Thursday, 1 December 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-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 waste valuable time referring a case to a person 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 Beale (from 28 citizens), Mr N.A. Brown (from 476 citizens), by Mr Courtice (from 135 citizens), Mr Cross (from 43 citizens), Mr Dobie (from 200 citizens), Dr Harry Edwards (from 54 citizens), Mr Ronald Edwards (from 27 citizens), Mr Fife (from 27 citizens), Mr Peter Fisher (from 26 citizens), Mr Halverson (from 79 citizens), Mr Howard (from 153 citizens), Mr Hunt (from 74 citizens), Mr Kent (from 27 citizens), Mr Lindsay (from 107 citizens), Mr Lloyd (from 54 citizens), Mr Martin (from 297 citizens), Mr Moore (from 26 citizens), Mr Peacock (from 27 citizens), Mr Smith (from 51 citizens), Mrs Sullivan (from 54 citizens), Mr Tuckey (from 110 citizens), Mr Webster (from 57 citizens) and Mr White (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: X-rated video material contravenes Christian moral beliefs in that: 1. the status of both women and men are degraded by the material, 2. children could gain access to the material, much to the detriment of their moral development, 3. the material often promotes and encourages criminal acts. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to put pressure on 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 Miles (from 19 citizens), Mr Smith (from 243 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 51 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth: The irradiation of food by any means degrades the nutritional value of food and is potentially harmful to the health of all consumers and to the environment. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House: (1) Withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and from the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. (2) Take all possible steps to prevent and disallow the irradiation of food in Australia. (3) Ban the export and importation of irradiated foods and animal feeds. (4) Take steps to obtain a testing device to make possible the identification of irradiated foods, as soon as one becomes available. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Punch (from 176 citizens), Mr John Scott (from 55 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 439 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We pray that the House immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent (from 353 citizens) and Mr Milton (from 79 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Parliament assembled. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people-Proverbs 14:34 Considering: (1) the loss of hope among the youth of the nation. (2) the breakdown of the family unit. (3) the increase of corruption in our society. (4) the increasing weight of our national debt. (5) the emerging divisions in our community. We petition you to: (1) encourage every Australian to see his/her responsibility to live uprightly before God and others; (2) encourage commitment in marriage and encourage fathers and mothers to love and cherish their children; (3) encourage the Members of Parliament to live and legislate according to Biblical principles; (4) encourage business in Australia to pursue their transactions in generosity-without greed; (5) support the Christian Church in expressing the friendship of God, and in carrying out its practical responsibilities to the poor, needy and dispossessed. by calling a National Day of Prayer for Australia, to seek God's help to heal our land. We as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore (from 36,000 citizens) and Mr Webster (from 36,000 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth 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 Beale (from one citizen). The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned, are appalled that the Romanian Government plans the commencement of the destruction in September of 7000 villages, hundreds of thousands of peaceful homes and homesteads, thousands of churches, historic monuments and cemeteries. With this barbaric action millions of people will be disadvantaged, even sent to their death with these Totalitarian actions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give these matters earnest consideration and request the Romanian Government to abandon these horrific acts against the Romanian Community and its minorities. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale (from one citizen). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia within Western Australia shows That the management of the affairs of the Spastic Welfare Association of Western Australia Incorporated is a matter of grave concern for the following reasons: (a) The active involvement beyond normal duties of senior members of the staff in the organisation of a Special General Meeting to remove certain Board Members from the Board of Directors. (b) The subsequent appointment of replacement Board Members, the expulsion of a Member of the Association and the actions taken to reverse the positive moves made to bring the Association into line with the Government's `New Directions' policy for disabled persons. (c) The financial management of the Association, in that the needs of the disabled Members of the Association are treated as of secondary importance. Your petitioners therefore pray that an Independent Enquiry be appointed to investigate and report on the Administrative and Financial Management of the Spastic Welfare Association of Western Australia (Incorporated). by Mr Beazley (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned draws attention to the House of the inequitable attack on pensioners of the Federal Government's proposed changes to the pension income test. The changes will penalise those who have genuinely attempted self-provision in retirement and will eventually produce more dependency on Governments in the future. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal. by Mr N.A. Brown (from 50 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Alteration (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will refer the above mentioned Bill to an appropriate Parliamentary Committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth (from 22 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 Parliament's decision to increase 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 Governments 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 as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross (from 225 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain undersigned citizens of the Shire of Warragul, Division of McMillan draws to the attention of the House that: There is too much crime and violence depicted on television, and that this is breaking down the standards and codes of behaviour in our society. