Thursday, 24 November 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 Pharmaceutical drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-and place them for cost saving reasons only on a special list requiring Authority from a Canberra bureaucrat, and; that we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to seek permission from a bureaucrat in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann (from 162 citizens), Mr Andrew (from 54 citizens), Mr Beale (from 289 citizens), Mr Bilney (from 162 citizens), Mr Brumby (from 214 citizens), Mr Cadman (from 15 citizens), Mr Donald Cameron (from 15 citizens), Mr Ian Cameron (from 160 citizens), Mr Cohen (from 27 citizens), Mr Cowan (from 54 citizens), Mr Downer (from 152 citizens), Dr Harry Edwards (from 54 citizens), Mr Tim Fischer (from 26 citizens), Mr Fitzgibbon (from 41 citizens), Mr Griffiths (from 27 citizens), Mr Hand (from 48 citizens), Mr Hicks (from 159 citizens), Mr Barry Jones (from 27 citizens), Mr Jull (from 213 citizens), Mr Katter (from 27 citizens), Mrs Kelly (from 27 citizens), Mr Lamb (from 28 citizens), Mr Lee (from 27 citizens), Mr Lloyd (from 81 citizens), Mr Macphee (from 54 citizens), Mr Millar (from 216 citizens), Mr Mountford (from 54 citizens), Mr Nehl (from 67 citizens), Mr Porter (from 69 citizens), Mr Pratt (from 71 citizens), Mr Reith (from 525 citizens), Mr Robinson (from 27 citizens), Mr Rocher (from 21 citizens), Mr Sawford (from 27 citizens), Mr John Scott (from 108 citizens), Mr Shack (from 304 citizens), Mr Sharp (from 27 citizens), Mr Simmons (from 83 citizens), Mr Smith (from 160 citizens), Mr Spender (from 27 citizens) and Mrs Sullivan (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that there is too much crime and violence on Television and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to call on the Federal Government to require Television Stations to improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programmes by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. by Mr Burr (from 42 citizens) and Mr Miles (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Lyne electorate respectfully showeth that: There is too much crime and violence on TV and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Urge TV stations to clean up their act and improve the standards of shows, news and current affairs programs by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whilst acknowledging the Government's desire to contain the growth in health costs, the introduction of 61 new drugs to the `Authority Required' listing will result in potentially serious delays in patients receiving medication prescribed by their doctors. Your petitioners request the House to immediately reverse the Government's decision and withdraw these drugs from the `Authorities Required' list. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron (from 130 citizens) and Mr Macphee (from 62 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: Alcohol is recognised as Australia's number one drug problem which is responsible for at least 50% of all road fatalities; a high percentage of serious crime and vandalism. Hospital beds are filled with sufferers of the many alcohol related diseases including: cirrhosis of the liver; heart disease; stomach ulcers; various forms of cancer and mental illness. Alcohol causes much family unhappiness and marriage breakdown, as well as being involved in some cases of child abuse and molestation. Television and radio have a persuasive effect on children and young people. Your petitioners therefore request the House to ban all advertising of alcohol on television and radio. by Ms Jakobsen (from 657) citizens) and Mr Miles (from 559 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, request that the last line in each chorus of the National Song be altered from: Advance Australia Fair to God Bless Australia Fair. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby (from 93 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House their concern at the imminent prospect of imported cement and clinker being dumped on the Australian market, as it would lead to widespread disruption and extensive loss of Australian jobs. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to call on the Federal Government to take immediate action to prevent dumped cement and clinker being imported into Australia. by Mr Burr (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Mitchell draws to the attention of the House the constant changes to retirement and veterans benefits. Your petitioners therefore request the House to reject the Federal Government's punitive treatment of those who have prepared for retirement by careful saving and wise investment. by Mr Cadman (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We are gravely concerned at the Government's proposal to reduce significantly the pension and access to fringe benefits of persons who in good faith bought market linked insurance bonds, friendly society bonds, approved deposit funds, deferred annuities and unit trusts to protect their savings. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, amend the proposed legislation to ensure that it will not apply retrospectively and that provision is made to protect savings against inflation. by Mr Cowan (from 419 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain parents and staff of subsidised child care centres, call on the House of Representatives to urge the Government to continue to allow government subsidised child care centres to assess family income for fee relief purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That the Australian Parliament expresses its repugnance that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has kept imprisoned, 47 Buddhist leaders since 1984. And further, that the regime in Vietnam has recently tried and sentenced to death Thich Tri Sieu and Thich Tue Sy, two distinguished scholars from amongst the 47. Both of these religious academics are intellectuals of the highest order, being scholars in Buddhist Scripture. Your petitioners therefore request the House to denounce the intentions of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and to call on the Vietnamese Government for clemency and a remission of the death sentence as being barbaric. by Mr Duffy (from 37 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned do humbly and earnestly beseech the Parliament to use their best endeavours and influence to persuade the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to rescind the sentence of death passed by the Court of The Socialist Republic of Vietnam in Saigon on Nguyen Van Thuong, a Professor of the University of Saigon and noted author who is known as the Buddhist Monk Thich Tue Sy and Le Manh Thac, a Professor of history, and Buddhist Monk whose ordained name is Thich Tri Sieu and in support of our petition we do beg the Honourable members to be aware that these two senior Buddhist Monks are men of great integrity and personal academic ability such as to be enshrined in the hearts of Buddhists all over the world as shining examples of the teaching of our Lord Buddha. As living examples they provide teaching and guidance to millions of devoted Buddhists. Their execution will very greatly affect the Buddhist faithful all over the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Duffy (from 585 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: The video industry has no right to promote anti-social behaviour Community and professional concern has been publicly expressed over video violence and anti-social content. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House ban the hire and sale of all R-rated, X-rated and proposed Non-violent Erotica rated videos from all outlets patronised by the general public. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the Australian Labor Government has proposed to introduce new rules for pension eligibility that will disadvantage many pensioners. The new rules are unacceptable in that they penalise pensioners with existing investments, encourage pensioners to invest in inappropriate or non income earning investments and discourage people from saving for their retirement. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House review the proposed changes to rules for pension eligibility. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: Jesus Christ personifies the perfect standard of behaviour and ideals for humanity as set out in Holy Scripture: Any attack on the perfection of Jesus Christ is a vilification of Christ, and of Jehovah as portrayed in the Scriptures, and Who is worshipped on the basis of Scriptural portrayal: The film, ``The Last Temptation of Christ'', is just such an attack on the basics of the values held by many Australian citizens. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House immediately act to have the film banned from Australia and so cease to condone the public vilification of Christian ethics. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 550 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: Television programs after 8.30 pm are suitable for adults and are unsuitable for family viewing Present television standards do not take into account the reality of family television viewing Children under 15 years of age are often still watching television until 9.00 pm. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House require television stations to refrain from showing any adult material or adult advertising until after 9.00 pm. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that The Federal Government has reaped an unprecedented amount of revenue in taxation recently, over and above expectations; PAYE taxpayers are losing one quarter and more of earnings through direct tax deductions; Sales taxes which are charged on a vast range of everyday goods and necessities add to the taxes already imposed on wage earners; The range of compulsory licences, fees, and charges imposed by governments and statutory authorities further erode family disposable incomes. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House immediately reduce PAYE taxes and all Sales Taxes by one third and hold all Government and Statutory Authority charges at the current level for a minimum four-year period. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 175 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House There is too much crime and violence on TV and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House compel TV stations to improve the standards of shows, new and current affairs programs by reducing the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes, by fifty per cent. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned voters shows: that the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a high rate of serious disease such as syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis B and bowel diseases; that the incurable, fatal disease AIDS was first brought to Australia by homosexuals and is largely transmitted by homosexuals or bisexuals who practise sodomy; the homosexual cohabitation is in no way equivalent to a legal marriage or family relationship Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives should: immediately request the Minister for Immigration to forbid entry to Australia by homosexuals under the ``family reunion'' program. by Mr Hawker (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification. call upon the House of Representatives to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X rated video material (and its R rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker (from 614 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Wannon electorate respectfully showeth that: There is too much crime and violence on TV and depicted in videos and this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. Urge TV stations to reduce the incidence of crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. 2. Introduce tighter controls on the sale and classification of videos so as to limit the access of children to inappropriate material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker (from 560 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Merino and district draws to the attention of the House that a reduction in Government funding has caused a financial crisis for the Merino Bush Nursing Hospital. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House ensures that the Merino Bush Nursing Hospital is able to continue its vital role in the Merino community. by Mr Hawker (from 247 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: Following the recent uncontrolled shootings in Melbourne, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: About the evil caused by the fact that X-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra, and are freely available, not only at video outlets. And your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. We also express concern that the Senate Select Committee formed three years ago to investigate this problem, has so far, not produced a report. The laws regarding obscenity and violence in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker (from 250 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the inadequacy of the current arrangement whereby no full-time office of the Department of Social Security exists in the Upper Hunter Region of New South Wales to serve the people of the area (the Upper Hunter Region being defined as the Local Government Areas of Murrurundi, Scone, Muswellbrook, Merriwa and Singleton). Instead the area is served by a part-time visiting service which only provides a service to the towns of Singleton and Muswellbrook on one day per week in each town. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House consider the establishment of a full-time office in the town of Muswellbrook to serve the Upper Hunter Region. by Mr Hunt (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of ``food irradiation'' by Cobalt 60, Cesium 137, cesium 134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. We call on the House to ban the importation of any radioactive substances, or machinery for the purposes of food irradiation; disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in this country; ban the irradiation of food in this country; and also ban the importation of food treated by irradiation. We also call upon the House to request the Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Cooperative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. by Mr Kerr (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia humbly suggests the area known as Western Tasmania Stage 2, containing Australia's longest and deepest caves, sites of international archaeological significance, Australia's most glaciated landscape, and the tallest flowering plants on earth, is in urgent need of protection. Your petitioners therefore request that Western Tasmania Stage 2 be immediately nominated for World Heritage listing. by Mr Langmore (from 319 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. (5) They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of we, the undersigned electors of Ballarat respectfully showeth that: 1. roads form a valuable part of the nation's infrastructure; 2. the road construction industry is an important employer; 3. roads support the social fabric of country communities; 4. roads are a vital part of a district's commerce; 5. country roads are deteriorating; 6. deteriorating roads threaten the lives of Australians; 7. road surface maintenance affects the efficiency of road transport; 8. insufficient funds are being spent on roads. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. the Parliament recognise the importance of roads to the economy; 2. the importance of roads to country people; 3. the Parliament increase funding to maintain the road system; and 4. grant a greater proportion of fuel taxes to road funding; 5. the Parliament continue to grant specific Federal Funds for roads. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mildren (from 70 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: 1. there is a need for continuing reconciliation between Aboriginal and other Australians to enhance the unity of the Australian nation. 2. the Federal Government proposes a ``Treaty'' between Aboriginal and other Australians. 3. as a ``Treaty'' is an agreement between two sovereign states, such an agreement would recognise Aborigines and other Australians as two separate nations and thereby divide Australia and set back prospects for reconciliation. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House opposed the conclusion of a Treaty between Aboriginal and other Australians or any proposal which divides rather than unites Australia. by Mr Miles (from 109 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of Tasmania draws to the attention of the House the concern of certain citizens at the possibility that the film `The Last Temptation of Christ' will be permitted to enter Australia for screening. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House rejects the entry into Australia of the film `The Last Temptation of Christ', which has been described as blasphemous by Christians in other countries. by Mr Miles (from 140 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of certain electors of the Division of Braddon draws the attention of the House to the proposal to close the Burnie Office of the Australian Electoral Commission. We believe: 1. That the proposed closure is not in the best interests of democracy. 2. That closure will further erode jobs in regional areas of Australia. 3. That we oppose the further centralisation of government services at the expense of rural and isolated communities. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will oppose the closure. by Mr Miles (from 66 citizens). To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The Petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the plan proposed by the Government of Rumania, to re-structure the Rumanian countryside. Some 7000 villages, many of them in Transylvania, at this time still occupied by the descendants of those Hungarian-extraction citizens of Rumania, whose ancestors lived there for over 1,000 years, are earmarked for total destruction. The Rumanian Government's intention is, that no trace of such inhabitation remain. The reasons proposed for the destruction, that is: to ``provide arable land'', is nothing but a ruse. Your petitioners therefore respectfully urge the house, to ask the Australian Government, to call on Rumania to forthwith desist from any action envisaged in the bulldozer-policy. Rumania signed many international instruments which provided guarantees to the human rights and the rights of the minorities living in Rumania. Now the rights of all people living in the 7000 Villages are in danger, of not only being eroded, but irrevocably destroyed. The destruction would not only affect homes, the monuments, the cemeteries and the churches, some 9024 (!) churches of many denominations, would disappear forever. by Mr Rocher (from 64 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strenuously object to the proposal that the post office at Dundas N.S.W. be closed. The post office is a vital community service and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, banking, payment of various accounts the post office accepts and to collect our articles, parcels, security and certified items. Many of us have small children or are elderly. The next nearest post office cannot be reached by public transport and the cost of public transport to an office further afield is a financial burden to those of us who are pensioners or have young families. We maintain that the purpose of post offices should be to provide an essential service to the public and offer as many services as they can and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the house can take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Dundas agency, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock (from 2,114 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of Parliament assembled the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: 1. That we are extremely concerned over the discovery of the bacteria Listeria Monocytogenes in imported cheese found in Australia. The bacteria has been identified with deaths in America and Switzerland and can cause abortion in pregnant women, meningitis and perinatal septicaemia in newborn infants. 2. That the work of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in sample testing and analysis of food products has been severely reduced due to ill considered budget cutbacks. 3. That the public interest functions of A.G.L. have been put in jeopardy through these budget cutbacks and through a failure to establish a compulsory programs of regular testing of both imported and domestic food products. Your petitioners therefore call on the House to- (a) Give the highest priority to establishing the public interest functions of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. (b) Require the Departments of Primary Industry and Energy and Health to put in place a regular compulsory program of analysis and testing of food products, both imported and domestic. (c) Require that such testing be conducted through the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. by Mr John Scott (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will not adopt an N.V.E. Video classification, that N.V.E. will not be permitted in cinemas, that section 13 of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations remain as it is, and that ALL Censorship criteria be controlled by substantive legislation; in order that NO Attorney General shall ever again have the power to change our social and home environment for generations to come, without thorough and full debate in both Houses of Parliament, because the A.C.T. Ordinance has degraded men the A.C.T. Ordinance has lowered the status of women the A.C.T. Ordinance has affected the safety of children the A.C.T. Ordinance has escalated crime and sexual crime and because Parliament has a role to play in the well-being of the people of this Nation, of far greater importance than rapacious Multi-nationals. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give these matters your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shack (from two citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of citizens of Australia points out to the House that the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 has legalised the screening of blasphemy, indecency, and obscenity. Because Parliament has traditionally respected the beliefs of its people, your petitioners therefore request that the House: 1. retain section 13 of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulation as is; 2. control all censorship criteria and guidelines by substantive legislation; 3. give earnest consideration to these matters, in order that no Attorney-General shall ever again have the power to change our social and home environment for generations to come, without full and thorough debate in both Houses of Parliament. by Mr Shack (from 146 citizens). To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The undersigned are gravely concerned about the proposed changes to the Customs Act and regulations regarding the export of military equipment. We understand that these changes: will impose a threat to human rights as they restrict the Government's ability to prevent sales should the final destination be in doubt; will harm the integrity and international reputation of Australia as a peace loving nation, having a record of long-standing opposition to exports of military equipment; will allow Australian producers to join the arms race, which is clearly a wasteful and costly exercise and is abhorrent to us; will increase the possibility of foreign military investment in Australia, which is also abhorrent to us; are generally immoral and, as such, impose moral costs upon Australian citizens which outweigh any benefits based on economic principles. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in the Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: maintain the Customs Act in its present form which regulates the export of military equipment and to oppose any further expansion of Australia's military equipment industry. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair (from 184 citizens). To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petitioners wish to draw attention to the inadequate nature of the postal service in the Pipers River Road area of Tasmania. We call for the introduction of a five times weekly delivery of mail in this area in order to properly service the growing requirements of the residents. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith (from 69 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: We, the undersigned citizens, ask that the manufacture and sale of toys of war and violence be banned in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples (from 268 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House- That we welcome the Government's increasing the Pensioner Tax Rebate to $430 but point out this still leaves the allowable earnings before tax has to be paid to be less than applied in March 1983 and by June next year will be very small indeed. We also point out that the pension has not increased in real terms since 1983 and the six weeks delay from May and November to June and December further deprives pensioners of their just entitlements. We therefore call on the Parliament to: 1. To immediately restore the May/November adjustment dates for the pension and move quickly to implement the Government's promise of 1983 to reduce the delay to only one month. 2. To increase the Pensioner Tax Rebate to $800 and index this rebate. Your petitioners therefore in duty pray. by Mrs Sullivan (from 684 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Moncrieff draws to the attention of the House the absence of a Medicare facility in the Runaway Bay and Helensvale districts, Your petitioners therefore pray that the House urgently look into establishing a Medicare facility as soon as is possible. by Mrs Sullivan (from 263 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws the attention of the House to the public concern over the creation of human embryos for the specific purpose of fatal experimental research. The citizens are concerned that human life is deliberately being created with the premeditated intention to destroy it. They believe that this is a gross breach of the responsibility that each member of the human race has to another to ensure life is allowed to thrive and develop according to nature. Your petitioners therefore request that the House do all in its power to ban the creation of embryos for the specific purpose of life destroying research. by Dr Woods (from 31 citizens). Petitions received. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(10.09) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Community Affairs, I present the Committee's report on counselling and ancillary services for Vietnam veterans, together with the minutes of proceedings and the evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr O'KEEFE —This is the first report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs. Its choice of this reference, the services provided to Vietnam veterans, reflects the importance of the subject to members of the Committee. It was never intended to question the merits of the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service but rather, through it, to gain direction on the best way to provide more assistance to Vietnam veterans and to their families. It became clear to the Committee that the Counselling Service has developed a strong bond of trust and acceptance. In some instances it is the only instrument of government in which some veterans maintain confidence. In total the Committee received 120 submissions and held six formal public hearings. We visited all the capital cities and a number of regional centres to hold informal meetings and discussions with over 300 veterans and their families. At the outset it should be emphasised that the majority of Vietnam veterans have made a successful transition from service to civilian life. However, this has not been easy and many veterans still experience health, social and other problems stemming from their involvement in Vietnam and its aftermath. The Committee has made 27 recommendations to the Government to improve and expand the services offered to veterans and their families. I will not expand on them now because they are clearly set out in the report, which is to become a public document. However, we have recommended that the Counselling Service be given greater independence and a substantial increase in staffing levels. I wish to place on record my thanks to my fellow Committee members for their interest and the efforts they have put into this work. We wish to convey our appreciation of the efforts of our Committee secretariat. Mr Nordin and his staff have been required to liaise with many groups and organisations. They have had to handle a large volume of personal and sensitive material. They have conducted themselves patiently and professionally in this process, for which they have our thanks. A number of Committee members want to speak on this report, so I conclude by thanking the many veterans and family members who made personal submissions and who attended informal meetings at various centres. Many of these discussions were intense and distressing. However, they gave the Committee the opportunity to experience at first hand the depth of concern and feeling which exists. Above all, the Committee acknowledges that although Vietnam veterans and their families are in need of support, primarily they want to help themselves. The Committee believes that the adoption of its report will greatly assist this process and looks to the Government to respond positively to it. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.13) —As a Vietnam veteran and as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, it was a privilege to serve on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs. I believe that by degrees, veterans, including Vietnam veterans, will be fortified by the contents of the report. I commend all who have been involved with the Committee, including the Chairman, the staff and the many veterans who came forward, including Mr Tim McCombe of the Vietnam Veterans' Association, who is in the gallery today. They provided to the Committee their thoughts, concerns, practical suggestions and submissions in relation to the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service. There are many remaining problems associated not only with Vietnam veterans but also with veterans of Malaya and Korea, whose contribution and sacrifice are quite often overlooked. There are also veterans of World War II, World War I and the other conflicts in which Australia has been involved. In times of need, veterans in country areas have difficulties getting access to many of the support services provided by the various departments and organisations. It is especially so in places such as northern Queensland and many other country areas. I commend the fact that the report is very positive about this aspect, with particular reference to my own electorate in the location of Albury-Wodonga. I especially commend that recommendation to the Government. I say to the nation, in relation to and following upon the tabling of this report about strengthening the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service: You are extending increasing understanding to veterans. For that I express my thanks. But please continue to expand that understanding and that sympathy because it is needed, not only for Vietnam veterans but also for veterans of other conflicts, in Malaysia and Korea, veterans from World War II, World War I and other activities in which Australian service personnel have been involved overseas, including the five groups of Australians overseas at this very time-a fact which is quite often overlooked. Of all veterans, I would simply say this: We were sent by our country; we served our country; we did our best. We remember those who did not return, and we should continue to remember in a positive and helpful way those who have returned. This report is a step in that direction, particularly for those veterans who live outside the capital cities. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.16) —It gives me enormous pleasure to be one of those speaking endorsing this report, as it did to be a member of the Committee. I think it is important that even though there have been many previous inquiries into counselling services for Vietnam veterans, the 120 submissions that our Chairman referred to and the many people who came before us reflected the importance and justified the need for this particular inquiry, and all the recommendations again are a justification for that inquiry. As the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) said, throughout the period of the inquiry we met many dedicated people, people who have never stopped working for the veterans, whose needs they understand so well, and indeed, for the families of the veterans. I, too, mention Tim McCombe, now the National President of the Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia, because he, to me, represents those people who have worked so long on behalf of the veterans. I first met Tim McCombe before I was a member of parliament, when he and many others, such as the late and well remembered Phil Thompson, were appealing to the Government to consider the needs of veterans. For someone like me, who was always a passionate opponent of the war in Vietnam, it was extremely important that I had an opportunity to show my dedication to the people who went to fight in that war. It has often been said that they did not get the recognition that they deserve. One of the recommendations in the report harks back to those days when Phil Thompson, Tim McCombe and others were appealing to the Government on behalf of their fellow veterans. Substantial concern continues to exist in the Vietnam veteran community about the effects of Agent Orange and other chemicals used in Vietnam. Amongst all the other very constructive recommendations I refer to just two. Paragraph 5.65 states: The Committee recommends that an experienced research officer be seconded to the National Office of the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service to identify the specific research needs in this field- chemical agents- and to assist the National Director in co-ordinating and conducting this research. Paragraph 5.66 states: In addition, the Committee recommends that the National Office of the Vietnam Veterans' Counsel- ling Service take a leading role in monitoring the emerging data on the effects of exposure to chemicals in Vietnam. We will be many years repaying to the servicemen in Vietnam the debt we owe them. Mrs HARVEY(Hawker)(10.19) —It is a pleasure for me to endorse the comments of my colleagues on this report from the Standing Committee on Community Affairs on the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service. As a member of that Committee, I found the inquiry very interesting and informative and also something of an eye opener. I suppose the most striking realisation for me was that the problems which many Vietnam veterans have now and have had since their return are due as much to what happened after they returned as to what happened in the theatre of war. The Vietnam war was an unpopular war and in the end it was a lost war. Veterans on their return were not treated as conquering heroes as other veterans have been and they were not feted with march pasts and flag waving and cheering. They were in many cases spirited back into the country in the middle of the night. They were told to get out of their uniforms as fast as possible and forget they had ever been there. This kind of treatment, this kind of reaction, led to anger and frustration in many cases and suppression of feelings which have later manifested themselves in many psychological and social problems, depression and aggression and marital and employment problems in particular. It is good to see that in the past year or so many Vietnam veterans have admitted that they are veterans, coming out of the closet so to speak. Of particular interest to me were our dealings with the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service in Adelaide. The director, Glen Edwards, and staff are doing a wonderful job in dealing with any problems that Vietnam veterans in Adelaide may have. In particular, I commend that service for one innovation, namely, the after hours telephone counselling service. As we all know, crises do not usually occur from Monday to Friday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.; they tend to occur at night and over the weekend. This telephone counselling service has been invaluable to veterans in Adelaide. It is staffed principally by Vietnam veterans who have had some sort of counselling training and who refer the veteran to a professional counsellor. It is very pleasing that one of the recommendations of the report is that that service be extended to other States. I thank the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), for his competent and conscientious chairmanship, and I also thank the Committee staff, who are in the House today. Mr DUBOIS(St George)(10.21) —It is significant that the first report of the Standing Committee on Community Affairs relates to the Inquiry Into Counselling and Ancillary Services for Vietnam Veterans. All members of this Committee shared a concern for the welfare of these veterans and gave this matter our top priority. The report makes certain recommendations on how the support services for Vietnam veterans could be strengthened. The difficulties that our Vietnam veterans faced when they came home have hardly been documented. They were not welcomed home as heroes. In fact, their welcome home march had to wait 15 years until October 1987. They did the job given to them by the government of the day. The odium that should have been that Government's alone was somehow initially extended to the veterans. Sadly, some did not return, and those who did come home faced unique problems that were different from those faced by the veterans of World War I and World War II. It took some time before the Returned Services League (RSL) accepted them as returned servicemen. The veterans felt that they had come home to an ungrateful people and were shunned for having done their duty. They had to rebuild their lives and, of course, some coped better than others. Various support services were established to help them. Commendable as these services are, the Committee believes that they can be expanded and improved. I was impressed by the people who addressed the Committee and their constructive approach. They always had the interests of the veterans at heart. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce that a national memorial to the Australian Vietnam forces would be built. I believe that is timely recognition. I hope that the Government will respond quickly and positively to the recommendations contained in this report. I would like to add my recognition of the role that the Chairman, the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), played in this Committee and I thank the staff of the Committee. Mr SCIACCA(Bowman)(10.23) —I was very happy to be associated with the Standing Committee on Community Affairs and its inquiry into the services conducted by the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service. In fact, I have some personal experience in the sense that I was one of those who was lucky, or unlucky, in that my number did not come out of the barrel. Those who were born on 13 June were not called up and those who were born on 12 June were called up. This was the first inquiry in which I had participated, and I had a personal interest; a very good friend of mine, a member of my own Party, died recently at the age of 39 as a result of injuries and sickness that he claimed he sustained as a result of the Vietnam war. I accept that that was the case. I also have many friends from that vintage. One can say that I am of the Vietnam war vintage although, as the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) said, I was also an avid opponent of the Vietnam war. The Committee listened to many people. Some veterans came back without problems, but many did not and it is those who came back with problems, psychological or otherwise, who must be considered. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) made a very good contribution, and I commend the report. I commend the staff as well; they were fantastic. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.25) —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters I present the Committee's report relating to the report on the efficiency scrutiny into regionalisation within the Australian Electoral Commission. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LEE —This is the second report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The report is concerned with the organisational structure of the Australian Electoral Commission and, in particular, whether the Commission should continue to have 148 divisional offices. The report is of vital interest to all members of the Federal Parliament and indeed all voters. The report details the Committee's findings from its inquiry into a 1987 efficiency scrutiny of the divisional structure of the Electoral Commission. The scrutiny was conducted by Dianne Saunders, the Deputy Australian Electoral Officer for Victoria, and recommended that up to seven divisional offices be amalgamated to form regional offices to reduce costs and allow office computerisation to take place. The Committee's report is called Is this where I pay the electricity bill? This title may seem a little strange but I shall explain its origin. During the inquiry the Efficiency Scrutineer, Dianne Saunders, told the Committee: If you go around the divisional offices to talk to staff about something, it is most unusual for somebody to come into the office. They are often there to pay the electricity bill anyway-they have mistaken us for the electricity commission. In fact, we had the official opening of the new office for the division of McEwen when the new division was set up, and we were all there with Lady McEwen and various members to have the official opening ceremony, and a gentleman walked in saying, `Is this where I pay the electricity bill?'! This anecdote typifies the difficulty that many Australians have in understanding the role of the Electoral Commission. Submissions and evidence received by the Committee have shown there to be clear differences of opinion between the Electoral Commission, the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA), divisional returning officers (DROs) and others as to the best organisational structure for the Electoral Commission. While the Electoral Commissioner, Dr Colin Hughes, and other senior staff of the Commission have argued strongly in favour of regionalising the Commission's divisional offices, most of the submissions and evidence received by the Committee have argued for a continuation of the status quo. In its inquiry the Committee has considered a number of important issues. The issue of computers in the Electoral Commission has been of particular concern and the Committee has found there to be an urgent need for the Electoral Commission to make better use of modern computer systems. The Committee believes it is a serious deficiency in the Commission that its existing computer systems cannot cope with all the demands placed upon them and that some systems such as finance and personnel systems are not computerised. The Committee has concluded that as a matter of priority the Australian Electoral Commission must pursue the acquisition of modern computer equipment and the Committee has made two recommendations in this area. First, the Committee recommends that the Australian Electoral Commission seek independent external advice on the computer equipment and systems needed in the Commission's offices which would enable the Commission to best achieve its goals. Secondly, the Committee recommends that the Australian Electoral Commission adopt a more determined approach in seeking funds from the Government for the purpose of acquiring the modern computer equipment and systems it needs. However, the Committee's major recommendations relate to the organisation of the Commission's divisional offices. In reaching its conclusions and recommendations on regionalisation the Committee has sought to consider broad issues rather than examine electorates on a case by case basis. The ACOA, DROs and some parliamentarians argued that having an Electoral Commission Office in each division provided a more convenient service to electors and ensured DROs had better local knowledge. The Committee believes that in some, but not all, cases DROs have developed extensive local knowledge under the existing divisional office structure. However, a regional office structure should not preclude staff from gaining local knowledge. The Committee understands from evidence received during its inquiry that in most divisional offices no more than 15 electors visit the office during a typical week and that most enquiries are dealt with by telephone or by mail. The Committee concluded that regionalisation of up to three divisional offices in metropolitan areas would not seriously affect roll maintenance, election management or service to electors because of the transport and communications services which are available in these areas. However, the Committee concluded that regionalisation should not proceed in rural areas because of the great distances involved and the resulting transport and communications barriers which would affect service to electors and election management. While the Committee has been presented with different regionalisation schemes it has had no desire to draft specific proposals for the regionalisation of metropolitan offices. The Committee believes the task of formulating a final regionalisation scheme to be the responsibility of the Australian Electoral Commission and the Government. However, the Committee may wish to comment on the Electoral Commission's future proposal for regionalisation. The Committee has, therefore, recommended that regionalisation of the Australian Electoral Commission's divisional offices occur only in metropolitan areas. The regional offices should be formed by the combination of up to three divisional offices. The Committee recommends that senior staff within a metropolitan regional office at the administrative service officer 4, 5, or 6 level have continuing responsibility for specific divisions and be designated as divisional returning officers for specific divisions. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the Committee's inquiry and, in particular, the Electoral Commissioner, Dr Colin Hughes; the Efficiency Scrutineer, Dianne Saunders; and those DROs who made submissions to the Committee. Similarly, the Committee also thanks Julie Pagonis from the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and members of this Parliament for their contribution. The Committee is grateful for the work undertaken by its staff and, on behalf of the Committee, I thank Mrs Helen Misa, who is in the gallery today, Mrs Lexia Noakes and Trevor Rowe, the Committee's Secretary. In closing I mention that this report is a unanimous report. I thank all members of the Committee, including the Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), and other members for their cooperation in finalising this report. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.31) —It is with considerable pleasure that I support the remarks of the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee). It was a pleasure to work on this very important report. People may think that a report into the administration of the Commonwealth Electoral Office is a fairly dry and fairly immaterial matter. It is not. It goes to the very heart of our system of democracy and it is something to which there should be a bipartisan approach. I am pleased to say that there was on this Committee inquiry. The report of the Committee-it was made up of representatives from all of the major parties in this Parliament-was a unanimous report. For that reason I support the Committee report. I would simply like to add emphasis to the Chairman's remarks and perhaps amplify one or two areas. Many people would think that the primary role of the divisional returning officer (DRO) is to maintain the electoral rolls. Of course, that is a very important responsibility but it is a long way from being the only responsibility of a DRO operating in our electoral system. Roll maintenance and roll review go on in the period between elections, as do a number of other functions. The Committee has recommended that there be no regionalisation or amalgamation in areas outside the metropolitan areas of Australia for a very good reason. Subsequent to the last election and also the recent referendum campaign, there has been criticism of the way the elections and the vote were conducted. The Commonwealth Electoral Commission has undertaken studies which have revealed inadequacies in its own procedures and revealed errors in the count. This is very serious. Whilst I do not want to overdramatise the consequences of these errors that have been revealed I want to say that it is important in a democracy that our system of determining the will of the people be above question and the people who are at the front line in determining that are the divisional returning officers of the Australian Electoral Commission. It is important that they are in a position to do their work well, efficiently and effectively. Over and above maintaining the roll, there is a responsibility on a divisional returning officer to ensure that the mechanics of a poll are working accurately and effectively. Of course, this means ensuring that the staff responsible on polling days are educated, experienced and informed; that there is a non-partisan approach on the part of those staff; that polling places are adequate and are appropriately sited; and that the people responsible for counting votes when they are cast know what they are doing. There is also a need to conduct an education function throughout the community. It is a far broader task than simply receiving enrolment claims, processing them and ensuring that the names go onto the list. For that reason I believe that our Committee has come down in its report with a recognition that, in the rural areas of Australia where the distances are great and the populations sparse, there is a need for a local identifiable officer to be responsible for a specific electoral division. If Australia were to move away from that concept, the system of democracy and voting that we have would be less acceptable to the community than it is at present. It is for that reason that I hope that the Government will recognise the validity of the arguments contained in this report, which have been supported unanimously, and accept our recommendations. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(10.35) —I would like to make a very brief statement in support of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The Australian Electoral Commission needed to look for ways in which it could increase the efficiency of its operation to meet its obligations under the 4 per cent second tier agreement. The Committee had some difficulty trying to decide on a role, and after much debate and thought we have reached a decision that does have strong bipartisan support-that is, that there be limited regionalisation in the cities. As the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has said, we found it hard to work out how we could not allow some regionalisation in the metropolitan areas if it was still possible to retain the unique role of the divisional returning officer. We saw country areas as being different, as having a specific focus in a regional centre and a community of interest. We felt that we would be changing the nature of the electoral office if we were to have any sort of regionalisation. I simply say that we have strong bipartisan support for limited regionalisation. We hope that the Government will take up the proposal. Motion (by Mr Lee) proposed: That the House take note of the report. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —In accordance with sessional order 102b, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(10.37) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, I present the Committee's report on the Canberra leasehold system. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LANGMORE —In April this year a reference covering all aspects of the Australian Capital Territory leasehold system was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for inquiry and report. The terms of reference also gave the Committee the power to consider and make use of Professor Max Neutze's paper entitled The Canberra Leasehold System which the former Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory had commissioned in 1987. In response to a growing perception that the administrators of the leasehold system were not using the strengths of the system effectively to ensure balanced harmonious redevelopment of Canberra, particularly in Civic, the Senate referred Professor Neutze's paper to its Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for inquiry and report also. The resolutions referring the matter to the respective standing committees also empowered the committees to sit as a joint subcommittee to consider the ACT leasehold system. This report was prepared by that joint subcommittee. The report, which includes a minority report, looks at the establishment and functions of the leasehold system, including reasons for leasehold, the concept of leasehold, the functions of leasehold tenure, as well as leases and lease ordinances and benefits of the leasehold system. Issues which the joint subcommittee addressed cover a range of specific aspects of the leasehold system, such as length of lease, responsibility for planning and estate management, role of lease administration and redevelopment, effects of plans on planning and development authorities, and private sector involvement. An area in which concern was expressed to the joint subcommittee was in the administration of the leasehold system. There was concern with the way the administration carried out its ground landlord role. Several areas where administrative reform is needed have been identified in chapter 4. These include amendments to lease purpose clauses, betterment, breach of purpose clauses, ordinance simplification and consolidation, and development rights. In the final chapter the joint subcommittee addressed the question of public participation. Public participation is the essence of the political process and it is necessary and vital to the effective functioning of Canberra's leasehold system of land tenure. There are three areas where public participation, openness and accountability can be enhanced in the operation of the leasehold system of land tenure. These are public participation in planning decisions under section 11a of the City Area Leases Ordinance, section 17 of the City Area Leases Ordinance, and section 72a of the Real Property Ordinance. The Committee has made 18 recommendations. In recommendation 1 the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth retain ownership of land in the ACT. Section 125 of the Australian Constitution states in part: The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, and shall be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth . . . The majority of the Committee recognises that Canberra land is part of the national heritage, to be safeguarded and used for the benefit of the nation, and also that it is of vital importance to residents. The leasehold system provides an effective means of reconciling these qualities. Leasehold has provided a structure for planned, orderly and predictable development and has prevented speculation. It has ensured certainty and lessees know they have an enforceable contract in which rights and obligations are clear. It is also clear from the rate of development and redevelopment that the claim by a few large developers that the leasehold system has been a disincentive to investors is nonsense. In recommendation 2 the Committee affirms the view that the leasehold system of property tenure provides an effective basis for land planning and management in the ACT and that it should be retained. The majority of the Committee believes that the system of public ownership of land with leasehold tenure has the capability to continue to serve the needs of the ACT at both the national and territorial level. However, there are weaknesses and deficiencies with the administration of the leasehold tenure system which has allowed Canberra land to be treated as the property of the lessees. These areas are identified in chapter 4, and recommendations 9 to 13 address these administrative weaknesses and deficiencies. The Committee also made recommendations on specific aspects of the leasehold system such as length of lease, responsibility for planning and estate management, role of lease administration and redevelopment, adherence to approved policy and development plans and private sector involvement. One area which directly touches most residents of Canberra is residential leases. The Committee was aware of the special consideration which residential leases merit. The desire to hand down one's home and property from one generation to the next is a feature of the Australian sentiment and culture. Residential leases in Canberra are granted for 99 years. At present these leases will be renewed at the end of their term without payment of a further premium. Although renewal of residential leases has taken place, there is no legislation to give effect to this. By amending the City Area Leases Ordinance to incorporate a statutory right of renewal of residential leases, residential leases would have the security of knowing that their leases will be renewed. Thus the majority of the Committee has recommended that the City Area Leases Ordinance be amended to provide for the automatic renewal of residential leases at the end of 99 years without further charge. The Committee's recommendation approximates residential leases in perpetuity, but the lease purpose clause still controls land use, and development rights are still clearly retained by the Commonwealth. There has been an ongoing argument that leases should be converted to leases in perpetuity. One of the difficulties with perpetual leasehold is that it is fraught with contractual problems. The proposal for leases in perpetuity has been pressed by those concerned about the attractiveness of Canberra for investment purposes. However, as I have already said, it is quite clear that the leasehold system has not been a disincentive to investment as some people have argued. The value of the leasehold system for developers is reflected in a statement made by the founder and then Managing Director of Lend Lease Corporation Ltd, Mr Dusseldorp. He said: As to the principle when they put it up for auction, not only did every bidder know exactly what he could and could not do with his particular site, but he also knew what everyone else-the other eleven owners in that particular block-could and could not do. One doesn't have to fear as to what is going to happen next door to him, what is going to happen in front of him. The majority of the Committee has recommended that leases should be for a term of years rather than in perpetuity. Residential leases should be for 99 years and non-residential leases should be for 99 years or shorter periods. Their renewal should be at the discretion of and on terms negotiated with the ground landlord, and will include the payment of a further premium. Four of the Committee's recommendations address public participation in planning decisions, public notification of changes to lease purpose and public information. There has been a lack of coordination and consultation between the planning and estate administration authorities. The Committee sounds a warning that in the planning and development of Canberra it must not be forgotten that Canberra is a national heritage to be safeguarded for all Australians. This is one of the major reasons why the majority of the Committee recommends the retention of the leasehold system of land tenure. I would like to express wholehearted appreciation to Professor Max Neutze, whose thorough, reasonable and judicious report led to this inquiry. I would also like to thank warmly all those who contributed to the inquiry through their submissions, and in particular to wholeheartedly acknowledge the able, accurate and efficient work of our secretary, Jane Vincent, and the other staff of the sub-committee secretariat, Glenice Castles and Jean Thompson. I commend the report to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.47) —I and some of my coalition colleagues have put in a minority report to this report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure on the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) leasehold system because we do not accept that the Commonwealth should maintain the leasehold system of property tenure for a limited life of 99 years for residential leases and 99 years or less for non-residential leases, as recommended in the report. Throughout Australia the concept of land tenure based on the principle of freehold has been widely accepted, particularly for residential property. Freehold tenure is an important element of our social and economic structure and, more than that, our national ethos. Australians have traditionally strongly opposed the concept of the nationalisation of land and that is the situation here in the ACT which is being supported by this report. Australians broadly accept that freehold provides for greater security of tenure and that is why in 1980 most of the Northern Territory's crown leases were automatically converted to freehold. There is no logical reason why the people of the Australian Capital Territory should be denied at least the privilege of perpetual leasehold which is available to other Australians. My preferred option is, without doubt, for freehold tenure for both residential and non-residential land, but section 125 of the Constitution raises very real questions about whether that would be constitutionally feasible. Nevertheless, there is no question whatsoever that perpetual leasehold is a clear constitutional option. The reasons for limited leasehold tenure being introduced in the first place were, first, to prevent speculation of land resulting from the siting of the national capital; secondly, to enable the Government to defray the cost of establishing and maintaining the capital through revenue derived from land rents; and, thirdly, to distribute throughout the community profits made from the increase in the value of the land. These reasons may have been relevant in the mid-1920s and into the 1930s, but they are no longer relevant to a city which has become mature and has developed its own momentum. I refer to Justice Else-Mitchell's inquiry into land tenure in the Australian Capital Territory, which reported in 1976 and which supported the proposition that I and my colleagues are putting forward, that: Residential land in the ACT should be held under perpetual leases. Proponents of the leasehold system argue principally that it facilitates planning. I would point out to the House that in every State of Australia there are State and local government statutory planning systems and there is no reason why a statutory planning system, with self-government coming in the Australian Capital Territory, would not be an acceptable proposition here. I would also add in support of my very strong philosophical commitment to freehold, or in the context of the Australian Capital Territory, perpetual leasehold, one or two other arguments for changing the system from a limited leasehold to a perpetual leasehold system. First, to renew leases as the principal planning tool is to provide for piecemeal redevelopment because leases may expire at different times. In other words, it is a rather incomprehensible tool to use for planning if one is serious about giving a definite tenure for a lease. If, of course, one is not serious, if one takes the view that one may need to intervene after all at a certain stage, regardless of the tenure of the lease, then why bother with a tenure for a lease? It does not make very much sense. If one looks at what happens in suburbs such as Civic, Kingston, Turner and Braddon, one finds that land use has been significantly reviewed and changed regardless of the fact that there have been 99-year leases in those places. Another point the Opposition would certainly want to make is that freehold or perpetual leasehold may well increase the attraction to interstate investors of privately developed land. That is something that is important for a developing city such as Canberra for developing districts such as the Australian Capital Territory. In conclusion, let me say that my view not only is supported by Mr Justice Else-Mitchell and by my colleagues on this side of the House, but also would be widely supported by the residents of the Australian Capital Territory. Indeed, it is supported in a working document prepared by the Department of Territories' Development Division in May 1987, which comes to this very logical conclusion: Based on the foregoing discussion- I have not time to go into all that- it is recommended that the present system of 99-year term leases be changed to a system of leases in perpetuity. I know there are officers in that Department who take an even stronger view that we should move in the Australian Capital Territory towards freehold and that constitutional implications of that ought to be and deserve to be examined on behalf of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. We on this side of the House do not support, as the other side does, the nationalisation of land. We will never support the nationalisation of land. We support private ownership of land as the fundamental basis of Australian society. I am sorry that the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) disagrees, but I am not with him on the nationalisation of land. Motion (by Mr Langmore) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with sessional order 102b, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(10.53) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the Committee's third report, entitled Publication of Tabled Papers, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MOUNTFORD —The Publication of Tabled Papers report, the third report of the Procedure Committee for the Thirty-fifth Parliament, concerns the practices of this House in regard to the publication of tabled papers. As honourable members will probably know, where it is thought certain papers tabled may contain actionable material, their release is restricted. This report reviews our current practice and proposes amendments to standing order 320, the standing order that directly relates to this issue. By way of background, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I briefly outline the current procedures that apply for the distribution or publication of papers tabled. The vast majority of papers tabled in this House are made freely available to members, the press and others, subject to certain distribution guidelines. The publication of papers to members is absolutely privileged. This privilege is provided by section 11 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act. It does not apply to publication by officers of the House to persons other than members, nor does it apply to further or wider publication by the members themselves. Where it is thought a paper may contain actionable material and it is considered it should be distributed widely, a motion is moved in the House to authorise its publication. These instances are not many-they average 14 each year-and usually apply to reports of the Auditor-General or reports of royal commissions. Papers that the House has ordered to be printed are also absolutely protected, but that protection is considered to apply only to those copies of the paper bearing the imprint of the Government Printer indicating that they are parliamentary papers. These copies become available some time after tabling. In those cases where it is thought a paper may contain actionable material and the House has not authorised its publication, copies are provided to members on request with a stamp indicating that the document was provided in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Privileges Act. If a request is received from persons other than members, copies are not always made available as there is a potential liability because of the limitation of the scope of absolute privilege. The question of the possible extension of absolute privilege to all papers tabled has been considered before. In 1984 the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege expressed a reluctance to recommend any changes that might extend the protection of absolute privilege beyond the borders of what it regarded as fundamentally necessary for the workings of Parliament. Section 11 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act reflects that recommendation. Earlier this year the Senate considered the matter and replaced its standing order 362, which was similar to our standing order 320, with a standing order that authorises unrestricted publication of all papers tabled in the Senate. Following the Senate action, Madam Speaker wrote to the Committee requesting that it consider the matter and report to the House in due course. The Committee resolved to inquire into the matter and requested the Clerk of the House to submit a paper on the issue. In the course of its deliberations the Procedure Committee considered two questions: Firstly, should absolute privilege be extended to the publication of all tabled papers to any person? Secondly, should standing order 320 be revised to remove possible ambiguities? There are a number of arguments for and against the extension of absolute immunity. These are listed in detail in the Clerk's paper appended to the report. The current arrangements could be seen as contrary to the spirit of the Standing Orders as there should not be any impediment to the free dissemination of tabled papers. They could also be seen as irksome and possibly risky. The differing practices of the House and the Senate could be seen as undesirable and confusing. The Committee has considered these issues and also sought the views of the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) and the Manager of Opposition Business, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife). Whilst appreciating that there are definite advantages in providing for unrestricted publication with absolute immunity, the Committee has concluded that the present arrangements, whereby a positive publication order by the House is required to grant absolute immunity, should be retained. There is always a risk of damage to individuals and groups in the community should there be repeated and malicious publication of statements or allegations beyond the parliamentary sphere. The Committee has concluded that this risk outweighs the benefits of unrestricted publication. It must be remembered that this does not restrict the availability of a paper to any member, and the papers at issue are a very small proportion of those tabled each session. In practical terms, there will be very little restriction on the access to papers. Under the arrangements proposed, the interests of the House and its members are recognised and the dangers of misuse are lessened. On the second matter, the adequacy of standing order 320, the Committee has recommended that the standing order be reworded to reflect the conclusions of the report and to remove a possible contradiction between the first and second sentences of the standing order. It is therefore proposed that the standing order provide that, with respect to those papers not authorised for publication nor ordered to be printed, access for non-members be subjected to the discretion of the Speaker where it is considered they may contain actionable material. In conclusion, I would like to thank members of the committee, Mr McRae, secretariat staff, and Mr Bernard Wright for their assistance in this inquiry. Mr SCHOLES(Corio)(10.59) —I wish to support the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure entitled Publication of Tabled Papers. I believe there are good reasons why automatic privilege should not be given to documents merely because they are tabled in the Parliament. The House has available to it a method of providing privilege to documents which it considers should have privilege and that motion should be used only where it is considered necessary to provide privilege in order to protect persons or to provide information which the House itself believes should be generally available but which may contain items which could under some circumstances be actionable. The consideration of this report was made more difficult by the fact that the Senate had already decided to introduce an automatic privilege provision for all tabled documents. But it was the belief of the Committee, and it certainly is my belief, that it is highly improper for the privileges which are accorded to this Parliament to be loosely used in a manner whereby all that is required for a person to be slandered or for other material to be published which can be damaging to individuals, organisations or persons in the community is for that information to be tabled in the Parliament, without at least the House where that information was provided having considered that the release of that information is in the public interest. There have been instances-fortunately very few-where tabled documents have contained allegations which have been found to have little or no substance in fact but where the damage to individuals because those statements and documents were able to be repeated ad infinitum was such as their reputations could never have been properly recovered because of the lack of sensationalism about the fact that some report or tabled document was subsequently found to be in error. I think the worst occasion that I can recall of a document being given privilege-it was given privilege by the House concerned-was when the so-called Khemlani papers were tabled in the Senate some time ago and were given privilege. Those documents contained very little which could have been said to have been of real factual substance but rather were political documents tabled for a political purpose. They were given privilege so that they could be exploited for political purposes. I hope that this Parliament will never see itself in that position again. During the time I have been here at least one document has been tabled in the House of Representatives which should never have been given privilege in my opinion. The report cleans up some of the misunderstandings and the difficulties which exist with the present standing order. But it should be made clear that the consequence of the standing order is that, whilst a member has absolute access to tabled documents, the member does not have any immunity from prosecution if the member chooses to distribute tabled documents which have not been given the immunity of the Parliament. It is something that many members do not take account of. But if a member chooses to distribute a document which is his by right as a member of this Parliament, which contains actionable material and which has not been given privilege by the House, then the member takes the risk of action. It should be clearly understood that the risk is upon the member. It is no good complaining afterwards. Similarly, if a document is leaked or passed to a person and subsequently published, then the material has no protection because of its tabling in the Parliament unless the Parliament has taken the appropriate action. By that, I mean the House of Representatives because the Senate has chosen to act differently. I support the report. I believe that the House should adopt it. I think it is a proper and responsible matter for a House of Parliament to act on. I do not believe that it is our responsibility, nor should we have the right, to publish, without due consideration, material which may be damaging to another person and which may not have been given the proper consideration of this House. I commend the report. Motion (by Mr Mountford) proposed: That the report be adopted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ronald Edwards) —In accordance with sessional order 102b, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations) —Pursuant to section 12aa of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, I present the Remuneration Tribunal 1988 Review. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(11.05) —I move: That this House notes with concern the problems confronting nursing homes, aged persons hostels and other aged persons facilities as a result of the most recent changes to Commonwealth funding of those facilities. The House may recall that last week I spoke of the threatened closure of the Lilliane Brady retirement village in Cobar. This state of affairs has been brought about by the implementation of new funding arrangements by the present Federal Government for nursing homes and hostels throughout Australia. As we all know, these establishments have the responsibility of providing accommodation for the elderly and infirm who can no longer care for themselves. As I related to the House on a previous occasion, aged care industry organisations Australia-wide are concerned that standards established by the Government for Commonwealth funding of staff care hours for nursing home residents are unrealistic, artificial and impractical. Like many, I fear that the Government may have deliberately set artificial standards in the resident classification instrument (RCI) to limit the number of nursing home residents and, therefore, under the new funding arrangements, its financial obligations to the industry. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the present serious situation pertaining to the mining city of Broken Hill, which is a typical example of what must be happening in all centres of Australia in relation to care for our elderly and infirm citizens. Of course, the situation is particularly grave in the more isolated communities. Broken Hill has two nursing homes-the Home of Compassion and the Broken Hill Centenary Nursing Home. These have been founded out of the generosity of the people of Broken Hill and their concern for their pioneering citizens. Up until now various Federal governments have generously assisted in the establishment of those homes, and between them they care for 110 residents. Both are administered by Southern Cross Homes Inc. Broken Hill. Broken Hill also has hostel accommodation at Aruma Lodge, which is another manifestation of the concern that Broken Hill people show for their senior citizens. Aruma Lodge has 46 permanent residents and one respite care resident. In addition to these establishments, the Broken Hill Base Hospital is presently catering in its geriatric wards for 58 long stay patients who, because of the lack of nursing home and hostel accommodation in Broken Hill, have nowhere else to go. The geriatric section of the Broken Hill Base Hospital consists of Elleoura Court, with 36 women residents, and Corrindah ward for men, with 22 residents. This in itself is an horrendous situation because these wards are located in buildings that could be up to 100 years old. They are a legacy of neglect by previous State governments and can at best be described as fire hazards. They are suitable only for demolition to make way for geriatric care wards more in keeping with 1988 and the way in which the Broken Hill people would wish to care for their elderly citizens. The whole depressing state of affairs in the care for the elderly in Broken Hill has recently come to a head with a press statement from Mr Bob Taylor, the Regional Director of the Department of Health located in Dubbo, that indicates that he and, therefore, the State Government believe, based on criteria laid down by the Federal Government, that there is a gross oversupply of nursing home-type beds in Broken Hill, and, in order to avoid duplication of service for which the Federal Government should be responsible, that the number of long stay beds, now standing at 58, should be reduced to 30. He also indicates that the provision of hostel bed accommodation will overcome the problem, as will home care help. While I am not happy at the State Government's attitude, I can in no way totally blame Mr Taylor and the State Government for the parlous position in which they find themselves, caused by drastic Federal funding cutbacks to the States and, in particular, New South Wales. The State Government, therefore, has had no alternative but to try to make the Federal Government shoulder its responsibilities in regard to care for the aged and infirm. To do otherwise would place even further burdens on its under-funded health system, which is being stretched to the limit. If we look at a recent survey of the Broken Hill situation we find that, based on Commonwealth Government figures, which to me are at best Dickensian Scrooge in their bias, we are led to believe that Broken Hill has a surplus of 83 nursing home beds, despite the fact that we have already 28 people in the Broken Hill Base Hospital who, according to the health bureaucracy, should be nursing homes or hostel-type accommodation. We also have 100 people who are presently on waiting lists for nursing home accommodation in Broken Hill. In relation to hostel accommodation, and even according to the Scrooge figures of the Federal Government, we presently require an additional 60 places in hostel-type accommodation in Broken Hill. Despite this revelation, we have Southern Cross Homes applying to build hostel-type accommodation and being refused by the Federal Government bureaucracy. In fact, despite what Government figures might say, we presently have 160 elderly citizens waiting for hostel-type accommodation in the city. This means there are at least 260 elderly citizens urgently requiring nursing home or hostel-type accommodation in Broken Hill. What about home care help? Honourable members will recall that the Government on many occasions has said that a reduction in nursing home beds will be offset by an increase in hostel beds and an increase in home care aid to enable the elderly to remain in their own homes. No-one in this House would deny that the best situation for elderly people is in their own homes but, of course, eventually that is not the case; they have to leave their homes to receive that care they require. Despite this, we find in Broken Hill, and no doubt in other centres, that funding for home care has not increased over the last three years. This has seriously affected the services that Home Care can provide in Broken Hill despite the devoted work being done by the staff of that organisation. Any move to force elderly patients in the Broken Hill hospital back into the community would make the home care aid situation untenable. One of the problems, of course, is that we now have a system of funding that is based on a categorisation of residents in nursing homes that goes from one to five, with the residents who are most in need of care being category one. Category one also attracts the most funding. This in itself causes problems because we find nursing homes having to obtain high category residents in order to remain viable. We also have hostels without adequate facilities trying to provide accommodation for people who should be in nursing homes. This is also done in order that adequate funding can be obtained. These conditions, of course, cannot be sustained and eventually the whole system will fall apart at the seams to the detriment of the infirm and the aged. According to Government figures, there would normally be throughout Australia 10 per cent of nursing home residents in category one. In Broken Hill, in a nursing home population of 110, there is not one resident classified in that category. Therefore, the income of the nursing homes is seriously affected. If this trend in funding continues, it will be only a matter of time before both Broken Hill nursing homes will be unable to fund their operations, and the city will find it has a catastrophe on its hands so far as care for the elderly and infirm is concerned. The nearest alternative nursing homes to Broken Hill are situated in Mildura, nearly 300 kilometres away, and Adelaide, which is approximately 500 kilometres from Broken Hill. These establishments find it hard to accept residents because their situation is similar to that being experienced in Broken Hill. Of course, the people of Broken Hill do not want their senior citizens, who are a vital link with the history of the city and who are their loved ones, living so far from them. As most people would know, Broken Hill at the moment is facing a difficult industrial situation with a number of people being retrenched from the mines. A number of those young people, of course, have to leave the city and travel to other major centres for work. They do not want to leave that city knowing that their parents cannot get into nursing homes or hostels and concerned that their parents will be forced to live out their last years in their own homes where they will not be properly cared for. The people of Broken Hill are noted for the care and concern they show for their elderly citizens, as they are noted for their militancy when it comes to fighting for justice in matters which adversely affect their city. I am sure that they will add their support to communities throughout Australia who are angry at the way their senior citizens are being treated by the present Federal Labor Government. This is a Government that is supposed to be concerned with compassion for everyone who is underprivileged. But we see here, of course, in the situation that is developing in the home care or the nursing area and hostel accommodation-in fact, right across the board in care for our elderly citizens-that the Government is not facing up to its responsibilities. The situation is now at a critical stage. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe)-indeed, I ask the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-to do something constructive immediately in order to relieve the uncertainty, suffering and misery that elderly citizens and their families in Broken Hill and throughout Australia are now experiencing as a result of the Government implementing a policy that puts dollars before the peace of mind of our aged but valuable citizens. I know that there is a speaker on the Government side who will be taking part in this debate. I would like to ask him to let honourable members know exactly what the Government has in mind in order to alleviate the situation. The situation exists not only in Broken Hill. I mentioned last week the Lilliane Brady Retirement Village in Cobar. There is a problem in Narrandera so far as care for the elderly is concerned. The fact is that the State Government can no longer meet its commitments because of Federal funding cutbacks. I would ask the speaker-in fact, I would ask the Minister and the Prime Minister-to please do something for these people who need our attention, who need to be in nursing homes, who need to be in hostel care accommodation and who need home care help. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Nehl —I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, and reserve my right to speak. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(11.15) —I respect the position taken by the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) in his concern for the elderly people in his electorate, but I really think that the motion he has moved today is a tongue-in-cheek exercise, or else he has either been misled by those who helped him research his material or he is totally ignorant of the very positive and progressive policies that have already been implemented by the Hawke Labor Government-policies that contrast with the dismal record of the Liberal-National parties prior to 1983. My personal view is that this issue should be an apolitical one. It is one that concerns every parliamentarian and every person in our community who is really concerned about the elderly. We appreciate that Australia is an ageing society; it is an ageing community. Recently I had the privilege of opening a new recreation centre in the township of Biloela. I took out some points raised by the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, at another meeting where he pointed out that in America there are about 100,000 Americans who are already over 100 years of age. Coming back to Australia, that suggests we already have something like 5,000 Australians who are already over 100 years of age. One starts to appreciate that, for every elderly person, there is in the work force at the moment something like five people. However, within 35 to 36 years, on the present ageing character of our nation, for every elderly person out there, there will be only two in the work force. So we have a major problem, a very serious problem. It is the Government that has begun to grapple with that problem. It is a great pity that in the past governments have not set their priorities clearly at resolving the future needs of the community and the future needs of elderly people. Up until we came to government-and I ask the honourable member for Riverina-Darling to take this on board-93 per cent of all funds were being spent on 7 per cent of the elderly who were in the institutions. We had 7 per cent being spent on the 93 per cent of the population still in their homes. There was a total imbalance. It resulted in a very high per capita rate on nursing homes but a very low coverage for those people needing domiciliary care. I know the honourable member's personal interest and his concern, but he has to understand that since 1983 there have been numerous reports, time and time again, from caring bodies officially set up by this Parliament and by the States. They have brought down reports after thorough investigation of the need for fairer and more efficient aged care support systems. It has taken this Government to act upon them. I agree we need to do so much more, because I have waiting lists in my own electorate. But when one starts to appreciate what we are doing and where the money is being spent, I think the criticism by the honourable member for Riverina-Darling is unfair when he says we should start shouldering our responsibilities. I suggest that is what is happening. The honourable member mentions hostel places, but over the last five years we have had a 67 per cent increase in the number of hostel places. In dollar terms, in 1983 we were spending $36m on hostels. This year it will be $121m. That is 3 1/2 times what we were spending 5 1/2 years ago. The number of hostel places has doubled since the Hawke Labor Government came to power. We have spent some $376m in the construction and upgrading of new hostel and nursing home beds since 1982-83. That is a lot of money. We have seen the home and community care-HACC-program introduced. In 1983-84 we were spending $65.4m. This year $209m-more than three times as much-will be spent on those people who want and need to live in their own homes under the home and community care program. In 1983, nursing home subsidies totalled $697m. That figure has now almost doubled to $1.265 billion. We see a government in action, a government trying to solve the problems and trying to set its priorities correctly. It has established the HACC program; it has upgraded the range of domiciliary services to the elderly and young people with disabilities; it has extended the range of hostel subsidies to increase choice; and it has introduced the respite care system. Previously, relatives who tried to look after their elderly loved ones had to do so for 52 weeks a year. This Government has introduced an initiative whereby beds are set aside in the institutions for those elderly folk. In some cases in my area beds are set aside in hospitals to give relatives some relief. The elderly people go into the institutions and are cared for. The same is true of recreation areas. It is not just a matter of providing beds but of ensuring quality of life, and I believe the initiative is quite exciting. I talk to the church and community groups who run these homes, hostels and institutions, and they applaud what this Government is doing to provide recreation facilities. There is also ongoing funding for nursing homes. While the emphasis is now on domiciliary care, there is still ongoing funding for nursing homes which, as I said, has almost doubled since the 1983 financial year. We have also introduced an assessment program. The honourable member for Riverina-Darling asks, `What are you doing?'