hand, he comes in here and says, `We are going to buy nuclear-powered ships and submarines, amphibious capability, air-to-air refuelling for the F111s and an aircraft carrier'. The honourable member is totally ignorant on defence policy, as he is totally ignorant on Treasury policy. All that his question reveals is the poverty of his policy making processes. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Australian Biological Resources Study-Annual Report 1987-88. Australian Industry Development Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970. Proposals for reform of Commonwealth Government purchasing arising from Government review under the Financial Management Improvement Program-Paper-November 1988. Department of Community Services and Health-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922. Australian Pork Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 34 of the Pig Industry Act 1986. Australian Pig Industry Policy Council-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 71 of the Pig Industry Act 1986. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation-Final Report and Statement of Accounts for the period 1 January to 31 July 1988-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 9 of the Australian Horticultural Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendment Act) 1987. Australia's Health-The first Biennial Report by the Australian Institute of Health 1988-section 31 of the Australian Institute of Health Act 1987. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DOWNER —I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DOWNER —On 9 November 1988 in the Legislative Council of South Australia, the Minister for Local Government, Barbara Wiese, made the following remark: I understand that a Federal member of the Liberal Party has been involved with this- that is, the Stirling- Ratepayers Action Group. He certainly volunteered his services to sit on an executive committee of the Ratepayers Action Group at the time it was formed. I would be very distressed if that member, the member for Mayo, had participated in the decisions that have been taken by the action group to encourage people to break the law in this way. I do not suppose that we should be terribly surprised by such action . . . The point, Madam Speaker, is that in the first place I was never a member of the executive committee of that action group. I was a member of a steering committee designed to set up a ratepayers association. Secondly, I never supported a proposal that Stirling ratepayers should not pay their rates. Indeed, I cautioned that steering committee, before the ratepayers association was formed, not to go down that path. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to foster and support Australia's scientific capacity thereby critically eroding efforts to meet Australia's economic and social challenges. 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 McGAURAN(Gippsland)(3.23) —Madam Speaker, a watershed in the raging science debate will occur tonight when several hundred scientists hold a rally at the National Science and Technology Centre, which is to be officially opened. Could any one of us ever witness a more damning indictment of the Government's policy than this unprecedented public display by scientists? It is unheard of, utterly without precedent, for scientists to take to the streets in this way. It is very important in this whole debate to understand the character of scientists. They love their work, and often when one speaks with them they feel embarrassed at being paid to do something that they enjoy so much. They are the last people in the world to so dramatically demonstrate their anger at government. After all, it was only last year that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) was calling them disorganised wimps who could not lobby for their cause for love or money. Not any more! So, what has happened to bring about tonight's rally? The answer is as simple as it is tragic. Science in Australia today is in a desperate state and scientists will not stand by and passively witness their country's economic and social fabric steadily decline. For this they deserve the support and gratitude of all Australians. Anyone concerned for the future of Australia will throw his support behind our scientific community. At a time when our disastrous balance of payments situation demands increased productivity, greater competitiveness, structural adjustment, and all of the ingenuity that we can muster, the Government depletes our research and development capabilities. Self-interest, if nothing else, should force the Government to enhance, not destroy, our scientific capacity. The Government's mishandling of science and technology runs deep, and it extends even beyond the much publicised systematic destruction of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The negligence centres on, first, wrongful reductions in appropriations; secondly, an upsetting of the delicate balance that must be struck between basic research and short-term development; thirdly, a change in direction of research, much too far away from agriculture and mining; and, fourthly, totally inadequate ministerial arrangements. All of those policy failings are interrelated and together paint a picture of utter desolation. The inexcapable truth is that morale in the science community has hit rock bottom and there is no sign whatsoever that this Government, first, acknowledges the problem or, secondly, will do anything to remedy it. This has resulted in a serious loss of scientists overseas. In case anyone should doubt the existence of the brain drain, let me quote the head of the Atmospheric Research Division of the CSIRO, Dr Brian Tucker. Incidentally, that division is charged with researching the greenhouse effect, supposedly the Government's No. 1 environmental priority-a problem of such high priority that the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) cannot even obtain $1m from Cabinet for further research! I would agree that in global terms the greenhouse effect is the most worrying of all environmental problems. Dr Brian Tucker stated that in his division over the past six years government funding has been slashed by 40 per cent in real terms and staff numbers have been cut from 140 to 105. An article in the press reported him as follows: ``We've lost four of our best scientists to the US'', Dr Tucker said. ``Everybody talks about the brain drain but we really do experience it.'' Young scientists are also bitterly disillusioned by the insecurity of a career in science. A survey carried out at the Australian National University last August indicated that, of all the non-tenured research scientists at that university, 91 per cent believed that their career prospects in Australia were very poor. Furthermore, 61 per cent stated that they would be prepared to leave Australia to pursue careers overseas. Moreover, all tertiary institutions report a decline in interest in science as a career. Fewer graduates are going on to post-graduate study than ever before. This means that the chickens have not come home to roost as of today, but they certainly will in the near future as the pool of scientists, particularly specialised scientists, dries up. Is it any wonder at all that scientists and potential scientists have little or no chance of building careers? In the past year 80 per cent of professional appointments at the CSIRO have been short term, that is, one or two-year contracts only. As well, the capability and capacity of the CSIRO to take on young scientists has, to all intents and purposes, ceased. The capacity of the CSIRO to take on young scientists has not just diminished but finished. Just what is the Government's response to the crisis in science? Believe it or not, the Government has established an interdepartmental committee (IDC). Mr Lloyd —Another one. Mr McGAURAN —Another IDC. That defies belief. As if the problem is not bad enough, the Government has created another IDC as if to sweep everything under the carpet. In the past three years three thorough reports have canvassed all the issues that will be the subject of discussion by this IDC, all of them dealing with the CSIRO and science generally. One wonders whether the Minister has read them. If so, why is there a need to set up yet another inquiry, yet another inter-departmental committee? Mr Lloyd —He has failed to deliver. Mr McGAURAN —The Minister has failed to deliver. Let us turn our attention to the Minister, for whom some of us, if not most of us, have genuine affection. To all appearances he is sincere in his desire to assist science. If nice guys finish last, this Minister is not even in the race. It is not enough for the Government to trot him out as the human face whenever the heat gets turned up, as it will tonight with the rally of scientists, to explain away the problems caused by government inaction and neglect. We are sick and tired of the cloak of innocence that the Minister wraps around himself to hide the Government from the anger and disillusionment of the science community and a growing number of people in the community. It is not enough for the Minister to be bumbling and genial; he has to deliver. He has had 5 1/2 years. He has been part of the complete and utter destruction of Australia's scientific capacity. It is something of a mystery to me how the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business can continue in conscience to argue away, to excuse away and to apologise for his own Government's inaction. Mr Lloyd —He should resign. Mr McGAURAN —He should resign. There was a stage when he made public hints about resigning as the ultimate declaration of support of solidarity with the scientific community, but nothing much came of that. If the Minister dares to call scientists wimps for failing to organise themselves into an effective lobby-those words will come back to haunt the Minister-he certainly is a wimp for not following through on the expectation of resigning in support of the cause of science. Nobody takes this Minister seriously any longer, least of all the science community itself. The Minister will tell us in reply to the Opposition's matter of public importance that it is all the fault of private industry, that the level of investment by private industry is woeful by Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) standards and he will claim that the Government plays its part but is let down by the greedy, short-sighted, unimaginative capitalists out there. It is undeniably true that private sector investment in research and development is quite pathetic but it is also true that the Government's investment and lack of commitment in the area of science is just as pathetic. It is irrational to use this as a justification for cutting back on government expenditure in some sort of hope that private industry will be forced, will be dragged screaming, to increase its investment. Where is the logic in cutting back on government expenditure in the faint hope that private industry will pick it up? There are some realities which the Minister and the Government have to accept in relation to the level of private industry investment. Firstly, the Australian market is small and often will not commercially justify investments on a large scale. This is particularly so for small to medium Australian companies. Also, too often research and development is done by the overseas parent companies and the research obviously is conducted in those foreign countries. The Minister has to take into account also the investment climate. He is delving into the realms of the ridiculous if he believes that the present climate is favourable or encouraging to private industry investment, where there is not an immediate return, with high interest rates and with a rigid, inflexible labour market. The Minister has to take account of the fact that businessmen must make commercial decisions and it is the overall policies of this Government which are serving as the greatest dampener to private investment. The Minister should also take into account some of the culture of investment which is sadly lacking in the private industry. Undoubtedly those in private industry think that if they invest in research and development they may be sharing that knowledge and competitiveness with rivals in the market place. It is a very unsophisticated view but, nonetheless, instead of blaming others the Minister must face up to the Government's failings, and the failings exist for all to see. Within the Department of Finance which this Minister would have us believe is the real demon in the game, a short term view is taken. The Government and its bureaucrats have to understand that investment in science is often long term and that basic science cannot always be measured in dollars and cents. There has to be that balance between the short term objectives of basic science and research and development, but the pendulum has swung too far towards short term development. It is this more than anything else which has unsettled the scientific community and led to a drying up of funds allowed by the Department of Finance. Within the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce (DITAC) there is a similar ignorance of the true role of science, particularly in relation to CSIRO. Unfortunately, DITAC has a very narrow perspective. DITAC's policies are centred around manufacturing, and of course it concentrates on its own policy interests, so mining and agriculture, where we have a dominance in world markets, are suffering. We need to remain competitive in those areas. Quite frankly, unless the Government realises that by siphoning away what little funding there is from those areas in which we are efficient and which can be improved and where there are guaranteed markets for some of the Minister's more fanciful high-tech sunrise ideas, we will continue to suffer and the balance of payments will have no hope whatsoever. The ministerial arrangements for CSIRO in particular are disgraceful. Take, for instance, the Forestry Division. It has an impact upon and reports to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. All those areas overlap in the Forestry Division. Quite frankly, CSIRO does not know to whom it is answerable. The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce wants only that part of CSIRO that relates to manufacturing. If the Minister gets out and speaks to officers in the CSIRO he will understand some of their basic concerns. It amazes me that the Minister would express surprise at the claim that CSIRO feels out on a limb and utterly neglected by government arrangements. No-one can doubt the grave deficiency in government policy: I challenge the Minister to deny that. As things stand now, CSIRO is on its knees. In a short while it will be nothing more than a second rate institution. Australia needs to sustain a base for long term strategic research. It can do this only through an investment in both capital and scientific personnel. Let the guarantee of the Liberal-National parties stand unequivocal and unassailable: on return to government we will restore CSIRO and Australian science to the position of world pre-eminence it once enjoyed-a position that was lost soon after the Hawke Government came to power. Our nation has no other choice. Its future prosperity and the standard of living of ordinary Australians are dependent upon our scientific capacity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(3.38) —I am delighted that at long last we have the second matter of public importance in nearly six years proposed by members of the Opposition on the issue of Australia's scientific and technological capacity. They have been a long time getting around to it. Since March 1983, when I became Minister for Science and Technology, five shadow Ministers have put varying degrees of effort into the job. Unfortunately, none succeeded in stimulating public debate. Unlike the United States of America and Canada, our most recent election campaign failed to mention science. Since 1983 only 15 questions without notice have been asked by the Opposition on scientific subjects-10 in the first 18 months. There have been none at all in 1988. The previous matter of public importance on science was on 16 May 1985. The subject has simply not been on the political agenda. The Opposition totally lacks credibility here. Politicians, bureaucrats and political journalists are uneasy about science issues because they do not understand them and are reluctant to confess ignorance. We do not find too many people in this building talking about superconductivity, although I exempt members of the subcommittee chaired by the honourable member for Chisholm (Dr Wooldridge), gene-shears, the Australia telescope, computer chip design, optical fibre and scientific instruments, all important new developments. Typically, we downgrade the importance of things we do not understand. If we have to choose between saying, `I do not understand this new development so there must be something wrong with me' and `This may seem very important to scientists, but in the real world who cares?', the second response is psychologically more appealing. Hence the striking contrast between the almost universal appeal of sport, where people share a common language and there is constant reinforcement of tribal values, and what is perceived as an area of limited, esoteric appeal. If the matter of public importance had been directed to the failure of the Australian community or the failure of Australian industry to foster and support Australia's scientific capacity-- Mr McGauran —I predicted you would say that. Mr BARRY JONES —I would have had no difficulty with it. Mr McGauran —No-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I warn the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr BARRY JONES —As the honourable member for Gippsland points out, there has been a decline in scientific vocations. That is absolutely correct. But I am sorry to say that it is a phenomenon that is not confined to Australia. It seems to be a universal phenomenon and quite a serious one. Relatively speaking, the Government's record is far better than that of industry. The problem can be expressed succinctly: Australia exports science and imports technology. In 1968-69 Australia's gross expenditure on research and development amounted to 1.18 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP)-exactly the same figure it is now, 20 years later. There was a 20-year dip in between. Among the 24 nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Australia ranked about the middle of the medium research and development performers in 1968-69. By 1988 we had fallen, in terms of proportion, to the middle of the small research and development performers. However, in absolute dollar figures, Australia still spends more on research and development than some nations with higher percentages but smaller GDPs, such as Denmark. The reason for our 20-year dip was the appalling fall in private sector research and development spending in the 1970s. It fell here when figures in virtually every other OECD member country rose. Successive governments adopted the policy-or the bureaucrats did it for them-that government spending on research and development should aim to compensate for market failure until the private sector was prepared to take over the area; that is, by privatising research. There is something to be said about one aspect of the Friedmanite position. The proportionality between government and industry funding is still too heavily weighted towards government. Of the 24 OECD nations, Australia's budgetary expenditure on civilian research ranked sixth-far above Britain, Sweden, Japan and the United States as a percentage of GDP. The area of greatest concern is that, at a time when other OECD nations have increased the quantum of funding, Australia is where it was two decades ago. The world has moved on; we have not. The good news is that the trend line in industry funding is rising and imaginative use of the industrial partnership and offsets programs will maintain or increase that trend. The bad news is that the private sector response has still been sluggish. It has mistakenly interpreted the reduction in government funding as an entirely negative signal. Even the take-up rate for the 150 per cent tax incentive was less than might have been expected. Australia was not alone in virtually freezing budgetary appropriation for research and development. The United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand did the same. In all four nations the central role of market force economics was dominant. Canada, however, changed course when Prime Minister Mulroney went through a Damascus road conversion at the beginning of 1988 and announced that an additional $Can1.3 billion would be made available over the next five years for centres of excellence, convened a national conference on science and technology and set up a science committee of Cabinet which he chairs. The achievement of the Hawke Government in restructuring the Australian economy has been enormous. Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, deserves great credit for initiating massive changes in the motor vehicle industry, steel, shipbuilding, chemicals, plastics, and textiles, clothing and footwear industries. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Treasurer (Mr Keating) have laid the foundation for a far stronger, more modern economy. Our economy is now globally oriented. We are now exporting more technologically based products than ever before-motor vehicles to Europe and Japan, specialised steels to the United States, optical fibres to Sweden, and even fetta cheese to Greece. We are no longer aiming to satisfy domestic demand only and sheltering behind tariff walls. Our rate of job creation is by far the highest proportionally in the OECD, with the highest participation rate in our history. However, the trade figures are a continuing problem. A very high proportion of our deficit is in high technology goods, the sophisticated imports-computers, office equipment, cameras, watches, television sets, compact disc players, scientific instruments, aircraft, robots and production goods. In regard to the proportion of the value of imports over exports in brain based goods we are not doing well; we are tail end Charlies. It is a matter of great concern that so much of industry has been content to buy its research off the shelf overseas, often ignoring the excellent capacity offered by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and other research institutions in Australia. We have had a bad record in rejecting or failing to understand the significance of local innovation. Our pioneering work on computers in the late 1950s was rejected by sound, sensible, practical men with their feet on the ground in Canberra who said that computing had no economic future. They, or their non-apostolic successors, also rejected our pioneering work on second generation transistors which they thought was an interesting laboratory phenomenon but which would never replace the valve. It happened again with Dr David Warren's `black box' flight recorder, with our space capability and with colour copying machines. Could the same thing happen now? Indeed it could. Even at a time of acute Budget stringency, there are great achievements in Australian science. Wonderful achievements are being made such as CSIRO's gene-shears, work on superconducting, the `fast Fourier transform' chip, which I will mention in a minute, and the work on an influenza vaccine and on an extraordinary new diagnostic tool-the polymerize chain reaction. That illustrates a central problem which was not resolved by the contribution of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). He said on the one hand that we ought to be re-enforcing our investment in areas where we are already doing well. I can see that in a sense that is quite an attractive view, but the problem for Australia is that there is an extraordinary degree of imbalance between the contribution made to exports by what is in world terms a declining share of world trade and our very poor performance in the fastest growing area of world trade. One of the great turning points in economic history, as Paul Kennedy pointed out in his book The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, was the year 1957. That was the year in which for the first time total world exports of commodities were exceeded by the total world export value of manufactured goods. It never happened before, and since 1957 the gap has widened. The difficulty is that Australia has never secured a significant toehold in the fastest growing area of world trade. We still have a very respectable performance in the declining sector of world trade. I have never said that we have to eliminate one area at the expense of the other. That would be madness. We have to do both. Mr McGauran —That is a practical effect. Mr BARRY JONES —I am glad the honourable member raised that point. In 1982-83, the last year of the previous Government, the number of professional staff in CSIRO directly engaged in rural research was 713. What would the honourable member for Gippsland think about the 1987-88 figure? Would he think it would be more or less? Would he like to lay money on it? Do I hear an answer? Ms Jakobsen —More. Mr BARRY JONES —The answer is more. The figure is 778. The proportion has gone from 29 per cent of the professional staff to 32 per cent. Does the honourable member for Gippsland see that as a catastrophic blow? Does he see that the whole area is collapsing, that the whole thing is on its knees? I do not think so. It is true that if we look at the total estimate of CSIRO staff, both professional and non-professional, we will see that there has been a change. I concede that. In 1982-83 the proportion was 40 per cent of the total. Would the honourable member for Gippsland care to hazard an informed estimate as to what the percentage is this year? I concede that it is not 40 per cent. What does he think it would be? Does he think it would be less than 30? Mr McGauran —What is this-a quiz show? Mr BARRY JONES —I am just trying to test whether the honourable member has any idea what he is talking about. I think the answer is quite clear. He really does not have any idea of the quantity. The number has declined from 40 per cent of the total to 39 per cent of the total. As I said, the number of professionals has gone up but the total staff numbers in that area have deteriorated by one per cent. There is no doubt that CSIRO has gone through a period of extraordinary financial stringency. We all recognise that; it is having to do more things with less. The other part that I thought was odd about the comments of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) was that he kept extolling the need to take the long view, the idea that we ought to be doing things. He was very critical of what he called the `sunrise industries', a term we have not used for quite some years- Mr McGauran —Ha, ha! Mr BARRY JONES —I know, absolutely right. We are looking at the areas such as the gene-shears and the fast Fourier transform device. This will take some years and will require not a minor contribution from industry but a massive contribution. More than anything else we need to encourage industry to develop that very long term view. When I was in the United States in August I was struck by something said by the Vice-President of DuPont. Mr McGauran —On no, not again! Mr BARRY JONES —It is worth repeating. Mr McGauran —For the tenth time? Mr BARRY JONES —It takes up the point that the honourable member made and perhaps puts it a bit more clearly than he is capable of doing. The Vice-President said that in his view the problem was that there were only six corporations in the US with a time horizon of 30 years. He thought that there were more than 40 in Japan. In Australia, the sad reality is that there are none. We are not yet developing the industrial infrastructure for the twenty-first century. I have something here from CSIRO which I think a great achievement. It is the `fast Fourier transform' chip, which has 167,000 different components in it and is absolutely at the leading edge of technology. I think it could make a fundamental contribution to Australia's role in the world instrumentation industry. It is an area that is growing very fast and it is estimated that by 1995, worldwide, it will be a $300 billion industry and we have to have a good share of that. The CSIRO is doing that although it has been extraordinarily difficult for it. However, I think that the situation will be much better than it has been before. We have problems in credibility, adequacy, morale and recruitment. The group of officials, appointed by the Prime Minister in October to examine and make recommendations about our scientific potential, will report in December. This is the best news for science for a long time. It has nothing to do with the reports of the Australian Science and Technology Council; they were simply organisational. The cutting back of expenditure to exhibit fiscal discipline and promote closer interaction with industry was a worthwhile objective but it depended on a very fast response time from industry which did not come or did not come in time. Because industry failed to invest in the way that Swedish, Dutch and Swiss corporations invested our core capacity has been weakened. If we are to be able to create and sustain a research base for the new industries for the twenty-first century, we have to do far more. Again, the burden cannot all be placed on the taxpayer. Industry must do more but I concede that we may have been giving contradictory signals. The stick theory has its limitations. It seemed to industry that we were saying, `We have to weaken CSIRO's capacity to strengthen its performance'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SMITH(Bass)(3.53) —I found it somewhat interesting to listen to the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) giving an erudite exposition of the position that he regularly gives, but he has failed to address the issue. All he has done is blame industry, blame the bureaucracy, blame the Liberal Party of Australia but not blame himself-there is nothing wrong with him, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. He has tried to blind us with science. It is all right to refer to particular figures and it is all right to say that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) numbers in a particular division have gone up and then cloud the issue by referring to the numbers of professional staff as against those who are not professional. The growth has not been in professional staff, it has been elsewhere; so those numbers bear much closer scrutiny. I am surprised that the Minister comes in here and uses those types of figures in the way that he has. An interesting point was alluded to by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) when he first opened this debate, admittedly the first debate on science for a long time. It is ironic that he alluded to the fact that today, 23 November 1988, we are arguing about science, and this evening for the first time in Australia's history we will have a demonstration from more than 500 scientists. Mr Barry Jones —It is not the first demonstration. Mr SMITH —It is all right to say that it is not a demonstration, but they are gathering to exhibit concern. Where are they doing it? They are doing it in one of the premier bicentennial gifts to this nation, funded primarily by the Japanese Government, and Japan has the fastest growing economy. I will quote some figures shortly about what is happening to science in Australia. What is going to happen tonight? We are having the opening of a national science centre, preceded by a national demonstration of concern about science. It will send a signal to the world that we are not serious about science. It will send a signal to this nation that we are not serious about science. All the Minister can do is say, `But it is industry's fault. It is the bureaucracy's fault. It is the Liberal Party's fault'. It is no-one's fault but the Government's. The Government was elected to lead and it is not leading. The demonstration tonight will be a peaceful one. `Demonstration' may not be the correct word. For a long time most scientists have suffered in silence. Those who have articulated the problems and needs, not only of science but of the nation, have been largely ignored by their political masters. Now scientists are increasingly putting the pressure on government to take notice of the plight of science in this country, hence the gathering, the demonstration, which is unprecendented in Australia. Honourable members should consider the following: Australia's position in research and development spending has dropped to 16 in a list of 22 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries by any measure. That is accepted. Australia ranks alongside economies such as New Zealand and Ireland and just higher than Iceland in commitment to research funding, government or private. Most industrialised nations are now spending more on research and development. The gap between Australia and its major econonmic competitors is becoming a chasm. The Minister has pointed to a 21.6 per cent drop in Government spending on science between 1983 and 1988. I maintain, as I have done in this chamber before, that it is higher than that. Let us have a closer look at some of those figures. I quote from the submission by the CSIRO to the IDC: The world's strongest economy, Japan, has boosted its R& from 0.84% of GDP in 1955 to 3.19% in 1987, so becoming the first country in the world to top 3%. Australia's R& level as a proportion of GDP has only just regained that of 20 years ago. We have been going backwards at an accelerated rate during the term of the Hawke Government. It concludes: In Australia, we are mortgaging this future by reducing the level of longer term research as we pursue more immediate economic returns from our research. As I have said many a time, science is all about preparing today for tomorrow. What this Government is doing with its science policies is sacrificing tomorrow in pursuit of short term gains that may or may not be there. It is all right to say that we have a high-tech need for communication equipment. We do-$10 billion by the 1990s. But let us not ignore those areas in Australia that have added greatly to our value as an exporting nation-minerals and agriculture. That is the point the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) was making. By walking away and reducing funding-proportionately funding in these areas has been reduced over the last five years-we have ignored the areas of environmental funding, soil degradation, water purity, the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer. They are the areas of significant interest to Australia and its future. They are the areas we ought to be concentrating on. The Government has moved the research budget away from those areas in pursuit of what might be important-I do not doubt that-but is it of fundamental importance? When we have competing priorities, where is the Government going to put the funds? It has to put them where the country most needs them and can best use them, so that we can get the long term benefit. What I am saying and what the Opposition is saying is that the funds have been misdirected away from where our true, long term interests lie. When we have a closer look at what is happening to our economy we see that there are weaknesses. Only 20 per cent of our exports are manufactured. Our trade imbalance in high technology and manufactured goods continues to grow alarmingly. Trade ratios show an inverse relationship to the level of technology. Too many of our primary-based industry exports have little value added. Less than 5 per cent of our export income is generated from technology products involving a significant intellectual input, compared with 60 per cent for Japan. The result is that Australia's national debt per head of population is exceeded only by those of Mexico and Brazil, and today Australia ranks about eighteenth in per capita income terms. A century ago we had perhaps the highest living standard in the world. Many times I have called for a recognition of science. Until now the other side of the Parliament has shown no interest in science. It is all right for the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business to stand up and say that we have shown no interest. We have certainly tried; but, other than the Minister, not one Government member has ever spoken in any meaningful way about science and where the funds ought to go. The Government has taken away from the Minister the responsibility for science. It has been spread to the seven winds of the bureaucracy. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) now possibly has more input into science than the Minister for Science has. The same is true for the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). The Analytical Laboratories, which tests foods imported into this country, is now under the responsibility of the Minister for Administrative Services. Unbelievable! Productivity levels, the levels of exports and imports, the current account deficit, all ultimately impact on the living standards of average Australians. The science community has finally got rid of its wimp tag. It has stood up and told us of the importance of the link between a strong support for science and the economy, that by ignoring science we are accelerating the economic decline of this country. Let me read the first paragraph of the submission by the CSIRO, which was leaked to us the day it was released, about what it believes is important to science: CSIRO's research is essential to the success of the Government's strategies for improving the international competitiveness of all industry sectors. This support is important both to Australia's traditional industries and to the task of fostering new industries to broaden the country's export base. CSIRO provides the best practical mechanism to order priorities and focus research so that Australia can derive the greatest competitive advantage from its intellectual wealth. The submission goes on to talk about CSIRO's appropriation funding declining significantly over the past five years. It also makes the point that the 1988 OECD report on science and technology policy disagrees with governments that believe their expenditure on research can be reduced by encouraging industry to support research in public institutions. As a nation we ignore that advice at our peril. What I fear is that this Parliament is ignoring that type of advice. For too long we have stood back and hoped that things would be all right. They will not be. I say to the Minister in conclusion: the poet Bailey said that we live in deeds, not years. Longevity in this place, whilst admirable for the stamina it takes, is not the measure of achievement. If, after some 20 years in public life, we can show that Barry Jones has presided over the demise of science in this country it will be a tragedy for him because we know of his personal commitment. But more importantly, it will be a tragedy for our nation. We in this place will be gone before we suffer the consequences of the folly of the policies the Minister's Government is now pursuing. Unless the Government does more, this nation will be a lot poorer. Science is important. It is about preparing today for tomorrow. Woe betide any government of any political persuasion that chooses to ignore that fact. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(4.03) —One thing that has been demonstrated in this debate so far is that, even though the points of view of honourable members on both sides of the House are somewhat different, there is an obvious concern for the development of science and for the future of science in Australia. Much of the public concern expressed about the situation facing Australian science has focused on the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. CSIRO is Australia's premier scientific research organisation, carrying out about 15 per cent of all Australian research and development. A few years ago, before industry's research and development performance improved, CSIRO was undertaking about 20 per cent of the research and development in this country-as much as the whole of the private sector and about as much as the universities were carrying out in the natural sciences. CSIRO has a justifiable and enviable reputation internationally for the quality of its scientific research. Since its establishment as the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in 1926, it has made an enormous contribution to Australia's well-being, especially through the research support it has provided to the agricultural and mining industries, traditionally and still the mainstays of our export earnings. The dramatic changes in the world economy this decade-its increasing competitiveness and its increasing emphasis on technology-based goods and services-have led all industrial nations to examine closely the structure of their research and development systems with the aim of streamlining them and making them more efficient and effective so that they gain the maximum industrial benefit from the research and development they perform. Given its dominant position in Australian research and development, it is not surprising that the Hawke Government paid early attention to the potential for CSIRO to make an even greater contribution to the nation and, in particular, to assist in the restructuring of Australian manufacturing industry by enhancing its international competitiveness through technological innovation. Since coming to power, the Government has made profound changes to the organisation. In 1985 the Government instructed the Australian Science and Technology Council to examine CSIRO's role as the first part of a wide-ranging investigation of all Australian research and development. The most significant outcome of that inquiry was the decision by the Government to replace the CSIRO executive in 1986 with a larger board headed by a part time chairman to strengthen the external policy direction of the organisation. That has to be understood. The organisation is not inward-looking. It is now outward-looking. It is concerned with the planning of Australian science for the long term. Under the direction of the board, CSIRO has now been completely restructured into six institutes that reflect the broad industry and community sectors, and research divisions that reflect specific industries within these sectors. These changes have strengthened relationships with the users or potential users of CSIRO research; concentrated research into fewer, larger programs; and enhanced the transfer of research results to industry and other users for the economic and social well-being of Australia. CSIRO is also strengthening its management systems, including the management and evaluation of research projects, both in terms of market potential and scientific and technological merit. Every member of this House, no matter how churlish some comments might be, would give full credit to the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) for the work he has done in providing the political leadership in this regard. The intention behind these management changes is to maximise the flexibility and responsiveness of the research divisions, while still retaining a level of overall direction of CSIRO's research according to national priorities and objectives. The changes have already resulted in significant shifts in the distribution of CSIRO's resources. Research for the manufacturing and information industries has been substantially increased in accordance with the Government's policy of making these sectors more internationally competitive. Contrary to the concerns expressed by the rural sector, CSIRO's overall rural research has not fallen, although it is true that this is because industry funding from this sector has increased in recent years. That is to be commended. The joint relationship between the two sectors is precisely what this Government is aiming at in the restructuring of Australian industry-ensuring that, where possible, Australian industry takes up a larger share of the responsibility for research. That is something which I am sure honourable members on the other side of the House will applaud. The effect of the changes to CSIRO is also apparent from a range of commercial indices. The number of provisional patents taken out by CSIRO has quadrupled from 42 in 1984-85 to 172 in 1987-88. The number of commercial opinions provided to CSIRO by Sirotech, the commercial company set up in 1984, has increased from 130 in the first year to over 350. The value of sponsored research undertaken by CSIRO for Australian companies has climbed from $4.3m in 1983-84 to $16.5m in 1987-88. CSIRO has also entered into some 16 equity investments, worth over $20m, during this period. Farmer organisations sometimes argue that the research emphasis should remain on the primary sector, where Australia possesses natural comparative advantages. I have considerable sympathy for the rural sector's point of view in terms of its continuing need for research support and for the continuing great contribution it makes to this country's economy. Farmers appreciate, perhaps more than any other group in Australia, the value and necessity of research to their industrial success. We should be maintaining and even increasing the level of research support for the rural sector. In fact, the Government has substantially increased its contribution to the rural industry research funds which are based on industry levies matched dollar for dollar by the Federal Government. The farmer bodies are wrong to suggest that we should not be undertaking more research in the manufacturing sector. I am sure the honourable member for Bass would agree. Global economic trends demand that we improve the competitiveness of this sector in terms of its capacity both to capture export markets and to replace imports-a major source of our trade imbalance. I am sure we are nodding in agreement. For example, Australia has a trade imbalance in information technology of almost $4 billion per annum. If this trend continues it will reach $10 billion in five years' time-unless we can manufacture a far greater proportion of our requirements. That is one of the points that the Minister was making when he demonstrated that device that CSIRO has developed. We can do it. Let me give the example of our medical and scientific instruments industry. Whilst it is small, it is growing rapidly, with most of its growth coming from exports. Its growth and its export intensity-the ratio of exports to domestic production-is about twice that of the manufacturing sector in general. Production has grown from $360m in 1980-81 to about $1 billion last financial year. In other words, it now compares favourably with some of our agricultural industries. It is in this direction that we should be focusing our attention-the benefits of the scientific research which has been undertaken, a targeted research, a more disciplined research. It exemplifies the way Australian manufacturing needs to go. It is technology-based and skill-based; it is integrated with the international market; and it shows a real entrepreneurial flair. It is, incidentally, an industry founded on CSIRO research-the invention of the atomic absorption spectrometer-and one to which the Organisation has since made an enormous contribution. However, decades of sheltered existence have left Australian secondary industry ill-equipped to meet the challenges posed by the rapid deregulation of the Australian economy, and the consequent need for major restructuring. Whilst industry's research and development has increased in recent years, stimulated by the 150 per cent tax concession and other Government initiatives, its initial effort remains poor by international standards. Australia ranks about sixteenth out of 22 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in total research and development. It ranks about nineteenth in terms of the percentage of its research and development funding. We have to give clearer, more affirmative signals to the CSIRO, to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, to the research community generally, and to industry itself, that we see our scientific capacity as being critical to our future. The Hawke Government has restructured our economy in many ways. I believe that we are entering into a period of vision in which we will face the future with greater understanding and greater confidence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, I present the Committee's third 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 —by leave-This report is the third report prepared by the Joint Subcommittee on Variations to the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs and covers Variation 1988/4. Variation 1988/4 contains two proposals to vary the city plan: one to rectify the encroachment of a driveway onto Commonwealth land in Bruce; the other to provide for an access road for a residential development in Isaacs. Although the proposals were only gazetted on 14 October 1988, the Australian Capital Territory Administration asked that we look at these proposals quickly. The National Capital Development Commission (NCDC), following public consultation, received an objection to the variation. The Joint Subcommittee held a public hearing on the variation on last Tuesday, 15 November 1988. A number of issues were raised at the public hearing. In relation to the driveway encroachment in Bruce, it was pointed out to the Joint Subcommittee that the house on the block concerned was prominent and the siting and the design of it did not blend in with the topography. Special building conditions were imposed on houses in the Bruce South area. However, these conditions were not so well enforced in the later stages of the development and, therefore, this house is at the lower end of the acceptability range. Further, there were changes to the development plan which took in the hill reserve behind the Bruce South development. Residents were neither consulted nor informed of the changes to the nature and fire trail, nor were they consulted on the construction of a pedestrian access in the gully. The Isaacs proposal provides for an access road to enable development of standard residential blocks by the Housing Industry Association. The briefing notes provided to the Joint Subcommittee on this proposal by the NCDC and the ACT Administration were misleading. The notes indicated that the access road was to be constructed when in fact it had already been built. The Committee is concerned that developers should not seek approval from the Joint Subcommittee for gazettals which are of a retrospective nature. An administrative process which allows such a situation to occur is clearly inadequate and this causes us serious concern about how future private sector development will proceed. The current procedure, which enables private developers to pre-empt the parliamentary approval process, must be revised. The Joint Subcommittee has approved the two proposals in Variation 1988/4, as the Bruce proposal is a minor road addition and the access road in Isaacs is the only logical means of subdividing the block. In so doing, the Committee expresses its concern that the NCDC did not ensure compliance with the building conditions in all instances in the Bruce South development and that there was no public consultation following changes to the development plan, which takes in the hill reserve. The Committee is also concerned that the ACT Administration allowed construction of the access road in Isaacs to proceed when there was still uncertainty about its status. Seeking retrospective approval for a variation to the road plan of Canberra makes a mockery of the parliamentary review procedure. In future, any project for which there is even a slight possibility of the inclusion of a public road should be sent to the Joint Parliamentary Subcommittee for approval as early as possible in the planning process. Otherwise, the private sector land development process will simply become a means for avoiding public scrutiny of Canberra's development. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill. Mr LEE(Dobell)(4.20) —I rise to support the legislation before the House on social security and the legislation governing the payment of pensions to veterans. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill implement a number of decisions announced in the Budget in August this year. I wish to concentrate my contribution today in two areas-on the question of rent assistance and on the definition of `income' for the social security incomes test. At present, pensioners receive up to $15 a week in rent assistance and those receiving sickness benefits or unemployment benefits receive up to $10 a week in rent assistance. In December 1989 people receiving sickness or unemployment benefits will also be able to receive $15 a week, an increase of $5 a week, bringing rent assistance paid to beneficiaries into line with rent assistance paid to pensioners. For the first time there will be parity between those receiving pensions and those receiving benefits. That makes sense and I commend it. The second alteration to rent assistance is even more important. It provides for the payment of additional rent assistance to those families renting privately who have children. In June 1990 the Government will provide a supplement of $5 a week for families who rent privately and who have one or two children, and a supplement of $10 a week for those with three or more children. That is something I commend. A family in which the main breadwinner is unemployed and where there are three children today receives $15 a week in rent assistance in addition to the base rate of pension; in June 1990 that will be increased to $30 a week in rent assistance, an increase of 100 per cent. That is to be commended. Some people have suggested that the more assistance the Government provides to the unemployed or those in need, the greater the disincentive for those people to return to the work force. We should remember that these changes apply not only to unemployment and sickness benefits but also to the family allowance supplement (FAS) scheme. By increasing the amount of the FAS that is provided to people who rent privately in line with the rent assistance paid to those who receive pensions and benefits, we are ensuring that we are not building more poverty traps into the social security system. We are trying to ensure that those people receive every possible incentive to improve themselves and return to the work force without their losing some support in this area. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), in his second reading speech, made an important comment, of which I wish to remind the House, on the definition of income. The Minister said that it is a cornerstone of our country's social security system that there be a fair means test. He made clear that the Government would undertake to act to counter any devices or schemes designed to circumvent the income test for pension and benefit eligibility. That is something I support. To assist me in my contribution and for the benefit of honourable members, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ASSETS TEST FOR HOMEOWNERS Marital status *Full Pension/benefit For part pension Single ... Up to $89,250 Less than $149,500 Married (combined) Up to $127,000 Less than $227,500 *Assets over these amounts reduce the pension by $2 pw for every $1,000 above the limit (single and married). ASSETS TEST FOR NON-HOMEOWNERS Marital status *Full Pension/benefit For part pension Single ... Up to $153,250 Less than $213,500 Married (combined) Up to $191,000 Less than $291,500 *Assets over these amounts reduce the pension by $2 pw for every $1,000 above the limit (single and married). INCOME TEST FOR PENSIONS Maintenance income is treated separately. Refer to Maintenance Income Test leaflet for details Marital status * For full pension For part pension ^ Single ... Up to $40 pw Less than $280.10 Single (over 70 years) ... Up to $40 pw Less than $302.90 Single + 1 child (under 13) ... Up to $52 pw Less than $360.10 Married (combined) ... Up to $70 pw Less than $470.20 Married (both over 70 years) ... Up to $70 pw Less than $504.60 Additional Children ... Add $12 pw each child Add $56 pw for each child (under 13) * Income over these amounts reduces the rate of pension payable by 50 cents in the dollar (single), 25 cents in the dollar each (married). (No income test on basic pension for a blind pensioner). ^ Add $30 pw if maximum rent assistance is payable. Source: Department of Social Security July 1988 chart. Mr LEE —I thank the House. This chart makes clear that at present under the income test people can still receive the full pension and earn up to $40 a week in non-pension income if they are single or $70 a week if they are married. Of course, similar limits are provided under the assets test. The important thing we must remember is that 73 per cent of pensioners receive the full base rate of pension because their income and assets are less than the relevant limits. Many people say, `What we need is a pension for everyone, no matter what their assets, no matter what their income, because people have paid taxes all their lives'. That might sound attractive at first glance, but let us consider who benefits if every person over 65 receives a pension. The 73 per cent of pensioners who already receive the top rate of pension would not get one cent extra if we provided everyone with the pension no matter what their assets or income. Those who would gain are those who have already provided for their retirement through superannuation, who have received large lump sums or who have large amounts invested. I believe it is fair that those people should be asked to provide for their own retirement. One example that comes to mind is the Hon. Sir James Killen, former member of this House, now an eminent barrister appearing before a certain inquiry in Queensland. He retired from this House with a substantial pension and I am sure that, given his skill and legal expertise, he is also earning a considerable amount of money as a barrister in Queensland. Why should James Killen receive an age pension? I suggest to those in the grey power movement and other organisations who say that all people should get a pension because they have paid their taxes that James Killen has paid his taxes but he should not receive an age pension. That would be ridiculous. It would be ridiculous for someone in his financial circumstances or any retired politician to receive a pension because he has paid taxes during his life. I remind the House of that. Of course, there are other cases. For example, constituents who came to my office early this week had retired with a substantial lump sum, which has been invested. Those people do not expect to receive a pension, because they had generous superannuation in their working lives. They knew that when they retired they would invest the lump sum and that the interest earnings on the lump sum would provide for their retirement. They do not expect to bludge on the community and get an age pension. Sometimes I become a bit concerned about people who have large sums of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and who believe it is their right to invest those sums in special, complex arrangements so that they can get a full pension on top of their interest earnings and other substantial investment income. I think that is wrong, and I am pleased that the Minister is tightening the loopholes. I am pleased he has agreed that these changes will not be retrospective and that, if people make investment decisions under certain rules, the rules will not be changed halfway through the life of the investment. That is something I commend. In the few minutes remaining to me I wish to comment on the amendment moved by the shadow Minister for Social security, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), part of which states: . . . the House condemns the Government for the confusion it has caused to pensioners. Having sat through debates in this chamber when members of the Opposition sought to inflame fear in the community about the assets test, I wonder who is to blame for causing fear in the pensioner community? I recall that in the last Parliament one member of the Opposition suggested that under the assets test pensioners would have the gold in their teeth valued, that they should be worried about how many gold fillings they had. I leave it to the people of Australia to judge who has sought to create needless fear in our community. I was interested to read the Opposition's new policy on social security, and I will quote from one report of Mr Connolly's launching of his Party's policy earlier this week. The Sydney Morning Herald stated: Those retiring at 55 or over could take benefits as a lump sum. But the portion of the lump sum which received the benefit of tax concessions-mainly employer contributions-would be taken into account in assessing eligibility for the pension at 65 or later. This would be done through a deemed income provision-calculating the amount which the subsidised part of the lump sum would have earned if retained until 65 or later retirement. There we have it, a return to the bad old days of deemed income, something which we saw in Australia in 1976. For those who do not remember, I remind the House that in 1976 we did not have something called the assets test; we had legislation that provided that, if someone had $100,000 in a cheque account that earned no income, the Department of Social Security could deem that investment to have a certain rate of return and, therefore, that would be income. That system was much tighter and tougher on pensioners than is the assets test that this Government has legislated to implement. The 1976 provisions for assuming deemed income on assets were much tougher than the assets test that now applies, yet the Opposition wishes to go back to the bad old days of 1976. I think that would be a backward step. It is right that under the current legislation the Government considers the actual income, whether a capital gain, dividend interest or some other form of income. Yet the Opposition wishes to go back to the bad old days of deemed earnings, whether or not people really earned the money. I commend the Minister, who is at the table, for his continuing reforms, especially in rent assistance and in tightening the definition of income. I support the legislation before the House. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(4.30) —I shall take a few minutes to comment on the various contributions made in the cognate debate which covered the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill and which included a large number of particular measures. I think the honourable members who have contributed to the debate have focused around the issue of market-linked investments which has been a matter of some public controversy, but they have also referred very positively, particularly the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) on the opposite side of the House and members on this side of the House, to measures such as the jobs, education and training scheme for sole parents-JET-and also to the new start program which is designed to assist long term unemployed people to return to the work force. A number of comments have also been made with respect to a significent set of reforms which are included in this legislative package concerning rent assistance. We have reached the point in terms of this proposed legislation where rent assistance will be effectively available across different classes of pensioners and beneficiaries at similar levels and in this proposed legislation the Government also introduces a family component into rent assistance in that the rate will now vary according to the presence of children. That is a significant reform because we know within the context of research that has been done on the issue of poverty that after housing costs poverty is particularly prevalent amongst low income families which are in private rental accommodation. While the process of rent reform has taken some time, within this Bill we have significant rent reform assistance indeed. I will take the couple of minutes that remain to respond to the remarks made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and other honourable members, including the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), on the issue of market-linked investments. In government one does not have the luxury of avoiding choices. One has to recognise in government that resources are scarce and one has to ensure that if there is a policy, that that policy is operated fairly and consistently. The fact of the matter is that market-linked investments were a form of investment promoted by investment advisers for the purposes of circumventing the income test. In a context in which we have pensions and benefits paid in Australia that are by no means generous by international standards, it is important that we provide assistance such as we are able to provide as fairly as possible. The Opposition, unfortunately, did jump on the bandwaggon and involve itself in an emotional campaign of opposing these changes that the Government has brought into effect to ensure that the income test would operate fairly. Indeed, the change was somewhat minimal in the sense, as the honourable member on the opposite side of the table has pointed out, that account has been taken of capital growth in respect of market-linked investments since at least 1980 and the difference essentially is that the Government has taken account in terms of this Bill on an accruals rather than on a realisation basis. So a great deal of the confusion in the community might have been avoided if people involved in that emotional campaign had made that point crystal clear. The Government has been successful in terms of both economic and social policy because it has had the capacity to make these decisions. That is why we are able to talk about 8 per cent real increases in pensions; it is why the Government is able to talk about the achievement of the 25 per cent goal; it is why the Government has been able to ease income tests; and it is why the Government has been able to increase by 40 per cent real expenditure on non-health services for the aged. Under the stewardship of this Government the aged people in this country have been given a very great priority but we have had to make decisions to ensure that the 73 per cent of pensions on the full rate of pension are the people who have been given the greatest priority. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! 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. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.37) —I move: Clause 8, page 7 omit proposed subsection (4c) substitute the following sub-sections: `` `(4c) A determination made pursuant to subsection (4b) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, subject to the provisions of subsection (4ca). ``(4ca) Section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, applies to a determination made pursuant to subsection (4b) as if paragraph (1) (b) of subsection 48 were omitted and the following paragraph substituted: ``(b) subject to this section, shall take effect on the first day on which the determination is no longer liable to be disallowed, or to be deemed to be disallowed, under this section; and'' '.''. I understand that the Government supports the amendment. The Opposition moved this amendment because it believes it is important to restrict the disclosure of information, the powers for which are contained in the Act which should effectively enable the Department of Social Security to allow information on individuals to be distributed-to use the words of the Bill-`in the public interest'. We believe this is a somewhat nebulous term and it should be more specifically defined in the Bill or in the regulations under the Bill. It is important that the Minister set guidelines as to what the public interest is, and it is also important that Parliament should have the capacity to see those guidelines and also to disallow them. For that reason the Opposition recommends that the guidelines be contained in regulations and therefore be subject to the normal regulatory procedures of the House rather than simply give the House the capacity to see tabled guidelines which it may or may not support. I commend these amendments to the Committee. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(4.38) —The Department has historically taken a strict view of when it should release information in the public interest. I am more than happy to undertake that the guidelines I will issue will take a similarly strict view. The amendment of the Opposition would make these guidelines disallowable and ensure that they do not come into force until Parliament has an opportunity to consider them, and the Government accepts the Opposition's amendment. Amendment agreed to. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(4.38) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 11, page 14, line 20, omit ``(3) (b)'', substitute ``(4) (b)''. (2) Clause 11, page 16, line 16, omit proposed paragraph (a), substitute the following paragraph: ``(a) the person stops being a married person because the person's spouse dies on or after 17 February 1989;''. (3) Clause 11, page 17, lines 21 to 31, omit proposed subsection (2), substitute the following subsection: `` `(2) Where a woman is pregnant when her spouse dies, subsection (1) has effect in relation to the woman as if the reference in paragraph (1) (b) to a period of 12 weeks were a reference to the period starting on the day when the woman's spouse died and ending: (a) 12 weeks after that day; or (b) when the child is born or the woman otherwise ceases to be pregnant; whichever is the later.''. (4) Clause 25, page 30, line 3, omit ``commencing'', substitute ``the period''. (5) Clause 55, page 46, after proposed subsection (1) insert the following subsections: `` `(1a) Where the Secretary is satisfied that: (a) a person has entered an agreement under which the person is to be employed; and (b) on the commencement of that employment, the person would, but for receiving a payment under this subsection, be entitled to a payment under subsection (1); the following provisions have effect: (c) subject to paragraph (d), the person is entitled to an employment entry payment of $100, which is payable to the person at such time as the Secretary decides, not being a time more than 14 days before the person is to commence that employment; (d) the person is not entitled to the employment entry payment unless the Secretary is still satisfied as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) at the time at which the payment is payable to the person. `(1b) In spite of subsections (1) and (1a): (a) a person is not entitled to a payment under this section unless the person has made a claim for the payment; and (b) a person is not entitled to a payment under this section if a claim for the payment is made more than 28 days after the commencement of the employment in respect of which the claim is made.''. Amendments (1), (2) and (4) correct drafting errors. Amendment (3) relates to the widowed person's allowance which is payable for either 12 weeks after the death of the recipient's spouse, or when the pensioner was pregnant at the time of death of the spouse for the duration of the pregnancy. Amendment (3) would remove from the Bill an outmoded provision that payment cannot be extended on the basis of the pregnancy of the recipient when the recipient is pregnant to a man other than the deceased spouse. Amendment (5) relates to the employment entry payment of $100 payable when long term beneficiaries have obtained a job and amendment (5) makes it clear that the payment could be made prior to the actual commencement of employment provided that there was a firm agreement to commence employment; and that the claim for the payment must be lodged within 28 days of the commencement of employment. I commend the amendments to the House and present the supplementary explanatory memorandum. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to: Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed. Amendment (by Mr Connolly) proposed: 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 condemns the Government for the confusion it has caused to pensioners and those planning their retirement incomes by its many changes to the income test during its period in office and for its failure to create a level playing field for pensioners in respect of their investments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is the amendment seconded. Mr Downer-I second the amendment. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(4.42) —The Government rejects the amendment for the reasons I indicated in the earlier debate. It is never an easy task to preserve a social security system that is effectively targeted on the basis of need to ensure that people who have access to income make use of that income to support themselves where that option is open to them. It involves making quite difficult choices. The Government makes no apology for trying to ensure that the income test we have, such as it is, operates as fairly as possible. I think it is unfortunate that it was not made clear in the debate, as it should have been, that capital growth has always been taken account of, certainly in the term of the previous Government as well as in the term of this Government, but on a realisation rather than an accruals basis. In the judgments that have been made about equity, quite frequently we have found it very difficult to get the support of the Opposition. I think that reflects that the constituency they are concerned about is the top 25 per cent of aged people, not the vast majority of aged people who are on a full pension. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Connolly's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Adermann, A. E. McArthur, F. S.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Prosser, G. D.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. R.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Lloyd, B. Darling, E. E. Cameron, DonaldKerin, J. C. Peacock, A. S.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: The the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 5. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr REITH(Flinders)(4.54) —We are debating the Copyright Amendment Bill 1988 and the Circuit Layouts Bill 1988. The Copyright Bill makes important changes to the Copyright Act 1968 and the law on copyright. I make these comments on behalf of the Opposition and note in particular the very careful analysis of these proposals undertaken by my colleague the very excellent shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). The changes are to put a royalty on blank recording tape used for home audio taping; to protect performers from unauthorised recording or broacasting of their live performances; to enable educational institutions to video tape television programs; to streamline the existing licences to educational institutions to photocopy, and institutions assisting the handicapped to make talking books and other useful materials; to clarify protection for industrial articles; and to streamline the statutory licence for record manufacture. The Opposition supports both Bills but will move several amendments to the Copyright Amendment Bill. I wish to make some remarks on the proposal to impose royalty on blank audio tapes. The Bill proposes a royalty to be paid on blank recording tapes or cassettes. The Liberal and National parties support this proposal. It has in fact been canvassed by our arts policy, which provides specifically that we support the introduction of royalty payments on blank tapes used for sound recording. Home taping from the radio, records and other tapes, is widespread, and that is widely acknowledged. It is a breach of copyright but difficult to prevent. The result is that those whose creative endeavours are put into a work, such as composers, as well as publishing houses and recording companies, are having their work reproduced without any compensation. After extensive consultation this Bill sets out a scheme to accommodate the concerns of both consumers and copyright owners. Under the scheme consumers will be able to continue home taping of recordings, directly or off air, for private and domestic use without infringement of copyright. In return, owners of copyright in the recordings will receive a royalty levied on the blank recording tape. The royalty on audio tapes with a playing time of longer than 30 minutes will be calculated by reference to the length of the playing time. The royalty will be determined by the Copyright Tribunal. The Attorney-General's Department expects the royalty to be between 20c and 50c per tape, and the industry association expects the royalty to be $1. The royalty will be paid by the first sellers-in other words, the importers and manufacturers of blank tapes. Copyright owners will then be paid a share of the royalties if they are members of the single authorised collecting society to which the royalties will be paid. Copyright owners who will benefit from the scheme will include composers, lyricists, authors, music publishing companies and record producers. The recording companies have agreed that a substantial share of the royalty will be passed on to performers under their contracts. This would ordinarily amount to about one-third of the royalties collected by the society. The scheme does not apply to video taping of television programs and video tapes. Fifteen per cent of the royalty will go to those in the Australian music industry most in need of assistance, and part will go to the Australian Contemporary Music Development Company, recently established by the Government to foster Australian contemporary music and young and up-and-coming Australian musicians. That reference to fostering Australian music is not a reference to the well known product in Melbourne-the Foster's brand. The royalty will be payable on all blank tapes ordinarily used for recording audio materials including digital audio tapes. Institutional users-for example, schools and institutions for the blind-will be able to purchase tapes free from the royalty. Individuals or organisations who buy tapes but do not intend to use them to record copyright material will be able to obtain a refund of the royalty on making a statutory declaration that the tape will not be used to record a copyright sound recording. The royalty will be collected for the benefit of only owners of Australian audio copyright materials and owners of audio copyright materials in countries which have similar schemes providing comparable benefits to Australian owners. This will ensure that Australia adheres to the spirit of the relevant international copyright conventions without providing a windfall to foreign owners in countries which have not addressed the problem of home taping. The Opposition, however, has some concerns about the practical implications of the scheme described in the Bill. For this reason we propose an amendment to the motion for the second reading which has been circulated in the name of the honourable member for Menzies. Mr REITH —The Opposition also has some more detailed amendments which have been circulated. Due to the fact that the Government is applying the gag, I seek your assistance and direction on that, Mr Deputy Speaker, as time may not be provided to us to move those important amendments. In that case I would either seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard or at the appropriate time move that the amendments be circulated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —This will have to be done at the committee stage. Mr REITH —We will see whether time permits. However, we propose at least to ensure that the amendments are in the Hansard as a record. I foreshadow that the Opposition will take these matters further in the other place when the opportunity arises. These amendments define the prescribed organisations which will not have to pay the royalty and require the Attorney-General to table the annual report on the operation of the scheme. The second matter dealt with by the Bill is performers' protection. At the moment performers such as actors, singers, musicians, puppeteers, dancers and variety artists have little legal conrol over illegal recording of their performances. Technological developments have created effective means of unauthorised commercial use of performances, namely recording, broadcasting and diffusion by cable. The Copyright Law Review Committee has recommended that performers be given protection from this commercial exploitation of their live performances. The Government's solution is to give to the performers not copyright protection, that is property rights, but a civil right of action to sue for damages for any unauthorised recording or broadcast of their performances. The new provisions will provide performers with a greater bargaining power when negotiating contracts. That is consistent with the arts policy that I referred to previously and which we have released. The Bill also provides for a series of criminal offences for illegal recording of performances, punishable by fine, and for copying recordings or trading in them, punishable by fine or imprisonment. There are many offences too numerous to set out here but the maximum fine is $250,000 and the maximum term of imprisonment is five years. We support this proposal. The third matter dealt with is copying. The Bill establishes several statutory licensing schemes to provide a mechanism whereby the interests of copyright owners will be balanced against the interests of educators who need to copy educational material in the most efficient manner possible. The Bill deals with statutory licences for audiovisual copying by educational institutions. The Bill will establish a statutory licensing scheme which will allow educational institutions and institutions assisting handicapped persons to make copies of television programs in return for payment to copyright owners. Off-air copying of television programs by educational institutions is an infringement of copyright unless permission is obtained from copyright owners. To avoid breaching copyright, separate permission is required with respect to the script, sound recording, background music, film and broadcast. The scheme introduced by the Bill follows recommendations in the 1986 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on audiovisual copying by educational institutions. Under the licence proposed by the Bill, educational institutions will be able to make off-air copies of television programs for educational purposes, and copyright owners will be able to claim payment for the copying of their material through a single collecting society approved by the Attorney-General. The payment will be as agreed between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, as decided by the Copyright Tribunal. Institutions will be able to elect to pay for the right to copy either by an amount per student or according to actual material copied based on full record keeping. The Bill also revises the existing educational photocopying scheme. The present scheme is cumbersome and costly because of its complex record keeping requirements. The revised scheme is based largely on voluntary agreements already entered into between Copyright Agencies Ltd-the authors' and publishers' collecting society-and a substantial number of educational institutions throughout Australia. Cooperation in this regard has largely been achieved by abandoning the record keeping requirements of the present scheme under which payments are required for actual copying. Instead, payment is being made on the basis of agreed sampling schemes whereby estimates can be made of the amount of copying and payment made on a per student basis. The amendments facilitate these voluntary agreements and ensure that they can operate effectively under the legislation. The revised photocopying scheme will adopt the flexibility of the television copying scheme. It applies to literary, academic, musical, and artistic works. There will be a collecting society representative of copyright owners. Schools may elect to pay for copying on a per student basis or, as at present, by full record keeping with records sent to the collecting society. This will avoid copyright owners having to carry out time consuming and costly record inspections at the thousands of schools spread around the country. Criminal penalties in the Act relating to record keeping have been the subject of concern. They have substantially been omitted from the revised scheme. The revised scheme in practice will be much simpler to comply with. It will also substantially improve the means of remunerating copyright owners for the use of their copyright materials. The Bill also includes new provisions which will streamline copying by institutions assisting handicapped readers and intellectually handicapped persons. We therefore support this proposal. The next matter dealt with is copyright designs interaction. The second reading speech says that the Bill will update the protection given to artistic works that are either registered as designs under the Designs Act 1906 or are used industrially without registration. For many reasons industrial designs are not appropriate to be protected by the Copyright Act. There is at present a lot of overlap which is leading to confusion. In 1973 the Designs Law Review Committee report on the law relating to designs recommended that these designs be protected under the Designs Act and not under the Copyright Act. The Bill amends the Copyright Act to this effect. However, we are very concerned at the way the Bill is drafted. Its results will be that some designs will not be protected either by copyright or by the Designs Act. For this reason we have proposed an amendment which is amendment (1) of the amendments which are circulated. Its effect is to delay the commencement ofthis part of the Copyright Act amendments until the Designs Act has been amended so that corresponding designs, as they are called, can be registered under the Designs Act. This is a sensible solution to the problem identified by the honourable member for Menzies. I hope that the Government will give it the proper and full consideration and the eventual support it deserves. The Copyright Act presently contains a statutory licence for the manufacture of recordings of musical works. The relevant provisions specify conditions upon which the licence operates and a mechanism for changing the rate of royalty payable to music copyright owners. This mechanism requires the Attorney-General to determine that the current rate is inequitable. Then there is an inquiry and report by the Copyright Tribunal. The Government considers that the preliminary requirement for the Attorney-General to determine the current royalty rate to be inequitable is an undesirable and inappropriate role for government. Accordingly, the Copyright Amendment Bill will introduce a simplified scheme based solely on a Copyright Tribunal determination of the rate in the absence of agreement which will be consistent with other schemes in the Act, for example, the compulsory licence for broadcasting music. Such a scheme has industry support and will remove unnecessary government involvement in the industry. We support this change to the law. The Circuit Layouts Bill 1988 is to protect computer chip layouts from unfair copying. The Australian computer chip industry is small but is important and growing. Australian chips, for example, make bionic ears and heart pacemakers work. They detect messages from space and from the ocean, and convert sunlight to power. Our specialised products have found valuable markets overseas. The Circuit Layouts Bill repeals inappropriate and uncertain Copyright Act and Designs Act protection, and provides protection for original chip layouts along the lines of the laws passed recently in the United States, Japan, Scandinavia and European Community countries. The Bill is consistent with the World Intellectual Property Organisations draft Treaty on the Protection of Intellectual Property in respect of integrated circuits. Enactment of the Circuit Layouts Bill is wanted by the industry and is needed to obtain permanent protection for Australian circuit layouts in the United States and European markets. The Bill provides modified copyright protection. It gives the creator of an original chip layout the exclusive rights to copy the layout, to make a chip in accordance with the layout and to make the first commercial exploitation of the layout of a chip made in accordance with it. The right arises automatically. It is a simple low cost form of protection involving no red tape and is welcomed by the industry. The Bill provides civil claims as the remedy for infringement. We therefore support this Bill. 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 is of the opinion that: (1) upon the commencement of Part vc of the Bill, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the Government should refer the following matters to the Copyright Tribunal for inquiry and report: (a) the extent to which audio tapes purchased in Australia are purchased with the intention of using them to record copyright material and non-copyright material respectively; (b) whether the blank tape royalty scheme set out in Part vc of the Bill is the most practical means of implementing a blank tape royalty scheme; (c) whether the blank tape royalty scheme set out in Part vc of the Bill is the most effective blank tape royalty scheme for providing compensation to Australian performers whose material is recorded domestically on audio tapes in breach of copyright; (d) whether the proposal in proposed subsection 135zzs (3) of the Bill for a statutory declaration entitling the purchaser of a blank audio tape to a refund of the royality paid on that tape is the most effective means of effecting a refund or waiver of the royalty when the tape is not used for recording copyright material; and (e) whether the proposal in proposed subsection 135zzu (3) for the rules of the collecting society to make provision for the distribution of amounts collected by it is adequate to ensure that a reasonable proportion of the amounts collected is passed on or distributed to those whose own work has contributed to the making of the eligible sound recording or eligible work; and (2) upon receipt of the report of the Copyright Tribunal on these matters, the Government should propose such amendments to the Copyright Act as may be necessary or desirable'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Macphee —I second the amendment. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(5.10) —Before I start I will comment on the remarks about Fosters, made by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). I know that he is very worried because John Elliott is looking closely at his electorate. I think Mr Elliott has a house down at Portsea in the honourable member's electorate, so he should keep an eye on what he is doing down there. The Circuit Layouts Bill 1988 is legislation that replaces the operation of the Designs Act and the Copyright Act for protecting computer chips. The development of integrated services has moved at an exponential rate. In the middle of 1970 I attended the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology or, as it was known then, Melbourne Tech. I went to night school and studied electronics. In those days I constructed valve operated equipment and we heard about a new device called a transistor. I can still remember my curiosity and the excitement when I started work on the first piece of transistorised office equipment. It had been imported from Germany and I looked with fascination at how these small transistors were replacing valves. Even then I could see the possibilities for transistors and printed circuits, as they were called at the time. These transistors and printed circuits were the forerunners of the integrated circuits that we take for granted today-one of the things that we rely on more and more to assist us in our daily lives. I used to design and manufacture office equipment and I also designed and manufactured printed circuit boards. Many times I etched copper boards with ferric chloride, burning away the copper to make printed circuits. My circuits were very simple. They used only a few transistors and electronic components. They worked quite effectively but today what I used to put on a board of about two inches by three inches would all fit into a quarter of an inch chip. Today's integrated circuits are light years ahead of what I was making just 10 years ago. Let me give honourable members an example of what I mean. In yesterday's paper there was a story about Austek Microsystems, an Adelaide-based company. It said: Austek Microsystems last week launched the digital signal processor industry's lowest-price Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) device on to world markets. The company's A41102 frequency domain processor (FDP) microchip, developed as part of the Australia Telescope project, is designed to process large amounts of information at high speed. In the past, Fast Fourier Transforms have had to be performed on large, expensive mainframe computers. The idea of producing a chip capable of performing Fast Fourier Transforms was conceived by Dr John O'Sullivan of the CSIRO's Division of Radiophysics. . . . . Work began on the chip in 1985 and its design was completed by late 1986, when Austek signed a licence agreement with the CSIRO and began a joint manufacturing project. . . . . It has wide applications in medicine, industry and defence. The 8mm by 9mm chip contains 167,000 transistors and, operating at 40MHz, uses about one watt of power per second. To give honourable members an idea of the dimensions of eight millimetres by nine millimetres-if they are as old as I am they will go back to inches, yards et cetera-it is about five-sixteenths of an inch and on that chip there are 167,000 transistors. The article went on to say: The world market for digital signalling processing devices . . . is $700,000 a year at present and is expected to grow to $2 billion by 1992. And 1992 is not that far off. It is expected to grow from $700,000 a year at present to $2 billion in four years. The article goes on: The chips can be purchased in a 132-pin ceramic casing for $150 each. That is 167,000 transistors for $150. I remember paying up to $8 for one commonly used, PNP transistor just a few years ago. It has been stated that if the price of cars had dropped as much as the price of transistors one could buy a Rolls Royce for approximately 25 cents. Australia has some brilliant circuit designers, scientists and engineers. In my own electorate we have a firm called Signalling Technology. It has designed the program for the manufacture of a copyright chip of its own. It is manufactured overseas because no-one here in Australia can make such a chip. I trust that in the future Australia will have people with the skills to manufacture these and other integrated circuits. However, we have a small capacity in the design and manufacture of chips. Designing and manufacturing chips in Australia requires a huge capital outlay for the equipment. The particular chip that Signalling Technology makes decodes telecommunications signals and makes certain that a clear signal is received. It is the most advanced chip in the world and it is exported to the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Europe and Japan. Five years ago this company started with four people; it now employs 40. This is an outstanding record for a high tech company based in the Dunkley electorate-a company playing its part in Australia's future. This Bill is important for chip designers; it is important for Australian industry. The chip industry is still in its infancy and has a huge potential. We are in a unique position in Australia to make certain that we share in this growth potential. I predict that in the next century chips will be an indispensible part of the quality of life of the people of this planet. We must make certain that our designers and our engineers have the protection that is needed so that in manufacturing and designing their chips they can ensure that the work that they put into it is justly rewarded. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(5.18) —I rise to speak only briefly on the Circuit Layouts Bill because, while there are many interesting aspects of it, there is one particular area which I wish to address. It is to do with the area of the visual arts-of paintings, drawings and sculptures. The copyright in a painting resides with the artist except where the copyright is specifically handed over. For instance, if you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were to commission a painting it could well be part of the contract that the copyright would go to you, but under normal circumstances the copyright for visual works of art resides with the artist. That is all right as far as it goes and it is subject to the usual copyright law pertaining to music, songs, musical performances on record or tape, books and poetry, but I believe it does not go far enough. I would just like to advance the proposition to the House that we should be looking at providing some sort of copyright on resale for the painters and the sculptors of this country. The copyright obtained by visual artists from prints of their work published in collections of books is very limited. The real money comes when we have somebody like Dobell or Nolan or when one of our struggling younger artists of today sells for $200 a painting which in 10 years time might sell for $10,000. In another five years it might sell for $50,000 and in another five or 10 years time on top of that it could well sell for a quarter of a million dollars. I believe there is a basic lack of fairness in the fact that the artist and the estate of the artist cannot benefit from the profit of those sales. I would like to see in this country-undoubtedly I would like to see it progress right around the world-equity and fairness extended to our painters and sculptors. As I said, the person who buys the painting for $200 certainly gives the artist some benefit at the time. But we are all aware of artists who have struggled. Their wives and their families have struggled. They have had a very hard time. The artists we think of starving in a garret exist. It is very hard for them when they are young. I believe there is a fair case for consideration to be given to those people getting some benefit from there sale of their intellectual creation. I do not want to burden the House with a great deal of detail on this matter. I suggest to the House that at some time in the future when this matter is being examined again we give some serious consideration to extending copyright to the resale of intellectual visual creations so that our artists will benefit just as the estate of John Lennon will continue to receive royalties until 50 years after his death. There would be a great deal of sympathetic response from the community of Australia if this were to be introduced. I commend the idea to the House. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(5.22) —I also am pleased that the Copyright Amendment Bill 1988 is before us. I think it has resolved very well an essential dilemma. It rewards creative efforts and, at the same time, it does a good deal to enable organisations running educational programs and programs for the print handicapped to get access to programs which are educational and entertaining at a cost which is within their reach. I have a couple of points which I would like to put on the record. Although the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is not in the House, he may do me the courtesy of sending me a written response. The technical and further education (TAFE) network has established the TAFE National Video Resource Centre (TNVRC). It provides to educational institutions in New Zealand and Australia at a minimal cost videotaped copies of programs which are suitable to support TAFE courses. As part of the normal operations, or at the request of a provider, that network negotiates with the copyright owner or agent for video copying rights of suitable titles. It then endeavours to obtain rights for all TAFE providers in Australia at no cost or at a substantially reduced fee compared with the normal commercial rate. After completing an agreement for rights a master copy is obtained and copies are produced and held in stock so that orders can be processed promptly, usually the same day. The catalogue, which lists in excess of 2,500 titles, is distributed on microfiche to over 800 users twice yearly. A comprehensive computer program is used for the TNVRC records system, including control of the many complex copyright agreements, production of the catalogue and maintenance of stock records. This operation began in a very small way in 1978. Ten years later it now distributes more than 6,000 programs each year. It has an annual turnover in excess of $450,000. Yearly savings to the TAFE system from discounted copyright fees are at least $400,000. In many instances colleges can now buy a copy of a program from the TNVRC for the equivalent of one hire fee, thus saving any future hire and freight costs as well as having the program readily available. The combination of the multiple videotape copying equipment and the computer system enables the service to operate very efficiently with three staff. The important point is that under that excellent service educational programs are provided after negotiation with the maker of the program or the holder of the copyright. It is therefore of great benefit or our educational institutions, which are always finding that their funds have been cut and which are being asked to be more efficient. The provisions in this Bill concerning off-air recording of television broadcasts may not help that service to do all that it now wants to do. In particular, there is an endeavour to provide copies of educational programs to schools which are disadvantaged by remoteness, lack of staff or facilities. At least one TAFE audiovisual department of which I know was intending to record the material off-air and from the master copy produce subsequent copies for distribution. Of course, it intended to pay a royalty for each copy which was distributed. It would negotiate the royalty. The Bill allows only copying of broadcasts, not the production of subsequent copies from a master. If copying from a master can be arranged under the Bill then the services I have referred to could go ahead. As I understand it-and I ask the Attorney-General to perhaps write to me about this-that is not possible. If it is not possible, I ask him whether he would consider an amendment in the Senate to make it possible. It is an important service to children, in particular, in remote areas or areas which are particularly short of facilities. As with photocopying, the scheme will be feasible only if the charges for copies are within the financial constraints of the educational system. A reasonable fee needs to be set for the TNVRC master. Small schools must be able to afford and purchase a copy of the program. I hope that the Attorney-General will look at that. That particular information came from the Moorabbin College of TAFE, which is in my electorate, but I know it applies to TAFE colleges elsewhere. In conclusion, I make the observation that the amendments which the Opposition are advancing are aimed at improving a number of deficiencies in an otherwise commendable Bill. In particular, there are administrative problems about the question of making a statutory declaration to say that one does not intend to use a tape for the purposes covered by the Bill but for strictly private purposes. I think that is a difficult way to administer it to avoid the royalty on the tape. One wonders whether one needs to avoid the royalty on the tape as most tapes these days are used to record material that is the subject of copyright. The administrative problems relating to photocopying could prove to be considerable. I would ask the Attorney-General to consider changes to that when he monitors the operation of the legislation. I suspect that educational institutions will find the copyright administration quite burdensome. It will therefore interfere with their capacity to do the job that they want to do by actually taping material of this kind. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton-Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support)(5.29) —I indicate on behalf of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that the Attorney-General and the Government appreciate the substantial support that has been expressed by the Opposition for these Bills. The Government is pleased to have its belief confirmed that the amendments and the new provisions, which were developed in full consultation with affected interests, are moving the law in the right direction. The Government is not prepared to agree to the second reading amendment, but will carefully monitor any proposals. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The time allocated for the second reading stage has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 11-by leave-taken together. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.31) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 2, page 1, after subclause (1) insert the following subclause: ``(1a) Section 10 commences on a day on which it is declared by Proclamation that an amendment has been made to the Designs Act 1906 and that that amendment has commenced operation, being an amendment that enables the registration under the Designs Act 1906 of corresponding designs that are presently not registrable under that Act for any reason other than that they are not new or original.''. (2) Clause 10, page 4, lines 33 and 34, omit all words after ``whether'' to the end of proposed paragraph 77 (1) (a) substitute ``made at any time on or after the commencement of this section''. (3) Clause 10, page 4, line 36, after ``elsewhere,'' insert ``at any time on or after the commencement of this section,''. I have canvassed these matters in my speech during the second reading debate. In view of the fact that the gag is on, I will say no more. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 12 and 13-by leave-taken together. Amendments (by Mr Robert Brown)-by leave-agreed to: (1) Clause 12, page 7, line 27, insert ``whom'' after ``by''. (2) Clause 12, page 13, line 37, omit ``subsection (1)'', substitute ``with the consent of the administering body by whom, or on whose behalf, it is made, subsection (1)''. (3) Clause 12, page 14, line 25, omit ``(c)'', substitute ``(d)''. (4) Clause 13, page 30, line 11, insert ``whom'' after ``by''. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Clause 14. Amendment (by Mr Robert Brown) agreed to: (5) Clause 14, page 31, lines 6 and 7, omit ``or a body corporate incorporated under a law of a foreign country,''. Amendments (by Mr Reith)-by leave-negatived: (4) Clause 14, page 31, proposed section 135zzj, after the definition of ``exemption number'' insert the following definition: `` `prescribed organisation' means (a) an educational institution; (b) an institution assisting handicapped readers; (c) an institution assisting intellectually handicapped persons; (d) an institution assisting the blind or the visually impaired; (e) an institution assisting the deaf or the hearing impaired; (f) an organisation engaged in broadcasting; (g) an organisation engaged in the business of producing pre-recorded cassettes; and (h) such other organisation as may be prescribed;''. (5) Clause 14, page 35, after proposed subsection 135zzw (1) insert the following subsection: ``(1a) The Attorney-General shall cause a copy of the report sent to the Attorney-General under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the receipt of the report by the Attorney-General.''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Amendments (by Mr Robert Brown)-by leave-agreed to: (6) Clause 16, page 39, line 6, omit ``a copy of a television broadcast'', substitute ``copies of television broadcasts''. (7) Clause 21, page 43, add at the end the following paragraphs: ``(c) by omitting from subsection (3) `the last two preceding subsections' and substituting `subsections (1), (2) and (2a)'; (d) by omitting from subsection (4) `(1) and (2)' and substituting `(1), (2) and (2a)'.''. (8) Clause 26, page 47, after the proposed definition of ``authorised'' insert the following definition: `` `cinematograph film' includes an article in which visual images are embodied and which is capable of being used to show those images as a moving picture, and a sound-track associated with those images;''. (9) Clause 26, page 49, after the proposed definition of ``recording'' insert the following definition: `` `sound recording' includes an article in which sounds are embodied;''. (10) Clause 26, page 50, line 10, omit ``a copy of''. (11) Clause 26, page 50, line 14, omit ``the copy'', insert ``it''. (12) Clause 26, page 50, line 16, omit ``the copy'', insert ``it''. (13) Clause 26, page 50, line 17, omit ``the copy'', insert ``it''. (14) Clause 26, page 51, lines 34 to 36, omit proposed paragraph 248g (2) (c), insert the following paragraph: ``(c) makes, for use in a sound-track, a copy of an authorised sound recording of the performance and the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the making of the sound recording was not authorised for the purpose of use in a sound-track;''. (15) Clause 26, page 54, lines 23 to 25, omit all the words from and including ``authorised solely'' to the end of proposed subsection 248p (3), insert the following: ``not authorised for the purpose of use in a sound-track and the copy is made for the purpose of such use.''. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Robert Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: 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 Robert Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.35) —The next Bill to be debated this afternoon under the gag is the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill 1988. The debate is being gagged because, quite frankly, the Government would have trouble organising a Sunday picnic. It is a sad indictment of this Government that it cannot control the parliamentary agenda and that business is conducted in this House in such a way that significant issues such as occupational health and safety, which affect tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of workers in this country cannot be fully debated. It is an indication both of the priority the Government gives this issue and of the embarrassment the Government must feel when anybody refers to the issue of occupational health and safety. There is a long line of Opposition members who would take the opportunity to speak today on this Bill but for the fact that the Government has gagged debate on it. There is a list of speakers who have a real interest and a genuine concern about this significant issue. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), the chairman of the Opposition's industrial relations committee, will be speaking in this debate. I think it is fair to say that that committee is one of the best party committees operating in the Federal Parliament. Other members of the committee are also finding their speaking time cut short by this Government's inability to organise the agenda so that honourable members can speak on these significant issues. We wanted to have the opportunity in debate to canvass a wider range of issues, including the more general issue of regulation and red tape. I will move a second reading amendment at the conclusion of my remarks so as to highlight a significant aspect which the question of occupational health and safety impinges upon. This debate would have given us an opportunity to canvass, in particular, the policy recently released by the Opposition, which talks about an effective deregulation policy as being one of the essential features of our economic policy to reduce government intervention in the lives of private citizens and to cut down business costs. That policy represents a first. It sees a commitment to have responsibility for a comprehensive deregulation program at senior ministerial level. It will see existing regulations systematically reviewed and unnecessary regulations repealed. A deregulation agenda will be set and an annual report required so that under no circumstances can this issue slip away from us. It is a significant issue and it is time it was faced. The policy also sees a commitment to introduce sunset clauses to regulations, a major step in the right direction. However, as I say, the opportunity to discuss those important matters in detail has been denied by the Government's inability to give us adequate time. The Government's handling of the occupational health and safety issue has been a litany of broken promises, nothing but waste and ministerial incompetence. They have been the hallmarks of Labor's attitude to occupational health and safety. The whole policy area is a shambles. Wherever one looks one sees a complete shambles. It is an absolute indictment of this Government's ability to administer anything. If there is any doubt about the importance of the issue, we should go back to November 1983, five years ago. This Government has been in office for nearly six years. Let us see what the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), said at the time: One of the most important and far reaching policy proposals to which the Labor Government is committed is our national strategy on occupational health and safety. Those were his words. Other members have called them historic. As I said, the honourable member for Corangamite will contribute to the debate today. He said some very strong things about the importance of this legislation and the Government's initiatives. He described the Commission back in 1985. He said it was a milestone. It is a milestone no longer. It is a millstone around the Government's neck in its abject failure to get on with the job. The Minister, when talking in 1984 about the significance of occupational health and safety, said: The need to develop our national occupational health and safety strategy is an essential component of the non-wage aspects of the prices and incomes accord. That is a high priority for any Labor member when the Minister says, `Look, we have done a deal with the ACTU. It is a high priority for us'. I shall be very interested to hear the contribution of the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) this afternoon. It should be a contribution in which he eats his words, because in 1985 he said that this proposal would see a reduction in costs. This is the economic rationalist coming out of the woodwork on the other side. He holds the carrot out in front and says that this will reduce costs. I invite him to come into the chamber and give honourable members a few case studies to illustrate that Labor has in fact produced some real benefits for somebody. It will be absolutely staggering if there are any examples whatsoever. The whole thing has been a disaster. These problems are not just trotted out by the Opposition in some sort of rhetorical point scoring. In 1987, in recognition of the problems, the Government appointed Mr Bernie McKay to review the whole operation. Mr McKay has undertaken a fairly wide analysis of what has been going on with the Government's policy. As generous as he might be with the use of his words, what he says is no compliment to this Government. Mr McKay refers to the overall lack of progress. He says that progress has been unsatisfactory. Let us look at his exact words on page 11 of his report: Progress has not been adequate in the following areas- It is a long list: a heightening of public awareness of occupational health and safety matters-not been adequate. The development of strategies and priorities-not been adequate. Coordination of occupational health and safety, particularly amongst the States and with other Commonwealth departments-not adequate. These were the critical priorities of the Government, as stated back in 1983, and here we are, at the end of 1987, early in 1988-`not adequate'. The development of standards-not up to scratch, Mr Minister. The development of the Institute-not adequate. The development of information and education programs-the Minister did not score on that either. Research activities-he says, `The lack of adequate progress in the first three of the above is of particular concern'. And so it should be. It is an indictment of this Government if ever there was. It is no wonder that we have seen press reports saying that the Commission was in a state of total crisis. No one has known what to do. We had the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, both getting stuck into the Commission. We had the absurdity of the manual handling draft code. There were over 500 objections to it. The whole country came down on top of the Commission. It was just crazy. They were talking about implementing a national code or scheme which would prohibit people lifting weights, weights the average of which would in fact be less than what the ordinary shopper would carry out of Safeways on a Saturday morning. Finally, the Minister sends a note down to the Commission saying that he is concerned about the expansive scope and directions of its activities. He is the Minister responsible and even he is getting stuck into what is happening with this Commission. He generally wanted to know what it was doing. I think a lot of people have wanted to know what it was doing. Even in the last week or so there has been the situation arising out of the Senate's Estimates committee. There is an officer who lives in Canberra and the Government, at taxpayer's expense, is flying him back and forth from Canberra to Sydney. It is time someone took a deep breath and had a close look at what has been going on with this Commission. We have a bureaucracy four times as large as was intended. The staff morale in the place has been basically at zero for the whole time since its inception. We have a top heavy administration in terms of the staffing arrangement of it and high levels of absenteeism. All of these things have been features, unfortunately, of this Commission. In this report Mr McKay steps carefully around the problems, but he makes it absolutely crystal clear that there has been an inadequate level of progress-to use his words-during the Commission's early years. In respect of this Bill, I would say that the recommendation of the McKay report does at least suggest some effort to deal with the problems. In particular, there is to be less emphasis on tripartism, a greater role for the States, separation of the functions of the chairman and the chief executive officer, and a greater focus on the Commission's priority issues and determinants of the Commission's work programs and organisational operations. I see that these recommendations have the support of the Confederation of Australian Industry, the ACTU and State governments. I think also that the appointment of Dr Emmett as acting chairman has generally been welcomed and that does provide the opportunity for the Commission to establish some sort of credibility. But after 5 1/2 years it says very little for the Government that the best assessment of the Commission is that it has an opportunity to start again and make a clean start. We will, therefore, not be opposing the Bill. We believe that there is a big need for a real shake-up in the administration of the Commission. The adoption of some of the recommendations of the McKay report in this legislative package is not unreasonable. It therefore has our support. In concluding, I want to put the issue in a broader context. I do so noting that it is necessary for me to curtail my remarks so that some of my colleagues can at least make some contribution. But I want to put it in the broader context of the accord and where the Government is going with its so-called wages policy. The line has been that the Government says to the community at large, `Look, you go along with cuts in real wages. You make your sacrifice and in return-in compensation, if you like-we and the ACTU leadership will obtain some real non-wage benefits for you. So in return for the cuts in real wages, do not worry; we have something else in the bag that we will hand out to you, some extra benefits'. The benefits to be found in that social contract are a long list of things which the Government thinks are adequate recompense for its policies which have led to a decline in real wages. By `decline' I mean $56 a week, because that is the figure that represents how much worse off people are since this Government has been in office. One of the cornerstones of this accord is that near the top of the list of those non-wage benefits is the statement that the Government will take steps to ensure a safer workplace for the workers of this country. That is the offer. It is an offer which has not been met by any capacity on the part of the Government to deliver what it said it would deliver. The reality is that there is nothing there. It is just a mirage. It is just talk. It is all about the ACTU leadership talking of what it might offer. However, when we scratch the surface and look for the result, we see that there is nothing. I simply say to the Government that it is about time it looked at its overall policies because, in return for the $56 a week cut there are no real benefits for employees. There is a mirage based upon a deal that provides no benefits for employees. I commend the Bill to the House. It has our support but, if it is an indication of the Government's capacity to honour its promises in an area central to its deal with the ACTU, this Government stands condemned. It is a real indictment of ministerial incompetence, a failure to apply the Government's own priorities to an area that the Government has stated is of critical importance to the conduct of our economy and the circumstances of workers in this country. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill which seeks inter alia to streamline the administration of the Commission, the House notes the Government's failure to implement effective procedures to reduce the burden of excessive regulations on industry'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr McArthur —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(5.51) —When this Government came to office there was little or no activity in the occupational health and safety field and all the cries of the member for Flinders (Mr Reith) about `not enough' deliberately ignore the lack of significant occupational health and safety actions by the Federal Government prior to 1983. This was despite the fact that in Australia there was an unacceptably high incidence of work related death and injury, which is not being tolerated in other Western countries. Each year in Australia about 550 men and women die as the result of work related accident or disease. That figure is high, an incidence of 77 per million. If we look at the 1984 International Labour Organisation yearbook of labour statistics, we find that there are 22 per million such deaths in Sweden, 24 in the United Kingdom, 20 in Japan and 37 in the United States compared with 77 in Australia. This record must be changed. It is caused by a range of factors, not the least of which is the fact that there was no motivation by management of employees or by Government of management or employees, and little enthusiasm by employees for safety measures. Thus, there was hearing impairment on a wide scale. There was enthusiasm within the work force for toughness and recklessness rather than safety measures, and people actually refused to take the required precautions in, say, the sawmilling industry, the mining industry or a range of other industries. Perhaps one of the most dangerous areas of activity in Australia is farming. That is rather surprising, because there are opportunities to ensure safety on farms, yet it is in that area that many accidents occur. Even today there are very real problems on farms. Therefore, the work that is being undertaken is important and in that light I compliment the Government in particular for its support of an application in the south-east region of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory to educate people involved in rural pursuits. There is education through shows, education through surveys and the publication of results and education through motivation of people so that they can adopt the necessary attitude to develop on-farm safety. I have seen accidents involving tractors. People have taken chances that perhaps they should not have taken while driving on slopes. I have seen accidents involving fertiliser distribution by air. Just recently a death occurred in the Bombala-Delegate area. I have seen cutters and combs flying from shearing handpieces, and they could easily cause injury, particularly eye injury. I have seen accidents where people have not been properly protected in handling livestock. On one occasion a goat leapt to a height of six feet and collected me on the head. My head is still in good order; nevertheless that was a dangerous situation and a bad accident could have occurred. One sees accidents involving the handling of cattle, horses and sheep. In that light, it is particularly pleasing that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris) and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) have announced the formation of a special ministerial advisory group on farm safety following the Farmsafe 88 conference last July. That conference considered rural health and safety and was initiated by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. It arose from concern about the high incidence of injury, such as back injury, hearing loss, accidental injury relating to machinery use or animal handling, injury caused by chemcial toxicity, another important area of concern, and skin cancer. A constant theme of Farmsafe 88 was the need for a greater focus on skills training for practising farmers and farm workers and on broader community education on the hazards of farm work. It is good to see that Dr Peter McCullagh and his team in this region have honed in on that aspect and their displays, education programs and work with schools, organisations and show societies to make clear the need for farm safety has been of great benefit in this region. In other words, they have looked at the need for broader community education on the hazards of farm work. I point out that 17 per cent of all deaths in the employed labour force occur on farms, despite the fact that the rural work force constitutes only 4 per cent of the total labour force. Additionally, the injury rate of farm workers is appreciably higher than the industry average. Farm workers have historically been trained on the job, but Farmsafe 88 suggested that there are better ways to train. The ministerial advisory group that was announced will be chaired and serviced by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission-Worksafe Australia-in coordination with the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. The organisations that have combined in this great effort are the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Workers Union, the Rural Training Council of Australia, the Country Women's Association of Australia, the Victorian Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the Western Australian Department of Labour, Works and Services, and Dr Lyn Clark of the Agricultural Health Unit at Moree District Hospital. These organisations have been invited to join the advisory group, which will be asked to report back by the end of March next year on three important issues; first, the priority occupational health and safety areas in rural safety in the light of the Farmsafe 88 recommendations. It will report on the effective implementation of those recommendations and the way in which they should be evaluated. That should occur one year after the presentation of the Farmsafe 88 report. The recommendations emphasise the importance of improving farm safety and work skills through education rather than legislation. They also call for consultation with rural workers to ensure that the programs suit regional issues and take account of existing local organisations, people and family units. In other words, it recommends use of knowledge on the ground-the people and the links on the grounds-to get the message across. The recommendations also call for the provision of standards and codes of practice on farm safety and the reassessment of present legislation, whether State or Federal, in consultation with the user groups affected, so that we achieve more national uniformity in our approach. The recommendations also calls for the recognition of the key role played by rural women in encouraging farm safety and the initiation of research and evaluation into rural occupation health and safety issues and safety programs. So the role that is being played by the industry bodies in encouraging the implementation of the recommendations will be absolutely vital. Six areas have been identified for the implementation of the preventive strategies that have been developed by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. They are six very important areas-occupational health, occupational back pain, noise induced hearing loss, chemicals in the workplace, occupational skin disorders, mechanical equipment injury and occupational cancer. They deal with the concerns brought forward by Farmsafe 88. This Bill has the full support of a wide range of organisations, the organisations I have mentioned as well as the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the representatives of all governments-State and Territory-on the National Commission. A number of items were dealt with which separate the functions of the chairperson of the National Commission from those of the chief executive officer, provide greater flexibility in the composition of committees involved and facilitate and consolidate the significant improvements in the national commission's operation. The legislation reflects in a practical way the Government's continuing commitment to improving the safety and quality of working life in Australia. There is nothing that I enjoy more than being involved in the presentation of safety awards at a saw mill, being involved in the Government's new training schemes where safety is an important ingredient. In shearing shed work now people are being trained to be rouseabouts, through proper training schemes. I believe we will gain a great benefit from that, particularly in the area of farm and farm worker safety. It is with great pleasure that I support the Bill. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(6.03) —I rise to debate this National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill but before I move to the main body of my speech may I remark on the comments of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). Although I am sympathetic and supportive of the committees that he spoke about investigating farm safety both for farmers and employees, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission was not mentioned in those endeavours. In fact, this bureaucratic organisation was allowing other groups to investigate farm safety, which is commendable. It is interesting, however, that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro in his remarks did not indicate the role of the Commission in coordinating these activities and giving grass roots support for the way in which the committees would operate. The Government's centralised bureaucratic approach is confirmed with the introduction of the higher education White Paper which gives the Minister for Employment, Education and Training total control of higher education from Canberra. In the case of the National Occupational, Health and Safety Commission, this Canberra dominated bureaucratic approach has been followed to the letter. If the results of the Commission are any example to follow, higher education in Australia is in for a rough time over the next triennium. In May 1985 I raised the issue of yet another quango being established to duplicate the activities of State governments. At that time I suggested that the new quango would mushroom and demand increasing amounts of funding and provide dubious benefits for workers and employers. Earlier this year the McKay inquiry confirmed my bleak and pessimistic predictions that the Commission would not be effective in solving the health and safety problems of Australian workers. The McKay report identified 34 ways in which the Commission could be improved. The first major criticism was that the structure, operation and organisation of the commission were in disarray. Secondly, the Commission had little impact in raising public awareness of health and safety issues throughout Australia. Thirdly, the very reason the Commission was set up-to coordinate the States and the Commonwealth in developing an overall strategy about health and safety issues-was seen to be a failure. The report recommended that the Commission had failed to develop standards, information and education programs and research activities that were part of its original charter. It is a damning indictment on the Commission and the Government that such a statutory body should be criticised so harshly in its third year of operation. The Canberra Times, in an article of 11 October 1987 by Mr Jack Waterford, probed in greater detail the failings of the Commission. It said: Three years after its establishment, it is said not only to have failed to meet its objectives of developing a national strategy for improving occupational health and safety, but to have become a floundering bureaucracy four times as large as it was ever intended, with appalling staff morale, high rates of absenteeism, sick leave and staff turnover, and with a very poor reputation out in the workplace. The Canberra Times article goes on to quote a letter from members of staff which portrays the inadequacies of the Commission in precise and damning detail. The letter seems to be in accord with the findings of the McKay report. I quote from the letter: A sense of hopelessness pervades the whole organisation . . . representatives of unions, employers and Governments, who participate in Worksafe's tripartite committees and working parties are seriously concerned with the Commission's poor record and reputation, its cumbersome administrative and committee procedures, its inefficiency and waste of financial and human resources, its lack of directions and strong leadership, its duplication of some state activities, and its failure to meet its statutory obligations. That is some comment from the employees of that organisation! Currently the Commission has an annual budget of $18.4m for 1988-89. The average salary per employee across the Commission for 1987-88 was $32,729, which is high by Public Service standards. These figures provide an indication of the malaise facing the Commission. It evidences a highly paid bureaucracy at its worst with an emphasis on administration but a lack of capacity to deal with the real problem of developing a health and safety strategy for the whole of Australia. There is no doubt the research functions and coordinating role of the Commission are left wanting. A Senate Estimates committee raised the issue of the Chairman's travel costs and arrangements. Mr T. Emmett, the Chairman, commuted to Sydney from Canberra for three or four days each week for a period of 21 months although that officer had been given a compulsory transfer. This gross expenditure, along with the problems of relocating the office from Canberra to Sydney over many months, added to the general bureaucratic confusion surrounding the Commission's activities. The Opposition accepts the Minister's suggestion that there should be a change in the role of the Chairman and Chief Executive which is compatible with commercial and organisational experience in other statutory bodies and in the private sector. In an endeavour to get some runs on the board the Commission issued a draft code of handling in 1987. Reports suggest that some members of the Commission were unhappy that the draft code was released with undue haste. The consequent widespread criticism of the code confirmed their suspicions. On an earlier occasion I raised the impractical nature of this draft code and its impact on business throughout Australia. In August 1987 the Business Council of Australia stated its unequivocal opposition to the Commission's proposals on staff manual handling. The Business Council used evidence put forward by the Government's own Business Regulation Review Unit which indicated that it would cost industry at least $9 billion in capital costs for maximum value of $230m to implement such a proposal. The impractical nature of the draft code was made evident in that the code suggested that manual handling of 16-kilogram weights be restricted and that any item weighing more than 34 kilograms be banned from being lifted by any person, male or female. By this bureaucratic guideline Australian shearers would be prohibited from shearing Australia's 164,000,000 sheep. Maybe the Commission would allow shearers to shear lambs but not heavy full-wooled merinos weighing more than 34 kilograms. Since most sheep weigh between 50 and 70 kilograms, what would the Commission's research staff suggest in their manual code of handling for the sheep industry? Would the Commission also suggest that hard-working Australians be prohibited from lifting one dozen cans of Fosters because of its statutory weight limitations? Let me turn now to the genuine concerns the Opposition has for workers' safety in the Australian workplace. There is no doubt that back injuries sustained by Australian workers in manual trades are a chronic and costly problem. Personally, I am very sympathetic to those members of the work force who have a bad back. On the other hand, it is a measure of serious concern that this ailment is used to exploit the various workers compensation schemes around Australia to the workers' advantage and the employers' disadvantage. Education and encouragement of sensible workplace practices will help alleviate this difficult problem facing the Australian work force. Likewise, sensible exercise programs incorporating spinal mobilisation could benefit the often mysterious bad back syndrome which plagues our manual work force. Employers and employees have become aware of the deleterious impact of noise upon their hearing. The use of ear muffs in noisy environments such as airports, factories and forests and in the use of heavy machinery has helped to alleviate long term impairment of hearing. In the modern industrial world the use of chemicals in the workplace has provided greater hazards to workers in terms of their short term health and longer term lifestyle. Again, education and sensible work practices are important to ensure protection. Occupational cancer has been identified as a major problem in the asbestos and coalmining industries. It is essential to bring about an increased awareness of the cancer-causing hazards in industry today and improve working conditions. Mechanical industries have been a problem since the Industrial Revolution and continue to be a major source of worker disability because of attitudinal problems by management and workers. Only when there is a genuine effort by both parties to ensure that safety is implemented in the workplace on a day by day, hour by hour basis can the rate of industrial accidents be reduced. The Robens inquiry in England in 1972 confirmed this approach in bringing about a change of attitude and a degree of self-regulation in the workplace. The Robens report suggested that there should be a more unified and integrated system surrounding safety and health matters throughout England but that statutory change for change's sake would not bring about the desired result. The 1974 British Act requires every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees. All employers of five or more people must prepare a written statement of their policy, organisation and arrangements for ensuring health and safety at work and must inform their employees of the policy and of the arrangements for carrying it out. Health and safety regulations require serious accidents and dangerous occurrences to be reported to the Health and Safety Commission. In the United Kingdom this approach has helped to bring about a more positive attitude in the workplace to the health and safety of employees. No amount of legislative coercion will change human behaviour. Individual awareness in this difficult area must be encouraged further in Australia. The extreme example of a statutory attempt to enforce safety and health require- ments upon employers was the Victorian Labor Government's legislation. This made it mandatory for union representation on the shop floor, with the power to provide an immediate cessation of work if the union official considered that a breach of the safety regulations had occurred. Fortunately, the more draconian sections of the Act were watered down and commonsense prevailed, so that industrial muscle could not be utilised under the umbrella of health and safety. Whilst the objectives of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission are laudable, the functions of the Commission are duplicated in every State and the evidence indicates that the Commission's management performance is in very poor shape. The Opposition will look closely at the Commission and bring to bear a philosophic approach which will ensure a greater degree of health and safety education, a change of attitude and a reduction of yet another Canberra-based bureaucracy directing the lives of hardworking Australians in their daily tasks. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(6.15) —I am very surprised at the comments that have been made by members of the Opposition because most of their criticisms relate to a situation which the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill sets out to correct. It is true that some criticisms were made of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in its first couple of years, but the purpose of this Bill is to correct each of those mistakes. The previous Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the present Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis), instituted the McKay review in November 1987 to review the effectiveness of the Commission. That review led to 34 recommendations, each of which either has been implemented or is now the subject of action. So the Opposition's criticisms are really out of date and redundant. It seems as though members of the Opposition are trying to find things on which to criticise the Government just for the sake of being oppositional rather than being constructive. This Bill is important because it corrects some minor mistakes that were made in the early years of the Commission. It comes in in a situation of desperate need for effective action in the occupational health and safety area in Australia. Mr Reith —Still? Mr LANGMORE —Still, indeed. I am very glad to see that the Opposition is supporting this Bill. It opposed the establishment of the Commission in the early days. It is a step forward for the Opposition now to be supporting these amendments because it suggests that, at long last, it has recognised that there is a high cost to industry from occupational disease and injury. In fact, it was estimated that in 1985-86 workers compensation payments cost the private sector about $3 billion and that at least another $3 billion per year was wasted through loss of production and other associated costs. In 1985-86, over 300,000 new claims were made against Australia's workers' compensation systems. That is a deplorable situation. In fact, in that year about 500 people died as a result of occupation-related accidents or diseases. The most recent figures which are available to compare the Australian experience with that of other countries suggest that we have a much higher rate of deaths per million workers in Australia than do other countries. It is difficult to be sure that these figures are comparable but as orders of magnitude they are the best that are available at present. They show that there were 77 deaths per million workers in Australia in the mid-1980s. In the same period in the USA there were 41 deaths per million workers; in the UK, 24 deaths; in Sweden, 22 deaths; and in the Netherlands, 13. So in Australia the numbers of fatal injuries or disease-related deaths affected by work were two or three times the level in other countries. That is an absolutely appalling situation. There are some industries in which those injuries occur more commonly than others. The coalmining industry is the most serious. In coal mining the rate of injury per 1,000 workers was 276 in 1985-86; in transport equipment manufacturing, 124; in construction, 121; and in food, beverage and tobacco processing, 106. They are the industries in which injuries are most common, but there are some occupation-related injuries or diseases in every industry. I well know from my own experience in the electorate of Fraser that the overuse syndrome has been a major problem. There are, therefore, enormous potential benefits to the whole of both the public and the private sectors from effective occupational health and safety standards and a reduction in occupational disease and injury. That is the purpose of the amendments to the Bill we are now debating. One of the criticisms that was made a couple of years ago was that the Commission had not achieved very much up to that point. I would like to concentrate most of what I want to say on the level of achievement that has occurred, and there have been great achievements. It seems to me that one of the best qualities of the work of the Commission is that it is very systematic. Before this debate I took the time to go and visit the Commission. I spent a day talking with people, reviewing what they do, inspecting their laboratories and so on. I was very impressed by the high level of commitment but particularly by the systematic approach to the issues they are studying. One example of that is their identification of six major areas of occupational health and safety hazards. The six areas that they have identified as being the most dangerous in Australia are chemicals, occupational skin disorders, cancers, back injury, mechanical equipment safety, and noise-induced hearing loss. That has the ring of truth about it. I am quite sure that honourable members and others listening will reflect on their own experience of occupational disease or injury. Much of the incidence that we are aware of comes within one of those categories. The Commission has taken major steps to approach each of those problems. I would like to list some of the achievements to date. It has set up standards and codes of practice in a number of very important areas. One of the first that it introduced was a code of practice on occupational overuse syndrome-what used to be called repetition strain injury (RSI). That code is a major element of a prevention and management strategy designed to counter the incidence of occupational overuse syndrome. When I was first elected four years ago, one of the problems that more constituents came to me about than any other was RSI. Since that time a whole series of changes has been introduced within both the public and private sectors so as to reduce the danger of occupational overuse syndrome and to help treat and rehabilitate those who have had that disease. There have been major achievements. The number of people who are still suffering from occupational overuse syndrome is now much lower than it was three years ago. Mr Reith —It has nothing to do with the Commission. Mr LANGMORE —It has a lot to do with the Commission, because that Commission set up standards which have now been implemented in large parts of both the public and private sectors which have changed work practices, improved the quality of furniture and trained people better. The effect has been a sharp reduction in that occupational disease-a major achievement from the Commission's work. Another code of practice which it has set up is for the safe removal of asbestos. It is a very topical piece of work to have achieved, because there is enormous concern in the community at present. Again, in my own electorate many people are frightened that asbestos insulation might have been installed in their houses. The Government has introduced a survey of every house in the Australian Capital Territory to assess how much asbestos was used as an insulation material and is going to organise its removal on a subsidised basis. Another of the codes of practice established by the Commission is for the use of timber preservatives. Timber preservatives such as copper chrome arsenic, creosote and organic solvent based preservatives present potentially major health hazards to workers in timber preservation and outdoor industries. The code provides guidelines for the safe handling of timber preservatives and for preservative treated wood. Finally, in this area of the Commission's achievements, it has established a national data set for compensation based statistics. One of the major problems is that we simply do not know enough about the extent of these problems. There has not so far been a standardised statistical collection about occupational injury or disease in Australia. Therefore, we are to some extent guessing the cost to industry from occupational disease and injury. One of the most important points in presenting persuasive material to the Opposition in order to try to get its support for these activities is to demonstrate authoritatively how extensive the problem is. That is one reason why this statistical collection has been introduced. But it is, of course, very important for the Commission to have thorough detailed statistics so that it knows on which areas it ought to concentrate. The Commission has also introduced a whole range of other guidance notes. It has developed national prevention strategies for occupational back pain or occupational skin disorders. It has begun a chemical notification and assessment scheme. Cabinet approved the details of that in August this year. There are now draft standards and codes of practice in a large number of areas which have been released for public comment. One of the very effective aspects of the Commission's work is that it consults so widely. It has also put in place national preventative strategies in a whole series of other areas. That does not end the effective work that it has been doing. It has concentrated a lot of its attention on professional education. A national institute was established and it now has undergraduate training programs, postgraduate education courses and short courses for operators in the field. That kind of training program is an essential part of ensuring that we gradually improve the safety and healthfulness of the environment in which people have to work. It also has a major research program which is starting to produce very useful results. It has instituted a research award scheme to encourage people in universities and in the private sector to do their own research. I have touched only on some of the major achievements of the Commission. It has been very effective in the last few years. This Bill will increase that effectiveness and provide a sound legislative framework for the Commission to continue to operate in. I strongly support the legislation. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(6.26) —Speaking in this House yesterday on the Australian Sports Commission Bill, I concluded that the difficulties for sports administration in Australia over recent years had to be laid at the feet of this Labor Government for the badly conceived and hastily introduced management structure. I find myself tonight in almost identical circumstances in debating the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill 1988. Although the Opposition will not oppose the provisions of the Bill, my colleague the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has foreshadowed an amendment which seeks to highlight the failings of the principal Act in not having remedied the excessive and often conflicting nature of the regulations presently imposed on Australian industry. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris) will recognise the clemency being shown by the Opposition in pointing to this single, albeit vitally important, failure of the present legislation, for there is the most disturbing evidence that between the passage of the principal Act in May 1985 and the present time, Worksafe Australia-as the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission is commonly known-has not met its objectives and has been publicly referred to as a costly, bureaucratic failure. The Bill before this House tonight aims to rectify some of those deficiencies, thereby putting the Commission onto a more soundly based management structure, and one which is more appropriately placed to address the Commission's objectives. Whether the legislation goes far enough to allow that to be achieved is something I will refer to a little later. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I see a disturbing similarity between the necessity for this Bill and that for the Australian Sports Commission. Both comprise amending legislation, and apparently are necessary to remedy badly conceived management structures introduced by this Labor Government in 1985. The pressures on the Government at that time to achieve its many platform and electioneering promises are very understandable, but just as the fast track technique has produced its increasingly apparent problems in our immediate environment, its application in the areas of sports and occupational health management must cause a serious questioning of its use in other than projects where its suitability has a proven application. Its proponents point to the substantial cost savings it offers, but when one is looking at sports or occupational health administration, costs savings are not necessarily the hub around which management should be structured. The unsuitability of fast tracking is all too apparent in these instances, and more will be brought to the notice of this House as the passage of time reveals the inappropriateness of much of what has been structured and changed by this Government. With hindsight the Minister for Industrial Relations should admit that the Government made a fundamental error in modelling the 1985 occupational health and safety legislation on the United Kingdom model, which was in turn taken directly from the recommendations of the United Kingdom Robens report of 1972. He will not, of course, since the political circumstances of 1985 were such that he preferred to describe his legislation as historic, pioneering and having its genesis in the much vaunted accord. Nevertheless, his legislation was taken directly from the United Kingdom model, and this was done for the simple reason that superficially, there were many similarities between occupational health and safety in the United Kingdom in the early 1970s and Australia a decade later. The British factory Acts had been created haphazardly over a century or more, and resulted in a highly industry specific, fragmented and piecemeal approach which had led to overregulation, administration complexity and inconsistencies, while still leaving a large proportion of the work force unprotected. Australia was in a similar situation in the early 1980s with over 130 Federal and State Acts and ordinances in force. Very shortly after Worksafe Australia was officially introduced in 1986, unsatisfactory aspects of the organisation became apparent. These were accentuated by the relocation of the Commission to Sydney, and, dare I suggest it, the manner in which that relocation was managed. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr MacKELLAR —As I was saying before the dinner break, the problems of the Commission were accentuated by the relocation to Sydney. I believe that far too much was expected of the Commission at that time and that this, when placed on an inappropriate organisation, reduced much of the Commission's effective capacity and its ability to address its priority objectives properly. Media criticism and informed criticism, mounting through 1986 and into 1987, finally forced the Government to acknowledge that serious problems existed. It approached the problems by appointing a former Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health, Mr Bernie McKay, to conduct a review of the Commission's activities. The McKay report findings were released on 3 March this year and were critical of most aspects of the Commission's operations. The report recommended 34 ways in which the Commission could be improved, its most significant criticisms being an overall lack of progress in its first two years of operation, requiring immediate structural and organisational changes; inadequate progress in heightening public awareness of occupational health and safety matters and developing strategies and priorities; inadequate development of standards, information and education programs and research activities; communication problems between Worksafe Australia and the Minister and his Department; a rigid adherence to tripartite principles at all levels of activity; and the negative impact of a Public Service model organisation on its activities. On 31 August this year the Minister introduced the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill 1988 into Parliament to reflect some, but not all, of the recommendations of the McKay report. The appropriateness of the Government's selectivity in implementing these recommendations will be determined only by the further passage of time, but the failure to act on two particular recommendations is a matter of great concern to me and the Opposition in general. These are recommendations Nos 7 and 21 which state, firstly, that expertise rather than tripartism should be the principal criterion by which membership of committees and working parties is derived and, secondly, that all existing committees and working parties be critically reviewed with a view to their abolition and retained only where no alternative arrangement is possible. I believe that there is a well-based concern that the tripartite arrangement is not the most effective way to conduct the work of the committees and working parties, more so when that is coupled with membership from peak organisations. Having in mind the critical importance of the educative role of Worksafe Australia, it is not unreasonable to question the efficiency of such long lines of communication from the Commission to the people to whom occupational health and safety is really directed-the factory floor. It is an area of immense importance. It is an area where self-satisfaction cannot be lightly taken. I am sorry that previous Government speakers have suggested that things seem to be going so well. The McKay report highlights in a very clear and dramatic fashion some of those areas where real concern needs to be expressed. The Government has demonstrated once again that its earlier legislation was introduced in far too hasty a manner. This amending legislation will do something to deal with the problems, but certainly there is a great area of concern which the Opposition will be closely monitoring. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(8.04) —The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill implements a number of necessary changes, as has been mentioned earlier in this debate, to the structure and operation of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission which assists government, employer and employee cooperation in matters of occupational health and safety. The Commission, which is better known as Worksafe Australia, is responsible for the development and implementation of national occupational health and safety policies and strategies. The Australian Labor Party Government takes occupational health and safety seriously. I do not doubt for a moment that some people on the other side of the House do as well, but the fact remains that it was not until a Labor Government came into this place that we saw some real action occurring in this area. The then Minister for Industrial Relations, the present Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) pointed out in his second reading speech that the interim Commission was appointed and that subsequently this Commission was set up in 1985. The review which was referred to by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) was conducted in 1987 by Mr Bernie McKay. It reinforced the need for the Commission to focus its resources on a number of key strategies. The review also recommended the separation of the functions of the chairperson and the chief executive officer, a recommendation which the Government has accepted and which hopefully will be passed into law, through this Bill which we are debating. The separation of these functions will enable more of a public relations role to be played by one of those officers. The Bill also provides the Commission with a new function in relation to the evaluation of occupational hazards in workplaces, and enables the Commission to constitute committees comprising persons other than its members. So that in itself overcomes some of the problems raised by the honourable member for Warringah. Obviously, there are difficulties occasionally, with the tripartite nature of the Commission, but there is no need for that Commission to be bound unto its members; it can take expert advice as it requires. When our Government came to office in 1983 Australia had an unacceptably high incidence of work related death and injury. I am sure that these statistics have been mentioned already in this debate tonight but they are so important they bear repetition. Each year 550 men and women die in a work force of seven million; this incident rate of 77 per million needs to be compared with an annual fatality rate per million workers of 22 in Sweden, 24 in the United Kingdom, 20 in Japan, and 37 in the United States. At that stage obviously we were doing something very wrong. Almost nothing was being done despite these figures in Australia at that time. As I said before, it was not until we came into government that something started being done in this area. It is estimated that more than $6 billion a year is wasted in Australia through loss of production and associated costs arising from occupational injury and ill health. I have no doubt that it has been said before in the debate but it needs repeating that the occupational health and safety question is one which costs not only in dollars but also in human resources and grief, and no cost can be put on that. The Labor Party believes that the Federal Government has a vital and crucial role to play in coordinating industrial health and safety activities and in ensuring that uniform standards are adopted around the nation even though regulation is not necessarily the answer. The Commission has an advisory role, not a coercive role. The statutory National Commission was set up in 1985, and it is a 17-member tripartite body comprising representatives of Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, employers and trade unions. This Bill will increase membership of that Commission to 18 in order to accommodate the proposal to separate the functions of the chairperson from those of the chief executive officer. It is obviously important that both people are active members of the Commission and are on the Commission when it makes decisions. The Commission has two operational arms: the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, and the National Office which services the Commission. The Commission's training and education strategy has two major objectives, the first of which is to contribute to ensuring that all people whose decisions and actions affect the Australian workplace are equipped with the appropriate knowledge and expertise in occupational health and safety. It sounds very trite but we want the people who are making the decisions to know what is going on. The second objective is to coordinate the national development of high quality, cost effective training and education programs in occupational health and safety which meet the needs of the workplace and the community. As the honourable member for Warringah mentioned, the education of employers and employees is absolutely crucial to the success of any national occupational health and safety program. The people on the floor, so to speak, should have a heightened awareness of hazardous situations and they should learn how to eradicate those situations wherever possible. As members of Parliament, as workers before we came here and even as workers here, we all understand that accidents occur every day and that many of them are preventable. Prevention is the key to overcoming this problem, as is awareness. In the old Parliament House I once had an avoidable accident when I foolishly stood on a chair while trying to use a facsimile machine. That is what happens when one is short and I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, are aware of these problems. We cannot always see or reach the equipment. At the time of my accident I was an employee. I was wearing high heels, which did not help, and I fell off the chair and broke my finger. My arm was put in a sling; I was unable to pursue my duties. I did a lot of other things, but I certainly could not do the duties that I was supposed to be doing at the time. I think that those sorts of things point to the idiocy of the placement of some of the equipment in our offices especially in the old building-not here as we have a bit more space-where machines were put in places which were very difficult to reach. Accidents can occur through foolishness, haste and misplacement of machinery. I certainly will not make that mistake again and I will encourage my staff not to do so. In our occupation we also see repetitive strain injury because many of the staff of members of parliament and Public Service employees, such as Telecom Australia and Australia Post employees, have suffered from repetitive strain injury. It is a very serious injury which is costing Australia a great deal of money. It is not something that is in the mind but people must remember that it is very much stress related. It is also physiological. I have had a lot to do with it and I know that the people who have been subjected to that injury are now much more conscious of the requirement for ergonomic furniture. Also, employers are often much more conscious of the need for ergonomic furniture, appropriate rest breaks and not pressuring staff. All of that sort of thing seems so simple and yet does not happen. I am sure that the role of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, in its educational aspects, will overcome some of these difficulties and I also know that the Commonwealth employees' compensation legislation, which we passed not so long ago, will assist in this area by supervising particular departments to ensure that they actually carry out their role of, firstly, awareness and prevention and, secondly, appropriate rehabilitation, which is very important as well. The research and scientific division of the Commission undertakes research, high level consultancy services and teaching across a wide range of disciplines. These include epidemiology and surveillance, occupational medicine, statistics, occupational hygiene and safety engineering, toxicology, occupational psychology, ergonomics and environmental health. The major activities of the research program have included a major national study of traumatic work-related fatalities; longitudinal studies of noise induced hearing loss and pulmonary function in coal mines; evaluation of the utility for work injury surveillance of data collected in hospital accident and emergency departments; a study of asbestos fibres and lung tissue; and a number of studies into heat and cold stress in the workplace. Whilst I am on the question of asbestos I would like to point out to the House that in Western Australia there have been many injuries caused by the attachment of the asbestos fibre in the lung and there are a great number of people who suffer from mesothelioma or asbestosis which is in itself an extremely debilitating and unpleasant cancer which, of course, is terminal. The high level consultancy services which are obviously sought after by many people in industry have included a service for Qantas Airways Ltd, and for the Australian Government, a study of the occupational hygiene aspects of the dust extraction program for manganese minerals at Groote Eylandt, a study of potroom asthma, which is occupational asthma in the aluminium industry, a noise survey of mechanical workshops at naval armament depots at Kingswood and Silverwater and another asbestos survey at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. Again, people do not realise that children are exposed to asbestos fibre if their fathers or mothers come home with the asbestos fibre in their clothing. We must not turn a blind eye to these sorts of things. We must be aware as a nation that where there is an allegation of a dangerous practice or a hazardous undertaking, it is in the nation's interest to take that allegation seriously in the first instance rather than find that we have paid for it with human life and economic cost in the latter instance. Sometimes, asbestosis or mesothelioma take 30 years to actually become the disease that kills people but in that 30 years we have allowed a lot more people to work in mines and buildings that have been insulated with asbestos. I think we have to be extremely careful not to allow those sorts of things to occur. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(8.16) —The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission was established in 1985 on the basis of a report by an earlier interim commission of inquiry. I remind the House that at the time the Opposition opposed the creation of what seemed certain to be another quango. The Opposition then warned of the dangers of the Commission becoming another vehicle leading to the encouragement of greater regulation which, in turn, increased the costs of employing people without any real improvements in health or safety. We pointed to a series of problems in the administrative structure of the Commission with its separate national office of Occupational Health and Safety and its National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety. Many of those problems which it was suggested might emerge have indeed appeared. However, the administrative problems which have emerged in the Commission have at times been so great that little in the way of proposals for a national strategy for occupational health and safety, which might have led to greater regulation, have emerged from the Commission. It is because of the results of a fairly recent review of these matters that the legislation we see today has been brought before the House. Specifically, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill seeks to separate the position of the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission. The Opposition does not oppose these amendments or the Government's attempt to further the health and safety in the workplace in Australia. However, we question whether the Government's general approach, which is typical of its actions in many other important areas, is the best way of dealing with acknowledged problems. No-one is opposed to occupational health and safety. It is very much in the nature of a motherhood issue. It is in the best interests of employers as well as employees, who have a very direct interest in their safety, for injuries and health problems caused at or by work to be minimised. It is not just a matter of the large economic costs of injury but also the very real suffering of those people who have the misfortune of being injured at work. We must realise that injuries at work will never be completely eliminated. Some people work in more dangerous occupations than others and are compensated for that by receiving higher wages and direct compensation if injury occurs. I have heard previous speakers mention figures from Japan suggesting that we have a higher per capita rate of deaths as a result of accidents in the workplace than countries such as Japan, the United States and Sweden. The nature of the workplace in Australia is quite different and a large part of our national wealth is gathered in very dangerous industries, including the extractive mining industry and the construction industry which is very large and reflects the needs of a vast land mass and a developing economy. Other problems will result from accidents where no degree of blame can be attributed to anyone. Given this, we must seek the situation where the maximum possible level of knowledge and incentives to eliminate health or safety hazards is achieved. I would argue that the approach to occupational health and safety pursued by this Government, as well as by the trade union movement and the State Labor governments, actually fails to further the objectives which I have no doubt they genuinely wish to achieve. In my opinion, in the long run it will hinder the development of immediate and relevant knowledge and remove strong incentives on employees and employers to provide for safety in the workplace. While the problems of occupational health and safety are national in character, in the end they must be solved in each separate workplace in the most efficient way possible. They are not new problems. Most places in which people work are probably safer today than at any time in the past. Safety issues have, to some extent, given way to more general health issues such as smoking in offices, the best type of furniture for staff to sit on and measures to counteract the problem of repetitive strain injury and so on. Mr Tim Fischer —Progress is being made. Mr ROCHER —Progress is being made but it is not necessarily as a result of the creation of the quango we are discussing here tonight. I would like to see this body-if it has not started already-look at the presence of legionella bacteria in Commonwealth buildings. We should look first at our own Commonwealth buildings and structures and workplace practices before we start interfering with the private sector. Let us get the Commonwealth's house in order, as it were, before we start regulating and interfering in the way we do. We are not clean as a Commonwealth. There is more than prima facie evidence-it is a matter of certainty-that legionella bacteria is to be found in old buildings where air-conditioning installations have been in place and operating for some time. Rather than concentrating on smoking in the workplace perhaps we could have a look at this matter. The reason employers are concerned about health and safety is obvious. Accidents can still be avoided by greater knowledge about possible dangers. Such knowledge requires work and effort. That is acknowledged. Unless an incentive exists to make the effort then, no matter what the Government does, there will be no great improvement in occupational health or safety. Employers whose negligence or actions cause injury or health problems to their employees should be fully liable for the costs of the employee. There should be significant incentives for those who employ people to ensure that their firms are as safe and healthy as possible. No fault compensation, which has been legislated for in the United States, means that even the most meticulous employer will indirectly pay for the mistakes of other firms. Given that the greater safety might involve some monetary costs, the idea of no fault compensation removes most of the offsetting benefits in terms of lower additional costs in maintaining each employee safely in employment. The common law system of providing for compensation after accidents provides real incentives to avoid those problems I have just referred to that are disincentives. In addition to those incentives we can find little more than education and an efficient and affordable legal system to resolve disputes and plans as swiftly as possible. Many of the criticisms of the common law approach to workers compensation and related issues are in fact criticisms of our legal system and its inability to cope with the litigation arising from the rapid growth in government legislation at all levels. The money spent on the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission could be better directed towards the Government's fundamental responsibilities in providing a legal system which can cope with the law it passes. The alternative promoted by this Government and other Labor governments in the States has involved extensive regulation of the detailed operation of the workplace. This is particularly true of proposals of the trade union movement which are being adopted by Labor governments across the country. I will be interested to see how the national strategy of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission differs from these highly regulatory trends in the law relating to occupational health and safety. The truth is that overregulation in the health and safety area parallels regulation in many other areas of industry which has been imposed by governments in recent times. One particular area for concern is the penchant for inspectors with wide powers to interfere in the operation of a business. Those inspectors are being appointed by all levels of government to perform a certain range of functions. People responsible for health and safety are usually appointed at the State level. Some proposed and existing legislation gives them investigative powers as wide as those of the police but without the same procedural restraints. Similarly, the activities of trade union appointed safety officers on work sites have been completely counterproductive. I could do no better in support of that claim than to refer to the building industry, of which I am reasonably familiar. Although no-one wants to see people injured on building sites, the type of occupational health and safety legislation promoted by the unions and their captive parliamentary wing-the Labor Party-gives an open invitation to building industry unions to have snap strikes whenever they choose at no immediate cost to their members. The cost of spurious health and safety disputes to Australian industry and to the building industry in particular are incalculable. Certainly nothing has come out of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission to address these very real and significant problems. Because of the guillotine I propose to leave my remarks there. I regret that very much because there is a great deal that I could have contributed to this debate. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(8.27) —As has been emphasised, estimates of the cost of occupational accidents in Australia amount to approximately $6 billion per annum. That is a wastage which this nation, like any other nation, cannot possibly condone or afford. Of course, the actual economic costs is only one element of it. The cost to the human condition of those people who are injured or incapacitated is much more than that. Whether it be in the short or long term it does not matter. There is a cost also to the families and children of these people. The human costs are those that go beyond the economic costs. I hope that all honourable members who have taken part in this debate recognise that fact. I emphasise once again that point by quoting the 1986-87 annual report of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission: Each year, in Australia more than 500 workers leave home and do not return. Current statistics indicate that in Australia there are some 550 work-related fatalities and approximately 300,000 work-related injuries or disease annually which result in an absence from work. Estimates indicate that the national cost of these fatalities and injuries, directly, and in workers compensation, lost time, retraining, and replacement and repair of equipment, is more than $12 billion each year. Much of this is avoidable if we take the appropriate measures. I wish to make some comments about work which is actually being done with a view to reducing that figure. I would like to make some comments about a contribution that is being made by the Ballarat College of Advanced Education to the improvement of occupational health and safety in Australia. It was fitting that this college should develop a course of this kind because it was there that so many people were prepared to enter the mining industry as mining engineers in the nineteenth century. In the early days mining was one of the most dangerous of occupations. It is estimated that in the heyday of mining one person a day was killed in the Victorian mines. In those days people did not recognise the importance of occupational health and safety. Unfortunately, sometimes people tend to say, `What a nuisance it is that people are making noises about occupational health and safety'. This ignores the human cost. The deaths that occurred in the Victorian mines in those days led the unions to establish safety mechanisms in the mines at Creswick and Ballarat. In 1984 the Ballarat College of Advanced Education (CAE) developed Australia's first tertiary course in occupational health and safety. Under the leadership of Dr Dennis Else, the six full time staff recognise that there is an enormous task involved in preventing occupational injuries and diseases. They aim to provide training for health and safety practitioners, managers and inspectors. The college provided the first tertiary health and safety course in 1979 and has extended it from a graduate diploma to a masters degree. It is the best equipped unit in the country and has received recognition from industry and government at all levels. The unit works according to three themes which have direct application to the workplace. Firstly, it is seen as necessary to identify health and safety problems, to seek their solutions and to have them applied in the workplace. That sounds very simple but it is not, and that is part of the problem. Secondly, if this is to happen, a change of attitude towards health and safety is required. Industry at all levels needs a change of attitude. From management to the shop floor, knowledge of health and safety issues is necessary. This must also extend to the application of health and safety knowledge to plant management and work practices. As part of this thrust, the third theme is developing an understanding of the economic advantages that can accrue to a plant through sound health and safety practices. That is one of the most significant motifs and has generated a lot of interest. It leads to better industrial relations, improved productivity and quality control. The numbers of days lost through injury and compensation claims are reduced. In other words, health and safety awareness and its application are sound business and are more than cost-effective. I refer to the case of a progressive firm in my home city of Ballarat that has embraced occupational health and safety in what would otherwise be a very dangerous and expensive industry. Bendix-Mintex Pty Ltd is a manufacturer of friction products, mainly brake linings. Its business record is second to none. In recent years it has become the major manufacturer of brake linings in Australia. It has developed a successful record of export marketing, exporting its products to over 40 countries. But the firm recognises that it is dealing with a dangerous material, namely, asbestos. The company has taken a lead throughout the world in airborne material containment control by its design and installation of computerised ventilation equipment. As part of the Government's policy of encouraging excellence in Australian industry, occupational health and safety must be seen to be a most significant component. This firm has been working towards that goal with the Ballarat College of Advanced Education. I would like to congratulate the now retired Managing-Director of Bendix-Mintex, Bill Gribble, for his foresight, openness and common sense. I know that the new management is equally as committed as Bill was. The message has to be: `Safe business is good business. Think safe; think smart'. These could be worthwhile slogans for any industry to adopt today. It is interesting to note that the Netherlands now requires new equipment and manufacturing plant to be provided with state of the art health and safety controls. It is to be hoped that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission will work to ensure that the latest material in technical developments in the area of occupational health and safety is available, is distributed widely and is a conscious matter within the firms. Occupational health and safety awareness and its application must become part of our working culture. Management and employees, including the self-employed, must think safety and must have the knowledge to make their workplace safe and healthy. I congratulate the Ballarat CAE and its health and safety unit for the valuable work that is being done in this area. It ought to be noted that the council of the Ballarat CAE has recently required an evaluation of all courses offered within the college for health and safety requirements. I also wish to thank my friend Bob Hall for providing me with much useful material on this subject. I support this Bill. I do not believe that any amendments are necessary. The Bill is simple and ought to be accepted. We are talking about an extremely important matter. It is to be hoped that the Bill will be passed with no opposition so that the Commission can work far more efficiently. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(8.35) —As has been made clear in this debate, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Amendment Bill provides for a number of measures aimed at improving the operations of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, otherwise known as Worksafe Australia. The Commission was first set up on a provisional basis in 1984 and was established as a statutory body by Act of parliament in December 1985. The Commission's role, in a short statement, is to facilitate government, employer and employee cooperation towards achieving a more uniform approach to occupational health and safety. It is responsible for the development and implementation of national occupational health and safety standards and strategies in cooperation with the States. The need for a greater focus in the area of work-related death and injury is clear. It stems from the fact that Australia has had an unacceptably high incidence of work-related death and injury as compared with other Western nations, even allowing for the nature of our industries discussed by my colleague the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). As the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) pointed out, each year approximately 550 men and women die as a result of work-related accidents and disease. That gives an incidence rate of 77 per million in a work force of about 7 million. That compares with an annual work-related fatality rate of 22 per million workers in Sweden-these are 1984 figures-24 per million in the United Kingdom, 20 per million in Japan and 37 per million in the United States. To the 550 deaths to which I referred must be added some thousand persons each day who suffer a compensable injury or disease. And apart from the effects of injury and death, the lack of uniformity as between the States in their regulatory regimes in this context-the situation has been described as creating a legislative minefield for industry and unions-leads to inefficiencies and higher costs for industry. Hence the need for action-the importance of the issue-is not in question. As to the `qango' that has been set up, it is clear that in the first few years of its operations the Commission ran into some pretty heavy weather. In September of last year Mr Bernie McKay was appointed to conduct a review, as pointed out by previous speakers, and his report was released in March of this year. The measures in the present Bill largely stem from Mr McKay's recommendations. He concluded that there had been an overall lack of progress in the first two years of Worksafe's operation and an inadequate development of the standards, information and education programs and research activities that were contemplated as its objectives, with insufficient development of the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety. I note in parentheses that the Commission has two arms-the National Occupational Health and Safety Office, the operational arm, and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, the scientific and technical research arm. So we have two bureaucracies rather than just one! The McKay report made recommendations that suggest a real effort to deal with the problems of the Commission: specifically, less emphasis on tripartism, a greater role for the States, separation of the functions of the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer, and a greater focus on the Commission's priority issues as determinants of the Commission's work program and organisational operation. Those recommendations have in fact been supported by the Confederation of Australian Industry, the ACTU and the State governments. One might also note the appointment of Professor Ted Emmett, a distinguished Australian who, at the time of his appointment, was Professor of Occupational Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and Director of the Centre for Occupational Environmental Health at that university. His appointment as Director of the Institute and acting chairman of the Commission should enable it to establish greater credibility in the whole area. As the shadow Minister has indicated, the Opposition does not oppose this Bill-as I can assure the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren). But the Opposition remains wary of the necessity for a large bureaucratic body-as I just said, two bureaucracies-costing the taxpayer in the order of $20m but to date seeming to achieve very little. In the light of the high incidence of occupational death in industry in this country-I previously referred to the figures; in respect of deaths, more than twice the incidence in comparable Western countries-the need for definitive action to combat that incidence is imperative. However, for my part I suggest that only so much can be achieved by direct regulation and through the efforts of a body such as this National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. In practical terms, part of the answer, and perhaps the most important part-my colleague from Curtin (Mr Rocher) was suggesting something similar in reducing the excessive incidence of occupational injury and death in this country is better and more responsible industrial relations in the workplace, at the individual enterprise level-the breaking down of the `them and us' syndrome, the achieving of a real sense of common purpose and mutual interest between employee and employer. It is perhaps significant that in the very week that this Bill was previously listed for debate the House passed this Government's Industrial Relations Bill. While that measure made some marginal changes, and the current focus on award restructuring will contribute further to a measure of freeing up, by and large the too rigid and too centralised industrial relations system in this country remains in place. Mr Rocher —It enshrined the adversarial industrial relations system. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It enshrined that, which is adverse to the problem we are trying to address. So here is the Government desperately trying, on the one hand, to make a large bureaucratic body, costing the taxpayer in the order of $20m, work with some effectiveness, while on the other hand it backs away from the sort of action in the industrial relations arena which would truly encourage direct dealing, more constructive cooperation between employers and employees, which I have no doubt would reduce the present unacceptable level of occupational injury and death. Of course, if that were pursued, there would at the same time be increased productivity and higher real wages for the employees, greater profitability for the enterprise-and I might add, a stronger and more internationally competitive Australian economy. So I think we ought to get the focus a little away from the introduction and development of quangos such as this National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and more into dealing realistically with the conditions in which this high incidence of accident and injury obtains. 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 Duncan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate order of the day No. 7 concurrently with orders of the day Nos 8 and 9. That being the case, the Chair will allow that course of action. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(8.46) —The Opposition supports the Ozone Protection Bill 1988, the Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Imports) Bill 1988 and the Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Manufacture) Bill 1988. These Bills give effect to Australia's obligations under the Vienna Convention and under the recently signed Montreal Protocol on the protection of the ozone layer. On this side of the House, as surely is the case on the other side of the House, we regard this as an extremely important matter, not just for Australia but for the whole world. These Bills move faster than the international minimum standards which are determined in the Vienna Convention and in the Montreal Protocol. They provide for about a 50 per cent reduction in the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons within a period of five years. Everyone in this House would agree that there is very great international concern now about the depletion of the ozone layer. Ozone is a trace gas in the stratosphere which helps to filter ultraviolet radiation from the sun. It is well known that without that filter then ultraviolet radiation can be lethal to unicellular organisms and surface cells of higher plants and of animals. CFCs are seen as one of the major causes of the destruction of parts of the ozone layer and in particular, of course, of ozone molecules. This effect on the ozone layer of CFCs was first recognised in 1974 by Rowland and Molina at the University of California. Their research and subsequent research done into this issue is widely accepted now throughout the scientific community. It is worth all of us reflecting on some of the consequences which will occur if the ozone layer becomes increasingly depleted, as there is concern that it is already happening. One of the first consequences will be an increase in skin cancer, and for us as Australians that is obviously a particular concern because Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world. Malignant melanoma now affects about one person in 250 around the world and some scientists estimate that by the year 2000 it will affect one in every 135 persons. Others predict that there will be a 60 per cent increase in the incidence of skin cancer by the year 2000. Of course, there are a lot of reasons for this happening. Some of them are social, and there are other scientific reasons not related to the ozone layer which may be the cause of a potential increase in skin cancer. But there is no doubt that the concern that the depletion of the ozone layer will contribute to an increase in skin cancer is a concern that we must all take very seriously. In 1987, the National Health and Medical Research Council with the Australian Environmental Council made an estimate that if there were a one per cent decline in the ozone layer, that would lead to an increase in the occurrence of skin cancer of between 4 per cent and 6 per cent. I think that just underlines how seriously we need to take the consequences of the depletion of the ozone layer. However, they are not the only consequences. There is some evidence that an increase in the effective ultraviolet radiation, coming, of course, as a result of the depletion of the ozone layer, may suppress the human immune system. So that again is something we all have a responsibility to be concerned about. A third consequence of the depletion of the effect of the ozone layer and the increase of ultraviolet radiation is that it could do significant harm to aquatic systems and to biological organisms. For example, many scientists believe that it would reduce yields from crops, and I know that that would be of considerable concern to our rural community. It would increase the susceptibility of crops to pests and disease. That too is of major concern to a country such as Australia that depends so heavily on its agricultural industries. It is interesting to note also that scientists believe that the increase in ultraviolet radiation could harm the larval stages of fish and thereby have significant implications for the fishing industry around the world. A fourth consequence of that occurrence is that it is believed-of course, there is only preliminary evidence for this-there could be a significant detrimental effect on the incidence of urban smog. That aspect is not widely known yet. There is no firm evidence that that will be a consequence of the depletion of the ozone level, but it is a matter of some preliminary scientific evidence. Fifthly-and perhaps this is the most well known of the consequences of the depletion of the ozone layer after the incidence of skin cancer-it is believed that the depletion of the ozone layer may affect the global temperature and contribute to creating what is know as the greenhouse effect. CFCs are believed to help trap heat in the atmosphere, and naturally enough the consequence is a warming of the surface of the globe. That creates the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect means changes to rainfall patterns, and that could have significant consequences not just for agriculture but also for the way we live. Secondly, the greenhouse effect, if there would really be a warming of the globe as is widely believed, would lead to a melting of the polar ice caps and a rise in sea level. I note that the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) on one very well-known occasion put out a most informative press release on the greenhouse effect. It is an issue very close to his heart, and I am glad to see that he is here. I had not noticed that he was present until I began making these points. The honourable member for Bass made the point that, if predictions about the greenhouse effect turn out to be correct, the electorate of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) could be flooded. Perhaps that would be one of the positive consequences of the greenhouse effect, but I jest because, for the people who live in the Prime Minister's electorate and, doubtless, who never see him, that would be a very undesirable consequence. I make the concession, as I believe anyone should in this debate, that these consequences are by no means proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is a lot of doubt, there is debate in the scientific community, and different views, I have noted, have come from different sections of the meteorological community, for example, which dispute first of all, that there is a greenhouse effect. Some dispute that the depletion of the ozone layer is an issue with which we should be overwhelmingly concerned. I am not sure that we can responsibly simply sit by and accept that there is a debate within the scientific community and conclude that we should do nothing. By introducing this sort of legislation, following, as the Government is doing, the lead of the Liberal Party, and, in particular, the Liberal Party in many States, we are doing the safe thing by addressing what is certainly a fact-that if the use of CFCs continues to increase, that will cause some of the effects I have cited this evening. If we do nothing to reduce the use of CFCs those five consequences will become a reality. If the use of CFCs stabilises, we might accept that there is just a debate within the scientific community and that we do not know what the consequences might be. I believe it is wise to take the responsible course and not gamble with people's health, the future of our aquatic systems and our biological organisms, the issue of urban smog and the greenhouse effect. Many people, in addition to these direct concerns of the consequences inter alia of the effects of the use of CFCs, are concerned about the growth of what is described as the ozone hole. It is believed that this ozone hole began to grow in about 1979. We do not know for sure, but that seems to be the consensus amongst the scientific community. There is a range of theories as to why the ozone hole may be growing, but let me make the point before I discuss some of those theories that the growth in the ozone hole should be an issue close to the heart of every Australian. Certainly, it should be close to the heart of every Tasmanian, because the ozone hole exists over Antarctica, and Australia is just about the nearest country to Antarctica. Therefore, we have a natural self-interest in being concerned about this occurrence. As I said, there are a number of theories about why the ozone hole may be growing. The first of those theories is that the ozone hole is caused by a change in the direction of air flow in the polar region and that, once that air flow direction changes back again, the ozone hole may begin to fill up. Secondly, some people argue that it is caused by solar cycles and that we are going through a particularly unusual solar cycle at present; when that solar cycle is finished, one of its consequences, that is, the opening up of the ozone hole, may pass by and the ozone layer may cover the earth in its entirety. However, the third theory, the one that I know we can actually do something about, is that the ozone hole is caused by chemical reactions. I appreciate, as every honourable member in this House should appreciate, that there are no final conclusions on the causes of the opening of the ozone hole, but there is overwhelming evidence that the use of CFCs in particular is exacerbating the ozone hole, whatever its cause. If we were simply to take the view-which, I am glad to say, we as a Parliament will not do-that that did not matter, that the scientific evidence is unclear so we should not do anything, I believe that would be grossly irresponsible, because there is one thing we can do: we can take action on the chemical front. We cannot do anything about solar cycles and we cannot change the direction of air flow in the polar region, but we can stop the emission of damaging chemicals such as CFCs into the ozone layer. For those reasons we on this side of the House warmly welcome the Government's action in introducing these Bills in the past few days. I compliment the Government on following the lead of the Liberal Party throughout Australia in this issue, but it must be underlined that the Liberal Party has repeatedly taken the lead around Australia on the issue of the future of the ozone layer. At the 1988 Federal Liberal Party Council in Melbourne the Liberal Party passed a resolution on the elimination of the use of CFCs because of the overwhelming concern within the Party of the effect of CFCs on the ozone level. My recollection is that that resolution was passed unanimously. In South Australia the Liberals with the Democrats have had a Bill passed in the Legislative Council to control the use of CFCs, again to address the issue of the future of the ozone layer. I am disappointed to hear that the Labor Party in South Australia will oppose that Bill in the House of Assembly. That is disappointing, because the Labor Party is starting to take the issue seriously in this Parliament. There is not the same degree of commitment in the Parliament of South Australia. In Western Australia Barry Blaikie, one of the shadow Ministers, initiated action in the Parliament against the use of CFCs. I congratulate Barry Blaikie, a Liberal member, for his commitment in that State. Probably standing above all these people is Peter Hodgman, the Minister for the Environment in Tasmania, who has led the way in Australia. He has definitely led the way in Australia in introducing legislation on this very important issue. Mr Chynoweth —He is grandstanding all the time. Mr DOWNER —His legislation, which I hope the honourable member who is interjecting does not oppose, comes into force on 31 December this year, one year before the Federal Government's legislation comes into effect. Perhaps as a final point on the very strong commitment of the Liberal Party and how the Liberal Party has led the way on this issue, I point out that action against the continual use of CFCs is an integral part of the Liberal Party's federal environment policy which was successfully launched by my colleague Senator Chris Puplick recently in Canberra. It is important not to set industry up as a bogey man and say that it has acted in a grossly irresponsible manner in the promotion of the use of CFCs. That would be unfair because, in particular, I think the aerosol industry has done a good job and its excellent record in reducing the use of CFCs needs to be recognised. From 1974 to 1985 the use of CFCs in aerosols has declined from 13,000 tonnes to 4,000 tonnes. That may not be enough, but it is worth recognising that the industry has done a very good job in reducing the use of CFCs and it would not do this Parliament any discredit to congratulate the aerosol industry on the voluntary reduction in the use of CFCs that has taken place. Some of that reduction in the use of CFCs in the aerosol industry is without any doubt brought about because of concern for the consequences of the use of CFC driven aerosols. There is no question also that non-aerosol use of CFCs has increased in the same period of 1974 to 1985 from 3,000 tonnes in 1974 to 8,000 tonnes in 1985. This Bill will address that. It will lead to a substantial reduction in the use of CFCs and that is something that members on this side of the House warmly welcome. I do not want to take up too much of the time of this debate because I know a lot of my colleagues feel very strongly about this issue and wish to speak as well and the Government has guillotined the debate so that Parliament is not able to express a broadly based view on this issue. Only a small handful of people lucky enough to be high on the speakers list will be able to do so. Briefly, I wish to raise several specific points about the Bill. First, I am glad that the Government has had the intelligence to make some exemptions for the pharmaceutical industry because there is a debate about the use of CFCs as a propellant for asthmatics. Some people in this Parliament in another place, the Australian Democrats, believe that CFCs should not be used as a propellant even in the treatment of asthmatics. As I will point out in a minute, I think that is extraordinarily irresponsible, even callous on the part of the Australian Democrats whose spokesperson comes from my own State, someone called Senator Coulter. For the treatment of asthma and certain other medical conditions there are still no practical alternatives for CFCs and the reason is that CFCs are effectively non-toxic. Hydrocarbons are the usual alternatives for CFCs but the trouble with hydrocarbons is that they are toxic. Senator Coulter, to whom I referred earlier, advocates the use of carbon dioxide as a propellant in the treatment of asthmatics but he does not seem to have taken into account that there is a difficulty with using carbon dioxide, namely, that as the air temperature increases, so does the pressure of that carbon dioxide propelled unit and if the pressure increases, the treatment to the asthmatic becomes very irregular and could be damaging if the temperature was high enough. Senator Coulter may not be very concerned about that but I know members of the House of Representatives are. We do not think, as some people in the Australian Democrats think, that there should be a trade-off between the disease of asthma and the disease of cancer. Honourable members on this side of the House do not believe that cancer is a more serious threat to health than asthma and so cancer should be addressed and asthma forgotten; let us not use CFCs so that asthmatics cannot be properly treated. That is the view of the Australian Democrats. We think that in any humane and responsible society we should try to treat both asthmatics and people who have the potential to develop cancer, let alone those who are already suffering from it, in the best way we can. We would also say in that context that it is important that the Government consults with the States as the States introduce their own legislation in this very important area. It would be regrettable if a State government did not take into consideration the need in certain circumstances to exempt from legislation the use of CFCs in the pharmaceutical industry. I know that in the case of Tasmania that exemption has been made, and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) will confirm that. I hope in other States that same exemption will be made and no-one will listen to the ravings of some of the people in the Australian Democrats. The second point I raise is the issue of the effect of clause 4 of this Bill. I am sorry that no Minister responsible for this measure is in the House and that the Labor Party does not take the issue a little more seriously. Although the Minister is not present, perhaps his advisers are listening. Members of the Opposition would like from the Government a full explanation, particularly for any future legal action that may occur, of the possibility of this proposed legislation striking down certain State laws which go further than the Federal laws. Clearly, under section 109 of the Constitution, where there is a conflict between State and Federal legislation, the Federal legislation strikes down the State legislation. I am not saying that I think this would happen in this case but it would be helpful if the Minister, when he winds up the debate, gives us the assurance that that conflict will not occur. With that assurance we can be fairly confident that that kind of conflict will not create some legal confusion in the years ahead between the Commonwealth and the States. In conclusion on this very important issue, I am sorry that we do not have more time for the debate and that more honourable members cannot contribute to this matter which is a major concern to all Australians. I noticed an opinion poll the other day that showed well over 90 per cent of Australians were concerned, particularly about the greenhouse effect, and that reflects also their concern about the depletion of the ozone layer. It is a pity that the Government has introduced the guillotine. However, honourable members on this side of the House are glad to support the Bills the Government has introduced and are glad that the Federal Labor Party has followed the fine lead given it by the Liberal Government in Tasmania, by Liberals in Western Australia, by Liberals in South Australia and by the Federal Council of the Liberal Party. Mr Tim Fischer —And the Nationals. Mr DOWNER —The National Party too has played an important part in this debate. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(9.09) —The Ozone Protection Bill is a very important measure and perhaps it was a reflection on the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) of his continuing displays of lack of maturity that he had to be so partisan in this debate. He mentioned a number of State governments but he failed to mention the inaction of the Liberal Government in New South Wales. When one reflects upon people's attitudes to this question, often other factors come into play. It may be that because we have so many aerosol manufacturers in New South Wales there is some tardiness on behalf of that State Government. That is not to say that other governments have not displayed the same insensitivity. On the international stage when we look at the developments that have led to the Montreal Protocol we find that in Europe there has been great debate where the European Community is the signatory on behalf of its member states, and that the member states of that community had great debate. Unfortunately, that was based upon the industrial aspects of the manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons and other such gases. It is unfortunate that when we have debates such as this matters of that moment are brought into play. As has been outlined so far in the debate, we are dealing with something that is based on hypothesis. It is not something that can be readily proven; it is not something that can be readily understood. The important thing is that we have a major environmental matter that has captured the imagination and interest of people. I think it is important to say that, despite the comments of the honourable member for Mayo, these pieces of legislation have the full support of this House. The Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) in his second reading speech said: Protection of the ozone layer is one of the Government's highest environmental priorities. The honourable member for Mayo, in speaking on behalf of the Opposition and on behalf of the Opposition shadow Minister, Senator Puplick, echoed those words. As I have said, this subject enables people to focus their attention on the broader environmental matters that have been forgotten in recent times. We have come a long way since the time when simple matters of air and water pollution were seen as not being important. We have matured in our attitude and, through various pieces of legislation, we see these aspects as being very important. Certainly, the environmental debate in this country has moved on to narrower fields, where we have looked at the protection of particular natural assets. In protecting those natural assets there has been a great deal of debate, unfortunately characterised by partisanship, by State governments getting into long drawn-out battles with the Commonwealth Government. That is unfortunate because it has tended to confuse people about the importance of environmental matters. With this type of legislation, we have a chance of bringing people back together, concentrating and focusing their attention on things that are important to all of us. The effect of the ozone layer in the stratosphere has been well outlined in previous speeches. It is very important for the filtering of ultraviolet rays and therefore protecting humans from ultraviolet rays, which can cause cancers, and also protecting other flora and fauna from the harmful effects of ultraviolet light. Clearly, as has been set down by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the legislation attacks the amount of chlorofluorocarbons and halons that are used. At the moment, chlorofluorocarbons are used predominantly as propellants in aerosols and refrigerants in foam and halons are used predominantly in fire extinguishers. Since the theory was put forward about the depletion of the ozone layer responsible bodies have been looking at alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, as they are more commonly known. The action of the aerosol manufacturers in voluntarily setting out to place these bans is to be admired. It is interesting to see that they have now embarked upon a campaign-I suppose the bottom line of any company's decision is a profit motive-and are marketing their aerosols as containing no chlorofluorocarbons. They have created a symbol with a tick which states, `Friendly to our environment'. These little devices are also important because they remind members of the community when they are out shopping, looking at articles on the shelves, that this is a feature. I have had correspondence from the Broadmeadows Community Health Centre in my electorate. Mr Hand —A good health centre too. Mr JENKINS —Broadmeadows is a good health centre and it is doing a lot of vital work in that area. Mr Chynoweth —And represented by a good member too. Mr JENKINS —I thank the honourable member. That health centre wrote to me suggesting that, on those aerosols containing CFCs, there should be a warning that CFCs were harmful to the environment. I think that sort of thing would be helpful not for any punitive reason but in educating the community and making it aware of the issues. The question of propellants in aerosols is the easiest of the uses for us to address. Should we go back to the common pump spray for fly sprays and things like that, which people perhaps think is a museum piece, or should we use other gases such as hydrocarbons? Those considerations are important, but we must look at the other uses of these gases as coolants in refrigerators and air-conditioners. We know that, as the CFCs finally percolate the 20 or 50 kilometres above us into the stratosphere, they will remain there for many years. Some say that they will remain in the stratosphere for over 100 years. So it is not just a problem of now. Even if we addressed this problem and had a total ban on CFCs today, we would still be confronted with a problem. A lot of these gases are lying in machinery that will become obsolete. One issue that this legislation does not touch upon-I understand that the Minister has had discussions with the industry groups he consulted before placing the legislation before the Parliament-is the recycling of these gases. Because of the way in which the gases are stored in the coils of machinery it is unfortunate that they are not readily recyclable, it is something we should look at. If the gases are to continue to be used, even within the strategy of reducing their use, they should be able to be extracted, not just for recycling but also so that they can be more readily and properly disposed of. One of the dangers is that these gases can leak from machinery thrown onto the municipal tips. The coils are damaged and the gases are released into the air, just as if they were in an aerosol pack. It is important that these issues, some of which are outside the scope of the legislation, continue to be addressed. Exemptions are allowable in this legislation, which is a controversial point with some people in their approach to the question of the control of chlorofluorocarbons. We on this side of the House believe that there are necessary issues that should be allowed for. Therefore, there is a procedure in the Bill that will allow for exemptions for essential uses-medical, veterinary, defence, industrial safety or public safety purposes-and that is important. The honourable member for Mayo outlined the use of CFCs in asthmatic inhalers. He said, quite correctly that those gases deliver consistently over the life of the aerosol package a dose that can be appropriately measured and delivered. Unfortunately, at this time we do not have an alternative to the gas but it is something we must continue to work at. Fortunately, the uses that will come under this exemption represent only some 3 per cent of the CFCs used in the Australian context. The other important thing to look at is the rate of manufacture in Australia of CFCs, which represents just under 2 per cent of international production levels. The point that I wish to make is that this matter requires international effort. It is not something that we shall be able to combat in isolation. It is unfortunate that the reduction of levels of ozone in the stratosphere on a seasonal basis that creates the so-called ozone hole over Antarctica has the greatest potential of causing effect not only to Tasmania but to some parts of mainland Australia, depending on the prevailing meteorological conditions. It is important that whilst we bear the brunt of the effect, the international community should look at this question with as much zealousness as we can. One of the effects that can occur due to the increase in ultraviolet rays reaching the earth is a disruption to plankton, which is an important food source for aquatic animals in the Antarctic region. Later, that will be of even greater consequence than the effect on humans. This legislation is important. It should not be belittled. We should not look at it on a partisan political basis. I hope that we do see cooperation from the State governments with the Commonwealth Government on this issue, because it is important. There can be no other issue of such fundamental importance as matters concerning the environment, be they the question of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect-CFCs have some involvement in this effect, having regard to their levels in the atmosphere-or other worldwide environmental matters. It is important that we continue to show the community at large that there are matters on which we in this place can sit down and tackle the issues with as much effort as we can muster and come to full agreement. I am glad that in this chamber we will have total support for these pieces of legislation. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(9.23) —It is hard to describe speaking in the debate on this legislation as a pleasure because it is such a worrying matter, but it is certainly a matter that calls for very serious consideration by this House. One gains the impression tonight that considerable concern is being expressed by members on both sides of the House, as it ought to be, regarding this serious problem. We are trying to legislate away possibly irrevocable damage done by humans to their environment. The coalition tonight is expressing its support for a significant extension of industry regulation. The subject of the legislation is the depletion of the ozone layer around the earth, which has been described in great detail by a number of speakers. Its objective is to eliminate the emission of certain man-made substances, in particular, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. Earlier this year, commenting on this issue, a Sydney University academic, Dr Chaples, warned that democratic governments have great difficulty planning for issues that last longer than the interval between elections. Sadly, when we look at the history of how various governments comprised of parties from either side of the House have performed, that is true. Dr Chaples is, of course, right. This legislation is an instance of closing the gate, not after the horse has bolted, but just in time to catch the horse's tail. A horse caught like that takes a lot of effort to get back into the stable, as I am sure everybody would agree. It takes a lot of what somebody described as horse sense-the definition of horse sense being stable thinking. The reality is that even if the legislation before us imposed a total global ban, it would take around 200 years for the upper atmosphere fully to repair itself from the effects of CFCs. The reality is that scientists first warned parliaments around the world in 1974 about the link between CFCs and ozone depletion. While some countries banned CFCs from aerosol cans, little action was taken to deal effectively with the problem. Indeed, were it not for a gaping hole over the Antarctic, I doubt whether this kind of legislation, with even its moderate schedule of regulation and control, would be before this Parliament tonight. Other honourable members have outlined the scientific facts about the damage that CFCs have caused and are causing. They have referred to the projected tens of thousands of skin cancers and cataracts. They have referred to the impact of higher levels of ultraviolet light on agricultural production. They have referred to the probable new slot on weather broadcasts at the turn of the century which will give readings on ultra- violet B light alerts. I do not intend to repeat those details or repeat the specifics of the legislation before us. I want to emphasise the broader questions before us in this legislation. I made two opening statements at the start of my remarks. I said first that we are here today trying to legislate away damage done by humans to the environment over which they were appointed stewards by their creator. Dr Stephen Schneider of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in the United States has argued that humans are altering the earth's surface and changing the atmosphere at such a rate that we have become a competitor with natural forces that maintain our climate. What is new, he says, is the potential irreversibility of the changes that are now taking place. That is a very significant statement. The story of the ozone depletion problem is the story of man-made substances produced for life-style purposes in ignorance of their likely impact on the environment. It is the story of corporate and political unwillingness to heed scientific advice. It is the story of political responsiveness only where there is evidence of imminent catastrophe. It is a familiar story in the area of environmental policy. If nothing else, it should be a lesson in humility and conservatism. We should take it as a lesson on how fragile the environment is and how reckless human pursuit of affluence and ease is. It should remind us that we know less than we think about the logic of life. Just as we have begun to understand climatic patterns which have gone on for countless years, we discover that we have been subverting them and possibly can do little but hope that a ban such as this will allow time for natural recuperation. My second statement related to the unusual enthusiasm by my own Party and the coalition to extend regulation of industry in this legislation. Coalition support for this legislation reflects the realities and pragmatism of what must be a common effort by Australians and citizens around the world to bring to a halt and then reverse the destruction of the living earth. The evidence before this Parliament on soil degradation, the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion tells us that wisdom and prudence must replace ideology in the area of environmental policy-making. I referred earlier to the concept of human stewardship of the environment. I indicated my belief that it is a God-given obligation. That we have denied our responsibilities as stewards and pursued instead, and blindly, mere exploitation and consumption of creation, is both obvious and shameful. This legislation is late in coming but urgently appropriate. Hopefully, it is a chance for Parliament to signal its intention to take seriously our part in the stewardship of creation. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(9.30) —I am extremely pleased to be able to speak on the Ozone Protection Bill, the Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Imports) Bill, and the Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Manufacture) Bill. This legislation has taken some time to be drafted, but I believe it is a significant step in recognising what could become a very serious problem-the destruction of the ozone layer which surrounds and protects the earth. It is a very complex problem. Daily we hear wild claims of what could happen. We hear other views to the effect that we should not be concerned. I would like to express some ideas which have not been expressed; some of my own ideas. I am pleased to see the attitude taken by the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) producers. They have taken positive steps. They have agreed to cut production. Many countries have ratified, or will soon ratify, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Eighty per cent of the world's consumption of CFCs will be covered under that Protocol. The United States environmental agency has called for a total world ban on the use of chemicals believed to be destroying the earth's ozone shield. Even Prince Charles has banned the use of aerosols in his household because of the controversy. These people are pointing in a direction which we as individuals can follow. The aerosol producers have cut CFC usage by 70 per cent since 1974, bringing production down from 12,000 tonnes per year to 4,000 tonnes. Four out of every five aerosol cans in Australia do not contain any CFCs now. The West produces about 75,000 tonnes of CFC-11 and CFC-12 each year, with the Soviet Union producing another 60,000 tonnes. World production of other probable ozone depleters amounts to approximately another 200,000 tonnes. This is an overall total of one million tonnes with an annual value in the range of $2 billion. The market is dominated by about two dozen companies in the United States, Europe and Japan. But there are literally thousands of downstream companies that use CFCs. CFCs are produced by huge chemical companies such as Du Pont, ICI, Hoechst Australia Ltd and, I believe, Monsanto Australia Ltd. The Chemical Manufacturers Association which throughout the 1970s argued the chlorofluorocarbons were innocent of all ozone-depleting charges is now spending $2m a year on research and development of CFC substitutes. Even Du Pont declared last last year that although it will be many years before an adequate scientific understanding can be achieved, it would nevertheless be prudent to limit worldwide emissions of CFCs. I am a believer in the principle that the polluter pays. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that recently I moved in this House that a levy be placed on all polluters and pollutants to fund research into the greenhouse effect. I suggest that those companies which have made billions of dollars from the manufacture and sale of CFCs over the past decade put their hands in their corporate pockets and provide money for research into what they have been doing to the ozone layer. Why should we, the taxpayers, fund research into a problem that the chemical companies, the chemical industry, have known about for years? I believe that in the United States the chemical companies provide money for research. These companies, such as Hoechst, produce nice advertisements. One such advertisement shows children learning how to pronounce their names. If chemical companies have a social conscience I expect them to announce generous grants to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for research in the near future. I would like to bring to the notice of the House some of the effects which could occur by the depletion of the ozone layer. There will be an increased incidence of skin cancers. Laboratory studies and epidemiological evidence show a strong link between exposure to UV-B-ultraviolet rays-radiation and an increased incidence in basal and melanoma skin cancers. While the current incidence of melanoma skin cancer is small compared to non-melanoma cases, the fatality rate is much higher. While I am on that subject, I draw the House's attention to a paper, called The Erythemal Ultraviolet Radiation Distribution over Australia-the Calculations, Detailed Results and Input Data. It was written by G. W. Paltridge and I. J. Barton who worked for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in 1978. A table in this paper gives the erythemal ultraviolet radiation values-or doses-in Melbourne and in Brisbane. The dose in Melbourne is around 1,400 units. In Brisbane it is around 2,400 units. That is an increase of approximately 70 per cent. With the present depletion of the ozone layer we who live in Melbourne would not be exposed to as many ultraviolet rays as we would if we lived in Brisbane. Therefore, the concern that has been raised by many people is not really valid. There will be an increase in cataracts. Radiation has been found to play a significant role in the formation of cataracts. There will be damage to aquatic organisms. While studies to date have been limited in scope, it appears that increased exposure to UV-B radiation will adversely affect aquatic organisms and potentially disrupt the aquatic food chain. For example, studies have suggested that phytoplankton remains close to the water's surface to facilitate photosynthesis. As a result, it is susceptible to damage. There will be accelerated weathering of outdoor plastics. There will be an increased formation of ground level ozone. This could have an effect on various crops. I also draw the attention of the House to some of the ozone depleting potentials and the lifetimes of some of the compounds that are commonly used in CFCs. CFC-11 and CFC-12 are quite popular. They are the bulk of all CFCs used in air-conditioning, et cetera. CFC-11 has an atmospheric lifetime of 60 years. CFC-12 has an atmospheric lifetime of 120 years. CFC-13 has an atmospheric lifetime of 100 years. CFC-115 has an atmospheric lifetime of 490 years. Luckily, this CFC is not used very much, but it is used in low temperature refrigeration. I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the latest information regarding the 1988 Antarctic ozone hole. I stress that I have only a draft report; it is not a final report. However, it has some very interesting information in it. The Antarctic hole of 1988 is not as deep as in previous years. It is the smallest springtime ozone minimum observed over Antarctica at least since 1982. Ozone levels reached a minimum around mid-September. Rather than continuing to decline as in previous years, the minimum stayed relatively constant at 175 to 180 Dobson units (DU). The Antarctic ozone hole of 1988 is not as deep as in previous years. It is the smallest springtime ozone minimum observed over Antarctica, at least since 1982. Ozone levels reached a minimum around mid-September, then, rather than continuing to decline as in previous years, the minimum stayed relatively constant at 175 to 180 Dobson units. There are areas of unusually high ozone levels, in excess of 500 DU, around the normal Antarctic ozone ridge-approximately 60 degrees south. These values are also higher than in previous years. The ridge of high ozone is concentrated on the Australian side of the Antarctic vortex. Integrated total ozone levels over the entire Southern Hemisphere during September and October are the highest recorded since 1979 when satellite observations began. The vortex is more mobile this year and more elliptical in shape. The ozone hole has been pushed off the pole towards South America, but still remains within the confines defined by the Antarctic continent. The evidence suggests that the vortex is not as stable this year and preliminary analysis of stratospheric temperatures indicates that it is significantly warmer. That is a very important point. A smaller ozone hole was predicted this year by the Ozone Trends Panel, based on the observed two-year cycle in its previous intensity and the phase of the solar cycle. However the increase in ozone levels over Antarctica this year significantly exceed previous expectations. This year's findings on the Antarctic ozone hole will cause rethinking about its mechanisms of formation. It will rekindle the debate between chemists and dynamicists about the balance of the formation mechanisms, chlorine versus atmospheric transport, and will hopefully further increase our understanding of this important phenomenon. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has suggested the Antarctic ozone hole of 1988 will slow down the long term decline of ozone observed in the Southern Hemisphere. Even if the current Montreal Protocol were observed or ratified by all nations, the Antarctic ozone hole would remain forever because, under the current protocol, stratospheric chlorine levels will still double from their current levels. The hole will remain until these chlorine levels are reduced to what they were in the early 1970s. This will require virtually a complete phase out of CFCs, and careful consideration of acceptable emission levels of Ch3CCl3 will have to be made. However, the hole could disappear if the Antarctic stratosphere were to warm significantly. Perhaps there could be a spin-off from the greenhouse effect. If it warms up we will get rid of the ozone hole. What this all means is that we really do no know what is going on. Last year it was doom and gloom; this year it is good news. What is happening? No-one knows. This is why we must put more money into research and we must allow our scientists and chemists to work out exactly what is going on. I am glad to see that this Bill has bipartisan support. It is something we do not see very often but it is excellent and I am very pleased that the Opposition is supporting this Bill. There is a lot more I could say, but I have run over my time. I thought it was most important that I bring to the notice of this House the changes that have occurred in the ozone hole over Antarctica this spring. I urge the House to support the Bill. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(9.44) —The purpose of the Ozone Protection Bill, as we have already heard from previous speakers, is to give effect to the provisions of the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The passing of this legislation, with bipartisan support, will ensure that Australia can then ratify the protocol. Protection of the ozone layer is one of the highest environmental priorities. The proposals contained in this Bill should enable Australia to achieve targeted reductions in half the proposed time that the Montreal agreement recommends. 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 the preservation of the Antarctic environment. What then is ozone? We now know that ozone is a gas composed of three oxygen atoms. It surrounds the earth like a veil, protecting the planet and its inhabitants from the direct rays of the sun. Ozone is the umbrella against the ultraviolet. If ozone were not present in the atmosphere lethal levels of ultraviolet radiation from the sun would reach the earth's surface. Ozone is found in heights of up to 60 kilometres. It is at its most dense 20 to 25 kilometres up but even here only one molecule in 100,000 is ozone. It is interesting to note that if all the ozone were collected at the surface of the earth, it would form a layer only about three millimetres deep. Ozone is vital and because there is so little of it even the smallest changes in ozone concentrations could have dramatic consequences for life on earth. The production of ozone occurs naturally high in the atmosphere from oxygen and is broken down by natural forces with the result that gas is constantly created and destroyed. The speed with which this occurs determines the amount of ozone in the atmosphere. These speeds can be influenced greatly by chemicals in the atmosphere which act as catalysts speeding them up without themselves being destroyed. In recent years it has been realised that certain pollutants being released into the atmosphere have the potential to reduce the equilibrium level of ozone. The most dangerous of these ozone depleting compounds, as we have heard so often tonight in this debate, are chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs which are used as propellants in aerosols, in refrigeration techniques, as foam blowing agents in the plastics industry and as solvents in electronics. CFCs are extremely stable and long lived in the lower atmosphere, but when they reach the upper atmosphere they are broken down and release active chlorine which acts as a catalyst in the reaction which naturally breaks down ozone thus reducing the equilibrium level. This reduced level of ozone in the stratosphere allows a greater amount of ultraviolet to the lower atmosphere, which can result in serious changes particularly to our farming community and people who work outside with an increased risk of problems such as skin cancers forming and harm to our aquatic systems and biological organisms. Ozone affects the earth's heat balance in a number of ways so climate can also be affected by changes in ozone levels. These reductions in the level of stratospheric ozone can have serious consequences for global agricultural production, although much more research is required before any definite conclusions can be reached on this issue or its accompanying issue of the greenhouse effect. Last January, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation research aircraft sampled atmospheric levels of CFCs near Darwin as an ongoing program to measure CFC levels throughout the troposphere. In a companion effort a high flying American plane flew into the stratosphere some 20 kilometres high to take direct readings of ozone levels. The latest results of scientific work suggest that ozone levels will fall by a few per cent during the first half of the next century, although increases in CFC emissions could cause more than a 10 per cent fall in ozone. Measurements of the total amount of ozone in the atmosphere show levels have not changed appreciably as yet, though small changes do seem to be occurring at particular heights. There have, however, been dramatic changes over the Antarctic. Measurements of ozone levels above the South Pole in spring reveal that levels have fallen by 40 per cent since the mid-1970s. These changes occur only during the spring and no-one understands why they are occurring or whether they may be the forerunner to wider changes. The provisions of this Bill have been the subject of extensive liaison between the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories and industries which manufacture, import and use CFCs and halons. The processes that have taken place in the development of this legislation are an example of what can be achieved through a process of consultation, discussion and tolerance. As a result of this liaison between manufacturers, government and departments, a series of action plans have been produced. The provisions of the Bill reflect the recommendations of these plans. Liaison has also been maintained through an interdepartmental working group on ozone and the industry group, the Association of Fluorocarbon Consumers and Manufacturers. State governments and consumer and conservation groups have also been consulted. Manufacturers using ozone damaging chemicals are alarmed that lack of coordination between the States may force costly and premature changes to industry, which has already agreed to switch to more environmentally safe alternatives within the next decade. Legislation to control the use of CFCs is now regarded as a matter of urgency by all States, and legislation has either been drafted or is being drafted. There is, however, a legitimate concern among manufacturers of CFCs that unless State legislation is timed to complement this Bill before Parliament this evening industry could well be faced with extra costs to modify products for sale in different States. The result could well be a hotchpotch of legislation with loopholes allowing products to be sold in one State but not in another. It is essential that there is uniformity in all legislation controlling the use and sale of CFCs. This Bill provides for a system of licences and tradeable quotas for the production, import and export of schedule substances. It controls the applications of schedule substances so as to limit, as far as practicable, the emissions of some substances to the air. Licences will be granted to persons who produced, imported or exported scheduled substances during 1986. Quotas 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 a determination to take all reasonable steps to exceed the minimum requirements laid down in the protocol. These controls on applications include the prohibition of the manufacture or import of aerosol sprays containing scheduled substances such as those for 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 are also prohibited. The calibration of warning, measuring or scientific equipment will be exempted. There will also be prohibitions from 31 January 1989 of the manufacture or import of do it yourself kits for recharging automotive air-conditioning systems. Also prohibited from 1 July 1989 will be the manufacture or import of disposable containers, five kilograms or less, of scheduled substances for recharging air-conditioners and refrigeration systems. The point should be made that CFCs are still essential for some uses, particularly for asthmatics and for other pharmaceutical purposes. It is for this reason that the stance of the Australian Democrats in the Senate on this Bill is quite ridiculous. As the second reading speech of the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Holding) indicates, Australia has been at the forefront of international action on this issue. We lead the rest of the world by recognising that this is but the beginning. International action is urgently required to minimise ozone depletion and future greenhouse heating. It has taken decades for human activity to produce any effect upon the structure of the atmosphere, so it is imperative that a start be made now to reverse what will be a long term process. There are many gaps in the knowledge of the earth's climate, of atmospheric changes and the possible effects of those changes. All this makes it imperative for considerable basic research. It is therefore unfortunate that on the very day that this Bill will pass through this House with bipartisan support the only protest meeting in our history by the scientific community is being held in Canberra expressing concern at the disastrous commitment of this Government to science and research. I conclude by thanking the shadow Minister for Science and Energy, my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), for allowing me to speak in his place tonight because he is at that particular protest meeting. Mr KERR(Denison)(9.55) —The issue being debated tonight can be highlighted by imagining how one can stop a speeding locomotive when it is nearing a station. One imagines that unless the brakes are applied rapidly the engine will juggernaut through the station, smashing lives and smashing the station down. In many ways the way in which our industry has moved over the past 300 years from the days of the Industrial Revolution to the present has been like a locomotive-very productive, fast and efficient and enabling us to lift our standard of living enormously but, on the other hand, moving seemingly inexorably towards a collision with some of the fundamentals of our natural environment. We are now starting to screw back some of the advances that we took as beneficial, as positive and as naturally the way to go to develop our productive capacity. It has been only in the last 15 years or so that we have started to realise the threat that faces us if we do not combine internationally to do something about the abuses of our planet. This is a issue crucial to the future of our world. It is not just an Australian issue. The Ozone Protection Bill 1988 responds to an international agreement in which Australia certainly had a leadership role. But the steps that are being taken go only a small way towards being able to respond effectively to the immense problems we face as a nation and as a world. Perhaps a graphic example of the kinds of stored up problems that we may face can be given by referring to the River Derwent in Tasmania. The other day the media told us about vast slicks of sludge that have been cast up on the foreshore of the river, some five kilometres of matter which has apparently detached itself from the bottom of the river to emerge as foul and fettered reaches of material measuring about a metre deep, with the consistency of a soft tarry substance and a foul smell, and containing wood products that may have been discharged from the upstream paper manufacturer. I am not seeking to blacken the name of that particular manufacturer. No point would be served by doing that. The simple reality is that until recently we thought we could discharge effluent without cost to future generations. We thought that we could proceed to belch smoke into the atmosphere, produce carbon dioxide in massive amounts, use new chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons and that our environment was large enough to absorb all that we could throw at it. Unfortunately the evidence that is starting to come shows that that is not the case. The tragedy is that the advanced nations of this world, those which have massive productive capacities, are starting to go into what is commonly called a post-industrial phase. They may have the capacity to respond, as Australia has done, by phasing out utilisation of some of these products and approaching this issue on a rational and coherent basis. How do we respond to the Third World that has yet to pick itself off the ground and get its standard of living and manufacturing base close to the level that we take for granted in Australia? How do we respond to the people in South America who seek a better living standard but who see the way forward as replicating the methods that we used-that is, tearing down our forests, establishing heavy manufacturing, belching smoke, utilising resources and getting away with it? These people see what we have done, believe that we have been successful, and naturally seek to follow our methods. We have an overwhelming international responsibility now to take not only a didactic role but also a constructive, positive role that will help those whom we will be asking to exercise restraint in the international interest. Their restraint will be at some cost to their development expectations. They will have to face the reality that they may not be able to aspire to the same living standards that we now take for granted. Those are enormous demands to make of impoverished Third World nations, which have yet to attain the income levels and living standards that we aspire to and seek to maintain. These are fundamental issues whose surface we are only beginning to scratch. I am pleased that this initiative has bipartisan support. It deserves bipartisan support. I suppose `bipartisan' suggests that there are two parties involved. However, on this issue all four parties that are represented in the Parliament support this initiative. It is not something we can simply deal with on a knee-jerk, simplistic basis. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) gave a detailed and comprehensive explanation of some of the complex scientific aspects of this issue which we do not know about. It is an issue which inevitably we will have to deal with. It particularly affects my State of Tasmania, which is the State closest to the ozone-depleted Antarctic. I refer to an article published in the Age and written by Graeme O'Neill, which states: On 11 December last year, a tongue of ozone-depleted air licked across southern Australia, causing Tasmania and southern Victoria to be bathed in levels of ultraviolet radiation normally seen only at the height of summer. The article suggests that significant health consequences might flow from that occurrence. Significant economic and resource impacts may also flow from it, particularly in regard to the plankton resource of the Antarctic. The real questions are: Can we slam the brakes on in time in this runaway train? Do we have the political will to take steps that will hurt ourselves and our potential living standards, which we expect to rise continually in the future? Have we the capacity to reach into the hearts and minds of those in the Third World, to cooperate with them in programs that will assist them and will mean that they will not move down the path of further environmental degradation in this very environmentally degraded world? Few challenges could be more important to the future of Australia or of all mankind than the challenge faced by this Parliament of grappling with the problem of environmental discharges of CFCs, carbon dioxide, and industrial effluents. These issues affect all of us. If we approach them simply on the basis of responding to the necessity to appease a public that increasingly is becoming aware of these issues and do not grapple with the realities, the hard issues, then not only will we be buying time at the expense of the future but also future generations will have every reason to be critical of us and to say, as did a generation of Englishmen who condemned those who waited while appeasement was negotiated between the Government of Britain and that of Hitler, that they talked and appeased when action was necessary. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.05) —As previous speakers have stated, the purpose of this legislation is to give effect to the obligations which will arise from Australia's ratification of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The protection of the ozone layer is one of the most important, if not the most important, environmental priorities in the world today. The international control regime proposed under the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol attempts to freeze the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons at their 1986 level and thereafter to achieve reductions of 20 per cent from 1993 and a further 30 per cent from 1998. Why is this so? Down here on earth, among the hairsprays, hamburger containers and air-conditioners, CFCs are exceptionally safe and that is why they are to be found everywhere. They are difficult to replace. They consist of chains or rings of carbon atoms attached to atoms of fluorine and chlorine. They hold together tightly, remaining harmlessly unreactive until they float upwards some 20 kilometres to the stratosphere. There they break down and attack ozone molecules in the ozone layer, which plays a vital role in filtering out the ultraviolet radiation of the sun. What appears to have happened is that a massive hole in the ozone layer has emerged, roughly-at least 12 months ago-the size of continental United States. On the latest readings it may be slightly smaller, nevertheless it is there and it is a matter of the greatest concern. As if that were not bad enough, CFCs also have a less publicised drawback. They could account for 10 per cent or maybe more of the `greenhouse' gases that are gradually overheating the earth. So it is important that we have regard to the proposals under the Convention and the Protocol. It is to the credit of the Government that these Bills before the House, the Ozone Protection Bill, the Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Imports) Bill and the Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Manufacture) Bill, move at a faster pace than the agreed upon international minimum standards and will achieve a reduction in Australia of 50 per cent in the use of these substances within a five-year period. The legislation provides for a system of licences and tradeable quotas for the production, import and export of so-called scheduled substances, CFCs and halons, and controls on the application of these substances so as to limit, so far as is practicable, the emission of these substances into the air. My colleague the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) went into some detail about the proposed licence system and the controls on the application of these substances, so I will not do that. However, I will mention that the controls on applications include the prohibition, from 31 December 1989, of the manufacture or import of aerosol sprays containing CFCs, except for some limited essential uses where there is no practical alternative-for example, a limited range of medical, veterinary, defence, industrial safety and public safety purposes. My colleague the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) referred to a particular asthma relief spray for which some members, Democrats, in the other place were not prepared to make an exception in an earlier Bill. Obviously, such exceptions have to be made. In addition to those controls, the Bill goes further than the Protocol by imposing an export ban on such substances from Australia in order to prevent the offloading of stocks on to non-Protocol countries. So it is clear that this Bill does make a significant approach to this problem. I believe we have a very special interest in the matter because Australia is the nation closest to the Antarctica ozone hole, which appears to be moving northwards. One might also note that the 1987 report of the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Environment Council has asserted that one per cent depletion in the ozone layer could lead to a 4 per cent to 6 per cent increase in non-melanocytic skin cancer. Australia already has the world's highest incidence of skin cancer, so the matter is of very direct relevance to us. It is further of interest that Australia has perhaps the highest per capita level of chlorofluorocarbon consumption, although we contribute only about 2 per cent of the overall CFC discharges into the atmosphere. I would say that this matter has become one of considerable public disquiet and discussion. I am proud to say that the Liberal Party has been to the fore in all this. Indeed one of the Liberal States, Tasmania, has legislation which is a world leader to date. The Liberal Party, in its 1988 Federal Council, passed a strongly worded resolution calling for the speedy elimination of the use of all CFCs and there have been other significant actions by the State parties. Our own present environment policy states very clearly: In Government, the Coalition Parties will pursue with industry and the State Governments, a timetable for accelerating the implementation of the Montreal Protocol for the protection of the earth's ozone layer. Australia will also take a leading position, in international forums, in the revision of the Montreal Protocol seeking stricter controls. In addition, through the research work undertaken through Australian efforts in Antarctica, further scientific investigation on the effects of CFCs will be pursued. At this point I refer to an issue of concern that has been raised by the New South Wales State Government-namely, that section 4 of the Bill, which purports to `save' certain State and Territory laws, may in fact act to strike down State regulations which go further than the Federal ones. Section 109 of the Constitution is relevant there. I understand that in correspondence with New South Wales the Government has rejected this concern and claims that such an inconsistency would not arise. I cannot adjudicate on that matter, but I certainly ask the Minister for an assurance that more stringent State laws will not be invalidated. In conclusion, this question of the depletion of the ozone layer is a very serious matter of international concern, despite some recent questioning of the data, but in this matter we are not going to wait on the scientists to agree. As was stated in a recent issue of the Economist, there is the good news that alternatives to most ozone damaging chemicals exist already. The bad news is that the ozone layer is not waiting patiently while industries switch to these alternatives and start to economise. The CFCs that are being emitted now will take many years to float up to the ozone layer. Once chlorine atoms have got there, each one can continue to destroy hundreds of thousands of ozone molecules. So if this generation hangs on to its hairsprays, cold drinks, air-conditioners and so on, it may already have lost something much more valuable. So I commend this legislation to the House and join in the bipartisan support it has been receiving. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.17) —I too, support very strongly the purposes of the Ozone Protection Bill 1988 and the accompanying legislation. The purpose of the Bill, as others have said, is to give effect to the obligations which will arise when Australia ratifies the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It also provides for additional controls beyond those required by the Protocol. I think it is important-and I have to say this in this speech-that the intention of the Protocol is to protect the small amounts of ozone in the upper atmosphere from the depleting effects of certain synthetic chemicals such as the chlorofluorocarbons-the CFCs-and the halons. I was intending to speak very generally on this Bill because I have been one who has been very concerned at the pollutants which are being poured into the atmosphere, not only from chlorofluorocarbons but from a whole range of other pollutants from industrial activity, and from domestic consumption. I was very interested to read the recent 1987 report of the Australian Environment Council and National Health and Medical Research Council entitled Environmental Health and Economic Implications of the Use of Chlorofluorocarbons as Aerosol Propellants and Possible Substitutes. I was looking at the summary and their recommendations. I noticed that in 1985 the Australian aerosol industry had achieved voluntarily a 70 per cent reduction in the usage of CFCs 11 and 12 since 1974. They point out that in 1985 the consumption of CFCs 11 and 12 was 33 per cent in aerosol sprays, 45 per cent as refrigerants and 22 per cent in plastic foam production. The production of the CFCs and, therefore, the consumption also, has been static at about 12,000 tonnes in recent years. Looking again at the problem of the depletion of the stratospheric ozone, it is very clear that the result of CFC emissions into the atmosphere has depleted the stratospheric ozone in a very dramatic way. Although the scientific knowledge of the ozone depletion phenomenon has advanced considerably in recent years, it is still a little incomplete and we need to know more about it. This is, of course, one of these cases where it is absolutely essential that the Government provide research funding to allow such work to continue. I know that the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) agrees with me that it is absolutely essential that money be provided to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the scientists of the Antarctic Division to enable them to do the work in the Antarctic which will enable us to know much more about what is happening to the ozone layer in our atmosphere, in both the Antarctic and the Arctic. One of the points that is made in this report is that it is not only the chlorofluorocarbons that are causing problems-they are causing problems in reducing the ozone layer and its protection of all human beings from ultraviolet light-but the increases in carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are also causing a significant warming of the atmosphere, and of course of the seas too which will develop over the next 50 to 100 years. The chlorofluorocarbons also contribute to that greenhouse effect-about 15 to 20 per cent, based on a growth rate of about 1.5 per cent per year going on indefinitely into the future. So not only are the chlorofluorocarbons causing problems with the ozone layer; they are also causing problems with the warming up of the atmosphere-the greenhouse effect, as it is called-and all the dangers that that entails. I have spoken in this House on that issue previously. There is no doubt that there is strong evidence of a connection between the exposure to ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation and the incidence of non-melanoma skin cancer. This becomes particularly important in Australia where so many of our young people like to lie out in the sun absorbing its rays to get a nice tan, but of course they are risking their lives and laying themselves wide open to contracting cancer later in life. One of the reasons why I want to enter this debate is that the large pharmaceutical company Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd is located in my electorate. Other speakers before me, including the member for Dunkley, have talked about the general problems. I want to talk about the beneficial effects which Glaxo has provided and some of the concerns of that company in relation to the aerosol sprays it produces to help asthma sufferers. Glaxo is the largest manufacturer of metered dose aerosols, having about 80 per cent of the market. It is very important to realise that the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association Inc. (APMA) has argued in conjunction with Glaxo that these aerosols represent a small use of CFCs, about 200 tonnes per annum of the Australian production of 12,000 tonnes. They have also argued that there is most definitely a clear net health benefit for asthma sufferers. The level of diagnosis of asthma in Australia is definitely increasing, and these metered dose aerosols are right in the front line of treatment of asthma sufferers. The problem is that at present no alternative propellant is available. A lot of research is being undertaken but it is not likely that alternatives will be available in the near future. Of course, this is an inert, non-toxic, chemically stable and non-flammable substance and therefore it is the only available aerosol spray for humans. It is capable of safely delivering controlled amounts of the active drug, and it does this in a reproducible cloud of minute particles which go directly to the target site in the respiratory system. It can be utilised in small, easily portable containers. A long period for toxicity testing and clinical research is required to gain government marketing approval. That takes at least five years, but I suppose realistically it would take seven to nine years to develop alternatives. One thing I have noticed is that the second reading speech does not make clear that licences can or will be granted to pharmaceutical aerosol manufacturers to enable them to acquire a quota in the market. That is very much of concern. In the short time available to me I would like to raise the uncertain aspects of the Bill. These concerns have been drawn to my attention and I would like to bring them to the notice of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), who is at the table. First, pharmaceutical companies would like clarification-and I suppose I also would like clarification-that they will be able to apply for and be granted licences under clauses 13 and 15 of the Bill. The Bill seems to provide that, but it is unclear in the second reading speech. Another concern relates to clauses 16 and 18, the provisions that effectively enable the Minister to refuse a licence or the renewal of a licence simply by not taking a decision within 60 days. That is a bit of a problem, because it seems to be a reversal of sound public administrative practice and responsibility. Another problem is to make sure that arrangements be made to ensure access to pharmaceutical grade CFCs, should problems arise in the future, while their medical use is essential. I hope that the Government will take account of some of these problems. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The time allotted for the second reading stage of the Bill has expired. The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(9.26) —by leave-I move: (1) After clause 11, page 5, insert the following new clause: Recycling of scheduled substances ``11a. (1) In this Act a reference to the manufacture of scheduled substances does not include a reference to a process by which a quantity of scheduled substances is produced by the recycling of substances containing scheduled substances of that quantity. ``(2) For the purposes of this Act, where a process for the manufacture of a quantity of scheduled substances involves, in part, the recycling of substances containing scheduled substances of a lesser quantity, the quantity of scheduled substances manufactured in the process shall be taken to be reduced by the quantity of scheduled substances in the substances recycled in the process.''. (2) Clause 29, page 14, line 2, omit ``magnitude'', substitute ``size''. (3) Clause 33, page 16, lines 7 and 8, omit subclause (2), substitute the following subclause: ``(2) The application shall: (a) be in the prescribed form; and (b) be given to the Minister.''. (4) Clause 36, page 17, lines 39 and 40, omit ``, other than the Northern Territory''. (5) Clause 36, page 18, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(3) In this section, `Territory' does not include the Northern Territory.''. (6) Clause 63, page 34, at the end of the clause add the following subclause: ``(11) In this section, `State' includes the Northern Territory.''. (7) After clause 66, page 35, insert the following new clause: Annual report ``66a. (1) The Minister shall: (a) as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare a report on the operation of this Act during that year; and (b) cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the preparation of the report is completed. ``(2) If this Act does not commence at the beginning of a financial year, this section has effect in relation to the period beginning at the commencement of this Act and ending on the next 30 June as if: (a) if the period is less than 6 months-the period were included in the next financial year; or (b) in any other case-the period were a financial year.''. The Government proposes seven amendments, six of which are technical in nature. The seventh basically follows up an Opposition suggestion to insert a clause calling for an annual report with full reporting to the Parliament. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Mrs Kelly) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.28) —As I understand the arrangements, it is appropriate that I speak on the third reading and make some general comments on the Ozone Protection Bill 1988. Firstly, I thank the Government for recognising the need for an annual report and for moving the amendment to insert new clause 66a. It is worth noting that the Opposition has considered this legislation carefully over a long period and, as the shadow Minister at the table, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), said, we welcome the introduction of this Bill. Many learned speeches have been made tonight and the issues have been canvassed throughly, but perhaps there is one point which has not been made and which should be made; that is, if one were sitting out in space looking at this world, the first thing one would notice is that it is particularly small. It is a small, delicate world, as all of us are becoming increasingly aware. There is a great interdependence, regardless of where we live and how we treat our environment. Indeed, an interesting remark was made this week in a tribute to the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) who has been a member in this chamber for 30 years. A famous saying of his is that everything depends on everything else. How true that is with regard to the environment and our world if one is looking at it from afar. The common future of mankind depends on how we treat the global environment. This Bill is about the global village, for want of a better term, having got together in Montreal and recognised, on the advice of eminent scientists, that there is a problem with a man made substance which was introduced in 1928 and which we now know has been causing environmental damage that affects each and every one of us, regardless of our ideological position or where we live. As we work towards utilising the resources of this world, we want to develop policies of a sustainable development nature. We want to ensure that the substances we use today are not totally destroyed, so denying the opportunity of those yet to come to use those resources. There is a need for sustainable development policies and, as we get new scientific and other information that indicates that things we might be doing may be damaging, it is our folly to ignore that advice. The Montreal Protocol from which this Bill springs is an example of this part of the world taking a more global approach to its environment. The Ozone Protection Bill is designed to give effect to those obligations which arise from our ratification of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol for the international protection of the ozone layer. My own experience of this began nearly 12 months ago when I visited a small place in my own State called Cape Grim which is a baseline air monitoring station on the far west coast of Tasmania, the foremost baseline atmospheric monitoring station in this part of the world. The readings they had had of carbon dioxide emissions over some time showed a trend of increase but the measured emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), freons 11 and 12, that deplete the ozone layer, showed a build up from 250 parts per million in 1978 to 425 parts per million in 1987. There has been a whole range of other scientific advisings and data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as well, over the Antarctic ozone hole which indicated a major problem. Taken to its logical extreme, the ozone depletion will have major consequences for such things as population increases, food security, energy which of course is the fundamental unit of developed socio life, industry and urban life. Ozone is one of those elements which contribute to the greenhouse gases phenomenon that also runs analogous to what is happening in regard to ozone depleting gases. In regard to the CFCs, the ozone depleting gases, we do not now know how long it takes for an element of CFC to drift up to the atmosphere. This is a gap in our knowledge. We can surmise by mathematical models that it takes some particular time. We know that they last for perhaps 110 years. So massive use of CFCs, although we are now trying in this Bill to dramatically reduce them, may well have bad effects and the majority of this CFC may yet get into the ozone and in the years ahead ozone depletion may well increase. We have heard many examples of what will happen if that occurs. Several honourable members have referred to the environmental health and economic implications of the use of CFCs and I shall quote from the summary of that: The environmental effects of ozone depletion fall into two main categories. The first includes those effects due to modification of the ozone layer with the resulting increase in ultraviolet radiation reading the earth's surface. Plants and aquatic organisms may suffer genetic damage and experience reduced productivity and anthropogenic materials used in the open, such as polymers, would degrade faster than at present rates. Increased UVB radiation may increase smog formation in cities. The honourable member for Mayo alluded in his speech to that phenomenon. The second category of effects involves those relating to climate change, and climate affects each and every one of us regardless of where we live. Additional atmospheric warming due to increasing amounts of radioactive trace gases would result in an enhanced greenhouse effect to which CFCs will make a significant contribution of 15 to 20 per cent. Agricultural systems may be affected to the extent that crop and vegetation zones may shift and crop species exhibit varying responses to a specific climatic change. Forest composition may also be affected in the long term. Changes which promote a warmer climate may also result in rises in sea levels which, according to most recent studies, would have significant effects on population centres located on or near global seaboards. Unless significant control of the emissions of the major greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide can be achieved, the climatic changes forecast above may occur even if CFC emissions are eliminated globally. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that the Bill be now read a third time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.36) —As I was saying before the House proceeded to this matter, the Ozone Protection (Licence Fees-Imports) Bill which because this is a cognate matter I can now proceed to debate, a reading from the environmental health and economic study shows that there was indeed a dramatic effect and that there was a need to limit chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions and that without doing so we would see detrimental environmental impacts. My basic point was that this Bill represents a quantum leap in global concern about the environment and I believe that in that sense it needs to be welcomed. It is being supported by both sides of the House. This Bill has been put together in consultation with industry over some considerable time. The Association of Fluorine Consumers and Manufacturers in particular has been particularly helpful and it acknowledges that this Bill, even though it is perhaps detrimental to its economic needs, fills the need to make changes and, as a result, a 40 per cent decrease in the Australian CFC consumption over the next five years is the estimate. That is particularly important because the Montreal protocol sought only a 20 per cent decrease at about that time. In that sense Australian industry has responded well. Reference has been made to the concerns of the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association about the use of the pharmaceutical inhalation aerosols which utilise CFCs mainly for respiratory diseases such as asthma and the need to continue to allow the use of those CFCs as a form of propellant. I think the Bill takes account of that. In Tasmania where we have the very first piece of legislation, a Bill called the Chloro- fluorocarbons and Other Ozone Depleting Substances Control Bill, which was introduced by my colleague in Tasmania the Minister for the Environment, Mr Peter Hodgman, gives exemptions for that particular use. Perhaps mention should be made of the Tasmanian experience. Tasmania went out in front. Many people seemed to think Tasmanians do not have a concern about the environment. How wrong can they be. If one lives on an island and has any knowledge at all about greenhouse gases and about the effects of ozone depletion and global warming-the very first people who ought to be concerned are my electors in the seat of Bass. Unless we take what remedial action we can take, we will all be living on top of mountains. We are close to the Antarctic and if the icebergs melt, the water will come in waves and hit Tasmania first. That is probably an unscientific observation on which, if the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) were here, he would take me to task. I shall make one more point which is a serious matter. A press release was put out by the Earth Atmosphere Project Coordinator of the Friends of the Earth Atmosphere Project which has something to do with the Friends of the Earth group. It makes the point that this Bill does not call for a control, a limit on, and a total ban on the exports of CFCs and it believes that that ought to be the case. I am glad that the Bill does not go that far because it is important to realise that if all CFC manufacturers were closed down it would mean, for example, that Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd which puts together the inhalants for asthma would be required to import CFCs from somewhere else, thus running the risk of having CFC manufacturers set up in Third World countries or other countries that are not party to this particular protocol. I think that is a real danger that we ought to be aware of. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that this Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.41) —I just want to finish the point I was making about exports. I think it is important that there is some allowance within the Ozone Protection Bill for exports to take place because we run the risk of seeing factories set up to produce chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, in countries that are not party to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. That would defeat the very purpose which this Bill and, more broadly, the Montreal Protocol, aim to address. In that sense I would have to disagree quite strongly with the people who put out this press release. I do not think it really addresses the issue and, unfortunately, it indicates a lack of understanding. The only other thing I would like say-it is not very often that one would want to be saying this-is that the Government has done the right thing in bringing this Bill before the House. It is unfortunate that debate on the Bill has had to be guillotined and that not as many members who wanted to speak have been able to do so. There is some legitimate concern with regard to clause 4 of the Bill and the role of State legislation. State legislation should try as far as possible to run in parallel with this Bill. We have problems with food regulation in this country because of the diversity of regulations and Acts of Parliament and we do not want to run into the same problem in a new area of regulation. It is a necessary area to have regulation, but where there can be consistency of approach from State and Commonwealth governments I believe that that is particularly important. At the end of the day it makes it far easier and far better to live up to the principles in this Bill, which is admirable in its intent and is one that I gladly support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mrs Kelly) read a third time. Motion (by Mrs Kelly) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.44) —I wish to refer briefly to the question of company law in Australia. Honourable members will recall that not so long ago we had a very lengthy debate in relation to this matter in which the Government put forward a proposition to alter the affairs of company law in Australia without reference to its constitutionality and without reference really to the business community of Australia. It was put through the House on the numbers, without consultation. It went to the Senate and a snide deal was done between the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Australian Democrats. Part of the deal was that a committee, the Joint Select Committee on Corporations Legislation, would be established to look at the unintended consequences of the changes to company law. None of this would have occurred if the proposals had been put to the business community before they were presented here. This legislation was brought in, the drum was beaten and there was a great performance. When this legislation came into the House 18 hours of debate revolved around 280 amendments. What has happened? The Government has not even reprinted the Bills. The Government has had the Clerks office writing these amendments into two copies of the Bills. Why? Because it would cost the Government $40,000 to reprint the Bills. What about the $40m that the Government spent on the referendum campaign, which was a total disgrace? That money went down the drain. Company law is more important than the political ideological pursuits of the Australian Labor Party. This is an absolutely outrageous performance. A small committee has been established to review what has been put forward in terms of company law reform. It is worth reminding the House that the Attorney-General said that there were no significant changes to company law. But there are. If there were not, the Government would not have a committee looking into the unintended consequences of the changes. So that was a deceitful lie to this House relating to company law in this nation. On top of that, this Committee has met once and will receive submissions from around the nation until 5 January. It then has to report to the House on the first sitting day of the next session. On top of that, it has to tour the nation and visit all the capital cities-Hobart, Darwin, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, where there is no support, as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) would know, for company law centralisation. It is no good for the Deputy Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department to say, as he did the other day, `This is not a takeover. We are not interested in centralisation'. What damn nonsense. Mr Smith —Who is he? Mr MOORE —Mr Rose. I have never heard such arrant nonsense from an official of a department in my life. The Federal Attorney-General's Department will be the greatest beneficiary of the takeover. That is the area from which policy and administration of company law will come. Since when has Canberra been the centre of commercial activity in Australia? It never has been, it is not today, and it will not be for a century at least-not in our lifetimes. Yet this Government is requiring a small group of people, within a limited time frame, to look at the unintended consequences of changes in company law. What a fiasco. The Government did not try it with the public. It relied on the Business Council of Australia. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Business Council of Australia and the Government-the old big boys associations-were involved, not the business people. No honourable members from Western Australia want to be in it; no honourable members from Queensland want to be in it; no honourable members from South Australia want to be in it. They know that as well as I do, but they go along with it and put their hands up. The Labor Party says, `If you do not vote for it you will get chucked out'. Ask the honourable member for Kalgoorlie about that. Because of that they go on with this sort of nonsense. Mr Campbell —Are you endorsing Rothwells? Mr MOORE —I am not endorsing Rothwells. Is the honourable member endorsing Rothwells Ltd in his State? Your government got stuck into it. Mr Campbell —It was your lack of control. Mr MOORE —It was not my situation at all. If members of the National Party want to get involved in these things that is their problem, not mine. I make it quite clear that this approach to company law is absolutely wrong. Not one person in the smaller areas- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(10.49) —I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter of the utmost importance to many families in my electorate of Grey-the opportunity to provide higher education for their children. Degree and course structures available at various colleges of technical and further education throughout my electorate and the one only South Australian Institute of Technology at Whyalla are limited. Many wishing to obtain higher education find it necessary to leave home and move to the closest city-in this case Adelaide. In some cases this requires a journey of up to 800 kilometres or more to access educational institutions. The isolation of the child living apart from the family unit and the stress placed on the families is enormous. Many of the children have lived in rural Australia for all of their lives and find the transition from country life to the hustle of the city enough to cope with. However, many also find they have the added stress of wondering whether their hard-working parents are able to continue to support them in their efforts. Apart from the very reasonable arguments I have placed before the honourable members here gathered on previous occasions, I find another problem facing those who are applying for Austudy-that is, that boarding schools require fees for enrolment purposes before the commencement of the school year, and in some cases midway through the previous school year where there are waiting lists. This means that parents are having to pay up front prior to being assessed as to their eligibility for assistance under Austudy or the isolated children's scheme. These parents are paying large sums of money in advance and find in some instances that they are not eligible to receive assistance. They then have to make the decision to either keep their child at school by further budgeting of the family's resources or, alternatively, remove their child from the school, thereby shattering their dreams. In summary, the problem is that people in rural and country areas because of their isolation are forced to secure places at boarding schools for their children prior to applying for Austudy. How can they plan ahead on a question mark? Added to this is the uncertainty of income. Will this year be better than the last? Once again there is added stress. One example of this was brought to my attention by a family living in Kyancutta, South Australia, which asked the question: Do you have any idea of the number of Eyre Peninsula farmers who were going to be disadvantaged by the changes to the criteria for the isolated children's scheme and Austudy? The same farmers are currently suffering extreme hardship through drought. This particular family has had three years of below average crops and has seen the farm run at a loss due to bad seasons, lesser prices and loan interest repayments. However in the case of 1987 the family was fortunate enough to have an above average season. Because of this and the changes to the eligibility criteria of Austudy with the removal of the five-year averaging system, the family may lose its allowance as next year's assessment will be based on its 1987-88 tax return alone. This farming year certainty assisted to keep the farm viable, but did not enable the year's trading to begin without a huge overdraft from previous disastrous years. The family is then faced with the problem of tertiary education for the children and the many problems associated with this. Suitable boarding accommodation must be found; many need to find a way to support themselves. They do not have their families and friends close by for influence and support in coping with the different lifestyle. This is causing, and can only cause in the future, many of our country's young people to give up their hopes for higher education and to apply for unemployment benefits. I urge the Government to look at this situation that many people in country and rural Australia face and seek to find the solution whereby our young country men and women can be assured the right to obtain higher education if this is their preference. Many in rural and country communities see little future for their children in their home towns and are therefore giving them the encouragement and support necessary to develop careers in some other field, but those same country children are placed at a disadvantage to their city counterparts by having to pull up their roots to live in the city. I do not believe that these people should be disadvantaged by the sole fact that they live in the country when colleges and education institutions are in the city. I trust that honourable members present today will give both myself and the young people of rural and country Australia the support to have this situation rectified as soon as possible. I urge the Government to correct this situation by calling for applications for Austudy and isolated children's allowance at a much earlier date in the year prior to commencement of study thus enabling processing of assessments to be made well in advance of the school year. This would give rural and country people the opportunity to apply to boarding schools with the knowledge of their eligibility. Finally, I ask the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) to treat this matter with the utmost urgency and change the harsh guidelines affecting country people. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.54) —I wish to address my remarks in this adjournment debate to a private member's Bill which was introduced recently in this House by a member of the Opposition, relating to tax deductability for donations to the mobile life education centres. As honourable members will know, life education centres which have been established by the Reverend Ted Noffs are now spread right across Australia and are recognised not only around Australia but around the world as being one of the most, if not the most, successful forms of drug education that is available today. Certainly in the electorate of Gilmore we have a wide network of life education centres. A couple of years ago we raised several hundred thousand dollars in the electorate of Gilmore to establish three mobile life education centres to ensure that the youth of the electorate were fully versed in the dangers of drugs and the reasons why young people need to avoid them. As a consequence, we now have three mobile life education centres operating throughout the electorate of Gilmore and also in electorates such as Hume, Throsby, Eden-Monaro, Parkes and so forth. One important point that has now come to light is that these mobile life education centres cost a lot of money to run each year, and donations that are made to them are not tax deductable. However, it seems ludicrous that these donations are not tax deductable when donations to the permanent centres in places like Sydney are tax deductable. There is an anomaly in our tax laws at present. Representations have been made by members of this House, including the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), who is in the chamber tonight and who has been instrumental in establishing this debate in the Parliament. They have so far borne no fruit. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been asked twice in recent days questions without notice as to why mobile life education centres cannot be granted tax deductable status for donations made to them. The Treasurer on both occasions could not give an answer to the House. On each occasion all he would say is that he would go back to his office and look up the details. This is most unsatisfactory. There is no doubt that life education centres are one of the most worthwhile organisations that this country has going for it. They are delivering real benefits and positive results in our community today. If ever an institution was worthy of tax deductable status, mobile life education centres would have to be one of those institutions. I find it particularly abhorrent that the mobile life education centre units cannot get tax deductability when organisations like the Jervis Bay Protection Society, which operates in Shoalhaven in my electorate, can achieve tax deductable status for donations made to it. I believe that there is a rort going on at present. The Jervis Bay Protection Society advertises in its magazine, which comes out monthly, that donations made to the Australian Conservation Foundation which, on request, are then forwarded to the Jervis Bay Protection Society, can achieve tax deductable status. The Jervis Bay Protection Society is very much against the expansion of the Royal Australian Navy in that region, for various reasons. The other point about the Jervis Bay Protection Society is that it is a politically active group. Its members are peace activists. They are people who, I believe, are very much involved in the political arena. They were involved in the last Federal election campaign. They were involved in the last local government election campaign. By using the Australian Conservation Foundation as a vehicle to transmit donations to the Jervis Bay Protection Society, people can now deliberately donate money to the Jervis Bay Protection Society. That money can be used for political purposes, and it is all tax deductable. I believe that the Commissioner for Taxation, to whom I have made representations on this matter, has not treated the matter seriously enough and has not looked into it properly. Apart from the failure of the Tax Commissioner and the Government in the matter of mobile life education centres, I think it is ridiculous that organisations like the Jervis Bay Protection Society, which is a political organisation, can get tax deductable status for its donations when life education centres cannot. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(10.59) —Some weeks ago in this House I detailed a series of irregularities suffered by Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd in my electorate. Lloyd was tendering for a contract to transfer marine pilots at the Port of Gladstone. The quote had to be received by the Department of Harbours and Marine by 5 p.m. on 23 September, 1988. Lloyd arranged for the submission to be hand delivered to the Harbours and Marine officers on the 22nd Floor, 41 George Street, Brisbane, before 5 p.m. on 23 September. The contract was let to another company, even though Lloyd had the lower price. The Department advised that the contract had been let and nothing would be done about it. Since raising this matter, I have forwarded the relevant documentation to the newly established Public Accounts Committee in Queensland. However, in the Gladstone Observer of 5 November, a departmental spokesman for the Maritime Services Minister, Mr Neal, said four other companies lodged documents in the proper box but Lloyd left its documents in the wrong box. The spokesman also said that the Department was not bound to award a contract to the lowest or any other tender. I call on the Maritime Services Minister to make public now the tenders on the project. It appears extraordinary to the general public that his own Department, from its statement, does not appear to have any set guidelines on the letting of tenders. Action must be taken to investigate this matter immediately. I turn now to the statement by the Department's spokesman that Lloyd failed to lodge the tender correctly. I have in my possession a statutory declaration signed by Caroline Louise Kay of 84 Huet Street, Wavell Heights. She states: At 4.45 p.m. on 23 September 1988, Captain Peter Jones and myself took an envelope addressed to Mr J Leach, Director, Harbours and Marine Department, 41 George Street, Brisbane, 4000. The Tender Box is located on 22nd floor of this address. I took the envelope to the receptionist in attendance (directly adjacent to the Tender Box) and explained to her I had to deliver the envelope before 5.00 p.m. closing time of the tender. After looking at the envelope she instructed me to place it in the Tender Box which I did. It appears that the statement from the Lloyd's employee signed under a statutory declaration is at variance with the interpretation placed on it by the Department. It is essential that Mr Neal act to reassure the companies and the general public that the letting of the contract was carried out fairly and honestly. The statutory declaration leaves plenty of doubt on the omission of the Lloyd's contract from the tendering process. I repeat that this is the second occasion on which the Lloyd group has been overriden on contracts. Nowhere has the Department or the Minister set out to explain the incidents in 1985, when, after the company had successfully tendered for a helicopter service for the ports of Gladstone and Hay Point, the Hay Point section of the contract was cancelled without warning and given to another company. Nowhere has the Department or the Minister publicly explained the fact that the other company was six months late commencing the Hay Point project or that Lloyd was asked by the Department to take over the Gladstone project for two weeks in October. The fundamental question which the Minister must answer is why this contract was awarded to a company which could not meet the commencement dates of its tender. Mr Neal needs to explain this to the public. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.02 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Snow to move- That this House, acknowledging that Canberra-Queanbeyan is a natural regional centre and that Canberra and the South Eastern Region of NSW are interdependent, calls on the first ACT Government to form a Canberra and South Eastern Regional Advisory Council composed of Federal, State, territory and local council representatives with the aim of co-ordinating planning and development within the region. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 November 1988: Defence Act-Determination under section 58b-1988-No. 65-Common Duties Allowance and other allowances. Public Service Act-Determinations-1988-Nos. 220, 229, 231, 232, 234. Federal Airports Corporation Act-Federal Airports Corporation-By-laws-1988-Federal airports (Amendment) (No. 2) (in substitution for the paper presented on 7 November 1988). Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Variation of plan of layout of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 23 November 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 815) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Abor-iginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) What legal aid services are available to Abor-igines in Australia and where are such services located. (2) What is the source of funding for Aboriginal legal aid and how does this differ from normal legal aid. (3) How many persons are employed in Aboriginal legal aid services and what positions do they hold. (4) How many solicitors employed are Aborigines. (5) What has been the cost of these services for each year since the inception of the scheme. (6) What criteria are applied before Aborigines can avail themselves of these services. (7) How many Aborigines have been assisted by these services for each year since the inception of the scheme. (8) What is the average number of charges against Aborigines assisted by the scheme. (9) What number and percentage of cases handled by Aboriginal legal aid services resulted in verdicts of not guilty. (10) Are there any significant differences between States on how Aboriginal legal aid is administered or how Aborigines are serviced by the scheme. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Legal aid services to Aborigines are available through the following agencies: 20 Aboriginal Legal Services in all States and the Northern Territory; Legal aid commissions in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory; Australian Legal Aid Offices in Tasmania and Northern Territory; and Community Legal Centres in all States and the Australian Capital Territory. Services available to Aboriginals through these agencies include advice and representation in criminal, civil and family law jurisdictions. (2) The source of funding for Aboriginal legal aid is the Department of Aboriginal Affairs budgetary appropriation. Grants are made directly to Abor-iginal Legal Services from this source. For the remaining legal aid agencies, Commonwealth funding is provided through the Attorney-General's Department. The operations of the Australian Legal Aid Office are funded entirely by the Commonwealth. With other agencies, the Commonwealth joins with the States in funding legal aid services. In conjunction with some States community legal centres are funded under an annual grants program. The States' legal aid commissions are funded under formal Commonwealth/State agreements for the provision of legal aid. (3) There were 378 persons employed in Aboriginal legal services at the time of the last survey of employees in mid 1987. These employees comprise solicitors, field officers, administrative/management personnel and administrative support staff. (4) There are 5 Aboriginals employed as solicitors by Aboriginal Legal Services. (5) The cost of the Aboriginal legal aid program since its inception is shown in the table below. DAA GRANTS FOR LEGAL AID: 1972-1988 $ 1972/73... 748 000 1973/74... 1 190 000 1974/75... 2 682 000 1975/76... 3 746 000 1976/77... 3 711 000 1977/78... 3 890 000 1978/79... 4 208 000 1979/80... 4 983 000 1980/81... 5 439 000 1981/82... 6 507 000 1982/83... 7 961 976 1983/84... 10 924 772 1984/85... 12 098 720 1985/86... 12 904 420 1986/87... 13 183 093 1987/88... 14 710 539 (6) The prime criterion of eligibility for aid from Aboriginal Legal Services is Aboriginality. Some Aboriginal Legal Services have developed guidelines restricting their services to certain matters, but most often their services are available to all Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders who request them, although regard is had to the merit of individual cases. (7) This data is not available. From the data provided by Aboriginal Legal Services it is estimated that they handle about 50 000 matters each year. (8) This data is not collected by the Department. (9) This data is not collected. (10) there are no significant differences in respect of services. There are differences in organisation. In some States a single Legal Service serves the entire State, or a major part of it, through a network of branch offices. In other States, such as Queensland, there are a number of small Legal Services which serve local communities. The Aboriginal Legal Services are located as shown below. State Name of Service Location New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd Redfern, Newcastle, Cowra, Wagga Wagga, Queanbeyan, Walgett, Armidale, Kempsey, Grafton, Lismore, Moree St Mary's and Districts Aboriginal Legal Assistance Ltd St Mary's, Liverpool Western Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd Dubbo, Bourke Brewarrina, Broken Hill South Coast Aboriginal Legal Service Inc. Nowra, Wollongong, Bodalla Victoria Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co-op Ltd Fitzroy, Robinvale, Morwell, Shepparton Tasmania Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Inc. Hobart, Launceston, Burnie Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corporation (QEA) for Legal Services Brisbane QEB Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corp for Legal Services Toowoomba, Charleville QEC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corp for Legal Aid Services Rockhampton, Bundaberg QED Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corp for Legal Aid Services Townsville, Mackay West Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corp for Legal Aid Mt Isa, Normanton Njiku Jowan Legal Service (NQ) Ltd Cairns, Mossman Far North Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Corp for Legal Services Thursday Island, Cairns Tharpuntoo Legal Service Cairns South Australia Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Adelaide, Port Augusta, Murray Bridge, Ceduna Western Australia Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia Perth, Kununurra, Halls Creek, Laverton, Narrogin, Broome, Derby, Roebourne, Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Carnarvon, Port Hedland, Albany Northern Territory North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc. Darwin, Nhulunbuy Katherine Regional Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Katherine Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc. Alice Springs, Tennant Creek Pitjantjatjara Council Legal Service Alice Springs (Question No. 947) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 26 April 1988: (1) Further to his statement on Australian nuclear safeguards (Hansard, 20 April 1988, page 1856), how can 2 quantities of nuclear materials be deemed to be equivalent. (2) Under the principle of equivalence, is it possible for a quantity of nuclear material containing waste material to be deemed as equivalent to another quantity of nuclear material containing no waste material providing it contains the same amount of U235 atoms; if so, under what circumstances is this possible. (3) If the answer to part (2) is no, what other regulations govern the determination of whether 2 amounts of nuclear material are equivalent. (4) What are the operational reasons which would lead to permission being granted for the exchange of safeguards obligations between one quantity of nuclear material and another. (5) Will he provide full details of the 17 conditions the Government has set down to ensure Australian uranium is not diverted for use in nuclear weapons; if not, why not. (6) When did he decide that these 17 conditions were necessary. (7) What were the reasons which led to the 17 conditions being formulated. (8) Is he concerned at the statement by the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr H. Blix that it is impossible to know whether Australian uranium is used in nuclear reactors; if not, why not. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The equivalence principle is based on the fact that all atoms or molecules of any substance are indistinguishable from one another and are therefore interchangeable. It is used in accounting for quantities of nuclear material when, for operational reasons associated with any nuclear process, the quantities lose their separate identity. Equivalent quantities of uranium must possess the same amount of the uranium isotope U235. While the equivalence principle is integral to the operation of Australia's safeguards agreements, it cannot be used to replace one quantity of nuclear material by another of lower quality, e.g. enriched uranium could not be replaced by an equivalent quantity of natural or depleted uranium. Any such replacement would require the prior special approval of the Australian Safeguards Office. No such approval has ever been either sought or given. (2) Nuclear material which is deemed to be waste is material which is practicably irrecoverable for processing into a form in which it is usable for any nuclear activity relevant from the point of view of safeguards. It is therefore not nuclear material and cannot be deemed as equivalent to another quantity of nuclear material. Nuclear material in the form of residues from fuel fabrication in the form of UO2 pellets or excess UO2 powder can be deemed equivalent to the same quantity of nuclear material in another physical form provided that the two quantities are of the same quality. (3) See (2) above. (4) Operational reasons include avoidance of the need for the physical transfer of nuclear material; requirements of operators to have nuclear material available in a specific form and the preference of operators to have all nuclear material present in a reactor core subject to a single safeguards control system rather than a number of different and usually overlapping systems. (5), (6) and (7) The conditions concerning the non-diversion of Australian uranium from peaceful use are embodied in Australia's nuclear safeguards agreements which have been tabled in Parliament and are public documents. The 17 conditions to which the question refers were formulated in 1986 in response to a proposal by Euratom with the objective of ensuring that any future exchange of safeguards obligations on Australian obligated nuclear material through an international flag swap (i.e. an exchange of safeguards obligations between two safeguards treaty jurisdictions) would be consistent with Australia's non-proliferation and safeguards policies. As Australia has not agreed to any international flag swap proposals and as negotiations are still continuing with Euratom it is not appropriate that Australia's conditions for an international flag swap be disclosed at this time. (8) No. What the Director-General of the IAEA said was that Australian uranium may well be co-processed with safeguarded material from other countries such as Canada and the US. Because of this comingling, continued identification of individual atoms in commercial operations associated with the nuclear fuel cycle is not possible. Dr Blix then said: `In this sense I cannot say to what installation the particular atoms that come from Australia will go. But I can say that the quantity contributed will not add to fissionable material used for weapons production anywhere.' Safeguards obligations are allocated to the product material of processing in strict proportion to the input from respective sources based on equivalence of the U235 atoms. The Agency does not need to know to what installation the particular atoms that come from Australia will go because the total amount of the co-processed material in question, regardless of its origin, remains subject to IAEA safeguards. As Dr Blix stressed, therefore the quantity contributed by Australia could not add to the amount of fissionable material available for weapons production. It should also be noted that in addition to IAEA safeguards, Australian uranium is subject to the terms of Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements. These require partners to report all movements of Australian obligated nuclear material (AONM). (Question No. 1093) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) Do historians still have recourse to the information contained in the New South Wales census of 1828. (2) Will he consider a proposal that census information be retained with a view to it being released after 100 years. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Records from the New South Wales census of 1828 are held by the New South Wales Archives. (2) The Australian Archives, with Australian Bureau of Statistics assistance, is nearing completion of a study into the respective merits of retaining or destroying future census forms. The results of the Archives' study will be brought to the attention of the Government when it considers, in detail, 1991 Census content and procedures. (Question No. 1103) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) How many (a) males and (b) female Australians are under 18 years old. (2) How many children under 18 years old do not live with their biological parents or parent. (3) On a State by State basis, how many of those children live (a) with adopted parents, (b) with foster parents, (c) with guardians, (d) in institutions and (e) some other situation. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At 30 June 1987, the estimated resident Australian population aged under 18 years was 2,324,400 males and 2,213,000 females. (2) and (3) No national data are available. Responsibility for the administration of adoption, foster care, guardianship and institutional care is undertaken primarily by State Governments. (Question No. 1166) Mr Sharp asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 31 August 1988: (1) How many applications for funding under the Tourism Overseas Promotion Scheme (TOPS) were rejected in 1987-88. (2) Why was only $3.6m paid to TOPS applicants when $6m was allocated. (3) How many applicants for TOPS funding were successful in 1987-88. (4) Was the remaining budgetary allocation for TOPS for 1987-88 given to the Australian tourism Commission; if not, to whom, and for what purpose, was it given. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) None. (2) This was the total amount payable in respect of previously approved applications for which eligible claims were received. (3) One. This was received in February 1986 but delayed in processing because of problems with the application. It was forwarded to the Minister as soon as the problems were rectified. (4) Yes. (Question No. 1177) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: (1) When and where has Australia been represented at sessions of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of the Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation. (2) Has Australia been able to raise at these sessions such issues as the illicit export of Aboriginal artefacts from Australia and the illicit import of ecclesiastical icons from Cyprus. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of the Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation was established at the 20th session of the General Conference of UNESCO in 1978 and has met five times, as follows: 5-9 May 1980 Paris 14-18 September 1981 Paris 9-12 May 1983 Istanbul 2-5 April 1985 Athens and Delphi 27-30 April 1987 Paris An Australian representative attended the first four sessions as an observer. At the 23rd session of the general conference of UNESCO in October-November 1985 Australia was elected to membership of the twenty member Intergovernmental Committee. In this capacity an Australian delegation attended the 5th session of the Committee in 1987 and at the meeting the delegate from Australia was elected as one of the four Vice Chairmen. (2) At the fifth session the Australian delegation mentioned the preparation by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs of an inventory of Australian Aboriginal objects already held in overseas collections and discussed progress with the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage legislation, which provides among other things for control of the export of significant Australian cultural heritage material including Aboriginal artefacts. The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 also protects the cultural heritage of foreign countries by making it an offence to import objects illegally exported from another country and providing for the return of forfeited objects. At the fourth session the Australian delegation expressed support for the concerns raised by the Cypriot delegation over illicit exports of cultural material from occupied Cyprus. The illicit import into Australia of ecclesiastical icons from Cyprus has been discussed between Cypriot and Australian officials, although it has not been raised as an issue at sessions of the Intergovernmental Committee. (Question No. 1209) Mr Sharp asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) Is an officer of the Minister's Department assisting the Victorian Government's bid for the 1996 Olympic Games; if so, who is the officer and what work is the officer doing. (2) Have either this officer or other officers of the Minister's Department assisted other States with their bids for the 1996 Olympic Games; if not, is Victoria receiving an unfair advantage over the other States by having the Commonwealth assist with its bid. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The Secretary of the Department was approached by the Melbourne City Council for the services of an officer to assist with its bid for the 1996 Olympic Games. The officer concerned was formerly an officer of the Victorian Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation and was the full-time co-ordinator of the Victorian bid for the 1988 Olympic Games. Given the particular circumstances the Secretary approved the involvement of the officer subject at all times to the needs and convenience of the Department. The officer's involvement, which has now ended, amounted to attending four meetings, which in total did not exceed one day and which included out of hours meetings, at which issues relating to the bid for 1988 were discussed. All travel and other expenses were met by the Melbourne City Council and the officer received no remunerations or other reward from the Council. No other requests have been received. It is not considered that Victoria received any unfair advantage. (Question No. 1222) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 29 September 1988: (1) Who are the members of the Aerospace Electronic Scientific Industry Council. (2) What are the terms of their appointment. (3) What are the qualifications of the members. (4) What functions does the Council perform. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The new Aerospace Electronic Scientific Industry Council (AESIC) combines industry sectors covered by two previous Councils, the Aerospace Council and the Electrical, Electronic, and Information Industries Council. The AESIC has 20 members, who will serve a two year term, and three permanent observers. The members are: Mr Terry A. Johnson (Chairman), National Secretary, ETU Captain Alan Terrell (Deputy Chairman), General Manager, Qantas Dr Colin Adam, Director, Instit. of Industrial Technologies, CSIRO Mr John Almgren, Managing Director, JN Almgren Mr Ian Bennetts, Managing Director, Computer Corp of Australia Mr John Bibo, Assist. General Manager-Technical, Ansett Airlines Mr Colin Cooper, President, ATEA Mr Russell Cooper, General Manager, Email Electronics Mr John P. Dougall, Executive Director, Paxus Corporation Dr Mike Fitzpatrick, First Assistant Secretary, Light Industries, DITAC Mr Andrew Gitsham, Managing Director, Vision Systems Mr Terry Kelly, Managing Director, KEL Aerospace Mr Malcolm Kerr, Managing Director, Hewlett-Packard Australia Mr Ray Liggett, Executive General Manager, Corporate Customer Division, Telecom Australia Mr Stuart Morgan, Chairman, Turbine Components Australia Mr Bill Page-Hanify, Chairman &Managing Director, Alcatel-STC Australia Mr John Royal, National Organiser, AMWU Mr Martin Schutz, Federal Industrial Officer, ADSTE Mr George Stuart, Managing Director, Aerospace Technologies of Australia Mr Bill Thomas, Finance Executive, Nucleus Observers are: Dr Ergad Gold, Policy Consultant, Office of Senator Button Mr Geoff Kelly, Manager Light Industry Products Export Development Group, AUSTRADE Mr Don D. Wood, First Assistant Secretary, Industry Policy &Operations Division, Capital Procurement Organisation, Department of Defence (2) Under the terms of reference set by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce the Councils are to: assist the development of an internationally competitive Australian manufacturing industry; contribute to establishing an ongoing framework for co-operative relations and effective consultative processes between management and labour within manufacturing industry. The Council members receive no specific remuneration except for cost of travel and subsistence. (3) The qualifications for membership relate to experience of the individual members and status of their organisations in the various industries represented. (4) The Council will undertake the following broad functions (a) provide a forum for dialogue between the parties to develop joint understanding on issues affecting manufacturing industry competitiveness and to communicate this understanding throughout industry (b) act as a consultative body and provide advice to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce on matters related to manufacturing industry (c) undertake activities which will improve industry competitiveness. (Question No. 1239) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 12 October 1988: (1) Did his predecessor state in answer to question No. 949 (Hansard, 29 September 1988, page 1292) that the proposed review of the Public Library System in Australia has been deferred pending completion of a number of other reviews which are currently in progress in his Department. (2) What are these other reviews. (3) Who is conducting them. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Portfolio Minister, Senator the Honourable Graham Richardson, announced on 30 November 1987 a program of comprehensive reviews into the management and operation of the national collecting institutions in this Portfolio. The reviews are to identify any opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency, and will result in internal documents for my consideration. The reviews of the National Library of Australia and the Australian National Gallery are in progress. The reviews of the remaining collecting institutions will be initiated as resources become available. (3) The reviews are being conducted by consultants to the Minister working in consultation with officers of the institutions concerned and, in the case of the Library review, with officers of the Department of Finance. (Question No. 1280) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 19 October 1988: (1) Why were officers of the Australian Fisheries Service (AFS) given the role of granting fishermen category A or B endorsements to the Southern Shark Gillnet Fishery when those officers had not been given the power to do so by the Minister through the Minister's written consent. (2) Are the endorsements granted by the AFS officers valid endorsements. (3) How many fishermen involved in the Southern Shark Gillnet Fishery have endorsements which were granted by AFS officers who were not properly authorised to provide endorsements. (4) What is being done to correct this situation, particularly where fishermen have bought or sold endorsements granted by those officers. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Section 6a of the Fisheries Act provides for the Minister or the Secretary of the Department to delegate various licensing powers under the Act. The officers who placed the endorsements on fishing boat licences to permit those boats to be used in the southern shark gillnet fishery have been delegated the necessary powers by the Minister. (2) Yes. (3) None. Officers granting licence endorsements for the southern shark gillnet fishery were authorised to provide those endorsements. (4) All decisions made to grant licence endorsements to fishermen in the southern shark gillnet fishery are considered to be valid. There is no need for any steps to be taken in respect of fishermen who transferred or acquired endorsements for that fishery. (Question No. 371) Mr Connolly asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, on notice, on 4 November 1987: How many officials or staff of the ACTU have been appointed to the Boards of statutory authorities, to other advisory boards or any position for which they receive remuneration from the Commonwealth and in each case (a) who are they, (b) to which positions have they been appointed, (c) when were they appointed, (d) what salaries and allowances have they received since their appointment, (e) what travel costs have been incurred, and (f) what other costs have been incurred in servicing the appointments. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to parts (a) to (e) of the honourable member's question, compiled from information provided by departments, is provided below. The answer relates to people who held appointments to positions on government bodies at the time the question was asked and who then or at the time they were appointed were staff or officials of the ACTU. In relation to part (d), note that in some cases fees to which individuals are entitled are paid to their organisations. I am not prepared to authorise the work necessary to provide information regarding part (f). Attorney-General's Department-2 appointments (1 person); information for 1 (d) and (e) current at 21 January 1988, and for 2 (d) and (e) at 19 January 1988. (1) (a) Dr W. B. Creighton. (b) Member, Distribution of Powers Advisory Committee, Constitutional Commission. (c) 31 October 1986. (d) $3,895, fees. (e) $8,673. (2) (a) Dr W. B. Creighton. (b) Member, Administrative Review Council. (c) 25 September 1987. (d) $383, fees. (e) $402. Department of Defence-1 appointment (1 person); information for parts (d) and (e) current at 21 April 1988. (1) (a) Mr S. P. Gibbs. (b) Part-time member of Board, Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd. (c) 21 January 1987. (d) As determined by the Remuneration Tribunal ($9,954 p.a.). (e) Nil. Department of Employment, Education and Training-8 appointments (6 people); information for parts (d) and (e) current at 4 November 1987. (1) (a) Mr H. Hauenschild, AO. (b) Part-time member, Technical and Further Education Advisory Council of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. (c) 22 June 1977. (d) $53,098.22, fees. (e) $12,268.50, t.a.