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House urge Television Stations to clean up their act and improve the standard of shows, news and current affairs programmes by reducing the incidence of depicted crime and violence broadcast every day into people's homes. by Mr Cunningham (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth 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 humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: Urge television stations to improve the standard 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 Mrs Sullivan (from 483 citizens). To The Honourable, The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth, that we are aware that social security payments are being made to non eligible recipients. Of special concern are recipients who are able to work but who choose not to work. They are able to do so because the present regulations administered by The Department of Social Security are not effective in preventing people playing the system. Your petitioners therefore ask that your Honourable House will introduce regulations that will stop non eligible recipients from receiving social security payments and also introduce penalties and reparations for those who continue. by Dr Harry Edwards (from 25 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 Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards (from two citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, points out to the House it is clear from any discussion of the Shark Bay region that it possesses natural attributes of outstanding significance and hence deserves the best possible strategies for conservation to sustain them in their natural system. Your petitioners ask the House to recognize Shark Bay as fulfilling the criteria for World Heritage Listing and to this end the Federal Government should take immediate cooperative steps to have the Bay included in the World Heritage List. by Mr Ronald Edwards (from 1,651 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 tax payers 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 government 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 73 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 Service Personnel postings generally occur within every two years Postings are generally interstate Changing vehicle drivers licences and registration causes considerable inconvenience There is a heavy cost involved in frequently changing current licences and vehicle registration. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House grant a Defence Force vehicle drivers licence and a Defence Force motor vehicle registration for use Australia wide that is not subject to State changes and which is acceptable to all States. by Mr Tim Fischer (from 4,633 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 that the Federal Government proposes to place the anti-epileptic medication sodium valproate (`Epilim') on the `Authority only' listing as of 1st August 1988. Your petitioners believe that this may well cause great problems for the people who take Epilim, for whom no effective alternative medication is available. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will rescind the decision to place sodium valproate (`Epilim') on the `Authority only' listing. by Mr Hand (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament The Petition of the undersigned shows: That we oppose any mineral exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park, the Kakadu Conservation Zone, or the Alligator Rivers Region. Your petitioners ask that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Halt all mineral exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone by revoking current leases and licences and by incorporating the zone in Kakadu National Park and; Prevent proposed mining in Kakadu stages one and two by incorporating the Jabiluka and Koongarra project areas in the National Park and by proclaiming the whole park under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray by Mr Hawke (from 142 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 that May Gibbs' house and garden ``Nutcote'' at 5 Wallaringa Avenue, Neutral Bay, N.S.W., 2089 is classified by the National Trust, N.S.W., protected by a PCO of the N.S.W. Heritage council and on the Register of the National Estate. North Sydney Council has resolved to resume ``Nutcote'' asking assistance from the Federal and N.S.W. Governments and this Foundation, for the latter to restore and manage as a publicly accessible gallery and tribute to this famous Australian. Your petitioners therefore request that Parliament ensures that funds be allocated for this worthy purpose. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Howard (from 11,198 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, the apparent procedure by Medicare, that categorises all childbirth as the same, with additional procedures being the exception rather than the rule. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House recognise that many different procedures can be necessary in childbirth which incur varying fees from our doctors. Medicare should in turn acknowledge and provide a system of reimbursement for these different fees. by Mr Jull (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable 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 McArthur (from six citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The sale of violent videos, books glorifying violence, and toys of violence encourages violence in the community, and has a deleterious effect on the more vulnerable members of the community who are easily influenced. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ban the sale of violent videos, books and toys of violence, in an effort to put an end to the increasing number of violent crimes committed in this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McArthur (from 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 Turners Beach in the Municipality of Ulverstone, Tasmania respectfully showeth: That your petitioners request that a daily postal delivery service be established at Turners Beach in the Municipality of Ulverstone, Tasmania And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Miles (from 141 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 oppose the conclusion of a Treaty between Aboriginal and other Australians or any proposal which divides rather than unites Australia. by Mr Miles (from 174 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 340 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 interest's 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 63 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: We oppose the advertising of alcohol in any form. 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 also causes much family unhappiness and marriage breakdown, as well as being involved in some cases of child abuse and molestation. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ban all advertising of alcohol on television and radio because of its persuasive effect on children and young people. by Mr Miles (from 719 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 Kogarah Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels. Many of us are pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, 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 should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Kogarah Bay Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Punch (from 866 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in the Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia (2) Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137 and Cesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products, (3) Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation. (Electron Beam, X-ray etc.) (4) Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr John Scott (from 240 citizens). To The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament: We the undersigned petition you to express to the Yugoslav Government the concern of the Australian people and Parliament at the contravention of human rights of four Slovenian civilians. Zavrl, Bors-tner, Jansa and Tasic were court-martialled by the Yugoslav army in Ljubljana, Slovenia on 27 July 1988. The court-martial was conducted during a time of peace and in a foreign language. The defendants were not permitted their own representatives. The representatives were bodily removed from the proceedings. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you accede to our request. by Mr Snow (from 1,032 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 383 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that we are concerned with the implementation and interpretation of the Disability Services Act 1986. We therefore humbly request that Parliament takes necessary action to: (1) Halt implementation of the Act until 1 July, 1989. (2) Ensure that prior to 1 July, 1989, formal agreement be reached by the Department of Community Services and Health and appropriate Peak Councils on eligible services, including definition of services and identification of client groups. (3) Ensure that prior to 1 July, 1989, formal agreement be reached by the Department of Community Services and Health and appropriate Peak Councils on funding formulae for eligible services. (4) In the interim, funding to services approved under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 continue to apply to staff salaries, equipment and maintenance items. by Mr Taylor (from 2,945 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that we are strongly opposed to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme included in the Budget statement and associated papers, of 23rd August, 1988, on the grounds that it is inequitable and unworkable. We therefore humbly request that Parliament rejects the scheme as proposed. by Mr Taylor (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: Australians living in rural and non-urban areas rely extensively on the local road network for all facets of their lives. Funding for roads is an essential part of the Commonwealth's responsibilities for the maintenance of the transport infra-structure. Road funding under the Hawke Government has decreased significantly in real terms and local government is particularly disadvantaged by this decline. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled oppose any proposal to absorb road funds into General Revenue Assistance to either Local or State Governments and immediately address the serious problem of a rapidly deteriorating road network which is confronting local government by allocating more resources to local road funding. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey (from 88 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the proposed showing in this country of the film `The Last Temptation of Christ'. This film is offensive to Australians because of its anti-Christian, blasphemous and sacrilegious nature. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the House take action to ensure that the viewing of this film in Australia is rejected by the Film Censorship Board. by Mr Webster (from 25 citizens). Petitions received. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.15) —I had the pleasure in July and August of this year of leading an Australian parliamentary delegation to Singapore, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) and I present the report of the delegation. The delegation saw its main purpose as that of expressing Australia's goodwill, enhancing Australia's understanding of the political, social and economic environment of each of the countries and their regional prospective. The visit also enabled an exchange of views on matters of mutual interest. The essential point that I wish to make in the course of my brief remarks today is that parliamentary delegations have considerable potential to make a greater contribution in promoting Australia's international relations. While acknowledging the work of Australia's professional diplomatic representatives, I believe that elected members have a common bond with elected representatives in other countries. Contact at this level is very important, I believe, in promoting good relations between countries. I will have more to say about that in the course of my remarks. Our delegation is very appreciative of the assistance of our hosts, the Parliaments of Singapore, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. We thank them for their hospitality and the arrangements that they made for the visit. The delegation found the visits to each of these three countries extremely worth while. Members believe that the first hand experience we gained in those three countries, the personal contacts made and the mutual good will that was experienced will lead to improved international relations between our countries. The report that I have tabled does not set out to provide a comprehensive outline of the domestic or foreign policy affairs of the countries visited; rather as honourable members would expect, it reflects in part the interests of the members of the delegation. I want to take this opportunity-indeed, some of the members to whom I will refer are present-to thank the other members of the delegation. They were the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith), who was the deputy leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), Senator Paul Calvert, Senator Bob McMullan, and the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster). I believe that those members showed a degree of professionalism, integrity and mutual cooperation that underpinned the success of our visit. While we were and remain from different political parties and have different points of view, we were able to establish an effective working relationship. It was a pleasure to work with them. I also take this opportunity to thank Mr Allan Kelly, the secretary of the delegation, whose unobtrusive efficiency was absolutely essential to making the delegation work effectively. I also thank Miss Louise Carney, who has done a lot of the work in putting the report together with her typing and other assistance. I also thank Dr Frank Frost and Bill Standish of the Parliamentary Library who provided valuable advice in connection with the report. Having said that, I want to use the very brief time available to me to make a number of points. The first one is, as I have already indicated, that there is enormous potential for Australian parliamentary delegations to do a better job for Australia to promote the international relations that I have referred to. Essential to that process is a reconsideration by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of its relationship with visiting delegations. Nothing that I say should be construed as a criticism of that Department or its officers, but it is the view of our delegation that we can, as I have already indicated, do a lot more to make delegations work more effectively. To that end we have recommended in our report that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in conjunction with the Parliamentary Relations Office, be requested to undertake a total review of the role performed by the Department in dealing with parliamentary delegations when in host countries. I understand that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) has already initiated a number of steps which will, I believe, very much improve the processes currently in place. But in essence we believe that tangible steps can be taken to make sure that parliamentarians are better briefed, have a better opportunity for high level meetings with representatives of visiting countries and, in general terms, are more conscious of Australia's national interest and are able to play their part in raising those issues in discussions that they hold. There are comprehensive recommendations set out in our report and I will not allude further to them. I turn now to make some brief remarks-obviously reflecting my own areas of interest-concerning the three countries that we visited. First of all, I will start with our nearest neighbour. People do not realise that Papua New Guinea is so close to Australia that it is possible literally to row from the Torres Strait Islands to Papua New Guinea. It is right on our doorstep. For that reason we were distressed to learn that there had not been an Australian parliamentary delegation to Papua New Guinea for five years. Our visit to PNG was very constructive in building better relations and I will leave my colleagues to raise some of the matters that arose out of our visit. I wish to recount one of the experiences I had that brought home to me dramatically the incredible clash of cultures and the great diversity and richness in Papuan New Guinean society. On one occasion we were in Mendi, in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea, where