. Very often in the past when people reached a certain age and there was no-one in the town to care for them or if their relatives could not do it because of the scope of their home or the lack of facilities there, those people were put into an institution. Today there is an ongoing assessment program that is determining the individual needs of those elderly people and addressing the people with special needs and disabilities. We also have programs that cover those who have special ethnic problems and those who live in isolated areas, aspects that were not addressed previously. With all due respect to the honourable member for Riverina-Darling, I believe that the pre-1983 record was dismal, for there was an emphasis only on nursing homes. The emphasis lacked balance. There was a poor, or perhaps non-existent, assessment procedure and a lack of coordination between the States and the Commonwealth. The funding simply encouraged inefficiency and I suggest that it was ad hoc. Instead of condemnation, there should be commendation, and commendation has come from many groups which understand the problem and which urge the allocation of extra funds but which accept the priorities, the program and the all-encompassing and very careful strategy. Recently I spoke with the local authorities in the township of Mount Morgan. That area was given $80,000. That sum may not sound much when we consider the total budget of this nation for aged care, but that $80,000 was to build four attached cottages for elderly folk in the township of Mount Morgan. Recently, the Bill Shuttlewood Lodge was built in Yeppoon, again to help those who wish not to go into institutions but to live in a sense of community in a lodge with other elderly people. That was built with moneys provided in the main by the Federal Government. Just this year $16m will be spent on local government and community accommodation programs. We are trying to address not just one aspect, not just those who need nursing home care; the broad canvas is gradually being painted and completed. It is a canvas that takes in a strategy for superannuation. As the honourable member for Riverina-Darling knows, previously people who took superannuation paid 15 per cent tax on the first $55,000 and 30 per cent tax on the sum over $55,000. If people received a lump sum of $100,000, the tax at that time would have been about $22,000. But to encourage people to care for themselves in the future, we have changed the tax system so that there is now no tax on the first $60,000 and only 15 per cent tax over that. On a lump sum of $100,000, previously people would have paid $22,000 in tax and now they will pay $8,000. Again, this is an indication of a government carefully going through the problems, spotlighting the anomalies and difficulties. I suggest that the Opposition has its role, and it is the job of the honourable member for Riverina-Darling to look after his own electorate. The Opposition has a role to criticise, but it also has a responsibility to present alternatives. I have not heard those alternatives. I would like to know whether the Opposition will pursue a privatisation line under which it would hand over all these areas to private enterprise. We have only to look at the lack of care in countries such as the United States of America, where the emphasis is on the private enterprise realm to provide care and security for the elderly. The attitude is, `If you haven't got the money, you can sleep in the streets'. That is not the emphasis of this Government; it is not the emphasis of the Australian Labor Party, but I have not heard what the Opposition's policy really is. Will it return to an emphasis on institutionalised care? Will it move away from the HACC program and domiciliary care and go back to the pre-1983 situation with the emphasis on, and moneys being spent on, only those who lived in institutions? Will it hand the matter to the States, or will it simply play politics? People have a right to know. Is the Opposition against the redistribution of resources that is taking place to ensure a new quality of life for the elderly in our community? Is it against the HACC program? Is it against greater community involvement in planning? There will always be room for improvement, and every member of the Government accepts that; every member of the Government, working in committees and working individually with Ministers, is working for this. I would like consideration to be given to special loan arrangements to help those who stay in their homes to maintain the quality of their homes, to be able to build security rails in the bathrooms, to have the steps fixed and to have the houses painted. One of the problems facing elderly people is that they lack the capacity to upgrade and maintain their homes. Because they live on a pension and because they do not have extra funds, they get to the point where they simply cannot put money back into their home. Even mowing the lawn becomes a financial burden at times. Somehow-and I do not know how we are to address the situation-we must come up with a system whereby the blue army, which operates in some areas with people working on a part-time basis, or some loan arrangement could assist people to upgrade and improve the standard of their homes so that they can stay there. Honourable members would know that in Queensland many of the houses are on stilts or posts. That is all right when people are young, but the elderly find it very hard to negotiate the steps. That is a problem. We must consider the special and individual problems of people. Whilst I appreciate that there must be ratios of funding when it comes to the number of beds in a certain area based on the elderly component in our communities, I question whether the regional system is the best. The Fitzroy region that I represent has, over many years, seen the development of aged care facilities, such as in Rockhampton and some of the other larger areas, but in more recent times the elderly people have moved to the Capricorn Coast to places such as Mount Morgan, where aged facilities are not provided for them. There is nothing worse than having to dislocate the elderly, to move them 25 kilometres or 125 kilometres-no matter what the distance, they are dislocated from their loved ones, friends and relatives. Whilst keeping in mind the need to ensure an even playing field in expenditure, we must rethink our attitude and understand that in some areas, because of changes in the population structure, there is a greater movement of elderly people. I ask that consideration be given to that matter. I come back to the motion; I believe it is unfair. I understand the concern of the honourable member for Riverina-Darling, and I applaud him for that. It is proper that he stand up in this chamber and argue for his people, but I believe that his facts are wrong. He has not thought through the real effort of this Government, the things it has done to address a problem that can only get worse. It is up to the Opposition, when it criticises, to put up the alternatives. I believe that this Government has turned around the problem and that, given the strategy that is in place, we can depend upon a new quality of life for millions of Australians in the next two decades. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(11.29) —I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion, no matter how briefly, and I certainly support the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks). I do not really want to attack the previous speaker, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), but I must say that it is all right for him to stand up in the Parliament of Australia, being listened to by Australian citizens over the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and trot out these statistics. But it is empty rhetoric. The reality is that out in the electorate people are not getting sufficient care. There is a great need. Only two weeks ago I spent two hours at a meeting with members of the board of the Autumn Lodge Retirement Village in Macksville in my electorate and representatives of the hospital. They are in desperate straits because the system is not working. On the other hand, in the southern part of my electorate, the Port Macquarie Garden Village is a superb elderly care centre providing units, a hostel and a nursing home. That has been built without costing the Commonwealth Government one single penny of capital expenditure and right now, because of the need, not because of the statistics but the real need on the ground, the group involved has offered to build facilities and provide 20 more nursing home beds at no cost to the Government, But the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) says no. I cannot understand why. I know there is an ongoing cost, but the need is there. Just as the honourable member for Riverina-Darling said that in Broken Hill there is an inadequate number of beds because the formula is not working and is wrong, equally it is wrong on the north coast. I refer particularly to my electorate of Cowper and the fact that because it has the best climate in Australia so many people want to retire and live in places from Port Macquarie to Coffs Harbour. The proportion of people aged 65 years and over is more than 50 per cent greater than the rest of Australia. Yet the provision of nursing home beds goes along with the population formula, and it is wrong and inadequate. Right up and down the north coast of New South Wales there is a great need for more nursing home beds and the Government, because it is committed to this formula, is not taking action and is not permitting the people who are prepared to provide the facilities to go ahead and do so. I also take this opportunity to refer to the home and community care program. The honourable member for Capricornia suggested that the Government needed commendation rather than some form of attack. I will commend it on the principle of its program and on the way it is worded in the book because, yes, we do want our elderly folk to stay in their own homes as long as possible. Anyone with any sense wants that; and the elderly themselves and the community want that. But the reality is that the infrastructure is not there. We cannot say to people who are unable to tie their shoelaces or cut their toe nails `Stay and look after yourself' unless we have the infrastructure. The Meals on Wheels Service must be available, as well as home care services. There have to be people to come in and do a bit of cleaning because the old people we are talking about cannot even bend down. This is where the program falls down. It is all right in theory but we are not dealing with theory or statistics. We are dealing with elderly Australians who need care and support and, quite frankly, in spite of the desire by the honourable member for Capricornia for praise, praise is not due. There is no way that it can be given. What we have is rhetoric; a system which on paper is fine. In the last couple of weeks I have had calls from very distressed people because their 94-year-old mother had to be turfed out of the hospital and there was no nursing home bed available for her to go. I am not speaking about the distances that exist in the Riverina-Darling electorate or that the people of Broken Hill have to endure, but even within a more closely settled area like the north of New South Wales if our grandmother or grandfather has to go into a nursing home we do not want that home to be in Newcastle when we are in Kempsey. We do not want our elderly to be in Brisbane or some similar distance away because the whole fabric of care for elderly people involves the family and the support of friends and people being in their own environment. I cannot imagine anything worse for an elderly person needing nursing home accommodation than to be shunted off a couple of hundred kilometres from where they lived their lives; shunted off from their family, their friends and the environment they know so well. This is happening all over Australia; I am not talking about isolated instances. Elderly Australians are being treated as numbers and not as people, and it is not good enough. I have no hesitation in giving the honourable member for Riverina-Darling my strongest possible support because I know from my personal experience and from my contacts with nursing homes and hostels throughout the electorate of Cowper that the need is still there to provide more care, and I also know from talking with many agencies of the need for home care as well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(11.35) —I move: That this House: (1) commends the Dalai Lama for his past efforts to resolve the problems of Tibet through negotiation with the People's Republic of China and for dissuading the Tibetan people from using violence to regain their freedom; (2) commends the Dalai Lama for his new proposal in his continued quest for peace and expresses its support for the thrust of his proposals; (3) calls on the leaders and the Government of the People's Republic of China to respond positively to the proposal of the Dalai Lama and to enter into earnest discussions with the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, to resolve the question of Tibet along the lines proposed by the Dalai Lama; and (4) calls on the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to express the support of the Australian Parliament for the proposals of the Dalai Lama and to use their best efforts to persuade the leaders and the Government of the People's Republic of China to enter into discussions with the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, regarding the proposal of the Dalai Lama and the question of Tibet. Tibet is a 2,000-year-old country with a unique culture, language, spiritual tradition, and history, which has been occupied by the People's Republic of China since 1950. The Tibetan people have persistently struggled to regain their independence ever since. But the Tibetans have rarely used violence in their struggle, and therefore have rarely achieved the attention given to areas of the world where violence is the norm, such as the Middle East and Northern Ireland. Recently, within Tibet, there have been unrest and clashes between police and the public with the resulting death of a number of Tibetans and the imprisonment of many more. These events provide a glimmer of much larger problems in Tibet. On 21 September 1987 the Dalai Lama issued a five-point peace plan for Tibet. It is a dramatic contribution to a potentially peaceful resolution of the growing Tibetan crisis. This peace plan deserves the kind of attention currently being given to peace plans for the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Central America. The plan has five basic components, which can be summarised as follows: firstly, transformation of the whole of Tibet into a zone of peace; secondly, abandonment of China's population transfer policy, which threatens the very existence of the Tibetans as a people; thirdly, respect for the Tibetan people's fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms; fourthly, restoration and protection of Tibet's natural environment and the abandonment of China's use of Tibet for the production of nuclear weapons and dumping of nuclear waste; and fifthly, commencement of earnest negotiations on the future status of Tibet and of relations between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. The implementation of the first part of the plan would entail the removal of Chinese troops and military installations from Tibet, which would enable India to remove its border troops. The Dalai Lama has stated that the whole area would be `transformed into a zone of ``Ahimsa'' '-non-violence-`and once again act as ``a buffer state separating the continent's great powers''.' An international agreement would define and satisfy the border security interests of Tibet, China, and India, thus defusing border tensions and contributing to regional harmony. The second component of the plan refers to the fact that China is currently engaged in a massive program to encourage Chinese to move to Tibet and settle there. Under this policy Tibetans are already a minority in their own country with some 7.5 million Chinese settlers as against 6 million native Tibetans. In addition, there is a Chinese military force estimated at 500,000 soldiers. This population transfer is an age-old strategy to impose dominance, and needs to be stopped and reversed. The human rights and democratic freedoms, referred to in point three, are severely curtailed at present. Estimates of current political prisoners range from 3,000 to 4,000. Geshe Lobsang Wang-chuk, a monk and Buddhist scholar who was arrested in 1981 for writing about the history of independent Tibet, died on 4 November 1987, in Drapche Prison in Lhasa; he had been adopted by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience. There are reported to be some 100,000 Tibetans imprisoned in labor camps. Reports of violations of human rights are well documented. Many affidavits are available and honourable members who are interested can come to my office to see them. I have many from Amnesty International and the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. On 24 October this year the Human Rights Commission in Geneva faxed to me an analysis of 21 reports of violations of human rights of people in detention in Sangyip and Gurtsa prisons in Lhasa. It is worthwhile quoting from some of the analyses of those 21 reports. All the reports describe beatings: `indiscriminate' . . . `whenever questioned' . . . `to death' . . . `unconscious' . . . Some of the synopses from those affidavits and information currently in the possession of the Human Rights Commission are as follows: Kusho Chundak (abbot of Ganden monastery) was beaten continuously for two months on his arms and legs until broken. . . . there were 400 prisoners . . . at Gurtsa, of which 98 per cent suffered serious injuries from torture . . . arms, legs and ribs broken, wrists dislocated . . . . . . . By the time he arrived in prison, P. was unconscious from the beatings . . . placed in a tub of very cold water. When he regained consciousness he was pulled out of the water and beaten and questioned until he again lost consciousness. . . . . Most of the nights I was beaten' . . . `I was handed over from one official to the other. In between, I was tortured and interrogated' . . . . A man from Kham died in a cell behind mine. He was very badly beaten and they did not give him any medical treatment. . . . . Many prisoners report being tied during beatings, or handcuffed and shackled. `He had his hands shackled all day long. Frequently they beat him with electric batons. Sometimes he was made to lie face down in a ditch and when the water came in, the Chinese would force him down again with their feet.' . . . . Nun B was beaten with an electric baton and wooden sticks. They stripped her and trampled her head under foot, they kicked her many times so hard that she could no longer move. . . . . Two nuns for R nunnery are under treatment following insertion of sticks in their vagina while in detention. . . . . Nun D is 23, they applied the electric baton first to her private parts, then to her mouth. There are constant affidavits and so many substantiated reports that the questions of the total violation of the basic human rights of Tibetans in detention in Tibet, under Chinese domination, are just unarguable. It is a great tragedy that this sort of thing is occurring in this world. I commend to honourable members the 1988 Asian Watch report entitled Human Rights in Tibet and the report prepared for International Alert by the Rt Hon. Lord Ennals and Frederick Hyde-Chambers which was published in 1988. I think honourable members should familiarise themselves with those reports. Environmental issues are touched on in part four of the plan. The Chinese are introducing new agricultural practices into Tibet and, in the process, destroying the forests and wildlife there. In addition, the dumping of nuclear waste in Tibet and the use of Tibet to develop and produce nuclear weapons are kept away from public scrutiny. This is a major problem and one that needs full exposure. Under the five-point peace plan these nuclear related developments would cease and full attention would be given to restoring the ecology of Tibet. There is evidence that a nuclear missile site has been established in Tibet and many reports that 25 per cent of the nuclear weapons of the People's Republic of China are stored in Tibet. The last point, the commencement of earnest negotiations on the future status of Tibet, is the key point in terms of giving reality to any part of the plan. The proposal states: We wish to approach this subject in a reasonable and realistic way, in a spirit of frankness and conciliation and with a view to finding a solution that is in the long-term interest of all: the Tibetans, the Chinese, and all other peoples concerned. Here is an opportunity for the People's Republic of China, which claims that it is opposed to colonialism, to come to terms with its own major example of colonialism. The situation in Tibet is desperate. More than one million Tibetans have died since military rule was established by China in 1950; two-thirds of Tibetan territory has been added to adjoining Chinese provinces; and more than 6,000 monasteries have been destroyed. I think the House should note that that figure is over 6,000. One report that I have indicates that a further 2,624 monasteries have been destroyed. Most of those monasteries were built before Christ. They have stood the test of time in a culture over 2,000 years old, yet since 1950 it has been well documented that over 6,000 monasteries containing priceless treasures and artefacts have been taken from the face of this earth. That alone should cause any reasonable thinking person to stand up in anguish and protest to the People's Republic of China at this gross vandalism of antiquity alone. The Chinese are attempting to control and render powerless the Buddhist religion which remains at the heart of the Tibetan culture. The full story of the violation of human rights in Tibet is brilliantly presented by John F. Avedon in his book entitled In Exile from the Land of Snows. That was a vintage publication in 1986. I have a copy and I think honourable members should read that book as well. In 1959, 1961 and 1965, the United Nations General Assembly called upon China to end violations of Tibetan human rights. Since then, there has been precious little response from the world community. This year, as a result of the demonstrations in Tibet, the United States Congress and the United States Senate passed resolutions condemning human rights abuses in Tibet. I might add that the motion now before this House is in almost identical terms to the motion passed by the United States Congress and the United States Senate. However, the United States Administration, intend on maintaining good relations with China, supported Chinese efforts to end dissent in Tibet which was very violently done. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet, fled into exile in India in 1959 along with 100,000 other Tibetans. Since then he has been one of the world's consistent spokespersons for non-violence and for the self-determination of the Tibetan people. If we believe in non-violence it is incumbent on us in this House to support essentially non-violent struggles and not let the violence equals media attention equals world attention equation to be the driving force of our peace and justice efforts. A statement was issued by the Dalai Lama on 10 March this year which was published in the Tibetan National Day. That statement reads: I have always felt that violence breeds violence. It contributes little to the resolution of conflicts. I, therefore renew my appeal to all freedom-loving people to support our non-violent struggle for the survival of our national identity, our culture, and our spiritual tradition, and to persuade the Chinese Government to abandon its oppressive policies. The Dalai Lama and the Tibetans are not seeking to restore outdated political and social institutions. They are working, non-violently, for the opportunity for the Tibetan people to decide their own future and to be responsible for it. The five-point peace plan has much to commend it. It deserves our support and the support of the Australian people. Supporters of non-violence should help to put the world spotlight on this peace plan and encourage the commencement of negotiations on the future status of Tibet. Let us address the issue of Tibet before more violence occurs rather than after. I am pleased to report to the House on the very recent visit of the Premier and of the Foreign Affairs Minister of the People's Republic of China. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans), representing Australia, held discussions which included debate on what was occurring in Tibet. I understand from Senator Evans that Australia's position was clearly put to the Chinese delegation-that Australia and the Government view with concern the well-documented and unarguable acts of oppression and gross violation of human rights which are occurring in Tibet. There are many problems in the world but perhaps the Tibetan problem is unique. It is a religious culture of great antiquity which, throughout known history, has been a culture primarily of non-violence, where Buddhist monks are educationalists, teachers of language and the preservers of the ancient culture. When one sees a unique culture like that being destroyed-and destruction is what it is all about-and being taken from the face of the earth so that such an antiquity will no longer exist, the world cannot remain silent, this Parliament cannot remain silent and no Australian can remain silent. I urge this House to support the motion and to support the freedom of the Tibetan people. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(11.50) —I am pleased to second the motion moved by the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) on the question of Tibet and its relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC). I do so because I welcome debate and discussion on the question, although I might not agree entirely with the motion as drafted. It is important that in this Parliament we are able to debate the issue carefully and thoughtfully. We should recognise the relationship that this country has with the People's Republic of China but ask the Government of the People's Republic of China to realise that we believe that where there are human rights violations we have the right to raise those issues wherever they occur in the world, whilst not wanting to interfere in the internal management or affairs of the People's Republic of China. I have great respect for the work that has been done by the Chinese leadership to restructure the economy, stimulate growth and improve the standard of living of the people of China. They are to be commended for that. The first aspect of the motion moved by the honourable member for McEwen reads as follows: (1) commends the Dalai Lama for his past efforts to resolve the problems of Tibet through negotiation with the People's Republic of China and for dissuading the Tibetan people from using violence to regain their freedom. I believe that the Tibetan people ought to be able to regain freedom. I think the Dalai Lama has to state clearly in the near future what he means by freedom. When the Dalai Lama administered the territory it was what is called a theocracy as opposed to a democracy. There needs to be a clear statement from the Dalai Lama on what he has in mind in relation to freedom. One does not want to replace one form of totalitarianism with another. I am not suggesting that he is going to do that, but I think there needs to be a clear statement on that matter. I was not sure when the honourable member circulated the motion which proposal he was referring to in paragraph (2), which commends the Dalai Lama for his new proposal in his continued quest for peace. The honourable member stated that he was referring to the 1987 statement by the Dalai Lama. That is interesting. I think there has been a development since then, because whilst in 1987 the Dalai Lama put a peace plan before the United States Congress to convert Tibet into a demilitarised zone-which would in fact provide a buffer zone between India and China-and halt Chinese immigration to Tibet because of its human rights position, he has qualified that statement a little this year. That happened in a speech made, or certainly distributed, before the European Parliament in Strasbourg in June this year in which he proposed that Tibet should be an autonomous region and a self-governing democratic political entity in association with China. Commentators have said that the Dalai Lama was calling for `one country, two systems', which is an analogy with the Beijing policy and the agreement with the Thatcher Government over the future of Hong Kong. That shows that the Dalai Lama has been prepared to make concessions. I hope, in the spirit of the concessions that the Dalai Lama has made, that the Government in Beijing will accept that and enter into serious negotiations with him. I know there have been discussions at lower levels between the PRC and the Dalai Lama. I know that the PRC would like the Dalai Lama to return to Beijing and live there. I do believe progress is possible, but there needs to be goodwill on all sides, particularly by the PRC. Probably concessions need to be made by both sides. As I have said, I admire and congratulate the People's Republic of China on the restructuring of its economy. There has been a freeing up of the economy. There has been a recognition of the importance of the market-place in delivering an increased standard of living to people in China. I hope that the PRC recognises that that increased standard of living, that freeing up of the economy-the allowing of free markets so that people can produce their own goods for sale in the market-place-should occur in Tibet. I congratulate the PRC on the development of special economic zones. I have visited at least one of those. The PRC, like the Soviet Union, has to face the question of what it does with autonomous regions and national minorities. I am far from being an expert on the history of China, but the histories of China and Tibet are obviously interwoven, as is the history of the provinces or autonomies, and the gathering together of power in a central region after the exploitation of China in the past by Western powers. They might seem fairly strong words, but it is the truth. The country has been through a stage of centralisation and we are now seeing a period of decentralisation in the People's Republic of China. It is only in the last few months that we have seen the rights given to provinces to negotiate directly with outside corporations and companies and to enter into joint ventures with those companies. One is saved the problem of having to go to Beijing and deal with bureaucrats there; bureaucrats, wherever they may be, in Canberra or Beijing, can raise difficulties. That is a welcome development. It has been welcomed by the Australian business sector, which, hopefully, can continue to contribute to growth, to the mutual benefit of both countries. I return to the question of national minorities. Tibet is very much a part of that issue as far as the Chinese are concerned. We know that the Soviet Union is facing similar difficulties at present. I was interested to hear a report in the last few days in relation to demonstrations taking place in Estonia that Premier Gorbachev acknowledged-I think in a rather mature way-that it was an inevitable part of the perestroika and glasnost process; in other words, the process of restructuring the economy, and in so doing allowing greater freedoms. The Chinese-and the Russians will not admit this-are ahead of the Russians in the so-called perestroika process, that is, restructuring the economy. I think they are at least a decade ahead in realising the importance of the market-place in delivering growth. Whilst the Russians are behind, the PRC could learn from what is happening in the Soviet Union. If one delivers economic freedom, it is obvious that people will want to exercise greater political freedoms. The question of how one relates to minority populations and regions is a serious issue facing both countries. As the honourable member for McEwen said, as there has been a Russification of the Baltic states, a Chinafication is going on in relation to Tibet. Whilst the PRC might say that workers are being brought to Tibet to work on new developments, to give growth, by the same token, if it is a political mechanism for swamping the Tibetans, it is something that is not very helpful and creates an equal or greater reaction-as we have seen in the protests in Tibet in the last two years. That is an issue that the People's Republic of China clearly has to face. I believe that it should stop that Chinafication as part of the goodwill in meeting the proposals that have been put to it by the Dalai Lama. Amnesty International has issued a report on its concerns about detention without trial, ill treatment of detainees and police shooting of civilians in Tibet. Obviously there are excesses in the regime. I hope that Beijing treats this matter with concern and realises that Amnesty International has a right and a responsibility to point out denials of human rights wherever they occur in the world. I hope that the PRC will allow Amnesty International representatives into Tibet. I heard this morning that a television program was shown in the United Kingdom in the last 24 hours, made by a woman who filmed in Tibet disguised as a tourist. She smuggled the film out of the country because the authorities would not have let it out. I am told that the film contained a number of interviews with monks and, I think, with five women who claimed to have been tortured. The honourable member for McEwen nods his head indicating that my recollection is correct. I ask the Ambassador of the People's Republic of China in Canberra to give an assurance that there will be no retribution or punishment in any way of the people who were interviewed in that program. Mr Hand —Hear, hear! Mr SHIPTON —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), who is at the table, endorses that request. It is made in good faith. It is important for the credibility of Beijing that there be no retribution. It is important that it understands that the West is interested in the matter and that at the same time there is good will in the West towards the People's Republic of China. Perhaps we have all been a little sensitive about criticising the People's Republic in the past out of respect for the way in which it has handled the difficulties, perhaps caused by the Cultural Revolution, and in recognising the task it has in developing its economy. But a new maturity is needed. The People's Republic of China needs to understand that if people in this place believe there are human rights abuses they are able to say so freely-as people have said in the US Congress-without prejudicing our respect for what is happening in China. Parliaments and the world community need to be aware-notwithstanding relationships between countries-of the fact that we can criticise the abuses that take place, whether they occur in South Africa, in China, or in Tibet. I hope the Chinese authorities recognise that. There are big changes taking place in Taiwan. They are great changes in a growing democracy and in many ways they are parallel to what is happening in the People's Republic of China. I hope that the authorities in Taiwan-the so-called Republic of China-are interested in human rights issues in Tibet. I understand that both the so-called Republic of China and the People's Republic of China have similar policies towards Tibet. I can understand that, for historical reasons. But there is the challenge of the human rights violations there. I did not discuss this matter with the honourable member for McEwen before this debate, and I have not caucused with him, although I seconded the motion-as I said, I did not know whether he was talking to the 1987 Dalai Lama proposal or the 1988 proposal-but I would request the Chinese authorities to allow honourable members to visit Tibet. I would be prepared to go at my own expense. The honourable member is nodding to indicate that he would go, in a spirit of good will. We would also go to Beijing, if we were invited to do so, to see for ourselves what is going on, and be constructive and positive and not destructive. That is very important. Finally, Tibet is entitled to a piece of the economic pie, the growth and development that is going on in the People's Republic. There is a need to respect the dignity of the Tibetan culture and people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(12.05) —I move: That this House deplores the continuing high levels of personal taxation and the distortion which when coupled with assistance to low income families has seriously lowered incentive for people to reduce their dependence on fellow taxpayers. One of the records this Government has gained since it came to office-one of which it is not very proud, although it continues to hold the record-is that it is Australia's highest taxing peacetime government ever. Mr Gear —You say that every year. Mr HAWKER —It continues to hold the record; it is doing it very well. This is leading to a growing feeling of frustration in the Australian community. Australians are continually complaining. I think all honourable members find wherever they go that the level of taxation is causing continued frustration and reducing incentive. I want to talk a little about that today and about what happens when we couple that with some measures the Government has introduced to try to combat the problems caused by high taxation. Unfortunately, no matter how often it is reminded, the Government continues to ignore the problems that high taxes are causing. Today I will show a small cross-section of some of those problems. As all honourable members should know, prevention is better than cure, whether it be high taxation, the effects of high taxation or any other area. Despite this, the Government continues to apply bandaid after bandaid in an attempt to cover up what are the unintended consequences of high personal taxation. Despite layer after layer of these bandaids, the wounds of high tax continue to break out in a way that brings shame onto this Government. Before I talk about poverty traps I will give a quick explanation of them. A poverty trap is a situation in which people find that despite working harder and despite trying to improve their lot, the loss of some targeted benefits, coupled with the progressive income tax scale, mean that there is no benefit for them. A paper was recently released by the Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) entitled `Income Support Policies, Taxation and Incentives'. The paper confirmed that many low income earners now face the highest marginal tax rates in Australia's post-war history. In other words, it is not just the highest taxing government; it is also taxing low income earners at their highest levels ever. It is important to contrast this record with that of the previous Government. The effective marginal tax rate, which I will come to in a little more detail in a minute, for a family with a dependent spouse and two children, earning 75 per cent of average weekly earnings, dropped-I emphasise `dropped'-from 35 per cent to 31 per cent under the previous coalition Government. Mr Andrew —It dropped? Mr HAWKER —That is right, it dropped. It shows very clearly that the coalition has a very good record in contrast to this Government's record. Who could ever forget the cruel and misleading election hoax of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) before the last election? He said, `No Australian child will be living in poverty by 1990'. I say `cruel' because poverty under this Government has risen dramatically. The Government's response, of course, has been to apply more bandaids. It still has not looked at the cause of much of this poverty which is higher levels of taxation, particularly personal taxation. The Government churns out more and more welfare. As the EPAC paper pointed out so vividly, the net result is the creation of horrendous poverty traps. Unfortunately, what we find is that the Government applies these bandaids, which have a superficial benefit and which will obviously go some of the way to provide short term help-I am the first to acknowledge that. But they do not really solve the massive long term problem that we are creating-the one that should really concern all of us; it concerns all of us on this side of the chamber-in that there is enormous disincentive for people to get themselves off welfare benefits; in many cases there is no incentive for them to do so and it is better for them to stay as they are. I give a pertinent example which I raised in this House on 11 October this year and which compares two families of husband, wife and three children, in similar situations and renting a house. In one case the husband earns $325 a week and in the other $525 a week-a $200 a week difference in gross income. But, when we look at the effect of the family allowance supplement and rental assistance and at the difference in the Medicare situation of the two families, we find that the family that does not receive the various additional bits of support goes from being $200 a week better off to being less than $10 a week better off. Mr Andrew —Two hundred dollars disappears. Mr HAWKER —Nearly $200 disappears. This is due in part to the bandaid cures but it is also due very much to the very high levels of personal income tax which have forced people into this position. Of course, more and more people are finding themselves paying higher levels of personal income tax. This is being brought about by bracket creep. The effect of bracket creep together with targeted welfare means that many families no longer have the incentive to reduce their dependence on fellow taxpayers. Mr Andrew —That is the core of it. Mr HAWKER —That is the core of it. In the EPAC paper, which I will come back to in a minute, there are many other cases of people being very much disadvantaged because the combined effect of higher levels of personal income tax and the targeting of welfare has put them in an almost impossible position. I have given a typical example, but there are also extreme examples where people face an effective marginal tax rate of over 100 per cent. In other words, people who try to reduce their dependence on welfare and try to get out and earn their own income are effectively taxed at over 100 per cent at the margin. Is it any wonder that this disincentive in our community is causing all sorts of side effects and all sorts of problems? The EPAC paper gives the case that a low wage sole parent, renting privately and working 20 hours a week, may face a marginal drawback rate of 62c in the dollar-62c in the dollar-when the supposed maximum marginal rate is 50.25c. There are many other examples where the effective marginal rate is well above 75c. There is the double problem of progressive income tax scales and the effect of the means test relating to welfare payments. According to this EPAC paper 15 per cent of sole parents and 8 per cent of people on the unemployment benefit face an effective marginal tax rate far above that of the top income tax level. Mr Andrew —They are the poor and the needy. Mr HAWKER —That is correct. As my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield points out, they are indeed the poor and the needy, and yet under this Government they face an effective tax rate higher than that of the highest income earners in Australia. Is it any wonder that there is a lack of incentive for people to improve their lot? Another aspect exaggerating these welfare traps, with effective marginal tax rates being so high coupled with high personal income tax, is that average and marginal tax rates have risen. This is more the cause than the effect. Average and marginal tax rates have risen more over recent years than they have in previous years. But they have risen more for taxpayers with dependants than for those without dependants. In other words, this Government has demonstrated quite clearly a bias against families in its present taxation and welfare systems. This is all documented in the EPAC report. These are not just my words; it is all in the report. The EPAC paper gives example after example, all documented and with very clear charts, which show that people in various situations face effective marginal tax rates at some levels of income-all these levels, I might add, are well below average weekly earnings-which shoot well over 100 per cent. At page 39 of this report there is a table which shows the equivalent marginal tax rate for one-income couples with two children and in public housing as at the end of 1987. As their income moved from 50 per cent of average weekly earnings to 100 per cent of average weekly earnings, they faced an effective marginal tax rate of over 100 per cent. There is a similar example of a one-income couple with four children. This reinforces the point I was making that families are being hit harder than single people as a result of this distortion. Page 47 of this report shows that a sole parent with two children and living in New South Wales public housing-assuming that he or she is on a wage of $284 a week, which is not a lot and is well below average weekly earnings-will find that if he or she tries to work overtime, that is, to work more than 55 hours a week, to improve his or her lot, again the equivalent marginal tax rate will go over 100 per cent. Also, a sole parent with two children and in New South Wales public housing who starts to work more than five hours a week faces an equivalent marginal tax rate of over 100 per cent. Mr Gear —What is the solution? Mr HAWKER —I will come to the point that the honourable member raises in a minute. I also refer honourable members to page 53 of this report, which shows very clearly the change over the last two decades in the equivalent marginal tax rates for a one-income couple with two children and renting privately. If we look back to 1968 there was a steady progression in the chart from 50 per cent of average weekly earnings to 250 per cent. In fact, the highest rate of tax was less than 50 per cent. So at that stage no-one was paying more than half the income in tax. In 1978 there were fewer steps in the tax scale but the net result was still the same: nobody paid more than half of the extra dollars earned in tax. But when we look at December 1987, last year, what do we find? With the various adjustments that this Government has made, the chart looks very different. In fact, the equivalent marginal tax rate for one-income couples with two children and renting privately goes over 100 per cent when the income rises to about 80 per cent of average weekly earnings. Also, when the income goes beyond that point and moves towards a little over twice average weekly earnings, they are again faced with an equivalent marginal tax rate of nearly 80 per cent. Is it any wonder that the system that the Government has set up has taken away the incentive for many families on low incomes to reduce their dependence on their fellow taxpayers? Mr Andrew —They are from the Government's Advisory Council. Mr HAWKER —Yes, that is right. This information comes from the Government's own Advisory Council. Professor Mathews made it very clear in his observation when he said: . . . the conventional wisdom was that high average tax rates encourage workers to work harder to restore what they lost through taxation. This could no longer be accepted: workers responded to high and discriminatory taxes either by seeking higher money wages for the same work, or by joining in the general scramble to avoid or evade tax. Those are the words of Professor Matthews, a leading expert on taxation in this country. In conclusion, I do not suggest that there is an easy solution to this problem. The Government continues to ignore the problems that it has created itself through high personal income tax, coupled with additional selective welfare measures which have been needed because of the effect of that high taxation. Having created so many problems in the first place, it is now trying to apply the bandaid. It is quite clear that reducing personal taxation rates must be a number one priority. It is also clear that there is a very strong case for splitting income between husband and wife, as is pointed out in the EPAC paper. Furthermore there is a very strong case for trying to reduce some of the welfare traps so that people do not lose the incentive to become independent of other support. All these ideas are supported by the EPAC paper, from which I wish to quote a couple of points. In the section dealing with policy implications it is pointed out: Over the next few years the relief of poverty-ensuring that adequate support is available to all in need-will remain a priority objective of Governments. A key challenge for policy will be to devise ways of pursuing this equity objective without undesirable effects on the willingness or ability to work or save. In particular, consideration needs to be given to: (a) Reducing the severity of poverty traps and the range of incomes over which they operate . . . It goes on to say that consideration will also need to be given to: (b) Developing a structure of taxation that, consistent with the pursuit of equity and other objectives of government, minimises disincentive effects. I think it is pointed out very clearly in the paper that the present tax system pays no regard to families and that the welfare system ignores the tax system. Means tests continue to apply to gross wages despite the existence of a progressive tax scale which, in itself, is a means test. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Andrew —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr GEAR(Canning)(12.23) —Of course the Government rejects the motion out of hand for the twaddle that it is. I am glad that the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) referred to the Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) report because under a government of his persuasion a report such as that would never have seen the light of day. This report is testimony to the fact that this Government examines the problems of Australian society, not only at the taxation level but also at the personal level. We do generate reports such as the one on which the honourable member based his speech. The other point I make about the honourable member's contribution-and he admitted this himself-is that he did not have a solution to the problems. We in the Australian Labor Party have solutions and that is why we sit on this side of the House. We will stay on this side of the House because the Opposition has never had any solutions. Mr Connolly —There are more poor people out there now than there were when you came to power. Mr GEAR —The honourable member for Bradfield, who is at the table, dropped his retirement income policy on Monday and saw it disappear without trace. He is now interjecting. Mr Connolly —You must be blind. Mr GEAR —No, I am not. I saw the honourable member's policy on about page 38 of a few newspapers. That shows that nobody takes it seriously. One point that the Liberal Party of Australia raises continually is this glib, throwaway line that this is the highest taxing Government ever. But would we not expect taxes to rise in an expanding economy? The fact is that in 1982-83, under the Liberals, we had a shrinking economy. It would be a crime if, in a shrinking economy, taxation rose. But after putting 1.1 million people back to work, increasing productivity and increasing output in this country, we would expect to generate more taxation. It would be a sin if we did not. Of course we generate more taxation every year; every year the taxation revenue rises. So it should. The other point the honourable member made was that we are a high taxing country. I have here the latest revenue statistics for Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries. Of the 23 OECD countries we are the nineteenth lowest taxing country. That is, there are 18 countries in the OECD which tax more than we do. If we go through the range, from Sweden, which consumes about 53 per cent of its taxes expressed as a proportion of gross domestic product, down to the lowest, Turkey, which consumes about 22 per cent, we find that Australia sits on just over 30 per cent which is very much on a par with the United States, Japan, Portugal and Switzerland. There is not very much difference in the overall taxation take of those developed countries. As I have said before, if the Opposition wants Turkey's tax rates it will also get Turkey's social security provisions. Honourable members opposite are smiling and nodding their heads like golliwogs. They want the Australian people to believe that they can give them Turkey's tax rates and Sweden's social security provisions. That is all they have ever talked about. Opposition members always tell their audiences what they believe they want to hear. The honourable member for Wannon talked about marginal tax rates. In the seven years that the Liberal Party occupied this side of the House it was happy to leave the highest marginal tax rate at 60c. It is now down to 49c because this Government lowered it. Likewise, the 48c rate which the Liberal Party was happy to live with is now down to 40c. In the case of the lowest income earners, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), as Treasurer, was happy to have the bottom tax rate at 30c, but this Government has now brought it down to 24c. As the nation knows, next year those taxes will be cut again. Because of the taxing regime of this Government, we are able to lower those tax rates. Professor Mathews, who was quoted by the honourable member for Wannon, said that under the sort of taxation system run by the previous Government paying tax was optional for many. And it was. We saw the sort of bottom of the harbour fiascos that developed under the Liberal Government. In my home State of Western Australia the Liberal Party was into tax avoidance up to its ears. This Government has brought in measures such as the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, substantiation and all of those measures to make sure that the taxation system is decent. All the benefits of that have been given back to people in the form of lower tax rates. The process has been redistributive, rather than one that increases the total tax take. While we are discussing people on the lowest rung of society, the honourable member opposite talked about people who are unemployed. Certainly every day that the Opposition occupied the Treasury bench, when it was in government, an extra thousand people found themselves in this position. If one looks at the poverty gap that existed in 1983 when we assumed government, one sees that a single person on unemployment benefits was $23.40 under the poverty line designated by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. Under this Government that person is now over the poverty line by $1.30, so there is a $25 turnaround. That is maintained all the way through, whether it be a single parent family, a one-child family, a couple with no children or a couple who have three children and no jobs. Under the Liberals these people were underneath the Henderson poverty line by $26.30; under this Government they are under by $10.95. When I saw the motion on the Notice Paper today I was rather bemused. The honourable member seemed to be saying that because we are paying people on social welfare too much, they will not go out to work. We have heard all these crazy schemes, usually put up by members of the National Party of Australia, about working for the dole and all that rubbish. We have costed that particular proposal, and if it were ever implemented it would cost $700m. That is the sort of solution that comes from the opposite side of the House. Opposition members do not have any idea about how to tackle this problem. The motion moved here today by the honourable member for Wannon was nothing more than just a whinge. There were no solutions and there was no hint that he had any idea-in fact he admitted himself that he had no idea-how to tackle them. I will tell him how to tackle them; he should just stay on that side of the House and leave the tackling of those problems to people on this side of the House because the Australian Labor Party is the only party that exercises its mind on the solving of those problems, just as it is the Party that put decency back into the tax system, got industry working again in this country and lifted education to levels approaching those of the OECD. John Hyde said it all on the weekend when he was commenting on his former colleagues. The fact is that the Opposition has no principles. It has no direction. We can all observe in this House that the Opposition has no leader. It is obvious to everybody in Australia that the Opposition has no hope either. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! It being 12.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 104a. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr JULL(Fadden)(12.30) —Australia has a very proud aviation record and history. I am sure that this really came to the fore when, during this bicentennial year, we witnessed some of the most spectacular air shows ever seen at any time in this country. Indeed, I hasten to add that they were some of the most spectacular air shows ever seen anywhere in the world. The point I wish to raise in this grievance debate is that, despite the fact that we do have this history, this tremendous record, we do very little to maintain our heritage in that respect. One thing that has been referred to constantly in this House over the years is the establishment of a national aviation museum, probably in Victoria. For many years we have had small and dedicated groups of people around Australia who have been prepared of their own free will to try to salvage this heritage, with very little help from governments of both political persuasions in this place. The matter first came to the attention of the Whitlam Government during its period in office when it held an inquiry into museums and national collections. At that time there were approaches from a number of groups, scattered throughout the Australian States, suggesting that we should be trying to put together some of our history. When one looks back over the years at the great names in aviation such as Kingsford-Smith, Ulm and Hinkler, at the great names of commercial aviation such as R. M. Ansett, Miller and Connellan, at the legacy of all that they did and the prominence they gave to Australian aviation, one wonders really what we have to show for it. Probably one of the saddest examples I could give of this neglect is that in my electorate a used car yard has as its mascot sitting rotting in the middle of the yard, a DC3 aircraft with a very long and proud history in the United States Air Force and, I understand, with Qantas Airways Ltd. One can drive beyond Toowoomba and see a former Trans Australia Airlines Viscount sitting in a yard rusting to pieces. These aircraft were the great openers of the Australian inland, the great means of communication, yet we have let them fall into disrepair. As I said, there are a number of organisations in the States which have been prepared to make some effort to maintain this heritage, without very much success or support from this Government. I suppose that one of the reasons for that is that Federal governments have always considered aviation history to be a State responsibility. When those groups have gone to State governments, the governments have failed to support their initiatives, principally because of the potential Federal involvement. If we are going to go ahead with this national aviation museum, I wonder whether there has been any definitive study of what the cost of establishing it may be and what the cost of maintaining it may be. These things are very expensive. One of the things we have to be fully aware of is just what our responsibilities will be in terms of the Commonwealth's contribution. I contend that it would be a much cheaper proposition if we gave support to these groups, who often consist of men with very great skills, with very great experience, with very great technical expertise, who are prepared to give their time and effort and, indeed, quite often their money, to establish these museums in every Australian State so that every Australian has access in a real sense to this history and heritage. One of the real regrets over the years, and one of the real reasons why successive Federal governments have not made this contribution, lies in the nature of the disposal of much of our equipment. There are a number of departments which are and should be involved in supporting this concept of maintaining our aviation heritage. For a start there is the Defence Department, which operates the equipment and declares it surplus with no consideration of preservation in terms of its location or condition. Once the equipment is at the end of its life the Department of Defence hands the matter over to the Department of Administrative Services, which disposes of the equipment. There is no differentiation between private buyers, scrap merchants, commercial enterprises and, of course, these genuine aviation museums that are scattered round Australia. We have now the Department of Aviation and the Federal Airports Corporation, which have the airport land and many of the facilities that could be used to maintain some of this material. The home affairs, arts and heritage people also come in because they have responsibility for museums, but as yet nothing has been coordinated in terms of preserving this sort of heritage. Education departments, both Federal and State, should also be involved. There is a great deal of Australian history wrapped up in this matter and young people could be taught about our history by using facilities such as the museums scattered around Australia. It might be argued that moves have been made to support some of the private museums, and I suppose that is true. On Queensland's Gold Coast there was a private museum-strictly a private museum-a money-making enterprise which has now gone into liquidation. The sad part is that some of its equipment has had to be sold off. I understand that some has gone interstate, some has gone overseas, and some has just been sold for scrap. When we ask the Government what is happening with the Mirage aircraft which are being disposed of, some of the answers we get are amazing. We do not really know yet just how many of these aircraft will be retained. We do not know the real identity or details of the aircraft. We do not know whether any will be going into an aviation museum. We do not know about public accessibility to these aircraft if they are to be preserved for their heritage value. It is sad when one reads reports that aircraft such as these are being sold for scrap. I am not saying that the Government should maintain each and every one of the aircraft. However, I look at the case of the Neptune bomber that was given by the Government at a reasonable price to a so-called non-profit organisation. I think that was in 1979, and the Opposition was in Government then. The Department of Administrative Services now quite openly admits that what was supposed to be a non-profit organisation was a highly profitable one. That Neptune aircraft was sold in recent times for 30 times the price for which it was sold by the Government. In many respects that is an absolute scandal. May I say that we do have a very livewire division of the Confederate Air Force based in Australia. A number of pilots every year make a pilgrimage to Harligen, Texas, in the United States and undertake flying displays there using vintage aircraft from World War II and all sorts of ex-commercial aircraft. These gentlemen try very hard to maintain an interest in Australia. It would be people of that calibre that could well be used in establishing these non-profit, community based aviation museums around Australia. One can see what can be done in the preservation of aviation history at places like the Smithsonian Institution or, more especially, at Duxsford, near Cambridge in Britain, which I was privileged to visit in February of this year. In the case of Duxsford, the government gave a complete ex-RAF airfield to the society not only in order to maintain and preserve the military history of World War II in Great Britain-there are some magnificent aircraft in that field-but also so that the civil aviation areas could be preserved. There are examples there of all the great civil aircraft produced by the British aviation industry over the years, ranging from the Concorde right down to the Comet, the VC10 and other modern commercial aircraft. My plea to the Government is that we have a bipartisan approach to this matter. There are people scattered around Australia who want to come together to make sure that our heritage is preserved, a heritage of which we can be very proud. I hope that there will be a bipartisan approach by all people in this Parliament and that we will not go ahead and allocate the huge amounts of money that may be involved in the national museum but rather create a sense of real cooperation, of real commitment by aviation enthusiasts in all States of Australia so that our young people can have access to a very proud history. Mr KENT(Hotham)(12.40) —I rise in this debate today to rebut some of the misinformation that is being spread by the mining lobby since the growing public interest in the greenhouse effect. I would like firstly to address the comments of Mr Hugh Morgan, head of Western Mining Corporation, who said recently, that the way to avoid the greenhouse effect is to support the nuclear industry, to mine, reprocess and export uranium as well as to establish nuclear power stations in Australia, especially on the eastern seaboard. It is interesting to hear such comments coming from Mr Morgan. After all, it is the mining industry, together with the petroleum extracting industry, which is mainly responsible for the greenhouse effect in the first place. Now that its current activities have led us towards global catastrophe and its profits are threatened by growing environmental consciousness, the miners want to channel the world's energy demands into another of their commodities-uranium. This is the equivalent of recommending the replacement of the use of alcohol with heroin. There are two massive energy problems confronting the earth at the moment. One is the greenhouse effect. I will not go into unnecessary detail here, but basically the greenhouse effect refers to the blocking-in of the earth's atmosphere, of long wave heat radiated from the earth's surface towards space. The blocking-in of this heat is increased by the production of a number of gases, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and atmospheric methane, which act as a blanket or barrier preventing heat escaping from the atmosphere. The other major energy problem confronting the world is the growth of the nuclear power industry. It cannot be denied any longer that nuclear power is an extremely dangerous form of power generation. In the era of the greenhouse effect we must be awake to any attempts by the uranium lobby to cover up the obvious dangers associated with its industry. The attempt has already started. The October newsletter of the Uranium Information Centre (UIC) devotes most of its space to telling us how environmentally and medically safe the nuclear industry is. This so-called information sheet contains many distortions. On page 2, for instance, it states: While acknowledging the seriousness of the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the U.S.S.R., it is a fact that few accidents involving radiation have occurred in civil nuclear plants and only Chernobyl has led to direct deaths and any observable effects on the health of those involved. Under normal circumstances, nuclear power has considerable advantages in environmental terms compared with coal combustion and has been instrumental in saving a large number of lives that would have been lost during the extraction, transportation and use of equivalent amounts of fossil fuels. Let us look at this statement more closely. It says: . . . few accidents involving radiation have occurred in civil nuclear plants. The authors must have forgotten about Three Mile Island. The Australian Financial Review of 3 November this year reported that a United States Government study reveals that this accident was far more serious than originally reported-45 per cent of the reactor's core, or 62 tonnes, had melted. The authors must also have forgotten about the Sellafield reprocessing plant in Great Britain, which is a joint civil and military plant. An inquiry in 1977 into the plant showed that there had been 194 accidents. A massive fire there in 1957 released up to 20,000 curies of iodine 131, and as much as 240 curies of plutonium 210. A University of Newcastle report estimates that as many as 1,000 people may have been affected. This statement also ignores the fact that there is a strong link between the civil and military section of the nuclear industry. Each depends in large part on the other for their continuing long-term viability, and the health and safety record of the military nuclear establishments is appalling. My colleague the honourable member of Phillip (Ms McHugh) in her speech a couple of weeks ago pointed out some of the details and facts which have emerged recently regarding health and safety violations in United States nuclear weapon plants. The article in the Uranium Information Centre's (Victoria) newsletter sent us news of claims, `Only Chernobyl has led to direct death and any observable effects on the health of those in war.' The problem here is obvious. The health effects of nuclear power are often not directly observable. The claims in the UIC newsletter are backed up by a table which purports to show that few deaths or illnesses are caused by nuclear accidents. No doubt these figures do not include high leukaemia clusters in children living close to reactors or cancers which appear many years later in reactor workers and their families. An example of the invisible dangers of the nuclear industry is the town of Canonsburg in Pennsylvania. This town's association with radiation began in 1910 when the Standard Chemical Company began producing radium. A factory in Canonsburg processed the uranium which was used in the Manhattan project. In 1965 the factory began to close and the nuclear waste had to be disposed of. The owners bulldozed it across the road, tipped it into a pond and then covered it with shale. Later it was turned into a baseball diamond and used by the local children. The residents of this town have since discovered a large incidence of cancer among the local community. I use this example because it proves that no matter how much the nuclear industry protests its innocence and says that nuclear power is safe, the nuclear industry is plagued and will continue to be plagued by poor management decisions, irresponsibility, greed and negligence. If it was possible in Canonsburg, it will eventually happen elsewhere. I quote again from the newsletter that `under normal circumstances' nuclear power is safer than coal. That is absurd. There is no way that accidents at nuclear reactors can be avoided. Due to the possibility of human error, accidents are inevitable. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Sellafield and countless other accidents show that nuclear accidents, when they occur, have far more profound consequences than corresponding accidents in conventional fossil fuel power generation. For example, extremely high levels of radiation still persist in parts of Sweden which were hit by fallout from Chernobyl, 1,000 miles away. Nuclear power is not the answer to the greenhouse effect. The solution is not completely known at this stage as our understanding of the phenomenon is only in its infancy. However, a more rational approach would be to tackle the problem at its roots. A number of solutions should be considered, including research into alternative energy sources; more efficient use of fossil fuels; the stronger promotion of energy conservation; the development of more fuel-efficient cars and power stations; stricter controls on the emission of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons and reafforestation. Money spent on research into these measures could represent a much better allocation of funds than the enormous amount being sunk into ridiculous scientific fantasies such as synroc. As well as leading to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear power is used for the production of electricity. Only 10 to 15 per cent of the world's processed energy is used in the form of electricity. Cars and trucks are among the biggest users of energy contributing to the greenhouse effect. Nuclear energy, therefore, can address only a very small part of the problem. I hope that people like Hugh Morgan will not start to advocate now the introduction of nuclear-powered cars to prevent the greenhouse effect. In conclusion, I call upon the Australian people to reject the cynical disinformation campaign about nuclear energy as the solution of the greenhouse effect that is being propagated by the uranium mining lobby. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(12.50) —The American journalist Walter Cronkite concluded each of his popular commentaries on current affairs and public issues with the words `And that's the way it is'. No doubt this phrase was designed to convey an impression of authoritative and credible insight so when Cronkite said `And that's the way it is', millions of people believed him and acted or reacted accordingly. They were challenged by his commentaries to look beyond the headlines and examine the wider meanings and possible implications of the important news stories of the day. In other words, Cronkite was more than a public opinion setter; he was a public opinion stimulator, encouraging people to think things through for themselves. All too often we are concerned, even alarmed, by what we see or hear or read but are not sufficiently interested or motivated to find out more or to actually do anything about it, except perhaps to give a cursory shake of the head and make a passing remark to anyone who happens to be listening that things are not what they should or used to be. The appalling things that are currently happening in and to our society are reflected by the issues which receive publicity in the Australian media. Our expectations have been lowered and we have accepted this downward trend. I believe that in many instances the standards and traditions which used to be the norm within our community have been cast aside for no good reason other than that they are old hat and must therefore be defective, reactionary and irrelevant. In this context we should recall the words of another famous, influential and admired American, Herbert Hoover, who said: The principal thing we can do, if we really want to make the world over, is to try to use the world `old' again. It was the old things that made this country the great nation that it is. There are the old virtues of integrity and truth; of incorruptible service and honour in public office; of economy in government, of self-reliance, thrift and individual responsibility and liberty; of patriotism, real love of country and the willingness to sacrifice for it. If the ideals and concepts Hoover espoused are considered conservative, reactionary, old-fashioned or out of date, then I, for one, am happy to be regarded an an old-fashioned, out-of-date, reactionary conservative. Is it old-fashioned and reactionary to object to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) broadcasting obscenities and then attempting to justify its actions by claiming that the words in question are frequently used and can be heard in any school ground or bar? This is not a valid reason or satisfactory excuse for the irresponsible decision to include obscene and offensive words in prime-time programs. The fact that something is often said or done does not necessarily mean it is acceptable or correct or should be condoned. Furthermore, there is a significant difference between a private or bar room conversation and a public broadcast and the reasons for requiring a higher standard in the latter forum are obvious. Sir Rupert Hamer, Chairman of The Friends of the ABC, summed the matter up very well when he said, `It is not for the ABC to lead the way downwards'. Whilst the ABC indulges itself in reflecting the apparent unfortunate decline in community standards in so far as the spoken word is concerned, some sections of the film and video industry are pursuing a similar though potentially far more hazardous path by promoting visual pornography and violence as a legitimate alternative art form. In a recent article in the Age, Neil Jillett discussed our current film censorship guidelines and the erratic manner in which they are applied by the Film Censorship Board. He states that he is a believer in a more liberal censorship of films available to adults and a tighter censorship to those available to children. But in the case of the particular film which he describes as graphically violent, sexually explicit, and hardly helpful to the anti-drug campaign, Jillett suggests that the Board may have defied its own guidelines by giving it an R certificate; that is, one suitable for cinema screening to adults. He commented: Because of its sexual violence, this film strikes me as being clearly unqualified, according to censorship guidelines, for cinema or video release. There is also the question of whether it should be disqualified by the guidelines' references to drugs. It is interesting to note that whilst Jillett describes this film as `a splatter movie of the goriest, most violent kind', the director of the cinema where the film is to be shown claims that it is `an entertaining romp, good of its kind'. Those of us who are reactionary and conservative enough to believe that explicit sexual violence is not the stuff of which entertaining romps are made should record our disapproval with the authorities who have allowed this film to be publicly screened. The time has come when decent, ordinary, old-fashioned people should join forces to ensure that those who are responsible for interpreting what are, after all, very lenient censorship guidelines are equal to the task. If not, they will have to be relieved of their duties. The same applies to some members of the medical and scientific professions who are apparently prepared to sacrifice ethics on the altar of so-called technological development. According to Dr Jules Black, a Sydney obstetrician and gynaecologist, medical terminology and technology enabling men to become pregnant and carry children to term will be available and operating within the next two years. Are the reactionary conservatives the only ones offended by this depraved proposal? Dr Black says that men could even breastfeed a child by taking female hormone supplements. He assures us that there would be no shortage of Australian men willing to be part of such a procedure. He says that transsexual couples, for a start, are crying out to have children of their own and that many men would also give anything to become famous. Almost as alarming as the prospect of childbearing men is the attitude of Dr Alan Trounson, director of the Monash University in vitro fertilisation program, who regards the prospect of inducing pregnancy in a man as `doubtful ethically'. Doubtful? I am astonished by Dr Trounson's choice of word. Such an unnatural concept is totally abhorrent. It is not doubtful ethically; it is impossible ethically. I urge other old-fashioned reactionary conservatives to register an immediate protest at this example of modern medicine gone mad. Hippocrates must be spinning in his grave. Finally, let us consider what Hoover referred to as `the old virtue of incorruptible service and honour in public office'. The Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct has certainly dealt these old virtues a body blow of immense proportions. Those who are elected or appointed to public office have a sacred duty to uphold the confidence and trust which have been placed in them. It is despicable to betray the public trust; to actively and intentionally work against, rather than for, the best interests of the community one is meant to serve. To take advantage of one's position to secure some individual gain or benefit at the expense of the public good is under any circumstances unjustifiable and inexcusable. While we are on the subject of public office, I believe it is about time that we all acknowledged the fact that politicians face particular problems when it comes to our collective public image. We all need to make an effort to regain the public esteem our predecessors once enjoyed. Respect, dignity and the confidence of the people cannot be demanded as a right or achieved by legislation, coercion or force. They can be earned only as the result of honesty, hard work, integrity and selfless devotion to duty. It does little to enhance our collective reputation if any one of us acts in a way which belittles the people and the institutions that we represent. The magnum opus of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the conclusion of the Australian Grand Prix recently does little to convince an already disillusioned community that members of parliament know how to behave, or that their behaviour and presence deserve the respect of others. Can anyone imagine a Ben Chifley, Robert Menzies, Gough Whitlam or Malcolm Fraser cavorting around the presentation dais whilst being doused with champagne? It may be reasonable, or at least understandable, for excited racing car drivers to perform this traditional but nonetheless peculiar victory ceremony which invariably involves their colleagues and adoring fans, but to extend the gesture to include our Prime Minister is beyond acceptable standards. I doubt that the British Prime Minister, the President of France, the Chancellor of West Germany, or the United States President, or for that matter any other respected world leader, would have been subjected to or would have tolerated similar treatment. Mr Deputy Speaker, my objective in canvassing these matters today is not necessarily to gain support for my own views about particular issues. What I have endeavoured to do is to challenge others to examine the issues for themselves, to consider the implications and assess the potential consequences. We should all exercise our right to make up our own minds and to take any reasonable and responsible action we may deem necessary or appropriate. Unlike Cronkite, I would not presume to suggest that my opinions on the issues that have been raised today are infallible. If the few examples that I have cited here are truly indicative of the way it is in Australia today, this great nation of ours is in deep trouble and the institutions, standards, traditions and principles which the majority of its people value and want to see preserved are under enormous and immediate threat. The challenge is there; it is the duty of every Australian to respond to it. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(1.00) —I had thought that I would be discussing questions of the Northern Territory economy and would make that the main focus of my speech in this grievance debate; however, the comments by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) have attracted my attention. I was particularly intrigued by those comments which referred to the need for members of this Parliament-I believe he was also referring to the honourable senators who sit in the other place-to have the virtues of honesty, hard work and integrity and to undertake activities which did not belittle people. I have to say to the honourable member for Casey that if there are any people in this Parliament who have demonstrated the capacity for a lack of integrity, a lack of honesty and a capacity to belittle people, they are the members of his own coalition. I will just point to one example, and it is the National Party senator from the Northern Territory. Over the last few weeks he has undertaken a campaign, along with his colleagues, deliberately to belittle people and has demonstrated a clear lack of integrity by using his position of privilege in the Senate in a way which I can describe only as jumping into the gutter of racial division and character assassination for cheap and cynical political point scoring. He is someone, I might say, who professes a belief in the Christian faith. Yet without any apparent reference to the principles of that faith he has been prepared to use his privileged position in the Senate to vilify, denigrate and use smear campaigns against individuals and families amongst the Aboriginal community in my electorate; completely, I might add, without any substantiation. Not only has he done that; he has named wives and children of people in public life in a deliberate attempt to smear them. I ask the honourable member for Casey, if he is honest and believes in integrity, justice and all the things he espoused in his speech, why is it that he allows his coalition party room to carry on with these antics? Why is it that he allows, particularly, members of the National Party to use the Senate committee system to shame people and to use that system as an attempt to assassinate their characters by smear and innuendo? Just tell me. Has he got a response? He clearly has not. I invite honourable members to go through the Estimates Committee Hansard, to see the number of people who have been named and to see what they have been named for. In one particular instance a very good friend of mine has been named because she has the temerity to live with someone else; no other reason, but because she happens to live with someone else. That is what the Senate has degenerated to. That is what some senators have decided to use their position of privilege for; that is what he has done. The National Party senator for the Northern Territory has been elected-I might add, on the preferences of the Labor Party, unfortunately-to come down here to represent the people of the Northern Territory in the Senate. Approximately 26 per cent of the population is Aboriginal, yet what has he done over the last number of weeks? He has sought to undermine the community's confidence in the Aboriginal community; he has sought to attack people as individuals; he has sought to undermine organisational support, without any justification or substantiation. Will he go back to the electorate and front those people? Will he make those statements outside the Parliament? He knows what would happen to him. He knows that he would be pilloried all over the countryside and that if he goes into those Aboriginal communities and organisations about which he has made these references and confronts these Aboriginal people, they will kick him out. Is it any wonder that the vote by Aboriginal people for his type of person, for the people who front with the National Party in this place, is what it is? Is it any wonder that the human beings, those civil libertarians on his side of the House, cannot stand it? Yet the honourable member has the temerity to get up here and preach to us about those issues, about the moral standards of Parliament. He does not know what moral standards are. He is not prepared to accept that people have the right to defend themselves. By the lacklustre performance of the Opposition spokesperson on Aboriginal Affairs, who seems to be falling into the pocket of this sort of tactic, there is clearly no idea on that side of the House of what integrity and honesty mean and how to represent the interests of the people of Australia in a fair and equitable manner. I might just say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I did not intend to speak in this debate about that issue, but the galling statements made by the honourable member for Casey left me with no choice. I would say, however, to the honourable member for Casey, and to the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) who sits there scoffing, that they might suggest to the honourable senator from the Northern Territory who sits with the National Party that if he wants to maintain the respect of the Christian community in the Northern Territory, or at least get some respect from those people in the community who believe in justice and fairness, he should desist from the sorts of attacks which his colleagues seem to defend. Whilst on the sorts of attacks that have been made by the National Party senator for the Northern Territory, I might say that I was somewhat amazed to see the statements made by the Minister for Lands and Housing, Mr Manzie, in the Northern Territory on 22 November in which he blamed the ills of the Northern Territory economy upon Treasurer Keating and this Government's economic policies. Anyone who has any clear idea or just a little understanding of what the Northern Territory economy is about would realise that the problems of the Northern Territory are of its own making. Eighty per cent of government receipts in the Northern Territory come from this Government, from the taxpayers of Australia. What we have seen in the Northern Territory shows that mismanagement is exemplified by this fact: in 1980 and 1981 capital outlays as a proportion of total revenue and grants received were 44 per cent. By 1987-88 they had fallen to 22 per cent. Is it any wonder that the population in the Northern Territory is on the decline? Is it any wonder that in the 12 months to June last there was a net interstate migration loss from the Northern Territory of 4,600 people. That represents a total population loss of 900 and it is the first time since World War II that the population has declined from one June to the next. The unemployment rate is running at some 6.7 per cent as at October 1988 but, in fact, that relatively small unemployment rate is as a direct result of the fact that people are leaving the joint. It has almost got to the stage where it is a case of last one out turn out the lights. The housing vacancy rate at May 1988 was 18 per cent. In terms of building approvals, the total value of buildings approved in September was $11.2m or 79.7 per cent lower than in September of last year. This figure reflects the decreased public sector contribution towards the total of buildings approved. However, lest we think that the Commonwealth is not pulling its weight, apart from the 80 per cent of the Northern Territory Government's revenue which is received from the Commonwealth in terms of budget outlays, we also see capital works programs funded by the Commonwealth outside of the normal Budget process as defence expenditure. Through grants made to the Northern Territory, for example, we have spent $250m on stage 1 of the Tindal project. An additional $170m has been allocated for further defence expenditure; $26.5m of that is to go to the Coonawarra project; $39m, or thereabouts, to Tindal; $4m to Jindalee; $60m to the Second Cavalry Regiment; $19m to housing; and an amount of money to Larrakeyah army base. Honourable members will recall the debate in this place about housing and education. This year will see a substantial increase in the expenditure from the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory in both those areas. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(1.10) —I wish to discuss a matter of great concern to country people of New South Wales, particularly those living in the Parkes electorate and those who use the major airports there, namely, Forbes, Parkes, Dubbo and Cudal. I am raising this issue because of the imminent threat that many of the aircraft flying from country New South Wales, including those from the Parkes electorate, into Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport will be forced by a deliberate decision of this Government to land some 25 kilometres west of Sydney at Bankstown, or even worse, some five or six years down the track from now, these people will be forced to land 60 kilometres west of Sydney at a small commuter airline strip that is going to be built at Badgerys Creek. Mr Halverson —It is ridiculous. Mr COBB —It is ridiculous, as the honourable member for Casey says, because there is no need for it. Let me get one thing straight at the start: this proposal, this alternative, is totally unacceptable to country people. The Federal Government is aiming to do this by either banning these aircraft from landing at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport or by putting excessive charges on them which will be imposed by the Federal Airports Corporation, which is the owner of that airport. Unless this stupid proposal is stopped, I am told that it will be implemented very soon. Country aircraft flying into Sydney have traditionally had a share of aircraft landing numbers there and they are entitled, I believe, to maintain that share. Let us not forget that 1 1/2 million people live in country New South Wales and something like a third of the aircraft movements into Kingsford-Smith come from country areas. If these people are going to be forced to go to Bankstown, let alone Badgerys Creek, we have to note a few things about Bankstown. It is already operating at near maximum capacity and would need a great deal of upgrading even to be able to handle these extra aircraft in the forms of terminals, runways, taxiways, radar and so on. Let us not forget that there is no satisfactory public transport to the city from the Bankstown area. It would take one to two hours for the public to get in because there is no proper public transport system. People from country New South Wales who wanted to do business in Sydney and were forced to land at Bankstown, would have to stay overnight in Sydney. That would be a cost not only in time but also in money. Of course, quite a lot of people will opt, if this is forced upon them, to drive to Sydney instead of fly and up to a third of the commuter passengers could be lost. I refer to those flying from cities such as Bathurst and Orange who would probably opt to drive down; even from Forbes or Parkes, perhaps even from Dubbo. If this happens, the numbers using these services will fall. That will make the routes less economic than they are now so fares will rise, fewer services will be provided, and the companies flying these routes will end up using smaller aircraft; indeed, many of the routes will become unviable and some airlines may withdraw from the routes altogether or go bust. This of course will lead to a lower quality of life for country people. I can tell the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support (Mr Punch) now that country people are not prepared to cop these alternatives. We will fight these proposals tooth and nail to the bitter political end and that will be the end of this Government at the next election. Mascot has a theoretical capacity of about 220,000 movements a year which, when operational, is about one movement every two minutes, or one every four minutes even in rainy weather. It is very close to this capacity now, because in the last fiscal year it had about 212,000 movements in and out. Because landing fees are related to the weight of the aircraft, the Federal Airports Corporation wants to shift smaller aircraft-that is aircraft weighing less than 5,700 kilograms-elsewhere. That relates to aircraft from about the size of Kingairs down. I tell the Minister that if these aircraft are shifted out, it will affect in excess of 50 per cent of the flights coming from country New South Wales. This would be in total disregard of the reasons for building the airport in the first place. One of the prime reasons it was built was to serve all the people of New South Wales. Let us not forget that Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is the ninth busiest airport in the world. Unlike the others, it is not a multi-runway complex. It has only two runways, the east-west runway and the north-south runway. What is desperately needed at Kingsford-Smith, apart from other things such as lifting of the curfew which would help a little, is a third runway parallel to the north-south runway. Everybody who has looked at the problem and every inquiry that has been held into the matter comes to this commonsense conclusion. It is the only logical way to go. It would need a runway only about 1.8 kilometres long which would allow landings, but not take-offs, up to the size of the Boeing 737. Such a runway could be operational in 2 1/2 to three years. A more elaborate runway about two kilometres or more long could be built for an all-up cost of about $250m to $300m and that could be fully operational in five to six years. This option, if exercised, would allow an increase in traffic in and out of Kingsford-Smith of 40 per cent. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is an extra 90,000 movements. If that came to pass it would solve the immediate problem totally. I hasten to say, of course, that the coalition recognises that the Badgerys Creek airport must go ahead, but that is not going to be fully operational until something like the year 2015. As we know, this Government opposes the third runway because of noise. It exaggerates the figures totally. The Air Transport Council says 78,000 people around that area are affected by noise. Let us not forget that they live there because the prices of houses are lower there because of the noise factor. So they buy them with their eyes open. The figure is 78,000, not a million as the Minister often tells us. That highlights, of course, the fact that the Minister has a direct conflict of interest in this area and is therefore not fit to hold his portfolio because of that. Aircraft noise today is not what it was even 10 to 15 years ago with modern technology, much quieter engines and so on. The Minister is trying to ban small aircraft and replace them with larger aircraft. I wonder what the people who live in the electorate of Barton think of that, because larger aircraft are obviously going to make more noise than smaller aircraft. It will also mean, of course, more noise for those who live at Bankstown, too, as larger aircraft will be forced to fly in there. This illogical and stupid paranoia with aircraft noise, leading to this Government opposing a third runway, is causing it to make the most extraordinary decisions. One announcement recently is that the Botany Municipal Council is giving permission for new buildings to be erected only about 200 metres north of the end of the proposed north-south runway, to a height of 51 metres, instead of the present 15-metre limit. This will mean, of course, that that runway could never be built, and that either the State Government would have to stop it by putting on restrictions or we would have to bulldoze them out of the road after we win the next election. It will be a criminal act if these buildings go ahead and block that runway being built at some time in the future. I can say to the Minister that Qantas is totally in favour of the third runway, and Ansett and Australian Airlines are about to hold a Press conference to announce that they are in favour of the third runway. In fact, the entire industry is in favour of the third parallel runway. Sydney is in favour of it; New South Wales is in favour of it; country New South Wales is in favour of it; Australia is in favour of it; everybody is in favour of it except this Government. It is a totally irresponsible decision not to build it and the Government is doing it purely to save the Minister's seat. Such a cynical, political decision is being made which will devastate country passengers from New South Wales. It will stifle international tourism; it was a major factor in Sydney losing its chance to host the Olympic Games. It will compromise safety; it is going to cost millions of dollars in delay and inconvenience and in longer commuter times and so on. If these discriminatory landing charges are applied and this runway is prevented from being built, I can tell the Minister that there will be a revolt in country New South Wales and elsewhere that will force this Minister and this Government into political oblivion. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(1.20) —Over the last few months more and more service station lessees have been deeply distressed by treatment by oil companies which supply them; oil companies which are also their landlords. The recent shabby treatment of service station proprietors has affected not only those in Eden-Monaro. All over Australia intimidation, forfeiture of tenure, price discrimination and unfair lease premiums have occurred because of the actions of oil companies. For about 80 per cent of lessee dealers throughout Australia security of tenure provided through the Commonwealth Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 expires in September 1989. The Act itself does not expire, but oil companies will be unfettered in their ability to decide the fate of these dealers. Some dealers, it is true, will go because of unsatisfactory performance, or because of closure of sites. Most will be entitled to fresh agreements under the conditions set out in the Act. Some oil companies, in an understandable attempt to prevent a log jam in September 1989, commenced the introduction of their franchise agreements earlier this year and the remainder are expected to have announced their intentions by early 1989. This seems to be fair and commercially reasonable. Unfortunately there are problems for dealers, problems which their associations have been struggling to resolve. Some of the unresolved issues are the subject of litigation and others are being discussed during an inquiry by the Trade Practices Commission. Service station association representatives and proprietors have told me of intimidation. Whether or not it has been condoned by oil companies, I am advised that field staff have been systematically threatening dealers, both explicitly and by implication, with non-renewal of agreements in 1989 if they do not agree to forfeit some of their independence. Scare tactics have been used with threats of an uncertain future should dealers not accept the new agreement by the stipulated deadline. Legislation provides for security of tenure until at least September 1989. Three of the four companies which have released their intentions require dealers to accept and sign agreements before the end of 1988, thus forfeiting up to a year of their hard won tenure, while all too often the agreements are unacceptable. I ask the oil companies: Why should dealers have to set their future in concrete so soon? There are dealers who now contemplate walking out of their businesses and losing the goodwill that they have built up, rather than accepting these agreements. There are others who are in debt, who feel locked in to accepting the agreements, even though they know they will go further into debt trying to hold on to their assets. Oil companies describe lease premiums as franchise fees, even though there is nothing to stop them being applied in return for the granting of a fresh lease. This seems to be a blatant attempt to get more money from dealers for little return other than the doubtful benefit of remaining on the site. The oil companies claim they want franchise fees in return for a true franchise relationship, but when I look at some of the agreements I see that most of the requirements for the oil companies would normally have been carried out anyway in the interests of the oil companies themselves. Those obligations of the oil companies are rather few and most of the obligations in the agreement are on the service station operator. Normal elements of a franchise relationship, elements which apply to McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken and firms such as that, are missing. Franchise expectations, exclusive territory, profitability expectations and mutuality of interest, all seem to be missing from the proposed agreements. For the consumers, petrol users throughout Australia, particularly in country areas, the worst of their relationship with their suppliers is price discrimination. Much of the difference between country and city prices is due to policies of oil companies towards service station lessees who are charged the top price for fuel as determined by the Prices Surveillance Authority. The oil companies select service stations such as freehold customers and charge them lower prices for fuel. Some of those customers do not even carry the oil company trade mark, yet they are charged lower prices than a person in a franchise relationship. It is no wonder that these franchise dealers are upset. Surely, if they pay franchise fees and comply with a great list of obligations, they should be offered the bottom prices from the oil companies. I do not propose to dwell on this issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I do not want to pre-empt the Trade Practices Commission recommendation. I do want to add my view that the agreements are onerous and appear to contravene the right of franchisees under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act. Some of the agreements require a franchisee to purchase all fuel from one oil company, even though the Trade Practices Commission has given a ruling that service stations should be able to purchase 50 per cent of fuel from oil companies other than the lessor or franchisor. I know that there are negotiations on this aspect. I also know that many differences remain unresolved. I do not know whether petrol buyers throughout Australia realise that if retailers become locked into unwieldy one-sided agreements, things will become worse for the consumer and it may well be easier for petrol companies to put up their prices. Petrol companies are talking about the rack pricing system. I do have some concern with this proposal in that it may be a way of protecting oil companies from one another, rather than protecting consumers or service station proprietors or petrol distributors. I am rather sceptical that prices would drop in country areas under rack pricing and I am confident that they would increase in metropolitan areas. Rack pricing is alleged to set a price generally agreed to by oil companies throughout Australia. Oil companies would still have the right to sell to major customers below the rack price within the system. It seems to me that we ought to extend the 50 per cent requirement so that distributors and service station proprietors have more freedom from the oil companies. I have not become emotional about this; I have not outlined the devastation produced within families, the prospect of people walking out of businesses with nothing for goodwill or the prospect of families feeling unable to get out because of their growing debt. They could become locked into hopelessness and despair and be unable to move. Consumers deserve a better deal and I know my colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), who is in the House, through his consumer affairs subcommittee has, with me, been talking to service station operators. He has frequently expressed in the House his concern that consumers deserve a better deal, but it will not happen if petrol companies gain full control of all the aspects of marketing, wholesaling and retailing. It is very important that we look at this question and that we do have something to say, as I have, to the oil companies as they proceed to try to set these agreements in concrete. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(1.28) —Recent months have witnessed the national and international environment debate shifting to a more informed discussion about fundamental environmental issues. These include growing concern as to the pollution levels in the North Sea, questions of soil degradation, and the impact of deforestation as well as the problems caused by toxic waste disposal to the atmosphere which brings about an ozone layer depletion in the so-called greenhouse effect. On a recent parliamentary delegation to the Philippines, the problem of deforestation was brought home to me as an important factor in the Philippines economy. The Philippines have a population of 58 million people, which is rurally based. The slow industrialisation has meant that population pressures on the environment are extreme. The excesses and corruption of the Marcos regime have added an exploitive element to the loggers and the commercial interests who see profit from removing valuable timber from the forested areas of the Philippines. Along with the slash and burn attitude of the traditional Filipino farmer, this has brought about a major devastation of the soils, climate and forests over the last two decades. Images taken from satellites have indicated that the upland forests that covered most of the Philippines have fallen in land area from 75 per cent to 25 per cent. Some of the smaller islands, such as Cebu, are now virtually barren. My own personal observation supported this evidence that the removal of trees is one of the most difficult national problems facing the Government. President Aquino puts deforestation along with poverty and national debt as being the three major problems facing her government. The problem of deforestation in the Philippines is exacerbated by the problems of land tenure. Changes to the more fertile areas often push those without land into mountainous areas where logging is profitable and some landholdings can be created after the trees are removed. The traditional agricultural method based on slash and burn, along with illegal loggers, means that there is a national cultural attitude against the maintenance of forest areas. Big profits can be obtained from logging in the short term, but because of the corruption and lack of government controls and timber removal and replanting, the devastation of the Philippines countryside is immense. With the removal of trees and vegetation, soil erosion is becoming a long term problem with top soil being washed down the streams and rivers, which in turn pollutes the fishing areas around the Philippines islands. In the high tropical climate, once the process of deforestation and erosion takes hold, it is particularly difficult to re-establish trees and vegetation to restore the fertility of the land. The average age of the Filipino population is between 23 and 30 years, which means that there is a potential for a major population explosion, putting further pressure on the environment because of the largely rural based villages and farming operations. The concentration of urban population in the major city centres with low standards of housing and living conditions brings a further focus on the total national Philippines environment. How will the Filipinos survive if their streams are polluted, their coastal fishing areas no longer operate and their agricultural systems are not sustainable in the long term because of the removal of forests and vegetation cover? Whilst forests seem to be a problem far removed from the Filipino policy makers and city dwellers, their future could largely depend on reversing the traditional attitude of forest destruction and logging for short term profits. On the island of Borneo similar problems have become evident. In the process of developing the State of Sarawak the Malaysian Government plans to undo in the rainforest what nature has taken centuries to achieve by building a dam. The proposed Bakun hydro-electric project will contain 4,000 million cubic metres of water and will submerge numerous farms and settlements. Hundreds of square kilometres of virgin rainforest with its wealth of flora and fauna will go under water. The dam, twice as high as the Aswan Dam in Egypt, will be the largest in South East Asia. It will transform a tranquil, unspoilt landscape into a region of heavy industrialisation. This devastation is to be carried out in the name of development, yet it seems that politicians and industrialists stand to gain more from the project than the people of Sarawak. According to proponents of such schemes, the benefits of the dam to the nation outweigh the accompanying environmental impact. However, urban pressures, soil erosion and deforestation bring into question the long term ability of the population to exist in Borneo. The Aswan High Dam in Egypt is a perfect example of this. It has led to a steady deterioration in the fertility of Egypt's soils, causing significant problems for Egyptian farmers. The same problems will no doubt become evident in Borneo with the construction of the Bakun hydro-electric project. In Brazil, the link between deforestation and development is so well entrenched that the yearly ritual of destruction by fire is difficult to prevent. In clearing the land, the general motto appears to be, `Flames can do what the hands cannot'. In 1987 180,000 square kilometres of land were burnt by farmers. Worried at the prospect of losing land as yet unused by them and fearing the Government would expropriate such land, they attempted to assert ownership by burning and clearing and thereby creating claims to ownership. It is estimated that the fires in the Amazon Basin, the lungs of the world, are responsible for 10 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere every year. Thus the deforestation epidemic has significant ramifications for the protection of the ozone layer, a matter which is much debated at the moment. In preparing ski slopes in Europe trees and shrubs are removed from the upper mountain areas so that skiers can have clear and uninterrupted long runs. As a result of this commercial activity, deforestation and soil degradation have come under increasing scrutiny due to evidence which confirms the dangers of avalanches, mud slides and rock falls on the mountain slopes around villages in northern Italy near the Swiss border. Deforestation of ski resorts is now directly linked to such disasters which have displaced over 7,000 people and wrecked 50 towns, villages and holiday centres. Deforestation varies greatly from country to country. Global destruction proceeds at approximately 0.6 per cent annually. In some countries, the rate of deforestation is as low as 0.02 per cent a year, while in other countries it reaches a rate of 7 per cent per annum. Closed forests which provide a self-sustaining environment of light and moisture and in which there is a delicate balance between the flora and fauna can easily be destroyed by man's greed and exploitation. It is estimated that these closed forests could disappear from the world environment in 25 years. This is a sad indictment of our world's awareness of the value of such a resource. The livelihood of millions of rural people throughout the world depends on forest resources. Wanton destruction and degradation of forests have widespread implications for human society. Quite clearly the quality of life in the future depends upon responsible action for the re-establishment of forest areas on the planet. In Australia there have been extreme positions put on both sides about the maintenance of forest areas. On the one hand, the conservation movement has brought to the public's attention the dangers of unrestrained cutting down of trees throughout Australia, while on the other hand the responsible forest industries have developed a renewable program of timber harvesting and tree planting over a 30- to 40-year cycle. Australia must maintain a position in leading the world and, more particularly, our Pacific neighbours in providing the balanced arguments that ensure the natural forest environment will help the largely urban populations of Asia and Australia to survive. It is clearly evident that the wanton destruction of forest resources has long term effects on the world's atmosphere that have not yet been calculated. In this grievance debate I have raised the awareness of these issues in the hope that future generations will benefit from a sensible long-term approach to protecting trees on this earth. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(1.37) —I welcome the opportunity to use the last few minutes of this grievance debate to canvass an issue that I did bring to the attention of the House before. It relates to Mr Peter Sawyer and my entry into this debate is rather timely because we have seen his latest literary effort-some 36 pages-which have now been circulated throughout the country. Mr Peter Sawyer is the infamous prophet who prophesied doom throughout this nation. We ought to go back to some of the history because it is almost a year to this day that Peter Sawyer put out his November magazine last year telling of an Aboriginal uprising that would take place on Australia Day 1988. Honourable members will recall that he said that there would be thousands of people killed right across the nation; we would see the fall of the Hawke Government; an international peacekeeping force was going to come into this country in around May of this year; there would be a new economic structure because we would have a cashless society, an economy based on gold, and everybody who had anything would lose it all and we would have this dictatorship. He said there would be no more pensions, no more unemployment benefits and instead we would have some sort of voucher system. All this would be changed. It would all result, he said, in a one world government that would actually reside in this Parliament and that there were mansions being built in the Australian Capital Territory where the world governors would reside. He also told us about the identification cards that would be brought in and the international and national surveillance system. He told us of the hundreds of thousands of farmers who would be wiped out in early 1988; of economic collapse, of the country coming to a standstill because of the coal strike that was going to close down the nation. He said emphatically, `This will all occur by 1 May 1988'. It did not happen and on 29 June this year he went on the Haydn Sargent program on 4BC in Brisbane, with compere Greg Garey. He was asked why it did not happen. He said: `They are still doing all these things on what you might call a revised timetable. It is going to happen now in September and October'. He then went on to say, `Everything else we have talked about appears to be almost exactly six months down the track', and that is from May. So if we work it out, it is 1 November. He actually quotes that date because he said, `They'-and I put in all Australians-`have to start lining up at the post offices with their identification from 1 November 1988'. So what he prophesied was doom and gloom, economic collapse, a dictatorship, an international peacekeeping force-all these amazing things. The fact is that not one thing he ever said, ever prophesied or ever accused this Government or the Opposition, the National and Liberal parties of, has ever been shown to be true. It is understandable that in this 30-page diatribe that is now being sent to members he will not talk about those issues. He has attacked Senator Boswell, Gary Johns, myself and other members of this chamber who have stood up to him, to the League of Rights and others. The fact is that he has been discredited on every claim. If there is an international conspiracy it certainly does not revolve around this Parliament. It might revolve around some of his associates tied up with the Australian League of Rights, but certainly not here. Just as those claims have been refuted, so has his claim about an international and national surveillance system coming from the Deakin Centre in Canberra. I thought, how do I beat that claim? I thought if he is talking about independent people there is one way of doing it. I asked Mr Trevor Perrett, who is the independent member for Barambah, Queensland, the man who took Joh Bjelke-Petersen's seat, to come to Canberra to see for himself. I have in my possession a letter from Trevor Perrett, MLA, who says quite clearly that the claims Mr Sawyer has made have no basis. The regrettable part about this is that Mr Sawyer has done enormous harm. I have letters from people, from wives and families who have said how husbands have sold up property, how they have invested in gold when they sold everything they had, got rid of their assets because of what Mr Sawyer had said. I have had deputations of pensioners who have sat in my office and cried that they were going to lose everything that they owned, because all their pensions would disappear. I have had the same thing from farmers who did not know what to do because they had had that economic prediction of what they ought to do-sell their properties if they did not have a certain equity. He has done great harm. Whilst he has lost a lot of his believers the man is still very dangerous. I think it is a pity that he is being used by others. I think he has been the tool of the neo-nazi pro-Hitler Australian League of Rights. I have said it before and I will say it again. It does not surprise me that he defends the League of Rights again. It is sad and it is rather pathetic that this has continued. I think we need to know now who is behind the man. I noted in the Haydn Sargent report that he said that at one point they were distributing something like two million pieces of literature around this country. What say it was not two million, what say we come back to 100,000. He charges, as I have here in this document, $50 a time. So if it is not two million but 100,000 and it is $50 a time, we are talking about a base financial resource of some $5m. We ought to know what he does with the money. Who is behind it? I have heard him say publicly that he is on unemployment benefits. Mr Pratt —Is he paying tax? Mr WRIGHT —I do not know. I would like to know. Does he pay tax? The fact is that we are bringing his madness to the fore. Fortunately the churches and others who got with him in the early days have walked away from him and it pleased me. Just as we have had attacks on the Sawyer prophecies, we now have people like the Reverend Fred Nile coming out and talking about the attempts by the League of Rights and others to take over his organisation, Call to Australia. Mr Pratt —We could call it the Sawyer bean tax. Mr WRIGHT —That is not a bad idea. If there is a conspiracy, I know it does not involve this Parliament. It does not involve the National, Liberal or Labor parties. It certainly may involve the extremist neo-Nazi groups that do regrettably exist in this country, but they have a right to be here and I will fight for them to have that right. But the time has come to put an end to Mr Peter Sawyer. He has said a lot of things about me and I will sort that out in another arena; that is, if I can find his address. That is not a threat, that is a promise. The people of this country need to contact their Federal members if they want to know the truth. Members of the Liberal, National and Labor parties have prepared material to answer these outlandish Sawyer claims. I have prepared a tape and I have already sent out almost 500 copies of it to people who want to hear the truth. I would suggest, just as Senator Boswell does the same thing with the churches and other groups, that members of Parliament ought to take upon themselves a special responsibility to ensure that Peter Sawyer is put in his place, that his mad, irresponsible allegations are shown to be what they really are. Only then will we have sensible debate about the future of this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr ROCHER(Curtin) —Earlier this year I spoke about the action of the Western Australian Education Department in posting one of its grade 1 officers to serve in the remote Yilgarn district. This was done contrary to a finding of the Teachers Arbitration Tribunal in 1981. The Western Australian Director of Education first described it as a simple matter of a two-year posting. Lately, he claims it is a complex matter. Moreover, the period of the posting has already been stretched to three years with a fourth now possible. The officer of the Education Department of whom I speak is Mr Peter Weygers. My particular interest stems from the fact that Mr Weygers is also the elected mayor of the town of Claremont, the town being in the heart of my electorate. Because of his country posting, his ability to carry out his mayoral and council duties is diminished. If the Australian Labor Party genuinely supports local government as one of its referendum questions would have us believe, it should take immediate action to ensure that Mr Weygers is able to carry out his elected duties unhindered and without detriment to his standing in the Education Department. Mr JOHN SCOTT(Hindmarsh) —I want to mention something about the testing of imported goods, particularly pre-cooked prawns. Recently I received correspondence which has alarmed me, and I am sure it will alarm most members when they hear that, of 86 consignments, 17 when tested were found to be contaminated; that is, 20 per cent of those 86 consignments. Two of the contaminations were salmonella and the other 15 had high bacteriological contamination. But the most alarming thing is that these prawns were then allowed to be re-exported. According to the correspondence I have, importers are given the option of re-export, that is for reprocessing, et cetera, or destruction of the product. It is understood that re-export is normally the favoured option. I think it is very alarming that we have not, as yet, got something in place that would forbid that kind of thing happening. Of course it concerns me that the re-export may be a process whereby the products are sent to be irradiated to try to clean them up, which is a process that is entered into in a number of countries which use the radiation process to clean up contaminated food and then put it back on the market. Mr PRATT(Adelaide) —Labor's letter writing brigade are a busy bunch at the moment as they flood the Letters to the Editor columns of the national dailies. Labor's copout on the X-rated video question has allowed Canberra to continue as the national capital of pornography. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has flown in the face of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material which, after more than three years of research, recommended a ban on X-rated videos and their R-rated equivalents. It is all very well for Mick Booth of Panania in New South Wales to write in the Australian today that he and his wife, and I quote his letter, `enjoy retiring to our bedroom, cracking a cheap bottle of bubbly and indulging ourselves with a video nasty, bluey or NVE, $25m a year says we are not alone'. Mick Booth might be surprised to learn that not all the $25m worth of video nasties is being watched by consenting adults. Thirty-eight per cent of all video rentals are R-rated violence and the 12- to 25-year-old group are the biggest hirers of R-rated and violent videos. On 29 June this year, less than five months ago, all State governments in Australia recommended to the Hawke Labor Government that it place a ban on X-rated video material. Every State in the nation does not want this rubbish, has legislated against it and has been inundated with it by mail order from Canberra. The Joint Select Committee spent three years receiving and examining evidence that this material engenders in the viewer a sexually callous and manipulative orientation towards women. It is quite obvious that the last thing we need is more time to look into it, as the Prime Minister said. The Government has hit the rewind button while the rest of the country wants to change channel. If Canberra wants to watch this junk why should other States have their laws circumvented by mail order? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms CRAWFORD(Forde) —I wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that a constituent of mine, a Mr Froud, celebrated his 100th birthday this week and, as such, joined in the Australian bicentennial celebrations. Mr Froud was born in England but came to Australia in 1909 as a merchant seaman. He tells me, and he believes quite categorically, that there are many Australians here who came via such ships and, of course, have made a very large contribution to this country. He served us proudly during the First World War and saw action throughout much of Europe. He has become very much a proud Australian and, though he may have achieved his century, his brain is still active and he still actively participates in many of the political debates that are held in his district. His wife and children also are with him and I think it is important that we, as a parliament and as a government, acknowledge the contribution which people like him have made to our community. They are the sorts of people who make Australia great. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —Last week in my electorate in the city of Hamilton we honoured a great Australian. The people of Hamilton gave a fitting tribute to a great Australian and one of our war heroes-in fact, Victoria's sole surviving Victoria Cross (VC) winner-namely, Mr Ted Kenna. It was my privilege to organise the project, which culminated last week in the State President of the Returned Services League, Mr Bruce Ruxton, coming to Hamilton to unveil a portrait of Mr Kenna. This portrait was painted by the official war artist and famous Australian portrait painter, Sir William Dargie. The generous support of many individuals in Hamilton and in the district and also the RSL sub-branches of my area in getting this portrait painted is very gratefully acknowledged. Private Kenna was awarded a VC in 1945 for bravery in the face of the enemy at Wewak in New Guinea. Hamilton now has a fitting tribute to one of its most famous sons. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I note the presence of the Rev. Gil Duthie in the gallery. He was the Australian Labor Party whip and honourable member for Wilmot for many years. I hope he will not be too upset by my remarks. It is probably superfluous for me to point out that what I am about to say is a personal statement and I am not speaking on behalf of the Government. In my teens, I changed my religious views from agnostic to atheist and have held to those views since then. However, over a relatively short period recently, a great number of persons flaunting their strong religious beliefs, including Jim Bakker and Jim Swaggart, the United States television evangelists, Bjelke-Petersen and his motley crew, Bruce Judge and Warwick Fairfax, have hit the deck. More recently, Fred Nile has been exposed as a charlatan and fraud and Iran has been defeated. This conjunction of events can surely not be due only to good luck. I therefore admit that maybe there is some supernatural force at work and I may have to become an agnostic again. In passing, may I congratulate Mrs Janet Strickland, the former Commonwealth Chief Censor, on the success of her libel suit against Fred Nile. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —The South African State President has justly granted a reprieve to the Sharpeville Six. The prison sentences imposed are heavy but some future government might reduce them, especially as very few informed observers believe that they are guilty of the offences with which they have been charged. To some extent the reprieves are a gesture to outside pleas but they are also partly due to pressures from within South Africa to reprieve four white policemen. Surely, if South Africa wishes to return to the civilised world it will abolish capital punishment altogether. Meanwhile, I wish to pay a tribute to those white South Africans who have done so much to try to abolish apartheid. They have used whatever avenues were open to them and are undeterred by failure. Dozens of them are well known to those of us who study events in South Africa. Most are liberals with an unquenchable spirit. In particular I praise David Bruce, who was jailed in July for six years for refusing to help to impose apartheid while doing national service. We should all admire his great courage. Mr BILNEY(Kingston) —In this very brief moment available I would like to pay tribute to a group of girl guides and boy scouts who are going to Bangladesh in a couple of days to take part in a joint project between the girl guides and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), designed to give aid to that stricken and flooded country. The group comprises 18 rangers, who are girl guides over 18, and one rover whom one might envy, John McTier from my electorate, who are going to spend about a month in Bangladesh engaging in a joint project with UNICEF to provide immunisation, well digging and medical facilities in the wake of the floods. One may well say that this is the sort of grass roots aid that Australia should be supporting more and I am very proud of these young people for what they are going to be doing. Most of the time they are going to be spending in Nakarli, which is a town of some 40,000 people in the south-east river delta, one of the areas most greatly stricken by the floods. They will be cooperating with the local girl guides to carry out this project. The project they are doing may well be the subject of a Film Victoria documentary. They have received no Australian Government assistance and they require none. It seems to me that this is the kind of thing that young people do for which they ought to be paid great tribute. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —The Australian Bureau of Statistics, not content with arousing the wrath of the Australian people with its household expenditure survey, is now again riding roughshod over the interests of Australians with a survey of private child care usage, and the parent of every child attending a child-care or pre-school kindergarten in Australia will have to fill out this form. I believe it is an invasion of privacy and an intrusion on the rights of parents to guide and care for their children. Complete and total confusion between child-care and pre-school is evidenced by question 4: `What was the main reason the child or children attended a child-care centre?' this was given out, by the way, to the parents of a child at a pre-school. It goes on: `Parents at work are looking for work, parent study, parents attending sport, parents shopping, parents and social activities and entertainment, give parents a break, parents engaged in community activity, parents visiting doctor, dentist, hospital, good for child-or other'. At the very last of the list is `good for child'. There is no mention of education, and that is what pre-schools are all about. I would like to say that my constituent who alerted me to this tried to discuss the matter with the Sydney office of the Statistician and was treated very high-handedly. He tried to phone the Australian Statistician, Mr Ian Castles, was told he was unavailable, kept waiting on an STD call for 15 minutes while they searched for his secretary, who could not be found, and then when he tried to leave a message asking Mr Castles to call him back, was told by the switchboard, `It is not our policy to take messages'. That is a totally inappropriate and unacceptable way for any government agency to treat the people of this country, and I wanted to make the-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I take the opportunity to protest at the treatment meted out to Mr Justice J. F. Staples, Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I would like to quote from his own comments in which he said: Since early 1980 I have exercised the powers, jurisdiction, responsibilities of the office only occasionally, and since early 1986 not at all. I know of no reason good in law that justifies what has been done . . . De facto, the President of the Commission has cancelled the commission of the Governor-General. It is not in the public interest that the Act should be administered with this result. The acts and defaults of the President invert the historical intendment of the relevant provisions of the Act . . . The Act provides that I shall not be removed from my office except by the Governor-General, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for my removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity . . . Only the Parliament can check the abuse that now rages. I hope the Parliament will take that act. Mr SMITH(Bass) —Yesterday we saw the first ever demonstration by scientists in support of science. Scientists have opened up an action front, a liberation movement for science, and I applaud them. They must speak up; the wimp tag must be relegated to the past. Concern at the calculated destruction of our human intellectual capital is now widespread. What we now lack is vision. Where is the Australian Labor Party politician, for instance, who has the foresight to stimulate the search for the knowledge of space? Who in this Government will give that vision? It must come from the top. There ought to be in this country leadership, vision, energy, to achieve 200 years on. Instead we are starting to falter. It is not progress to see the best and brightest of this nation, the key to future economic prosperity, actively resorting to decibel democracy to make a point because leaders are too shortsighted to realise where our future really lies. There is no leadership on the other side. Those who attempt to speak science, like Barry Jones, are ignored. As one of the different generation of rudimentary scientific literacy, but who has an abiding faith that as Australians we have the capacity, the initiative, the innovative skills, the drive to provide a better way, I join those scientists in calling for an urgent lead for a proper national science strategy. We lack for one thing only-leadership with vision. That is the tragedy of this debate on science. It exposes so openly a failure of leadership and vision in a country that has so much to look forward to. Today's leaders are talking today and ignoring tomorrow. Be assured, history's judgment will be harsh unless there is a change of direction. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke) —I want to use the few seconds left available before Question Time to call on all members of this House and all Australians, Madam Speaker, to buy Australian for Christmas. I believe it is important for us to remember as we make our Christmas purchases that whether it is a supermarket, motor vehicle or whatever, purchases of Australia-made goods mean jobs for Australians and mean cutting down on our imports. Especially at Christmas time when people tend to look for little luxury goods, they should look for that kangaroo logo, the Australian-made logo, and make sure that they support Australian enterprise. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a, the time for members' statements has concluded. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a 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 on Government business. Questions normally addressed to Mr Bowen should be addressed to the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy. I also inform the House that the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, Mr Staples, will be leaving before the end of Question Time to meet a Government commitment. Mr MILES —I address my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister in receipt of a brief on the findings of a special audit of Middar, a Western Australian cultural company, which disclosed a breach of a loan agreement with the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) and a number of provisions of the Western Australian Companies Code, debts of over $450,000, and that it failed to properly account for public finding? Was the Minister further informed that in those circumstances the ADC could not fund such a body under the ADC Act? In October 1988 did the Minister, knowing these facts, then write to the ADC and ask that it reconsider its position with a view to continuing funding to Middar? Will the Minister table all relevant documents, including his letter to the ADC? Mr HAND —Madam Speaker, I must say the source of these bits of information is exposing itself more and more. The question of the Middar organisation is an ADC matter. I did write, as I am often asked to contact the ADC-we have been down this track before. The ADC is a statutory body and, as has been the lot of previous Ministers when approached by a particular organisation, when one is asked to have the matter considered again by the statutory body, the ADC, one does it. As I understand it, the matter is properly before the ADC and I will address the question to it and I will report back to the honourable member. Mr JENKINS —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to the attempts by medical groups in Australia to introduce a new content based fee structure for general practitioner (GP) services from 1 November without prior consultation with the Government. Can the Minister inform the House as to what action he has taken to protect patients from the economic and social hardships which would arise due to the unilateral imposition of such a system? Dr BLEWETT —I have shared the concerns of the honourable member for Scullin that hardships may result to patients as a result of a unilateral decision by a number of medical groups to impose a new fee structure. Therefore, I am very pleased to inform the House that last week the Royal College of General Practitioners agreed to ask its members to halt any imposition of the new fee structure pending discussions with the Government. We have agreed with the Royal College to set up a working party to examine and further develop proposed descriptions for a content-based GP fee structure. I am glad to announce that that working party will hold its first meeting next week. The working party is to report by 1 March to develop descriptions of items and GP fee structures but not, of course, the fee levels. It will also look at the involvement of GPs in the provision of health promotion and preventive care services in this country, at quality assurance procedures and monitoring mechanisms, and at the incentives that can be provided for the provision of quality care, quality assurance, continuing medical education and vocation training for general practice. Any financial implications arising out of that working party would, of course, be a matter for Budget considerations. I want to say that this decision by the Royal College is an historic decision. It will enable the Government and the College to work together on a package of issues, embracing not only fee structures but, very importantly, the quality of care provided and the continued upgrading of the skills of GPs. Let me say, because it has often been misrepresented, that my consistent position on this issue has been that the Government is not opposed in principle to a change from the longstanding time-based system to one which can be demonstrated to be better. However, conditions need to apply, and we have made this clear from the beginning of this debate. We would not allow changes if they were simply a back-door method of boosting doctors' incomes. The new system has to be shown to improve the quality of patient care and it needs to be capable of effective and proper monitoring and accountability, both in the interests of patients as well as in the interests of ordinary taxpayers. I welcome very much the college's decision to participate in this process, and although a lot of hard work lies ahead I believe we can develop a GP fee structure which meets those criteria. I point out that the attitude of the college is in stark contrast to the attitude of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), which has simply sought a confrontationist position on this issue; it has refused to discuss these issues with the Government except under quite unacceptable conditions. Indeed, we might question whether the AMA is more interested in politics than in the interests of either GPs or of patients. Indeed, that is perhaps one of the reasons why the Royal College is increasing the number of GPs identified with it and the AMA is in fact declining. Let us put the AMA aside. It is increasingly becoming irrelevant to many of these health issues. Let me welcome very much that there will be this working party. We will be meeting with the college from next week. I believe that with hard work and good faith we can emerge with a system which not only improves issues for GPs but, much more importantly, improves patient care in this country. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Treasurer: Is it a fact, as reported in today's media, that the Reserve Bank holds the view that mortgage interest rates should be pushed to 15 per cent across the board as a means of taking the heat out of the housing sector? Mr KEATING —I do not get up here-neither does any other Treasurer-and give views on what the Reserve Bank might think or might not think about a situation. The Reserve Bank supports the Government's view that monetary conditions ought to be appropriately firm, which they are. The interesting thing is that we keep getting these questions about mortgage interest rates. The Opposition is entirely unspecific about fiscal policy. The shadow finance spokesman is about tightening up interest rates. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I refer you to the question, which says, `Is it a fact that, as reported in today's Australian, the Reserve Bank holds the view that mortgage interest rates should be pushed to 15 per cent across the board?' The Treasurer apparently does not know that answer. He is about to launch into an attack unrelated to the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I am sorry, but how does the honourable member know what the Treasurer is going to say before he has even said it? Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I would like to be running the book on it. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, apparently the Opposition thinks that Opposition policy should not be commented on by Ministers. I do not know of anywhere in parliamentary practice in 88 years where there is any substantiation for that view. That is just absolute bunkum. The shadow finance spokesperson believes that interest rates ought to be tightened up. There is no fiscal policy. So apparently the Opposition is saying that interest rates, monetary policy, should not be tightened. On the other hand, it will say imports are running too quickly. What does the Opposition want? Then it goes back to a question about living standards and declines in household disposable incomes coming from higher interest rates while at the same time it opposes every national wage adjustment. Mr Blunt —I take a point of order. Yesterday, I asked you, Madam Speaker, whether you would enforce the Standing Order on relevance. I refer you again to the text of this question and I suggest that there are only three possible responses: `Yes', `No', or `I don't know and I will find out'. The Treasurer has not uttered any of those words, so I do not see how his reply can be relevant. Mr KEATING —Question Time is a courtesy extended to the House by the Executive branch of Government. Honourable members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Under Standing Orders-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will the Treasurer wait for a moment. Honourable members interjecting- Mr KEATING —When you are ready. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is quite enough. Mr KEATING —That is the constitutional position, and the Standing Orders are simply to facilitate the delivery of the courtesy. It is as simple as that. We see these crocodile tears about living standards when the Opposition has opposed every national wage increase since 1983. But then members opposite ask questions about the impact for interest rates- Mr Shack —I take a point of order and persist with asking you, Madam Speaker, to enforce standing order 145, which provides: An answer shall be relevant to the question. Despite what the Treasurer might say, there is ample precedent for the Speaker to rule on this debate, and I refer you to House of Representatives Hansard of 27 August 1981. The honourable member for Menzies, the then Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, was on his feet and departed from answering a question. He started to attack the then Opposition-the Australian Labor Party-and the then Speaker said: Order! The Minister will answer the question and not engage in irrelevancies, such as contrasting the Government and the Labor Party. I believe that you, Madam Speaker, should enforce standing order 145 on this and every other occasion. Madam SPEAKER —The chair is not bound by every decision taken by previous Speakers. The Treasurer was in order, but I suggest that he would assist Question Time if he did not make his answers quite so long. Mr Keating —On the point of order: the process would be assisted if there were no disorderly interjections and points of order. Points of order which relate to relevance and which are themselves not relevant to the delivery of Question Time are disorderly; that is, the procedure of taking points of order is disorderly in this context. Honourable members interjecting- Mr Shack —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Tangney will resume his seat. I point out to the Treasurer that it is incumbent on the Chair to hear all points of order. The Chair cannot rule on points of order until it has heard them. Mr Keating —On the point of order, I accept that point, but if points of order are raised persistently-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr Keating —I have the right to raise a point of order, as well as honourable members opposite. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Keating —If points of order about relevance are raised persistently and they are rarely, if ever, accepted by you, Madam Speaker, the raising of these points of order is disorderly. Madam SPEAKER —Has the Treasurer drawn his answer to a close? Mr Keating —No, I have not. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair urges him to do so. Mr KEATING —If I have an uninterrupted flow, I will answer the question. This Opposition has no fiscal policy; it has no monetary policy. Mr Shack —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I refer again to standing order 145 and I also refer to your ruling when you said that the Chair is not bound by every precedent of former Speakers. On 9 September 1981, an honourable member raised a point of order with the then Speaker Snedden and said: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the Hansard of 27 August. You ruled: The Minister will answer the question and not engage in irrelevancies, such as contrasting the Government and the Labor Party. Madam Speaker, that member of Parliament was you. Mr Beazley —Before you rule, Madam Speaker on that point of order, the question of relevance-- Mr Reith —You are debating it. Mr Beazley —No, one may take a point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Flinders is not making the rulings in this House. Mr Beazley —One may take a point of order on a point of order that has been raised. Regarding that point of order, the question relates to relevance. Point one, that has always been broadly interpreted; point two, the question related to interest rates and throughout his answer the Treasurer has been discussing the basis of interest rates. I would have thought that that was evidently relevant. Madam SPEAKER —I have pointed out to the House on a number of occasions that very often relevance is a matter of opinion. The Chair calls the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —The Opposition will not stop me from answering questions. It is as simple as that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will get on with his answer. Mr KEATING —The Opposition has no fiscal policy; it has no monetary policy. It has opposed every national wage increase since 1983, so there is no point in members opposite asking questions about the position of the Reserve Bank on interest rates if they have no consistency in any of the three major arms of policy. Mr BALDWIN —I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the reprieve from execution of the Sharpeville Six indicate a significantly- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Sydney will cease. There is far too much noise from my left. I cannot hear anything. I call the honourable member for Sydney. Mr BALDWIN —Does the reprieve from execution of the Sharpeville Six indicate a significantly improved prospect for reconciliation in South Africa? Mr HAWKE —Let me say at the outset that the Government welcomes, as I hope all members of this House would welcome, the decision by President Botha to commute the death sentences of the Sharpeville Six. It would be well known to all members of the House and the international community that many leaders, including Prime Minister Thatcher, President Reagan, Chancellor Kohl and me, made personal appeals to the South African Government to spare the lives of the Sharpeville Six. Last month I also underlined the Government's interest in this case to Joyce Mokhesi, the sister of one of the six, when she visited Australia, and honourable members may be pleased to know that Joyce Mokhesi has just been in contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to thank the Australian Government for its efforts on behalf of the six. Mr Spender —She has also been in touch with me. Mr HAWKE —I never want to do an injustice to members opposite; they need every mercy they can get. I am quite prepared to concede, following the interjection of the honourable member for North Sydney, that he has also been thanked. I thank him, too, for his intervention. If it played some part, as I hope our intervention did, he is entitled to thanks as well. The Government-and I hope that the honourable member for North Sydney shares our position-remains very concerned that the Sharpeville Six, having been reprieved, nevertheless are still facing very long prison sentences, as I hope the honourable member for North Sydney appreciates, despite an admission by a key witness for the prosecution that he lied under oath because of police coercion. I hope that the honourable member is just as concerned about that. The case against the Sharpeville Six, as you Madam Speaker would appreciate, turned on the application of the extraordinarily dubious doctrine of common purpose regarding individual members of a crowd who were not shown to have participated directly in the commission of an offence. Other South Africans are still liable to conviction on the same spurious grounds as were the Sharpeville Six. I can assure the House that the Government retains its concern on that matter and will continue to express that concern. It should be understood that the commutation of the death sentence of the six-which, incidentally, was part of a broader exercise of clemency that included the commutation of the death sentences of four white policemen-does not go to the root cause of violence in South Africa. Whatever else is said, it is crystal clear that the root cause of violence in South Africa is the evil system of apartheid and the continuing denial of political rights. Having said that the root cause of the problem remains and will continue, that there will be violence until the South African Government comes to the negotiating table, I repeat on behalf of the Government that we welcome the decision to commute the sentence of the Sharpeville Six. Mr SINCLAIR —How can the Minister for Trade Negotiations expect to obtain support from the United States (US) for the liberalisation of world agricultural trade advocated by Australia and the critical General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) mid-term review in Montreal on 5 December when his colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has refused to support the United States objection to the non- scientifically based ban on growth promotants in livestock just imposed by the European Community (EC)? Mr DUFFY —Firstly, I congratulate the Leader of the National Party of Australia on his maiden question. The European Community and the United States, as the Leader of the National Party indicated, have been unable to resolve their differences over the Community's directive which effectively bans the sale of meat treated with hormonal growth promotants, and that directive comes into force on 1 January 1989. Its application to third countries was suspended for one year and will come into effect in 1989. Australia is concerned at the prospect of the intensification of bilateral trade disputes between the United States and the European Community which had led to the worsening climate in international trade, particularly in the agricultural area. We are not heartened in Australia by the prospect of retaliatory and counter retaliatory measures which may result if the US and the EC are unable to reconcile their differences, which, as the honourable member indicated, appears to be the case at this stage. We are opposed to the ban on scientific grounds; nevertheless we are concerned to protect the interests of the Australian meat industry and its continued access to the European market. As honourable members would be aware, meat products exported to the European Community are worth about $130m a year, and Australian officials are holding discussions with the European Commission with a view to satisfactorily resolving this issue without prejudice to Australia's GATT rights. In relation to the views expressed by my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, I do not know why the Leader of the National Party has the view that that in some way will conflict with the attempts of Australia to reach some reconciliation with the United States in attempting to bridge that gap which exists between the United States and the European Community on agriculture. It is a different issue. The premise on which the question was based is false. The issues can be separated. Mr Lloyd —The United States wanted us to hold firm on this. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member might get his chance to ask questions, if he is allowed, rather than interject at the time. Mr Sinclair —You hope they can. Mr DUFFY —Hopefully. Those discussions are taking place at the moment between our officials, the European Community and the United States. In relation to the other matters that the Leader of the National Party raised, we will be pressing on and we have been very active throughout the last two years in attempting to reconcile the differences between the European Community and the United States with the support of the industry, including the National Farmers Federation. Mr MOUNTFORD —Can the Minister for Employment, Education and Training inform the House about proposed capital works developments at the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education and the Government's overall program of capital works for higher education? Further, can the Minister advise as to the importance of the higher education contribution scheme in providing resources for the capital program and whether the Government considered any other options for alternative sources of funding such as up-front student fees? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question and his continuing interest in the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education. After Question Time I will be tabling a report which outlines the commitment of resources to higher education in the forthcoming triennium and in that it will be clear that the Milperra campus of the Macarthur Institute will be supported to the extent of $2.6m for a multi-purpose teaching centre. I am obviously aware that the institute, both at Milperra and the Campbelltown campus, has substantial capital needs for the future, particularly to support the very substantial growth it will experience over the next three years. It will be clear in the report that early next year I will be announcing the capital projects for 1990 and 1991 and the Government will support the projects necessary to accommodate the strong growth that will be occurring throughout the system during this triennium and beyond. It is worth pointing out that this is an historically high commitment of capital funds to the higher education system. In 1988 $78.5m was spent and by 1991 the figure will rise to $177m. This is in marked contrast to the commitment of our predecessors to higher education capital expenditure. In 1982, the last full year of the Fraser-Howard Government, expenditure totalled a mere $16.7m. Indeed, in one year that Government was able to fund only one new capital project, compared with the 48 new capital projects to start in 1989, including 13 new student residences. That does not include nearly $20m in renovation grants which are necessary to support the renovation of many of the older institutions which, as a result of the neglect of our predecessors, have many rundown facilities. That will provide the Government with an opportunity to concentrate on health and safety problems which exist in many places. The honourable member asks about the way in which this capital support will be funded. As he points out, the new higher education contribution scheme will provide a significant amount of the funds necessary to support higher education in the future. The honourable member asks whether the Government looked at any other alternatives. The Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding did look at the proposal of up-front fees and it decided not to support such a measure because of the way in which such a system would constitute very substantial barriers to entering higher education, particularly for people from lower income and disadvantaged backgrounds. As opposed to that, our scheme will not constitute any up-front barriers. In that context it is interesting to look at the proposal reported in the Sydney Morning Herald today, which purports to be a preview of the Opposition's policy. There we have a re-run of its former proposal to involve the payment of very substantial-- Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have gone from a position of the Minister answering the question to him talking about the past practices of the Opposition when in government, and now to a point where he is talking about hypothetical matters reported in the newspaper for which he does not have any evidence of substance. That is going too far and he is wasting the Parliament's time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister. Mr Beale —What is the ruling? Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will answer the question. Mr DAWKINS —I just happen to have a copy of the honourable member's question with me and he asks whether the Government has considered any other options for alternative sources of funding such as up-front fees. I am saying yes, we did consider them and yes, we did reject them because they constitute an unfair barrier to the entry of people from lower income and disadvantaged backgrounds. In relation to these other proposals, even if some scholarship or free places are provided the 75 per cent who do not qualify for such scholarships will be facing up-front fees of perhaps $12,000 and perhaps $30,000. That would be a crippling blow to all but the wealthiest people in the country and it is important to remember that merit-based scholarships would assist people from more privileged backgrounds, those who went to private schools and who are of more wealthy circumstances. So it is entirely inconsistent with any policy which tries to achieve greater access and greater equity. But at least this portends perhaps the disclosure of the Opposition's policy. I just want to say to members of the Opposition that there is no more time for procrastination or waffle. It is about time that they were as precise as we have been prepared to be in terms of our policies so that people can make a proper judgment of our policies versus theirs. Mr ROCHER —The Treasurer will be aware that many Australians are finding the 1988-89 household expenditure survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics highly intrusive and have refused to respond to it. Is the Treasurer aware that, earlier this month, the Commonwealth Ombudsman expressed concern that the Australian Bureau of Statistics may have provided misleading or insufficient information to the Attorney-General's Department-information which resulted in a legal opinion that it was within the law to make the current survey compulsory to fill in? Has the Australian Bureau of Statistics yet responded to the Ombudsman's concerns? Has the Australian Statistician followed the Ombudsman's suggestion that he obtain the advice of the Attorney-General's Department on the legality of the retrospective tabling on 29 September of the household expenditure survey? Mr KEATING —I am not aware of the issues raised by the honourable member. I will put that question on notice where it should have been in the first place. Mr GRACE —My question is also addressed to the Treasurer. Is it correct that, since September last year, the Government has imposed a blanket restriction on the purchase of established residential real estate by foreigners? Has the Treasurer any information as to how prospective Australian home buyers might be disadvantaged if this restriction were removed? Mr Peacock —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I take it that this refers to measures that are contained within the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill which is before the Parliament to be debated today? Madam SPEAKER —Could the Treasurer give me some background to this? Mr Keating —I think the question seeks information about conditions which were established by the Government up to 12 months ago. Mr Sinclair —It is in a Bill before the House today. Mr Keating —I do not intend to deal with elements of the Bill. I am just talking about conditions in the economy. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will keep clear of the Bill. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —It is correct that in September last year-- Mr Howard —That makes a farce of Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —The question is in order provided the Treasurer keeps clear of the provisions of the Bill. Mr Hawke —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: as you know, I am reluctant to enter into this sort of debate but I do say that it is intolerable to have the Leader of the Opposition saying to you that you are making a farce of the proceedings of this House. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, on that point made by the Prime Minister: yesterday you adopted an attitude towards the Opposition in relation to Standing Orders which was universally interpreted by members on this side of the Parliament as being unsatisfactory. You have been presented with a point of order and there is before this Parliament-- Mr Scholes —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I am hearing a point of order. Mr Howard —The Prime Minister wonders why I interject in circumstances like that. Madam Speaker, when that kind of defiance goes on you have a classic example of why the Opposition feels frustrated by the conduct of the proceedings of the Parliament. The point of order raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was a very simple one. We have before the House at present a Bill which, inter alia, gives effect to an announcement made by the Treasurer affecting foreign acquisitions of real estate in this country. The point of order taken by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to that standing order clearly brings to your attention the fact that the Bill before the Parliament gives effect to the announcement referred to in the honourable member's question directed towards the Treasurer. If that standing order is to have any meaning it must mean that the question asked is out of order. Mr Beazley —On that point of order: House of Representatives Practice, dealing with the question of anticipating debate before the House, states: The principle established by rulings from the Chair is that questions seeking to elicit information about proceedings pending in the House are permissible provided they do not anticipate the discussion itself or invite a Minister to do so. For example, in 1976, Speaker Snedden disallowed a question because it invited anticipation of the second reading speech and the arguments and principles upon which the legislation was based. However, he later permitted a question asking whether certain people would be disadvantaged under legislation then before the House. The question that was asked of the Treasurer was not anticipating debate before the House but was asking whether persons would be disadvantaged, exactly in line with the circumstances permitted for asking questions by Speaker Snedden. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. May I remind you that standing order 144 very clearly states: Questions cannot anticipate discussion upon an order of the day or other matter. The Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill is order of the day No. 10. It deals precisely with the matter about which the Treasurer has been asked. That question is clearly anticipating discussion-a very broad statement upon the Bill-which, incidentally, is subject to the guillotine process which means that we will not have a fair opportunity to put our own views on it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has put his own point. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: clearly, it does not anticipate discussion. It is clearly phrased within the framework of that permitted question. Speaker Snedden permitted a question asking whether certain people would be disadvantaged under legislation then before the House. Quite clearly, nothing in that question invited him to anticipate debate on the matter. It went to that issue. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order which relates in particular to the intervention of the Prime Minister. I draw your attention to page 856 of the Hansard dated 27 August 1981. The Prime Minister, who was then the honourable member for Wills, said: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What sort of double standards are you allowing in your ruling? On page 857 of the Hansard the then honourable member for Wills, in addressing the Speaker, said: You are allowing him to get away with murder. He said further: The Minister has done it three times. There is a double standard in this House. That is the standard of the Prime Minister, the hypocrite. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Where is the point of order? I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. If he starts that again I will name him. The Chair has ruled the question in order. The Treasurer will keep away from specific portions of the Bill before the House. Mr KEATING —Before last year's announcement, purchases of residential real estate which were valued at under $600,000 were not examinable by the Foreign Investment Review Board. But the Government was concerned-- Mr Sinclair —That is exactly what the Bill is about. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr KEATING —That is right, but I am not canvassing the Bill. The Government was concerned that foreign purchases of Australian homes would be helping to drive up home prices without there being any significant offsetting benefit in the economy; in other words, we could see no advantage in permitting speculative purchases by foreigners. The Government, in making clear where it stood and, consistent with its foreign investment policy of welcoming foreign investment to Australia, allows foreigners to identify new residential housing-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I take a further point of order. The Treasurer, in his answer, has identified the subject matter of the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill. It deals with urban real estate. He knows that it deals with urban real estate; it is the specific subject matter of that Bill. If these Standing Orders are to mean anything at all he cannot be allowed to continue. Mr Beazley —To that point of order: merely mentioning the title of a Bill does not anticipate discussion. He is not going to the substance of the Bill; he is dealing directly with the question of certain people being disadvantaged. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer may continue provided he keeps to that part of the Bill where certain people will be disadvantaged. Mr KEATING —Disadvantage would arise because, at the moment, the Foreign Investment Review Board is receiving about 400 calls per week from foreign persons or representatives of foreign persons seeking to buy Australian residential real estate. Were such a measure not to obtain-- Mr Rocher —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: the words that the Treasurer is using are repeated from his second reading speech on this Bill; they are almost word for word. I would suggest that he is transgressing in the way that was foreshadowed by my colleagues. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker, the words that the Treasurer was using were clearly dealing with the question of numbers of persons potentially disadvantaged, or affected. That was in order as far as Speaker Snedden was concerned, but clearly those on that side of the House disagree with him. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Yesterday you ruled in relation to a similar point of order I took on this issue of canvassing debates in the current session. I add to the point of order taken by the honourable member for Curtin by referring to page 492 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice: References in questions to debates in the current session, concluded or adjourned, are out of order. The Treasurer is clearly now referring to the debate in as much as he is referring to the second reading speech, and he is therefore out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is in order provided he keeps to the portion I have told him to keep to. If he is going to read us his second reading speech, he will be out of order. Mr KEATING —I am providing information to the House about the administration by the Foreign Investment Review Board and the Treasury of this particular provision. The fact is that were the restriction to be removed, there would be substantial upward pressure on existing house prices. If 400 inquiries turn into 400 purchases, we would have upward pressure on prices. But the Government sought to allow that pressure to go into developing undeveloped-that is, new residential-real estate by permitting foreigners to build and sell substantial residential real estate. I conclude on this point: if the measure is removed, there would be upward pressure on home prices by the up to 400-- Mr Peacock —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: When I raised this matter originally I simply put before you that the question was covered by the Bill. I sought not to argue it, because it was as plain as a pikestaff to me that the question was out of order. That has been shown now, with very wordy evidence, by the Treasurer. He referred to precisely what this measure covers. It is not a question of disadvantaged people; it is a question of the Bill covering the very ambit of both the September statement and what we are to debate tonight. Mr Beazley —Further to that point of order: the words that are being used by the Treasurer go precisely to the question of disadvantage, how that disadvantage occurs and what numbers are potentially disadvantaged, and that is what was covered by the precedent in the ruling from Speaker Snedden. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Treasurer, to conclude his answer. Mr KEATING —The disadvantage will be suffered by the Australian population at large and home buyers in particular, who will be under extra pressure from foreign purchasers who were formerly never registered, because we never took registrations of interest for properties under $600,000. Those 400 inquiries a week, if they become purchasers, will put upward pressure on prices. That is why the restriction should remain. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Is the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support aware of the High Court's decision today which ruled that the Government's arrivals tax is unconstitutional? Will the Minister tell the Parliament how much was raised by this unconstitutional tax and what he will say to those who demand their money back? Mr PUNCH —I thank the honourable member for his question, but it should have been directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, and not me. Mr CHARLES —Is the Minister for Transport and Communications aware of reports that the Government is delaying making a decision on pay television until as late as the year 2000? Are these reports correct? What steps is the Government taking to develop policy on pay television? Mr WILLIS —I have seen reports that I am delaying decision-making on pay television. A press report a couple of weeks ago stated that I had referred a draft paper back to the Department. There is an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald by Mr Max Walsh which condemns me for referring a paper back to the Department and says that I have effectively put pay television on the back burner. There is a remarkable press statement today by the Opposition spokesman on communications, Senator Lewis, in which he claims that I said in a recent speech that we intend to delay pay television until the year 2000. I am rather surprised by these reports. The facts are as follows: firstly, I did refer a departmental paper on pay television back to the Department for further improvement because I believe it needed that improvement. It was not a matter of burying the issue; it was simply a matter of the Government making some input into a departmental paper and wanting various things that had not been raised at all or properly to be fully included in the discussion paper. It is a matter of the Government making sure that it has an input into these things and not simply accepting what comes from departments. To condemn us for that seems to me to be rather odd. Secondly, my intention is-and I have already stated this but apparently it needs to be said again-to release that discussion paper early in the new year after it has been perused by Cabinet. We will then allow some months for public discussion before finalising the policy in the middle of next year. Contrary to Mr Walsh's impression that I am burying the issue, we are moving in a responsible way to develop a considered policy on this issue in the near future. Thirdly, Senator Lewis has got things hopelessly wrong. Nothing in the speech I made last Monday week on pay television indicates an intention to postpone a decision on pay television until the year 2000-although I have no doubt that we will still be around at that time. What I did say was that we will be in a position to finalise policy on pay television well in advance of the expiry of the moratorium on pay television in September 1990; indeed, we will be able to do so a year or more before that. The reference I made to the year 2000 was Telecom's intention to have completed its rewiring of the whole telephone network in this country by the year 2000. It will replace the copper wiring system, which currently brings telephonic communications into our homes and offices, with fibre optic cable which will not only give us improved telephony in this country but also the capacity for about 40 television channels. That will be completed around the year 2000 under the present intention of Telecom, and maybe sooner if pay television is agreed to. What I also said was that other quicker alternatives could be used. There is at least one spare channel capacity in each capital city. The Aussat satellites that are launched at the end of 1991 and early 1992, will have transponder capacity for 14 television channels. We also have the possibility of pay television operators being licensed to lay down their own cables, as happens in the United States. There are all sorts of possibilities which could bring us pay television well before the year 2000. There are a lot of issues to be decided before we finalise the policy. The discussion paper will be available in the near future. Mr Walsh, Senator Lewis and anybody else who wants to read all about those issues will be able to do so in early January. Mr REITH —Madam Speaker, I desire to put a question to you in respect of the conduct of the House. I refer you to the conduct of proceedings in the House yesterday when the honourable member for Grayndler, Mr Leo McLeay, was in the chair and the conduct of debate in respect of amendments to the Copyright Amendment Bill 1988. I understand that the Opposition amendments were carried-if one listens to the tape that is made of the proceedings. First, will you examine this matter, Madam Speaker, to ascertain whether the committee passed the Opposition's amendments? Secondly, will you ensure that Hansard accurately records what happened when the Opposition's amendments were put and that the Votes and Proceedings accurately record the decision that was made? Madam SPEAKER —I will certainly take the question on notice and I will get back to the honourable member for Flinders after I have heard the tape. Mr Scholes —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The proceedings of a committee are not available to the House; they are the responsibility of the committee, and the only person to whom that question can be directed in the forms of the Parliament is the Chairman of Committees. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Flinders wish to direct it to the Chairman of Committees? Mr Howard —You said you would follow it up. Madam SPEAKER —I will follow it up. Mr REITH —All I seek, Madam Speaker, is a statement of the facts. The matter may fall within your jurisdiction in respect of Hansard. Mr SPENDER —Madam Speaker, I direct my question to you. You will be aware that Question Time is embedded in the practices of this House, that chapter 11 of the Standing Orders deals specifically with Question Time, and that its importance, as we know, is central to the whole business of Parliament and is summed up by Pettifer. He said: It is fundamental in the concept of responsible government that the Executive Government be accountable to the Parliament. The capacity of the House of Representatives to call the Government to account depends, in large measure, on its knowledge and understanding of the Government's policies and activities. Questions without notice and on notice play an important part in this search for information. Will you advise the House, Madam Speaker, whether it is correct to say that Question Time is a privilege extended by the Executive? Madam SPEAKER —I will certainly take the question on board and will getback to the honourable member. Mr ROBERT BROWN —In connection with the question that was raised about the passage of the Copyright Amendment Bill yesterday, I was the Minister at the table on that occasion. I recall that when the question was put the noes quite clearly were-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has taken the question on board and will have a look at it. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I had intended to draw to the attention of the Chairman of Committees that it was possible that a mistake had been made. I understood, in accordance with the clear indication that was given by the House, that the record would be adjusted appropriately. I am sure that will have been carried out. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair will take the matter on board. 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- Political Exchange Program-Australian Political Exchange Committee Report for the period 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1988. Girls in Schools-Report on the National Policy for the Education of Girls in Australian Schools-October 1988. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976. Commissioner for Superannuation-Annual Report 1987-88-section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976. Office of Australian War Graves-Annual Report 1987-88-section 13 of the War Graves Act 1980. Australian Capital Territory Radiation Council-Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 1988-section 74 of the ACT Radiation Ordinance 1983 and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. National Companies and Securities Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 52 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Madam Speaker, for the information of the House, I present a report on higher education funding for the 1989-91 triennium. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DAWKINS —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr DAWKINS —Yesterday's Melbourne Herald carried a thoroughly inaccurate and disreputable reference to me in an article entitled `The might of the right'. The story alleges that I crashed a dinner of media executives. It then portrayed me as a supporter of General Pinochet in Chile. As to the first allegation, I refer to a letter written last night to the newspaper by one of my hosts at the dinner, Laurie Oakes. It states: Chris Wallace, in an article headed ``the might of the right'' (the Herald, Wednesday November 23) makes the outrageous claim that the Federal Education Minister Mr John Dawkins crashed a dinner of media executives at the Hyatt Hotel, Canberra, a few weeks ago. Mr Dawkins certainly did not crash the function. It was a Nine Network dinner. Mr Dawkins and his wife joined in at my express invitation and that of my colleague Mr Peter Harvey. I might say that their presence added considerably to an enjoyable evening. The conversation, of course, was private. Miss Wallace was not present. As to the matter of the dinner table discussion, I would not normally have made public reference to it, given its private nature. However, because one of the participants has apparently facilitated this distorted report, I need to record my recollection of the conversation. The question of Chile was raised by one of the journalists employed by Bond media-not Mr Oakes or Mr Harvey-who complained of the acute embarrassment of having to work for an organisation whose chairman not only had commercial links with Chile but also extolled the virtues of General Pinochet's regime. The journalist went on to suggest that the Government should impose South Africa-type sanctions on commercial dealings with Chile. It was at this point that I disagreed, saying that the South African situation was different and that if governments started imposing sanctions on all obnoxious regimes it would be difficult to know where to draw the line. The discussion was amicable and the report of my views by Miss Wallace, whom I have never met-or if I have I do not recall doing so-is thoroughly inaccurate. It is distinctly dishonourable for a journalist to report as facts events and conversations of which they have no direct knowledge without checking with those to whom they attribute quite offensive views and behaviour. A further gross distortion emerges as Miss Wallace tries to associate me with the New Right. Any half diligent journalist would know that in my Australia Day address of 1986 I was one of the first politicians to alert the country to the scourge of the New Right. I said then of the New Right: There is emerging in Australia today a dangerous current-a so-called philosophy-that is a threat to the basic fabric of our egalitarian and liberal society. It would replace fraternity, equality and compassion with greed, indifference and self-interest. It threatens to undermine the principles of justice, equity and security that define the best in Australia. One of the worst and most offensive aspects of this movement is that it clothes itself in such traditional symbols as the flag, a borrowed and superseded anthem, and myths about enterprise and endeavour. More specifically, as Trade Minister I said of Mr Copeman's actions in the Pilbara-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is now getting beyond his personal explanation. Mr DAWKINS —No, I am not, Madam Speaker. If you read the article you will see that there is a thread which tries to connect me first with the New Right and then with Mr Copeman. Mr Howard —Sit him down. This is abuse. Madam SPEAKER —No. The Chair has always tried to give a certain latitude to those whom the press has maligned. Mr Howard —You have been far more lenient to him than you have been to me. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will not argue when I am speaking. I fully remember when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had to make an explanation and I gave him a long time in which to do it. Mr Howard —I am the Leader. Madam SPEAKER —Does that make a difference? Mr Howard —Yes, it does. Certain indulgences, as I understand it, are extended to leaders on both sides of the House. This is going way beyond the indulgence given to anybody making an explanation. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair gives a lot of indulgence to leaders on both sides of the House and will give the same indulgence to a backbencher or anyone whom the press has abused. Mr DAWKINS —More specifically, as Trade Minister I said of Mr Copeman's action in the Pilbara: We will not deal with work practice reform by taking the attitude of Charles Copeman. He instituted a lockout in one of our vital export industries, the iron ore industry. What do honourable members think was the attitude in Japan when the mining company decided to lock out the work force and suspend exports to Japan . . . Mr Spender —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is an outrageous attempt to make a speech rather than correct a misrepresentation. Indulgence or no indulgence, it cannot be described as anything but that. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to sit him down. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will draw his personal explanation to a close. Mr Spender —Why don't you refer us to the page? Mr DAWKINS —I am quoting from Hansard; so Opposition members can look it up themselves. I despise-- Mr Sinclair —Then you don't have to repeat it. Mr DAWKINS —I am not quoting from Hansard now; I am making Hansard now. I despise the New Right. I despise brutally repressive regimes of the Left or the Right. I also despise slothful journalists who present their own fantasies, or the idle gossip of others, as facts. I have already taken up this matter with the paper's editor and I will send him a copy of this statement to assist with the publication of a suitable correction. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to act to halt the decline in Australia's Defence Force capabilities. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.00) —Last week there was a matter of public importance debate in this House on Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel wastage, and the Cross report, tabled last week, clearly documented the massive problem of Australian Defence Force wastage. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) did not appear in the House at that time and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) was delegated to take part in the debate. Once again the Minister dodged the issue, as he so often does. He sent her on an impossible battle which she lost and the myth that that side of the House has been peddling for at least three years about there being no problem with wastage from the Defence Force was blown apart by the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade-the Cross report-which was tabled here last week. After last week the Government looked naked and very foolish as a result of the myth it had been perpetuating about Defence Force personnel. Yesterday at Question Time I asked the Minister for Defence whether there was a loss of capabilities in the Defence Force. He stood up and his first words were, `There has been no loss of capabilities'. The myth about the effect on personnel in the Defence Force has been exploded. The Government is now peddling another confidence trick about the state of the Defence Force itself and its capabilities. It thinks that it will get away with going around the country saying that there has been no loss of capabilities. Let us just look at the facts. The Minister claims that all his advice is that there has been no loss of capabilities. I will read some statements made by the Chief of General Staff, General O'Donnell, in evidence to the Cross report. He said: Army's current high wastage rate has had and will continue to have adverse effects in the following areas: a. Operational capabilities . . . High levels of wastage impact directly on Army's ability to meet government directed capabilities. He went on to say: At present the field Army is undermanned and underequipped. And again: There is a need for additional resources in both manpower and finance to reduce the workload . . . to equip ourselves to meet the tasks ascribed to the Army in the Government's defence policy . . . It is a fact that wastage is affecting Army's operational capability. On and on it goes. That is one of the Minister's senior advisers. Let us look at what Vice-Admiral Hudson, the Chief of Naval Staff, said: The shortage of both operators and maintainers is causing a high turnover in billets at sea which in turn is resulting in low experience levels and is affecting among other things, achievement of acceptable weapons practice standards. Again it goes on: Navy needs 1,200 more people across the FYDP or will have to stop some major activity in order to accommodate the capital equipment programme. The Navy's submission to the Cross Committee said: Experienced levels of personnel on sea postings are currently low. This adds to the likelihood of increased numbers of grounding, collisions and accidents at sea. The Cross report said: In 1987 half the active manpower of the submarine service was under training. It is that low level of experience and the overcrowding on the HMAS Otama that caused, in part, the deaths of two submariners last year, according to the Chief of Naval Staff. The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Funnell, said: It may well be that we will have to cut back on the activities of the RAAF . . . we cannot continue operations as if we have pilots we no longer have. The Cross report said of the Air Force: High wastage has forced the RAAF to post comparatively inexperienced pilots into the QFI courses. That is a reference to qualified flying instructor courses. The Acting Director of Air Force Safety, in his submission to the Cross Committee, said: The first 6 months of this year have been the worst six months for accidents for 20 years. Inexperience has been a major factor in accidents. Young pilots are not supervised by older pilots because there are not any older pilots. The Chief of the Defence Force said: Firstly, there are no direct effects on operational capability. But he did say that there has been a dilution of experience. Loyal as the Chief of the Defence Force is to the Government, I disagree with him and so does everyone else. Every second reference in the Cross report will indicate that dilution of experience has a major effect on operational capabilities. One has only to look at this dilution of experience in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) squadrons, in the submarine service and in the field Army to see the effect that this is having on the capabilities of the Defence Force. After an exercise in northern Australia last year the commander of 1 Division, Major-General Jeffrey, said: Heavy losses of trained manpower impinge heavily on operational effectiveness of the Division . . . A high wastage rate leads to lowering of the level of trained manpower, degrading effectiveness and the ability of the Division to train and deploy quickly to meet credible northern contingencies. He went on to say: The regular Army is undermanned to meet the Government's requirements. I estimate we are doing a 38,000-man task with a 32,000-man Army. Just this week Colonel Dunn, the commander of 1 Division Artillery, the chief planner for Kangaroo '89, said: The Army needs 4,000 extra men to sustain itself for any credible time. The high wastage of junior officers and NCOs is crippling Army operations. Six new 155mm guns are being mothballed because of lack of manpower. Mr Tim Fischer —Three senior colonels resigned last week. Mr WHITE —I will get to that in a minute. This week, RAAF officers, referring to the further cuts in flying hours for the Defence Force, said: Front line squadrons will be unable to properly train their crews . . . This will lead to a dramatic decline in operational experience levels . . . The cut will not give the F111 squadrons enough hours to maintain their category C rating, let alone allow for any upgrading. Finally, I will just put this myth to rest by quoting from the Cross report. It said: The extent and magnitude of wastage in some of those areas is such that it will adversely affect the ADF for at least the next decade. The next decade! And that is if we start to do something about it now. It went on to say: The effects of high wastage amount to a loss of operational capability . . . Capabilities will continue to diminish if wastage remains high. My final quote from the Cross report is this: The nation's senior professional single service military leaders have all acknowledged that the current high wastage rates have all reduced capabilities. These judgments were confirmed by the Chief of the Defence Force when he appeared before this committee. In the face of all that evidence from the most senior Defence Force officers in this country, how could the Minister get up here as late as yesterday and maintain that there is no loss of operational capabilities in the Australian Defence Force? I presume that in a few minutes he will stand up and say again that there has been no loss of operational capabilities. Every time the Minister gets up and says that, the troops he is supposed to be commanding laugh at him. What is worse, every time the Minister gets up here and says that, the troops lose a little more heart. They say, `There's our commander denying that the problems exist. What hope have we got for any improvement?'. If we look quickly at the Army we see that there are problems of low sustainability in the field; shortage of equipment, even in the Australian Defence Force; shortage of ammunition; and shortage of officers and non-commissioned officers. It came to my notice this week that two commanding officers of the only two battalions in the ADF, the 1st Battalion and 2/4 Battalion, resigned. Mr Beazley —They came to the end of their terms. Mr WHITE —Of course they had. They resigned because they did not want to come down here and soldier on. Mr Beazley —Like you. Mr WHITE —I resigned when the Whitlam Government was in power, for the very reason these two commanding officers have done it-because this Government is in power. The Minister should not give us that rubbish. The same thing is happening again. The test for the Army is simply this: If we had to send a force to Fiji or anywhere else, as we did last year, would it be able to do the job? Honourable members should recall the fiasco in May last year when the ADF bounced around in a couple of frigates off Fiji. They came back and said, `Thank God we did not have to do anything because we had nothing to do it with-no vehicles, no helicopters, nothing'. If we were asked to go in to Papua New Guinea tomorrow would we be any better off? The answer is no. We can look at what has happened to the Navy in the last four years. HMAS Snipe, HMAS Ibis, HMAS Kimbla and HMAS Yarra have been decommissioned. Mr Beazley —Don't forget the new ones. Mr WHITE —Do not talk about new ships. Where are they? The test for the Navy is simply this: Can our Navy operate offshore on its own with any security? The answer is no. That is how the Navy has declined in capability. If the Navy had to force a passage through straits to our north which might be closed by a hostile power, could it do it in the face of land-based aircraft? The answer is no. And the same sorts of comments might be made about the Air Force. One might ask why it has all happened. It has happened for a variety of reasons. The Government's promised funding has never come to fruition. The Government's great 3 per cent increase has never happened. The 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product this year is the lowest proportion of GDP on defence spending since 1950. The Government has maintained all its equipment programs at the expense of training personnel. It simply does not understand the fine relationship between personnel, training and equipment. It has allowed it to get out of kilter. The White Paper which will be the subject of another debate-the Minister's blueprint for the future-is falling into one big hole: surveillance, the air-sea gap and the defence of mainland Australia. The Australian Defence Force is in serious trouble. The Minister either does not understand what is happening in the Defence Force or he does understand and will not face his responsibilities; or it may be both. As far as personnel wastage is concerned, the Minister has hidden behind the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel for the last 12 months, despite the fact that it is his direct responsibility. That myth has not been blown apart. As far as capabilities are concerned, the Minister has nowhere to go. The Minister has not faced the facts in the past. He would not face them yesterday. I will be interested to see whether he is going to accept some responsibility today. If he does not, we will continue to expose the myth he is peddling until we restore the Australian Defence Force to a proper level of capability. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(3.15) —We have an example here of why this man-the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White)-cannot be trusted with a shadow Cabinet portfolio position. The level of immaturity of his analysis was brought out in his statements here today. He talked about operational capability, and I will deal with that later. During his remarks, by implication, he committed the Opposition to an extra 4,000 to 6,000 men in the Army. Give or take a few hundred, the Army is virtually the same size it was throughout the Fraser years. The Opposition spokesman has now committed the Opposition to another 4,000 to 6,000 men. He told us that what we ought to be doing is concentrating on exercises and on capability. He said we need another 4,000 to 6,000 men in the Army. He has just attempted to commit the Opposition to a cool $400m to $500m a year. He then asked whether the Navy would be able to sustain operations distant from our shores against an air threat? There is only one possible conclusion to that position and that is that the Opposition is again calling for an aircraft carrier-the step it took away when it was in government. If it is talking about an aircraft carrier with substantial fleet coverage capability, it is talking about an aircraft carrier with a substantial number of fixed wing aircraft, not just helicopters. The honourable member has now committed the Opposition to $2 billion worth of additional expenditure. Failing to achieve that, he says-- Mr White —That is not the cost of an aircraft carrier. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member for McPherson does not think that is the cost of an aircraft carrier. He should go away and do his sums again because that is what it is. The Opposition has a problem in comprehending the real nature of the defence debate-not what individual unit commanders may feel from time to time, but the overall balance of the Australian Defence Force; not an individual lobby position that might be put forward from time to time, but the overall balance of the Defence Force. The fact that the Opposition fails to understand that means that it cannot develop a defence policy. We have been waiting for about one year for a defence policy to appear. Even if the Opposition got what it asked its shadow Cabinet for-3 per cent real growth ad infinitum-it would still not be able to fit into the defence program an aircraft carrier and another 6,000 soldiers. That is before we talk about what the honourable member for McPherson is asking for in terms of in-flight refuelling for the F111s, nuclear submarines, and a helicopter carrier for the deployment of ground forces. Before the Opposition did all of that, it still could not fit the program announced today by the honourable member into what his maximum demand is on the shadow Cabinet, let alone what it may be prepared to provide him with. The fact of the matter is that if there is any impact on morale by the public statements of Ministers, shadow Ministers or other people in politics as far as the defence forces are concerned, the problem lies not with statements that I might make or that my colleague the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) might make, it lies with the honourable member for McPherson. If the honourable member wants evidence of that, let me now present it to him from the Chief of the Naval Staff in his address to the Returned Services League National Congress. This must be unprecedented in a serving officer dealing with an Opposition spokesmen on defence. The Chief of Naval Staff said: I quote a recent public statement with which I totally disagree: ``Australia's defence capability is becoming a sick joke to our friends and allies'' (Peter White, 4 August 1988). If I did not know better I could only assume that the author of that remark had no knowledge of where the truth lay; nor was interested in finding out. There are, of course, difficulties such as the shortage in some areas of trained personnel. In other areas we are losing more than we can really afford; and no Chief of Staff will ever claim- honourable members should listen to this; this man knows the politics of this business- that his service has enough money for operating expenses; but while we may be relatively small, I have no hesitation in saying that the ADF is as professional as it has ever been. A realistic approach is being taken to the allocation of resources to ensure that the balance between capability, readiness and sustainability is maintained. As I have said before, we are not preparing for World War III. The balance that has been struck is sensible in terms of current strategic outlook and flexible enough that we can react to the uncertainty we could face in the future. So despite the criticism of the ill-informed, Australia does have a Defence Force with a capability to meet credible, I again stress credible, contingencies-- The Opposition does not understand that. That is why it goes on advocating another 6,000 full time men for the Army at a cost of $500m per annum. He continues: . . . and the infrastructure to expand in response to higher levels of conflict. The Chief of the Air Staff recently was so irate about comments that had been made on the capability of the Air Force that he sent me a note, requesting that I use it at some time. He wrote-and nobody on this side of the House would say any differently-as follows: There is no argument that the RAAF is currently experiencing difficult times-as is the ADF generally-because of the increased rates of personnel separation. But to draw the conclusions he does, Mr White is drawing a long bow and, at the same time, taking a cheap shot at the professional competence of the personnel who remain to sustain and develop the RAAF's operation skills and corps capabilities. Let me go on to something that was said by the Chief of the Defence Force in a recent public statement: Australia has a coherent defence policy, an efficient and effective Defence Force and skilled service professionals in whom Australians can feel pride and confidence. Yet it has become almost fashionable in some small but vocal segments of the community to talk about the rundown of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and of our defences in general. Both propositions are demonstrably untrue. Unchecked, they are potentially damaging and run the risk of causing Australians to lose confidence in their Defence Force. Such propositions are also depressing for the ADF itself which knows that reality is otherwise. There are also more serious concerns if we are sending the wrong signals to neighbours and allies. It was sensible diplomacy for me to maintain my silence regarding the sort of nonsense that the honourable member for McPherson talked at the time of the Fijian crisis about our capacity to do things there if the Government so decided. For me to have disputed that openly in public at the time would have been to create circumstances of crisis that any sensible government would be unwilling to let any Minister pursue. The decisions that were taken by us at that time not to deploy military force in that instance, and in a number of others, were decisions not taken by virtue of a lack of confidence on our part in the capacity of our defence forces to do the job. They were taken for sound political and policy reasons. There was no doubt whatsoever in the mind of the Government at that time that if a direction had been given to the Australian defence forces to protect the lives of Australian people in that country, should the circumstances have arisen where their lives were under threat, our armed forces had the capacity to do the job. It is unfortunate that the circumstances at the time did not permit me to defend the honour and the capabilities of our defence forces against the type of mindless assault delivered by a number of people in the press at that time and by the honourable member for McPherson in his speech 10 minutes ago. But I can do it now. I will defend the honour and effectiveness of our defence forces against the persistent attack that the honourable member has made on their capacity over the last three months. The honourable member's problem is that he is a totally immature Opposition spokesman on an important area of policy. That is why he is still a junior Minister. That is why he has been given another junior Minister to run in competition with him. That is why, at the back of the minds of the coalition parties, if ever they were to resume office, there is not the slightest possibility that they would give the job to him. The fellow who is totally bored with the question of international trade and who finally managed to struggle to his feet to ask one question here would be, in those circumstances, the Opposition's defence Minister. The honourable member for McPherson cannot be trusted with the defence forces because he does not have an understanding of how to formulate a defence policy. What he has, based on his past experience, which was of great, honourable service, is a capacity to comprehend what a unit commander feels at any point of time and, when taken to the nth degree, what he would require to sustain himself in all conceivable circumstances of high and low threat. He does have an understanding of that. That is how one competently commands a unit, as the honourable member did, but unfortunately it is not how one competently conducts oneself as a Minister for Defence. What one is obliged to do, and what the Chiefs are obliged to do is, in the end, to achieve a balance. In peacetime there will never be the capacity of any government in this country-there never has been-to provide absolutely every capability that every sound professional judgment will say that we ought to possess. That is simply commonsense. The question is whether one is getting one's balance right and ought one to adjust one's balance if one sees in some circumstances that one is not getting it right. We have a continually open mind on that subject. There may be a requirement in some circumstances for extra operational expenses to preserve capability. But let me assure honourable members straight away that we will never define a requirement that operational capability requires another 6,000 men in the Army, more than Malcolm Fraser was prepared to sustain in the Army. We will not arrive at a judgment that a maintenance of capability requires that. Some highly capable professional men would urge us to do so, but we would not arrive at that judgment. However, we are prepared, from time to time, to arrive at a judgment for compromised trade-offs on operational expenses questions versus capabilities. Increasing amounts of money are going to the operational areas. The question is whether it is enough. The question also is what priorities do we assert to choose among them. One of the difficulties being experienced by Army units at the moment is the question of whether the resources will be there for a series of exercises it has been used to performing. For Exercise Kangaroo 89 next year we are suspending a series of exercises that we would normally do, or running them down, in order to be able to put resources into Kangaroo 89, which is a test of the whole Government's defence strategy. Is that commonsense or is it not? It will impact in a way that concerns some people in some units, obviously. The combined cost of the exercises that have been cancelled or reduced constitutes $25m less than we are going to spend on Kangaroo 89. So, in effect, we are going to spend more on that operation than we would on the exercises that have been cancelled. Obviously, if one has a budget-which as I said, unlike the rest of Commonwealth outlays, has increased slightly in real terms over the last year-one has to operate within it and establish priorities within it. As one establishes priorities, there will be some satisfied and some dissatisfied people. In the case of operating expenses of the Air Force, where there is an increased training requirement, as we have as we experience pilot losses, which every other country in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is experiencing, we have to put more into those training areas than perhaps we would put into other Air Force operations. The honourable member does not understand that that is the sort of thing governments have to do. If the honourable member were sitting in my place and I were sitting in his, it would be the same case. He would be making decisions about priorities in these areas within a budget the same size as ours-as he has batted in front of his shadow Cabinet. It can give his shadow Cabinet no confidence in him that when he stands up in this place he displays no facility for the capacity to make policy in that regard and throws gratuitous insults which have caused him to lose the confidence of the senior defence advisers in this country. The quotations I have outlined demonstrate that. It will give the shadow Cabinet no confidence to hear the honourable member attempt to commit it to what would require 7 to 8 per cent real growth for five or six years to get anything near the sort of equipment and manpower levels that he is asking for. The honourable member is not a competent Opposition defence spokesman. He insults the Services, which perform great tasks in great difficulties for this country and he is where he should be-a junior shadow spokesman, and that is where he is going to remain. Mr TAYLOR(Groom)(3.30) —I am delighted to rise this afternoon to support this matter of public importance in the House. I say that not simply as a backbencher whose turn has come around to debate something as important as this issue, but as somebody who until eight months ago was one of the senior officers under the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I notice that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) is disappearing out of the House. I wish that she would stay and listen to what I have to say, as it deserves to be heard. I say to the Minister for Defence that I am appalled at what I have heard him say here this afternoon. What he has done in half the time allotted to him has been to put up a great smokescreen about Opposition defence policy. We are not about Opposition defence policy this afternoon; we are about discussing the decline in Australia's operational capability. Mr Rocher —Under this Government. Mr TAYLOR —Under this Government, I agree. What the Minister did was to resort to personal castigation of the shadow spokesman. I deplore that and I am sure that everybody in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) would do likewise. I think he also questioned the professional integrity of some very senior officers in the Defence Force. I note one in particular that he referred to-the Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Hudson, for whom I have the highest esteem and who has the highest integrity, et cetera, of anybody in the Defence Force. Yet what did the Minister say? He said, `He knows the politics of the game'. In my view, that has hit the nail right on the head: `He knows the politics of the game'. In this place on 30 August I made a comment about my resigning from the Defence Force, as I did in March, in which I said that I was absolutely appalled at the increasing politicisation of the higher echelons of the Commonwealth Public Service and the Defence Force. The Minister has come into this place this afternoon and admitted that. `He knows the politics of the game' is what the Minister said. That is appalling and it reflects on the integrity of the Defence Force members, who must remain apolitical if we are to be truly effective. As far as the decline of capabilities is concerned, which is the subject of the matter of public importance before us this afternoon, the Minister completely disregarded the facts. I draw attention to one or two facts that relate to the Royal Australian Navy. I am sure that some of them will apply to the other two Services as well. I do not want to regurgitate the argument over the aircraft carrier decision and operating fixed wing strike aircraft from an aircraft carrier, even though the Minister drew that as a red herring in the debate earlier this afternoon. First of all, I have to say that the decision of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) to take up that fixed wing training support for the fleet has not been completed. The FA18s and the Macchis are just not able to complete those tasks. There are not enough pilots in the RAAF. I think we all agree on that. But, more importantly, they do not have the experience and they do not have the qualifications. Therefore, the Navy, in particular, is unable to exercise in the way it should. That is very important for operational readiness. The Minister can posture about operational readiness; but let there be no doubt about it: the Defence Force has suffered a reduction in its operational readiness. The next point I make is in relation to the loss of a number of commanding officers of our front-line ships. Over the last three years 10 to 12 senior commanding officers have been lost forever. Ten to 12 does not sound a very large number. But they are absolutely impossible to replace. We have to look at the fact that those senior officers would have moved on to drive the desks in Russell and Campbell Park and to determine the operational capability for the future. Those officers have been lost. I also refer to the loss of expertise generally. In the Navy it is generally known that rank and skill levels are being manned at below the optimum rank. That simply means that we do not have the right people for the right job. Therefore, a lot more time has to be spent on training. Of course, that whole training scene is compounded by the restrictions on fuel. We heard the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) talk about restrictions on fuel both for ships and for aircraft. In naval terms, the fleet commander is just not able to meet his operational readiness targets. The projects area seems to be a preoccupation of the present Minister. I have to say, as I said in this place on 30 August, that he has forgotten about people. When one talks about a loss of capabilities, one is really referring to people. Therefore, we have to look very closely at the Cross report, the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which was tabled in this place only two weeks ago. What are the facts? In 1987-88, 13.2 per cent or 9,327 people left the Defence Force-the most to leave in a single year for more than a decade. There has been an increase over the previous year in four successive years. In 1986-87 the wastage rate amongst critical personnel, such as engineers, computer specialists, project managers and pilots, was also the highest for 10 years. In 1987-88, 3,839 or 41 per cent of the 9,327 total personnel leaving the Defence Force departed despite the fact that they were not eligible for pension benefits. More than 25 per cent or 18,246 people have left the Defence Force in the past two years. We find government spending on personnel dropping from 49.9 per cent of the total budget in 1982 to 43 per cent this year. In 1987-88, 123 of the ADF's 820 pilots left the Force, compared with a 10-year average of 47. In 1986-87, 107 pilots quit the Defence Force. I have to remind the House that to train a pilot to graduation costs in excess of $1m. To convert a pilot to fly an FA18 costs a further $700,000. Flying hours and knowledge of operational skills costs nearly $1m per year per pilot. The pilot bonus scheme, which Minister Kelly has commented on in this place and which was instituted by her Government to retain Defence Force pilots, has failed to dissuade pilots from leaving and in fact has caused resentment among other key personnel, such as electronics and communications engineers, who are also being lost to private enterprise. Members of the Defence Force are being regarded as second class citizens. Some service families now supplement their income with the family allowance supplement or social security income because they live below the poverty line. That is appalling. In relation to housing and education, 61 per cent of 5,133 servicemen surveyed advised the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works that they were less than satisfied with current living-in accommodation. I think what I have said this afternoon clearly demonstrates that the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel do not have a feel for what is going on within the Australian Defence Force. Clearly they are out of touch and, as I said in this place on 30 August, both Ministers continue to tread a very fine line between management indecision and maladministration. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(3.40) —We are debating a matter of public importance the terms of which state: The Government's failure to act to halt the decline in Australia's Defence Force capabilities. There are a number of aspects to that. The honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor) spoke mainly about the operational aspects, and that is one part; but there are a number of other aspects. The operational aspects were discussed by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) today in a very fine contribution to this debate. A number of red herrings have been floated by the Opposition today. Indeed, it will be interesting to see, on 4 December when its marvellous manifesto comes forth, what is the Opposition defence policy. This Government has been in office for nearly six years, and I have been involved in defence debates for that long on this side of the House. The Opposition's defence policy changes not only from month to month but from week to week and sometimes from day to day, depending on which speaker is on his feet. At one stage the previous member for Denison-before we got rid of him; before the last election-said that he wanted another $7 1/2 billion for defence. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) said today that he wanted another 6,000 men for the Army. The Minister for Defence, quite rightly, said that the Army is basically operating on the same number of men as it has been for a long time. The Opposition should not forget that it was in government for seven years and before that for 23 years. It has spent three decades in government. The previous speaker talked about housing, education and a number of things. What did the Opposition do in housing and pay when it was in government for three decades? Absolutely nothing! The Defence housing was in a disgraceful state until this Government's spending of $750m over 10 years, a program which has been hailed by everyone concerned as a very good program to bring the defence housing up to a respectable state. Why did it get to that state? It got to that state when the Opposition was in government. It got to that state because for the last couple of years under the Fraser Government, the Opposition's Government, hardly anything was spent on defence housing. Honourable members opposite talk about defence personnel and looking after personnel, but the troops were treated like third-class citizens and families by the Opposition. Mr Tim Fischer —And tonight you are cutting out new enlistees from defence service home loans. Mr CHARLES —I will not bite with that nonsensical interruption from the honourable member for Farrer. We come into this House with yet a new Opposition defence policy being announced today. I wonder what it will be on 4 December. Six thousand new men costing half a billion dollars per annum has been put forward today. We look at the old forward defence again, because we are going to have aircraft carriers. The Minister for Defence said that would cost about $2 billion. I think Australia would be lucky to get out of it under $3 billion. Unlike the Opposition's Defence Minister, who said, `We are going to have an aircraft carrier', the honourable member was going to put helicopters on it. Whoopdedoo! That is what Mr Killen said. Aircraft carriers with helicopters. That is no damned good. Decent fixed-wing aircraft are needed, as the honourable member knows, and in this day and age that costs a great deal. We are looking at probably $2 1/2 to $3 billion, and some experts would say, `It is no good getting one aircraft carrier; you really need three. And even if you did have one, you would need a number of other ships, destroyers, to escort it. You are looking at billions of dollars'. Everyone on this side of the House, in a euphoria land, would say, `That is wonderful. Let's have three aircraft carriers. It would be terrific. We can have 40,000 men in the Army, too. It would be terrific. Let us have 20 submarines'. But the trouble is, who is going to pay for them? The Opposition knows it cannot pay for them. It will never come back in. The Opposition in fact had already made the decision in late 1982, early 1983, not to go ahead with the aircraft carrier. It did not tell anyone. Then its former Defence Minister, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), when in opposition straight after, when we carried that decision out, said, `What a dreadful thing'. He forgot to tell the people of Australia that he had already come to the same conclusion just a few weeks before when he was the Minister. That is absolute nonsense. The Opposition talks about housing and a pay freeze. We are not perfect on this side of the House. A report was quoted and I was a member of the committee that brought that report into this House a few weeks ago. It raised a number of very important matters, which the honourable member for McPherson brought up today. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) has welcomed that report. But let us not forget that on a number of occasions the report states quite clearly that the Committee welcomed a number of the initiatives that the Government had already taken. It will take anything from six to 18 months to see the final result of those initiatives that have already been taken. The Minister for Defence pointed out-I think it was at Question Time today-the wastage rates in other air forces and in the United States; in fact, the turnover in those air forces was higher. It is not a perfect world. There are problems, particularly in the Air Force, because of all the other competing pressures. We are living in 1988 and not 1958. The people in the defence forces are highly trained, in very good jobs, and are subsequently able, if they resign from the defence forces, to obtain excellent jobs outside, and to receive very good money, and they can live very well. This was not always the case in 1948, 1958 or even 1968. However, in this day and age-and it is here now forever-because of the very high quality of the training, people in the defence forces are being grabbed by industry day after day. So I think probably the reality is that there will be a higher wastage rate than has historically been the case. It will become lower than it is now. I am not suggesting it will stay as high as it is now, but I think the level will be higher than it has been historically, for all the reasons that I have just mentioned. Not the least because a person can lead in some respects a better life. A serviceman gets married; his wife has a couple of children; he is in his thirties, and after being shifted half a dozen times because of promotions or whatever, his wife says, `Look, we are not going to put up with this any more. You can get a good job outside with good money. We can live in a three- or four-bedroom home in a city we like, and we can live well'. That is a real pressure. We will have to put up with that to some extent. The recommendations of the Committee have been gone through with the Government. The Ministers, in particular, will be looking at those very closely, and I am quite sure they will be looking to implement a number of the recommendations of the Committee to assist our defence personnel as much as possible. In conclusion, as I said, there are a number of aspects to this matter of public importance. One is the operational side in regard to personnel and the second is the capability side. On the capability side we have heard today how we should be spending more money on personnel and, at the same time, we should be spending more money on capability. One cannot do both unless one is going to blow the budget out or virtually cut the education or health department portfolio in half. It cannot be done. I believe that the Budget brought down by the Minister is well balanced. It was brought down for a very good purpose-to serve Australia in peacetime. Australia will have very good capability, including submarines and frigates as well as FA18s in the not too distant future. We will have a Defence Force much more capable and reliably targeted than was the case several years ago when members opposite were in government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The debate is concluded. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, although this is not the normal time to do so, to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr N.A. Brown —I am indebted to you, Sir. Perhaps I should say that this is the first opportunity I have had of making this personal explanation. I was unable to do so after Question Time yesterday and after Question Time today for reasons of which the Chair is aware. I was misrepresented by a spokesman for the Attorney-General who was reported in the Age yesterday, 23 November. Perhaps by way of an aside, I should say that, in view of the Speaker's remarks about misrepresentation in a newspaper, I am not suggesting for one moment that I was misrepresented by the newspaper, rather that it had reported, presumably accurately, what the spokesman for the Attorney-General said. This spokesman said that it was `absolute nonsense' for me to have suggested that the Special Investigations Unit was interrogating people before the War Crimes Amendment Bill had even been passed by the Parliament. I was misrepresented by the Attorney-General's spokesman, as is shown by the following two facts. The first is that in the particular case I referred to in my press conference, two Federal Police officers interrogated a suspect, without cautioning him, about alleged offences under the War Crimes Bill. To remove any doubt at all, I show the House copies of the visiting cards of the two special investigators and the record of interview they took. The second fact is that the Special Investigations Unit has interviewed and questioned numerous people in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra about their alleged involvement in offences under the War Crimes Bill. Finally, whatever the spokesman for the Attorney-General may say, before the Bill has even been passed, this Government and its agents have been trying to enforce it in breach of every principle of law and justice this country is based upon. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the program of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on Thursday, 1 December 1988 and on the first sitting Thursday of the autumn period of sittings 1989. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for Monday, 28 November. The report read as follows- Thursday 1 December 1988 Pursuant to sessional order 28d, the Selection Committee has approved the items of private Members' business listed below to be accorded priority on Thursday, 1 December 1988. The order of precedence and the allotment of time determined by the Committee for each of the items is shown in the list. Committee and delegation reports Statements upon presentation Parliamentary delegation to Singapore, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea Report [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] Parliamentary delegation to the Philippines and Republic of Korea Report [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] Committee of Members' Interests Notifications of alterations of interests and a statement of registrable interests. Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration Review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report of the Australian Taxation Office-International profit shifting. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.] Joint Committee on Publications Review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report on the AGPS. [The Selection Committee has determined that statements on the report may be made-all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.] Private Members' business Order of precedence Item Time allotted *1 MR SNOWDON: To move-That, while mindful of the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had owned and occupied Australia for thousands of years prior to the first British settlement at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788 and recognising that as a direct result of the occupation of Australia by non-Aboriginal people, Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders have been dispossessed of their land and have been denied many basic human, civil, political and economic rights, this House: (1) is committed to a process of reconciliation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia and to the recognition of their basic rights as articulated in the various United Nations covenants to which Australia is a signatory, including particularly the rights of self determination and self management; and (2) considers it appropriate that a treaty or compact is negotiated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in recognition of their rights as the prior owners of this country and of their dispossession and denial of basic human, civil, political and economic rights. (Notice given 10 November 1988) 30 minutes *2 MR MacKELLAR: To move-That this House: (1) notes that Australia is falling further behind the rest of the world in its support for research and development and has now returned to the same level of funding as 20 years ago; and (2) expresses its concern that unless the Government reverses its funding policies to science, and particularly to the CSIRO, Australia's long-term economic strategies will be jeopardised. (Notice given 22 November 1988) 30 minutes *3 MR HICKS: To move-That this House notes with concern the Government's decision no longer to provide funding for surveillance and control of Mosquito-borne diseases through the National Disease Control program. (Notice given 2 November 1988) any remaining private Members' business time * The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. First sitting Thursday, Autumn period of sittings 1989 The Selection Committee has resolved to defer its consideration of items of private Members' business to be accorded priority on the first sitting Thursday of the Autumn period of sittings 1989 and report its determinations in relation to that day (expected to be 2 March 1989) at the earliest opportunity in the first week of the Autumn sittings 1989. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the eleventh and twelfth reports of the Committee for 1988 relating to the construction of the new Commonwealth offices at Frankston and Oakley, Victoria, respectively. Ordered that the reports be printed. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley) —by leave-I would like to say a few words in relation to this matter. The new development of the Commonwealth offices in Frankston is something I have pushed for for many years. I am glad that at long last the Standing Committee on Public Works has come down with this report. Members of the Committee visited Frankston and saw the site. Even though I have not read the report, I trust that it is a positive step. The design has the commendation of all who have seen it, and I thank the Committee for its excellent work in pushing this project to ensure that the public servants and I will be housed in a very good office in Frankston. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1988 concurrently with the Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 12) 1988, the Sales Tax Bill (No. 12) 1988 and the Sales Tax Bill (No. 1a) 1988. That being the case, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(3.55) —The coalition parties do not oppose the Bills. However, as I shall explain in detail shortly, I will move committee stage amendments tightening up certain wording in the Bills so as to remove unnecessary ambiguity and uncertainty. A second reading amendment has also been circulated to the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1988. I now 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 notes that: (1) the Keating/Hawke Government presides over a ramshackle wholesale sales tax system which abounds in anomalies and inconsistencies; (2) the sales tax system is made incredibly difficult to understand and administer by ambiguous legislation; (3) the Australian computer software industry, an increasing supplier of exports, has especially suffered from ambiguous and confusing sales tax legislation, and as a result vital export income that could contribute to the paying-off of Australia's huge net foreign debt of $89 billion has been lost; and (4) the proposals contained in the Bill are a further indication that Government taxation policies are creating substantial inequities in the effect of taxation upon individual Australians'. Under the present sales tax law, computer programs, whether developed for a single user or for a number of users are subject to sales tax where the programs are embodied in goods and are imported into or sold in Australia. As announced in the August Budget, the broad purpose of the four Bills is as follows: first, to remove sales tax on computer software programs developed for a single user, except to the extent that the programs contain programs or parts of programs for multiple users; and, secondly, to extend the sales tax beyond multiple user computer programs embodied in goods to multiple user programs delivered by electronic transfer as well. These changes follow two years of dispute between the Government and the computer software industry. First, the Bills attempt to rectify the apparent taxation of software services. In the 1986-87 Budget, the Government extended the application of sales tax to the production of computer software. In announcing the 1986-87 amendments the Treasurer said: Avoidance of sales tax occurs through the device of selling only the discs and tapes on which the computer software is embodied and licensing the consumer to use the software itself; sales tax is then payable only on the value of the discs, which is a small fraction of the total price. The sales tax law is to be amended . . . to ensure that the taxable sale value of the computer discs on tapes encompasses the software on them. He then went on to note: The production of `in-house' software will not be affected by the changes . . . More clearly, in a 1986 memorandum to the deputy commissioners of Taxation in each State, the Australian Taxation Office in Canberra stipulated: The amendments are not to be interpreted as authority to collect sales tax on the mere supply of computing services. Indeed, the relevant November 1986 taxation ruling from the Commissioner of Taxation made it obvious that, where a software consultant was engaged to develop or install a computer software service that might otherwise have been developed in-house, it would be exempt from tax. It was obvious that the Government's stated intention was that software services were not to be taxed. Only the manufacturers of a product for multiple users would be taxed. However, as is often the case in this area, the stated intention was not matched by the actual practice of the Tax Office. The perennial problem arose that the Tax Office reinterpretation resulted in a draft ruling in May 1988 that effectively taxed the provision of services as well as the manufacture of goods. Therefore, taxation by stealth again reared its ugly head under this Government. Honourable members will be aware that, as a general principle, the wholesale sales tax system applies to goods that have been produced and not to services provided. Effectively, the extension to services would mean the introduction of, pretty much, a broadly based consumption tax, something that we know the Treasurer in this country personally supports strongly but, of course, virulently attacks publicly. We all know that he was a great advocate of the consumption tax until his tax cart hit the brick wall at the fiasco of the National Taxation Summit-the tax reform summit, as it was euphemistically called-in 1985. Nonetheless, after extensive consultation with interested groups and in particular with the Australian Information Industry Association and the Software Services Industry Federation of Australia, the Government has backed down. It has given the Tax Office a slap in the face and has introduced this legislation to ensure that where a service is provided to a single user it will not be taxed. Unfortunately, things are never as simple as they first appear, and in all areas of tax legislation we must begin to worry how much ice is being left for the Tax Commissioner to skate on. Unfortunately, the current legislation is still ambiguous. Its definitions lack clarity. Simply stated, the software industry is genuinely concerned that the changes introduced in these Bills will be as ambiguous as the existing legislation and, therefore, they will inevitably result in a Tax Office ruling or rulings that again encroach on the area of services. In recent times disquiet about the various rulings of the Tax Commissioner and his office has increased. The taxation bureaucrats have been sailing very close to, and many people will say far beyond, the limit of their responsibility. Their job is to administer the taxation laws in a non-partisan and objective manner. They must not suppose that they can infringe on the role of the Parliament or on the role of the judiciary. The Tax Commissioner possesses very wide discretionary powers. It is imperative that he uses them circumspectly. His duty is to raise taxation revenue efficiently; his duty is not to impose his own morality on whether or not individuals and companies should strive to minimise their tax burden. Very few individuals and very few companies in this country can be considered tax cheats. The overwhelming majority are honest taxpayers who are suffering from the crippling burden of high tax rates and the need to interpret over 3,500 pages of complex and sometimes enigmatic tax legislation. A particular concern with the Bills is the definition of `computer program', which has been altered to include part of a computer program. This means that, depending on the interpretation of the Tax Office, this legislation can be used to tax all the various codes and sequences used in the development of a customised software package if they have been used previously. In effect, a service may become taxed simply because the computer consultant relies on various parts of his past work and experience to produce a customised computer program. I will therefore move in the committee stage amendments to clauses 4 and 7 of the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill to tighten up the definitions used in that legislation. The second object of the Bill is to remove the distortion and avoidance opportunity that has arisen, whereby software packages delivered in the form of a good, let us say a diskette, is taxed, while that delivered electronically, for example down the telephone line, is not. The latter will now be taxable. We do not oppose this decision. However, we do oppose the way Australia's high technology computer software industry has been treated so shamefully by the Keating-Hawke Government. This story has been repeated right across the manufacturing sector as well and, no thanks to the Government, the computer software industry has grown as an export earner from around $16m in 1984 to an estimated $150m in 1988. However, the software industry has been continually kicked and beaten by this Government. Its growth has been severely jeopardised by blundering tax administration, more intent on raising revenue than putting into effect its own rhetoric about `levelling the playing field'. When Australia faces a gross foreign debt of about $115 billion and a net foreign debt of about $89 billion, the Government sets policies to penalise investment. Export industries right across the spectrum of the economy have been restricted by the lack of appropriate domestic restructuring. Micro-economic reform, the so-called agenda of this third Hawke Government, has not materialised and it is hard to spot any micro-economic reform at all. Typically, all we have seen is a Treasurer who has overseen the deterioration of the sales tax system into a ramshackle mess full of anomalies and inconsistencies. There has been no tax reform in this country; there have simply been tax increases in one form or another. The four Bills being debated today will produce a revenue gain of about $30m in 1988-89 and $50m or more in the years thereafter. It is interesting at this point to stop for a minute and think about this Government's record with indirect taxation and what one might call consumption taxation, particularly sales tax. The Budget for this year provides for a 14.4 per cent increase in sales tax collections, which is almost three times the Government's forecast inflation rate for this year. It is double the rise forecast in the Budget for private consumption spending and it is an even faster increase than the huge rise of $5.7 billion in personal income tax. The second comment I make is that the increase of $1 billion in sales tax revenue this year will lift the Hawke Government's main consumption tax to $8.6 billion, 2 1/2 times higher than what it was under the Fraser Government, despite the repeated Hawke Government promises that it would not introduce a consumption tax. It has been quietly broadening the consumption tax base in this country behind the scenes. How else can one explain that in the six years of the Hawke Government, including this financial year, there has been a 147 per cent increase in sales tax revenue, three times the rate of inflation over that period? That hits hardest the lower income earners, particularly families. The tax system has impacted on a whole host of things as basic as orange juice, ice-cream and flavoured milk, snack foods and so on, on which this Government for the first time has imposed a consumption tax. Finally, it is worth recognising that sales tax revenue now makes up nearly 10 per cent of total Government revenue compared to only 6 per cent of total Government revenue under the Fraser Government. So it is another hidden attack on the pockets of the average Australian. This Government has said consistently since 1985 that it does not support a consumption tax and does not want to introduce a new consumption tax, and we can see why this Treasurer, despite his rhetoric, has been wandering around the country boasting about the merits of his tax reform while in the meantime his tax boys back home have been quietly issuing and changing rulings and broadening the tax base, the sales tax base in particular, to raise that phenomenal increase in sales tax revenue-147 per cent over the life of this Government, three times the recorded rate of inflation over that period. By contrast, the Opposition has made some very clear-cut statements of its position on indirect taxation and on taxation generally. We have given a clear commitment to reform and to rationalise our quite ramshackle indirect tax system. Individuals and the self-employed should be able to read the Income Tax Act without needing an army of tax experts. Reforming the complex legislation like that which we are debating today, together with tax cuts, will provide genuine tax relief. That relief is needed now, and it is only the Opposition that is prepared to provide it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(4.08) —I support these important sales tax measures before the House. I believe one has to place these four sales tax Bills in the context of the Government's whole taxation reform program. It is fair to say that this has been a tremendously reforming Government in relation to taxation, and the key aspect of that reform has been recognising the unequal burden assumed by ordinary taxpayers. That is why we have already moved to reduce marginal rates of taxation significantly. We have got rid of that 60c in the dollar marginal tax rate that the Liberal Party had. It is a continuing source of disappointment that, despite all the rhetoric from the Opposition, in its seven years in office it was unable or unwilling to do anything about that. The other important aspect is that we have removed the rorts and ramps in the taxation system that were permitted and tolerated-I will not say encouraged-by successive Federal Treasurers on the Opposition's side of politics and, more particularly, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when he was Treasurer for an extended period in the Fraser Government. Those were very significant reforms, and when we look to the future we find that the Government is already committed to furthering that process by reducing personal income tax on 1 July 1989. This is sales tax legislation and another area where the Government has moved to equalise and rationalise the tax regime. Even though the shadow Minister for Finance, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), made some criticism during his speech, we have to ask: What is the Opposition's position in relation to a consumption tax? Is it in support of a consumption tax or is it opposed to a consumption tax? I suppose that the real question on this issue is: Can the Opposition be believed anyway? I think it is fair to point out that the President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Elliott, certainly is in favour of a consumption tax. Although he is prepared not to enter the Parliament at the next Federal election, clearly he has a great deal of influence in the Liberal Party and he is an unreconstructed advocate of a consumption tax. As far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned, we had the options paper presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) at the National Taxation Summit. We arrived at our position; that is, we rejected the concept of a consumption tax and everyone on this side of the House supports that position. The people of Australia have the knowledge, the surety, that we will be totally opposed to a consumption tax. They need have no doubt about that when they come to decide whose tax policy they will vote on. On this side of the House we are opposed to a consumption tax. We are not sure about the other side of the House. Some are in favour of it, some may be opposed to it, some may worry about the electoral consequences of it, but that multimillionaire President, Mr John Elliott, is an unrestricted advocate of it. As the Treasurer said in the House earlier today, it is a pity that we cannot debate these Bills in the context of an overall taxation policy that also incorporates the Opposition's position on sales tax and on a consumption tax. When we in the Government and the people of Australia have the privilege of learning what the Opposition's taxation policy is, we will be able to debate it, we will be able to argue about it but, most important, we will be able to add up the figures. Whether it is on the personal income tax side, on the sales tax side or whether it is on consumption tax, business tax or any other area of taxation, we will be able to add up the figures. Certainly we will be able to have a look at the cuts that the Opposition is proposing. I sincerely hope-I feel that I speak for all members on the Government side-that there will not be any mathematical boo-boos in it because certainly it will undermine the credibility of the Opposition, as it did so damagingly at the last Federal election. We are in a difficult position when we come to debate these Bills because we just do not know, as the people of Australia do not know, what the Opposition's policy is. There is talk of an election next year. Certainly one is due before August 1990; that is the latest we can go. I sincerely hope that the Opposition will develop its policy. I understand that some policies have been released. I have checked with the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), who is at the table, but unfortunately the Opposition's taxation policy has not been released. Sales tax is a very important area of taxation and there have been some outstanding anomalies in the sales tax area. I am very pleased that the Bill removes the sales tax on computer software. As chairman of the Caucus small business policy committee, as it then was, and in my involvement in the transport and communications area, I have received a number of letters from corporations such as Paxus Professional Systems Pty Ltd and Fujitsu Australia Ltd and a number of people involved in computer software, pointing out how anomalous the tax was. I am very pleased to see that this Bill removes that anomaly, and has totally fixed up those concerns of the computer companies that I mentioned. In fact, I regret that the letters I have on this matter are back in my electorate office otherwise I would be very pleased to read out not only the concerns that those companies expressed to me but also the delight that they had in relation to the Government's response to them. I have talked about a number of areas of taxation in trying to look at the big picture of taxation reform. Of course, in talking about businesses I regret that I did not mention one of the most significant reforms we have undertaken on this side of the House=mthat is, imputation, or the removal of double taxation on dividends. There is no doubt that this has had a profound effect on the share market, on the equities market. It has given a new incentive for those companies which have fully franked dividends; it has added a new lustre and attraction to them. Of course, the imputation system that we have introduced in this country has been seen by all reasonable observers as being one of the most far-sighted in existence in any country. I suppose that we have been keen to fix up the whole area of taxation and to provide the proper incentive and encouragement to business to go out and earn a dollar. Imputation was a very important reform and the lack of imputation distorted investment decisions. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES We have had to make a significant reform in the capital gains tax area. When I say that we introduced a capital gains tax, a capital gains tax was always in existence but that was only for transactions or sales where the particular commodities or goods were owned for less than 12 months. But we have put in a sales tax regime which just does not tax the nominal capital gains but also the actual real gains; that is, the profits that are made are discounted for inflation. Once again the lack of capital gains tax was an area which distorted investment by businesses when they were looking to make management decisions about where they would apply their funds. I think it is a very important social equity issue that this Government has tackled the capital gains tax. Notwithstanding the hype and hysteria of the Opposition in responding to the Government's initiative, most commentators today would say that capital gains tax is now an accepted form of taxation and it is largely accepted by the business community and its representatives. When we look at the whole sweep of government reform in this taxation area-it has meant that the Government has had to produce many Bills before this House, including these sales tax Bills which, once again, rationalise sales tax-we can see the quality of the Government's performance. It has had to take hard decisions, but it has had to take necessary decisions. Sometimes the Government has done this in difficult circumstances but, almost uniformly, without the benefit of a bipartisan approach by the Opposition. If there is one thing that I regret it is that we have not had the bipartisan support of the Opposition or a bipartisan debate on the whole area of taxation. I understand how difficult the role of an opposition is. Often oppositions are encouraged to be noisy or negative and, when they take bipartisan positions, they do not get the credit that they deserve for it. But the whole of this taxation reform has been done without the bipartisan support of the Opposition. To sum up my position on this legislation, I support the Bills as they are important and they fit into the whole fabric of taxation reform. As regards tax avoidance, we have cleaned up a $7 billion industry. What that means for average, ordinary taxpayers is that they were carrying the burden. For every dollar that was not paid, Mr Joe Blow, wage earner, or his wife and children, or small business, were picking up that burden. We have cleaned out those ramps and rorts. We have lowered marginal taxation rates, and next year we are going to do so again in a significant way. We have introduced a fringe benefits tax that was long overdue. Who can forget the debate about entertainment expenses? The removal of the tax deduction was going to crush the restaurant industry. Hundreds of thousands of people were going to be thrown onto the streets. The reality is that that did not happen, and people accepted the equity of entertainment expenses not being tax deductable, thus stopping some senior management people taking out their families for lunch, for example, and claiming it on entertainment expenses. The workers never had that kind of opportunity. Dividend imputation is a real boon for the business community, one that has been widely accepted by it. The advantages and opportunities presented by dividend imputation have certainly been seized by the business community. I refer also to the capital gains tax, substantiation of expenses, and general action against tax evasion and tax avoidance. It is with pleasure that I support this legislation. I commend it to the House. I am sure that it will be accepted not only by the House but by the Australian people. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.22) —I shall speak in particular to the amendment, which I seconded, to the motion for the second reading, which deals with the Opposition's concern about the application of taxation by this Government, in particular the inequities it is imposing, especially on smaller individuals. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) chose to range very widely on the subject, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of his remarks. This legislation will, hopefully, correct some anomalies and remove some of the burden of sales tax. But we have to recollect that sales tax is a huge burden on working people, wherever it is applied. Through this legislation it is being applied to home computers. That is what it was originally aimed at-computers that people are buying to give to their children so that they have the skills to enter the work force of the future, a future which will be very much linked to computers, even in the trades area. I was in a joinery shop the other day and the owner said to me that he needed, above all else, people who had computer skills. We are dealing with sales tax on computer programs. The Government has recognised at last that it is doing damage in that regard and that it should reduce the tax burden, although not in that particular area. The honourable member for Chifley spoke about sales tax, capital gains tax and many other matters. He also talked about tax avoidance and said that there was some advantage to Joe Blow in catching up with all these people. The Opposition does not support tax avoidance or tax evasion, but I would be surprised if the people in the western suburbs of Sydney can identify where they have had a refund with regard to that $7 billion. The reality is that the Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) advised the Government the other day that 30 years ago a family with two children on three-quarters of average weekly earnings was paying 3 per cent of their income in tax. They are now paying 15 per cent. That has occurred over that 30-year period. The honourable member for Chifley also mentioned capital gains tax. It is interesting that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) chose also yesterday to speak about capital gains tax when, in my view, he launched an attack on small business-the people who will pay this sales tax on computer programs when they purchase them. For some unknown reason he referred to them as `commerce'. I always thought that commerce was an honest word, but to hear the Treasurer speak about it on Tuesday this week, one would think differently. He said-and I quote from Hansard: I suppose that it has never entered the minds of the Leader of the Opposition or his people on the front bench-people out there supporting the person who buys the local fruit shop or the small office block opposite, sits there doing nothing for four or five years, finds that its value has moved up or doubled, then cashes it in and walks away with a tax free gain . . . He was clearly very critical. He went on to say: The Opposition thinks that that is what one does-because those people are the people in commerce. It is commerce to go and buy the local fruit shop, to do nothing with it for five years, and then to cash it in. It is commerce for the suburban solicitor- another small businessman- to eye off the two shops opposite, buy them, sit there for four years and then cash them in. The Opposition amendment today refers to the inequities in the tax system. We believe, in our capital gains tax policy, in the rights of small business to profit from a long term investment; not from a short term investment in property but from a long term investment, like the greengrocer, and like the suburban solicitor who is prepared to go for the longer haul over five years. During that time they will be paying sales taxes of the type mentioned. I would like to give an example of just how this is working to the disadvantage of poorer people. In the Australian Financial Review of 22 November 1988 there appears a large display advertisement for the auction of a residential Sydney property. It is expected-and I say this because I have inquired of the auctioneers; I had a personal interest when I first saw the advertisement and that is what causes me to bring it to the House's attention-to bring about $1m and the capital gain to the owners under the present capital gains tax law will be free of tax. I do not know how much gain there will be, but I do know that the adjoining identical property cost the present owner $225,000 five years ago. In other words, if the adjoining identical property was on sale next week, the owner who has, to quote the Treasurer, sat there doing nothing for five years, would have a tax free gain of $775,000. The property for auction-the one that is advertised in the paper-is at 27 Roslyn Gardens, Elizabeth Bay. The adjoining and identical property, No. 25, to which I have referred, is the property of Paul Keating, the Treasurer, who apparently, when the value is established by auction next Tuesday, will be, on paper at least, $775,000 richer on a property on which, to use his words, he has sat and done nothing with. He bought it in 1983 and for exactly five years he has sat on it and done nothing. We know that the property is not occupied by him. He lives in Canberra. There have been previous arguments relating to the fact that he nominates that property in Elizabeth Bay as his principal place of residence, and that, of course, makes it his home. Under the Treasurer's law on capital gain, his home is free of capital gains tax. It is quite clear that the Treasurer is about to make a $775,000 tax free profit, if only on paper. He has done exactly what he has accused other people of doing-that is, to use his words, to sit there for five years and do nothing. That, as far as I am concerned-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I recognise that this is a fairly wide-ranging debate, but I think that at present the honourable member is straying beyond the realms of relevance. Mr TUCKEY —I would argue with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on that point. I listened to the honourable member for Chifley, and if he missed any part of the taxation procedures of this place, I would like to know what they were. He talked about marginal tax rates and everything else and he was not interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have just asked the honourable gentleman to be relevant. Mr TUCKEY —Very well, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will come back to the legislation. As I said, the sales tax will be imposed on the kind of computer products that are sold to families who cannot afford million dollar houses but who are being required to pay $100,000 to $200,000 for houses which we would once have considered worth barely $20,000 to $30,000. When we add to that the present level of interest charges we can see that these people are struggling. The honourable member for Chifley seemed to imply that these people have problems, yet we have this continuously growing taxation burden. The Treasurer tells us day after day in this place that the Government has evidence from its Forward Estimates that government spending is reducing. He always gives it as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). We know that one can produce statistics to support any argument one likes. He chooses to present a percentage of GDP. GDP has grown rapidly in this country. In the Treasurer's first couple of Budgets it grew at 7 per cent and 8 per cent, fired up by government deficits which also happen to be 5, 6, and 7 per cent of GDP. In other words, we have had a debit led recovery; we have fired up the GDP. Consequently, the Treasurer's claim that he is maintaining expenditure and, one would assume, taxation within the limits of a certain percentage of GDP is not having the same effect on taxpayers. When we get down to the dollar values we find that the last Fraser Budget raised $44,000m; the current Keating Budget raised $88,000m. The working people, for whom the Treasurer cried crocodile tears today, have to cope with inflation and bracket creep. The Treasurer talked about the effect of foreign investment on the price of housing. He cried crocodile tears for people in my view. He might want to sell his residence in Elizabeth Bay for, say, $400,000-half price-and set the example! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member will not ignore the directions of the Chair. I ask him to remain relevant to the Bills under debate. Mr TUCKEY —I certainly will come back to the matter before us. I will close in a minute. I do not want to take too much time as I have a colleague who wants to make a contribution to this debate. The sales tax provisions, although somewhat improved, will cause many problems for people because a sales tax is still being imposed on the information process. There is still a large amount of sales tax being collected on computer programs. These are the things the nation needs for the development of industry and the minds of our young people. In that regard there is still a problem. I reject the remarks made by the honourable member for Chifley. I am certainly entitled to do that as he made so many remarks about different things. I do not think the Government's tax policy has got much to recommend it. It has hurt many people. People, according to EPAC are paying five times as much tax, as a percentage of their earnings, as they were 30 years ago. Anybody who looks at the growth of taxation will see that it has occurred principally under two governments: the Whitlam Government and the Hawke Government. The other matters I have raised show the Government's hypocrisy, particularly that of the Treasurer who, despite making the remarks he did, is using loopholes within his own tax law. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.34) —In speaking to the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill, the Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 12), the Sales Tax Bill (No. 12), and the Sales Tax Bill (No. 1A) I would like to say how horrified I am that these days, every time I come into this House it is to speak against more taxation from this Labor Government. There Bills are the same. There will be a $50m increase in taxation. There is a new 20 per cent sales tax on the transfer of electronic information. Computer programs transferred electronically will be subject to sales tax of 20 per cent. It will be retrospective, of course, to 4 November 1988. I was amused to hear the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) say in a speech on the economy how the Labor Party Government has increased the size of the economy and increased revenue from taxation. He was trying to put up some spurious argument that because the economy is growing we should be paying more tax. I have never heard anything more ridiculous. If the economy is growing, we should be paying less tax as a percentage. We are not seeing that under this Government. The economy is shrinking. If we take into consideration the Government's borrowings and debts we will see that the economy has shrunk substantially. The Government is placing us in a position in which our children will have to continue to work to pay back these horrific borrowings. Apart from working and sweating they will have to continue to pay the high taxes that this Government is imposing every day in this House on fellow Australians. There is no doubt that this is the highest taxing period that this nation has experienced. Our economy is not growing; it is shrinking. One has only to look at the balance of trade situation each month to see that it is the worst in our history. It is continuing that way. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) comes in here using rhetoric, speaking rubbish, when the economy is not growing to the extent that it ought to be. Currently, sales tax covers only those programs embodied in storage mediums and imported or sold in Australia. Computer programs transferred within Australia will be subject to this new 20 per cent sales tax. The sales tax payable on computer programs transferred from overseas to a person within Australia who is not registered for sales tax purposes excludes programs embodied in goods. It means people have to register if they are now receiving electronic information, or receiving a computer program that they wish to use to help boost business. The Government is continually taxing business. If people want to install a new computer program and earn some income they will be taxed for the privilege. The buyer of programs not already registered must lodge a sales tax return and pay the tax within 21 days from the end of the month when the program was transferred. Under the software related services, programs developed for single users in certain circumstances are free from tax. This means that once a program one has developed personally goes 20 per cent beyond private use-for instance if it is used for business-the 20 per cent sales tax will apply. People can develop their own programs but once they start using it in their private businesses beyond 20 per cent they will be expected to pay the new tax. The sales tax provisions also include computer programs transferred internally by electronic means. Transfers made free of charge will not be affected because the sales tax is placed on the cost of the charge made for the transfer of the program. Of course it requires the recipients of the programs transferred from outside Australia to lodge sales tax returns which I mentioned previously. The legislation package is expected to produce $30m in revenue in 1988-89 and in subsequent years the Department of the Treasury estimates that the revenue will be $50m. There are some very grey areas in the legislation as to where the tax should be levied and at what stage people are exempt from sales tax. I have a very large number of coal mines in my electorate. I have recently been to Blackwater to look at some of the mines. I have kept in touch with the people and the management who are working the mines. The Currah mine is using the largest drag line in operation in the southern hemisphere. It is an 84 cubic yard drag line. This new piece of equipment cost $50m. A lot of computer software is used in the mining industry. Long wall mining of coal is taking place at the Cook underground mine with enormous pieces of machinery which are hydraulically and computer controlled. Most of the computer functions of this generation machinery are built in and are not subject to the new tax. However, there is a grey area between where sales tax is paid and where it is not. If people in mining and agriculture purchase machinery to create wealth and develop a resource it will be exempt from sales tax. But in the goods department, the ordering department, or the accounting department at head office the mining companies are very much subject to this new tax. The other mine in the area which is affected by this new tax is the South Blackwater mine. The miners are greatly concerned about the rapid increase in the value of the Australian dollar. They wrote contracts in Australian dollars when the dollar was worth 70c or 75c. They borrowed large amounts of money to build up their mining operation and to invest capital and now they find that the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Government are forcing up interest rates which, in turn, is causing the dollar to escalate rapidly. We now see it selling at somewhere around 86c or 87c. So the dog continues to chase its tail. The rapid rise in the dollar, which the Treasurer thinks might help some sectors, is disadvantaging primary industry-particularly primary industry exports such as wool, beef and coal from the mines in the electorate that I represent in south-west Queensland. The Yarrabi mine is a small coal mine that is operating east of Blackwater. As I have already mentioned, the Blackwater South mine has borrowed a lot of capital recently. It is very concerned about the rapid escalation of the dollar, and the escalation of all taxes that are being imposed by this Labor Government. I do not wish to speak for much longer. As I said, we now have large-scale use of computers by school kids across the country. My children badger me to buy a computer. I am not too sure what they are talking about half the time, but I am expected to give them one for Christmas. Computers are becoming very useful tools, certainly for the generations to come. I wonder why we should place regressive taxes on electronic transfers from one computer to another. I have much pleasure in supporting these Bills. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton-Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support)(4.43) —I want to make just a couple of comments in response to some of the matters that have been raised and in particular to the amendment that has been moved. There have been indications that amendments will also be moved at a subsequent stage. I want to emphasise that the Government quite clearly has made concessions and given consideration to people who are engaged in the computer software industry in Australia. I am sure that both honourable members who have just spoken recognise the fact that amendments of this kind are not made in isolation, but all governments of any political persuasion enter into, as they should, sensible discussions and arrangements with people engaged in economic pursuits in the community and in the economy generally who have an interest in the issues under consideration. Any additional concerns that any of those interests want to bring to the attention of the Government or the Minister will, of course, receive consideration. There is a responsiveness on the part of the Government in connection with this issue as there has been in connection with all issues and as there will continue to be. There is no need for any of these amendments at all and the Government rejects them. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(4.45) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 4, page 2, lines 8-18, omit paragraph (a). (2) Clause 4, page 2, at the end of the clause add the following paragraph: (c) by inserting in subsection (1) the following definition: `` `module', in relation to computer programs, means a product licensed or sold in its own right as a separate and standard existing unit comprising either a single computer program which performs a self-contained function or a group of computer programs which together perform a set of integrated functions;''. (3) Clause 7, page 3, line 20, omit ``computer programs'', substitute ``modules''. (4) Clause 7, page 3, line 23, omit ``programs'', substitute `'modules''. As I foreshadowed in my speech during the second reading debate, the Opposition is moving amendments to the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill. The amendments are an attempt to clarify the application of sales tax to the computer software industry. Just to pick up a point made by the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), I understand that these problems have been discussed by the relevant industry groups with the Government and the Government has still chosen to ignore them. The irony of this Bill is that it is an attempt by the Government to improve the existing legislation, which has been ambiguous and unclear. However, there remain genuine concerns that the Government's amending legislation will be just as vague and ambiguous. When tax laws are vague it is incredibly hard for business to operate effectively. Not only efficiency but also equity goes out the window. Because suppliers are required to remit sales tax within 21 days of the end of the month in which the transaction took place, they have little opportunity to raise an objection without facing severe penalties if they disagree with the Australian Taxation Office's ruling. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES It is important that the law is clear right from its introduction. A particular concern with the Bill is the definition of `computer programs', which has been altered to include `part of a computer program'. This means that, depending on the interpretation of the Australian Taxation Office, this legislation could be used to tax all the various codes and sequences, the basic intellectual property, used in the development of a customised software package if they have been used previously. In effect it may end up that one of the principal reasons that the Bill was introduced-to stop the taxation of services-will be defeated. A service which is not normally subject to tax under the wholesale sales tax system may become taxed simply because the computer consultant relies on various parts of his past work and experience to produce a customised computer program. I am therefore moving amendments to clauses 4 and 7 of the Bill to tighten the definitions used in the legislation. Basically, the amendments will introduce into the legislation the definition of a computer module. A module, in relation to computer programs means a product licensed or sold in its own right as a separate and standard existing unit comprising either a single computer program which performs a self-contained function or a group of computer programs which together perform a set of integrated functions. This definition will give the Tax Office a better guide for determining what are those parts of a program that are simply the building blocks and, in effect, what is the taxable product when those building blocks are put together into a discrete usable item. The Opposition believes that these changes will facilitate the application of the tax. They will hopefully stop further `unintended consequences' in the application of the sales tax to this industry. The Government fails to realise that simple and understandable legislation is just as important for genuine tax relief as lowering the level of taxation. The Opposition is aware of this and will again attempt to fix badly drafted legislation from the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Robert Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Robert Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Robert Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 November, on motion by Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Robert Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(4.55) —The Federal Airports Corporation Amendment Bill facilitates the transfer to the Corporation of joint owner airport facilities throughout this country where the Commonwealth has an interest in aviation activities that take place upon them. The Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) already runs 17 aerodromes, airports, throughout this country. I regret to say there is very little evidence to suggest that it is doing a very good job. It is for that reason the Opposition has proposed, in an amendment which will be circulated in my name, that there be an inquiry into the FAC and its activities. We think this is particularly appropriate before the Federal Airports Corporation is given responsibility for any more than its current 17 airports. There are a number of areas which cause considerable concern to the industry, airport users and travellers throughout Australia. I propose in the few minutes that are available to me-probably, in the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), as a privilege extended to the Opposition by the Executive-to address my remarks to the concerns of the industry. The operations of the FAC are quite controversial. They certainly do not have a harmonious relationship with a large section of the industry, in particular general aviation. There have been complaints about the attitude of the FAC and the fact that there has been little consultation. I cite a reference by the President of the Airport Owners and Operators Association with respect to the level of consultation that goes on between airport users and the industry. He talked about meetings held throughout the country for the purpose of discussing the plans of the FAC and pointed out that at Moorabbin Airport there were five people who were consulted and at Essendon there were little more than 15. These discussions were with respect to the FAC's proposal to introduce what is known as a GAIT charge, or general aviation infrastructure tariff. I will be making comments about that charge later. I think the discussions are indicative of the FAC's failure to honour its obligations and its responsibility to consult with those people whom its activities directly affect. It is important to understand that the FAC has been created as a monopoly. In fact, it is a site monopoly which it is impossible to avoid. If one wants to use an airport that has been transferred to the FAC one has to deal with the FAC. Unfortunately, the FAC has recognised the power that this monopoly gives it, and I will be citing some of the consequences of this power and the reactions to some of the proposals of the FAC. The level of charges is also quite controversial. The aviation industry is already at the 100 per cent full cost recovery level which was recommended in the report of the Bosch Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery. I will be talking about that at a later time also. I have mentioned the power of the monopoly supplier of a service which is afforded to the FAC and its approach to business. I will also make some remarks about its perceived commercial competence. Let me just allude to the fact that the Trade Practices Commission has already said that the FAC is in breach of the Trade Practices Act in some of its dealings. The FAC's reaction to that is, I believe, something that does not reflect credit upon itself or the Government. It is something that is beyond the pale. It is also appropriate to examine the role of a monopoly supplier of services in an industry that the Government claims it is deregulating. In recent days there have been reports in newspapers about concerns among people who aspire to take advantage of the ending of the two-airline agreement to become domestic airline operators throughout Australia. May I just digress for a moment and say that the way the Government went about that was quite curious. The FAC came into being on 1 January. Prior to that, the Government had already entered into lease arrangements with the major domestic airlines. It was not done by the FAC, the statutory authority, the Corporation that is responsible for running the airports; it was done by the old department. Even more curious was the way the whole leasing agreement was approached by the department. To begin with the consultancy for the drafting of the lease agreements was not let to public tender. It was simply given to a former employee of the department. One may say, `That's fine, the person obviously has some considerable expertise'. But I wonder whether one would say that if one knew that that person's prime activity with the department prior to his retirement and taking up this consultancy was not in the aviation area. I am led to believe his expertise was in the roads area. For something as significant and sensitive as the letting of major lease agreements to the two domestic airlines, at the very least the tenders should have been public. If the Government were fair dinkum about giving the FAC responsibility for running the airports, it might have let it go ahead and negotiate the lease agreements. Perhaps one could argue that the negotiations had to go on and could not be delayed until the Corporation came into being, and that is a reasonable argument. But the Government could have delayed actually signing the lease agreements until a few weeks later because the agreements were signed on the eve of the implementation of the FAC. The FAC was handed a fait accompli. Let me make some reference to the concerns of the industry about these agreements, and there is some considerable concern, which has been published in the newspapers. Mr Bryan Grey, a former owner of East-West Airlines Ltd, has an ambition to establish a fourth airline in this country to be known as Compass Airlines. He is extremely concerned that the terms of the lease agreements given to both Ansett Airlines of Australia and Australian Airlines will preclude his ability to develop terminal facilities which will enable him to establish his airline. The Government talks a lot about establishing competition but when it comes to putting these words into action it is very reluctant to act. We saw recently the acquisition by TNT Limited, an interest associated with Ansett Airlines, of East-West Airlines. The matter went to the Trade Practices Commission, which said that it was concerned about this acquisition, it believed there should be some restrictions placed upon it, but it was not in a position to pursue the action because it did not have the resources. This Government talks about competition, deregulation and commitment to an expanded deregulated economy. Yet it is not prepared to provide the resources to back up a Government instrumentality when it says there is a problem. It is disgraceful when the Trade Practices Commission of this country, the authority that is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that trade practices are in fact fair and equitable, says, `there is a problem; we would like to pursue it but we can't do it because we don't have the money'. The Government has the money to spend on cutting the price of beer, but when it comes to something as significant as ensuring competition among airlines in this country it does not have the resources to spend on it. The FAC has some 1,200 people working for it. I would like the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) to explain exactly what those 1,200 people are doing. Mr Robert Brown —Each of them separately? Mr BLUNT —Yes, I think it would be a very good idea. Let us see some job descriptions for these 1,200 people and find out what they are actually doing. Most of them came from the Department. I wonder whether their job descriptions are relevant any more. Airports are run by the people who work at them. The only evidence one sees of the FAC when one goes into an airport these days is a big sign that says `Welcome to the Airport-Federal Airports Corporation'. If that is not a waste of money, I do not know what is. Who cares who owns the airport? What people are really worried about is whether they catch their planes on time. But these days we have money to spend putting up signs. As the Minister is going to take an interest in this debate, let me tell him that the staff of the FAC have just received pay increases. What is more, they have new cars. They have new offices and new office equipment to go with them. They have these new signs, also. When the Government announced the CAA-FAC package, it said, `We are going to reduce the costs to the industry'. Immediately it started to spend a lot of money. The consequence was that charges went up incredibly. I have referred to the Bosch report. Let me consider what the Bosch report said. The Minister has been talking to me about the costs of the Department. Henry Bosch, Chairman of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, handed down his findings to the Government with suggestions on implementing 100 per cent cost recovery. Bosch recommended: If major reductions in departmental costs can be achieved, cost recovery can be attained by 1995. The Government has obtained in excess of 100 per cent cost recovery in two years-a long way short of 1995. But what it has not done has been to go along with the other half of the Bosch equation, and that is, reduce the costs to the industry. The costs have probably increased. The Government has not been fair dinkum with the industry. It has taken a typical Labor Government approach-`We will rip the money off the people but let us not worry too much about cutting back expenditure'. It falls into line with the Treasurer's approach, which we have seen in so many other areas-increasing taxes as a substitute for reducing costs. Let me quote from an editorial that appeared in an industry magazine under the heading `Farcical Aviation Charges'. The acronym will not be lost on many people in the industry-FAC, Farcical Aviation Charges. The article states: In point of fact, the aviation industry is being grossly over-recovered, as the Government collects some $400m in taxes from aviation fuel, which goes into consolidated revenue and is not attributed to aviation. The same is true of import duty and sales tax on aircraft and aircraft parts. Nevertheless, even under its restricted definition of cost recovery, the Government acknowledged in 1987 that full cost recovery had been achieved. On January 1 of this year, the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) came into being. Their task is to improve the efficiency of the 17 capital city primary and secondary airports, apply sound commercial principles, make airports self-sufficient and reduce costs. I will refer to some of the sound commercial principles adopted by the FAC in a moment. Let me make a few remarks about the so-called general aviation infrastructure tariff, known as GAIT. Again I quote from an industry magazine, which states: The FAC proposes to introduce a General Aviation Infrastructure Tariff (GAIT) at all FAC airports (excluding capital city primary airports where landing charges would remain). They propose to sell stickers which would allow use of FAC secondary airports for a period of one year for . . . $1 per kg based on maximum take-off weight. That translates roughly into about $1,050 per annum for a Cessna 172, which is a fairly small, light aircraft; about $1,300 for a Cessna 182, and for a Beech 36, about $1,600. This is the Government that is going to reduce the costs to the industry. It is also relevant to talk about the commercial practices of the FAC. We should remember that it is a monopoly supplier of services at these 17 airports. The Bill before the House proposes to give the FAC access to additional airports throughout this country. This was reported in a journal which is circulated widely throughout Australia called Inside Canberra. It talks about the way the FAC went about letting the tender for a facility at Sydney's international airport. I will read directly from Inside Canberra. It states: The terms and conditions were so onerous and inequitable that interested parties complained to the Trade Practices Commission that the Federal Airports Corporation was abusing its position of market power. In a letter to the FAC dated 1 June the Trade Practices Commission said that indeed the terms and conditions attached to the concession appeared to contravene section 46 (misuse of market power) and section 48 (resale price maintenance). That is, of the Trade Practices Act. The journal goes on: The tendering procedure was halted while the FAC considers its position. Let me tell honourable members what the FAC did. It withdrew its tender and relet it without putting it back to tender. I quote from a statement by my colleague the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), the shadow Attorney-General, about the tendering processes of the FAC. He gives three examples which are worth noting carefully. They are not three isolated examples. As the Minister at the table, the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, will remember, I asked a series of questions in this place earlier in the year of the responsible junior Minister. All he could do was throw his hands up in the air and say, `I will get you answers'. I am still waiting for the answers. My colleague the honourable member for Menzies gave the example that, firstly, there was the granting of a new three-year contract for the duty free shops at Sydney international airport without putting the contract out to public tender. The duty free shops are a very lucrative facility, and yet the contract did not go to public tender. Secondly, when inwards duty free shopping was introduced, the Government handed out these lush contracts without putting them out to tender. The FAC may not have been directly responsible for that. But this is relevant to this whole debate today. The conduct of commercial operations from a monopoly position like that should be above question. There is no possible justification for putting out such a concession without putting it out to public tender. How can that be justified, when one of the objectives of the Corporation is to comply with normal commercial guidelines, which are to maximise profits? My colleague referred to the short-lived contract for removing duty free dockets at Brisbane airport. I will explain to honourable members what that process is. When one goes through the Customs barrier someone takes the docket off one's duty free package. There was a contract for that. This arrangement was cancelled when the honourable member for Menzies raised the issue with Senator Evans, who brushed it off as a `misjudgment by management'. That is the standard of FAC administration in regard to tendering processes. As I have said, I raised a number of issues in this place in questions to the Minister and I am still waiting for answers. Is it any wonder that a new pressure group has been established to deal with the FAC? At FAC-controlled airports an organisation has been established known as the Federal Airport Operators and Tenants Association. It is a direct response to the difficulties that people who work and operate their businesses at airports have with the FAC. It says that it is going to tackle some of the current prickly issues as a matter of urgency. These include the method of charging landing fees by the FAC at Coolangatta, Essendon and Launceston airports and the need for the industry to pay additional charges when the Bosch report recommendations of 100 per cent cost recovery have already been exceeded. I said that I would talk about some of the commercial arrangements of the FAC. Let me quote from some of the correspondence that people in the industry have sent to me about what the FAC is doing. I quote from a legal opinion given by a reputable firm, Bowden Stokes and Jones, to a general aviation firm. I will not name the firm, but I am sure that the Department and the FAC know which firm I am talking about. The legal opinion states: In fact the Lease (Clause 5 (a)) requires the tenant to carry out all repairs and maintenance as required to the improvements as required by the Airport Manager which without any provision to the contrary would mean all structural repairs of any kind. Further, clause 4 gives FAC absolute control over any alterations or additions which may be required by the tenant, even extending to the payment of the fees for FAC's architects who would require to approve any plans and supervise any of the works undertaken. In short, the proposed Lease is extremely one-sided and far more onerous on the tenant than any normal commercial lease. That is what people think about the approach of the FAC to negotiating with its clients. It is obviously exploiting a monopoly position. I quote from other correspondence I have received from people who have to deal with the FAC: We believe that the rent increase as indicated in your proposal, which we calculate at more than a 35 per cent increase, is contrary to both Federal and State government policy of keeping price increases within the CPI and has the distinct possibility of driving small business such as ours out of business. It should also be noted that up to May 18th 1987 the rent was only $250,000, therefore, the latest increase represents an increase of over 56 per cent in just 14 months. Furthermore, we cannot understand the justification for the requirement for us to insure the premises for an amount of $52,405, without any improvements, when only five months ago you required us to insure the same premises for an amount of $20,000-an increase of over 160 per cent. Obviously, we are getting to a situation where the FAC is either picking numbers out of the air or it is playing games in order to generate additional revenue. Of course, similar comments are made about the GAIT charges. The FAC had transferred to it certain airport properties and they were given a value. In the Senate Estimates process an attempt was made by some of my colleagues to get answers on the value of these assets and some other detailed information about the FAC operations. This monopoly supplier of information has yet to provide those answers. There is just a determination on the part of the Government, which is arrogant and out of touch, and the FAC, to keep everybody in the dark and to say, `Take it or leave it: pay the money or get out of business'. Of course, when one is in the aviation business one does not have too many other options, and many people are in fact leaving the industry. We shall see a situation, particularly in Victoria, where people will move from Essendon to Moorabbin, and then further and further out, because they will just be moving to get away from the FAC. It is something that really should be questioned. We have a high and rising level of charges at present. Let us look at what will happen in the future. The assets of the FAC, which were Commonwealth assets, were sold to it by the Government. They were sold to a statutory corporation of the Commonwealth. It is an interesting transaction. If they had been sold to a private organisation, one could understand the Government, perhaps, wanting to be paid the way it is. The Government provided the finance for the acquisition of these assets, but it is a very interesting finance package. It is not fully commercial at this stage. It is only one-tenth commercial and we are already seeing escalating charges. Over a 10-year period the package of finance goes completely commercial. What is the level of charges that will be imposed on the industry at the end of 10 years when all the debt is at commercial rates of interest? I wonder whether the Government has realised whether there will be an aviation industry and what will be the cost that is passed on to the users of airports. Let me make a few comments about the FAC and its inadequate response to the problems of aviation right throughout Australia. I guess the most pressing problem that the industry faces in this country at present is Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I am sure it would surprise every member of this House to know that the FAC has yet to develop a master plan for the development of Kingsford-Smith Airport. We have the absolutely ridiculous policy of the current Government of not building a third runway, but surely the FAC should know what it is going to do with that airport. It is the premier airport in this country. It is critical to our tourist development; it is the hub for our domestic traffic. And the FAC does not have a master plan! That is not unique. There is in fact a master plan for Perth Airport. I have spoken at length with the people who are responsible to the local government authority in that area. They quote the master plan and they tell me it was done in 1985 and it provides for a parallel runway and the development of the facility right into the next century. Of course, the FAC is busy allowing leases for the development of new domestic terminals. A close look at what these lease proposals are shows that they are in direct contradiction to the master plan, and in fact it limits the ability to implement the master plan. So we do all the work. We look at the need to develop the Perth Airport facility. Then the FAC, probably in its never-ending hunger to gain revenue to meet its interest charges and fulfil its obligations to the Government, is busy leasing land which is supposed to be in the middle of a runway or something else and is in fact going to limit the ability to develop that Perth airport facility. What is more, local government cannot even get an answer from the Government on what is going on. The Government will not respond to the local government's inquiries as to what its intentions are for this airport. No wonder there is a proposal to develop a private airport at Perth because this Government has lost control of what is happening. We have problems with Brisbane Airport. The terminal facilities are hopelessly inadequate there and the Government will not act to provide an international terminal that is adequate to cope with the growing tourist traffic and certainly it has no hope of coping with the immense number of tourists who will be coming into Brisbane International for the 1992 Lions Convention. One can go on at length about the FAC's activities. Everywhere one turns one finds it to be wanting and totally inadequate. The major concern that the industry has is that the FAC is not soundly based. For that reason we have moved an amendment which deals with a number of areas that we firmly believe should be reviewed. There is even some question as to whether the FAC has a sound legal basis for imposing some of the charges it is seeking to impose at present. For that reason we will move an amendment that reads: That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for inquiry and report with particular reference to the following: (1) The powers and responsibilities granted under the Federal Airports Corporation legislation . . . Of course, that is very germane to the point I have just made; whether it has in fact the power to impose the charges that it is imposing and whether those powers are in fact appropriate, or perhaps even excessive, because there is a real concern throughout the community with monopoly, although this Government seems quite content to deal on very close and friendly terms with big business, one or two big businesses in particular, and perhaps it has plans down the track for what it is going to do with the FAC. We also believe there is a need to inquire into the value of assets transferred by the Government to the FAC. Many of these assets go back some considerable years. They were in fact given to the Department after World War II and the previous administrative arrangements provided for a full cost recovery program. The previous department, in setting charges imposed on the industry, in some cases, although not all, ran a full cost recovery program. It was levying charges, which were raising money, which were imposed on the basis of full cost recovery. Those charging regimes ran for some years. So some of the assets have in fact been paid for to a considerable extent in the past, and yet with the transfer to the FAC they were valued and then a new cost recovery program was implemented. So they have been paid for twice. Again it is just another grab for money. The other aspect of the inquiry that we propose is that the Corporation's plans for developing its airports, and in particular, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth, should be reviewed in detail and as a matter of urgency, because there is nothing more critical to the future development of aviation in this country than the airport facilities and there is nothing that has been done by the FAC to the present time that inspires confidence. There is nothing that has been done by this Government that inspires confidence in its ability to deal with this growing challenge. It has a classic case of policy paralysis. It cannot come to grips with what is obvious to everybody else. There was a situation today where both domestic airlines had a joint press conference calling for the development of a third runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Qantas Airways Limited, the Government-owned airline, had previously called for that. The New South Wales Government is in favour of it. The Opposition is in support of it-yet because of one member, the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), a marginal seat-holder, the whole aviation industry in Australia is being held to ransom. Air fares are going up and the economic benefit of tourism and the growth in aviation to Australia is being reduced. Those are the sort of priorities that this Government has, and they are deplorable. We also believe there is a need to examine closely the Corporation's approach to its commercial activities. The short references I have made here to some of the major contracts for facilities at international airports and small lease agreements for general aviation operators indicate that, at either end of the extreme, the competence of the Corporation should be called into question and that there is an urgent need to look at the way it does its business and whether it should retain the power it has at present. We also think that it is about time the Government had an open inquiry into establishing a Government-run monopoly in what is supposed to be, in a very short period, a deregulated, competitive industry. If we are going to do away with the two-airline agreement, if we are to have an open skies policy, if we are to have some competition in domestic aviation in this country, what is the logic in creating site monopoly? Why do we not say `Competition is good; let us have competition right throughout the industry'-and not have the Government trying at arm's length to maintain control and regulate the industry. The FAC will be the determinant of the success of a deregulated aviation industry in Australia. If it is not possible for new airline operators to get terminal space, they cannot fly. It would be a brave new airline that came in to an industry with a massive investment on the condition that it had to be a tenant of an existing airline. That is exactly the situation that is likely to develop under the arrangements proposed by this Government and its so-called independent statutory authority, the FAC. It is a disgrace. The Government is making a mess of aviation. I believe that the FAC does not have the expertise, nor has it been given a proper brief to undertake its charges. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia believe that there is a need to break up the FAC monopoly, to provide genuine competition in the supply of services at airports, and to provide an opportunity for private industry to become involved in this area. For that reason, we propose that this Bill be referred to a parliamentary committee for inquiry so that the Australian public will know exactly what sort of mess this Government is making of its aviation industry. I move: That all words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for inquiry and report with particular reference to the following: (1) the powers and responsibilities granted under the Federal Airports Corporation legislation; (2) the value of assets transferred by the Government and the basis for financing the Corporation with particular reference to the implications for charges imposed by the Corporation; (3) the Corporation's plans for developing its airports, and in particular its proposals for Sydney, Brisbane and Perth airports; (4) the procedures adopted by the Corporation for its commercial activities with emphasis on requirements and procedures for calling tenders and letting contracts; (5) the implications of the Federal Airports Corporation monopoly position for the aviation industry, in particular general and sports aviation and non-scheduled airline and charter operations; (6) the appropriateness of the Federal Airport Corporation monopoly position in a deregulated aviation industry; (7) the legislative basis, financial structure and corporate objectives of the Corporation; and (8) the Corporation's organisation, structure and staff numbers''. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Nehl —I second the amendment with great pleasure. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(5.22) —I support the Federal Airports Corporation Amendment Bill and I oppose the amendment. Whilst I found the contribution of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) interesting, I am afraid that I am unable to agree with the basic premises on which he proposed his amendment. Indeed, I would say that, if the amendment were carried, it would frustrate development in civil aviation in Australia, particularly in my own electorate of the Northern Territory. I will refer to that matter later. I remind the House of the background of the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). The Corporation was set up as a government business enterprise, established by and incorporated under the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986. On 1 January 1988, the FAC assumed responsibility for the ownership, management and development of Australia's major airports and for the commercial activities on the airports, including arrangements with airlines and other operators for the use of airports and for leasing of property and the letting of business concessions. Like any business, the Corporation is required to be financially self-supporting. It has been established with a capital base and a debt-equity ratio determined by discussion and negotiation between the Commonwealth, States and Territories and the FAC under the FAC legislation. The current amendments arise from an announcement in the Budget that the Government intended to transfer ownership of the civil aerodromes at Alice Springs, Mount Isa and Mackay to the FAC. It also announced that responsibility for the civil aviation facilities at the Defence owned aerodromes at Darwin, Townsville and Canberra were to be transferred to the FAC on conditions to be agreed between the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Under the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986, the FAC can operate as Federal airports aerodromes that are situated on land which the Corporation owns. Because of the legal impediment to ownership of land in the Australian Capital Territory it would not be possible for the FAC to take over the civil aviation facilities at Canberra Airport as the Act stands. It is therefore necessary to amend the Act to allow the FAC to operate aerodromes on land that it holds on a leasehold from the Commonwealth. The Bill is also designed to cover circumstances in which the Corporation assumes responsibility for the operation of part of other Defence owned-that is, joint user-airports. The legislation will empower the Corporation to enter into arrangements with Defence relating to land tenure and operations on the airport. That is of particular importance regarding the Darwin Airport. The purpose of the Bill therefore is to amend the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986. That Act provides the legislative framework for the Corporation. As it now stands, the Act requires that, where land owned by the Commonwealth becomes a Federal airport, or a part of a Federal airport, ownership of that land is to be vested in the Corporation. The amendments for which the Bill provides will allow the Federal Airports Corporation to operate Federal airports on land which is leased from the Commonwealth by the Corporation or on land in respect of which the Corporation has entered into arrangements for joint use with an authority of the Commonwealth. I now refer to some of the amendments that have been proposed, as they clearly identify the purpose of the legislation. Clause 2, relating to definitions, will be amended to provide a definition for `joint-user aero-drome' and `jointly used area'. Clause 3 relating to functions of the Corporation will amend section 6 of the principal Act to provide for the functions of the Corporation to include participation in the operation of joint-user areas. Clause 4 refers to the extent of functions of the Corporation and will amend section 8 of the principal Act to provide for the functions of the Corporation in relation to a Federal airport to extend generally to a jointly used area except in relation to disposal of land. Exclusion from the Corporation's functions of the matters relating to the control, by persons engaged in air traffic control, of vehicles on manoeuvring areas at Federal airports is extended to jointly used areas. There is an important amendment under clause 5 dealing with powers of the Corporation. This clause amends section 9 of the principal Act by specifying that the Corporation has the power to lease from the Commonwealth land at a federal airport that owned by the Commonwealth. It also gives the Corporation power to enter into arrangements with the Commonwealth for use of land at a Federal airport that is owned by the Commonwealth. It allows the Corporation to enter into arrangements for the joint use by the Corporation and an authority of the Commonwealth of land at a Federal airport that is owned by the Commonwealth. The Corporation may also enter into arrangements relating to the operation of jointly used areas and it may lease land from a person for the purposes of the principal Act. There are two other aspects of the amendments to which I would like to refer briefly. Clause 10 deals with airports and business concessions. This clause amends section 71 of the principal Act by excluding the whole of an airport from the Airports (Business Concessions) Act where part of the airport becomes a Federal airport. Clause 11 deals with the Defence aerodrome. It inserts a new section in the principal Act to retain the application of section 20 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to the part of a joint user aerodrome that does not become a Federal airport. All these amendments are important, particularly in the case of Darwin Airport. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that the then responsible Minister, the present Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peter Morris) stated in this House on 23 August this year that the Government had taken a decision in principle that the Darwin and Alice Springs airports should be transferred to the FAC and that detailed arrangements were being negotiated. It was expected that the transfer would take place by the end of the year. The Federal Airports Corporation indicated at that stage that, upon finalisation of mutually satisfactory financial arrangements for the transfer it would immediately commence planning for the redevelopment of civil aviation facilities at Darwin, and that included a new terminal. The terminal and the associated works had a projected cost of about $65m. In addition, the Alice Springs Airport was to be upgraded initially at a cost of $1.3m. With the final development of an improved terminal at Alice Springs, the cost increased to $20m. These improvements-the relocation of the terminal at Darwin to the north side of the aerodrome and the redevelopment of the airport terminal facilities at Alice Springs-are sorely needed and long overdue. I will illustrate this by pointing to some interesting statistics. Alice Springs, although it has a small population of around 25,000 people, has the tenth busiest airport in Australia, with more than 500,000 passengers passing through the terminal in 1988. Between 1986 and 1988 passenger numbers through the terminal have increased by some 30.6 per cent. By contrast, passenger numbers in Darwin have increased by some 10.1 per cent. I will give some indication of the increasing number of passengers going through the Alice Springs terminal and the consequent increased volume of air traffic. In 1986 passengers uplifted and discharged at Alice Springs totalled 387,359. By 1988 that figure had increased to 506,037, thus the 30.6 increase. In Darwin the figure in 1986 was 342,234, while by 1988 it had risen to 376,755. In 1987 passenger movements through the Alice Springs terminal increased over and above the national average by 11 per cent and in 1988 by 2 per cent, while in Darwin the numbers increased over and above the national average as well. It is important to recognise why these terminals are needed. The saga of the redevelopment of the Darwin Airport has been a long and sorry story. To the bitter experience of a number of people involved in the aviation industry and in the tourism industry, promises which had been made in the past failed to materialise. However, this Government has made a commitment to upgrade the Darwin Airport and there are clear indications that that commitment will be met. I am confident that the negotiations between the Federal Airports Corporation and this Government will be finalised in the very near future. As a further indication of the importance of Darwin Airport, I point out that although its passenger throughput is somewhat less than that of Alice Springs, it must be recognised that Darwin is an international airport that receives a lot of traffic from South East Asia. Most of the traffic from South East Asia is carried by the various airlines that have landing rights in Darwin, besides Qantas Airways Ltd. They include Royal Brunei, which was granted landing rights in 1983; Garuda, granted rights in 1969; and Merpati, granted rights in 1982. That reflects the importance of Darwin not only in terms of tourism from South East Asia but also its importance to South East Asia as part of our trading associations. Overseas visitation contributes a significant proportion of income derived from tourism in the Northern Territory. In 1983-84 only 10 per cent of Northern Territory tourists came from overseas whilst by 1986-87 that figure had increased to 18 per cent. In 1986-87 overseas visitors contributed 21 per cent of tourist expenditure in the Northern Territory, or $61m. When people come to visit the Northern Territory they come to see some outstanding natural features such as Kakadu National Park and Uluru National Park, which are administered by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. This demonstrates the increasing importance of the airports at both Darwin and Alice Springs. In 1982 the number of visitors to Kakadu National Park was 48,500 and by 1987 that figure had increased to 195,000. In 1986 the figure was only 129,000 and the percentage increase over that 12 months was some 51.2 per cent. That demonstrates the sort of pressure that has been placed on facilities at both the Darwin and Alice Springs airports. In 1987 visitations to Uluru National Park numbered 188,351, and although both Kakadu and Uluru National Parks are important attractions we must recognise that a large proportion of tourist traffic to arrive in the Northern Territory does so by aircraft. Some 18 per cent of the visitors in 1986-87 came from overseas, and invariably the travelled by plane. As an airport serving international destinations, the Darwin Airport is by any stretch of the imagination appalling and needs to be upgraded urgently. It will be transferred to the north side of the airport, leaving the south side of the airport for the use of the Royal Australian Air Force who will eventually take over the terminal facility. It is difficult to describe the pressure on the terminal at Alice Springs as a result of the increased number of passengers passing through. As a person who regularly uses that airport, I have great admiration for the people who work there because the working conditions are appalling and the sufferance they have to undergo as a result of their working conditions needs to be addressed rather quickly. The amount of $1.3m was to be spent upgrading the Alice Springs Airport and the work was to have commenced by October, but the developments between the FAC and the Commonwealth in relation to the ownership of the airport and the attitude of the two airlines, Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia, about the redevelopment of the airport have led to the delay in the project. I was hoping, as was my colleague in the Northern Territory and as is this Government, that the transfer of both the Darwin and Alice Springs airports to the FAC would have been finalised by now so that work could commence, so the handicaps which people are experiencing at both Darwin and Alice Springs airports could have been alleviated, and so that there could be an increase in tourist visitation. I do not doubt that people who visit those airports realise there is a significant need to upgrade the facilities. The transfer arrangements have proved to be more complex than first anticipated. In particular, these issues have required additional time to resolve determining with the FAC on agreed valuation for the airports; tenure arrangements at the joint user airfields; legislative amendments necessary to permit the FAC to operate Federal airports on land leased from the Commonwealth; and lease arrangements to apply at Canberra Airport and for the existing civil aviation facilities at Darwin Airport. These, as I understand it, are close to completion. It had always been proposed by the Commonwealth that the transfer of Darwin Airport to the FAC would involve the Corporation accepting responsibility for the existing civil aviation facilities in the interim period while new facilities were being constructed on the north side of the aerodrome. As I understand it, the FAC has agreed to the leasehold proposal and preliminary negotiations involving the FAC and the Department of Defence, the Department of Transport and Communications and the Department of Administrative Services are under way. This amendment to the FAC Act will permit the transfer of the existing civil aviation area to the FAC under leasehold from the Commonwealth, and that is one of the reasons why this legislation is important. If we were to accept the amendments proposed by the Opposition, there is no doubt that there would be endless frustration of the ambitions of the people in the Northern Territory who require new facilities at both Darwin and Alice Springs. Alice Springs, as has been acknowledged, has been the subject of overcrowding for a number of years, and as I pointed out earlier it was decided initially in the context of the 1987-88 Budget that provision would be made for some limited expansion at a cost of $1.3m. Unfortunately that development was frustrated by the failure of the airlines to agree on space allocations within the proposed redevelopment. As I have said, that delay in development has caused frustration not only amongst travellers and general users of the airport, including the tourist industry generally, but also amongst the work force at the Alice Springs Airport. Once again I commend in particular the staff of Ansett and Australian Airlines at the airport. When 578,000 visitors come through the airport each year it is very difficult to issue those people with tickets when there are only two desks. As a consequence, luggage handling becomes a nightmare. It is of the utmost priority that this matter is settled as quickly as possible. I am looking forward to that happening with in the coming weeks. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr JULL(Fadden)(5.41) —In speaking to the Federal Airports Corporation Amendment Bill may I say that the amendment moved by the shadow Minister for transport and aviation, my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), has my full support. Before I comment on that amendment there are a couple of matters that I would like to take up with the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon). He has my full sympathy in terms of his support for the further development of the Darwin and Alice Springs airports. I am sure that he would agree with me that the Northern Territory Government deserves the utmost support and congratulations for the magnificent job that its Tourist Bureau has done in promoting the Northern Territory in the last few years. While the honourable member for the Northern Territory mentioned three airlines that operate through Darwin I think there is already another Asian airline in the form of Singapore Airlines going into Darwin at the moment. Another airline has indicated that it wants to start operating into Darwin next year. The demand there will be great indeed. But the honourable member for the Northern Territory did not mention that, if he is not careful, events might pass them by because a major international carrier is already talking about operating direct international services into Alice Springs. The honourable member for the Northern Territory would want to be fully aware of that to make sure that those facilities will be there and to make sure that he does not suffer the embarrassment and the humiliation that we in Queensland have been forced to suffer by virtue of the tin shed that presently operates as the Brisbane international terminal. I will come to that later. I speak in this debate with the belief that, throughout the aviation industry in Australia there is a feeling of frustration and anger over what has been developing in the last few months especially since the institution and the coming on stream of the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). I refer particularly to what is happening in the general aviation industry. The phone and the fax machine in my office run hot with complaints about some of the propositions that are put to some of the operators in that general aviation industry by members of the Federal Airports Corporation. There is a very real concern within the general aviation area about some of the charges that have been devised by the FAC. We set up the FAC as an independent statutory corporation to be operated on commercial principles with a view to privatising it further down the line. One of the requirements was that it had to pay for itself and it had to produce a profit. But one wonders just what will happen in the general aviation industry if these things are not done carefully. The operators at the secondary airports in particular are expressing a great deal of concern. One of the things that really worries me is that there appears to be a move afoot within the general aviation industry for many of the aircraft operators to move right off the secondary airports. If we are not careful we will see-maybe this is a good thing; maybe it is not, but I rather think it is not a good thing-private airports being set up all over the country because the general aviation operators just do not think that they can meet the present charges that are being imposed. I think that is a very real threat. If that happens one of the great difficulties might be that some of the safety controls over general aviation might not be available. At the moment I guess that we have one advantage with the secondary airports. There are facilities to make sure that inspections that are going on, and the maintenance being undertaken on behalf of general aviation are certainly up to standard. We would want to protect that. As I have said, there certainly seems to be a move afoot where a number of the operators are saying, `We will not cop this any more. We will get out and we will set up our own private airport'. I think honourable members should be aware of that. The other thing that is causing some concern is that charges are being levied on some of the contractors at FAC airports. One case came to my attention this week-I have made ministerial representations on it-of an aircraft engineer who has been told that he now has to pay some outrageous sum to operate at Archerfield Airport in Brisbane. I really wonder just how the FAC comes to determine what some of these charges may be. I think we should be very careful of that. I read with interest the Hansard record of Estimates Committee B undertaken in the Senate on 13 October 1988 when the whole area of the FAC and the Civil Aviation Authority came under the very close scrutiny of members of the other place. I am afraid that I agreed with the shadow Minister when he expressed some concern at the fact that, as yet, we do not have answers to some of those very real issues that were raised at that Senate Estimates Committee. One thing the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support (Mr Punch) should do at the moment is ensure that we get some of those answers back as fast as we possibly can because there were issues relating to the operation of the FAC, to some of the charges imposed and to some of the future intentions of the FAC that, frankly, we just do not know about. I mentioned a little while ago the situation that faces Brisbane Airport. Of course, we have a magnificent new domestic terminal there and a new runway-admittedly in the wrong place, but we have a new runway that can take all sorts of equipment. Sitting next to it is the old Eagle Farm Airport. It would seem, from reading the Hansard documentation of the Estimates Committee that, at the moment, the Federal Airports Corporation does not have a clue about what it will do with that old airport facility which is sitting there derelict. A lot of the buildings there could be available and made quite serviceable for a number of other organisations. But, as yet, we have had no answer on what the story is. Yet legitimate people such as freight forwarders and customs agents, would love to be able to get space at airports to establish their businesses. They are being denied that opportunity. The other thing that they are concerned about is what the costs might be if they go onto those airport sites. That just does not relate to the Brisbane Airport; that relates to a number of other airports around Australia. We know what a farce Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport is at the moment. We know of the capacity, especially for the burgeoning air freight industry. We know what restrictions there are at that airport and the very real restrictions that are being applied to new international or would be international air freight operators. I will dwell on the Sydney Airport situation briefly because my colleague mentioned it and it was discussed in the other place. It is fascinating that we have an arrogant Government and a Federal Airports Corporation that really have not come to the party to provide for the real needs and aspirations of Sydney people in relation to Sydney Airport. It is fascinating to go back through the newspapers of the last few days. The headline in the Weekend Australian was, `Airlines condemn plan for airport'. Both Australian Airlines and the Regional Airlines Association of Australia made very great criticism of the decision of the Government not to proceed with the third runway. In the Courier-Mail on Monday, 21 November, the Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), made a statement about that third runway. In the Daily Commercial News, one of the voices of the industry, on Monday, 21 November, we find the headline, `Sydney airport light aircraft ban mooted'. That might be well and good but we read further in that story of the very real frustration that is being experienced. Hot off the press today, Thursday, 24 November 1988, we find in the Daily Mirror from Sydney not one story but two. In the first story we find: A third runway must be built immediately at Kingsford-Smith Airport or Sydney will face massive flight disruption, Australia's two major domestic airlines warned today. Ansett and Australian Airlines, furious at congestion-caused delays which are already up to 30 minutes long, said work on a new strip should begin at once. Both carriers say the third runway is the only answer to the city's mounting aviation woes-and both reject the Federal Government's idea of building an entirely new airport at Badgerys Creek. So that story goes on. The interesting thing is that, at the end of that story we find the following: A spokesman for Mr Punch- that is, the Minister- said that by the time it was finished, air traffic would have increased so much that Badgerys Creek would be needed anyway. That is debatable, but that really is a terribly arrogant statement when people are screaming out for extra assistance. In the same newspaper, this afternoon's Daily Mirror from Sydney, the headline on page 13 is `Hotel Boom Gloom'. The article reads: Sydney's thriving hotel industry is headed for disaster-unless radical improvements are made to the airport. There are 47 new hotels on the drawing board but already industry leaders are predicting doom. George Bedwani, general manager of the plush Southern Cross Hotel, warned that Sydney did not have the facilities to cope with more tourists. And without them the additional hotels could not survive. `If new hotels are to succeed the government needs to solve many problems with the airport,' he said. `As it stands Sydney airport cannot take any more people or planes. Of course, he is quite right. Later in the same article he appeals for that third runway. What are we doing? At a time when about the only growth industry we have in Australia is the tourist industry, when Sydney is handling 58 per cent of the traffic and when it is the major hub of Australia, we have this complete and utter arrogance, this political decision not to go ahead with the third runway at Sydney Airport. It is the only solution. If we really think that Badgerys Creek is going to be operating in time to take international traffic, when we know that the number of international tourists to Australia will double by the turn of the century, we really do not know what we are all about. The only solution that has been provided in reports ad nauseam is that we must proceed immediately to build another strip at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. It is true that aircraft are getting bigger, and that may relieve some of the congestion, but the sheer volume, pressure and build-up of the number of tourists coming to Australia and the number of tourists flying domestically in Australia will require that we build that third runway as soon as possible. There is no other option, and as soon as the Government-or the Minister-wakes up to it, the better. It is fascinating that yesterday the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) made a public statement that he was very concerned about the future of tourism growth into Australia and in particular into Sydney due to the restrictions of the present international airport. That should be taken on board by the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support because there he has one of his own power brokers from New South Wales making the statements that we all know about in this place to the effect that the only solution for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is to proceed with the third runway. It is with great pleasure that I support the second reading amendment that has been moved by the shadow Minister. It is essential that, with the doom and gloom that seems to abound within the aviation industry, with the very real concerns that are being expressed about the general aviation industry and particular developments, we try to find out what is happening. There is concern about other airports. Yesterday it was announced that $2.4m of improvements would be made to Adelaide Airport. Yet in those great growth airports such as Brisbane very little is being done. I am horrified, disgusted and sorely distressed at the attitude that is being taken by the Federal Airports Corporation in terms of the future of Brisbane's international terminal. Time and time again propositions that could virtually solve the difficulties at the Brisbane international terminal within 18 months are being put and are being totally rejected. Yet another bandaid solution is being put up for a further extension to the tin shed that poses as the Brisbane international terminal. That is always rejected: no proposition for a new international terminal will be looked at for at least another three to five years, despite the growth factor at the Brisbane international airport, despite the fact that the convention traffic next year into Brisbane will be greater than it has ever been, and despite the fact that in 1992 Brisbane will host the Lions Clubs International convention. Can you imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, 36,000 people travelling through Brisbane in one weekend? Thirty-six thousand people will pour off Boeing 747s into a shed with five gates, no airbridges, restricted room for the immigration people to work in and horrific conditions for Customs. Despite that, the Federal Airports Corporation says, `No, we're not really interested in that', just as previous governments were not interested in the development that occurred during the Commonwealth Games, just as they were not interested in what happened at World Expo 88, and just as they are not interested that every Friday morning aeroplanes from Singapore Airlines, Japan Airlines and Philippines Airlines are all waiting for a bay at the Brisbane international terminal. We have people in positions in this Government who really do not understand what is happening in the tourist industry in Australia. We have departments which will not intermingle and which will not refer to others to find out what is going on. Frankly, that is part of the reason why we have this overloaded aviation disaster facing Australia at the moment. It is time that this Parliament had a good look at what is happening in aviation. Whether it concerns Brisbane, Sydney, Townsville or Darwin, or Alice Springs in the future, we have to make sure that there is adequate planning. It is all very well for the Government to talk about five million international visitors by the turn of the century. That figure will be achieved much sooner, having regard to the present growth rate. The news this morning was that we still have the second highest growth rate in international tourism, of all the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. The only member country that is ahead of us is Turkey. We are out there getting this business, yet we are doing everything we possibly can to make sure that that expansion does not happen; that that growth is restricted; that we make it as uncomfortable as we possibly can for international arrivals and that we make it as hard as we can for new international airlines to come to Australia due to the lack of slots and all sorts of restrictions, such as curfews at some airports. It really makes one wonder why the Australian Tourist Commission goes overseas and works so hard to bring visitors here when, because of the bureaucratic nature of this Government and the sheer arrogance of some of the members of this Government, everything is done to stifle that kind of growth and development. I hope that there is a realisation in some of the electorates in the western suburbs of Sydney that all the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support is doing is depriving young people in those western suburbs of Sydney of new jobs. Airports are huge employers of staff, and we are stifling the job creation role which can be undertaken in the airport development at Kingsford-Smith. That has all gone west. We are not taking full advantage to ensure they get those jobs in aviation and tourism. We seem to have a completely blinkered approach at the moment in terms of development and in terms of having a commercially minded organisation running the airports. We seem to wear blinkers in terms of opening it up to commercial enterprise. In Brisbane where there are five or six consortia which say, `Please, give us the opportunity to develop a new international terminal for Brisbane. As long as we can build a hotel and a shopping centre, we will make a go of it, and it will not cost the taxpayer or the airline users one single cent'. The Government says, `No, we are not going to look at that for three years'. In Brisbane we even have the State Government virtually saying that it will organise it and will pick up the tab for it. But we are not getting anywhere. Time is restricted. I would love to demonstrate how well an international air terminal can work as a commercial proposition. As I have said in this place before, I wish that Qantas Airways Ltd would give a handful of free tickets to members of the Federal Airports Corporation and drop them off at airports in Manchester, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and throughout the United States and say to them, `This is how it is done; this is the way you make a profit; this is the way you don't cost your taxpayers anything; this is the way Australian aviation should be developing; this is the way we should be building our terminals'. Until we take those blinkers off, this country can never reach its full potential in terms of tourism growth, because it is going to be cut off at the throat, at the international gateways of Australia. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.59) —I join the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) in this debate and express my concern on behalf of the tourist industry of Australia at the way in which airports throughout this country are being operated and managed. There is no doubt whatsoever that there is universal concern within the industry that the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) and the Government, which is the ultimate owner of it, are not up to the job of meeting the growth in demand in our fantastic tourism industry. The Federal Airports Corporation, since it was first established in January this year, has been the butt of a great deal of criticism. It has seen tremendous rises in the charges that it places upon the industry. It has been criticised for not consulting the aviation industry before it establishes costs and provides the sorts of services it does. It is overseeing a totally and utterly inadequate facility for the tourist industry in Australia today. At the same time the FAC has been lumbered with some fairly unusual lease arrangements that were signed prior to its being established. At the end of the day, the FAC has come into a tremendously difficult area. It has, according to members within the industry, not performed as people expect. The Government has not helped it in one single area to assist in providing better services to the aviation industry and the tourism industry, and to the general public. Overall, we are looking at and discussing today one of the greatest shambles that this Government oversees. If we can do something to improve our airports we will do a tremendous amount to promote tourism to Australia. We have bodies such as the Australian Tourist Commission. We have organisations such as the Australian Tourism Industry Association. Individual owners and operators of tourist facilities in this country go out each day promoting tourism in Australia, and taking Australia to the rest of the world saying, `For goodness sake, come to the most exciting tourist destination in the world. We've got it all here'. But when they come in their droves, as they are doing at present, tourists find that their first experience is an absolute shambles. One has only to go, as so many people now know, through places such as Sydney international airport, which is the best example of the chaos and disaster that exist in the industry, to realise what a bad first impression international visitors to our country encounter. They experience considerable delays, I am told, of two or three hours at a time. They have to walk around building sites. The signs are not adequate. There are not sufficient trolleys. I was coming through the Sydney international airport earlier this year and I had to wait 20 minutes before a trolley appeared on the scene so I could take my luggage out of the place. There were probably 150 people standing at the baggage collection area waiting for a trolley. One of the basic elements of running an airport is to ensure that people can get their baggage out of the place and not add to the delay experienced by international visitors. Fortunately, this is not the case. The Airports Corporation is not doing its job. The Government is not helping it. As a consequence, all the efforts of the tourism industry to promote tourism to Australia are being downgraded by the fact that when tourists come here they experience shocking conditions at our airports. I am ashamed to think what they go through. They have a bad first impression which will last a long time. The industry, the hotels, the bus companies, the restaurants, the resorts, and the tour organisations will have to do a lot of hard work to make up for the damage that our tourist industry reputation suffers from the time visitors arrive at our airports. This year 2.2 million to 2.4 million people will visit Australia. Sixty per cent of them will come through Sydney Airport which is why the honourable member for Fadden and the honourable member for Richmond spoke extensively about the inadequacies of that airport. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) in the last day or so finally admitted-he has been slow off the mark-the inadequacies of Sydney Airport. Yesterday, 23 November, he was reported as saying: . . . the development of Australia's tourism industry could be severely hampered unless airport infrastructures was expanded and passenger processing improved. He went on to say: This position will deteriorate as the growth in tourism continues unless there are significant improvements in the efficiency of passenger processing and a substantial expansion of airport infrastructure. He made some specific criticisms. He said: Major problem areas are lack of terminal space, peak passenger movements regularly exceed terminal capacity, inadequate baggage handling facilities, poor passenger information, trolley and coach parking facilities, and congested airways. At long last the Minister responsible for tourism, Senator Richardson, having been in the job for nearly 12 months, has admitted to the people of Australia that our airport facilities are inadequate. Sydney Airport is the chief reason why Senator Richardson and the entire industry say that airport facilities are inadequate. We have so much potential to be generated from tourism if we can do it right. Tourism these days is earning Australia about $25.5 billion. It employs about 6 per cent of the Australian work force. That is about 430,000 people. It is predicted that by 1991 there will be 630,000 people employed in the tourism industry. It is one of our largest export earners-I think the third largest. Wool and coal exceed it slightly. It has the potential to create more jobs than any other industry. It is the shining light on the economic horizon, but the one stumbling block along the way is our airport facilities. The honourable member for Fadden particularly highlighted the broad array of inadequacies of our airports. We do not have to go to Sydney to find the inadequacies. We can go to Darwin Airport. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) spoke of the problems in the Northern Territory. Even though he is a member of the Government he made some fairly damning criticisms. Darwin Airport is a national disgrace. I was up there not so long ago. If one wants to stand in a crowded spot I suggest one go to Darwin Airport. I have never seen anything more crowded, more uncomfortable or more inadequate than Darwin Airport. The Alice Springs Airport has had a huge growth in passenger traffic. In the last couple of years it has had in the order of a 30 per cent increase in passenger traffic. People have to stand in the carpark because there is no room for them to stand in the Airport while they wait to get another flight, to be picked up, or to check in. There is hardly a check-in facility at all. Often there will be five or six major aircraft parked on the runways as thousands of people disgorge from them to something that is totally inadequate. The Brisbane Airport has a magnificent runway, but the international terminal building is locally described as the hayshed-I inspected it earlier this year-and it is a very adequate description of it. I witnessed a 747 coming from Japan disgorge its passengers. There was just one aircraft at that time. It took no more than five minutes for a queue of people to work its way outside of the general waiting area and back up into the aisle from where the aircraft passengers were initially disgorging. People were being delayed for lengthy periods just because that facility is totally inadequate. The Perth Airport, admittedly, was badly designed from the outset, but it is now very much in need of upgrading. The Coolangatta Airport needs increased radar facilities. In fact, it needs radar facilities-not increased radar facilities. Cairns is in the same position. I think its radar facilities consist of a pair of binoculars held by one of the people in the air traffic control tower. That is totally inadequate for large airports such as Coolangatta and Cairns airports. The Melbourne Airport needs expanding. The Government has a huge responsibility, not just to agree to do these things but also to provide the funds for them. Qantas Airways Ltd has to double its number of aircraft in the next five years. Australian Airlines needs a massive capital injection. Qantas also needs a huge capital injection. All sorts of government statutory organisations need massive amounts of capital. The Government does not have the physical ability to deliver the capital in order to provide those services for the future. Yet private enterprise is prepared to do it. As the honourable member for Fadden pointed out, a number of private enterprise groups in Brisbane would be willing to build a new world class international terminal tomorrow morning if the Government would allow them to do it. The same situation applies in Darwin where the Northern Territory Government and private enterprise are prepared to work together to build a new terminal building for both international and domestic traffic. The previous Liberal-National Party Government was in the process of doing that, but then this Government came to office and stopped it. The Northern Territory Government and private enterprise in the Territory were both prepared to work together to take over the job of building terminal buildings at both Darwin and Alice Springs. That would have saved this Government a power of money, yet it would not let it happen. This highlights the political problem existing in the tourism and aviation industries in Australia today. This Federal Labor Government is totally opposed to any concept of privatisation, and it is totally opposed to the building of any new runway facilities at Mascot for the sake of the seat of the honourable member for Barton and Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support (Mr Punch). It is sad to see the whole growth of the Australia tourism industry being held back by this Labor Government for the philosophical reason that it does not like privatisation and for the purely political reason that it is frightened of losing the seat of Barton. Therefore, the employment opportunities of hundreds of thousands of young Australians are being held back by a government wholly and solely for political and personal reasons. This is totally inadequate. We hear constantly from the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support that Badgerys Creek will be the saviour of us all. Badgerys Creek will be a saviour in 15 or 20 years' time. That is how long it will take to develop it properly. In the meantime, the number of international visitors to this country increased from 2.2 million to 2.4 million this year and will probably increase to seven million or even eight million by the year 2000. That is what the industry now expects. Badgerys Creek will not be operating fully by the year 2000. The number of international visitors coming to this country will almost treble, and on the present ratio 60 per cent will come through Sydney Airport which currently cannot cope with its 60 per cent share of 2.2 million. The situation will get worse. That is why the industry, elements of the Federal Airports Corporation and so many people throughout Australia say that the only reasonable, decent decision that this Government can make is to build that extra runway at Sydney Airport. That could be done for about $300m and work could be completed in about six years. That would be a huge boost to the tourism industry and it would ensure that Australia did not develop a bad reputation in the international tourist market. At the same time, international airlines have been hit not only by increased charges from the Federal Airports Corporation, which is nicknamed the Farcical Aviation Charges group, but also by huge increases in Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) charges. I shall highlight how international airlines are suffering from huge increases imposed on them by the Civil Aviation Authority over the past 12 months. En route navigation charges have increased by 303 per cent, fire rescue service charges are up by 50 per cent; and terminal navigation charges have been increased by 43.3 per cent. In fact, international airlines this year have been hit with an extra $105.5m as a result of this Government trying to do nothing more than turn tourism into a means of gaining tax revenue. In the process it is hurting the tourist industry by putting up costs of services and airlines tickets. Of course there was a great example of this in the High Court of Australia this morning when it was revealed that the Government was totally out of place in imposing the arrivals tax earlier this year. In fact, the Government now has to pay back the money to those people who paid their $5 tax. That indicates that the FAC, this Government and the CAA are turning tourism and aviation into a milch cow in order to raise more revenue. I think that that is an incredibly sad situation for Australia's tourism industry today. At the same time, because of the inadequate services being provided at our airports most aircraft leaving Sydney Airport are experiencing delays. In fact, 90 per cent of international flights are being delayed due to the lack of runway space and terminal gates. As a result of this in the last week or so Qantas Airways Ltd has said that unless more aircraft can be accommodated at Sydney Airport the growth of inbound tourism will be restricted. At the same time the industry has revealed that for several hours each day there is no room for even one extra jet at the three mainland east coast capital city airports. That is a chronic situation which cannot be sustained. It highlights the inadequacies of the approach of both the FAC and this Government to the management of our aviation and tourism industries. Unless the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation support and all those people in the Government who have the responsibility of seeing that Australia's full potential is reached can ensure that those people who want jobs in tourism can get them, unless we have Ministers who are prepared to reach those sometimes difficult decisions, I am afraid that Australia will be very much the poorer. There will be many thousands of people standing on the end of unemployment queues unless this Government does something to fix up our airports. It has to build the third runway at Sydney Airport, it has to allow private enterprise to develop terminals throughout Australia and it has to ensure that it does not treat the aviation and tourism industries as a means of raising tax revenue. Unless the Government does all those things Australia will be much the poorer. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(6.18) —I support the comments of my colleagues, particularly the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), on the Federal Airports Corporation Amendment Bill. I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for helping to facilitate the speaking arrangements as I had a commitment a moment ago which delayed my entry into the chamber. I strongly support the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond because it highlights many of the problems we see with this legislation and with aviation generally in Australia today. We see the need to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure-a committee on which I happen to serve because of my long-standing interest in aviation policy. In many ways aviation in Australia is in crisis as a result of neglect of the decisionmaking process of governments of both political persuasions at both levels, Federal and State. The grid lock occurring regularly along the east coast of Australia and elsewhere at some times, to which other members have referred, is creating congestion and hence levels of frustration which place life in jeopardy. This is not something which should be deemed to be an elitist problem-a problem which affects only those who fly around this country regularly. The employment of countless thousands of people depends on a viable aviation industry. Many people who are employed directly and indirectly in jobs associated with the aviation industry may never fly. So we are not just defending the rights of fast-moving people who have to fly as part of their jobs; we are defending the right to provide positive infrastructure in this country for the 1990s and beyond. We are providing a basis for aviation to cope with the massive increase in traffic. We will see a much greater increase with the deregulation which is proceeding. Also, with the growth in retirement incomes, and the increased proportion of retired Australians, traffic will increase as certain airline companies, such as East-West Airlines Ltd, pitch a budget approach at prospective passengers to facilitate group travel to tourist resorts around Australia. This approach is particularly designed to meet the budget strategies of elderly people and other categories of group travellers. In terms of the crisis situation-and it is a crisis situation-the clock stands at about five minutes to midnight in the aviation industry in Australia today, not only because of the congestion problem but also because of other more subtle aspects for which the Government is to blame. I refer in particular to two areas: Firstly, modern radar and the problems that have been encountered along the way with the installation of upgraded radar systems around Australia; and secondly, navigational aids for the main runways at our capital city airports. We have a situation where for a period there was an improved radar system installed just to the east of Perth to control air traffic in the Perth area and over much of Western Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be interested to know that on the radar screens displayed for the air traffic controllers, the call sign of the aircraft, the flight number and the altitude came up alongside the bleep on the radar screen. It was a logical process in tracking the movement of the aircraft and is happening in France, Europe and the US. However, for several years there was a specific instruction from the then Department of Aviation that air traffic controllers were to ignore the information on the radar screen as to flight call signs, altitude and so forth and proceed by more manual and antiquated procedures. That went on for an extraordinary length of time before it was resolved when additional improvements were made to radar systems elsewhere on the eastern seaboard. Again it was a case, to some extent, of too little too late. In terms of instrument landing systems it has to be said that Garuda Indonesia and certain other airlines have from time to time got it awfully wrong over Melbourne. Part of the reason these airlines have got it awfully wrong is a special set of circumstances where an aircraft is turning right base to land into the north and suddenly it has lined up with the Essendon south-north main runway instead of the Tullamarine south-north main runway. On making some inquiries about that one finds that at that time there was no instrument landing system on two of the four runways at Tullamarine. Are we fair dinkum about providing the right infrastructure for aviation in Australia today, or are we getting by on a bandaid approach which has been exacerbated by governments in the past at both State and Federal level? Clearly we want to see the right infrastructure and the right control structure provided to bring about the sort of breakthroughs that we need to provide safe and economically dynamic aviation in the future which will service not only the capital cities and the international tourist flights but also, more particularly, the provincial cities in the States-cities such as Albury, Mildura, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo and Tamworth in New South Wales. Those cities are essential ingredients of the economic infrastructure of this country. If their flights are to be squeezed out of the capital cities because of this crisis congestion that simply is not good enough. I strongly support the thrust of the comments and the amendments moved to this important legislation by the honourable member for Richmond. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(6.24) —Like the previous speaker, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), I strongly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). I again support in the strongest terms his comments about the infrastructure needs of the Australian airline industry. It is not good enough to think solely about capital cities. We also have to think about the regional airports. In my particular case in the electorate of Cowper, Coffs Harbour has an airport recently upgraded to jet standard. It is a very satisfactory airport but it is on the verge of needing to be upgraded again. Even more important than that, Port Macquarie, with 48,303 passengers in 1987-88, desperately needs to be upgraded to a jet airport. Something will have to be done to upgrade Port Macquarie's facilities. These days transport is becoming more and more important to the tourist industry. As you know so well, Mr Deputy Speaker, Port Macquarie is one of the great jewels of the tourist areas of Australia and its airport must be upgraded to jet standard. Kempsey, a little further to the north, needs upgrading with a non-directional radio beacon. This has been on the move for years with the Department of Transport and Communications and with previous Ministers. Now that we have had a change and Eastern Airlines is servicing the airport and the valley the need is even greater. Passenger numbers are now 9,600 per annum and it is anticipated that before very long the number will grow to 15,000 per year. Operational requirements for Kempsey Airport right now demand that a non-directional beacon should be installed. As well as passenger services there are general aircraft and a commercial flying school, and an aircraft engineering firm, Premier Air Maintenance, has recently established itself at Kempsey Airport. It is no good just saying that we can go ahead and do what we must at Brisbane and Darwin airports and elsewhere and neglect the regional airports. I again emphasise that there is a desperate need in the very near future to upgrade the Port Macquarie Airport to jet standard. At the very least Kempsey must be given a non-directional beacon. If we do that, however, and I am sure it must happen, we get back to the other side of the coin, which is that there has to be a third runway at Sydney Airport. I do not think anybody in his right mind can argue with that proposition. Almost invariably, when I fly to Sydney from Coffs Harbour or from Port Macquarie the aircraft stooges around somewhere over Gosford or the Central Coast, turning round and round in circles because of the congestion at Sydney. Blind Freddy can see that there must be a third parallel runway. It is absolutely disgraceful that this Hawke Labor Government is so remiss in its response to the needs of the aviation industry that it can hamstring and restrict the growth and development of air services purely out of regard for one marginal seat, the seat held by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), who is the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support. One seat is totally destroying the future of airlines flying into Sydney. In connection with tourism, I make the point that it is vital that we get some immediate action to improve Sydney's facilities. Australia is looking at receiving two million overseas visitors this year, 3.3 million in 1995, and five million in the year 2000. Overseas visitors to Sydney currently number 1.2 million. The figure is expected to be 1.8 million in 1995 and 2.8 million in the year 2000. We already have 30 airlines flying into Sydney. There are 35 expected by 1995 and 38, at the vest least, by the year 2000. Believe it or not the number of passenger movements through Sydney Airport at present is 6.2 million. By 1995 it will be 12 million and by the year 2000 it will be 18 million. It is not good enough for this Government just to think about putting its airport out at Badgerys Creek, fluttering around like bogong moths and attempting to solve the problem by saying, `Yes, we will advance the Badgerys Creek airport'. There is no point in putting it way out in the scrub without a fast transport system. That will solve no problem at all. In fact, people in areas such as Dubbo and Orange will find it quicker to drive to Sydney rather than catch an aircraft, fly to Badgerys Creek, and then have to drive or get to Sydney by some other means. It is time this Government took the bit between its teeth and made the right decision, which will be applauded by all Australians except the honourable member for Barton and some of his constituents. They will realise that with modern aircraft the noise is not nearly as bad as with older aircraft. The realities are that the more modern the aircraft the quieter it is. I am positive that 99.9 per cent of all Australians will support the move for a third strip at Mascot. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.00 p.m. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(8.00) —I would like to join the debate on the Federal Airports Corporation Amendment Bill. Many Opposition members and Government members have contributed in a sound way to the debate. I would like to raise a few matters which concern me. Naturally I want to say something about Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I have always been interested in the airports throughout Australia, particularly the international airports. They are important to the future of our nation. The legislation before the House gives more flexibility to the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) and provides for land to be vested within the Corporation. I have no objection to that. I think the setting up of the Corporation was not a bad idea. It took airports out of the hands of the Federal Department of Transport. There were problems. Both the Government and the Opposition appreciate the fact that it is not easy to keep up with the facilities that are required for our airways. Having been a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for five years, I have always been concerned about this matter. We held hearings regarding most of the major airports of Australia and their need for advancement and extension. It concerned me greatly that there was inadequate planning by State and local councils for airports. We can pinpoint not only the Sydney area but also Perth and Brisbane. The councils in those areas allowed the extension of residential areas right up to the airports. That was a great shame. In regard to the Williamtown airport in New South Wales, which is a dual airport, serving the Royal Australia Air Force (RAAF) and civil aviation, there were certain extensions of residential areas. The Minister would be well aware that those extensions were allowed to take place there. As a result, my electorate office takes phone calls nearly every day from people objecting to noise in the area. In those days the State did not cooperate with the local councils-it is not the same today-to undertake the proper planning of the areas concerned. So there are problems throughout Australia in relation to airport noise. The Bill indicates that the FAC now has a commercial charter. It has had a commercial charter from the start. In other words, the FAC is supposed to pay its way. That is a good thing. As the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has emphasised today in this debate, the important thing is the efficiency with which the FAC undertakes its work. While we are looking for efficiency and for the FAC to pay its way, there are certain aspects of the FAC's operations that I would like to say something about this evening. They are important to those of us who represent country electorates throughout the continent and who are so dependent upon airways to give the service to our people. Australia has been reasonably fortunate. All of the States have an international airport. We have three international airports in Queensland. We would have four if Customs were operating at Coolangatta Airport. The airport can take a jumbo jet. The north of Australia is being opened up. There are international airports at Darwin and Alice Springs. Darwin Airport is particularly important now that the RAAF has moved down to Tindal which I think was an excellent move. We want the north of Australia opened up to the tourist potential that this great country has. Unfortunately, previous governments did not foresee the progress that would take place. So now there is a lot of catching up to do if we are to cope with the volume of traffic mentioned by honourable members during this debate today. Up to eight million or nine million tourists a year will be visiting Australia in a few years time. The tourist industry may be our greatest money earner. So it is important that we now address the problems with our airports. I hope that the FAC will work to a long term plan and that it will cater for Australia's future needs-not only the needs of our own people to travel from State to State and intrastate but also the needs of those people who will visit this lovely country of ours. One could almost say that our infrastructure is underdeveloped. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) knows that only a fortnight ago we spoke about the state of our roads. I spoke about the Pacific Highway and the importance of doing something about the state of that highway. I spoke about the railways. I feel that it is important that the States and the Commonwealth do not neglect the railways. They are important, particularly in regard to the carriage of cargo throughout the country. There are also the airways. In the modern world it is important that we have the necessary airways facilities. I will confine the remainder of my remarks to Sydney Airport. I do not suppose that a member of this House has said more about the need for extensions and work at Sydney Airport than I have. Commuter aircraft travel from my electorate of Lyne into the city. I am very aware of the importance of these small passenger planes to other parts of the State. Unfortunately, the Government has scrubbed the plan to build a third runway at Sydney Airport. This is a calamity. It was on the drawing board years ago when I was a member of the Public Works Committee. It was being discussed then. The then Minister for Transport may actually have approved the north-south runway at Sydney Airport. It is essential. We have no objection to the choice of Badgerys Creek. But it is about 60 kilometres from the centre of Sydney. What transport will be provided for travel from the airport to the city if international aircraft, or indeed any aircraft, are diverted to the proposed airfield at Badgerys Creek? They will have to be diverted there if the Government is planning to go ahead with the airfield. What planning has been done and what discussions have been held with the New South Wales Government in respect of the availability of suitable transport, whether train, expressway or other forms of transport, to get people into the metropolitan area? If one has travelled, one's thoughts turn to cities overseas which have been forced to put their airports many miles from their centres but they have provided expressways or trains to get people into the centre. It is important that the Government and the FAC give every consideration to the ability of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to cater for the increase of over 3 per cent, practically 4 per cent, in landings and takeoffs that will occur. I ask the Government not to divert Eastern Australia Airlines, which runs to Taree and serves the important area of Forster-Tuncurry and the rest of the district. I ask the Government not to divert those passengers into Bankstown or anywhere else. Bankstown is 25 kilometres away. Very little transport is available to get people into the city from there. Mr Braithwaite —True. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member says, it is true. Every time there is an opportunity I take that opportunity to plead with the FAC and the Government to please consider the needs of Sydney Airport closely and to realise their responsibilities. The situation is costing the city, the State and this nation considerable amounts. If we get a bad name, those people are diverted elsewhere, because there is not only Australia in this world. There are many beautiful places around the world which offer many packaged trips and much joy to the people who wish to travel. We want our share of this. We want our share of this. We do not want the Kingsford-Smith Airport to continue to be a blight on the economy. The Minister is a sensible fellow. He should keep in mind that if there are delays in the air and delays in getting off the ground, in turn that will cost the travelling consumer money; nobody else. The airlines have to account for that. It will cost those people extra money in fares and that is not very fair. I appeal to the Government to look at this with the FAC and make sure there is adequate planning of Sydney Airport. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton-Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support)(8.12) —There were just a few matters that the Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support (Mr Punch) asked me to refer to in summing up. The first thing that he asked me to do was to thank honourable members for their contributions-- Mr Downer —What happened last time? Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am complimenting some of the honourable member's colleagues for the concern they brought to the debate. There were a couple of observations that the Minister also asked me to refer to. He asked me to say that the FAC in the first place has moved quickly to address major airport infrastructure needs. I think most of the members who have contributed to the debate are aware of this. The FAC has, for example, announced a major extension of the Sydney Airport international terminal building. It has also announced its intention to develop a new international terminal building in Brisbane within five years, as well as modifying the existing terminal building to cope with growth during the interim period. It has announced further development of the Adelaide international terminal building. It will also be providing substantial supporting infrastructure to enable the expansion of domestic terminal facilities at a number of capital city airports. It is important for us to recognise that the Government established the Federal Airports Corporation in the first place with a view to putting the operations of Australia's major airports on a proper commercial basis. The assets that were transferred to the Corporation were valued in accordance with normal business principles. I know that that has been one of the matters raised during the debate. But I want to emphasise that the valuation procedure was in accordance with normal principles. In valuing the assets, careful assessments were made of the FAC's ability to earn an appropriate rate of return on those assets. The Government also paid attention to the need to avoid burdening the FAC with a debt structure which would lead to substantial additional costs on the aviation industry. It is worth mentioning that the Corporation currently has, as the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) mentioned, a total staff of about 1,200. That is a major reduction from around 1,550 staff who previously worked on the same functions in the former Department of Aviation. When the FAC was established on 1 January last, there was no increase in aeronautical charges and the charges continued at the level that had previously been levied by the Department of Transport and Communications. Subsequently, the charges were increased by 6 per cent on 1 July 1988, but that increase was simply in line with inflation. The discussion that has taken place has been very useful, and of course, the Government fully recognises the importance of Kingsford-Smith Airport. My colleague the Minister for Transport and Communications (Mr Willis), recently released a report prepared by a joint Commonwealth-State task force which examined the airport needs of the Sydney basin. This report identified a number of measures for improving traffic management at Sydney Airport as well as options for longer term development of additional airport infrastructure, and of course, the Government will be addressing this report in the near future. 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 Robert Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 8. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(8.20) —These two fairly technical Bills, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1988, are certainly not being opposed by the Opposition, although in one particular respect we shall endeavour in another place to refer a section of one Bill to a Senate committee. The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill contains a series of changes to legislation, five different changes, and I shall briefly refer to each of those. In the first place, the Bill proposes to change the method of measuring beer for the purposes of customs and excise duty. So using old-fashioned measurements such as the kilderkin is something that is now, Madam Speaker, you will be sorry to hear, of the past. New rather prosaic and technical measurements will be used in their place. I assure the House that that does not bring the wrath of the Opposition down on the Government. That is a matter about which we are extremely relaxed. The second change that the legislation makes is to simplify the export procedures for exports of defence equipment. Under this legislation, exporters in future will not need a licence for every individual consignment of exports from Australia. The purpose of this is consistent with the Government's desire to promote Australian defence exports, to facilitate those defence exports, in order to help us in Australia to build up some sort of effective defence industry which has some export potential. Some people I know in the community are a little sceptical about the potential we have to do that. I certainly do not share that scepticism. I think Australia has every opportunity to create an effective export oriented defence industry. There are other countries with comparable populations which have succeeded in doing that. Sweden, for example, comes to mind. It has been enormously successful in building up a defence industry, and I see no reason why in this country, with the manufacturing know-how that we have, with the capacity to develop technology that we have, we cannot achieve great steps forward in developing an export oriented defence industry. Some of that work, of course, will involve joint ventures. It will come about through purchases that we have made and offset arrangements we have been able to enter into. Through those offset arrangements we may in turn be able to develop further export potential. Let us hope that that happens. This legislation will, in a very technical way, and probably not in a very significant way, help to facilitate at least those particular exports. It is important that I mention that there is some opposition to these changes-for example, from people in the community who describe themselves rather euphemistically as `peace groups'. These people, who run around telling us that nuclear war is about to rain down on the heads of our young people in the next few days if we continue to talk with the United States, are concerned that these changes will mean the Government will allow a whole flood of weapons of death to flow out of Australia and will be contributing to some sort of global arms race in a massive, irresponsible and immoral way. I think those views, like all the views of those sorts of people, are massively exaggerated and massively overstated. There is an international arms industry. It is important that the West retains strong defence and continues to ensure that that strong defence is modernised and is technologically advanced. If we do that, in the future we will be able to defend ourselves against contingencies that we cannot predict. That means that there will be an arms trade among western countries, and I see no reason at all, given that that arms trade will take place in any case, why our country should be completely excluded from it, as is the desire of some peace groups. It is also important to point out that in spite of the changes that the Government proposes the schedule of permissible exports will remain in place, so that there will still be countries to which exports of Australian defence equipment are banned. I note that the east European countries and South Africa are on that list. In addition, the Minister can prevent certain kinds of defence equipment from being exported. I see no problem whatsoever with these changes. I know that my colleague the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), welcomes them and he would like me to put on the record that he is a strong supporter of proposals to promote exports of Australian defence equipment. The third change that this legislation makes is to facilitate duty free entry of goods from Christmas Island so that the local content requirement of goods manufactured on Christmas Island that enter duty free will be reduced from 75 per cent to 50 per cent. Again, we have no objection to that proposal. It puts Christmas Island on the same par as Papua New Guinea and the forum states, and I suppose, rather heroically, the Government hopes that that will be some help to development of the Christmas Island economy. It may assist, and it is worth a try, let me say. Perhaps the casino proposal, which has generated a lot more interest than this amendment to the Customs and excise legislation, would make a bigger contribution. I do not know what manufacturing potential on Christmas Island the Government has in mind, and perhaps the Minister will take a couple of minutes to let us know, because that may be of community interest. The fourth change is the clarification of the consequences of false and misleading statements resulting from the outcome of the Murphy v. Farmer case in the High Court. That was a quite extraordinary and interesting case, and I recommend it to honourable members as an interesting exercise in the progression of Australian law. Again, these Government changes have the support of the Opposition. The Government has retained the statutory defence provisions under which, if someone can demonstrate that he did not know or could not have been expected to know that a statement was misleading or false, there is a satisfactory defence. The fifth change is that government instrumentalities will be subject to excise duty. Because of the limited time allowed for this debate I will not say anything about that matter because members on this side have commented on that Government initiative on previous occasions. However, while I am talking about the timetable, let me make the point that I very much regret that the Government has guillotined this debate so that there is not really an opportunity for my colleagues to discuss many of the important issues raised. I will keep my remarks as brief as I can. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) is being debated cognately with the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill in general but we have some reservations about it. First, this Bill, basically, implements the tariff changes that were announced in the May economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). We on this side of the House certainly welcome the reduction in the level of protection that those changes foreshadowed at that time and, therefore, we support that aspect of this Bill. Let me say, however, that if we are to reduce levels of protection in this country, as we should and as is perfectly rational on the part of the Government, it is a pity that the Government is not prepared to take other measures that are equally rational to assist in particular our manufacturing industry but also a whole range of other industries. It is worth recalling that the fiscal cost of capital for companies, according to the Business Council of Australia and other sources, has actually increased over the past year or so. Australia, among the countries surveyed by the Business Council, has the second highest fiscal cost of capital after New Zealand. That is hardly a way of ensuring that Australia has a productive, rapidly growing and profitable manufacturing sector. When we reduce tariffs and, at the same time, increase the cost of capital to companies, we are not really doing something that makes an awful lot of sense. The Government should be moving in the other direction in terms of the cost burden on our companies. Let me also remind the House that the level of productivity in this country is not rising; it is declining. From 1983 to 1984 the level of productivity in Australia increased. Of course, that was before the Government's policies could have very much effect in its first year of office. Let me say that that increase was almost certainly a result of the policies that the Fraser Government introduced in its 1982 Budget. But in 1985 productivity output per man hour stabilised, and since then productivity in this country has declined progressively. That is of great concern to all Australians. How on earth can we be competitive as a nation if the productivity of our industries is declining? We can have all the rhetorical debates in the world about living standards-the fundamental human side of this problem-but at the kernel of the issue is the declining productivity of our industries. I note that the Minister, very defensively, says, `But it is declining in the United Stated as well and people are being locked up in the Soviet Union too'. That does not mean that it is a good thing just because productivity is declining in another country. It is a bad thing if that is occurring in the United States, but we are not administering the United States, we are administering Australia, and that decline is a tragedy for Australia. We must become more competitive and work to raise our level of productivity, and that includes making substantial changes in our industrial relations system and work practices in this country. Enough of that because time is very short. The changes that this Bill makes relate also to the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry. In the past couple of weeks I have had brief discussions about these changes with the industry in Melbourne, and I believe that the debate has been pretty much played out. The industry is living with the changes. Let me say, as I have said many times before in this sort of debate, that the Government must have a predictable plan for industry. There is no point in changing the plan in the middle of its duration and expecting industry to respond effectively. Industry has a right to some degree of predictability. I plead with the Minister, when he sums up in this debate, to give us an assurance that there will be no more unexpected changes to the Government's various industry plans, in this case to the textile, clothing and footwear plan. My final point is that this legislation imposes a duty on sugar imports from 1 July 1989 when it is proposed that the embargo on the import of sugar will be lifted. Let me make two points about that. My colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) will enlarge on this point. We have many concerns about the hasty way in which the Government has made these changes to the sugar industry. The Government has proposed a whole raft of changes. There has been inadequate consultation with the industry. We made clear when debating previous legislation on the sugar industry in this House-and I repeat in the context of this legislation-that we will refer that legislation to a Senate committee; We will also refer this part of this Bill to the same Senate committee for proper examination and consideration. The Government will not sneak through changes to the sugar industry in a 488-page Bill in this way; we actually managed to spot the changes. The provisions will go the same way as the previous legislation-to a Senate committee. The industry can then be properly consulted and we can work out an effective sugar plan, in particular for the people of Queensland and the industry in that State. As I said, my colleague the honourable member for Dawson will enlarge on that issue. Let me raise one point that strikes me as quite irrational in relation to these changes to the sugar industry. A tariff of 35 per cent is to be imposed on imports of cane sugar and a tariff of 10 per cent is to be imposed on imports of beet sugar. Beet sugar overwhelmingly comes from the European Community where there are subsidies and artificially high prices under the common agricultural policy to encourage production. When they have finished with their production, they export it with their notorious restitutions. The Minister may be able to explain, and the Senate committee will find out if the Minister does not tell us, why the Government is proposing to impose a 10 per cent duty on beet sugar from the European Community, where its production is subsidised and its export is supported by the notorious system of restitution, yet cane sugar attracts a 35 per cent rate of duty. I do not know why, and I look forward to hearing an explanation. I know many of my colleagues would like to speak in this debate as they have many important things to say on these issues. The Opposition does not oppose these Bills but we will refer the provisions of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) which relate to the sugar industry to the Senate committee that will be established to examine other legislation pertaining to the sugar industry. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(8.32) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), was concerned about the living standards of Australians and was critical of the Government's position. I suggest that he speak to the one million people who now have jobs as a consequence of the policies of the Government since 1983. He was also critical of the sugar industry. As the only sugar cane farmer in this House, I am certain that the only sugar the honourable member for Mayo has ever seen is that in his cup of tea. Clause 6 institutes amendments concerning the removal of the import embargo on raw and refined sugar on and from 1 July 1989. These amendments impose protective customs rates of duty from that date. The Government flagged this decision in the May economic statement. The National Farmers Federation, along with many other primary industry groups, has been calling for an easing of the tariff protection for secondary industry and it was conceded by the NFF that some protection given to primary industries would also have to be eased. Allow me to quote from a speech given by Mr Rick Farley, the Executive Director of the National Farmers Federation, to the Beef 88 conference at Rockhampton on 12 May 1988: The farm sector also has some decisions to make. If we want reduced protection internationally, and within Australia, we have to be prepared to accept reduced assistance ourselves, even though it's already at very low levels. That's going to entail some pain for individual industries, and for individual farmers, but the overall benefits to agriculture far outweigh the costs. The May Financial Statement is going to cause some rumblings within the farm sector, but our responses should acknowledge the benefits we'll derive from a more competitive economy, and from added momentum in the international trade debate. So the May statement decision on agriculture was well understood by the NFF. It appears that in the dust gathering around the debate on the sugar embargo the Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia is out of touch with the NFF's approach to reduction in assistance. The journalist Sarah Sargent, in the Australian Financial Review of Thursday, 26 May 1988, examined the effective assistance available to a number of primary industries. She pointed out that agriculture received effective assistance amounting to 16 per cent in 1986-87 compared to 19 per cent for manufacturing. I quote her: There are pockets in which assistance is high-179 per cent for dairying, 34 per cent for citrus and 36 per cent for dried vine fruit in 1986-87. The May statement included reductions in manufacturing protection. These measures alone will save the agricultural sector $350m. All exporters, including sugar producers, gain the advantage from this, and I can attest to that because, as I said, I am the only sugar cane farmer in this House. The Queensland Government, perhaps trying to find any issue to talk about rather than face up to the corruption exposed by the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, has attempted to stir up violence on the tariff issue. The Queensland Premier said the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) would need a police escort when he came to Queensland to discuss the sugar issue-a clear incitement of violence rather than a rational look at the issue. From July 1989 the sugar import embargo will be replaced by import tariffs of about 35 per cent for raw sugar and 25 per cent for refined sugar. These rates will be phased down to 15 per cent by July 1992. The export rebate will continue until 1992. There is no clear commercial reason why the sugar industry should supply the domestic market ahead of the export market. The choice between domestic and export disposals should be dictated by commercial realities, not political direction. As this occurs, the maximum price-which exceeds the average price-on the domestic market will come to be set at import parity plus the tariff. The tariff to apply in 1989 is similar to the current level of price support so there is no reason for an early fall in any domestic price. If world prices rise, returns from the domestic market could actually rise as a result of the tariff decision. The industry has undergone a fundamental change since the embargo was introduced. At the time of the original Commonwealth-State agreement in 1923, much of the sugar was produced for the domestic market. Currently about 80 per cent of sugar production is exported. Of the domestic production of sugar, and I stress this, approximately 80 per cent is consumed by the food processing industry. The new arrangements will also assist those manufacturers in the food processing industry who will become more internationally competitive with their products and as a consequence we will have greater value added industries. On May 27, the Confectionery Manufacturers of Australia sent me a release which said: Our industry had expressed concern to the Federal Government about the situation and we are pleased with its decision to deregulate prices. This announcement (the embargo decision) should begin a new era for the Australian sugar industry which will ultimately benefit consumers. It matters little how we sell our sugar, whether we sell it in soft drink cans, whether we sell it in Europe as Bundaberg rum or whether we sell it as confectionery, provided we sell it. We have to get out of the old protected days of narrow vision that we have had to exist under for the last 30 years under the surprisingly socialistic attitudes of a State National Party conservative government. In essence, then, whilst protection for all industries is being reduced, the manufacturing industries associated with the sugar industry will substantially benefit from the decision. The other fact is that, under the current domestic pricing arrangements, the industry has subsidised consumers as often as not. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics estimates that, in real terms, the annual average subsidy between 1971 and 1986 was $7.3m to consumers. The largest transfer to producers of $86m in real terms in 1985 was well below the transfer to consumers of $256m in 1975. The days of producers subsidising consumers are gone forever. As a result of the tariff, there will always be a net transfer to the industry which means greater assistance in the future than in the past. The 15 per cent rate of tariff to apply in 1992 will be the same maximum applying to most other tariffs; in other words, we will have an equal playing field. This will provide more assistance to the industry than the current arrangements when the world price is more than about US11c a pound. I recognise that we have to wait and hope that the United States attacks its deficit. I acknowledge also that the United States should take a lead from Australia in free trade. We are leading the world in that now. We are leading the world in breaking down protection and that is something that everyone else in the world should be envious of. Any adverse effect will be offset by the lower costs arising from the general tariff cuts. The National Party in Queensland, led by Senator Boswell, has tried to play upon fears of imported sugar as a result of the tariff decision. Any exporter trying to dump subsidised sugar in Australia will face two things. First, he will face the Government's powers to stop subsidised imports through the anti-dumping laws. Just as the Government acted against fertiliser and European cheeses being dumped, the Government can act to stop subsidised sugar being dumped. Fundamentally, any dumper will face the commercial strength of the Australian sugar industry. The industry operates against corrupt prices on world markets every day. Fears have also been raised about imports from Thailand and Fiji. Such imports could occur only if the transport cost savings from those countries exceeded the protection provided by the tariff. They could occur only at very low world prices and, even then, the Government's coastal shipping policies, along with increased international freight rates, are narrowing the gap between coastal and international rates. Unlike the Queensland National Party, the sugar industry is realistic about its future. It is prepared to accept the removal of the embargo, preferring instead to negotiate on the level of tariffs. I urge the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to examine carefully the industry's proposals. I am well satisfied that the industry is making a positive attempt to face the future. For its part, the NFF has shown no great political courage in criticising the Queensland Government over its stance on the sugar problem. Apart from Mr Farley's commendable speech, it has allowed Mr Harper and Mr Ahern, Mr Randell and Senator Boswell to wander around in a time warp ignorant of facing up to a confident future. The NFF released figures which showed that the announced tariff reductions will mean annual cost savings of more that $2,400 per year for every farm in Australia. So it is extraordinary that a so-called free enterprise government in Queensland is ratting on the sugar industry by rejecting these initiatives. Senator Boswell said in a report in the Bundaberg News Mail on 14 November that the sugar industry faced a loss of up to $300m annually. He and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) are now calling for a Senate inquiry into the changes. Before any inquiry is held, Senator Boswell should be aware that the entire domestic market of sugar amounts to the $300m that he believes the industry will lose. The Leader of the Opposition has run around trying to champion less government involvement. His own actions in Queensland show that he will abandon this policy, as he has tried to abandon every other decision he made when he was Federal Treasurer. A Senate inquiry would do absolutely nothing but create uncertainty in the industry. The industry accepts the decision on the lifting of the embargo. It is time that the Opposition in this place abandoned the line of the Queensland National Party and stood squarely behind the attempts to give the entire sugar industry an internationally competitive position. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.43) —It is a sad moment when I have to criticise the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) for being an apologist for the Government and for getting only half of his facts straight in this regard. I must tell him, although he must know already, that it is the industry that requires a Senate inquiry, for one reason only-that the matter be fully discussed and that the industry conditions be fully examined. I am so sorry that he is now leaving the chamber and is not prepared to face up to the results of what he has said. I also regret the haste with which this legislation is being introduced and the lack of time being given to debate on it. I do so particularly on behalf of the sugar industry. It is probably one of the most important measures that face the industry. While there has been a lot of public debate, there has been little Government acknowledgment of the reasons for the measure, and there will certainly not be any parliamentary debate. I also make mention of the fact that neither the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) nor the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) who, along with me, represent seats in the sugar growing area, appear on the speakers list and they are certainly not in the chamber at this stage. I also question the Government about the sequence of presentation of legislation. Although the legislation removing the embargo was introduced last month, on 12 October, it has not yet been debated and apparently will not be debated this session, whereas the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3), dealing with sugar tariffs, which was presented only last week, is on the agenda for debate tonight and debate on it has to be curtailed because of the guillotine arrangement. We also have the difficulty that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) is not here-and not even in Australia-to face the charges. I believe the sugar industry has responded with great responsibility to the removal of the embargo when one considers the provocation it has faced from the Minister and this Government since 1984 when this Government reneged on its election promise to underwrite the sugar industry and prices and launched its policy of deregulation-in the midst of the worst droughts and disasters which have faced the industry, and certainly the worst prices ever experienced for sugar. The Government's timing is really appalling because, during the period of deregulation, many people have been forced to quit the industry because of the high interest rate policies of this Government, the bad crops because of the drought-which still persist in some sugar growing areas of Queensland-low world prices and, as I mentioned before, the lack of the promise of support. In spite of the reversal of seasons and the low prices, there has been a revived industry that has had to discipline itself to these measures and has survived through pure efficiency and productivity. Price support for the 1985 season, half of which is rendered by the State, is the only assistance given by the Commonwealth, which promised much and delivered little. There has also been a belated interest subsidy on loans and grants towards the amalgamation of mills in certain areas. After all that, this embargo is to be removed. What we have now is a very efficient, lean and productive industry now forced to accept this change. Of course, this change was mentioned in the May economic statement at the time when the industry and the State were setting about renegotiating the Commonwealth-State agreement by 30 June 1989. Minister Kerin came in here and announced the arrangements in the May economic statement. No notice was given to the industry. There were no negotiations and the industry was immediately notified that the embargo would be removed by 30 June 1989. Perhaps this is the Government's final response to an industry that has proved itself capable of producing for Australia and producing great exports. There has been an acknowledgment by the industry and by the Minister that, over the last 15 years, the embargo has given stability of price to the consumer and stability of production to the industry. Yet the embargo has been removed without a trade-off in the 1992 negotiations for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We are left with no negotiating position. I have just come back from Europe and have to say that the 1992 plan for the European Economic Community (EEC) will mean nothing for our exports. A ceiling has now been put on the subsidy, which is encouraging overproduction. The lifting of living standards in Spain, portugal and Greece can be done only by further overproduction in these nations of some of the products that we are talking about at the moment. The Government gave away a wonderful negotiating weapon by removing this embargo. I have said that this was a provocative move and that there was a lack of consultation. In all of this, the industry, the millers and the growers behaved responsibly. Discussions between the industry and the State Government have gone on since the embargo removal was announced. Discussions have gone on between millers and growers in the different regions-all of this at a time when the seasons are still bad in some places, prices are low leading to liquidity problems, the dollar is rising and we have rising interest rates. Despite all this, they have had discussions with the Minister, who said that he would respond. The manner in which he has responded has been to push this legislation ahead of the other legislation. All I can say at this time is that the legislation is ill-considered and ill-prepared. I say that it is ill-prepared because, while the documentation suggests that the tariff will be 35 per cent for raw sugar and 25 per cent for refined sugar, the same schedule contains a 10 per cent tariff on beet sugar. This means that beet sugar will be allowed into Australia from the most corrupt of the overproducing nations, those of the EEC. The EEC has been described as corrupt by the Minister. There will be an advantage in the case of beet sugar. The item on which we gave away our negotiating arm, beet sugar, will be allowed in at a rate of 10 per cent. I said that the legislation was ill-prepared and hastily prepared. I want an answer from the Minister as to why that element remains in this legislation-why it is introducing higher tariffs for raw and refined sugar, but beet sugar will be allowed in without any problems. In this regard, I particularly refer to item 68 and items 1701.12.00, 1701.91.20 and 1701.91.10. I think the Queensland Canegrowers' comments should be read very carefully. What they are looking for is some correction of this rate of 10 per cent and also a better definition of what is required in that part of the Bill. They state: Raw sugar is defined as having a pol of less then 99.5 per cent. The Sugar Board standard for Direct Consumption raws ranges from 99.0 per cent to 99.7 per cent, although most sugar is produced at 99.2 per cent to 99.4 per cent pol. However, it would be theoretically possible for a sophisticated producer such as South Africa to import raw sugar washed up to 99.55 per cent as white (to take advantage of the lower tariff) and then have it refined as if it were raw. The definition should not be based on polarisation, but on whether the sugar has been produced as a food or for further reprocessing. It is possible for the import of say EEC Beet white as raws (below 99.5 per cent) for the lower tariff and then marketed as refined without any further value added. The Queensland Canegrowers go on to make several other comments which, unfortunately, I am prevented from reading into Hansard. This means that the corrupted EEC sugar will be at a considerable advantage in this new tariff arrangement. This haste to legislate has given major advantages to our worst competitor who, I understand, up until a few years ago was subsidising sugar at the rate of $400 per tonne. Again I mention that we have given away all negotiating rights on that. The industry has examined these matters and voiced its concerns with the Minister. The Minister has said that he acknowledges some of them, yet this legislation will be introduced without the benefit of any of the suggested amendments. At this stage the industry proposes that beet sugar should be treated in exactly the same way as raw or refined sugars from cane. Definitional changes previously suggested that the specific duty rate should not apply at the same rate of the ad valorem tariff but at a rate that protects the industry, up to a stage where the price of sugar is US12c a pound because after that the tariff equalises the rate. When the price falls below that-that has been the consistent level for the last three or four years-the industry wants a specific rate of duty. Fiji should be treated in the same way as other sugar exporting countries and in this way Fiji could probably gain free duty access. Mixed with that benefit would be the cross-subsidised sales to Australia from the Lome convention and the higher price sales to the EEC. As far as Fiji is concerned that could be easily done by putting sugar on the exempt list. The 5 per cent preference for developing nations could mean that we will face a threat from Brazil and Cuba. Again we have this reduced tariff benefit for those countries. In the anti-dumping area there is a requirement to be looked at to give us a quick trigger to react immediately so that we do not have the delay that we had with sugar. This has to be done immediately and the Government has to stop these double standards where it is prepared to accept, in some cases, that the manufacturing industries should get greater protection than other industries. All these matters are before the Minister at the moment. Where is he? He is overseas doing nothing about it. The Minister, in his second reading speech, acknowledged this embargo. It has been discussed with the Minister but, in every respect, nothing has happened. As at 30 June 1992 the industry knows that the embargo will go. Industry is not arguing for it; in 1992 it is prepared to accept that, but it wishes to deal with the matter on the basis of the proposals that it is now putting forward. I believe that the Government has a lot to do in order to correct this situation. Therefore, we are not embarrassed in any sense whatsoever-because this legislation is not required until 1 July 1989 and because it is not a Budget measure-to ask a Senate committee to examine this proposition to remove the embargo so that it will give the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, who is at the table, an opportunity to explain what has happened and to tell us why beet sugar was not lifted to the 35 per cent level. It will also give the Minister an opportunity to acknowledge and recognise the difficulties of the industry by legislating in this House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(8.54) —Briefly, I want to put on the record that the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill contains some very important provisions for the defence exports of this country. We are very pleased to see that because defence exports have been a grey area for many years. One of the problems has been the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade who has now moved on to higher things, for which we are grateful. We want to see guidelines for these defence exports. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 8.55 p.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of this 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. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(8.55) —It is very important for this country that our defence exports are liberalised in conjunction with all our exports. We badly need some guidelines for Australian business. I think the main problem area has been covered before in this debate. It is all very well to liberalise defence exports amongst other exports but we still have to get our productivity down so that we can sell these goods overseas. I was very pleased to see that a defence mission has been sent to South East Asia this week. Until we get our productivity up and until our productivity improves in this country our chances of exporting the products from our defence industry, which are growing almost month by month in this country, are nil. No-one who has any interest in this area who sees the future of Australia in productive positive terms could but agree that, until we ease up the labour market in this country and get our productivity up, there will be no future for defence exports or anything else. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(8.56) —Very little has been said about the fact that the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1988 writes into tariff law the tariff changes proposed in the May mini-Budget. They amounted to a general reduction of tariffs of the order of 20 per cent spread over four years. I think it is important to note that that is an extremely modest change. Honourable members might think back in history and remember the 25 per cent change in one fell swoop in 1973 under the previous Labor Government. But this is a very modest change. I want to recognise that it is part of a whole program of structural reform, structural adjustment and increased market efficiency-so-called micro-economic reform-to which the Government pays a great deal of lip service but does very little. Such a program would embrace movements on many fronts as well as this attempt to improve efficiency through reducing tariffs in this way. It would also embrace the combating of restrictive work practices, reform of the country's transport infrastructure-things such as the waterfront and coastal shipping, a sensible program of deregulation and privatisation, a general program of reducing other business regulation and, above all, reform of the country's inflexible and centralised wages system, to which my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) referred a moment ago. Coming back to this ever so modest reduction in the general level of protection, I want to stress that one of the reasons why it cannot be bigger than it is-though honourable members might say, as Dr Johnson commented on his friend's dog walking on its hind legs, `The wonder is that it happened at all'-is that, where the Government does not accept its reciprocal obligation to free up the wages level and reduce the cost and regulatory burdens on industry, nothing much can be done. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business)(8.59) —in reply-In response to the point made by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) about an apparent anomaly in the beet sugar rate I just want to say that the Government is continuing consultation with the industry. If an anomaly is proved amendments will be introduced prior to the introduction of the new rate on 1 July 1989. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that this Bill be read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Staples: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(9.01) —The Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988 is an omnibus piece of legislation dealing with a diverse range of subjects, some of which are not related to my own shadow portfolio of health. The proposed amendments also impact upon the areas of housing and nursing homes, and my colleagues the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), respectively, will comment upon these areas=mif time allows. I add that comment because it is outrageous that the Government has not allowed sufficient opportunity for this legislation to be fully debated in this chamber. Debate on the Bill is subject to the guillotine and will be cut short at 10 o'clock. In light of that fact, I would like to foreshadow an in-principle amendment, which will be moved at the appropriate time in this debate, and further amendments which we will be forced to move in the Senate because of the lack of time in this chamber. The in-principle amendment reads: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: (1) expresses its concern about deficiencies and inequities in the Medicare health care system; (2) deplores the way in which Government policies have had, and continue to have, a negative impact upon health insurance funds; and (3) calls upon the Government to ensure that its policies are conducive to fostering the delivery of the best possible health services to the people of this nation'. In the Senate we will move amendments to oppose clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill which propose amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove Australians' entitlement to Medicare rebates for medical and pathology services received overseas. As my colleague the honourable member for Dawson will tell the House, we will also in the Senate oppose clause 29 relating to requests for the review of the decisions on nursing homes made under the National Health Act 1953. The fact that we are not planning to oppose the amendments to clause 7 (3), which redefines the terms `hospital treatment' and `nursing home-type patient', cannot, however, be taken as a sign of our blanket endorsement of them. These amendments have been precipitated by the decision of some Victorian health funds to question their legal obligation to pay benefits to around 250 of their contributors who are nursing home-type patients in private bush hospitals. We deplore the big stick approach which the Government has taken to deal with the health funds' very legitimate concerns about their ability to continue to cover such expenses. After all, if these patients lived in the city, they would be supported by the Government either in a nursing home or in a public hospital. But the fact that these country people have no ready access to either of these facilities means that both they and their private health funds have been placed in a very difficult situation. This is a disgraceful state of affairs which was not helped by the initial reaction of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) in which he branded the funds as `callous' and described their action as `unacceptable'. What the Opposition, and I suspect the vast majority of Australians, finds really `unacceptable' is the speed with which the Minister was willing to blame someone else for a problem of his own making. Almost since the first day it took office the Hawke-Keating Government has endeavoured to centralise and socialise the delivery of health care. Over the last five years its policies in relation to the private health care sector can be likened to a classical military campaign based on the slow but sure destruction of supply and support for `the enemy'. In the Government's view the enemy is the medical profession and the private health funds. The first shots in this campaign were, not surprisingly, fired at the health funds; their sin being that they were a party to supplying both doctors and patients with an alternative to government funding. Within days of Labor assuming office the Health Insurance Commission had a blueprint for Medicare on the Minister's desk. Using this as ammunition, the Government acted swiftly and decisively to cut off the principal source of doctors' revenue. This was achieved by making it illegal for anyone-other than the Government-to provide insurance for medical expenses. So, in one fell swoop, the Government effectively cut the medical professions' principal supply line. By giving itself a monopoly in relation to insurance for medical costs, it took the first steps towards making members of the medical profession reliant upon it, and to a lesser extent their patients, for their income and support. It had fired its first broadside at the health insurance industry in this way. Just before Medicare was introduced the Minister was telling everyone that the cost of private health insurance under Medicare would be no more than $5 a week. That this has not proved to be the case is glaringly obvious to anyone who knows anything about private health insurance. The overwhelming majority of those with insurance are currently each week paying around $9 per person, or $18 per family, for their cover. This is almost double what the Minister said would be the top rate. The reason for this massive rise in contribution rates is the Government's socialised health care system-better known as Medicare. By promising that Medicare would deliver universal free medical and hospital services the Government removed the incentives for people to take out private insurance. But, not content with this encouragement strategy, it then went on to the second stage of its campaign against the private health funds. In a series of raids, it set about creating real disincentives for people to remain in the funds, or to join them in the first place. By way of a number of actions the Government contrived to impose greater and greater burdens on the health funds and their contributors. Time in this guillotined debate does not permit me to list each and every one of these actions, but let me put forward a few. In 1983 the Government slashed its contribution to the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund from $100m to just $20m. And, I might add, it has continued to savage the fund, to the point where in the current financial year it stands at about $1m. In 1984 the funds were forced into holding two months contribution income in reserve. In 1985 they were made responsible for the cost of prosthetic implants previously paid for by the state. Insured patients admitted to public hospitals were automatically classified as private, and therefore a liability for the funds, unless they specifically opted to be treated as a Medicare patient. In 1986 the Commonwealth bed-day subsidy to private hospitals was abolished. This forced the funds to lift their rates to raise the same amount as the previous subsidy. A further $7.2m was added to the funds' expenses by charging repatriation patients holding health insurance as `private'. In 1987 the medical gap was increased to 25 per cent of the schedule fee, without any `cap', costing the funds, and their contributors, an estimated $105m. Furthermore, the funds were forced to pay basic table benefits for 42 and 49 days respectively for psychiatric and rehabilitation patients, and to increase the basic table benefits for private hospital patients. The total extra cost to the funds of these last two actions has been estimated at $95m. Now, in 1988, we have these moves incorporated in this legislation to legally bind the funds to provide benefits for long term nursing home-type patients occupying hospital beds. All in all, what these actions on the part of the Government add up to is much more expensive health insurance. Contribution rates are constantly rising, membership rates are declining, and the proportion of high risk members is on the up and up as the funds try desperately to keep their heads above water. Small wonder then, that they should start to question their ability to continue to pay benefits for the hospital expenses of nursing home-type patients and continue to question their legal obligation to do so. That we are not opposing the amendments compelling the funds to support these people does not, however, mean that we have joined the Government's fight against private health interests. Instead, it is due to our appreciation of the fact that these nursing home-type patients are the innocent victims of both the long running war which the Government is waging against the funds, and of its failure to provide an adequate supply of nursing home beds for what we know to be a rapidly ageing population. These people have already been caused a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty about their position. We will, therefore, allow the passage of the amendments so that they need have no further fears about their future care. In doing so, however, I would like to remind the Minister that on 9 November he told the House: The Government is prepared to work with the funds and the State Government on particular problems involving aged and long-stay patients . . . I ask the Minister to keep the Parliament informed about the commencement and progress of these negotiations. I turn now to part III of the Bill which, among other things, seeks to remove Australians' entitlement to Medicare benefits for medical and pathology services received overseas after 1 January 1989. As I said before, this is a move which we will oppose at the committee stage in the Senate. We will do so because we believe it to be patently unfair for the Government to slug taxpayers 1.25 per cent of their income for the compulsory Medicare levy, while at the same time denying them access to rebates. I am not arguing with the Government's view that people should protect themselves with travel insurance because of the extremely high cost of health care in many other parts of the world, but I do not accept and we do accept, that those Australians who pay their taxes, and their Medicare levy, should lose their entitlement to the Medicare rebate simply because they had to seek medical attention in another country. Nor do I accept that reciprocal health agreements, as they currently stand, are sufficient compensation for lopping off people's claims under Medicare. After all, as the Minister said in his speech, there are only four such agreements in place-with the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Malta and Italy, and two more, with Sweden and Portugal, are close to being finalised. While making no great claims about the extent of my knowledge of geography, I nevertheless believe that it is fair to say that even when Sweden and Portugal enter the scheme of things there will still be many places in the world not covered. Indeed, there are probably a great number of them which will never be covered, including the United States where health care costs are very high. So, it is patently arrant nonsense for the Minister to claim that reciprocal agreements are a more `appropriate and effective means of providing health care cover for Australian travellers abroad'. Undoubtedly, there are many instances where the Medicare rebate does not go anywhere near the actual cost, nevertheless it represents some form of cover or reimbursement to which payers of the levy are clearly entitled. Its removal will place those Australians who go overseas for extended periods of time at the greatest disadvantage. I ask the Minister to take for example people on a six to 12-month academic exchange program, or those who are posted overseas by their employer. They will still be paying their taxes on their Australian wages and still having the Medicare levy ripped off them, but they will derive no benefit from it whatsoever. Of course it could be argued that even if one stays at home there is not much benefit to be gained from Medicare. As Des Keegan wrote in last Saturday's Weekend Australian: So we have Labor's `free' health scheme, whereby we must have private insurance to put a foot on a hospital bed in sickness. Labor holds illusions in its magic gift, including `free' health for 1.25 per cent of our gross pay. Labor voters on average wages get paupers' beds. The only way one can be certain to get immediate access to medical and hospital treatment under Medicare is to pay and pay. To have private insurance on top of the compulsory Medicare levy is, in effect, double taxation. What Australians who travel abroad have now is the prospect of triple taxation-the Medicare levy, private insurance and travel insurance-just so they can be reimbursed or compensated in some way for going to the doctor overseas. This is patently unfair, and a far cry from the all-encompassing health care system we were told we would get under Medicare. In the final analysis what it all gets down to is cost. The Government must face up to the reality that its own grand design has simply proved to be too expensive. But, rather than admit that it has got it wrong-that Medicare is the disaster many predicted it would be-the Government is intent on propping it up by tinkering away at the edges. Fiddling with the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, the schedule for pathology rebates, the rules governing eligibility for Medicare rebates and so on, will not solve the problem-nor will a continuation of the Government's campaign against the private health funds. It is high time that the Government and the responsible Minister realised that trying to keep health care costs within affordable bounds, while maintaining Medicare, is like fighting with one hand tied behind one's back. What we need is a better health care system, one in which costs are more fairly shared, where the delivery of services is fairly shared and where Australians can have immediate access to the highest quality attention, treatment and care. There was a time when this was the sort of health care system which we had. That this is no longer the case is due to the misguided policies of this Government and for that it deserves the strongest possible condemnation. It can continue its battles against the private health interests for as long as it likes. But, if it does, it should be prepared not only to lose a few minor skirmishes, or the odd campaign, but at the end of the day the whole war and government office as well. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: (1) expresses its concern about deficiencies and inequities in the Medicare health care system; (2) deplores the way in which Government policies have had, and continue to have, a negative impact upon health insurance funds; and (3) calls upon the Government to ensure that its policies are conducive to fostering the delivery of the best possible health services to the people of this nation'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Braithwaite —I second the amendment. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(9.19) —There are many very serious health issues facing this country. If I can have your indulgence for half a minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will have one small swipe at the media. In the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday of this week there was the headline `Relax sex laws and abort AIDS babies: Government paper'. I am sure all honourable members who heard the tabling of the Government's paper on its proposals for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus in this country will understand that that headline in no way outlines the very serious problems or the great extent and depth of the Government's paper. I suppose it is a further example of the sort of discussion we have in the newspapers on health care in this country. We find ourselves tonight, after 5 1/2 years in government, with the fifth Opposition spokesman on health, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), and still the Opposition does not have a policy on health care and still it has no proposals as to how it would go about delivering health care. There is never a word of encouragement of any suggestion that in some way we have been successful. All we get is carping criticism. The Opposition sheds crocodile tears because nursing home patients in private hospitals are experiencing difficulties with health insurance in Victoria. The Opposition expresses concern about these people and about the Government's treatment of them. But we must understand that it was a Liberal government that established the category of nursing home-type patients in private hospitals. That system has been in place for 10 years and the health funds have been delivering payment for those patients for 10 years. Now they are trying to renege on that responsibility. That category was introduced by a Liberal government, it has been in place for 10 years and we have supported it. Now the Opposition is supporting its removal. I find that unbelievable. The Opposition spokesman talks about a monopoly being created by the Government in health insurance. The effect of that was to save the Australian taxpayers something like $100m in administrative expenses. The removal of duplication of a number of health insurance funds and services was desirable. The centralisation of statistics and the improvement in the functioning of the system have been readily endorsed by a number of surveys which have shown that patients and taxpayers in his country support the Government's action. The Opposition also sheds crocodile tears about the fact that the doctors' source of income has been reduced to income from the Government only and that in some way this means that they have been disadvantaged. But we have a whole raft of professionals-chiropractors, dentists, psychologists and all sorts of other people-who would love to be in a situation in which their incomes were underwritten by the Government. Day after day I receive requests from such groups that they be considered for access to Medicare. I cannot accept the Opposition's criticism because we have provided access, equity, universality and simplicity. We have also provided something which is just as important and which every government must consider, and that is accountability and cost containment. That is very important. When we look overseas we see, for example, that the United Kingdom is restricting access of people to kidney dialysis machines. If one is more than 55 years of age, one is not eligible. If one wants a hip operation in the United Kingdom and one is more than 65 years old, one is not eligible. Those restrictions are anathema to our system. This Government would not consider them. But clearly, very serious constraints have to be provided on the public delivery of health care. In this country we have been able to contain costs and provide a service which covers everyone. Again we see crocodile tears being shed by members of the Opposition about the fact that this Government proposes that when Australians travel overseas they should take out private health insurance. At the moment only 50 per cent of Australians who travel abroad take out private health insurance; the other 50 per cent believe that they are covered. However, when one compares health costs in Australia with those in the United States of America one realises that there is a massive difference. The Medicare rebate which is payable to those people who have procedures performed in the United States is totally inadequate and if people are not covered by private health insurance they will suffer. After 1 January, when this legislation is in place, most people will know exactly where they stand and Australians travelling overseas will take a more responsible attitude. They will not believe that they are covered when they are not. Clearly if someone has a problem of a long term nature or a pre-existing ailment, his or her option is to return to Australia and have it dealt with by our system. But for emergency care-and this is why we take out travel insurance, for things that happen while we are on holiday and which cannot be anticipated-private health insurance is a perfectly reasonable expectation by this Government. Concern has been expressed about that, but when one looks at the situation in the United States one finds that it costs as much as $2,000 a day for health care in that country. If one is in hospital for 10 days as a result of, say, appendicitis or a car accident, one is looking at a bill of $20,000 or $30,000. Clearly anyone who travels overseas and does not take out health insurance is risking the cost of that bill. There is no way that those expenses would in any way be covered by the Medicare rebate because in Australia our system is much cheaper. We have contained costs effectively because our system is not open-ended like that in the United States. Because we do all that and cover everybody, we are very fortunate. We should understand that, and clearly most health professionals do so. One of the other purposes of this Bill is to define who is eligible; and we will restrict the eligibility of Medicare benefits to persons residing in Australia on a legally permanent basis. Again, this is something that was overlooked in the initial legislation. In that, the entitlement was for all people resident in this country. Thus we have had an anomaly in the system since the legislation was introduced in 1984. The amendment may create problems for overseas students and visitors from countries with which we do not have a reciprocal agreement. It may also cause problems for those who are illegal immigrants, pending consideration of their cases. I suppose that in that regard there needs to be some consideration given to providing within the health care system-perhaps through the private health funds-some sort of special hospital and medical cover for those people. I understand that the Department of Community Services and Health is already looking at this. It is certainly something we need to consider because there will be a group of people who will be left out of the system. Another concern of mine is one that we often have as members of Parliament. This arises when an elderly person wishes to come to Australia as part of a family reunion program. Quite clearly we are concerned about the costs that an elderly person might accrue against our health budget. It is unreasonable for Australian taxpayers to be expected to take up that cost. I believe there needs to be consideration of some way in which those who wish to sponsor elderly relatives from overseas can have a special benefit or some means of covering those elderly relatives. The legislation covers a large number of areas of Government policy. We have already heard about the nursing home aspect and I do not intend to follow that here except to say that by providing for exempted nursing homes we will be able, in some way, to defray the costs and make those who are very fortunate in their old age and who are able to pay a higher cost in some nursing homes look after their own considerations in that regard. I am sure that in some way that will improve access to nursing homes for more people. Finally, I wish to mention a topical matter-the contents-based Medicare service schedule that has been put forward by the Australian Medical Association (AMA). From my experience I have found that general practitioners usually work very hard for their money. They deliver services on a fee for service basis, so they have to see a large number of patients if they are to make themselves a reasonable income. The majority are dedicated, sincere, caring and competent doctors. I think it is rather exceptional to find a greedy, unprofessional doctor. While some of the procedural specialists have probably floated on the coat tails of technological advancement and have therefore done quite well for a while, those concerned have been addressed by this Government and are continuing to be addressed. The AMA's advocacy of a contents-based proposal was clearly badly timed and overzealous. Concern for patients was completely lacking. It is interesting to note that the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has now come together with the Government to establish a group to look into a contents-based schedule-something which the Government does not disagree with in principle, but which needs more work and consideration. Indeed, its hasty appearance and introduction by the AMA was unnecessary and uncalled for. I suppose only a few of us will get the opportunity to speak tonight but I take this opportunity to support the legislation. I reject the Opposition's amendments. I reject its criticism of the Medicare scheme. Clearly it is a scheme that patients and the majority of doctors are comfortable with. Clearly it is something that in this country has provided us with a very efficient health care system of which we should be very proud. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.31) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), complained about the lack of people participating in this debate. May I say that he has only his own Government to blame. This is a major piece of legislation where major initiatives could have been taken. We are limited to one hour for debate and in that time very few speakers will be able to address this important question affecting the health and well-being of every Australian. So if the honourable member does have a complaint he should take it to the door of the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples). Dr Charlesworth —I would have spoken longer but you rang my office. Mr BRAITHWAITE —You were on for 10 minutes and you went over your time. You did not say anything in any case. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Dawson will direct his remarks through the Chair. Mr BRAITHWAITE —There was very little involved in his 10-minute or over speech that really faced up to the issues that Australians are looking at. I understand that I am limited to 10 minutes. Because of that I can deal with only four areas relating to the nursing homes section. I again note for the second time in a debate tonight that the responsible Minister, the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, is not here, and I think that is a shame. The four items I wish to mention are nursing home beds and their relationship to the private hospitals; respite care; the exempt home situation-members of the Government think this will be the best thing since sliced bread for the private operators; and the cost of appeals. It is interesting to examine the situation of nursing homes throughout Australia. I have with me a press clipping from the Border Morning Mail newspaper of 28 October headed `Nursing homes ``Face big cuts''.' It reads: Victorian nursing homes face staff cuts of up to 30 per cent because of changes to Commonwealth funding, it was claimed yesterday. The president of the Voluntary Care Association of Victoria, Mr Brian Moss, described the cuts as an exercise in mediocrity. I can only suggest that in saying that he is attributing the fall in standards to the Government's reaction to the problems. The article continued: He said funds were based on 18 hours of nursing and personal care for each resident. `My nursing home has an average of 28 hours,' . . . Mr Moss went on to say: They are pushing us down to a level, the level has been set too low. The nursing home operators say that there is great secrecy, that there is no way in which they can determine the workings of the Department and how the care aggregate module (CAM) calculation has been made up. I understand that freedom of information efforts have failed because the Government says that these figures were projections and that, even though the projections were for last year, they cannot be applied for under freedom of information. The Border Morning Mail has hit it right on the head. In Victoria particularly the standard of care is being lowered and, by implication, the standard of living of all residents. The health insurance funds have seen a dramatic decline over the past nine years. They are now insuring nursing home patients. I understand that in 1979 an arrangement was worked out with the insurance funds that this would be the case. One must consider that over the nine years of the Labor Government we have seen the financial health of the insurance funds decline dramatically. They have no reserves; they are not allowed to have them. They are being asked now to insure patients who should be in nursing homes. Because of the lack of facilities, those patients are in bush nursing homes, not at public expense but at private expense, and the funds are being asked to pick up the cost. This raises the matter of the great lack of nursing home beds in Victoria. The Bush Nursing Association is picking up those people in their private hospitals but they are not covered by any State grant because of Medicare and they are being refused the funds that are normally made available to nursing home operators. We have seen a change from deficit funding under the old Act, which I will admit indicated in many cases that, on a cost plus basis, there were not the necessary disciplines applied within the operation of those funds. We have turned to a completely different situation where there is a lack of disclosure, particularly in relation to the calculation formula under the standard aggregate module (SAM) and CAM. The situation in Victorian and South Australian nursing homes is that they have been set standards of care by their State governments. There is no way the Commonwealth will fund up to that standard, so there is a conflict between the two governments and the nursing home operators are caught in the centre. One group which operates in the charitable area said they are fast ceasing to be volunteer carers in the community and are becoming economic survivors. All the volunteers do now is scratch from one moment to the next in order to keep the establishment open on the lower scale of fees. Complaints are also rife within the community about the resident classification instrument, which is set, I understand, on a five-scale model. Category one, which is the highest subsidised area, is calculated at only 10 per cent of the total residency of the nursing homes. The geriatric assessments team goes around making assessments on these five categories, obviously with the intention of getting more patients up into the higher end of the categories and fewer at the lower end, where they would attract a greater subsidy. This is duplication in its own way because the nursing homes have resident doctors who make these assessments all the time to make sure that they fit into the right slot as far as the standard of care is concerned, and they are the ones who would know best. I have already mentioned the changes that were made to the funding of nursing homes in 1979 by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) when he was Minister. There was open competition for funds at that time. I also mention that the Commonwealth's contribution to the Health Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund has decreased from $100m to $1m, without any reserves. I have already mentioned respite homes. May I complain about the use of esoteric terms by this Department. We have the classic `resident classification instrument'. Even a Rhodes scholar would not be able to describe what that was. As to the definition of respite home, it took six months in my city, and I believe right round Australia, for people to appreciate what a respite bed was. Of course, this appears in the Bill solely because of the drafting errors in the Bill passed earlier this year. Section 49aa was inserted into the National Health Act 1953 in June. It will be replaced by a new section, the objective being to provide for new arrangements on respite care to be prescribed in detail by regulation. The Government is looking at two respite case places per 1,000 persons within hostels and nursing homes. It is interesting to see the calculation whereby the Government intends to have 4,000 places available by 1995. In June 1987 the number of aged residents in Australia aged 70 and over was 1,147,238. The provision of nursing home and hostel beds at the rate of two beds per 1,000 people would mean that there is a requirement right now for 4,588 beds; yet by 1995 the Government hopes to reach only 4,000. That is not the main object of this legislation. I shall now deal with exempt homes. The honourable member for Perth, who spoke for the Government on this Bill, said that allowing those people who can afford to pay to do so would be a great way for the Government to reduce the demands on the funds. It is interesting to look at the second reading speech and to consider the massive government controls involved. It is doubtful whether there would be an opportunity for anyone to take any financial advantage from the exemption, particularly as it is only a 12-month licence. Where an operation changes to an exempt home, a person who cannot afford the fees is exempt for six months and then in 18 months has to find alternative nursing home accommodation, which runs well over the 12-month licence period. We look forward to seeing whether that can operate effectively in the community. The measure we are complaining about to a large extent concerns the appeals related to fees charged by nursing homes. A memo went out to nursing homes well in advance of this legislation being tabled in this House notifying them of this measure. It results from the mess-up which has resulted from CAM and the intention to harmonise subsidies by 1992. Because of the difficulty in getting records for substantiation purposes, nursing homes that have had a claim have been submitting these appeals, which no doubt have flooded the Department. The Department is really judging Caesar on its own terms. We believe that it is the Minister who should make these decisions. He should make available the calculations regarding how CAM is really meant to work. The responsibility for the appeals should rest on his shoulders. We see the initial $500 fee for the appeal submission and the $500 fee per half day after that as being a blatant attempt by the Department to frighten off anybody who might want to make a claim. I believe that has already happened in many cases because of a lack of response. We have an Administrative Appeals Tribunal which can intervene directly in matters between people and the Government. A limited cost applies. We wonder why the fees are set at the amount prescribed in the legislation in such a unique situation. If time for debate had not been limited, in the committee stage we would have opposed that aspect of the legislation. We will certainly do so in the Senate because we believe that the responsibility should be directly with the Minister. There are many things I would have liked to have said but cannot do so because of the shortage of time. I hope that after 12 months operation of these new terms, particularly those concerning the exempt nursing homes, the Department will review the situation to see whether a change is necessary. Again, we do not like the heavy-handed attitude of the Minister in bringing down the legislation in the way he has done. The legislation treats every private operator as a cheat and a thief. The second reading speech reveals massive discrimination against private operators. I would have liked the Minister to have been in the House to respond to the limited addresses we have been able to make to this Bill. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(9.44) —The Bill before us tonight, the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), is an omnibus Bill which makes various changes in the area of the community services and health portfolio. Amongst the schemes that have minor amendments made to them in this Bill is the first home owners scheme. Amendments are made to the definition of `Australian residents' under the Health Insurance Act. The Bill contains provisions in regard to the cost of medical services incurred overseas. As alluded to by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), the Bill makes changes to the treatment of nursing home-type patients. The proposed amendments in this area remove a technical anomaly in the legislation which is now being exploited by some health funds for the first time since the legislation made provision for nursing home-type patients in hospitals in 1979. The previous speaker, who spoke in his capacity as the shadow Minister for community services and aged care, talked his usual nonsense about the subject. He excused the behaviour of the private health funds towards nursing home-type patients on the grounds that the private health funds were unhealthy. He said that private funds were not permitted to have reserve funds. That is complete rubbish. The honourable member should be aware that, as of June 1987, private funds had some $660m in reserve funds. By June 1988 this sum had increased to $812m. So, contrary to what the honourable member said, the health of the private funds is quite good. If the honourable member needs further evidence, perhaps he could look at Australia's Health-the first biennial report by the Australian Institute of Health. A table on page 142 of that report indicates the number of contributors to hospital funds. One can see how it is levelled off, despite the universal nature of cover under Medicare. The figures given in the report dispel the nonsense that private health funds are in any way at present unhealthy. I want to comment mainly on the changes to nursing homes. The section of the Bill that relates to aged care is one of a series of amendments which have been or will be introduced to implement this Government's comprehensive reform of the nursing home and hostel industry. The amendments to the National Health Act 1953 contained in the Bill before the House should be seen as a part of this comprehensive reform process. The aim of the Government's reform has been the introduction of a fairer and more equitable system for the aged in our community. These reforms will put aged care services on a rational and integrated basis that will serve the needs of Australia's rapidly growing aged population in the next decade and beyond. This strategy is underpinned by some basic principles. Firstly, aged people should as far as possible be supported in their homes and in their communities. Secondly, aged people should be supported by residential services only where other support systems are not appropriate to meet their needs. This clearly reflects the community's preference. As the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) has indicated, Government research has shown that older people much prefer to retain their independence, living at home for as long as possible. That is the norm. As people get older they much prefer to be in familiar surroundings, in the neighbourhood in which they have established their home, to go to the same shops, to relate in the course of normal daily living to the things they are used to. The Government's home and community care (HACC) program has been successful in providing necessary support services to people at risk of entering residential care which allows them to remain in their own homes. Where older people are in need of residential care, the Government has been determined to ensure that it is affordable, efficient and of the highest possible standard. For many years it has been recognised that nursing home and hostel services in this country need a substantial overhaul. Nursing home funding arrangements were hampered by excessive regulation. There was no incentive to use resources efficiently. There was a percentage of fraud and abuse of the system. As a consequence, the taxpayer, the resident and his family were faced with unrealistically inflated costs. The Government has indicated its firm resolve to ensure that this system is reformed. The standardisation of fees in non-government nursing homes will ensure that by 1991 no resident shall be required to pay more than 87.5 per cent of his pension plus rent assistance. The impact of these reforms will be to bring the Government's social justice objectives in the area of aged care within reach. All aged people, regardless of income, will have reasonable access to care. This will see an end to discrimination against those less well off. It will represent a major step forward in bringing some much needed relief to the families of those needing residential care who are currently required to top up unaffordable fees. It will go a long way to preventing the present situation, where those who have enough money can buy their way into nursing homes at the expense of those who cannot. It will ensure a security of tenure for our frail aged in homes. It will mean that access to care is determined on the basis of need and that people can plan ahead for an ageing family on the basis of known costs. Since the early 1970s numerous reports and investigations have demanded reform of the aged care system. The Hawke Government is the first government to act on this matter to the benefit of all Australians. Perhaps it is another area in the general concept of those areas that may or may not be open to expenditure cuts if people like the shadow finance spokesman, who is in the chamber at the moment, had his way with the review of Government outlays. Again the shadow Ministers responsible should be sitting down and talking with him to see whether their pet areas are the areas which will go under the knife, because certainly in the overall economic rhetoric of those opposite, where they talk about the need to contain Government expenditure, one always has to wonder where exactly any of these cuts that are suggested will occur. So it is another of those areas where we have to wait and see whether the Opposition is able to grasp the nettle and take the necessary action to put before the Australian public any opposing policies to the present Government that can stand up to rigorous contemplation before going to any future elections. As I said, the provisions before honourable members in this Bill are further steps in the major review in many areas, as the Minister put it in his second reading speech, of provision of human services. They are areas of which this Government has not lost sight. Often there is some reflection on whether this Government has lost sight of what its traditional base is looking for. In the portfolio of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) we have made definite efforts to improve the lot of those less fortunate. We have gone a long way to tackling the provision of services which will go towards the social justice objectives of the Government. I have no trouble tonight in supporting this legislation and I congratulate the Minister and his colleague the Minister for Housing and Aged Care on their progressive implementation of the policies under review. Dr WOOLDRIDGE(Chisholm)(9.53) —I wish to speak on the aspect of this legislation that compels the health insurance funds to pay hospital benefits to nursing home patients who are in hospitals. It has come about by a decision of the Health Benefits Council of Victoria to withdraw health benefits cover from long stay patients in country hospitals. The Opposition is supporting this legislation out of concern as to the effect of this decision on many elderly and infirm patients around Victoria. However, the Opposition does not agree with the assessment of the situation by the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). The Minister has stated that the funds have a legal and moral obligation to pay the benefits. Perhaps we could examine this situation a little more closely. First, the legal obligation seems somewhat hollow if the Minister is now having to introduce legislation to compel the health funds to do as he wishes. However, more important is the moral obligation. The Minister states that the health insurance funds have looked after such patients since 1979. This is quite correct. However, the Minister conveniently omits several points. He omits to say that starting in 1979, the Federal Government also made a decision to help fund nursing home-type patients by substantial contributions to the reinsurance pool, initially, to the value of $50m raising it to $100m in 1981. The Minister further neglected to say that the then Federal Government's contribution to the reinsurance pool replaced its provision of a system of accounts which attended to the payment of benefits to long stay patients. Hence, the coalition Government had accepted a share of the responsibility-a moral responsibility-for the finance of nursing home-type patient costs in hospitals from well before 1979. The Minister finally neglected to say that it was the Hawke Government that in 1983 withdrew substantially from this responsibility when it cut the $100m contribution to $20m and in subsequent cuts to the present token $1m. However, this sad and pathetic situation has not just come about because of the Government's total lack of moral obligation to elderly Australians via the reinsurance pool. There are five other factors that have caused this situation. The first is the Government's lack of action on the longstanding shortage of nursing home beds in Victoria. Victoria has the lowest number of nursing home beds per head of aged population of any State in Australia. This is particularly critical in country areas. It has been exacerbated by the Government's new residential classification instrument that effectively seeks to put frail, aged people in arbitrarily deemed categories 4 and 5 out of nursing homes. Secondly, the Government's policy since the introduction of Medicare has led to a decline in the proportion of Australians covered by private insurance from 72 per cent in 1982-83 to just over 47 per cent today. This is the lowest level of coverage since private health insurance statistics were first taken out in the mid-1970s. Tragically, for the funds and for elderly Australians, it has been the fit, young people that have been leaving private health insurance funds and leaving the funds to cope with an ever-increasing burden of looking after aged people. Thirdly, the Government has enabled Medibank Private to transfer profits from Victoria to other States to effectively undercut established health funds around Australia. This option is not available to other health insurance funds and this special treatment and uneven playing field has contributed to the crisis that we face today. Fourthly, the Government has specifically prevented funds from accumulating special reserves for long term hospital patients, and then it complains when the funds have difficulty in meeting those obligations. They are not general reserves, as the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) referred to them; they are special reserves. Fifthly, the Government has added a burden of $500m on Australians with private health insurance in the last five years. Specifically the Government has abolished the Commonwealth subsidy to patients in private hospitals, costing the funds $140m. The Government has reduced the Medicare benefit for medical services for privately insured hospital patients from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of the scheduled fee, lifted the $20 cap, and cost the funds $105m. It has required the health funds to pay for prostheses and it has determined that insured patients in public hospitals be deemed private. All this, plus the $99m reduction in the reinsurance pool, has added a $500m burden directly onto Australians who have health insurance and has directly caused this sad and sorry mess the Government is now attempting to remedy. The Minister has said that the health funds have a moral obligation to pay these long stay patients' costs, because they have taken premiums for 20 to 30 years. Of elderly Victorians who must find nursing home accommodation in private hospitals, the average length of stay is 636 days at a cost to the health funds of $83 a day. The average cost per patient is $52,800. At a current health premium rate of $7.10 per week, it would take 142 years to recover such costs, and that is even without any other claims being made of the health funds. The health funds could afford to do this when a large number of healthy young people had basic health insurance. But, as we have seen, the Government's actions have driven these people out of the health funds and created the mess we see today. In looking at the state of our health insurance industry, I wish to read from the report of the committee of inquiry into the operations of the voluntary health insurance scheme. Its conclusions were: The operation of the health insurance scheme is unnecessarily complex and beyond the comprehension of many. The benefits received by contributors are frequently much less than the cost of hospital and medical treatment. The contributions have increased to such an extent that they are beyond the capacity of some members of the community and involve considerable hardship for others . . . An unduly high proportion of the contributions received by some organisations are absorbed in operating expenses . . . The cost of illness may include, in addition to hospital accommodation, treatment and medical services, a wide range of other services which have never been covered by the health insurance scheme. That was from the Nimmo report of 1969. Nothing has changed. After four years of Medicare we still find the health insurance system facing the same problems that it had 19 years ago. So much for reform! Finally, in attempting to compel the health funds to finance long stay patients, the Government is itself failing to address the central issue of nursing home-type patients-namely, whose responsibility are the aged and the chronically ill in society? The Government's actions have clearly shown that it believes that the responsibility does not lie with itself. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(9.59) —Whilst Opposition members welcome the changes to the first home owners scheme that appears in this legislation, we have very deep concern about the way the Government has been reducing funding very substantially to that particular scheme, particularly at a time when first home owners are being crippled by rising housing costs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! It being 10 p.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of this Bill has expired. The question is that the words proposed to be omitted by the honourable member for Tangney's amendment stand part of the question. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 November, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(10.02) —We are debating the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill. The theme I will develop is one that focuses on the hypocrisy, arrogance and intellectual dishonesty of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). However, before I do that it is important to recognise the economic background against which we consider this Bill. We have just seen a balance of payments deficit for October of about $1.7 billion, which included a record trade deficit of $681m and, in my view, a structurally weak and deteriorating balance of payments position. Any piece of legislation that deals with foreign investment against that sort of background is worthy of careful consideration, especially when it sets out to impede certain parts of the necessary investment. The coalition parties do not oppose the Bill; however we oppose those clauses in the Bill that enable the Government virtually to ban the foreign purchase of urban real estate. As a result, in the committee stage I will move amendments to strike out those relevant clauses. It is our view that the pre-September 1987 foreign investment guidelines on urban real estate, which were already fairly restrictive-and I emphasise that-are more important to the economic conditions of Australia and so we support them as opposed to what we see as the Treasurer's fairly knee-jerk ban. To be clear, we are not for open slather, as the Treasurer has tried to suggest on several occasions; we support the pre-September 1987 position, and I emphasise that point. The Bill provides a number of changes to the treatment of foreign investors. Indeed, most of the changes actually relax the restrictions on foreign investment. None the less, the key point of the Bill, to my mind, is that it puts into place the mechanisms for the implementation of the Treasurer's announced ban on foreign purchase of developed residential real estate, that is, a ban on access to urban housing. What the Bill actually contains is the legislative requirements for foreign purchasers of urban real estate to notify the Treasurer of the transactions. The Treasurer is also given the power to stop the transaction if he considers that it would be contrary to the national interest. The Treasurer will decide the national interest based on guidelines laid down in a press release of 29 September 1987. Briefly stated, the Treasurer believes that the national interest is best served by this sort of knee-jerk ban. Approval for the foreign purchase of developed residential properties will not be granted except in three very limited circumstances-Australian citizens living abroad, intending migrants who have received approval to take up permanent residence in Australia, and foreign companies seeking accommodation for their senior executives resident in Australia. As I said previously, the new guidelines replace more relaxed and yet fairly restrictive rules that allowed the acquisition by a foreigner of a property or a number of properties when the cumulative total of the foreigner's purchase did not exceed $600,000 since June 1978. Subject to this and a few other exceptions, prior to the introduction of the ban in September last year acquisition of developed residential real estate for investment purposes was normally not approved. I want to make several comments about this Bill. As I said, my theme will draw the attention of the House to what I consider to be almost unbounded hypocrisy, unbounded arrogance and unbounded intellectual dishonesty on the part of the Treasurer in dealing with this issue. Let me say a few words to begin with on intellectual dishonesty. There is no doubt in my mind that this Treasurer is quite happy in most circumstances to economise on the truth, but in this case he has conceded that there is no hard evidence that foreign investment has pushed up our house prices, although that is one of the principal reasons he claims to have taken the decision to impose a ban. Whatever investment there had been when he took the decision, foreign investment into our real estate market had clearly been at the top end, and the Treasurer conceded as much in his press conference on 27 September. There are a number of points that I could quote in that regard. I begin by citing the conclusion of one of the journalists who attended that press conference. I quote from the Financial Review of 30 September. The journalist stated: The weakness of the Government's position was the lack of hard evidence. At his press conference yesterday, Mr Keating could provide no facts and figures to back the decision. Nor could officials produce them later. The Treasurer admitted the evidence the Government did have, that foreign money was distorting the urban residential markets was ``inconclusive''. He conceded that the Government relied heavily on ``anecdotal'' evidence. If we look at the transcript of that press conference we see that a couple of specific questions were put to the Treasurer about the evidence on which he had taken that decision, and I will bring a couple of those questions to the attention of the House. A journalist asked: Do you have any figures Mr Keating to show just what level of buying has been done by foreigners in residential real estate and what it's done to prices for the overall view? The Treasurer's answer was `No.' Another question was: What was the Government's assessment about the possibility of future capital inflow in these sort of residential areas . . .? The Treasurer's answer was as follows: Well we had not made such an assessment . . . The Treasurer was quite explicit. He had no evidence on which to base his assessment of the so-called impact of foreign investment on residential real estate in Australia. Clearly, if we speak to anyone in the real estate industry, in particular in Sydney, the basis to which the Treasurer referred on a number of occasions, we find that many people gave evidence that is contrary to the Treasurer's view. For example, Mr David Collier, the Director of Colliers International said: It is a very badly thought-out piece of legislation, prompted by recent scaremongering and irresponsible reporting in some sections of the media. I might also quote Neil Collins, the Managing Director of Richardson and Wrench, one of the largest real estate firms in the country. He said: . . . overseas investors have been buying only a very small percentage of the market and while there have been some spectacular purchases these investors were not major players in the market. I think it will make very little difference to the market. He went on to say: Out of the last hundred inquiries in our Double Bay office-one of the largest turnover residential offices in Australia-only three out of 100 were Asian buyers. I might similarly quote Tim Mansfield from Colliers who said: I am only aware of four Japanese who have bought in the eastern suburbs over the last four months and all were executives employed by Japanese companies operating in Australia. Finally, I refer to the statement made by Mr Robert Bevan, President of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, who was quite astounded by the move. Mr Bevan said: It is a decision taken for purely political reasons to support the fallacious argument that foreign investors in the $1m plus residential market are making it hard for first-home buyers in the $80,000 to $90,000 market. If there were any way the REI could be convinced that stopping foreigners from buying into the upper end residential market would stop the price spiral in the mid to lower end residential market we would applaud the Government's move. The fact is that the decision was taken without any evidence whatsoever. No work was done; no data was looked at. There is no hard evidence available. It was entirely a political decision based on short term political motivation and the concern, of course, was the impending fate of the Treasurer's mate in New South Wales, Barrie Unsworth. There is no doubt in my mind that the Treasurer's right wing faction in New South Wales lent all over him to do what he could to help Barrie. It was nothing more than a cosmetic gesture on his part and it was certainly not based on any significant analysis of the situation. Equally, we can look at some of the economic arguments that the Treasurer has advanced, either on that occasion or more recently, to defend his position. Perhaps his most famous economic argument is that foreign investment can only add to the housing stock through building housing and not the purchase of existing housing. Surely the purchase by foreigners of existing houses from Australians provides resources for those Australians to build houses if they want to do so. In the longer term the effect of the sort of ban that has been applied could very much reduce the stock of housing. The Treasurer also alludes to the fact that these foreign investors have been pushing up residential real estate prices in Sydney. The ban has been in effect since September 1987 and it is fascinating that prices in Sydney after that ban, the magic solution, actually went up 60 plus per cent in residential real estate across the city as against 30 per cent, for example, in Brisbane. What disturbs me most about the economic arguments we hear is that the Treasurer has the view, and it should not be forgotten that he is the one who consistently claims to be a great economic reformer and that he more than anyone else has deregulated the financial system and improved the efficiency of financial transactions and so on, that he can be selective about foreign investment in Australia. I put it to him that the the sort of economic beggars we are becoming in international markets as a result of the way he has run our economic policy really cannot choose where the investment comes from or in what form it comes. Once a country starts down the path of being selective it can end up being counterproductive. If a country wants to continue to run huge balance of payments deficits month after month and wants to live with an international debt level of $115 billion gross and $89 billion net, it must be prepared to lay itself pretty much at the mercy of international capital markets. If those international capital markets have taken a long, hard look at a country and downgraded its credit standing as well, it should not become too complacent about how difficult it might become. But not this Treasurer. He, for short term political reasons, has certainly started to try to be selective. From his point of view some investment is good and some investment is bad. He seems to have a funny concept of good imports and bad imports and good investments and bad investments. The fact is that he would not know if his backside was on fire when it comes to looking at the economy. The simple economic fact is that if we do not take the investment in the form of housing, foreigners will have to buy other assets, or we will have to finance our continuing balance of payments position by increasing our debt. The Treasurer, more than anyone else, is to blame for the current state of our balance of payments and he more than anyone else is also to blame for the substantial movement in the exchange rates that may have kindled a foreign interest in buying real estate in Australia. The Government's policy has produced the weak currency but the Treasurer will stand up and say, `Yes, but we have recovered our level against the United States dollar'. He should not be too enthusiastic about that because the Australian dollar is down about 40 per cent against the yen and the deutschmark and 30 per cent against sterling. It is this Treasurer more than anyone else who has provided that encouragement to foreigners to the extent that it is an encouragement, to buy assets in Australia by running the sorts of policies that have resulted in such a weakness of the Australian dollar against the yen, the mark and sterling, to cite three examples. It is the Treasurer more than anyone else who has built up our balance of payments deficit and he more than anyone else who has presided over the quadrupling of our international debt, and so he more than anyone else must live with the consequences of his economic mismanagement. The ban that is implicit in this Bill simply attacks the symptoms and has nothing to do with the causes. Over and above that there are some other disturbing features of this sort of behaviour. It is possible to start to frighten the horses. We rely very importantly on continued international confidence in Australia. It will not be too difficult with this sort of behaviour to start to frighten the international horses. International investors will at some stage become particularly wary of us, and the Treasurer should think about that. He was mucking around with our monetary targets in 1984 and abandoned them in early 1985, and the foreigners voted with their feet soon thereafter. Since then, on a number of occasions, he has frightened the horses and shaken their very confidence. I quote one leading property expert in Sydney, Jeremy Lewis from Schroders, in the aftermath of this decision: Foreigners, in general, will wonder if this signals a change in Government policy. This is the first major change in financial deregulation and may have implications for other financial markets. No other major western democracy has such draconian restrictions on the ownership of residential real estate by non-residents. He points immediately to the fact the foreigners can lose confidence in our currency and in our economic management very quickly. There are many others that I might cite that have a similar point of view. For example, Greg Hywood in the Australian Financial Review said: Labor must hope that Japanese institutions are not flighty, take the wrong signals and squeeze funds to Australia during a period when the external account is so badly out of adjustment. We know that on the very day that this decision was announced the Financial Review summarised the position in the headline, `$A dips on new property rule'. The first paragraph in an article by Stephen Hughes states: The Federal Government's move to curb foreign ownership of residential property yesterday sent foreign exchange markets reeling. The case rests. International perceptions and confidence in our currency and in our economy are very fragile and they are easily influenced by irresponsible behaviour by the Treasurer. This is not the first time that this Treasurer has frightened the horses. I mentioned the example of 1984-85, concerning monetary targets, and the House will also remember the time the Treasurer flip-flopped on the interest withholding tax in the middle of 1986. I was in a Tokyo dealing room at the time and saw the Australian dollar fall 4c before lunch as a result of that sort of stupidity. The Treasurer's flip-flop on negative gearing is famous. Foreigners can be forgiven for thinking that our Treasurer does not know what he is doing, and I think that is a pretty reasonable assessment. I want also to talk about the Treasurer's hypocrisy, and here I have much more evidence than I did on the other matter even though that evidence was not inconsequential. This Treasurer more than anyone else would stand in the international financial community as an unbounded hypocrite. To begin with, a couple of days after he announced this ban on residential real estate he left the country to go to New York to try to encourage investors to put their money into the country. That is the sort of hypocrisy one comes to expect from this man. One can imagine that he did not spend a lot of time drawing attention to that sort of decision on that trip to New York. He also left behind quite a lot of disarray in his Department. I have here a quote from the Times on Sunday and an article by Murray Hogarth: When Mr Keating departed for New York, he left mini-chaos behind him. The small staff remaining in the Treasury's FIRB section was besieged for days by a flood of telephone calls from Australia and offshore seeking explanation of the new policy. In one week Mr Keating had interfered with the free market forces he is renowned for espousing and presided over the further stripping of the body which he expects to administer the new ban. That is a classic comment on the hypocrisy that is identifiable with this Treasurer. Honourable members will remember that today, in Question Time there was an abortive attempt by the Treasurer to explain himself, following yet another dorothy dixer. He does not come in here to debate the issue. He got another dorothy dixer to try to put it on record that the Foreign Investment Review Board is being flooded with phone calls. Here is one good reason why it is being flooded with phone calls: nobody has a clue what this bloke is doing. There will be other reasons that I will draw attention to in a moment. The second piece of hypocrisy is in the Treasurer's second reading speech: Honourable members may think that at first sight it is incongruous that the Government is strengthening sections of the Foreign Takeovers Act, while at the same time liberalising other parts of it. This bloke shows an acute sensitivity; he always wears his heart on his sleeve. There is never any doubt what he is on about. Mr Smith —He hasn't got a heart. Dr HEWSON —That is right, he has not got a heart. He wears something on his sleeve. The word is not `incongruous'; it is a euphemism for hypocrisy again. Dr Theophanous —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have been sitting here listening to this tirade against the Treasurer-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —There is no point of order. Dr Theophanous —Yes, there is, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member has made a number of offensive personal comments against the Treasurer and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Dr HEWSON —The point I was making concerned the blatant hypocrisy of the Treasurer. He is also blatantly hypocritical in another part of his second reading speech where he says, in his words, that he will `provide a test for the Opposition parties'. He is a great one for providing tests. Honourable members will notice how many times he uses that analogy. I would have loved to have had this bloke in one of my economics classes and given him a few of those tests. But his test is to see whether we will go along with him and change our minds about what is the right thing to do about foreign investment in this country. He has made a mistake; he has changed his mind for short term political gains and he wants `to provide the opposition with an opportunity to clarify its position on these issues'. Our position has never changed; it is his position that has changed. It is blatant hypocrisy. The third level of hypocrisy in this debate associated with the Treasurer has to do with his frequent trips overseas marketing this country and encouraging foreign investment into this country. The trip that comes to mind most particularly is the one in the middle of last year when he went to Japan. In the course of his performance in Japan he made a number of speeches. I happen to have some key quotes from one speech, which I think makes the point, to the Australia-Japan Business Cooperation Committee. He makes this statement: We were in the vanguard of the world-wide move to sweep away inappropriate regulation in the financial sector. . . . . . . . . . Australia's financial system is now among the most competitive in the world, with considerable depth and sophistication. . . . . . . . . . This process of deregulation has also extended to our foreign investment policy, which has been extensively liberalised from the restrictive structure we inherited from our predecessors in 1983. We recognise that foreign investment is a positive force for progress, as it not only provides investment funds which otherwise would not be available, but also opens up the Australian economy to ideas and concepts from abroad. . . . . . . . . . I stress that our policy on foreign investment is non-discriminatory between countries and, consistent with our close trading relationship, we welcome long-term Japanese investment. The Government particularly welcomes the contribution that Japanese interests are making to the expansion of Australia's tourism industry . . . The point is that the Treasurer goes through the foreign investment policy in some detail and he forgets to mention that there is a ban on foreign investment in residential real estate. Indeed, in one quote in the Australian Financial Review associated with that conference he said: . . . we welcome wholeheartedly Japanese investment in our economy. He also said: We regard Japanese investment in Australia entirely favourable and no less so in real estate. He gives one story offshore-Jekyll and Hyde stuff-and a different story onshore. He gets people to come to Australia and invest. No wonder he is getting 400 or 500 phone calls a day in the foreign investment section because people cannot figure it out. People have heard him talk in Japan and they come out here and get a thorough dose of it. The key points I wanted to make over and above that are that this Treasurer got us into the fundamental mess we are in at present. This Treasurer more than anyone else is responsible for the sort of balance of payments deficit that we have. This Treasurer overheated the economy over the last couple of years and frittered away the benefits of a commodity price explosion. This Treasurer comes and parades himself in here and in the rest of the world as the great micro-reformer and his action does not match his rhetoric. Here is a decision in this Bill that is completely contrary to that reputation. The only way he will solve those problems is to go down the route that we have been advocating-very clear cut micro-economic reform. He has to deregulate and decentralise the labour market; he has to start tying wages to productivity; he has to embark on a privatisation path-an area that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) would know something about and lives in fear of for no good reason-he has to cut protection and reform industry policy; and he has to embark on a genuine process of taxation reform. There is a whole host of other things too, such as getting our wharves in shape, dealing with coastal shipping, getting on top of the transportation system and so on. Until this Treasurer starts to go anywhere near his rhetoric with his action we are destined to oblivion in international financial circles. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.25) —Initially I congratulate the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) for his contribution tonight. I think that what we have actually heard is not so much a contribution on foreign investment; essentially it is the first salvo in the next challenge for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia and he is trying to demonstrate some of those credentials which people in the Press Gallery are starting to suggest he has-not to mention some of his colleagues on the back bench; and I notice one or two of them in the chamber tonight. The Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill, which is before us tonight, is consistent with announcements made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) some time ago. All of the changes that have been announced are consistent with the general thrust of this Government's foreign investment policy. The Government seeks to balance two important interests. The first is the natural desire of the Australian community that local people should have a dominant influence in our economy-I do not think anybody in this chamber would disagree with that-and the second is that productive foreign investment is very much welcomed because of the significant benefit that it brings to Australia. From what the honourable member for Wentworth was saying, I understood he believes that, for example, in the residential market, simply by stopping foreign ownership of that resource will in no way effect the general outcome of Australia's economic well-being. Of course, the Government does not see that as being the case. I just wonder whether at the bottom of this concern that he has about levels of investment in Australia is a more deeply routed concern for the foreign debt question and how one comes to terms with that. Interestingly, this whole question about foreign debt is glossed over by members of the Opposition. It glibly runs off their tongues as if this total public debt has been accrued by government, in particular this Government. The honourable member for Wentworth well knows that 60 per cent of it is private debt and it has come from those people with whom he freely mixes who have borrowed from overseas and internal sources to finance takeover bids in those halcyon days we saw prior to the stock market crash and for which Australia is still paying the bill. He might seek to acquaint himself with what people from the National Party of Australia, particular those in Queensland, think about investment from foreigners, such as Asians, in their State. As I understand it, from the Premier right through the Cabinet, a great deal of concern has been expressed by the National Party in that State about the level of investment in real estate, whether it be commercial real estate or just residential real estate. We have already seen some examples of what happens where that gets out of hand, where public meetings are called and people express concerns about it and say, `We are being taken over by foreigners', and so on. Those people are average Australians. I ask the honourable member for Wentworth whether he is suggesting that, in order to eliminate the foreign debt in this country, we should start to sell off more of Australia to foreign investors. Is that really what is being suggested? I do not think so. I would certainly hope not. I just ask that, at some stage in the future in another contribution about his ambitions to the leadership, he might be able to make some comments on that. The honourable member referred to the question of tests being proposed to people on his side of the House by the Treasurer. I well remember one of those tests that he put to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) prior to the last election to cost and to show where all the promises that he had made to the Australian people would work and what effect that would have on Australia's deficit. From memory I think it has been shown that those costs would have increased our deficit by some $9 billion. To this day the test results still have not come in from the Leader of the Opposition. He has still not shown where he would make necessary changes to economic policy to enable his government-if the Opposition were ever to get there-to pay for those announcements that he made during the election campaign. He has surely failed the big test in that respect and there are many other examples that I could go to. The Bill, as I have indicated, is an attempt by the Government to draw together the natural desire of the Australian community that local people have a dominant influence in our economy and that productive foreign investment is very much welcome. The Government stands by that. In drawing this balance, our policy is at total odds with the free market approach being advanced by the Opposition parties, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). In a press release that he put out on 29 September 1987, following the Treasurer's announcement on this matter, he totally rejected the Government's position with respect to foreign investment policy on residential real estate, describing it as `a knee-jerk reaction adversely affecting long-term foreign investment in Australia'. Clearly, that has not happened. Foreign investment in this country is continuing to grow and is being carefully monitored by this Government. One has only to look at the level at which foreign investment is occurring within the mining industry, hotels, the tourist industry, and so on, to see what worthwhile benefits there are. If anything has the tendency to affect levels of foreign investment in this country, it is the divisive stance taken by some members of the Opposition in respect of the immigration debate. We have seen evidence time and time again, particularly from our Asian neighbours, who have rejected those kinds of comments and said, `We will continue to invest in Australia provided that that policy of bipartisanship and the general multicultural nature of immigration policies, is adhered to'. I do not have to remind the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) of some of the comments made recently by visiting foreign dignitaries about comments that his leader has made. The Bill is concerned with those issues of productive foreign investment that would come from continued interest by overseas countries. As I have indicated, there has been a concern for quite some time that houses were being purchased by foreigners who had no intention of taking up residence in this country, and, therefore, who had no real effect on the settlement pattern or the future economic well-being of this country. There has been some evidence, contrary to what has been said, that the price of Australian real estate was being driven up because of that fact. Distinct from most forms of foreign investment, the Government sees these purchases as providing little or no real benefit to Australia. Consequently, the Bill provides a legislative basis for the decision that the Treasurer announced in September last year to prevent such acquisitions. Under the guidelines that have applied since that announcement was made, and given legislative effect by this Bill, all foreign acquisitions of urban real estate are examinable, regardless of the size of the purchase. That is somewhat important, because the $600,000 limit has now been abolished. Purchases of developed commercial real estate are still approved, subject to flexible guidelines for 50 per cent Australian equity, with approvals for 100 per cent foreign ownership being guaranteed if Australian equity on reasonable terms and conditions is available. The amendments will provide a statutory power for the Treasurer of the day to examine foreign acquisitions of interests in urban land; to prohibit proposed foreign acquisitions of urban land that are adjudged contrary to the national interest; and to order the disposal of interest in urban land that is purchased by foreign persons without prior notification under the Act and which is determined to be contrary to the national interest. I do not think that any member of this House could object to those points in the rationale for this policy. Australia's national interest is something that requires protection, whether it be in real estate or in investment in industry generally, investment in Australia's resource base, or whatever. This whole issue of the effect that it has on real estate markets is something which cannot be underestimated. One has to look at what is happening in Australia's major cities at the present time in respect of real estate. Prices are being forced up to unrealistic levels. I can give one example within my own area in Wollongong. Some land has been serviced and made available. Originally, under the Unsworth Labor Government in New South Wales, the land, which was owned by the Housing Department of New South Wales, was to be developed to provide public housing, which was most needed. Unfortunately, however, the decision was taken by the incoming Greiner Government not to proceed with public housing; rather, to hand it over to the Land Commission to enable it to be sold simply as land with development taking place that was controlled by the State Government. What we have seen is land of that nature being sold for upwards of $80,000 a lot. In the Wollongong real estate market, that is quite considerable. The effect that that is having, contrary to what the Housing Department's Land Commission was supposed to do, is outrageous. I recognise that there are limitations on time in this debate. I believe that the legislation that the Government has introduced is worthy of support. It will certainly rectify an anomaly in the system that has existed for some time and has been of concern to the Government. I urge wholehearted support for it tonight. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.37) —This legislation really takes the cake. It demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of the Government in claiming credit for deregulatory and free trade policies. Whatever progress has been made in that direction over five years of Labor Government has been very limited indeed. The Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill is itself highly contradictory, proposing to free up some foreign investment guidelines, whilst harshly clamping down on others. The Bill shows no application of principle, no understanding of economics, and no scruples in appealing to the worst possible type of economic populism. Any commentator or business group which in the future thinks of congratulating the Government for its liberal attitude to the running of the economy should remember this Bill. It matters little that this rabid interventionism takes place in the context of great fiscal responsibility by the Commonwealth; the long run effects will be the same as they have been in the past. Remembering these recent events, those who congratulated the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for his fine economic achievements should hang their heads in shame. It is probably worth noting that the would-be Prime Minister, the present Treasurer, finds his greatest fans amongst the ranks of political commentators rather than economists and economic analysts. If anyone who has shown up his shortcomings, it is the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson). The second reading speech of the Treasurer when presenting this Bill is particularly illuminating. It makes it quite clear that the Treasurer does not really believe in any form of economic rationalism or any policy of non-intervention by government in private business affairs. The Treasurer portrays the economy not as a dynamic process resulting from the actions of millions of Australians every day, but as a mechanistic apparatus which can produce a different product, with technical alterations by the Government. Thus, he presents urban real estate as a separate part of foreign investment which can be isolated from all other economic influences. He criticises the Liberal Party in opposition for an excessive zeal for market forces to be unrestrained in this area. So much for the new, reformed Australian Labor Party which he so desperately wants to lead. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is one of the Labor members who will make sure that he never does. It is another sham public relations exercise designed to cover up the reality that those few Ministers who have a genuine desire to free up the Australian economy can no longer carry the day in Cabinet in Caucus or in the Labor Party. They can talk about free trade but they cannot do anything about it. This legislation, unfortunately, makes Ministers like the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) and his colleague the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) look absolutely stupid when they travel overseas to talk about removing barriers to international trade. The Government says to people from overseas, `We'll sell you our agricultural produce, minerals and manufactured goods. We love your investment in anything which we think you should invest in, but don't think of buying residential property. Don't think of buying homes'. That position does not make sense. It gives potential investors no confidence that the Government might not in the future make even more knee-jerk reactions to restrict foreign investment in other areas. If it did, I have no doubt that we would still hear the same emphatic rhetoric from the Treasurer and the honourable member for Calwell that they have used in the past and that the Treasurer has used in proposing this Bill to plead that the restrictions deal with a special case. From experience, it is obvious that the so-called special cases are just the beginning of much worse to come, if accepting the special pleadings of some, means abandoning an important principle such as that which we are debating tonight. The Treasurer suggests that this legislation is an attempt to balance the acknowledged benefits from foreign investment against the vague notion that people want Australians to have the dominant influence in the Australian economy. The purchase of houses by a few foreign nationals will hardly challenge the pre-eminent role of Australians in the Australian economy. If the Treasurer is so preoccupied with foreign investment in Australia, what on earth does he mean when he refers to `the crucial requirement that we internationalise the Australian economy'? What will this measure contribute to the internationalising of the Australian economy? If nothing else, the balance of payments problems which the Treasurer simply has not been able to do anything to redress, necessitates a high level of domestic debt or foreign investment. There is no other choice. There is nothing in what he is doing or in what anyone on the other side of the House espouses. If people investing in Australia are consistently investing in real estate that is an interesting commentary on what people think of the desirability of investment in Australian industry. That is the judgment of the marketplace. The honourable member for Calwell can wobble his beard all he likes but that is the commentary, that is the judgment being placed on the Government. In the long run, returns on investment in real estate are steady but they are not spectacular. However, with Australia's high levels of taxation and regulation and its sclerotic labour market, investment in productive enterprises is simply not seen as being competitive with other investments. That is a product of the economic management of this Government and its Treasurer, the would-be Prime Minister. We cannot isolate people's desires to invest in housing from wider issues of investment and general economic policy. The so-called level playing field, which is part of the jargon the Treasurer loves to use, and which he refers to so often, demonstrates his misguided administration of the tax system and how his outmoded thinking is to be thrown out the window with respect to foreign investment. The economic arguments against the parts of this legislation which tighten foreign investment guidelines are clear. They are the same arguments which the Treasurer has used on other issues but obviously has ignored or not understood. The most important objection to this Bill is that it infringes on the rights of Australians to trade. It will no longer be possible for Australian citizens to sell their property to the highest bidder if that bidder happens to be a foreign citizen. It is not just foreign citizens to whom this Government will dictate but to many Australians as well. Many Australians will be denied the best price available to them for their property. If any single measure of this Labor Government marks the point where it lost its nerve, it is this Bill. It is a classic measure of the old school protectionist Labor Party, which the honourable member for Calwell represents, with its fear of markets, its fear of business and its paranoia about foreign corporations. The honourable member for Calwell was there boots and all when the Government was going crook about General Motors-Holden (GMH) reaping profits and taking them out of the country through United States shareholders. We hear not a word from him these days because GMH is not doing too well. It is not taking any profits out. The honourable member does not come along and say, `Perhaps we should dip in and help GMH'. That would be the natural corollary of the cases he once advocated and I think still does. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) have argued that domestic demand is too strong, using housing demand as one of their primary excuses for an overheating in the economy. Surely this strong domestic demand, which the Government is using very high interest rates to stop, is the explanation for the cost of urban residential real estate. The recent economic policies of the Government demonstrate that it does not really believe that foreign investment is the cause of high housing demand in Sydney or in any other market. The only explanation for the new restrictions in this Bill is that the Labor Party is appealing to the xenophobia of some, for blatant electoral reasons. This policy was first announced just in time for the New South Wales election. Yet again, the Labor Party under the guidance of the would-be Prime Minister the present Treasurer, has demonstrated that it is willing to sacrifice the economic future of the country to further its narrow political ends. The ALP clutches at the power, which is slowly but surely slipping from it, even if it means ignoring economic reality and the liberty of Australians to trade with whomever they want. If people really object to the foreign ownership of Australian real estate they have the option of doing something about it themselves. They can refuse to sell their own land to people from overseas and can voluntarily purchase local land from those who will sell it to the highest bidder. Finally, it is likely that the boom in housing prices in Sydney will end in the near future, but that will not be because of the measures contained in this Bill. It will have a lot more to do with the exorbitantly high interest rates which the economic irresponsibility of the present Treasurer has engineered. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.47) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Peter McGauran —Please, not the same speech. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member should be quiet. He was not even here for the debate. I want to address my remarks to the comments made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson) in his first attempt to show us that he knows something about economics. The honourable member for Wentworth's dream run in pretending to know about economics is over because his ridiculous New Right economic philosophy will be exposed for what it is: a fraud and a sham. He abused the Treasurer (Mr Keating). He used the term `hypocrisy'. This goes to show how much intellectual substance there was in his comments. He used the term `hypocrisy' about 20 times when trying to describe the Treasurer's position. If he had not been so repetitive he might have been able to tell us something about the substance of the issues before the House. There is one central and crucial question at stake. The Opposition is very clearly in favour of selling off Australian land and real estate to foreigners, no matter to what degree or to what extent. That is the point Australians need to recognise. The Opposition is not interested in the national interests of this country in relation to the sale of land, real estate and property. We have heard some very strange and fallacious arguments in the debate on the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill. First of all we were told that we were trying to prevent people investing in Australia. What rubbish! People can invest in a myriad of companies and corporations and in a myriad of areas of the economy. We are saying that land and residential properties have a particular place in the sovereignty of any nation and, therefore, we should protect them. That is all we are saying. If foreigners want to invest in Australia they can invest in Australian manufacturing industry, services, tourism, agriculture and a whole variety of areas. The Opposition is saying that there is no problem with that; however, the foreigners all need to invest in real estate. They need to buy houses and property which should be owned by Australian citizens. Opposition members have the gall to come in here and present a whole set of rhetorical arguments, but the basic point is this: notwithstanding all the intellectual jargon of the honourable member for Wentworth, he is not prepared to stand up for his country and defend the basic right of property. That is fundamental to this issue. I warn the honourable member for Wentworth that the old Liberal Party of Australia is finished. The Liberal Party that once had some sense of decency and some belief in the sovereignty of this nation is finished. What we have now is a group of incompetents who, in trying to win power, are prepared to put out a policy to sell this nation down the drain. That is what we are debating in this Bill. Then we heard the Opposition making accusations against the Treasurer for taking an honourable stand to protect this country. We know what has been happening. Instead of investment coming into the areas of production, manufacturing industry and services, what have we had? We have had foreigners coming in and going for that important area of residential property. Opposition members collectively should be ashamed of themselves. Instead of supporting our putting a limit on this investment-and I point out that it is not a blanket limit-they are saying that the Government has no right to limit this matter in any way, not even when foreigners come here and buy huge chunks of residential property for their own purposes. This means that they will make Australians tenants and they will be the landlords. But that does not matter to honourable members opposite. It does not matter if those investors are not prepared to invest in a single factory or new service for this country. No, they only care about the fact that people are prepared to invest in land and residential property. What a nonsense! After defending such a shameful position, they have the gall to come in here and accuse the Treasurer of hypocrisy. If ever there has been a group of hypocrites, it is honourable members opposite. Also I must tell the honourable member for Wentworth that if this is the best performance that he can put on in this House, if all he can do is simply abuse the Treasurer personally, in the way that he has done, he has a long way to go before he can claim the mantle of any kind of leader for the Opposition. This Bill is a moderate measure. Its aim is clear. The Treasurer will have the right to examine-and that is all; not to reject-these proposed acquisitions and to determine whether they are in the national interest. That is the crucial issue. The Treasurer will simply have the right to examine the acquisitions. There is no automatic rejection. If there is a special case to be put forward, it can be put forward. There may be a case where a foreigner wishes to purchase residential property or land because he wants to go into production or open a factory or start a manufacturing industry. He may wish to help create jobs in this country. If that is so, he can put up that case. We are saying that there should be no automatic right for the purchase of property and the selling out of this country. That is all. I stress that we are talking about foreigners; we are not talking about people who want to come and live in this country. We are not talking about immigrants; we are talking about foreigners. If people want to come and live in Australia they will have all those rights. The honourable member for Wentworth accused the Treasurer of hypocrisy in relation to people investing in Australia. If any damage has been done to investment in this country, it has been done by Opposition members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), undermining the business migration scheme. He has undermined business migrants coming to Australia and bringing their money to invest as Australian residents and citizens. He has undermined several hundred million dollars of investment with his comments about the racial basis for immigration. His comments have done us much more damage than any proposed limitation on the purchase of property. Let us make that perfectly clear. The Opposition has been responsible for the withdrawal of potential investment in Australia, both by foreigners and by people who want to come and live here, because of what it has done to the overseas perception of Australia-fallacious perception-as a racist country. As the chairman of the Caucus immigration committee, I have had a number of submissions put to me about the disgraceful behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition. Members of different Asian groups in Australia have spoken to me about this matter and the damage which has been done to Australia in Asia. The honourable member for Wentworth talked about the Treasurer's visit to Asia-particularly Japan. He said that the Treasurer was hypocritical because he only told the Japanese that they could invest in everything else; he did not tell them that they could not invest in residential property. If there is anything hypocritical it is the Opposition's position in relation to the immigration issue which has undermined our relations with Asia, particularly in relation to investment by people from Japan. These are the facts of the matter. In his comments the honourable member for Wentworth made it clear that he and the Opposition generally stand for the selling out of this country by the giving up of our sovereign right of land and residential property, which is important to any nation. We totally reject that attitude and I think it is shameful that the first major speech we have had from the honourable member for Wentworth on these matters should be one that defends selling out our national sovereignty. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.59) —I think that everyone would agree that we have heard a most extraordinary speech from the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who raved and ranted on the issue of foreign investment without understanding the way in which this Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill contradicts itself. On the one hand it is legislation which encourages foreign investment in so many different fields, yet on the other in one clause it discourages that investment. This legislation is aimed at Japanese and Hong Kong based investors in the Sydney property market. It tries to blame those people for increases in Sydney property prices. That is being racist. It is saying that we blame the Japanese and Hong Kong Chinese for the massive increase in prices in the Sydney property market. The Government is playing on the sentiments of Sydney people; it is playing on the racist sentiments of a minority of people in that city, building them up and trying to capitalise on them in order to win votes. Everybody knows that this part of the legislation in relation to property is irrational. Everybody knows it is completely inconsistent with Government policy. That is clear to anybody. It is simply a political ploy first designed to win a few votes for poor old Barry Unsworth, and he will not be getting any votes any more. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is understood that the Opposition wishes to incorporate in Hansard those of its amendments which have been circulated but which were not moved at the expiration of time. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. The amendments read as follows- (1) Clause 5, pages 2 and 3, omit paragraph (j). (2) Clause 16-Opposition to oppose. (3) Clause 17-Opposition to oppose. (4) Clause 18-Opposition to oppose. (5) Clause 19-Opposition to oppose. (6) Clause 20, page 13, line 31, omit ``, 21 (2) or 21a (2)'', substitute ``or 21 (2)''. (7) Clause 20, page 14, line 17, omit ``, 21 (3) or 21a (4)'', substitute ``or 21 (3)''. (8) Clause 20, page 15, line 38, omit paragraph (d). (9) Clause 22-Opposition to oppose. (10) Clause 23-Opposition to oppose. (11) Clause 25-Opposition to oppose. (12) Clause 27-Opposition to oppose. (13) Clause 32, page 20, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Application ``32. The amendments made by this Act do not apply in relation to acquisitions of any thing occurring before the commencement of this Act.''. Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Humphreys: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.02) —Here we are at 11.00 o'clock at night on the third consecutive day of very lengthy sittings, about to consider an extraordinary piece of legislation, the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill, otherwise known in parts of Australia as the Westpac-ing Bill. Let me point out to the House just how extraordinary this Bill is. It contains some draftsmanship the like of which has never been seen in this Parliament since Federation. I refer, of course, to the fact that there are clauses in this Bill that say that if the Parliament dares to amend the Bill in any way, shape or form, within two days that amendment will be sent to Westpac Banking Corporation and it will decide whether it will accept, reject or otherwise deal with that amendment. We have reached the stage where the ability of the Parliament of this nation to amend legislation in a proper way is being severely restricted by the draftsmanship of this Bill. I sound a note of warning to the Government that it can expect a rough passage in the debate on this Bill, restricted as it is, both in this House and the Senate, because of the draftsmanship associated with it. I also point out to the House that Parliament has been pre-empted in another way in respect of the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill. We are resuming the debate on the Bill just one week after the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) introduced it in the dead of night on Thursday of last week at 10 p.m. But what has been going on in the meantime? I will tell honourable members what has been going on. The Government has said, `Do not wait for Parliament. Do not wait for the House of Representatives debate or the Senate debate. Let's have some letters sent out to thousands of defence service home loan holders, under the official nomenclature of the Defence Service Homes Corporation, even before the Bill has been passed through the Parliament, saying, ``Just be advised that Westpac is taking over this scheme. A letter is enclosed from Westpac with some of the arrangements associated with this matter''.' The Government has totally pre-empted the will of Parliament in an arrogant and out of touch manner. I add, to be fair, that contained in these letters are the phrases `pending legislation', `pending passage of enabling legislation' and so forth. We should leave that to one side because that by no means covers the circumstance where the Government has set an impossible timetable for the implementation of the defence service home loans scheme under the Westpac arrangements-the new scheme provided for by this legislation and operated by the Westpac Banking Corporation. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Honourable members have had hundreds of calls and letters expressing concern over the Government's letters, which are circulating far and wide, even before Parliament has passed this Bill. I warn the Government that its legislative package on this matter is trailblazing in more ways than one, and not in ways that are conducive to the strengthening of parliamentary democracy in this country. I condemn the Government for the structure of the legislation and its draftsmanship, which almost holds a gun at the heads of members and senators as to whether or not they can amend this Bill. It could have been done another way. The structure and draftsmanship of the legislation could have been done in such a way that we were not subjected to a gun at the head approach. I realise that an agreement had to be reached with Westpac. I realise that Westpac is entitled to have some protection with regard to the passage of this legislation. But it should not have been to such an extent that the ability of Parliament to amend the legislation is effectively traduced. I register a strong complaint about that dimension. The Westpac-ing of the defence service home loan scheme is a classic case of the Government, in another sense, stealing the coalition's policy. The Government is in fact privatising a significant government activity. The defence service home loan scheme started earlier this century. It has had very little upgrading since but it has provided a vital leg of assistance to veterans of World War I, World War II, Korea, Malaya and Vietnam, along with peacetime service personnel who enlisted between 1972 and 1985 who are eligible for the $25,000 home loan. The new scheme will eliminate the 10-month delay, which has been causing enormous difficulties for many service personnel, whether they be at Sale in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) or in the Albury-Wodonga military area or elsewhere. I recognise that there are advantages conferred by this Bill. Improvements to the operation of the scheme are conferred by the negotiated arrangements. I give credit and recognition where it is due. However, let me say that on the fundamental point of a $25,000 loan at a blended rate of 6.85 per cent, in many ways the House is considering the defence service caravan loan scheme rather than the defence service home loan scheme. The reason for that is clear enough. The coalition Government in 1980 increased to $25,000 the fundamental loan associated with this scheme at the concessional interest rate. There has been no increase in the eight years since. What has happened in, for example, Sydney since that time is that we have had an 84 per cent increase in the median price of established dwellings. In Melbourne there has been a 131 per cent increase and in Adelaide a 104 per cent increase. What has happened to the defence service home loan basic amount? It has remained at exactly $25,000, and under this incredible legislation it will continue at $25,000. So in many ways legislation ought to be renamed the defence service caravan loan scheme. It is barely giving service personnel a start along the path to owning their own homes, the vital objective of the scheme. I say to the House and indeed to the nation that it behoves the Government to address this matter as quickly as it can. Whilst there are improvements conferred by the Westpac-ing of the defence service home loan scheme, the legislation is so constructed that the $25,000 amount remains the same and the 6.85 per cent concessional interest rate up to that $25,000 also remains the same. So there is no betterment factor associated with those aspects of the legislation. In respect of that aspect of the legislation, there is provision for those who need to borrow more than $25,000. That is almost everybody, unless the person lives in Pooncarie in my electorate at Rufus River or some other remote place. Most people will need to borrow more than $25,000. One of the additional advantages of these new arrangements is that there is a one-stop shop, one set of administrative charges, for those who want to get their additional borrowings also from Westpac. If they want to go to the ANZ Bank, to the National Australia Bank Ltd or to any of the building societies to borrow the amount they need over and above the $25,000, they are free to do so. They are not bound to borrow their entire housing loan from Westpac. That is important. It is the decision of the eligible person, once he gets his certificate under the provisions of this Bill, as to which financial institution to borrow from. Clearly, there will be many advantages in staying with Westpac for the full package and getting the benefit of the one-stop shop, the one set of administrative charges. But equally, the Bill is in the interests of people-some of whom have written to me in the last four days-who resent the fact that they are being forced into some arrangement with Westpac. They will now be able to go elsewhere for the topping up benefit associated with the loan. The House is being invited to consider the special agreement which has been reached between the Government and Westpac Banking Corporation and which is embedded in schedule 1 of the Bill. I want to focus on some aspects of the legislation flowing from schedule 1. I want to do two things, firstly, to deal with the provisions relating to amendments and then to move on to the new enlistee situation and highlight to the House the coalition's amendment relating to the sunset provision in clause 5 of the Bill. The provisions are so incredible that they are worth reading into Hansard. Clause 6.1 of schedule 1, `Amending Act being passed by Parliament', states: This Agreement is binding on the parties . . . The clause goes on to say that the Bill has to be passed in the form of the draft bill initialled on behalf of the parties involved. Clause 6.2 of schedule 1 states: In the event that the Amending Act passed by Parliament should contain any amendments from the Draft Bill referred to in Sub-clause 6.1- that is, of the Defence Services Homes Amendment Bill- the Commonwealth shall within two (2) days of the passage of the Amending Act give notice to the Bank of the amendments together with such information relating to those amendments as it wishes to provide. Clause 6.3 of schedule 1 states that if, in the opinion of the Bank, such amendments do any of the things in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) and are unacceptable to the Bank-forget about the Parliament; it is whether the amendments are unacceptable to the Bank-`the bank shall notify the Commonwealth of such opinion . . .'. The Bank will then have a complete let-out under the agreement of the Bill. This incredible legislative draftsmanship is further sabotaging the role of the Parliament. The role of the Parliament is being sabotaged by those who would have us address this legislation at 11.00 p.m. at the end of a long sitting week. It is in that context that the Opposition has responsibly examined a series of amendments to this legislation. The Government also examined a series of drafting amendments, but it was able to exercise the provisions of the Standing Orders and the Minister's pen to bring about proper changes to the first reading draft print copy Bill so that it did not have to face the difficulty- Mr McGauran —Embarrassment. Mr TIM FISCHER —So that it did not have to face the embarrassment of going into committee to move its own amendments and then face the worry of the trigger mechanism it inserted in its own Bill to give Westpac the way out. This legislation is extraordinary for all those reasons. I now turn to clause 5 of the Bill. What does clause 5 say? It says: Regular Serviceman 5. Section 4aaa of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of subsection (1) after paragraph (1)(c) `but does not include a person whose first service in the Defence Force began after 14 May 1985.' This provision excludes hundreds of young sailors, soldiers and airmen from any eligibility under the defence service home loans scheme. Mr Nehl —Why? Mr TIM FISCHER —It is a specific exclusion, and the result of a Government decision. It was a Government decision to exclude them from the negotiations with Westpac and under schedule 1 of the Bill. That little measure, that little dimension of the Bill, is of vital importance to many young service personnel who are reaching the age when they are starting to think about housing, are marrying and are qualifying under the six years consecutive service provision. They now find that if they joined the Army, the Navy or the Air Force after 14 May 1985 they are second class citizens. What could be more destructive of the morale of those in our Army, Navy and Air Force, more divisive, than to have one set of eligibility criteria for one lot of service personnel and a second set of eligibility criteria-a harsher criteria-for those who joined the Services after 1985, the so-called new enlistees? The new enlistees will be second class citizens. Embedded in the legislation is clause 5, which specifically maintains that exclusion. Let me now take honourable members to a document tabled 12 hours ahead of this legislation arriving in the Parliament. I refer to the famous Cross report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled Personnel Wastage in the Australian Defence Force. Recommendation No. 33 is clear-cut. It is a very significant recommendation. I would have thought that for once the Government would have thought ahead and anticipated what the Cross report would have to say, coming up with a sensible recommendation to overcome the housing crisis. What happened? The Government forgot about the Cross report. It has so delayed this legislation that it faces the embarrassing situation that we are debating the legislation on the same day the Cross report is brought before the House-its recommendation No. 33 unanimously recommending that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) approve eligibility for defence service home loans for post-May 1985 enlistees. The Cross report says, `Put these new enlistees, these young soldiers, sailors and airmen, into the coverage of defence service home loans, and then, 12 hours later, the Bill comes along, excluding those same new enlistees. It is an absolute contradiction. How the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross), the Chairman of the Committee, the other members of the Committee and the members of the sub-committee on defence-the Labor party members including Senator Maguire and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay)-can vote for this legislation, which cuts right across the Committee's key recommendation No. 33, I do not know. I think we have caught the Government red-handed. We have certainly caught the Government failing to anticipate the inevitable recommendations of the Cross report. I say to both the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel that they have an obligation to get on with the job of adopting recommendation No. 33 of the Cross report and seeing that this legislation is satisfactorily altered. The agreement with Westpac should be altered to pick up the new enlistees-and not until 1991. It should be announced well ahead so that the morale of service personnel will not be affected and so that they can plan ahead for eligibility for housing under the defence service home loans scheme. It is with that in mind that I advise the House that should I be permitted to do so-this is how parliamentary democracy sausage machine legislation processes work; I may not be permitted to do so because of the guillotine-I will seek to move an amendment in the committee stage, copies of which I have furnished to the Government and to the table. The amendment would read as follows: Clause 5, page 4, at the end of the clause add the following subclauses: ``(2) On and after 15 May 1991, the words added to section 4aaa of the Principal Act by subsection (1) are omitted from that subsection and, subject to subsection (3), the Principal Act has effect as if subsection (1) had not been enacted. ``(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), the Secretary shall not issue a certificate of entitlement in relation to an advance to a person whose first service in the Defence Force began after 14 May 1985, and no such person may exercise any right under that subsection, unless and until a new or amended arrangement, concerning these persons, is negotiated and endorsed by the enactment of legislation.''. Let me explain to the House that what that clause seeks to do is apply a scapel sunset to clause 5 on new enlistees. All it sets out to do is say to the Government that the Government has said it is going to fix up the new enlistees and their housing. I recognise the statements made by Ministers in recent days on that matter. But we are not going to leave it to their Ministerial statements-not yet made in this House, I might add. Perhaps there might be an opportunity in this debate to do that here, or in another place. All we are saying is that if that matter is not fixed up by the time these new enlistees become eligible on or after 15 May 1991, then in fact the mechanism is there to trip them back into consideration for the defence services home loan scheme. However, we are even saying there that we are not going to force the hand of the Government or load it onto the existing arrangements without further negotiations with Westpac Banking Corporation because, of course, there would be additional entitlements and additional payments afforded by the increased clientele being made available to Westpac and also the need to adjust in the light of further developments consequent upon the passage of this legislation. So I put it to the House that this scapel sunset clause is a very responsible approach to take in terms of this legislation. It has not been easy to draft, I freely concede, and the reason it has not been easy to draft is that the right of this Parliament to amend this legislation has been reduced by the incredible agreement and phrasing of schedule 1 in the Bill, which says, `Don't you dare amend this Bill or it has to go straight back to Westpac and it will give Westpac the right to cancel out'. It is a very sad day that we have reached the stage of considering legislation on the basis of that structure. But I commend this scapel sunset clause to the House. I hope to have the chance to move it in Committee. I believe that as it is now worded the two sections of the amendment must be taken together; that there is no cross-referencing to phrases elsewhere in the Bill which might misinterpret the objective of the amendment. I state again, the clearcut objective is to be absolutely neutral to the schedule 1 agreement and the current agreement which has been reached between the Government and Westpac, but to provide that if the Government has not addressed the situation of the new enlistees effectively by 15 May 1991, then there is a basis to make progress towards putting those new enlistees back into the existing type of defence services home loan scheme. That is what the Returned Services League in the House Magazine of this week, Wednesday, 23 November, has in fact called for in its column, and I quote: The current Bill-that is, the Defence Services Homes Amendment Bill should be amended to bring in post-May 1985 enlistees with a realistic level for interest subsidy. Black and white! That is what we seek to do by this sensible, responsible, scalpel sunset clause which has been extraordinarily difficult to draft because of the overall structure of the Bill. I conclude by saying that, yes, there are improvements conferred by this new scheme to be operated under the Westpac Banking Corporation. Yes, the coalition fully supports privatisation. It is a step in the right direction. It has taken the Government three years and six months to get to this stage, because this matter was originally announced on 14 May 1985 in that famous mini-Budget by Treasurer Keating. Finally we get there, and suddenly, right on the death knock of this Budget session, in an incredibly tight timetable, we get this extraordinary Bill with all its limitations, with its incredible contents, and with its incredible restrictions on the right of Parliament to amend. I reiterate to the House that whilst the Opposition supports the Bill overall, it quite responsibly advances its scalpel sunset clause to clause 5 to protect the rights and the morale of the new enlistees who do not deserve to be treated as second-class citizens in our armed forces today and who even the Government ought to recognise it needs to treat as first-class citizens to lessen their resignation and wastage rates and to ensure a boost in morale to our armed forces who so desperately need it. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(11.26) —I, of course, reject the amendment and support the Bill. I really wonder whether the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), as an ex-Army officer, does not somehow prefer that nice cocoon of regulations, rigidity, procedures and delays and all of those sorts of things to the choice which this Bill offers to service men and women. The choice to take out loans. The choice to build up on top of their subsidised loan, from either Westpac or another bank, a decent mortgage arrangement; the choice to change that loan from one house to another. That is what the service men and women have been telling the Government: `We want the choice. We do not like the delays. We would like to top up the current arrangements for loans, and we would like the freedom to transfer those loans between different houses'. After all, service men and women do have, from time to time, to shift their residences-that is one of the difficulties of being in the services-and here the Government is able to provide that. So despite the cry that the Opposition makes that somehow it applauds the movement to privatisation, I suspect it would be more comfortable without it. The notion of privatisation, of course, is misleading in this case. The Government has been able to arrange that the home loans portfolios are indeed picked up by Westpac, at some considerable cost initially to Westpac, and at some considerable saving to the Government and therefore to the taxpayers. What we are able to hold in the hands of the Government are the essentials: the subsidies to the interest rate, so the interest rate never varies to the serviceman, to the person who takes out the loan. All of the insurance arrangements never vary. The security is held in the hands of service men and women. That is the key; that is what they want-flexibility, cheapness, and security, and that we have been able to offer. So it is a marvellous arrangement. So we slip into the second criticism that the shadow Minister makes of the Bill. He does lend himself to some exaggeration when he talks about there being the poorest draftsmanship since Federation. The fact is that the Government has had to make a contract-if we can call it that-with Westpac, and obviously Westpac maintains the right or an expectation that the terms of the contract will be adhered to by the Government. That is most important to a commercial operation-Westpac. After all, Westpac put up $1.38 billion for the loans portfolio and another $100m for the premium. So it is not an exceptional case that Westpac should say, `Look, if for some reason this Bill is changed on its way through the House'-that is, with all of the elements attached to this House, its will imposed on the Bill, its ability to change it, to amend it-`should the Bill be amended, then Westpac maintains the right to renegotiate the situation'. Obviously it cannot write a contract, have the Parliament change the terms of the agreement, and then be locked in. Maybe it blows its money. That would be unfair to Westpac and ultimately, of course, unfair to service men and women who desire this new flexible arrangement. I cannot accept that we are talking about poor draftsmanship; we are clearly not. What we are talking about is a delicate situation where a government has had negotiations with the private sector-with a bank-and we have been able to say to the bank, `You handle the loans portfolio. You do what you do best'. We can remove from the Government the weight of the raising of loans and the interest that has to be paid. We can remove from the Government the whole business of administering loans. But we cannot remove from the Government the responsibility of holding those loans and interest rates at a fixed level, to hold prime conditions for service men and women such as the marvellous insurance provision. That remains the Government's responsibility. I must say that this Bill issues in, to my mind, a new era of negotiation between the private and public sectors whereby it is possible to achieve full public sector control over essential elements of a service to one section of the community while allowing the private sector to do those things that it does well so that overall the package is the cheapest possible for that section of the community and also for the taxpayer. I commend the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Government for that negotiation and for their ability to put together the best of both possible worlds. As for the accusation that we are stealing Opposition policies, first, it is simply not true that we are talking about privatisation; we are talking about the merging of public and private sector interests in the interests of the constituent. For some years we have given notice to the Opposition that we are looking for more flexible arrangements for home loans. That is the key, and we have been able to deliver. The point is that, although the negotiations have taken some time, they are now coming to fruition and we have achieved what the service men and women have asked us to achieve. Again, the Opposition decries the fact that there is a limit of $25,000 on a loan. Of course, we understand that house prices have been increasing all too quickly in the past couple of years, but it seems to me that the key element of the loan is that the interest rate-the cost of the money that we can make available-is pegged at 6.8 per cent. Therefore, while the cost of homes has been increasing, the cost of borrowing money in order to purchase those homes has also been increasing on the open market. But the cost will not rise for defence personnel; it will be pegged at 6.8 per cent. I might say that that figure looks very healthy in the current climate of interest rates that are rather too high. We all understand that high interest rates will prevail for some little time, but that will not worry the defence personnel. Mr Tim Fischer —How long? Mr JOHNS —I am sorry, I cannot predict. No-one can do that. But it will not worry defence personnel, because they will be saved and protected under this Bill, I might say for all time. The cost of the package is protected for defence personnel. In addition, they can negotiate add-ons. They can negotiate with Westpac or some other bank a top-up loan at reasonable interest rates. I do not believe we will see the situation that exists at present in which defence personnel obtain a defence home service loan and then have to apply for expensive bridging loans. They can do all their business at the one place, probably, but not necessarily, with Westpac. They can obtain an overall cheaper deal. The issue of the influx of post-1985 people applying for home service loans has been handled poorly by the Opposition. I guess the aim of members opposite, while acknowledging that they have been outgunned by this Bill, has been to say, `All right, the new people will get nothing. There has been a trade-off. Somehow the Government has traded off the ability to provide a magnificent arrangement for those who are already in a scheme but has knocked out future applicants.' That is not so. What the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) have been saying is that we are already working on negotiations and arrangements for the post-1985 group. But we do not necessarily want to lock ourselves into an arrangement with Westpac, for instance; we do not necessarily want to lock ourselves into a loan arrangement. Other choices may be available, so why should we not keep our options open? Why not ensure the ability to find even better ways of providing this excellent service for service men and women? In the past couple of days, today in particular, I have received a number of calls from people in my electorate, especially from the suburb of Albany Creek, an up and coming suburb that is fairly close to Enoggera Army camp. The presence of that camp means that many Army personnel are settling in Albany Creek and those people are concerned about some of the statements made by the Opposition. They are also concerned about the change in the procedures, wondering whether they can maintain the current interest rate. They are wondering also whether they can maintain the most important elements of the service, such as insurance and so on, under the new arrangements. I can tell those people that, most definitely, all is well. They will maintain their current monthly repayment, and that is what concerns them most, I suspect, in the whole fog of changes through which they will have to work. The clearest statement is that their monthly repayments will remain the same; there will be no change to the amount of money they have to spend to cover their mortgage month after month. They can plan ahead knowing that those mortgage payments will be held. I believe that is a significant victory. The Government has arranged for a new flexible operation of the mortgage scheme but has held the cost for defence personnel. One of the problems with the amendment moved by the honourable member for Farrer is that if it were passed-and thank goodness that will not occur-it could negate all the current generous arrangements which, for instance, provided for interest rates of about 6.8 per cent. If the new arrangement did not come into operation, we would lose the whole deal. That amendment would tie the Government's hands in looking for new and perhaps even better arrangements. Westpac- Mr Tim Fischer —To keep you honest. Mr JOHNS —We are honest. There is no problem there. We have done the right thing. Westpac has paid out $100m in premiums and $1.38 billion for the loans portfolio. That was a healthy decision not only for the Government but also for defence service personnel. Why should we leave Westpac, in a sense, unattended for all time? We might like to allow Westpac to face competition in relation to the post-1985 group. Therefore, we are still keeping in hand the fact that there may be future, better, more flexible and more acceptable arrangements, although I doubt whether we will achieve much better than this. It is a tremendous scheme, but we will not lock ourselves into an existing position. In any case, Westpac may not wish us to do that. This leaves open the post-1991 period, two years hence, when new people will be coming through. We may be able to make even better arrangements. Let me sum up. The key elements of the Bill are those elements that service people required and asked of the Government. They did not like the 10-month waiting period. It is difficult to plan to buy a home knowing that there will be a significant wait before the mortgage is approved, and we all understand that. No-one likes sitting and waiting for the money to come through when house prices are rising. We have been able to solve that problem; the waiting period has been slashed. There will be access to a limit of more than $25,000. People will receive a subsidised amount up to $25,000 but they will be able to build in, probably with Westpac but perhaps with some other financial institution, new moneys on top of that subsidised loan without the excessive expense of bridging finance, as has been the case. Thirdly, all the terms and conditions that currently apply to these loans will be preserved. That must be understood by the people of Albany Creek and all the defence service people in this scheme. All the rights, terms and conditions will be preserved. Of course, most important and most imminent is that the next monthly repayment will be held to exactly the same amount. We are not charging any more. There is no greater call on their limited incomes. They can plan ahead, knowing that the monthly repayment will be held down. One of the key factors in the loan arrangements is that the new loans will be portable, and we are talking about a group which does tend to move home. They are shipped from State to State. Sometimes they might maintain a home in a State of origin but there will come a time when these families want to change home, either to shift interstate or simply to upgrade as many of us hope to do during the course of our lifetime. Those are the five essential elements that this Bill seeks to introduce. I think we have done it well and I think all honourable members should congratulate the Ministers at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel for their excellent job. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(11.42) —The Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1988 has been about to be introduced for over three years. It was in May 1985 that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) told us that it was the Government's intention to arrange for private institutions to provide defence service housing loans for defence personnel. It was at that time also that the Treasurer said that the Government would eliminate the 10-month waiting period for such a loan. Tonight, some 3 1/2 years later, we finally have the legislation before us. I am speaking on this subject tonight on behalf of my colleague the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), who is absent from the House on parliamentary business but who was very anxious to speak on this Bill. He has in his electorate of Macquarie the Royal Australian Air Force base at Richmond and he has provided me with material arising from his continuing dialogue with defence personnel at that station. The coalition does support the thrust of this legislation but as the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), has indicated, we have a lot of concern about certain clauses in the schedule 1 agreement between the Commonwealth and Westpac Banking Corporation, and especially clause 6 of that agreement. Subject to that, the Bill is important and indeed welcome, at least because it removes the uncertainty that has prevailed in this area. Apart from the promise of 3 1/2 years back, in the 1987 Budget a great deal of confusion was introduced because the Treasurer said he intended to replace the $25,000 low interest loan with a $10,000 grant. That proposal has now been abandoned, but not before it fuelled considerable perceptions that conditions in the services had been further eroded, and with the lack of consultation that was seen as characteristic of an insensitive leadership. At any rate, the outcry over that proposal saw it scrapped in December and now, after another 11 months, we have this Bill to enact the privatisation and updating of the scheme. Overdue as it is, it is welcome because it removes the uncertainty but it still contains two glaring inadequacies. The first is that while under the Westpac arrangement home buyers will be able to borrow more than the $25,000, and that is welcome and will involve a one-step deal, only repayments on the $25,000 will be subsidised by the Government. That figure of $25,000 has not been increased for some eight years, a period over which there has been a Consumer Prices Index rise of 75 per cent and of course house prices have risen even more than that. The real value of that loan has fallen very significantly indeed. When it was last increased it represented about 55 per cent of the national median price of a home but $25,000 now represents about 27 per cent, and of course in Sydney it is a laughable amount to contribute towards a home. As the honourable member for Farrer said earlier, we can now talk about the defence service caravan loan scheme, and there is some merit in so characterising it. The second glaring inadequacy of the Bill is that post-May 1985 personnel are not covered by the scheme, and so large numbers of young soldiers, sailors and airmen are precluded. What scheme will they be covered by? After three years the Government still has not worked that out. My good colleague the honourable member for Macquarie would have me draw the attention of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) to recommendation 33 of the report on Personnel Wastage in the Australian Defence Force by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which was tabled this month. Recommendation 33 urges the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel to: a. consider increasing the concessional interest DSH loan to $35,000, and then indexing that sum to CPI increases; b. approve eligibility for that loan for post-May 1985 enlistees; and c. examine an alternative DSH scheme based on the following framework: (i) a substantial cash grant in the order of $15,000 to assist with the deposit on a home, and which should be indexed to CPI increases, (ii) the payment of a continuing mortgage subsidy as long as the member remains in the ADF, (iii) that subsidy to be reduced when an owner is not occupying his house, and (iv) the subsidy to be portable (para 7.142). I do not know how the Government can relate that to the Westpac proposal. Perhaps further negotiation is needed there. At all events, as I have indicated and as the shadow Minister has indicated, the Opposition supports the Bill overall but it needs supplementation, particularly to deal with the situation of post-May 1985 personnel. I support the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Farrer. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel)(11.48) —I thank the House for the courtesy of giving me the opportunity to speak on the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1988. I know it is unusual to have two Ministers speaking on a piece of legislation such as this, and I thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) for the courtesy of allowing me to speak on this measure. The Bill itself is so important, and particularly for my constituency in the Defence Force, that I think it is appropriate that I make a few comments. Firstly, I would like to comment briefly on the speech of the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), who just spoke. He mentioned the need for a loans scheme such as that proposed and talked in a grandiose fashion about the need for that to be extended, but at no stage did he outline to this house what the Opposition's policy was on the extension of this scheme. How much will the defence forces out there be saying the Opposition is prepared to give in this loans scheme? Will it increase it? We have not heard anything about that. What is the Opposition's policy? Again a great mystery exists within the Opposition. It has no idea what its policies are on any area of defence or any area that affects defence conditions. However, that is not the case with the Government. I want to congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs who is at the table, for his successful negotiations in this very important area=msuccessful and important because it adds enhanced conditions of service for members of the Defence Force. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) explained just what they are. I would like to go through them because they are very important for members of the Defence Force. Prior to these loan provisions being inserted in the legislation before the House, for many years members of the Defence Force would have appreciated a loan such as this at a reduced interest rate of just over 6 per cent over 25 years. There has always been a catch-22 situation. This catch-22 has meant that most Defence Force personnel have not taken out this loan. One wonders why when it was so cheap. Primarily because there was a 10-month waiting period. If people who bought a house had to wait 10 months to get finance, they had to obtain bridging finance. Of course, the interest on that was so horrendous that it was just not worth while. The other major problem was that there was no portability. It is the nature of the Defence Force that personnel move a great deal, much more than I think is necessary so for many of them it was absolutely useless. We have introduced these very important components: first of all, the 10-month waiting period will be eliminated from the time this legislation takes effect, which I hope will be in early December; secondly-I think this is very important as it means that the value of this loan is worth a lot more than the old one-the Westpac Banking Corporation has agreed to issue the loan with the rest of the money that needs to be borrowed on a house, because it has been rightly pointed out that one cannot buy a tent for $25,000 these days, on a first mortgage interest rate basis. Of course, that will vary from time to time but we guarantee the $25,000 at the 6.8 per cent interest rate. Mr Tim Fischer —It is 6.75 per cent. Mrs KELLY —At 6.75 per cent. Of course, the rest of it will be based on the first mortgage interest rate. So it then makes this a much better package. Added to that is the portability, so that all new loans entered into will be portable. That means that families in the Defence Force can buy their homes very early in their career-that is one aspect that I encourage-and they can then sell that house, buy another house and take the loan with them. So these three very important aspects make this a very valuable package. Why has the Opposition moved an amendment to the second reading stage of this Bill? I understand its support for the legislation but we have a few problems with the amendment. Our primary problem with the amendment is that, like lots of legal clauses, it does not really say what the Opposition wants it to say. I am very sympathetic to the Opposition's position on this and I know that there has been a lot of goodwill in relation to this but, unfortunately, from the legal advice that I have had, the amendment does not achieve what the Opposition wants it to. If we proceeded with this amendment and accepted it we could negate all the very positive things about this new arrangement. I just want to put on the record because I know this will be debated in some detail in the Senate that the legal advice that I have had indicates that the revised amendment of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) does not meet the objectives spelt out in subclause 5.2. The operation of subclause 5.2 would have the effect of including the post-1985 group within the terms of the overall Bill. Thus Westpac would be entitled to include them in the population to which it can offer the subsidised loan and, therefore, Westpac would get a free kick; it would not have to pay any additional premium with this windfall. I know that that is not the intention of the Opposition's amendment. I appreciate that; nevertheless, the legal advice that I have had indicates that that would be the effect of this amendment. Under the terms of clause 6 of the agreement with Westpac-this can be seen in schedule 1 of the Bill-Westpac would be able to withdraw from the agreement if the Commonwealth then sought to obtain such a premium or to provide for a different form of home ownership assistance for the post-1985 group. Unfortunately, the addition of the proposed new subclause 5.3 does not overcome the problem either. Effectively, it then seeks to undo the effect of subclause 5.2 but again it would fail because of the operation of clause 6 of the agreement. Put simply, subclause 5.2 would give Westpac the extra business with subclause 5.3 then purporting to take away that business. Clearly, such a course of action would be detrimental to Westpac and it could invoke clause 6 of the agreement. Further, there is considerable doubt whether subclause 5.3 would have the necessary quarantining effect. The terms `subsidy' and `agreement' which are used in this-- Mr Tim Fischer —They have now pulled out of that. Mrs KELLY —That is good. Okay, we will leave that. Mr Tim Fischer —What assurances will you give? Mrs KELLY —I will go into that. As I have said, we have looked at the positive benefits, we have looked at the Opposition's amendment and I have indicated the legal views that I have had on that. We have other lawyers in the chamber who can have a look at the amendment and give us their interpretation. But there is a major problem when amendments such as this are introduced and when there are these different interpretations, particularly on a piece of legislation which, as I have said, is so critical to the Defence Force and to the veteran community and which offers such a benefit. The third area is the area of the post-1985s which I know is the spirit of the Opposition's amendment. I have been concerned about this area. I have already stated that we are looking at all sorts of options for the post-1985s. I have given a commitment that there will be a home ownership scheme for these people. In fact, on Tuesday this week I put out a statement which I would like recorded in Hansard because it is a guarantee that the Government-- Mr Tim Fischer —Table it. Mrs KELLY —I will go through various parts of it because it is very important. The Government is considering a range of options for housing assistance for those who joined the Defence Force after May 1985. I state in this House that the housing assistance needs of those members who have joined the Defence Force since 14 May 1985 have not been forgotten and will not be forgotten. What I am really doing with those people is considering not just this type of funding for them but also a wide range of alternatives, including the provision of housing grants, forms of interest, subsidised loans and a combination of these. In fact, I am following the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I am having a look at the implication of recommendation 33 in that Committee's report. It would not be appropriate for me at this stage to agree to an Opposition amendment which would give the post-1985s the same benefit as the pre-1985s. A committee of this House has stated that we should have a look at this question to see whether we can come up with an alternative scheme based on a framework of a cash grant, a continuing mortgage subsidy while people are in the Defence Force, and a subsidy to reduce when an owner is not occupying his house. That is exactly what I am doing. I think it would pre-empt any serious consideration of this report if the Government were actually to agree to the Opposition's amendment. So I reiterate that the needs of these post-1985s will be met. There is no need for the Government to be forced into making a decision on this tonight because there are a range of options-- Mr Tim Fischer —Or ever. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member for Farrer said, `or ever'. That is not correct. In 1991 these people will become eligible. Until that time they are not eligible so it is important that they are given time to consider all the options that are available to them and so that I, as their Minister, can offer them the very best option that is available at the moment. I am not sure at this stage whether exactly the same benefit as that given to the pre-1985s is the best for them, but I can give a guarantee that a form of home ownership will be offered to them and that it will be a very generous benefit. At the very minimum, honourable members can be sure that those people will be looked after. Again, I thank the House for its tolerance in this matter. Finally, I reiterate that guarantee and thank the Minister at the table for his efforts on behalf of veterans and the serving members of the Defence Force. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Friday, 25 November 1988 Mr NEHL(Cowper)(12.01 a.m.) —I am delighted to see the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) at the table. We have heard about the odd couple and that Nero was fiddling while Rome burned, but these two Ministers sitting at the table, without even a ukelele between them, are singing a song of sympathy for members of the defence forces. I am disgusted, because I have just heard the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel say that she wants time to consider the options for service people. She wants to look at the 43 recommendations of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. She wants to look at the options of cash grants or subsidies of mortgages. She wants to look at the range of options. This Bill before us tonight, the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1988, pre-empts her consideration of those options. Mrs Kelly —Not for the post-85s. Mr NEHL —Not for the post-85s, but this is where the Minister is wrong. She looks at the statistics, the numbers, the subclauses and the clauses. What we are really looking at is 130,000 loans; that is, 130,000 Australian defence service personnel families. This Bill is being rushed through. There has not been enough time for consideration. On Tuesday 10 Bills were debated in this chamber. On Wednesday there were 13. Today, 11 were listed. It has been rushed through, yet the Minister says that we need time to consider the options. I agree entirely. The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), speaking a little earlier-- Mr Humphreys —Petrie. Mr NEHL —I got the name from some of the honourable gentleman's colleagues. I asked two of them and they both told me it was the honourable member for Lilley. Mr Humphreys —The member for Lilley wears a skirt. Mr NEHL —I am sure the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Johns) does not-otherwise he would be part of an even more odd couple than the odd couple we have got. We have considered over 30 Bills in three days. I do not think it is appropriate that this should happen. The honourable member for Petrie, referring to the loans, said that they would be portable. It has to be stressed that the existing loan holders do not get portability under this Bill. What happens to them? We have a loan ceiling of $25,000, with no increase since 1980. The honourable member for Petrie said, `House prices have been moving up all too quickly in the last few years. Interest rates are rather too high'. He also said, `We all understand that interest rates will rise for some time'. That is not going to be of a great deal of interest to the 130,000 families affected by this Bill. I particularly support the sunset clause proposed by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), because many concerned constituents have written to me or telephoned me. They are very upset by the suddenness of this measure. We have become used to government by press release, but Westpac Banking Corporation is capitalising on a situation, reaching out for captive customers. What is distressing to many people around Australia is that the Government has already passed over to Westpac personal and confidential details. The bank has tried, before the legislation has been, passed, to solicit business already. I quote from a letter from Westpac sent to one of my constituents: 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Your assistance in completing and promptly returning the attached form is essential for us to effect the smoothest possible changeover from the Defence Service Housing Corporation to Westpac. Westpac quotes the ex-serviceman's file number. It has the ex-serviceman's name and address. Westpac possesses personal financial details even before the legislation has passed through both Houses. I believe that this is a serious breach of confidentiality. One of my constituents has written to Westpac in the following terms: I will not recognise your bank in any way in this matter until the enabling legislation is duly passed by Parliament and, if and when that occurs- and it will occur- I will expect to receive a proper form of notice of assignment of the mortgage. It is all very cavalier, all very casual; no legislation; no decision by Parliament; yet the Government has passed the information to a private bank which then writes, `Right, we are taking you over.' The constituent's letter went on to say: I will expect to receive a proper form of notice of assignment of the mortgage. There has been no notice of assignment of the mortgage so far, but the bank has already sent a letter. I say to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that the timing is very bad. My constituent's letter continued: At that stage, I will recognise your bank as mortgagee in place of Defence Service Homes Corporation. I make the point very strongly that even if everything is shipshape and above board, like Caesar's wife, it has to appear to be so, and at the present time it does not, because the Parliament has not passed the legislation. The Minister has handed over the private details, without the authority of Parliament, to a private bank to make contact with 130,000 loan holders in this country. My constituent also wrote to the Defence Service Homes Corporation as follows: By what right or power do you pass over to a private financial organisation my name and address, my file number with your corporation and, no doubt, details of the state of my mortgage and my record of payments? That was private information. It was passed over without legislative permission or approval. That is not a satisfactory way of doing business in a corner store, let alone in the Parliament of Australia. The other point that has to be made is one that I have had raised with me by many of my constituents. Many of them are not young any more. We have talked about the post-1985 people. We know that some are not going to have the benefit of portability. We are talking about men who served in World War II, in Korea, and in Vietnam. As always, where there is change, there is fear, uncertainly and unsettlement. Because of the rush I have not had time to investigate the Bill as thoroughly as I would like. The Minister can blame me if he likes. I do not know what guarantees have been built into the legislation. How do the 130,000 loan holders in Australia know? They have not been informed. The Minister has not written to them. The bank has only written to say, `We want your business; nominate the branch you want.' Nobody has said to the loan holders `You're protected, you're guaranteed. Don't worry, the bank is not going to rip you off tomorrow. The interest rates won't rise.' 