* (2) (a) Mr H. Hauenschild, AO. (b) Part-time member, Australian Council for Employment and Training (ACET). (c) 1 December 1986. (d) Nil. (e) $780, t.a.* (3) (a) Mr R. T. Scott. (b) Part-time member, ACET and its Training Committee. (c) 1 December 1986. (d) Nil. (e) $792.07, t.a.* (4) (a) Mr T. Johnson. (b) Part-time member, ACET and its Employment Committee. (c) 1 December 1986. (d) Nil. (e) $865, t.a.* (5) (a) Mr G. Bellchamber. (b) Part-time member, ACET Research Committee. (c) 1 January 1987. (d) Nil. (e) $30, t.a.* (6) (a) Mr I. Watson. (b) Part-time member, ACET Employment Committee. (c) 1 January 1987. (d) Nil. (e) Nil. (7) (a) Mr R. T. Scott. (b) Part-time member, National Advisory Committee on the Commonwealth Employment Service (NACCES). (c) 31 October 1986. (d) Nil. (e) Nil*. (8) (a) Mr R. L. Gradwell. (b) Part-time member, NACCES. (c) 23 June 1982. (d) Nil. (e) Nil*. * The travel entitlement of TAFEAC, NACCES and ACET members is in accordance with Australian Public Service terms and conditions. Airfares and car hire costs are attributed to overall travel codes, not to individual members. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade-1 appointment (1 person); information current at 4 February 1988. (1) (a) Mr L. Carmichael. (b) Member, Trade Development Council (TDC). (c) 1 June 1984 (Mr Carmichael has been an official of the ACTU only since September 1987; information below refers only to this period). (d) Nil. (e) $111, t.a. (members are also entitled to first class air travel to attend TDC meetings). Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs-2 appointments (2 people); information for parts (d) and (e) current at 4 November 1987. (1) (a) Mr A. Matheson. (b) Member, Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. (c) 23 September 1987. (d) Fees as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal ($226 p.d.). (e) T.a. as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal ($145/110). (2) (a) Mr M. Ferguson. (b) Member, National Population Council. (c) 1 July 1986. (d) Nil. (e) Nil. Department of Industrial Relations-32 appointments (13 people); information for 1 (d) and (e) current at 24 December 1987, and for 2-32 (d) and (e) at 31 May 1988. (1) (a) Mr W. Kelty. (b) Member, Australian Council for Union Training (ACUT) (c) 1 September 1985. (d) $955. (e) T.a. as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (2) (a) Mr L. Carmichael. (b) Member, ACUT. (c) 1 September 1985 (Mr Carmichael has been an official of the ACTU only since September 1987). (d) Nil, since September 1987. (e) T.a. as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (3) (a) Mr J. W. MacBean, AM. (b) Member, ACUT. (c) 1 September 1985. (d) $690. (e) T.a. as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (4) (a) Ms J. George. (b) Member, ACUT. (c) 1 September 1985 (d) $275. (e) T.a. as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (5) (a) Mr J. Maher. (b) Member, ACUT. (c) 1 September 1985. (d) $136. (e) T.a. as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (6) (a) Mr W. C. Mansfield. (b) Part-time member, National Occupational Health and Safety Committee (NOHSC). (c) December 1985. (d) Nil. (e) $9 115.45. (7) (a) Mr M. Ferguson. (b) Alternate or Part-time member, NOHSC. (c) December 1985. (d) Nil. (e) Nil. (8) (a) Mr R. T. Scott. (b) Member, Central Trades Committees. (c) 25 October 1973. (d) Fees as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (e) T.a. as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (9) (a) Mr T. Addison. (b) Member, Central Trades Committees. (c) 10 July 1967. (d) Fees as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (e) T.a. as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (10) (a) Mr J. W. MacBean, AM. (b) Member, National Labour Consultative Council (NLCC). (c) 25 February 1986. (d) Nil. (e) $2 870.* (11) (a) Mr R. T. Scott. (b) Member, NLCC. (c) 19 December 1983. (d) Nil. (e) $7 462* (12) (a) Mr M. Ferguson. (b) Member, NLCC. (c) 25 February 1986. (d) Nil. (e) $1 722* (13) (a) Mr S. F. Crean. (b) Member, NLCC. (c) 14 October 1981. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (14) (a) Mr W. Kelty. (b) Member, NLCC. (c) 1 October 1977. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (15) (a) Mr W. C. Mansfield. (b) Member, NLCC. (c) 25 February 1986. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (16) (a) Mr G. Weaven. (b) Member, NLCC. (c) 7 October 1986. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (17) (a) Mr S. F. Crean. (b) Member, NLCC Industrial Legislation Committee. (c) 2 August 1985. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (18) (a) Mr W. Kelty. (b) Member, NLCC Industrial Legislation Committee. (c) 2 August 1985. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (19) (a) Mr S. F. Crean. (b) Member, NLCC International Labour Affairs Committee. (c) 24 February 1986. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (19) (a) Mr W. C. Mansfield. (b) Member, NLCC International Labour Affairs Committee. (c) 25 May 1987. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (21) (a) Mr W. Kelty. (b) Member, NLCC Women's Employment Committee. (c) 16 March 1979. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (22) (a) Mr W. C. Mansfield. (b) Member, NLCC Employee Participation Committee. (c) 25 February 1986. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (23) (a) Mr J. W. MacBean, AM. (b) Member, NLCC Employee Participation Committee. (c) August 1984. (d) Nil. (e) 1 148.* (24) (a) Mr M. Ferguson. (b) Member, NLCC Multicultural Workforce Committee. (c) July 1986. (d) Nil. (e) $1 722.* (25) (a) Mr A. Matheson. (b) Member, NLCC Multicultural Workforce Committee. (c) 26 October 1984. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (26) (a) Mr G. Weaven. (b) Member, NLCC Industrial Relations Education Committee. (c) 7 October 1986. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (27) (a) Mr W. Kelty. (b) Member, NLCC Industrial Relations Information and Technology Committee. (c) 10 August 1984. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.* (28) (a) Mr P. Moylan. (b) Member, Joint Council, 77th meeting. (c) October 1987. (d) Nil. (e) $844. (29) (a) Mr P. Moylan. (b) Member, Joint Council, Industrial Democracy Subcommittee. (c) December 1985. (d) Nil. (e) $316.* (30) (a) Mr P. Moylan. (b) Member, Joint Council Youth Employment Subcommittee. (c) December 1986. (d) Nil. (e) $349*. (31) (a) Mr P. Moylan. (b) Member, Joint Council Equal Employment Opportunity Subcommittee. (c) November 1984. (d) Nil. (e) $349*. (32) (a) Mr P. Moylan. (b) Member, Joint Council Progress Committee. (c) October 1987. (d) Nil. (e) $291. * since Department of Industrial Relations formed, 24 July 1987 Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce-1 appointment (1 person); information current at 6 April 1988 1 (a) Mr W. C. Mansfield. (b) Member of Board, CSIRO. (c) 5 December 1986. (d) $12 838. (e) $2 650 (est.). Primary Industries and Energy-3 appointments (3 people); information current at 4 November 1987 1 (a) Mr S. F. Crean. (b) Member, Rural and Allied Industries Council. (c) October 1986. (d) Nil. (e) Nil (entitled to air fares and t.a. in the event of official travel) 2 (a) Mr J. W. MacBean, AM. (b) Member, The Pipeline Authority. (c) January 1979; re-appointed January 1986. (d) $62 524.80. (e) $9 382 (est.). (3) (a) Mr W. Kelty. (b) Member, National Petroleum Advisory Committee. (c) September 1979. (d) Nil. (e) $162 (entitled to t.a. if meetings run for 2 days or more). Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet-5 appointments (4 people); since the time the Question was asked, Mr W. C. Mansfield has been appointed a member of the Australian Public Service Management Advisory Board. The costs of his travel to attend meetings of the Board are met by the Commonwealth. Information for 1-4 (d) and (e) is current at 12 January 1988, and for 5 (d) and (e) at 20 April 1988. (1) (a) Ms J. I. Marsh. (b) Member, Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC). (c) July 1983. (d) Nil. (e) $4 905.40 in t.a. and/or fares*. (2) (a) Mr W. Kelty. (b) Member, EPAC. (c) July 1983. (d) Nil. (e) $3 402, in t.a. and/or fares*. (3) (a) Mr S. F. Crean. (b) Member, EPAC. (c) March 1984. (d) Nil. (e) $5 533, in t.a. and/or fares*. (4) (a) Mr J. W. MacBean, AM. (b) Member, EPAC. (c) September 1985. (d) Nil. (e) $279, in t.a. and/or fares* (5) (a) Mr S. F. Crean. (b) Member, Advisory Council on Multicultural Affairs. (c) 13 March 1987. (d) $139, fees. (e) $388, airfare (car travel claims, if any, have not been identified). * Another $1 768.60 has been paid to ACTU representatives on EPAC-not separately identified. Department of Social Security-1 appointment (1 person); information for parts (d) and (e) current at 4 December 1987 (1) (a) Mr M. Ferguson. (b) Member, Social Security Review Advisory Committee-now amalgamated with National Advisory Council on Social Welfare. (c) April 1986. (d) $272, fees. (e) $450.20, fares and t.a. Department of Transport and Communications-4 appointments (4 people); information for parts (d) and (e) current at 7 December 1987. (1) (a) Mr J. W. MacBean, AM. (b) Commissioner, Australian National Airlines Commission*. (c) 5 June 1987. (d) $9 664 p.a., remuneration. (e) as determined by Remuneration Tribunal. (2) (a) Mr W. Kelty. (b) Member, Government Advisory Group on Australian Airlines**. (c) 7 October 1987. (d) Nil. (e) as determined by Remuneration Tribunal. (3) (a) Mr S. F. Crean. (b) Director, QANTAS. (c) 15 September 1987. (d) $16 857 p.a., remuneration. (e) as determined by Remuneration Tribunal. (4) (a) Mr I. Court. (b) Member, Federal Airports Corporation. (c) 13 June 1986. (d) $9 954 p.a., remuneration. (e) as determined by Remuneration Tribunal. * Since 30 April 1988, Mr MacBean has been Director, Australian Airlines Ltd. His remuneration is to be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. ** The Advisory Group existed at the time the Question was asked (4 November 1987) but has since ceased to exist. Department of the Treasury-3 appointments (3 people); information for parts (d) and (e) current at 11 February 1988. (1) (a) Mr W. C. Mansfield. (b) Part-time Associate Commissioner, Industries Assistance Commission. (c) 26 August 1985. (d) Nil. (e) Nil. (2) (a) Mr C. O. Dolan. (b) Member of Board, Commonwealth Banking Corporation. (c) 24 November 1973. (d) as determined by Remuneration Tribunal. (e) as determined by Remuneration Tribunal. (3) (a) Mr W. Kelty. (b) Member of Board, Reserve Bank of Australia. (c) 29 July 1987. (d) as determined by Remuneration Tribunal. (e) as determined by Remuneration Tribunal. (Question No. 916) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: Does the Minister's Department or instrumentalities within the Minister's control have divisions, sections or units whose primary or major goal is to serve the Aboriginal community; if so, for each en- tity, (a) what is its name, (b) what is its role, (c) when was it established, (d) what was its establishment budget and staff level and (e) what is its current budget and staffing levels. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes, within my Department. (1) (a) Aboriginal Employment and Training Branch. (b) Responsible for managing specialised employment and training programs and services for Aboriginal people and for developing related labour market policies. (c) Special measures were developed following the 1967 referendum. (d) Specialised units were established in 1969 and the Employment Training Scheme for Aboriginals (ETSA) commenced with an allocation of $24,428. With the introduction of the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals (NESA) by the Fraser Government in 1977, there were around 100 field positions with a program budget of $4.0m. (e) The current staffing level is 253 ASL of which around 160 are in field positions and the balance is in State and Central Office administration. The budget for the Training for Aboriginals Program in 1987-88 is $70.805m. (2) (a) Aboriginal Education Branch (AEB). (b) To develop and administer student assistance schemes and special projects directed towards the special needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. (c) The Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (ABSTUDY) commenced in 1969. Current establishment of AEB grew out of amalgamation of small units dealing with Aboriginal Schemes. (d) The original establishment of Aboriginal Education Units was within the Central and State Offices of the then Department of Education and Science. Separate figures for staffing and budget were not kept. (e) Current staffing level is 365 ASL of which 130 are in field positions and the rest are involved in State and Central Office administration. The budget for 1987-88 for ABSTUDY and other forms of Aboriginal education assistance is $81.025m. (Question No. 1028) Dr Wooldridge asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: (1) Has his attention been draw to: (a) 14 June 1988 being the 37th anniversary of the mass deportation of persons from the Baltic States to Siberia. (b) The forcible suppression of demonstrations in Baltic capitals during the past 12 months and (c) The likelihood of demonstrations on 14 June 1988 in Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius. (2) Will he write to General Secretary Gorbachev of the USSR requesting him to permit the Baltic people the basic human right of peaceful assembly to commemorate the anniversary. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes (b) We are aware of demonstrations that occurred in the Baltic States in June, August and November last year. The Government deplores the suppression of such demonstrations. (c) The Government notes with approval that Soviet authorities allowed this year's demonstrations to go ahead unhindered. The honourable member may also be interested to learn that the anniversary of the Baltic deportations was commemorated this year by street marches and in press articles. He may also be aware that at the June Party Conference a decision was taken to build a monument in Moscow to the victims of Stalinism. In recent weeks, important and generally encouraging developments affecting the Baltic people have been set in train, in particular the formulation and unhindered activity of Popular Fronts in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Along with other honourable Members and Senators, I had the opportunity to discuss these positive developments with representatives of the Baltic Council of Australia at Parliament House on 31 August. (2) I have consistently made the Government's concerns on human rights issues known to the Soviet authorities, and reiterated these in my discussions with General Secretary Gorbachev and Prime Minister Ryzhkov in Moscow in December last year. In these circumstances I see no current need to write to Mr Gorbachev as suggested. The Government will, however, continue to raise its own concerns on all appropriate occasions. If, as seems likely, Mr Ryzhkov visits Australia in the first part of next year, I shall discuss this, among other issues, with him then. (Question No. 1052) Mr Prosser asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: Why is it expected that none of the $2.8m appropriated for grants for home acquisition by the Defence Service Homes Corporation will actually be expended in 1987-88, as revealed by the Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations released by the Department of Finance. Mr Humphreys —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In the 1987-88 Budget announcement on 15 September 1987, the Treasurer announced a proposal to make cash grants, instead of loans, available to eligible persons under the Defence Service Homes (DSH) Scheme. It was proposed to make cash grants of $10,000 instead of $25,000 low-interest housing loans to eligible serving and former service personnel. This proposal would have required the DSH Act 1918 to be amended. The Government undertook to consult widely with the service community. To allow those consultations to proceed with minimal inconvenience to potential applicants, it was decided to offer the option of either the present loan or the new grant arrangements to applicants who lodged their applications before 1 January 1988. The amount of $2.8m was provided for the payment of grants in the 1987-88 Budget. Following the Government's undertaking to consult, a review group was set up under the chairmanship of prominent businessman Mr John Uhrig AO, including representatives of the RSL, the Australian Defence Forces and relevant Government departments and agencies. Accepting the recommendations of the review group, the Government decided that the grant proposal would not proceed, and that a concessional interest rate loan would continue to be available to eligible applicants. As the cash grant scheme did not proceed, warrants of $2.8m were withdrawn from the DSH Corporation's appropriation. During the consultation period the Government undertook to pay grants to those applicants who chose to defer settlement of their loan which would otherwise have been payable prior to 1 January 1988. Grants of $742,806 were paid to these applicants by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in the 1987-88 financial year as the DSH Act made no provision for the payment of the grants. As the DSH Scheme is continuing to operate as usual, loan funds continue to be expended. Repayments from borrowers provide the principal source of DSH funds, supplemented by a small Budget appropriation. (Question No. 1077) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What level of passenger movements is used to determine whether the construction of an airport fire station facility at a country airport is necessary. (2) What are the annual passenger traffic figures for Albury airport. (3) Is the Minister's Department aware that one third of this traffic is through traffic between Sydney and Melbourne which may be reduced due to a change in airline policy in 1988; if so, why is the Minister's Department continuing with plans to build an airport fire station at Albury at a cost of $1.8m when the local fire station is in close proximity. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The criterion for the provision (or withdrawal) of Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS) at domestic aerodromes is 150,000 persons-on-board (pob) scheduled passenger services per calendar year. The pob statistic includes uplift/discharge passengers and transit passengers as well as aircrew. (2) The latest pob statistic available for Albury Airport is 314,458 for calendar year 1986. It was on the basis of that figure and the then forecast continued growth in passenger activity at Albury that the decision to proceed with the new fire station was endorsed by the Minister for Aviation in 1987. (3) Yes. Criteria is still met without the transit traffic. However, a joint review was commenced on 1st May 1988 by officers of the Department and the Albury City Council into the most cost-effective method of providing rescue and fire fighting at Albury. That study group has consulted with the Aviation Industry and the NSW Board of Fire Commissioners. Changes by Air New South Wales and East West Airlines in their pattern of usage of Albury together with other potential future variations in airline usage stemming from deregulation will be taken into consideration. A final decision to proceed with the construction will therefore not be made until a clearer picture of the long term pob forecasts is known and the joint review team's recommendations have been considered. (Question No. 1092) Mr Beale asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: What is the level of cost recovery for the aviation industry categories of (a) international airlines, (b) domestic airlines (c) commuter and supplementary airlines, (d) charter, (e) flying training, (f) agricultural aviation, (g) other aerial work and (h) private aviation (i) since January 1988, (ii) since July 1987 and (iii) in each year since 1983. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, which was established by the Government in 1983, reviewed the practice of the former Department of Aviation of reporting cost recovery results by industry sector. The Inquiry Report concluded that the then existing arrangements lacked credibility, and were neither efficient nor equitable. For example, it was not considered practicable to split costs of shared facilities between industry sectors. The Report recommended that the arrangements for allocating attributable costs to industry sectors and reporting cost recovery results on that basis should be terminated. The Government, in August 1985, announced its adoption of the cost recovery strategy proposed by the Independent Inquiry and accordingly reports on cost recovery results related to industry sectors are not available. (Question No. 1095) Mr John Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) Is the radioactive substance americium being used in sections of the food and beverage industry in Australia. (2) Is an import permit required to import americium or equipment containing americium; if not, why not. (3) If an import permit is required, how many permits have been issued in each year since 1979. (4) Is it a condition of the import permit that americium is not to be used in the food and beverage industry; if not, (a) why not and (b) will the Minister take immediate action to ensure that further import permits specify that americium is not to be used in the food and beverage industry until the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation's inquiry into ionising radiation has been presented to Parliament and acted upon. (5) If americium is not to be used in the food and beverage industry, will the Minister take immediate steps to revoke the licences and require the americium to be returned to where it originated. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. Sealed americium-241 sources are integral components of automatic inspection systems used in the bottling and canning sections of the food industry to monitor the level of contents in containers on high speed filling lines. The instruments are not used in the preparation and processing side of the food industry. (2) Yes. (3) 1979-2; 1980-2; 1981-5; 1982-8; 1983-1; 1984-4; 1985-14; 1986-2; 1987-2; 1988-0 (to September). (4) No. The level of radiation exposure of food or beverages from sealed sources of americium 241 used in inspection systems is insignificant and poses no public health risk. The level of radiation dose received by each can or bottle is estimated to be less than that received over an hour from naturally occurring cosmic radiation. The irradiation of food for preservation or disinfestation involves absorbed doses of billions of times these quantities. The use of small radioactive sources for inspection purposes in the food and beverage industry does not result in any processing of the food. National Health and Medical Research Committee Model Food Standards Regulation, S3 Irradiation of Food, is not applicable. Based on the above, I see no reason to take any further action on this matter. (5) See answer to (4). (Question No. 1108) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) Is the Minister able to confirm the accuracy of the claim made by Mr P Manning, Executive Producer of Four Corners, in Time Australia of 27 June 1988, that Four Corners has not had to apologise for a single error of fact in 7 years. (2) How many complaints about errors of fact as set out in section 82 of the Broadcasting Act have been received by (a) Four Corners and (b) other ABC radio and current affairs programs. (3) Who adjudicates these complaints and how many apologies or retractions have been made. (4) Were any complaints about errors of fact dismissed on the grounds of insufficient interest; if so, who defined this concept and did it come into effect at the same time as, or subsequent to, section 82. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) Four Corners has apologised once in the past seven years for a factual error when, on 18 August 1984, an announcement was made that the credit card Bencharge was owned by BFC Finance Ltd and not the Beneficial Finance Corporation as stated in the previous week's program. (2) (a) The Corporation receives all the complaints under section 82 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act), and only one complaint was received about a Four Corners program alleging an error of fact. (b) Since the ABC Act came into effect 16 complaints about errors of fact have been received by the Corporation about the other ABC news and current affairs programs. (3) Under section 82 (4) of the ABC Act, the Principal Community Affairs Officer is responsible for adjudicating these complaints and ``if he decides that the complaint is justified'', the officer informs the Managing Director who ensures that the Corporation broadcasts or televises, as the case requires, a prompt retraction or apology. Of the seventeen complaints mentioned in item 2 above, eight were found to be justified and nine complaints were not upheld. For the eight justified complaints, four of these complainants received apologies/retractions which were broadcast/televised; one complainant did not want to further pursue the complaint and the three remaining complainants preferred not to have their complaints referred to again publicly and chose to receive a written apology from the Managing Director. (4) Some complaints about errors of fact were not investigated pursuant to section 82 on the ground that the complainants did not have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaints. Since the ABC Act came into effect in 1983, section 82 (2) of the Act has always included the concept of ``sufficient interest'': ``The Community Affairs Officer is not required to investigate a complaint if, in his opinion: (b) The complainant does not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint.'' As the concept of ``sufficient interest'' was not defined in the Act, the Principal Community Affairs Officer has defined it to mean: ``a direct and particular interest of the complainant in the subject matter of the complaint. For a complaint to be accepted for investigation, the complainant would need normally to be a participant in the program concerned, or be the subject of the alleged error of fact or invasion of privacy, or be directly affected in some other way. Intellectual, emotional, social and political concerns will not of themselves give the complainant sufficient interest.'' This definition has been published in the brochure ``How to complain to the ABC''. (Question No. 1113) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a claim appearing on an invitation to a seminar on defamation law reform that there are over 80 active defamation actions against the ABC; if so, is the claim correct. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: The figure of 80 active defamation actions appearing on the invitation referred to was an approximate figure only used by the organisers of the seminar. It was not a figure provided by the ABC. The actual number of active defamation actions against the ABC is 63. (Question No. 1114) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) What federal funding has been provided in each year since 1983 to the Multi-Disciplinary Academy Grammar School in (a) Mooroolbark, Vic. and (b) Noosa, Qld. (2) Are there any auditors' reports available on the use of any (a) federal or (b) State subsidies to these schools. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a)- 1983-$89,100 1984-$244,152 1985-$373,140 1986-$478,636 1987-$557,522 1988-$295,366 (Payment to 9/9/88) (1) (b)- 1983-1987-Nil 1988-$64,789 (Payment to 9/9/88) (2) (a) Yes. However, MDA Grammar, Noosa, commenced receiving Commonwealth funding in 1988 and accountability is not required until 1989. (2) (b) No (Question No. 1115) Mr Sharp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) What was the cost of the Australian stand at the World Trade Fair in Budapest. (2) What did the Australian stand entail. (3) What was its aim and purpose. (4) How many persons were employed to staff the stand and who were they. (5) What equipment was available for the purposes of the display. (6) Did any of this equipment improve the display in any way. (7) What information was distributed and what Australian products or materials were on display. (8) When was the display staffed. (9) Was the Australian Trade Commissioner present at the display; if not, where was he. (10) Was there any gain for Australia in having the display. (11) Was there any inquiry that could lead to trade with Australia and therefore justify the cost and effort of holding the display. (12) Was the assessment of the value of the display made (a) before, (b) during or (c) after the event. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Mr Sharp's question concerns the World Trade Fair in Budapest. Australia has participated on a regular basis since the 1970's in a fair in Hungary titled the Budapest Spring Fair and it is presumed that it is to this Fair that Mr Sharp refers. It should be noted that Budapest is bidding in conjunction with Vienna to co-host the World Trade Fair in 1995. Australia's participation is the responsibility of Austrade with funding for the stand coming from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in conformity with their trade relations objectives in Hungary. Austrade has the responsibility for the organisation and running of the stand as it has the necessary experience and expertise. The Budapest Spring Fair is an international industrial trade fair whose primary purpose is to demonstrate to both business and private visitors the ``advanced'' state of industrial and of international trade in and with Hungary. It is this ``Show-case'' role of the fair which makes official and private Western exhibitors especially welcome, their presence being seen as an act of recognition and acceptance of the host country and its trade and industry. From the viewpoint of Austrade, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Australian firms who exhibit at such fairs, the fairs serve a unique and irreplaceable role as a place where host country customers, and customers from other countries, as well as government officials can readily be met. Responses to your specific questions follow: (1) The cost of holding the Australian stand at this fair can be broken down as follows: Stand Panels and Equipment AUD... 10,000 Space rental costs... 5,000 Energy, telephone and Incidental Expenses... 2,000 Total AUD... 17,000 (2) Australian participation costs of a 50 square metre information stand. The stand has been supplied over the past two years by the British specialist organisation Medinco-Expo. The exterior is surrounded by a waist high counter, normally manned by a bilingual stand assistant who screens visitors and admits those judged to be of commercial significance. The exterior features a continuous video program displaying Australian products and general information on Australia. The interior comprises a reception area of 6m x 4m, a small kitchen, Trade Commissioner's office and storeroom. (3) Specifically, the purpose of Australia's presence at the Budapest Spring Fair is to provide a visible and distinctive Australian presence at the fair, and to provide an attractive environment for Australian business participants to promote their products to Hungarian customers. It also provides an opportunity for Hungarians interested in developing trade with Australia to obtain information and advice and to identify new trade opportunities for Australian exporters. Generally, Australian involvement provides an act of recognition sought by East European trading partners as well as an expression of interest and commitment to the development of trading links and therefore fulfils an important trade relations requirement that is necessary in dealing with Eastern Bloc countries. (4) One person was specifically employed to act as an assistant at the stand. This person was a professional interpreter of Hungarian nationality. The stand was also manned by two Austrade employees; the Senior Trade Commissioner, Vienna, who has responsibility for Hungary and the Austrade Trade Correspondent in Budapest. (5) Equipment for display. The stand includes a television set and video cassette recorder on which video cassettes promoting Australia and various commodity and high technology products were continuously operating. (6) This equipment very much improves the display by providing continuous and eye catching promotion of Australia and its products, serving both the general public and business visitors. (7) There was no product on display at the stand. The material on display consisted of video footage (submitted by firms) and printed Austrade and company promotional material as well as material on Australia. In addition to the video presentation, a wide variety of Austrade and company promotional material was available to business visitors, and postcards bearing general promotional information on Australia were available to the general public. (8) The display was staffed throughout the hours the fair was open, i.e. 10 a.m. to 6p.m. daily. (9) The Australian Senior Trade Commissioner based in Vienna was present throughout the fair. (10) The Austrade participation fulfilled all of the aims of holding the fair, i.e. promoting Australia generally, promoting specific products, and assisting actual and potential exporters as well as strengthening the trading relationship. (11) There were several enquiries but two points should be made on the issue of justifying costs by comparing the cost of the display with gains from a particular sale. As Hungary is a centrally planned economy normal commercial considerations do not play as significant a part in import purchases as they do in the West. Accordingly it is important to `show the flag' not only to maintain good will thereby increasing the likelihood of further trading opportunities but also to maintain the current level of trade. Exports to Hungary in 1987-88 were valued at $8.9 million. (12) A report is written at the conclusion of each fair by the Senior Trade Commissioner, Vienna. The report forms a basis on which to review Australia's participation. (Question No. 1241) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 October 1988: (1) How many ceremonial guards have been or will be provided in Canberra during 1988, either at (a) the airport, (b) Parliament House and (c) elsewhere in connection with Bicentennial activities and visits by various foreign dignitaries. (2) In relation to each of the guards provided from Australian Defence Force units, (a) what was the date of each guard and who was the visiting dignitary involved, (b) from which unit and location did the guard originate, (c) how many personnel were in each guard and (d) was a formal message of thanks issued from the Ceremonial and Hospitality Branch of his Department or any other office outside of the Navy, Army and Air Force. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Guards of Honour which take part in arrival and departure ceremonies for dignitaries from other countries are arranged by the Department of Defence's Joint Services Ceremonial Sub-Committee (JSCS), at the request of the Ceremonial and Hospitality Branch of my Department. The following table sets out details of the Guards that have been or will be provided by JSCS during 1988. Date Visitor Guard (Full = 100 persons Half = 50 persons) Location of Ceremony 11.04.88 The President of Romania HMAS Albatross (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn 09.05.88 Her Majesty the Queen Australian Defence Force Academy (Full) Parliament House 10.05.88 Her Majesty the Queen HMAS Albatross (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn 15.06.88 Their Majesties the King &Queen of Spain RAAF Fairbairn (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn 04.07.88 The Prime Minister of Japan 21st Supply Battalion Moore- bank, Sydney (Half) Parliament House 12.07.88 The Prime Minister of Ireland RAAF Fairbairn (Half) Parliament House 03.08.88 The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 3rd Military District (Half) Parliament House 11.08.88 The President of Nauru HMAS Albatross (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn 18.08.88 The Prime Minister of New Zealand HMAS Harman (Half) Parliament House 30.08.88 The Prime Minister of Western Samoa 2nd Military Hospital (Half) Parliament House 05.09.88 The Prime Minister of Solomon Islands RAN (Half) Parliament House 07.09.88 The King of Tonga RAAF Fairbairn (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn 28.09.88 The Duke &Duchess of York RMC Duntroon (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn 04.10.88 The Chancellor of West Germany HMAS Harman (Half) Parliament House 10.10.88 The President of Italy Corporate Guard from 6 Brigade (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn 13.10.88 The President of the Federated States of Micronesia Recruit Training Battalion (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn 24.10.88 The Queen of the Netherlands HMAS Albatross (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn FUTURE 07.11.88 The President of the Republic of Korea RAAF Fairbairn (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn 16.11.88 The Prime Minister of Singapore RAN (Half) Parliament House 17.11.88 The Premier of China RAAF (Half) Parliament House 22.11.88 The President of Greece HQ Land Command (Full) RAAF Base Fairbairn (2) Whenever a guard has been provided, the appreciation of my Department has been conveyed by officers of the Ceremonial and Hospitality Branch to the Joint Services Ceremonial Sub-Committee, which in turn has passed on their appreciation to the Guard Commander. At the end of the year it is intended to express appreciation of the magnificent contribution of various units of the three Services in a more formal manner to the Chiefs of the Naval General and Air Staffs, for passing on by them to the units under their command. (Question No. 1266) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, 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 Dawkins —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (1) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) $58,024.69. (d) Nil. (e) Nil. (2) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) $25,000. (d) Nil. (e) Nil. AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT BENEFITS OFFICE (1) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) $1,937.36. (d) Nil. (e) Nil. (2) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) $4,000. (d) Nil. (e) Nil. (Question No. 1289) Mr Downer asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 October 1988: How is his public promotion of the Wizard racing magazine and the Private Blood Bank consistent with the guidelines he outlined in his answer to question No. 1037 (Hansard, 30 August 1988, page 652) concerning Ministers promoting commercial enterprises or products. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There are no inconsistencies between the matters referred to and my answer to question No. 1037. (Question No. 1163) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: (1) How many of the 40,000 new higher education places to be created in the 1988-91 triennium will be created each financial year. (2) How will the places be distributed between the States. (3) What sum of the $450m to be spent on capital funds in the 1988-91 triennium will be spent each financial year. (4) What projection has the Government prepared for revenue to be gained from its proposed graduate income tax for each financial year until 1992-93. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As the Commonwealth's higher education programs are funded on a calendar year basis, I am providing the information requested in calendar year terms. (1) An estimate of the higher education places to be funded in each year of the 1989-91 triennium, additional to 1988 levels, is: 1989 1990 1991 12,000 26,000 40,000 (2) The distribution of places between the States and to individual institutions will be determined by the Government in October/November 1988 following the completion of consultations, involving my Department and the Higher Education Council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET), with institutions and State authorities. (3) Capital grants over the 1989-91 triennium, in December 1987 prices, are: 1989 1990 1991 ($m) ($m) ($m) 126.7 145.4 177.2 (4) The revenue expected to be raised from the Higher Education Contribution Scheme to 1993, in December 1987 prices, is: 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) ($m) 83 98 126 167 212 (Question No. 1197) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) Did he write to the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled (ACROD), responding to earlier letters and submissions from ACROD, stating that the Budget provision for the Disability Services Program for 1987-88 was increased over the previous year from $135.2m to $160.9m. (2) How did this figure of $160.9m become $148.8m as stated on page 157 of Budget Paper No. 1. (3) How many persons will be affected by the decision of the Government to reduce the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Training Allowance, as announced in the 1988-89 Budget. (4) How did he derive the figure of 600 persons being affected by this move, as stated in a departmental document distributed amongst industry representatives to supplement the Budget Papers. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Minister for Housing and Aged Care wrote to ACROD on 12 August 1988 regarding Budget matters and advised the figures quoted by the honourable member. (2) The figure of $160.9m included an amount of $10m for expenditure by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) program for costs associated with client services. The 1987-88 Budget provision under the Disability Services Program Appropriation Item, which does not cover rehabilitation services expenditure, was $150.9m. The amount of $148.8m shown in Budget Paper No. 1 was the appropriation item expenditure for the Disability Services Program, following a supplementation for National Wage Case movements and the transfer of $2.5m from the Item for payment to State and Territory housing authorities to assist in housing attendant care applicants. Rehabilitation services expenditure is now defined separately from Disability Services Program outlays following refinement of the program budgeting structure. (3) I estimate that, of the persons currently in training courses, 600 will continue into 1989 and will be affected by the decision to reduce the Training Allowance from 1 January 1989. (4) The figure of 600 was a Departmental estimate of the number of CRS clients who were in training at that time and would continue into 1989. (Question No. 1229) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 28 September 1988: (1) When will the National Resources Information Centre (NRIC) be established. (2) Where will NRIC be located. (3) How many members will the advisory committee to the centre have. (4) Who will be the members of the advisory committee and how will they be selected. (5) How many meetings each year are envisaged for the advisory committee and where will they be conducted. (6) To what extent will the role of the NRIC duplicate or affect that of the Bureau of Rural Resources and the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Resources Information Centre (NRIC) was established on July 1 1988 as outlined in the May Budget Statement. (2) It is located in the offices of the Bureau of Rural Resources at John Curtin House, Brisbane Avenue, Barton. (3) While the numbers have not been finalised, the advisory committee, to be hereafter called the advisory council, will consist of representatives from each state together with relevant Commonwealth Departments and any technical experts required. (4) State and Commonwealth representatives will be selected by their respective organisations. Technical experts will be selected as relevant at the Minister's discretion. (5) It is envisaged that the Council will meet twice yearly in Canberra. (6) NRIC is designed to expand and complement the existing facilities and expertise of the Bureau of Mineral Resources and Bureau of Rural Resources. By increasing access to relevant resource data within Australia, it will improve the information base for the policy and decision making processes of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy in natural resource management issues. (Question No. 1237) Mr MacKellar asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 October 1988: To which positions does Cabinet make appointments. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Cabinet considers for approval Government appointments or re-appointments in the following categories: positions on major boards, commissions and authorities and to statutory offices other than those established by Territorial Ordinances; Secretaries of departments and to full-time executive positions at comparable levels in statutory authorities and similar instrumentalities; other full-time senior executive positions in major statutory authorities, particularly where there are only part-time office holders; acting appointments within the categories outlined above, where the nominee is being proposed for the first time or where the acting appointment will be of substantial duration (that is, three months or more); and other appointments, including non-statutory appointments where issues of national or political significance are involved or where a Minister judges it necessary to be considered by Cabinet. (2) Appointments approved by Cabinet are made either by the Governor-General in Council or a Minister. (3) Information on procedures for submitting appointments for approval by Cabinet is set out in Chapter Seven of the Cabinet Handbook. (Question No. 1296) Mr McGauran asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 1 November 1988: (1) Where are the 50 temporary facilities around Australia to provide secure storage for low-level radioactive waste. (2) What is the volume of radioactive waste stored in each of those facilities. (3) What security is provided at each facility. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to the Report ``Investigation of National Storage and Burial Facilities for Radioactive Wastes Arising from the Medical, Industrial and Research Use of Radionuclides in Australia'' prepared by a Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee. A copy of the report is available from the Parliamentary Library.