a court case was in progress. A number of us thought that we would look in to see what was happening. We made our way through a crowd of people, all milling around the portable building that comprised the courthouse. People were practising their cultural style of dress, some had bones through their noses, others wore grass skirts, and there was a richness in the array of humanity surrounding that courthouse. After we made our way through the substantial crowd, we peeked into the courtroom. There sitting at the Bar table were a couple of barristers, dressed not unlike the Clerks in this House. As I turned further round making my way through the crowd, I was able to observe an enormous indigenous Papua New Guinean also wearing a wig, and squatting on the floor of the courtroom were over 20 Papua New Guineans. It was a treasure to behold this clash of what we would commonly refer to as British justice interspersed with indigenous Papua New Guinean society. I turn my attention now, in the brief time I shall occupy in this debate, to Malaysia and Singapore. In the case of Singapore, the delegation's concerns are set out in its report. I wish only to comment that in my view-and I think in the view of other members of the delegation-there is an enormous conflict between the cosmopolitan nature of society in Singapore, its Western orientation and considerable development, and the continuation of the operation of the Internal Security Act in that country. We have made a recommendation concerning renewed Australian representations on that subject. In the case of Malaysia, the situation is far more critical. Two things stand out in my mind arising from that visit. One was a meeting with the Malaysian Bar Council, where we talked to the top lawyers in Malaysia. They were wearing badges that contained the message `Justice for the judges'. That aspect is a great worry for anyone concerned with the rule of law. In the course of our visit we took the opportunity to visit the Parliament of Malaysia, in which I was able to stand in front of the seat in parliament of Karpal Singh, one of the many people detained under the Internal Security Act. I say to the Government of Malaysia that as long as that Act continues to operate, Malaysia's reputation as a nation will regrettably be tarnished throughout the world. I urge reform and response by the Government of Malaysia in light of those international concerns. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.19) —In the tyranny of time in this place this debate has just five minutes to run, and honourable members will be unable to address the report of the delegation to Singapore, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea in the detail that many of us would like to devote to it. I congratulate the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) on his generous words about the delegation. It was an exceptionally good one. We were extremely well serviced by Mr Allan Kelly, the delegation secretary, and we extend our thanks to him. The countries that we visited are very near and dear to Australia's long term future, since they are directly within our region. Our report goes into some detail about what is happening in those countries. I share the concerns that have just been expressed about the necessity for continued adherence to human rights. In Singapore, where we are seeing a more broadly functioning democracy, a greater and more mature adherence to human rights is something to be welcomed. Indeed, the development of closer ties and the moves of the new generation leadership are things that many of us are watching with keen interest. Papua New Guinea is the country that captivated my deepest interest. It was interesting to see the editorial in today's Australian Financial Review which I am sure other members of the delegation will read. Many challenges are facing Papua New Guinea in how to deal with the resources area. We all hope that Papua New Guinea will be successful in its endeavours because it is a matter of extreme importance to Australia. It is unfortunate that we do not have more time allotted for this discussion. The report speaks for itself. It makes significant recommendations about the roles of parliamentary delegations. We get criticised by the community for many things, one of those being overseas travel. It ought to be brought home to the community that members of parliament are charged with trying to chart a course for this nation. Regardless of our education, we are products of our experiences. To ensure that legislation, when it comes to this place, has the widest perspective possible, it is very important to ensure that our experiences and horizons are broadened. We have to ensure that when the legislation leaves this place it has had that benefit. Travel is an extremely important part of that and we need to utilise, where we can, the experts resident within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and elsewhere around this globe to enhance the opportunities for honourable members to make the very best of those trips taken. I hope that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) and the shadow Minister for foreign affairs, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), will take note of these recommendations and put them into effect as soon as possible to ensure that all honourable members get the very best benefits when they are travelling overseas because it is fundamentally important. Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.22) —I also will be as brief as I can. I would first of all like to thank the Secretary of the delegation, Allan Kelly, for his excellent support during our visit to Malaysia, Singapore and Papua New Guinea. I want to place on record my appreciation of the parliaments of those three countries for giving me an opportunity to learn about their countries. I would also like to thank the many Ministers and other individuals, particularly Archbishop Fernandez, the Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, for giving me and others a detailed briefing on human rights in that country. I also was captivated with Papua New Guinea. I learnt so much about a country which is so close to Australia. The story I wish to relate is that at one dinner I had the pleasure of sitting next to the Government Whip in the provincial parliament of the Morobe province. He explained to me that he was one of the policemen who welcomed Gough Whitlam at the airport when he flew to Papua New Guinea as Leader of the Opposition in 1970. He was surrounded by a massive crowd. He heard Whitlam say that during the first term of a future Whitlam Government he would grant independence to Papua New Guinea and he remembers looking at Whitlam and thinking, `You are crazy'. Yet Papua New Guinea was granted independence in 1975. In hindsight, thank God that Australia was able, through people such as Whitlam and the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), to act quickly and in a proper manner, within a proper timetable, give Papua New Guinea its independence. Look at what is happening in New Caledonia, look at the trouble spots in Asia, Algeria and Vietnam where colonial power was held onto for too long. We have to make sure that Australia does all it can to ensure that Papua New Guinea's vigorous democracy continues. It is important not only because it is a friendly country which looks up to us but also because it is vital to Australia's future foreign affairs and defence interests. I support the report. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.24) —In the last few seconds I want to say how glad I am to add my support to the previous three speakers. They have expressed strong appreciation for everything done by the various governments of the countries we visited. I would also like to pay a tribute to the High Commission staff in those countries who spent considerable time and, in many instances, bent over backwards to help us and make our stay a very enjoyable one. I heartily endorse the comments made by the various speakers and want to place on record my thanks for all that Allan Kelly did, which was quite considerable. I thank those who were engaged in organising the delegation's visits to the three countries before we left and those who assisted in preparing this most comprehensive report. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(10.25) —I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the Philippines and the Republic of Korea during October 1988. I shall be extremely brief because I notice that the other two members of this House who were on the delegation are in the chamber and obviously want to contribute to the report. The parliamentary delegation visited the Philippines and the Republic of Korea during October. It was envisaged originally that the delegation would also visit Japan. The Parliament received invitations from Japan and Korea to host the visits and it was considered appropriate to include the Philippines in the program. The cost of the latter, of course, was borne by the Australian Government. As a result of the unfortunate illness of Emperor Hirohito, the visit to Japan was postponed only a week prior to departure. Although we were obviously disappointed that we would be unable to benefit from a visit to Japan, the delegation was able to extend the time in both the Philippines and Korea profitably. It may well have been very good from our point of view in a sense because we learnt much more about the Philippines and the Republic of Korea. I thank Lyn Simons, the Serjeant-at-Arms, who was secretary of the delegation. She was good at counting up to six. Often it was only five and she would chase up the sixth. She was an extremely good secretary. I understand that Monica Barry from her office has done the typing and retyping of the report during the last few days as a result of alterations suggested by members of the delegation. I thank Monica for the work that she put into it. Another parliamentary delegation which went to Africa recently has been mentioned on the news and in newspapers. Our delegations did not get any publicity because we did not get involved in any brawls. That was not due to the fact that there was not a wide spectrum of opinion represented on the delegation but because of my great ability as a diplomat, which is so well known in this House. I think that we got on reasonably well. We never ate at separate tables or did any of the other things which others apparently do. I wish to make a couple of important points about the Philippines. Huge changes have occurred, are occurring and hopefully will occur there. Marcos was overthrown about two years ago. Obviously that has not solved all the problems of the Republic of the Philippines. The Philippines, which is one of the countries of South East Asia, has a long history of democracy, I suppose in the style of the United States, since being taken over by the United States at the turn of the century. I think that we all approve of that sort of democracy in a way, but one sees that it causes significant problems in a developing country. The media in the Philippines could not be any freer. Libel laws do not appear to apply. I would not be terribly keen on being a politician in the Philippines. They get accused of being corrupt every day of the week. At the same time there appear to be six or eight prominent persons who are already running for the Presidency now with the elections due in 1992. That probably does not help that country at present when it is trying to improve its economic performance. We hear a lot about the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its army, the New People's Army (NPA). The important point for Australians interested in civil liberties to remember is that the offer has been made repeatedly, and at one stage even accepted, by the CPP that the CPP will be legalised if it forgoes terrorism and armed insurrection. Obviously one cannot have a political party in existence competing with other political parties in the normal democratic process when that political party also has an army which tries to take over and has terrorist squads which assassinate political opponents. The question of corruption in countries near to us, including the Philippines, has often been raised in the Australian media. In view of the Fitzgerald inquiry into what has been happening and is happening in Queensland over the last 10 years or maybe longer, how contracts were awarded by the National Party and Liberal Party governments in power there in the late 1970s and early 1980s and the amounts of money involved, we can hardly be critical of other countries. I make one final point about the Republic of Korea. It is a very impressive country from an economic point of view. I had not been there before but I had heard about it. It was devastated by the Korean war, when armies swept up and down on a number of occasions. It is still faced by what appears, at least from a rhetoric point of view, to be a very aggressive North Korea. It has to spend a lot of its money on defence, and yet its economy has developed at a terrific rate. It is becoming a creditor nation from having been a bad debtor nation. This year it will have a balance of trade to its advantage of $US12 billion. Its positive balance is more than our negative balance. We are one of the few countries which have a positive balance of trade with the Republic of Korea. Our trade is approximately $A1.5 billion to $A1 billion our way. The delegation went to the Hyundai and Daewood motor works, there is a third large one, Kia. This year they will produce two million units. They expect to increase that to three million units next year. I do not know where they will sell them all but obviously they will try to sell them all over the world. They will have problems. They are very confident and I hope it works out for them. The standard of living in Korea is rising very quickly. The value of their currency, the won, is going up. Their wages rose by 23 per cent last year. A trade union movement has been established which seems quite powerful and aggressive and is able to protect the workers and also make the companies pay a lot of money. I would like to thank the people who participated in the delegation for their willing cooperation, and particularly Senator Parer, who acted as deputy leader of the deputation. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.34) —I add my support to the remarks of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), the leader of the delegation to the Philippines and the Republic of Korea. It was a very harmonious delegation although a range of political views were expressed by its members. I extend my thanks to our secretary, Lyn Simons, for her good work in organising the back-up to the delegation, and also to both embassies in Seoul and Manila for their assistance in briefing the delegation. Briefly, my impressions of the Philippines and Korea are of the contrast between our two Asian neighbours. In the first instance, the Philippines has a population of 58 million and the major impression is of the Marcos corruption which created disunity and conflict in that country. As we all know the 1986 uprising changed that and President Aquino now has a very difficult task in bringing back economic and political stability to that country. As our leader mentioned there is an uneasy truce between the people, the politicians, the police and the military in maintaining a position of law and order in that country-something that Australians do not fully understand. We saw at first hand the arrangements between the police and the military in maintaining this very fragile democracy. There is a changing political scene in that the political allegiance have moved more towards the personality of the leaders of the political parties rater than towards a political philosophy. The