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES The Minister knows that I have affection for him, that I like, respect and trust him; but he must do better. He cannot take it for granted. Australians cannot take it for granted either. It comes back to the responsible Minister-and he is a responsible Minister; I say that with sincerity-to make it very clear to those 130,000 families that they will not be done like a dinner. They do not know what to expect and they are fearful and concerned that Westpac will raise the interest rate at its pleasure. Safeguards must exist. They are concerned at what might happen with bank fees and charges. Nobody has told them. All they have got is a letter from big brother government and big brother bank which says to the ex-servicemen or current servicemen or to one of the 130,000 Australian families, `Don't you worry about that'. And we have heard that before. It says, `We'll look after you, just sign it'. I say to the Minister that it is not good enough. What about the ex-servicemen who have not yet taken up their eligibility for a loan? Are they protected in the future? Will they be subject to negotiation in the future? In conclusion, I repeat that it is not good enough to do it in this particular way. It is not good enough to hand over confidential personal records to a private bank without the authority of the Parliament. I suggest that the responsibility lies on the Minister to ensure that those 130,000 Australian families will not get done like the proverbial dinner. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.11 a.m.) —in reply-I will not take too long tonight as I know everyone is anxious to get home. I can see the Opposition Whip running around in a hurry to make sure he also gets home. Being a former Whip I know the pressures put on Whips. However, I must take time to respond to my learned colleagues the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) who is the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and our famous professor, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). It is good to see him taking part in this debate. Mr Tim Fischer —What about the Minister who is sitting on the front bench? Mr HUMPHREYS —I will come to our side in a moment. I was a little disappointed in the Opposition's contributions. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Cowper said that he had not read the legislation properly. I forgive him for that and I appreciate his sincere concern. I do not believe that any Opposition members have read their policy and that includes the shadow Minister. I will read some of it out in a minute. I suggest it is compulsory reading for all Opposition members. I point out to honourable members that there is a dud in the first paragraph of the Opposition's policy. It states: Veterans will retain their once only access. Do honourable members know how many times we will allow veterans to have access to the scheme? It could be up to three times, but the Opposition is cutting it back to once only. It is in its policy, and there have to be special circumstances to get an extra opportunity. The Opposition has cut them back. We will let the veterans and war widows know that. The Opposition has also been talking about the post-May 1985ers. Can we see anywhere in its policy mention of the post-May 1985ers. They are not mentioned. Mr Kelly —Is that their latest policy? Mr HUMPHREYS —It is the Opposition's policy. I give the Opposition credit for having a policy. All the good parts in the policy we have already implemented for the veterans. Mr Nehl —You pinched them. Mr HUMPHREYS —No, we did not pinch them. The honourable member for Cowper must read the Opposition's policy. The policy is to sell off the Defence Service housing scheme. That is the coalition's policy. The honourable member for Cowper has spoken a lot of nonsense tonight. The shadow Minister is very capable of and very good at skulduggery. He stirs up a bit of fear amongst the veterans community. I give him credit for that. All Opposition members should read their policy. It says the Opposition would sell off the scheme. To whom would the Opposition sell it? Would it do the same as we did? The honourable member for Cowper said that the Westpac Banking Corporation is terrible. Mr Nehl —We did not say that at all. Mr HUMPHREYS —Yes, he did. He said that Westpac want to increase interest rates. I ask the honourable member to read the second reading speech and the letter that we sent to veterans. He should read the letter Westpac sent to veterans. It said in its letter that the scheme related to the pending passage of the legislation. The honourable member said that Westpac and the Government were usurping the powers of the Parliament. That is absolute nonsense. We have guaranteed the veteran community that veterans will not be subjected to any increases. The Commonwealth will pay the extra charges if interest rates go up. If the Bank put them up of its own free will we would pay the extra. Veterans will not be disadvantaged in any way. We keep the insurance scheme. We have to assess the veterans and say who is entitled to loans. We still have those functions. I can give honourable members a total guarantee that the veteran community has nothing to fear in relation to this legislation. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Westpac and the Government sat around the table. The veteran community was represented by none other than Sir William Keys, and other very highly distinguished Australians were on the negotiating committee. It was all worked out properly. Opposition members are all preachers and protectors of the free enterprise system. When we do a deal-it may be a deal with the person across the road-do they not think it fair that we should stick to it? The Opposition is saying that we should change the rules and the deal and that the bank should not be allowed to say, that is not the deal to which we agreed'. The honourable member would not want to agree to a deal with me, allow me to change it, and forgo the right to say, `No thank you'. If he went to a secondhand car dealer and said, `I will give you $5,000 for that car. There is $1,000 deposit' and when he went back, the dealer said it would cost $5,500, would he pay the extra $500? The answer is no. Once a deal is made we must stick to it. Nobody is usurping the powers of the Parliament. I know that the shadow Minister wants to move an amendment. I will not take too much longer. I make the point to the House that there is nothing to fear. The veteran community has nothing to fear. As I said, Opposition members should read the policy and read the legislation. They will see that the guarantees are there. The shadow Minister is very capable of stirring. Apparently, he has got to Opposition members in the party meeting; he has even got the professor worried. All the shadow Minister has been talking about is the post-May 1985ers but there is nothing in the Opposition's policy that deals with them. It says, `when financial resources are available, when the time is right, we will do these things. We cannot do them until we have got the money'. That is all in the policy. I ask honourable members to read it. It is an absolute nonsense. It is a great effort to try to stir up members of the defence forces. They have a very good Minister for Defence Science and Personnel in Minister Kelly. They have no worries. She will look after them. Mrs Kelly —And they have Minister Beazley. Mr HUMPHREYS —Yes. They have the mega Minister and the minor Minister-they are both here. Next time Opposition members debate anything they should not demean the people at Westpac. They should not demean the officers responsible for the Defence Service housing scheme. They have all worked very hard. They should not demean the highly distinguished Australians who were on the negotiating committee. It took a long time to devise the scheme and it is gilt-edged. No veteran will be disadvantaged by this scheme. Minister Kelly knows, the shadow Minister knows, and I know, that all veterans are happy with the scheme. The veteran community and the majority of the defence forces are very happy with the scheme. The shadow Minister knows about the good parts of it. The strange thing is that the Opposition is supporting the legislation. The shadow Minister will move an amendment shortly which is absolute nonsense. We will not accept it. The Opposition will not call for a division because they are not all here. We have the numbers and the Opposition does not. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(12.21 a.m.) —I move: Clause 5, page 4, at the end of the clause add the following subclauses: ``(2) On and after 15 May 1991, the words added to section 4aaa of the Principal Act by subsection (1) are omitted from that subsection and, subject to subsection (3), the Principal Act has effect as if subsection (1) had not been enacted. ``(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), the Secretary shall not issue a certificate of entitlement in relation to an advance to a person whose first service in the Defence Force began after 14 May 1985, and no such person may exercise any right under that subsection, unless and until a new or amended arrangement, concerning these persons, is negotiated and endorsed by the enactment of legislation.''. I will not detain the Parliament for too long. I just wish to draw attention again to clause 5 of this incredible piece of legislation. I acknowledge that the Defence Services Homes Amendment Bill contains a number of benefits, and I indicated that in my speech during the second reading debate. I commend to the Committee the `scalpel' sunset clause which we seek to insert after clause 5. In so doing I make it clear that neither the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) in his excellent contribution nor the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) in any way demeaned the role or integrity of the officers of the Defence Services Homes Corporation or the Westpac Banking Corporation. Certainly I recognise that there is an agreement in schedule 1 and if there are alterations to that by the Parliament these will have to be referred back to Westpac in that context. But in the drafting of this Bill any other matters relating to this general area of legislation, but not impinging on that agreement, have been caught up in this same reduction in the capability to move amendments. Indirectly our amendment also relates to the role and function of the staff of the Defence Service Homes Corporation, which has not been discussed in the debate thus far tonight. Staff members have a right to expect proper recompense under the new arrangements. Their employment basis is being completely altered and negotiations are continuing in that regard. It is important that a fair go be extended in that respect and that no deeds are held up as a result of industrial troubles. That would create massive and unfair hardship for those who are affected. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES I commend the amendment. There are different interpretations in respect of the complexities of this Bill and there are different interpretations even with the revised wording which I have proposed. This scalpel sunset clause seeks to provide a legally binding timetable in legislation for the Government to act in respect of new enlistees. That is not unreasonable. I seem to have flushed out a team of three Ministers for this debate tonight and I point out to them that it is not unreasonable to insert a legally binding timetable. I shall give an example of another assurance that was given by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) during the tangle on the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The Minister will remember giving an assurance to this House that a defence compensation scheme would be introduced and that this would occur within a matter of months. At the time he said that there was no need to keep Armed Forces personnel under the auspices of the Veterans' Entitlements Act because he would look after them in the next session of Parliament. Here we are, two years later, not having seen hide nor hair of that defence compensation scheme. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member must keep to the Defence Services Homes Amendment Bill. He must not stray into any previous legislation that has been before the House. Mr TIM FISCHER —It is relevant to make a passing reference. This amendment seeks to insert a legally binding timetable. It does not interfere or alter in any way, shape or form the thrust and fundamental aspects of this Bill. It is all about a scalpel sunset clause to ensure that, come May 1991, new enlistees will make a further progress down the path to becoming eligible for the Defence Service Homes loans scheme if the Government has taken no action by that time. The Government has given some assurances. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) has placed those assurances in Hansard and I acknowledge that, but nothing can be stronger than the insertion of the exact words into the legislation in a way which is neutral in terms of its impact on Westpac and on the schedule 1 agreement. I highlight to the Committee that the actual construction of the words of the amendment is such that the amendment, which is in two parts, has to be read, considered and taken as a whole. There are two interlocking clauses which specifically provide for (2) and (3) to be taken as a whole. The amendment must be considered as a whole. I commend it to the Committee for all those reasons in the same way as I commend the thrust of the coalition's veterans' affairs policy which is the genesis for this action, because it is all about a fair go for veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.27 a.m.) —The Government rejects the amendment which is just another con trick by the Opposition. We do not intend to debate it any more. It is not mentioned anywhere in the policy so I simply make the point that it is a sham and we will not accept it. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Humphreys) read a third time. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Naval Defence Amendment Bill 1988 Statutory Instruments (Tabling and Disallowance) Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Consideration resumed from 23 November. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 11, clause 14, Information Privacy Principles, Principle 2, lines 37 and 38, leave out ``the individual concerned is generally aware of'', insert ``the individual concerned is informed, in writing, of''. No. 2-Page 12, clause 14, Information Privacy Principles, Principle 3, paragraph (c), lines 18 to 19, leave out ``and is up to date and complete'', insert ``and is up to date, complete and accurate''. No. 3-Page 13, clause 14, Information Privacy Principles, Principle 5, subparagraph 1 (b) (ii), line 4, leave out the subparagraph, insert the following subparagraph: ``(iia) each purpose for which that information is used;''. No. 4-Page 13, clause 14, Information Privacy Principles, Principle 5, after subparagraph 1 (b) (ii), insert the following new subparagraphs: ``(ii) the purposes of disclosure of records to third parties; (iib) the record-keeper's policies and practices regarding storage of, retrievability of, access to, controls over, retention of and disposal of, records; and''. No. 5-Page 33, subparagraph 52 (1) (b) (iii), lines 14 and 15, leave out ``except where the complaint was dealt with as a representative complaint-''. No. 6-Page 33, subclause 52 (3), lines 23 and 24, leave out ``(other than a determination made on a representative complaint)''. No. 7-Page 33, subclause 52 (4), lines 29 to 31, leave out the subclause. No. 8-Page 34, subclause 58 (1), lines 39 to 42, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(1) Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of: (a) a declaration of the kind referred to in subparagraph 52 (1) (b) (iii) or subsection 52 (3) that is included in a determination to which this Division applies; or (b) a decision of the Commissioner refusing to include such a declaration in a determination to which this Division applies.''. No. 9-Page 36, after clause 63, insert the following new clauses in Division 4: Action for breach of privacy ``63a. An interference with the privacy of an individual taking place after the commencement of this Act shall give rise to an action at the suit of the individual for breach of privacy. Action may be brought against agency or tax file recipient or both 63b. An action for breach of privacy may be brought against an agency or a tax file number recipient or both. Court may award damages, grant injunction etc. ``63c. In any action under section 63a or 63b, the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory may: (a) award damages; (b) grant an injunction; (c) order the defendant to deliver up to the plaintiff any document brought into existence in the course of the interference with the privacy of the plaintiff; or (d) make any other order that to the Court seems just. Right of action not in derogation of any other right etc. ``63d. The right of action conferred by this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of either, any right conferred by this Act, to make a complaint to the Commissioner, or any other procedure in the course of which the privacy of an individual may be examined.''. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(12.30 a.m.) —I indicate to the Committee that the Government proposes that amendment No. 8 be agreed to and that amendments Nos 1 to 7 and 9 be disagreed to. May I suggest, therefore that it may suit the convenience of the Committee first to consider amendment No. 8, and when that amendment has been disposed of that the Committee consider amendments Nos 1 to 7 and 9. The CHAIRMAN —Is that acceptable to the Committee? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to. That amendment No. 8 be agreed to. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(12.31 a.m.) —I move: That amendments Nos 1 to 7 and 9 be disagreed to. These amendments are basically a series put forward by the Opposition in the Senate. In all cases, on examination of the amendments the Government feels that most of the underlying reasons for the Opposition's amendments have in fact been picked up in the legislation. A substantial number of the suggested changes, rather than advancing the privacy requirements, in fact create unnecessary impediments to those who have the substantial task of ensuring that the right of privacy are protected. For those reasons, on whole, the Government has rejected the amendments. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(12.35 a.m.) —I would like to address a few remarks on each of the amendments, although I believe our attitude was adequately expressed in the debate in the Senate on each of those amendments. With respect to amendment No. 1, this was moved by the Australian Democrats. It is an amendment to information privacy principle No. 2. Senator Hill explained the Opposition's attitude and our support for the amendment is in the Senate Hansard at page 2542. I believe that is an adequate explanation of our position. I will not detain the Committee to advance any further arguments on it. It should be noted, however, that the amendment was in fact carried without a division. Our submission to the Government is that it should support the amendment. It does not do any damage to the information privacy principle. We do not accept the Government's arguments about it. We believe the Government should support this amendment because it is an improvement to the information privacy principles. For those reasons and for the reasons advanced by Senator Hill in the Senate we believe that the Government is unwise in rejecting this amendment. It should have accepted it and it should now. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES With respect to amendment No. 2, this likewise is an amendment that was moved by the Australian Democrats. It is an amendment to information privacy principle No. 3. Senator Hill explained the reasons for our support for the Democrats' amendment at page 2543 of the Senate Hansard. There is no need for me to advance further arguments at this stage. As with its predecessor, the amendment was carried in the Senate without a division. Our belief is that the Government should have supported the amendment then and should support it now. With respect to amendments Nos 3 and 4, these also were Australian Democrats' amendments and the Opposition supported them in the Senate. Senator Hill explained our support for these two amendments at page 2545 of the Senate Hansard. On that occasion also the amendments were carried without a division. Likewise we believe in this case that the amendments should be supported. They are in fact again amendments to the information privacy principles. Amendment No. 3 is an amendment to information privacy principle No. 5. Amendment No. 4 is an amendment to information privacy principle No. 5. They are both worthwhile amendments. They are, of course, not absolutely vital, and that can be said of the previous amendments that I have referred to, but they are significant and desirable. I cannot understand why the Government puts its head in the sand and refuses to accept sensible and reasonable amendments. Even at this late stage the Government should accept the amendments. With respect to amendment No. 5, this was an Opposition amendment, as were amendment Nos 6 and 7. These amendments were agreed to by the Senate. They were carried with the support of the Australian Democrats without a division. The Opposition believes that the amendments are worthwhile. Very briefly, the situation is this: Under this Bill there may be an individual or, if you like, a personal complaint made about an infringement of privacy and there may be what is known as a representative complaint, that is to say, where the complaint is made on behalf of other persons. The odd thing is that the remedies available and the relief available are different in both of those cases. There is no reason why the relief should be different. As Senator Hill said in the Senate, where there is a representative complaint and somebody is acting on behalf of two or more complainants, it is now not possible for a declaration to be made that the complainant, that is to say, the person who complains about the infringement of privacy, is entitled to a specific amount by way of compensation for any loss or damage suffered by reason of the act or practice the subject of the complaint. That is the case where a representative complaint is made. Senator Hill went on to say that, in other words, one of the remedies available to the Privacy Commissioner in the case of an individual complaint is not available in relation to a representative complaint as the Bill stands at the moment. Our amendment is designed to remedy that deficiency, and deficiency we believe it to be. There is no reason why in the case of a representative complaint there should not be an award of compensation made or an award of costs, and the amendments are designed to put that proposition into practice. So as the amendments were carried by the Senate, we believe that they should be accepted here. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES With respect to amendment No. 9, this also was an opposition amendment. We believe it was a reasonable, sensible and worthwhile amendment and an amendment which the Democrats supported and which was agreed to without a division. How the amendment arises is quite simply this: the Privacy Bill provides a statutory method of obtaining relief if one's privacy is infringed. The way it is done-there is no need to go into it in detail-is that one makes a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner investigates it and may make an award of compensation to the complainant because of the invasion of his privacy. Indeed, the Commissioner may then make an award of compensation to the complainant because of the invasion of his privacy. Indeed, the Commissioner may then make an award or an order for the expenses incurred by the complainant. We say that is fair enough. That is one way of doing it. But there should also be a right to sue for breach of privacy. Amendment No. 9 sets out how that would operate; that is, where there is an interference with the privacy of an individual, then the individual may sue for breach of privacy and may obtain from the court damages, or an injunction or some other appropriate order. There is no reason why that amendment should not be accepted by the Government. It is an additional remedy. It is a sensible remedy. It is a worthwhile remedy. It is a remedy which will operate as something of a sanction. It will keep agencies and the private sector on their toes to make sure that they make efforts to prevent infringements of privacy taking place. A person whose privacy is invaded should have the right to sue. The amendment is designed to give to people in those circumstances the right to sue for damages. The Government should think again about this. It is not too late for the Government to accept the amendment. That is what should be done. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to; That Mr Cunningham, Mr Lamb and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to amendments Nos 1 to 7 and 9 of the Senate. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(12.42 a.m.) —On behalf of the committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to amendments Nos 1 to 7 and 9 of the Senate, I bring up such reasons, which are being circulated to honourable members. The reasons read as follows- 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Senate amendment No. 1 is not acceptable because- The proposed requirement that the individual be informed in writing would be burdensome for agencies and of limited benefit to some individuals. Information Privacy Principle 2 is expressed in terms that would cover a wide range of collection practices of agencies and can be tailored to suit a variety of circumstances. The Privacy Commissioner is empowered to issue guidelines on what would be sufficient information for an individual to be made generally aware of the purpose of collection, the legal authority for the collection and the usual disclosure practices of the collector. Senate amendment No. 2 is not acceptable because- There are practical difficulties in imposing an obligation on agencies to check the accuracy of personal information at the time of collection. Information Privacy Principle 3 requires a record-keeper collecting personal information to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information is relevant to the purpose of collection, up to date and complete. The record-keeper is also required to ensure that the collection of the information does not intrude to an unreasonable extent upon the personal affairs of the individual concerned. Information Privacy Principles 7 and 8 provide important privacy safeguards for individuals by requiring record-keepers to correct inaccuracies before making any use of information in records. Senate amendment No. 3 is not acceptable because- Information Privacy Principle 5 requires the record-keeper to provide information to enable any person to ascertain the main purposes for which that information is used. Agencies may have a range of purposes for which personal information is used. It would be impractical to require agencies to set out all the possible purposes for which information held by an agency is used. Senate amendment No. 4 is not acceptable because- The amendment is directed at enabling a person to find out the information handling practices of the record-keeper. The Information Privacy Principles already do this. Information Privacy Principle 2 requires information to be provided by record-keepers about their disclosure practices. Information Privacy Principle 5 also requires the record-keeper to maintain a public record setting out extensive information about the personal records kept and how to obtain access to those records. The Privacy Commissioner is empowered to issue guidelines on the safe storage and security or records of personal information. It is not appropriate for individuals to be given details of security controls on information held by a record-keeper. Senate amendment No. 5 is not acceptable because- It is a condition for the handling of a complaint as a representative complaint that the Privacy Commissioner is satisfied that the class of persons making complaints is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable. The Commissioner can waive this condition if justice demands that the matter be dealt with as a representative complaint. Accordingly, the awarding of compensation to each member of the class is likely to give rise to practical difficulties. In the case of representative complaints, the main remedy is likely to be the cessation of the act or practice giving rise to the complaint rather than compensation. A similar approach has been taken in relation to complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Racial Discrimination Act. An individual who believes compensation is justifiable can bring an individual complaint notwithstanding that a representative complaint has been brought. Senate amendment No. 6 is not acceptable because- It is a condition for the handling of a complaint as a representative complaint that the Privacy Commissioner is satisfied that the class of persons making complaints is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable. The Commissioner can waive this condition if justice demands that the matter be dealt with as a representative complaint. Accordingly, the awarding of expenses for cost incurred in making the complaint to each member of the class is likely to give rise to practical difficulties. Senate amendment No. 7 is not acceptable because- The provision should not be deleted as the definition of complainant in relation to a representative complaint needs to include all the persons on whose behalf the complaint is made. Senate amendment No. 9 is not acceptable because- The Bill provides a right to complain to the Privacy Commissioner, who conducts an investigation and may award compensation. This will give the Australian people a simple and effective remedy. For most people, it will be a more accessible and cheaper remedy than an action in the courts. This is the approach the Parliament has adopted for other interferences with the rights of individuals in the areas of sex discrimination and race discrimination. An injunction can also be obtained from the Federal Court to restrain a breach of the Privacy Act. The remedy enables the Privacy Commissioner or an individual to get a privacy infringing practice stopped. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the recorded decisions of the Committee of the Whole House and the House itself yesterday, on the committee, report and third reading stages of the Copyright Amendment Bill 1988 being rescinded and the committee and remaining stages being considered again. Motion of Rescission Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(12.40 a.m.) —I move: That the recorded decisions of the Committee of the Whole House and the House itself yesterday, on the committee, report and third reading stages of the Copyright Amendment Bill 1988 be rescinded and the committee and remaining stages be considered again. This procedure arises out of matters raised by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) immediately after Question Time today. Concern was expressed about the recording of decisions associated with this Bill yesterday. There was sufficient force in the views expressed by them for the Government to decide to seek the leave of the House to go through the procedure that we are now going through. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(12.45 a.m.) —I must acknowledge at the outset my appreciation of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) for having said that there was sufficient force in the arguments advanced as to why this matter should be recommitted and that the Government felt that that was the proper course to take. Indeed, it must be true to say that there was sufficient force in that argument. The view has been expressed by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and me that some regularisation should take place with respect to the passage or otherwise of Opposition amendments which were moved to the Copyright Amendment Bill at about 5.30 yesterday afternoon. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Because the Minister has said that there was sufficient force in the argument to justify this course being taken I will certainly say less about the matter than I otherwise would have said. However, it must be placed on record that the bare facts of the matter are that yesterday a series of Opposition amendments was declared by the Chairman of Committees, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) to have been passed. There must be no doubt about that. The amendments were put to a vote. It was announced that the vote had been carried. As I say, there is no doubt but that the Opposition's amendments, judging by what was said in the House, were carried. Indeed, the tape recording of the Hansard record of those proceedings makes that abundantly clear. I have had the opportunity to hear the Hansard tape recording myself and can verify that personally. Two other things must also be said. The first is that the Clerks of the Parliament recorded what undoubtedly they genuinely believed had happened. That should be said quite clearly. They did that because they assumed that the Government knew what it was doing and that the Government was doing what it wanted done. That is not an assumption made by everyone in the Australian community, but it clearly was the genuine assumption that was made on this occasion. The second thing that must be said with equal force is that the fault in this matter and the fact that we are now driven to take these proceedings clearly must be sheeted home to the Government and especially to the Minister who was in charge of this Bill at the time. He is called the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support, a very curious title for a Minister, I must say. It sounds like he is in charge of some sort of dry dock. In any event, he was the Minister in charge of the Bill. It was his responsibility to make sure that the Government's intentions were expressed clearly. He clearly did not do that. The result was that the Opposition amendments-as I have said, judging by what was said in the House and recorded on the Hansard recording-were carried. An unfortunate situation has arisen. It can fairly be described as a shambles. The shambles has the Minister's fingerprints all over it. We will proceed-not at too much length-with the amendments again solely because a Government Minister did not have his wits about him and did not understand what he was doing. He was sitting there drawing his salary. I do not know whether he was doing the Herald crossword at the time or what, but whatever he was doing he was certainly not paying attention to the amendments that were being promoted by the Opposition and he certainly was not aware of the Government's position on the amendments. Nor was he taking the proper course to ensure that the Opposition amendments were negatived, if that was his intention. So, for those reasons we support this motion, but we say that the motion has come about only because of Government incompetence. Question resolved in the affirmative. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Clauses 1 to 11-by leave-taken together. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(12.51 a.m.) —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,''. We believe that these amendments are important, in the first place, because the Copyright Act and the Copyright Amendment Bill are important themselves. They are important to industry and commerce in general and, with respect to the particular part that we are concerned about at the moment, they are of importance to that section of industry which is concerned with industrial designs. Briefly, what has happened in this case is that the new section 75 of the Copyright Act will provide that in certain cases, with respect to what are defined as corresponding designs, there will not be an infringement of copyright if there are reproduced works which have had the design applied to them. I know that sounds a bit complicated to those who come new to this particular field, but the situation, briefly, is that there has been some overlap between protection for industrial designs provided by copyright and protection for them provided under the Designs Act 1906. The purpose of the amendment is as follows. I have already said that the new section 75 of the Act will remove, in effect, copyright protection where the corresponding design is or has been registered under the Designs Act. One might say, so far so good. But the problem arises because of the new section 77 of the Copyright Act. The new section 77 will say that in those cases where copyright subsists in an artistic work and where a corresponding design of that artistic work is applied industrially and articles to which the corresponding design has been applied are sold, and also, and, finally, where the corresponding design is not registered under the Designs Act, then in those cases it is not an infringement of the copyright in the artistic work to reproduce the work on or after the day on which the articles made to the corresponding design are first so sold, let for hire, or offered or exposed for sale or hire. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES What the consequence of that is, in our belief-and we have had advice to this effect-is that it is, in effect, removing all protection from some industrial designs. It is saying, in the first place, that there is to be no copyright protection for them. There may be some case for doing that. But then having said that, one then picks out a class of designs and one says that where these are not registered under the Designs Act, and indeed, where they are not registrable under the Designs Act, then likewise there is no infringement of copyright. In other words, there is no protection from the copyright law in that case either. That is a very curious situation to bring about deliberately. Representations have been made to use to the effect that investors and entrepreneurs will not invest in research and development if the product of their labours is some design and where, perhaps without their control, articles are being made as a result, in effect, of stealing that design and there is no protection for the investor or designer. Why will people invest in research and development if the unfortunate result is that there will be no protection? Putting it in a nutshell-and it is a very simple point-the Government is removing Copyright Act and Designs Act protection from these industrial designs, to the detriment of Australian industry. I thought that part of the Government's case was that it would do everything it could to promote and protect industry-not by tariffs or in the narrow sense of the word-so that encouragement was given to people to invest and expand in industry and commerce. The Government is doing exactly the opposite. In doing so, it is putting at risk people who have put a lot of money, effort and intellectual skill into design work which they do not want to have stolen but which they want to have protected so that they can exploit it to the benefit of this country and industry as a whole. In a nutshell, the amendments propose to prevent the provisions of this part of the Bill from coming into operation until the Government rectifies the Designs Act problem. It does not cancel it out; it simply says that the Government should put the protection house in order so that there is protection under either the copyright law or the Designs Act before this part of the Copyright Amendment Bill comes into operation. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES I have received information that on 15 November-the Government should pay attention to this, if it is interested in Australian industry and its promotion and the protection of designs which can be used to the benefit of this country and its industry; if it can concentrate on it for a few minutes-in the United Kingdom, the royal assent was given to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The result is that the United Kingdom now has an unregistered design right rather than a system of dual protection as under the Copyright Act and the Designs Act, or their equivalents in the United Kingdom. Protection has been given in this way in the United Kingdom and it should be given here. The purpose of our amendments is to achieve that end result. It will not do any harm to the Government or to its Bill. It will not do any harm to the desirable objectives of the Bill or what the Government wants to achieve. It is plain common sense that we do not take from Australian industrial designs both protection under the copyright law and protection under the Designs Act. We hope that the Government will have the good sense to accept the amendments. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 12 and 13-by leave-taken together. Amendments (by Mr Beazley)-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. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES Clause 14 (Information Privacy Principles). Amendment (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: (5) Clause 14, page 31, lines 6 and 7, omit ``or a body corporate incorporated under a law of a foreign country,''. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(1.01 a.m.) —by leave-I move: (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 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.''. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES It is not necessary for me to detain the Committee by debating these matters at length, because they were canvassed yesterday in the second reading debate and my colleague the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) explained the purpose of the amendments. Briefly, they apply to two situations. First, they provide a definition in the Bill of those organisations that will not be obliged to pay the royalty on blank audio tapes that the Government will impose in order to provide Mr Steedman's $80,000 a year salary, amongst other purposes. That seems to be the only specific and immediate repository and beneficiary of the royalties as far as I can see. The objectives of the scheme are to provide compensation for owners of copyright which is infringed as a result of people at home recording music and other productions on audio cassettes. It is said that the royalty will go to the copyright owners and one hopes that it will be spread amongst the artists, lyricists and musicians as a compensation for the creative endeavours they have put into their works, for which they are not presently being fully compensated. Some organisations and persons will not have to pay the royalty when they buy the blank tapes and we believe that, because under the Bill there will be prescribed organisations, it is only commonsense that the Bill should state what those organisations are. The purpose of the amendment is to make plain exactly what those organisations are. What earthly reason there is to oppose that amendment, I do not know at this stage, but I trust that the Minister will provide an explanation when he rejects it. It will certainly be a fuller explanation than the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown) gave. Frankly, I can see no reason why the amendment cannot be accepted. The second amendment does a fairly harmless thing: nevertheless it is an important and significant thing, and that is to require the Attorney-General to table in the Parliament the annual report that he will receive on the operation of the fund under which the royalty is collected and how it is distributed. We ask, why should it be kept a secret? What is the big secret about it? The Government is taking a royalty-a fancy name for a tax-from the Australian public whenever people buy an audio cassette tape. It is compulsory that people pay the royalty if they are to use the tape to record copyright material. I know that you, Mr Chairman, are about to ask, `What happens to the money after that?' After that, the money goes into a fund that is run by a collecting society, which consists of the owners of copyright. One may well ask, `How do we know that some of the money will find its way to the lyricists and others who are, at the end of the day, entitled to some of it? How do we know it will work efficiently? How do we know there is not a better way of operating the royalty scheme? How do we know those things? We do not know them. 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES We say that as a first step the Attorney-General should table the report he receives on the way in which this fund operates and the way in which the money is distributed so that we will all be wiser as to how the fund is being distributed and whether there is a need to improve it. There may be a need to change the scheme or the system, to give people better entitlements, or to increase Mr Steedman's $80,000 salary, for all we know. There may be a host of things that have to be done. We will be better informed if we have the Attorney-General's annual report. We simply say that there is no harm at all in having the report given to the Attorney-General tabled in the Senate and the House of Representatives. There is no harm in it at all and a lot of good to be achieved by it. We urge the Government, at least as a Christmas gesture if for no other reason, to accede to these very reasonable amendments. Amendments negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Amendments (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATIVES 24-25 November 1988 24-25 November 1988 REPRESENTATIVES (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-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley)-by leave-read a third time. House adjourned at 1.07 a.m. (Friday). The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the works, it is expedient that the following proposed works be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Infrastructure development at various federal airports. Mr Spender to move- That standing order 145 be amended by adding the following words after ``question'': ``If, in the opinion of the Speaker, a Minister's answer is not relevant, the Speaker shall direct the Minister to resume his or her place.''. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 24 November 1988: Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1988-No. 17-Export Control (Fresh Fruits and Vegetables) (Amendment). Health Insurance Act-Determination pursuant to subsection 3c (1), dated 15 November 1988. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 1 December 1988 as the date on which amendments to the Commonwealth Prisoners Act 1967 made under the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1987 shall come into operation. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 831) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) What was the detailed expenditure on Aboriginal assistance by (a) each department and (b) statutory authority in 1986-87. (2) What funds have been received for mining royalties on land owned by Aborigines by (a) Aboriginal recipient organisations and (b) the Federal Government in each year since 1983. (3) In respect of each State and Territory (i) what funds were allocated for Aboriginal assistance under States Grants in 1986-87 (ii) what funds were expended on assistance to Aborigines separate from funding provided by State Grants in 1986-87 (iii) what is the total area of land transferred to Aboriginal control for each year since 1978 (iv) what is the total area of land subject to laws yet to be decided by the Minister (v) how many Aboriginal students attended year 11 and 12 levels of secondary education in 1985, 1986 and 1987. (vi) how many Aborigines attended tertiary institutions in 1985, 1986, and 1987 and (vii) what has been the percentage of Aboriginal unemployment pertaining to those over 25 years of age and under 25 years of age in 1985, 1986 and 1987. Mr Hand —The Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Employment, Education and Training and the Aboriginal Development Commission have provided the following information in response to the honourable member's question: 1 (a) and (b) Expenditure on Aboriginal assistance by department and statutory authorities for 1986-87 is as detailed below: $m $m Aboriginal Affairs (this includes the Department, Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Limited and Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies) ... 303.272 Housing and Enterprise ... 99.993 Community Infrastructure ... 49.143 Health ... 38.132 Employment ... 40.192 Recreation ... 4.073 Heritage Protection ... 0.112 Aboriginal Land Rights ... 20.754 Education ... 16.015 Legal Aid ... 13.183 Art and Culture ... 6.648 Social Support ... 7.171 Training ... 6.627 Consultation ... 1.220 Investigations and Research ... 0.009 Other Departments/Statutory Authorities Arts, Heritage and Environment . 4.370 National Estate Grants Program 0.583 Australian Council ... 2.924 Australian National Parks and Wildlife Services ... 0.589 ACT Schools Authority ... 0.034 Wreck Bay ... 0.240 Local Government and Administrative Services ... 0.696 Social Security ... 2.608 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services ... 2.348 Community Agents Pilot ... 0.100 Information Program ... 0.160 Community Services and Health . 17.476 Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 0.217 AIDS Program ... 0.101 States Grants ... 0.218 Hepatitis B ... 0.078 Medical Research Grants ... 0.301 Research Grants NCADA ... 0.045 National Campaign Against Drug Abuse ... 0.756 National Health Promotion Program ... 0.042 Home and Community Care ... 0.822 Community Programs Children's Services ... 7.721 Family Support Scheme ... 0.640 Supported Accommodation ... 3.738 Emergency Relief ... 0.505 Disability Programs Handicapped Persons Assistance 0.230 Rehabilitation Service ... 0.250 Residential Program Residential Care ... 1.812 Education ... 72.846 ABSEC... 32.940 Abstudy... 38.960 AOSAS... 0.228 Pilot Projects... 0.425 National Scheme for Placement of Teachers... 0.293 Employment and Industrial Relations... 63.233 Training for Aboriginal Program... 63.233 Housing and Construction... 58.000 Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement... 58.000 Australian Electoral Commission... 0.199 Enrolment Expenditure... 0.199 Australian Broadcasting Corporation... 0.270 Aboriginal Broadcasting... 0.270 2 (a) In the Northern Territory the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (the Act) provides for amounts equivalent to royalties received by the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory in relation to mining on Aboriginal land to be transferred from the Consolidated Revenue Fund into the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account (ABTA). Section 64 of the Act provides for amounts paid into the ABTA to be utilised as follows: 40% is paid to Land Councils to meet administrative costs (s. 64(1) ); 30% is paid to the relevant Land Councils for disbursement to Aboriginal Councils and incorporated Aboriginal communities or groups within areas affected by mining (s. 64(3) ); and 30% is available as grants or loans for the benefit of Aboriginals living in the Northern Territory (ss. 64 (4) and (4a) after meeting the administrative costs of the Trust Account (S. 64(5) ) and making any supplementary payments to the Land Councils to meet administrative costs (s. 64 (7) ) which could not be met from moneys provided under s. 64 (1) of the Act. Payments under s. 64 (4) are made by the Minister or his delegate to incorporated Aboriginal com- munities or groups on the advice of the ABTA Advisory Committee established under s. 65 of the Act. The details of payments made under section 64 of the Act since 1983/84 are as follows: Section of Act 1983/84 $ 1984/85 $ 1985/86 $ 1986/87 $ 1987/88 $ 64 (1)... 6,825,600 7,242,875 8,618,058 7,482,265 5,774,831 64 (3)... 5,119,200 5,209,283 6,686,417 5,970,979 5,321,439 64 (4)... 2,000,178 4,888,055 3,474,727 1,083,036 3,008,592 64 (7)... 293,586 1,340,520 128,724 1,263,767 4,337,935 TOTAL... 14,238,564 18,680,733 18,907,926 15,800,047 18,442,797* * Payments made to 31 March 1988 2 (b) The Federal Government receives royalties from uranium mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. Amounts received each year since 1983/84 are as follows: Financial Year Amount $ 1983/84... 18,149,379 1984/85... 17,063,064 1985/86... 18,049,693 1986/87... 18,578,668 1987/88... 16,795,893* Total... 88,636,697 * Royalties received to 13 April 1988. 3 (i) Details of expenditure under the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Act 1976 during 1986/87 are as follows: $m New South Wales... 3.357 Victoria... 2.087 Tasmania... 0.170 Queensland... 5.768 South Australia... 7.546 Western Australia... 19.234 Northern Territory... 0.447 38.609 (ii) Direct grants made to Aboriginal organisations through Grants for Aboriginal Assistance (GAA) and Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) are as follows: GAA CDEP $m $m New South Wales ... 14.753 . . Victoria ... 6.561 . . Tasmania ... 0.654 . . Queensland ... 17.876 12.047 South Australia ... 16.535 7.197 Western Australia ... 23.552 13.977 Northern Territory ... 18.754 6.232 Australian Capital Territory ... 0.191 6.232 Total ... 98.876 39.453 3 (iii) The area of land to which title has been granted to Aboriginal Land Trusts under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 since 1978 is 448,633 square kilometres. The area of land granted each year since 1978 is as follows: Year Area (sq Km) 1978 ... 252,873 1979 ... Nil 1980 ... 96,115 1981 ... 1,289 1982 ... 4,078 1983 ... 7,132 1984 ... Nil 1985 ... 2,153 1986 ... 84,856 1987 ... 137 1988 ... Nil Total ... 448,633 Under Commonwealth legislation in 1987, freehold title to 403 hectares of former reserve land was handed over to the Aboriginal community at Wreck Bay in Jervis Bay Territory of the Australian Capital Territory. In Victoria in 1987, Commonwealth legislation provided freehold title over the Framlingham Forest and a former reserve at Lake Condah to the local Aboriginals. This resulted in the granting of 53 hectares of land at Lake Condah and 1,100 hectares at Framlingham Forest to the traditional Aboriginal owners. Land claimed by Aboriginals and land granted to Aboriginals in the States are matters for the State Governments. The details sought may be available from the relevant State Government. 3 (iv) The total area of land in the Northern Territory that is currently the subject of a land claim but on which no recommendation has yet been made by a Land Commissioner under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 is approximately 167,641 square kilometres. The total area of land the subject of a recommendation of a Land Commissioner but on which no decision has yet been made by the Minister is approximately 4,432 square kilometres. 3 (v) Records of Aboriginal Secondary Assistance Scheme (ABSEC) assistance to Aboriginal school students in 1985, 1986 and 1987 indicate the following minimum levels of Aboriginal students in Years 11 and 12; (There may have been others not in receipts of assistance). Year II Year 12 1985 ... 2,450 898 1986 ... 2,734 1,104 1987 ... 2,606 1,287 3 (vi) Aboriginal tertiary students assisted under the Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (ABSTUDY) in 1985, 1986, and 1987 are recorded as: 1985 ... 1,419 1986 ... 1,997 1987 ... 2,393 3 (vii) There is no acceptable measure of Aboriginal unemployment other than the Australian Census every fifth year. Aboriginal unemployment rates are: Over 25 years under 25 years 1985 ... Not available not available 1986 ... 28.27% 45.61% 1987 ... Not available not available (Question No. 933) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: (1) What is the purpose of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976? (2) How many Aboriginal organisations are incorporated under the Act? (3) How many incorporated Aboriginal organisations operate under State or Territory legislation? (4) How many Aboriginal organisations incorporated under the Commonwealth Act operate in each of the (a) departmental regions and (b) States and Territories? (5) How many Aboriginal organisations receiving Commonwealth funding are incorporated under (a) the Commonwealth Act and (b) State or Territory legislation. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The purpose of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act is to provide a simple, flexible means to enable Aboriginal groups to incorporate in a manner that makes provision for Aboriginal methods of decision making. (2) At 30 June 1988, there were 653 Aboriginal Associations incorporated under the Act. (3) Aboriginal organisations incorporated under State or Territory legislation, such as the Companies Codes or the Associations Incorporation Acts, are not identified as Aboriginal corporations. However, it is estimated that 600 Aboriginal organisations are incorporated under legislation other than the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. (4) The information on Aboriginal organisations incorporated under the Commonwealth Act is kept on a State by State basis, not on a region by region basis. The number of Aboriginal organisations incorporated under the Commonwealth Act and operating in each State and Territory is: NSW-152, Vic-10, Qld-125, SA-7, WA-202, Tas-7, NT-141, ACT-3, and National bodies-6 as at 30 June 1988. (5) Records of the number of Aboriginal organisations receiving Commonwealth funding are not maintained by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in regard to sources other than the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. The numbers shown are currently funded organisations and include grants to unincorporated organisations such as sporting teams. Also some organisations receive funds from more than one source. The number of Aboriginal organisations receiving funding within the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio are: Department of Aboriginal Affairs-1763, Aboriginal Development Commission-392, Aboriginal Hostels Limited-65, and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies-9. (Question No. 1143) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to claims made by the Queensland Health Minister that the Commonwealth is discriminating against that State by way of health grants and Commonwealth assistance. (2) What is the correct position and will he outline the financial assistance given by the Government to Queensland from 1983 to 1987 and to be granted in 1988-89 in the area of (a) Medicare, (b) identified health grants and (c) general financial assistance grants. (3) What changes has the Government made to ensure and, if necessary, force the Queensland Government to spend its full health appropriations and grants in the health area. (4) How does Queensland fare in comparison with the national average and other States under the new arrangements. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Yes. My attention has been drawn to claims made by the Queensland Health Minister that the Commonwealth discriminates against that State when determining health grants. It appears to be a Queensland ritual that, once the Commonwealth Budget is announced, the claim of inequitable distribution of Medicare and other health funding is raised by the State Health Minister. In making these claims, the Minister conveniently forgets how these grants are derived and the overall Commonwealth/State financial arrangements which are negotiated at Premiers' Conferences. I refer the Queensland Health Minister to the 1985 Premiers' Conference where a number of issues relevant to her claims were raised. In the context of that Conference, the Health Minister may recall that when Medicare was introduced, the Commonwealth requested the Grants Commission, in its review of tax-sharing relativities, to identify specifically whether the introduction of Medicare had disturbed the health relativities between States that existed prior to Medicare. The Grants Commission reported that health relativities had been disturbed and an amount of $10m was identified as necessary to restore Queensland's relativity for the two years 1983-84 and 1984-85. The Commonwealth accepted the Grants Commission report and the $10m was paid to Queensland in 1985-86. At the Premier's Conference, it was also agreed that the identified Health Grants would continue as separate payments for the 1985-86 triennium. However, in the context of overall Commonwealth/ State financial arrangements, adjustments and offsets were made to the general financial assistance grants in lieu of adjusting the Identified Health Grants. In other words, the Identified Health Grants would be health grants in name only. This means that when comparing Identified Health Grant payments amongst States, general financial assistance grants must also be taken into account. Table 1 shows the Medicare Compensation Grants. Identified Health Grants and general financial assistance grants paid to the States and the Northern Territory from 1983-84 to 1987-88 and compares the corresponding per capita distribution of these grants. The table shows that the per capita funding for Queensland exceeds the national average and those of the two most populous States. Table 1 Medicare Compensation Grants, Identified Health Grants and Financial Assistance Grants paid to the States and the Northern Territory in the period 1983-84 to 1987-88 and the corresponding per capita distribution N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. Total 1983-84 Tax Sharing Grants $m ... 2,576.8 1,926.2 1,684.8 953.8 999.3 397.0 424.6 8,962.5 Health Grants $m ... 489.1 323.2 100.0 78.6 150.7 27.2 25.3 1,194.1 Medicare $m ... 104.0 80.0 29.0 21.2 27.3 10.7 2.4 274.6 Hospital Cost Sharing $m ... . . . . 6.8 93.5 . . 27.0 . . 127.3 TOTAL $M ... 3,169.9 2,329.4 1,820.6 1,147.1 1,177.3 461.9 452.3 10,558.5 Per capita ... 589.60 574.37 727.28 847.82 852.75 1,061.60 3,246.95 692.66 1984-85 Financial Assistance $m ... 2,693.1 2,019.9 1,885.6 1,000.3 1,042.3 417.1 471.3 9,529.6 Health Grants $m ... 521.4 344.2 104.7 182.3 162.0 59.0 27.2 1,400.8 Medicare $m ... 351.9 249.2 75.6 118.3 85.2 32.7 11.6 924.5 TOTAL $M ... 3,566.4 2,613.3 2,065.9 1,300.9 1,289.5 508.8 510.1 11,854.9 Per Capita ... 656.36 637.69 810.92 952.62 918.38 1,156.10 3,510.67 768.08 1985-86 Financial Assistance $m ... 3,012.6 2,248.3 1,973.6 1,037.2 1,123.0 387.0 561.3 10,343.0 Health Grants $m ... 563.0 371.0 113.5 195.9 176.3 63.6 0.0 1,483.3 Medicare $m ... 420.7 256.0 72.1 111.9 89.1 33.2 13.2 996.2 TOTAL $m... 3,996.3 2,875.3 2,159.2 1,345.0 1,388.4 483.8 574.5 12,822.5 Per Capita ... 726.96 694.45 831.42 976.90 965.84 1,088.17 3,782.09 819.56 1986-87 Financial Assistance $m ... 3,350.0 2,494.0 2,206.0 1,147.0 1,263.8 428.8 628.1 11,517.7 Health Grants $m ... 626.6 411.9 127.0 216.8 198.6 70.5 0.0 1,651.4 Medicare $m ... 414.9 266.8 78.6 117.3 92.7 35.0 12.4 1,017.7 TOTAL $M ... 4,391.5 3,172.7 2,411.6 1,481.1 1,555.1 534.3 640.5 14,186.8 Per Capita ... 788.22 758.26 909.90 1,066.84 1,050.89 1,194.23 4,111.04 893,53 1987-88 Financial Assistance $m ... 3,594.9 2,667.3 2,414.3 1,233,3 1,393.3 452.9 690.0 12,446.0 Health Grants $m ... 674.0 441.6 139.3 233.7 219.5 74.6 0.0 1,782.7 Medicare $m ... 443.5 286.1 84.7 126.6 100.9 39.7 13.4 1,094.9 TOTAL $M ... 4,712.4 3,395.0 2,638.3 1,593.6 1,713.7 567.2 703.4 15,323.6 Per capita ... 832.51 801.92 974.91 1,137.31 1,127.51 1,266.64 4,488.83 950.25 Medicare Compensation Grants and Identified Health Grants ceased on 30 June 1988. New hospital funding arrangements will apply from 1988-89 and continue for the next five years. Under these new arrangements, the Commonwealth has allocated about $3063m nationally for hospital funding, to be distributed to the States and Territories on an age and sex weighted per capita distribution. The new grants identify unequivocally the level of Commonwealth support for the Queensland public hospital system. No longer can the Queensland Health Minister produce selective facts to support her claim that Queensland suffers some disadvantage compared to other States. The hypocrisy surrounding the claims of the Queensland Health Minister can be judged by her reaction to the Commonwealth offer of an age and sex per capita distribution of hospital grants, an offer which, incidentally, would increase the level of Commonwealth funding specifically identified for health in Queensland from around $224m in 1987-88 to $500m in 1988-89. The Minister claimed the new arrangements were an intrusion by the Commonwealth into State affairs and that they constrained her Government's ability to control its own health care system. There could not be a more equitable way to distribute the new grants than the method adopted nor is there any substance to the claim that the Commonwealth will exercise effective control over the Queensland health system. Table 2 Table 2 details the estimated Financial Assistance Grants and the new Hospital Grants that will be paid to the States and the Northern Territory and their per capita distributions in 1988-89 1988-89 N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. Total Financial Assistance $M ... 3,654.1 2,635.3 2,215.8 1,289.7 1,438.2 463.5 616.6 12,313.2 Per capita ... 636.74 615.32 799.81 911.06 922.75 1,034.14 3,952.56 752.16 Hospital Funding $M ... 1,076.2 794.9 500.4 278.6 269.0 86.1 19.7 3,024.9 Per capita ... 187.53 185.60 180.62 196.81 172.59 192.10 126.28 184.78 TOTAl $M ... 4,730.3 3,430.2 2,716.2 1,568.3 1,707.2 549.6 636.3 15,338.1 Per capita ... 824.27 800.44 980.44 1,107.87 1,095.34 1,226.24 4,078.85 936.94 (3) Almost all of the new Hospital Funding Grant is in the form of untied grants and, in that sense, the Commonwealth cannot be prescriptive about its specific use. However, the estimated net cost of maintaining the Queensland public hospital system in 1987-88 was $895m. On this basis, it can be assumed that all of the Commonwealth Hospital Funding Grant will be allocated to public hospitals in 1988-89. Nevertheless, there are a number of specific components within the Hospital Funding Grants which provide incentives to Queensland to make more effective use of hospital resources. There is $1.652m for the development of additional day-only procedure arrangements and $4.129m for post-acute and palliative care services. These funds are specific purpose grants and the State will be required to expend them on jointly agreed projects. The Commonwealth also has applied conditions under the new arrangements that require each State to maintain at least 53% of its bed-day utilisation for public patients. Further, in-hospital Medicare benefit payments are to be maintained at or below 105% of the national average. If States do not adhere to these conditions, reductions will be made to their hospital funding grants. (4) It can be seen from Table 2 that, once again, Queensland's per capita share of the combined total of both grants is greater than the national average and greater than those for New South Wales and Victoria. More importantly, a comparison of the per capita distribution figures for 1987-88 in Table 1 compared with the estimated for 1988-89 shows Queensland is the only State to record an increase in the overall distribution. Queensland's per capita share of the hospital grants in 1988-89 is marginally lower than the national average and lower than all the other States except Western Australia. This does not, of course, imply Commonwealth discrimination against Queensland: it simply reflects the fact that Queensland has a younger population than the other States and therefore has a lower demand for hospital services. In the final analysis, recourse to the facts disproves the claims of the Queensland Health Minister and reveals her position on Commonwealth health funding to be nothing more than political posturing. (Question No. 1249) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 12 October 1988: What is the total amount of funds in 1988-89 allocated for spending on persons of Aboriginal descent and what is the broad breakdown of that amount. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The funds allocated in 1988-89 for Aboriginal Advancement Programs by Commonwealth departments and agencies are detailed in the following table. These programs are essentially directed at Aboriginal communities. Agency/Department 1988-89 Estimate $ Aboriginal Affairs ... 467,429,000 Administrative Services ... 11,905,000 Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories ... 4,995,000 Attorney-General's ... 174,000 Australian Bicentennial Authority ... 1,344,000 Australian Bureau of Statistics ... 101,000 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ... 2,621,000 Community Services and Health ... 105,176,000 Employment, Education and Training ... 210,891,000 Social Security ... 3,136,000 Transport and Communications ... 660,000 Total ... 808,432,000 (Question No. 1346) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) What was the Minister's Department's expenditure on international (a) air freight and (b) shipping in 1987-88. (2) What is the estimated expenditure for those categories in 1988-89. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Department's expenditure for international air freight in 1987-88 was $68,133. (b) The Department's expenditure for international shipping in 1987-88 was $92,442. (2) (a) The estimate for expenditure on international air freight in 1988-89 is $59,800. (b) The estimate for expenditure on international shipping in 1988-89 is $50,750. (Question No. 1030)) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: (1) Did the recently released report on the Options Project indicate that (a) it was intended that there be an increase of 11 585 hostel options between 1987 and 1989, (b) the personal care subsidy rate would increase by 68% between 1987 and 1992 and (c) there would be an increase in the proportion of residents who would be in receipt of the highest level of benefit. (2) Have estimates been prepared to assess the likely increase in capital and operating expenditure caused by these increases. (3) What is the level of operating expenditure estimated annually from 1989 to 1992 and what percentage increase does this represent over expenditure for 1987-88. (4) How does the level of capital and operating expenditure and the rate of increase in total expenditure compare with increases in expenditure under the Home and Community Care Program. (5) What grounds are there for an expansion at the rate of over 3000 places a year for the next 3 years. (6) How many of the 3082 places that were expected to be established in 1987 have been approved for funding and what is the capital commitment involved. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. The Hostel Options Report that was released in December 1987 did indicate that it was intended that there be an increase of 11,585 hostel places over the three years from 1987 to 1989. The Government has confirmed this intention and, as I announced on 17 July, some 12,296 new hostel places will be funded over the next three years up to June 1991. (b) Yes. The total real increase in the Personal Care Subsidy over the period from May 1988 to April 1992 will in fact be 68%. The Government announced in March 1987 that, in addition to the annual indexation of all three hostel subsidies (i.e. personal care, hostel care and respite care) and the real increase of $2.60 a day for the Personal Care Subsidy in May 1987, the Personal Care Subsidy rate would be increased by five annual real increases of $1.50 per day in 1987 prices, commencing in May 1988. The first of these increases ($1.60 a day, in current terms) took effect on 4 May 1988. (c) Yes. As hostels assume a greater role in caring for more frail aged people the proportion of hostel residents receiving Personal Care Subsidy will rise. (2) and (3) Current estimates for Commonwealth expenditure on all three hostel recurrent subsidies are $118.5 million in 1988-89, $152 million in 1989-90 and $191.7 million in 1990-91, increases respectively of 30%, 67% and 110% over 1987-88 expenditure. In this context, total expenditure on Personal Care Subsidy is estimated to increase by $14 million in 1988-89 to $103 million, by a further $32 million in 1989-90 to $135 million and by $38.5 million in 1990-91 to $173.5 million, increases respectively of 15.7%, 51.7% and 94.9% over 1987-88 expenditure as a result of both the real increases in Personal Care Subsidy commencing in May 1988 and the increase in the proportion of residents receiving Personal Care Subsidy. Capital expenditure for aged residential care is estimated to increase from $65 million in 1987-88 to $96 million in 1988-89 with further increases to $126 million in 1989-90 and to $137 million in 1990-91. This represents increases respectively of 47%, 93.8% and 110.8% over 1987-88 expenditure. (4) Expenditure by the Commonwealth on HACC is expected to rise by $40 million in 1988-89 from $169 million to $209 million, by $48.7 million to $257.7 million in 1989-90, by $64.7 million to $322.4 million in 1990-91 and by a further $64.4 million to $386.8 million in 1991-92. This represents increases respectively of 23.7%, 52.5%, 90.8% and 128.9% over 1987-88 expenditure. It is obvious from the figures set out above that both the hostel program and the HACC program are experiencing significant increases in Commonwealth funding. (5) The proposed expansion of over 3000 hostel places a year is based on the Government's residential planning arrangements which aim to maintain a national average provision ratio of 100 residential places per 1000 persons aged 70 and over. A maximum 10% of new approvals in any one year will be for nursing home approvals, in order to effect a gradual change in the current mix of 63 nursing home places to 37 hostel places nationally to a ratio of 40 nursing home places to 60 hostel places. The Government's approach to planning of residential care services is consistent with the findings of the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review which concluded that there are a number of indications that present provision in Australia is sufficient for current needs, particularly given the relatively high level of provision when compared with other countries. (6) In 1987-88, 3,192 new nursing home and hostel places and 131 staff places were approved for capital funding. The total capital commitment by the Commonwealth is $79,538,712. (Question No. 1125) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) Why did the Government prepare the publication entitled ``Short guide to living in a nursing home''. (2) What was the cost of producing the publication and how many were printed. (3) Who received copies of the publication and how were they distributed. (4) What was the cost of distribution. (5) Was any other material enclosed with the publication; if so, what was it and what was its cost to produce. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government is aware of the need to consult widely on aged care reforms and to ensure that the nursing home industry and the community generally are kept fully informed of details of, and progress in, implementation of the reforms. New nursing home standards were introduced from 1 July 1987 based on the recommendations of a joint Commonwealth/State Working Party on Nursing Home Standards. The publication ``A Short Guide to Living in a Nursing Home'' was produced to give existing and potential residents and their relatives an indication of the quality of life and quality of care standards the Commonwealth expects nursing homes and their staff to provide. It was also produced for community groups to inform them of the new standards. (2) The publication cost approximately $32,000 to produce, and more than 150,000 copies were printed. It is therefore estimated that the booklets cost a little over twenty cents each. (3) ``A Short Guide to Living in a Nursing Home'' has been distributed to residents of aged care facilities, to community groups and, through State Offices of the Department of Community Services and Health, to other interested organisations and individuals. (4) Because the publication has been distributed in conjunction with other material on the reforms and distributed progressively in response to requests through the various State Offices of the Department, it is not possible to accurately determine the total distribution costs. (5) The other material enclosed with the publication varied depending upon when, and to whom, it was distributed. ``A Short Guide to Living in a Nursing Home'' now forms part of the range of material available which provides information to members of the public and to relevant Government and community organisations on different aspects of the Government's aged care program. (Question No. 1126) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: Does his Department produce a publication called Aged Care, if so, (a) what is this publication, (b) what is its purpose, (c) how many issues have been produced, (d) what is its publication schedule, (e) how many copies of each issue are published, (f) who prepares the contents of the publication, (g) who prints the publication, (h) how is the publication distributed, (i) who receives copies and (j) what is the cost of distribution. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Yes. The publication is known as the Aged Care Update. (b) The Aged Care Update enables major policy and program initiatives and developments to be announced to aged care residents and relevant industry, union and consumer groups. The Aged Care Update expands on information contained in press releases and ensures that all nursing homes and hostels and their residents are aware of major policy changes and reforms. Residents and service providers alike have a right to be kept informed of developments likely to affect their future. There has been a lack of such information in the past. A successful aged care program must include good dissemination of information. (c) Three. (d) There is no regular publication schedule. The dates of the three issues published are April 1986, March 1987 and May 1988. (e) The number of copies published is dependent upon the main subject matter which, in turn, determines whether the publication would more appropriately be distributed to proprietors, directors of nursing, consumer groups, unions, peak organisations or residents. (f) The contents of the publication are prepared by Departmental staff for my approval. (g) The publication is printed under contractual arrangements organised through the Australian Government Publishing Service. (h) The publication is distributed by the most efficient method available at the time, usually Australia Post, but Departmental State Offices may also be used as the mail-out point. (i) See (e) above. (j) The cost varies depending upon the number of copies printed, and the method and target of delivery. Given that this publication was distributed with other material, although cost savings were no doubt effected, it is not possible to accurately determine the actual cost of distributing the Aged Care Update. (Question No. 1127) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) Does the Resident Classification system assess intellectual disability other than that arising from dementia; if so, how is this done and what special care is provided. (2) Does the policy for aged care recognise that the care needs of the mentally disabled and physically disabled are different to the aged in general; if so, how does the policy recognise this difference. (3) If the care needs of the mentally and physically disabled are not recognised as being different from those of the aged in general, why not. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Resident Classification system assesses the care needs of residents irrespective of the precipitating factors. It takes into account a range of characteristics relating to behaviour, whether caused by intellectual disability, or dementia. People who, because of intellectual disability or for any other reason require assistance with a range of basic skills, such as eating and dressing, and who also need careful supervision because of anti-social or otherwise irrational behaviour, for example, will be entitled to very high levels of nursing and personal care. (2) Yes. The new measures only apply to non-Government nursing homes for the aged and not to special purpose nursing homes in which the majority of younger intellectually and physically disabled people are accommodated. In recognition of the very differing care needs of younger disabled and aged people, program responsibility for special purpose nursing homes have been transferred to the Commonwealth Disability Services Program. (3) See (2) above. (Question No. 1138) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) Will extra assessors need to be employed to carry out the task of assessing patient suitability for categorisation into the five categories under the Resident Classification Instrument; if so, (a) how many extra assessors will be required and (b) what sum will it cost the Government to employ these extra staff. (2) Will existing nursing staff be retrained to carry out the new task of classifying patients into the five categories; if so, what sum will it cost the Government to retrain staff in this new procedure. (3) If existing staff will not be retrained, what will happen to the redundant nursing staff. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Directors of Nursing of non-government nursing homes and existing professional staff of the Department of Community Services and Health have received training on the use of the Resident Classification Instrument. This training was undertaken as part of the Department's usual activities and no separate costing is available. (3) See (2) above. (Question No. 1140) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) Is there in the nursing home legislation a mechanism to facilitate an appeal against the assessors' categorisation of a patient under the Resident Classification Instrument (RCI); if so, who will have the right of appeal. (2) What is the process a person will be required to go through, in order to appeal against a decision of the RCI assessors. (3) What would be the cost to the Government of such an appeal. (4) Will nursing home proprietors have the right to appeal; if not, why not. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) Yes. Sections 40afe and 40aff of the National Health Act provide mechanisms for review of Resident Classification Instrument (RCI) assessments. The RCI will generally be completed by a Director of Nursing (DON) of a nursing home after a person's admission to a home, but may also be completed by an assessment service before a person is admitted to a home. A Director of Nursing may not seek a review of his or her or another Director of Nursing's assessment of a resident, but may seek, within 28 days of admission, a review of an assessment service's assessment of a resident. Appropriate professional staff from the Department of Community Services and Health will visit the nursing home (generally within 28 days of receipt of the request for review) and make a recommendation regarding the Director of Nursing's request. If the Secretary confirms the Director of Nursing's assessment, and a higher classification level results, the date of effect will be backdated to the `approved from' date of the RCI. If a lower level is approved, payment at the new level will commence from the date of the Secretary's decision. The Department of Community Services and Health may initiate a review of one or all residents of a nursing home where the home's resident profile varies significantly from the State dependency profile or where responses to individual questions on the RCI are atypical. Whether the review results in a higher or lower classification level, payment at the new level will commence from the date of the Secretary's decision. Where a Director of Nursing is dissatisfied with the Secretary's decision in either of the two cases cited above, the proprietor of a nursing home may appeal to the Minister within 28 days for a review of that decision. The cost of a review to the Government will vary depending upon the individual circumstances of the case. In the case of any downward adjustment, the appeal process may result in a saving. (Question No. 1152) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) Will he outline the health regions that exist in Queensland for the provision of Commonwealth financial assistance for aged care in nursing homes and hostels. (2) Will he list the local authorities that make up the Fitzroy region and its adjoining health regions. (3) What is the population/bed ratio operating at present in the Fitzroy region and what has that ratio been for each year since 1978. (4) How many (a) aged care and (b) hostel care beds are funded in the Fitzroy region and what is the present ratio in each category. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The health regions used for planning the provision of aged residential care services in Queensland are as follows: Region Local Government Area Central West Aramac, Barcaldine, Barcoo, Blackall, Boulia, Diamantina, Ilfracombe, Isisford, Longreach, Tambo, Winton Darling Downs Allora, Cambooya, Chinchilla, Clifton, Crows Nest, Dalby, Glengallen, Goondiwindi, Inglewood, Jondaryan, Millmerran, Murilla, Pittsworth, Rosalie, Rosenthal, Stanthorpe, Tara, Taroom, Toowoomba City, Waggamba, Wambo, Warwick City Far North Atherton, Aurukun, Cairns City, Cardwell, Cook, Croydon, Douglas, Eacham, Etheridge, Herberton, Johnstone, Mareeba, Mulgrave, Torres, Weipa Fitzroy Banana, Bauhinia, Calliope, Duaringa, Emerald, Fitzroy, Gladstone City, Jericho, Livingstone, Mt Morgan, Peak Downs, Rockhampton City Mackay Belyando, Broadsound, Mackay City, Mirani, Nebo, Pioneer, Proserpine, Sarina Morton City Brisbane City Council Area Morton North Caboolture, Kilcoy, Landsborough, Maroochy, Noosa, Pine Rivers, Redcliffe City Morton South Albert, Beaudesert, Gold Coast City, Logan, Redland Morton West Boonah, Esk, Gatton, Ipswich City, Laidley, Morton North West Burke, Carpentaria, Cloncurry, Flinders, McKinlay, Mornington, Mt Isa City, Richmond Northern Ayr, Bowen, Charters Towers, Dalrymple, Hinchinbrook, Thuringowa, Townsville City South West Balonne, Bendemere, Booringa, Bulloo, Bungil, Murweh, Paroo, Quilpie, Roma, Warroo Wide Bay-Burnett Biggenden, Bundaberg City, Eidsvold, Gayndah, Gooburrum, Gympie City, Hervey Bay, Isis, Kilkivan, Kingaroy, Kolan, Maryborough City, Miriam Vale, Monto, Munduberra, Murgon, Nanago, Perry, Tiaro, Widgee, Wondai, Woocoo, Woongarra (2) See (1). (3) The current ratio of residential care places (i.e. nursing home beds and hostel places) per aged population (i.e. persons aged 70 years and over) in the Fitzroy region is 123:1000. This is based on the provision of 1025 beds/places (not including beds approved-in-principle but not yet established) for an aged population of 8,319 (1986 Census of Population and Housing). As the use of a combined nursing home beds/hostel places ratio only commenced in 1986, the bed/population ratio for each year since 1978 is not available. The ratio of residential care places per aged population in the Fitzroy region in 1986 and 1987 was 122:1000 and 120:1000 respectively. (4) The current number of (a) nursing home beds and (b) hostel places in the Fitzroy region is 574 and 451 respectively, giving current provision ratios of 69:1000 and 54:1000 in each category. (Question No. 1214) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 28 September 1988: (1) Why did the Government renege on its undertaking to provide $6.5m for the national Attendant Care Scheme, by only increasing its commitment to the scheme by $2.6m in the 1988-89 Budget. (2) Why has there been such a low take-up rate of the scheme. (3) Is it expected that the take-up rate will improve during 1988-89; if not, why not. (4) If the take-up rate is expected to improve during 1988-89, when in the year will it do so. (5) To what level is the rate expected to increase. (6) What change in circumstances will facilitate this boost in the take-up rate. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government's commitment to the Attendant Care Scheme has not changed. Although the estimated expenditure for 1988-89 is $4m because of delays in commencements, there is no change to the $6.5m budgeted for subsequent years. (2) Implementation of the Scheme has been slower than anticipated primarily due to the time involved with arranging applicants' transition requirements, particularly housing. (3) and (4) The commencement rate is dependent on factors which are often not able to be anticipated, and relate to the individual transition requirements of participants. (5) The Scheme has a ceiling of up to 360 places which can be provided within the recurrent budget of $6.5m. (6) It is expected that further approvals will be made and delays in arranging transition will be overcome as a result of additional assistance available to applicants and a once only grant made to State and Territory housing authorities to provide accommodation for Attendant Care Scheme consumers. (Question No. 1221) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 29 September 1988: What funds are being made available for companies in the electoral division of Bass under the (a) Textile, Clothing and Footwear Scheme, (b) Heavy Engineering Scheme and (c) Motor Vehicle Components Development Grant Scheme. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) $139,886 Textiles Yarn Bounty (87/88) (b) $884,726 (c) Nothing (Question No. 1236) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 October 1988: (1) Why is the principal registry of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be moved from Canberra to Brisbane. (2) What special arrangements will be made to accommodate the handling of proceedings before the Tribunal, consequent upon its move from Canberra to Brisbane. (3) What is the cost of moving the principal registry from Canberra to Brisbane. (4) What is the annual rental of the premises occupied in Canberra by the (a) principal registry and (b) ACT registry of the Tribunal. (5) What will be the annual rental of the premises occupied in Canberra by the ACT registry of the Tribunal after the principal registry is moved to Brisbane. (6) What is the annual rental of the premises occupied by the Queensland registry of the Tribunal. (7) What will be the annual rental of the premises occupied in Brisbane by the Tribunal after the Principal registry is moved to Brisbane. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Relocation of the Principal Registry of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to Brisbane is considered a more efficient use of resources than present arrangements. The Canberra Registry, to which the Principal Registry is presently attached, is one of the smallest ATT registries in terms of workload. Relocation of the Principal Registry with a District Registry in one of the major cities where there is a higher workload has been considered for some time. Brisbane has the third largest workload of all AAT registries. Suitable accommodation is available in Brisbane for the Registry in premises already leased by the Commonwealth. (2) None. Changes in the handling of proceedings before the Tribunal which are currently being put in place would have been made wherever the Principal Registry was located. (3) The estimated costs of moving the Principal Registry from Canberra to Brisbane are as follows: $ Fitout costs in Brisbane... 600,000 Uplift of furniture and equipment... 10,000 Purchase of new furniture and equipment... 150,000 Removal expenses on transfer of staff... 20,000 780,000 (4) The annual rental of the premises occupied by the Tribunal in Canberra is currently $373,277.17. The accommodation is for the whole of the Tribunal's operations in Canberra. The functions of the ACT District Registry have been performed by officers in the Principal Registry. (5) $211,860.84. (6) $208,142.88. (7) $399,676.80. This includes the accommodation occupied by the Queensland Registry.