maladministration of the public sector leaves a lot to be desired which, in turn, leads to an economy which is of a very low level in terms of infrastructure of roads and public services. The Philippines has a massive overseas debt. It needs greater exports to maintain its present living standard. The wealth creating industries are non-existent, although in a couple of areas we visited there was an attempt to develop export industries that might increase living standards. The deafforestation of the Philippines is a total disaster. I have referred to that on another occasion in this House. The lack of population control will be an ongoing problem. Of course, in the major urban centres we see a dramatic build-up of the urban population living in very poor circumstances. The delegation had a look at the United States bases. Again, the political ramifications of the Americans moving away from the Philippines affects our strategic position here in Australia. As the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) said, Korea provides a stark contrast. Its 42 million people, all working hard, 48 hours a week, six days a week, have produced an economic miracle which is the envy of Asia. Moving from a spring famine, when all Koreans were running short of food at the end of the winter, Korea is now the leading industrialised nation of Asia. It has a clear economic plan which it has worked to over the last 15 years which has brought about major industrialisation in steel, cars and shipbuilding. It is quite impressive to see the way in which the Koreans have worked at these industries. It is worth noting in passing that there is a very low rate of direct taxation. The democracy itself is in a fragile state. Recent comments in our newspapers indicate the uprising of the students and the questioning of the former President. The North-South Korea demilitarised zone gave a focus to the delegation of the communist bloc meeting the West. It was interesting to be actually on the site where these points of contact are made and where one million men remain armed to maintain the peace. The energy and purpose of the Korean people was most impressive to the members of the delegation. We would anticipate that Korea will continue to be an economic power in the Asian region and an important trading partner for Australia. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(10.38) —I would like instantly to allude to the remarks of the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) when he was addressing a report from another delegation. He placed emphasis on the value attaching to the overseas delegations, in so much as they better equip members of this House to make decisions and arrive at conclusions that might affect our own country. I am very mindful of the wisdom of those remarks. I will address only two instances, because of the limited time available, of the contrast between the Philippines and South Korea. In the Philippines, with a population of 56 million, 70 per cent are below the poverty line. There are circumstances which led to that unhappy situation and I hope they will be resolved. But the point I wish to make as a legislator within this Parliament is that if we use the poverty in the Philippines as a benchmark we would have to say that there is absolutely no poverty in Australia. That is perhaps a sweeping statement. But as poverty is seen in the Philippines we should be reminded of how fortunate we are in this country. On a relative basis we are well off. We dissipate our resources and efforts in trying to relieve poverty-stricken people who, in fact, do not exist in a real sense, as they exist in other parts of the world. I have said before in this House that it is an inexcusable conceit on our part if we strut and swagger in the mistaken notion that we are masters of our own destiny-a mere 16 million people clawing for a toehold on this planet in competition with almost 6,000 million other people. We have to get things into perspective because they owe us nothing. In that respect the delegation visit was worth while. Paradoxically, to go to the Republic of South Korea, which is absolutely vibrant with energy and almost flushed with success-quite justifiably-we find that there is a very serious proposition put to us in that country that if it had not been for the incumbency of President Park, who is, allegedly, answerable for a number of excesses, the political climate would not have been predisposed to facilitate the subsequent enormous growth of South Korea. In other words, it suggests that somehow or other, left to our own devices, we can dissipate our resources in idle disputation where we need some subtle, hopefully, proper discipline to require us earnestly to address those essentials which would have a bearing on our future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware that the time allowed for this debate has elapsed. My contribution has been brief, of necessity, but nevertheless, I hope that it will not be of so little value as not to warrant the thoughts of my colleagues. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The time for the consideration of this item has expired. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —As required by the resolution of the House, I table copies of notification of alterations of interests and a statement of registrable interests received during the period 26 May 1988 to 30 November 1988. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.43) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration I present the Committee's interim report on an efficiency audit of the Australian Taxation Office-international profit shifting-entitled Shifting the Tax Burden. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MARTIN —The efficiency audit report on international profit shifting was tabled in both Houses on 26 November 1987 and referred to the Committee. The efficiency audit report is a most significant document. It considered 13 cases which involved adjustments to taxation income of over $230m. Another two cases in the oil industry involved adjustments to taxable income of $34m in one instance and $28m in another. In respect of the banking industry it was suggested there were increased assessments of more than $120m as a result of adjustments to claims for deductions. The efficiency audit found that international profit shifting had a major impact on taxation revenue collections. It was suggested that while there may be more than 40,000 corporations able to shift profits, only 251 international audits had been undertaken by the Taxation Office during 1985-86. In the view of the Australian Audit Office there was little doubt that transfer pricing associated with intro-corporate trade had resulted in very significant losses in taxation revenue. The Committee's inquiry was advertised in two metropolitan newspapers and some 40 organisations were invited to make submissions. Unfortunately, the response was not overwhelming, in terms of both the quality and the number of submissions received. Exceptions to this were the Taxation Institute of Australia, the Australian Bankers Association and Arthur Andersen and Co. who are to be commended for their public interest. The Committee still awaits a submission from the Business Council of Australia while the submission from the Confederation of Australian Industry was received on 17 November-hence the reason I am presenting an interim report today. A final report will be presented next year. The subcommittee has conducted public hearings in Canberra on four occasions as well as in Sydney and Melbourne. During the course of the inquiry the subcommittee visited Tax offices in Perth and Melbourne and questioned taxation officers at the three separate public hearings. There are some 20 recommendations in the report, and of course time unfortunately does not permit me to outline them all. There are a number of other issues still to be considered by the Committee. The issues include the loss of Australian revenue as a result of tax havens, the determination of arms length prices and other measures to counter international profit shifting. I would encourage those who have concerns with these issues to make their concerns known direct to the Committee. As I have indicated, the Committee will continue to conduct an inquiry into this very important issue and report to the Parliament next year, but we need hard information. It is no good people saying that international profit shifting takes place without the evidence being given to us. The problem of quantifying the loss to the revenue caused by international profit shifting was also addressed by the Committee. The efficiency Audit report considered quantification to be the top priority for the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The Committee agrees that while quantification is still a primary goal, it is a large scale, long way down the track type of recommendation which the ATO should undertake progressively as it gains experience from its large case audits. It is also apparent that the Tax Office can learn much from the experience of overseas tax administrations, particularly the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States, in dealing with international profit shifting practices. The Committee has recommended that the Tax Office maintain a close liaison with the IRS in such matters as quantification and exchange of information under double tax treaties. Another recommendation is that the Taxation Commissioner issue taxation rulings on division 13 and the large case program to bring more certainty to the system. As we note in the report, it has been suggested that too often it is taxation by negotiation rather than taxation by the application of a law which is clear to taxpayer and tax collector alike. A significant recommendation of the Committee is that the Government consider an amendment to the income tax law to allow as a deduction the costs directly incurred as a result of that audit. The Committee has made a number of recommendations to improve the administration and professionalism of the Australian Taxation Office. We have suggested that the Taxation Commissioner should be able to hire staff on a contract basis at commercial rates. We have also suggested that he initiate an interchange program between the Australian Tax Office and the private sector. While the officers of the ATO have a task to perform they need to be more aware of the commercial sector, both in relation to its activities and its concerns. We have suggested a number of ways the ATO might go about this including participation in informal practitioners discussion groups. The Committee has supported, yet again, the ATO's concentration on auditing the top end of the market. The Committee commended the Commissioner, Mr Boucher, for a number of his initiatives. The Committee has, I believe, benefited as well. Mr Boucher agreed to the secondment of one of his officers not only to assist the Committee in its inquiry but also to expose that officer to the parliamentary environment. I hope it is a practice that will continue. The officer seconded, Chris Hodges, has been invaluable to the inquiry. I would on behalf of the members of the Committee commend Chris for his dedication and his level of expertise. I would also take the opportunity to record yet again appreciation for the efforts of Sharon Fisher whose conscientious approach to her work at the keyboard is to be commended. I also thank and commend my fellow Committee members, the Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who have all approached this issue of international profit shifting with dedication. We look forward to their continued support during the course of the preparation of the second part of the report next year. In closing, I might add that this has been the fourth report presented by the Committee this year. All four have been unanimous reports of the Committee which I think stands as testimony to the Committee structure that has been established within the Parliament. I thank my fellow members once again for this cooperation during the past year. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(10.50) —I join the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), in making a few comments in relation to this report. As has been pointed out, it is an interim report. In the view of the Committee, a substantial amount of work still needs to be done in this area. It was an examination into what has been described as international profit shifting. It has become clear to the Committee that uncertainty exists as to how profit in this context should be defined. It has become clear that neither the business community nor the Tax Commissioner has a clear understanding of how profit in this context should be defined. It may well be that the legislation under which taxes are imposed in this country is inadequate for the purpose of defining profit against which tax can then be charged. This report, therefore, was given the title `Shifting the tax burden' because there is a question mark as to whether the tax burden is being shifted. The tax burden can be shifted only if it is clear what profit is in terms of the tax legislation. The Committee, in its concluding remarks, drew attention to the importance of considering the efficiency and certainty of the taxation system and the law on which it is based. The Committee has concluded that there is much room for improvement. It has been suggested to the Committee that, as pointed out by the Chairman of the Committee, too often it has become taxation by negotiation rather than taxation by the application of a law which is clear both to tax payer and to tax collector alike. I do not believe that this Parliament wants to go back 2,000 years and have in place a tax system that is tax by pressure, tax by negotiation. This Parliament wants taxation by law of this Parliament. It wants that tax imposed under law, not as a consequence of negotiation, not as a result of pressure by a tax commissioner who, because the law is deficient, makes a subjective judgment as to what level of tax should be paid by a taxpayer against the background of an inadequate law. Neither this Parliament nor the Australian people want a tax system where the tax is imposed by administrative directions of the Tax Commissioner, unless those directions are based on principles laid down, on administrative arrangements clearly spelt out in legislation, so that a person entering into a business transaction can go to the law, can read it, can understand it because it is clear and precise, and know the obligation for tax that will arise as a consequence of engaging in that transaction. The taxation area is difficult where companies engage in business activities in Australia and have overseas arrangements of one kind or another, where taxes are sought to be imposed by law on transactions of companies, whether the transactions relate to events in Australia or whether because of the nature of the company the transactions they engage in around the world become subject to our law. Whatever it is, the law needs clarifying. I want to emphasise that where the law is spelt out, it is important that the law be effectively administered. Over the years there have been members-and I have been one of them-who have expressed concern about the wide-ranging discretions that this Parliament has conferred upon the Tax Commissioner. Everybody recognises that the area of law with which we are involved makes it necessary to give the Tax Commissioner some degree of discretion, but most believe that that should occur only as a matter of last resort. It should occur only in circumstances where Parliament finds itself unable adequately to spell out the obligations of Australians and Australian business enterprises in respect of taxation. It then becomes incumbent upon the administration, upon the Tax Commissioner, upon the Treasury and upon other relevant departments to give advice to government when the law is inadequate and to seek amendment of the law to achieve clarity and efficiency. It is not for the Tax Commissioner, having been given an immensely complicated framework of laws, if a difficult situation arises to say, as I believe was said some years ago, `I need more legislation', when events that we can overview with the benefit of hindsight made it clear that the Tax Commissioner had the legislative authority and did not need more legislative power. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The time allocated for this item has expired. Mr JENKINS(Scullin) —I present the eleventh report from the Publications Committee, sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.57) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Publications, I present the Committee's report on a review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report on the Australian Government Publishing Service, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr JENKINS —Under the Standing Orders of both Houses, one of the roles of the Joint Committee on Publications is to inquire into the printing, publication and distribution of parliamentary and government publications. Since its commencement in 1970, the Joint Committee has presented eight special inquiry reports to the Parliament. This examination of the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS) efficiency audit report is the ninth special report of the Committee. Whilst it is not a detailed review of the AGPS, it affords the Committee an opportunity to report to the Parliament on progress made at the AGPS since the Committee's 1978 report on that organisation. This report is about improving the Government Printing Office, the Australian Government Publishing Service and the Commonwealth printing and publishing system as a whole. After careful consideration of all the evidence before it, the Committee believes that there should be some relaxation of the current system requiring Commonwealth departments and non-exempt bodies to be tied clients of the AGPS. In particular, the Committee recommends that departments and non-exempt bodies not be tied to the AGPS for non-core general printing and publications work up to a value of $20,000; that they should continue to be required to seek and consider price quotations from the AGPS for all work; that all AGPS core work-that is, parliamentary work and urgent and confidential government tasks-be charged for on a full cost recovery basis; and that AGPS charge for non-core work at competitive commercially equivalent rates. The Committee's report recognises that current Government administrative initiatives have been directed at devolving management responsibilities to departments and allowing managers more freedom to judge where and how to place resources to achieve optimum returns. Departments should be able to exercise such freedoms when undertaking their printing and publishing programs. In line with current moves to place the AGPS on a more commercial footing, the Committee believes that it is vital for the AGPS to be treated as a self-contained management unit employing appropriate management accounting systems. All activities of the AGPS should be accounted for and charged out to appropriate departments and other bodies. The AGPS should have its own internal audit unit. It should promptly complete development of its computer-based management systems and external financial statements. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 11 a.m., in accordance with sessional order 102c, the time for consideration of committee and delegation reports has concluded. Mr SNOWDON(Northern Territory)(11.00) —I move: That, while mindful of the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had owned and occupied Australia for thousands of years prior to the first British settlement at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788 and recognising that as a direct result of the occupation of Australia by non-Aboriginal people, Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders have been dispossessed of their land and have been denied many basic human, civil, political and economic rights, this House: (1) is committed to a process of reconciliation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia and to the recognition of their basic rights as articulated in the various United Nations covenants to which Australia is a signatory, including particularly the rights of self determination and self management; and (2) considers it appropriate that a treaty or compact is negotiated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in recognition of their rights as the prior owners of this country and of their dispossession and denial of basic human, civil, political and economic rights. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that on 23 August this year a motion was moved in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) dealing with the prior occupation of Australia by the Aboriginal people. Unfortunately, discussion in the community in this area has, in part, been hamstrung by our inability to come to terms with the history of non-Aboriginal occupation of Australia or understand the concern of Aboriginal and Islander people about their alienation, the dispossession of their land and the cultural, social, economic and spiritual deprivation that they have suffered as a result. The vision, compassion and understanding of justice by some in our community has been subjugated by economic greed and political opportunism. Since the historic referendum in 1967, this Parliament has seen many appellations to the need for some measure of justice for Aboriginal and Islander Australians. Many positions have been put in a bipartisan way by members from both sides of the political fence. Perhaps one of the most enduring and important was on 19 September 1974 when former Senator Neville Bonner, a Liberal, the only Aboriginal Federal member of parliament, asked the Senate to pass a motion calling on the Government for compensation for dispossession. It was an historic speech. As Hansard reports, on 20 February 1975 the Senate passed unanimously Senator Bonner's motion, which states: That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now know as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people, and introduce legislation to compensate the people now know as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land. On 19 September 1974, in speaking to his motion, Senator Bonner stated: What I am seeking is true and due entitlement for dispossession. Surely no one can deny that the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were dispossessed of what was theirs by right of inheritance. . . . . . . . . . I am asking for compensation for this loss of land-earth-our entire being. I do not ask you to understand this term. I am asking for compensation for our enforced disintegration. The issues involved are clearly compelling and require an appreciation and understanding of the non-Aboriginal history of this country. To address them appropriately is not a manifestation of any guilt complex but because, as the late Professor Bill Stanner so poignantly put it when referring to the justice of the demands of Aboriginal Australians, `The most we can do is give them their due'. Non-Aboriginal Australians must come to terms with the just demands of Aboriginal people. At Barunga in the Northern Territory on 12 June 1988 Aboriginal people from central and northern Australia argued for what they believed was appropriate, through what is now known as the Barunga statement. In part, the statement reads as follows: We, the indigenous owners and occupiers of Australia, call on the Australian Government and people to recognise our rights: to self-determination and self-management, including the freedom to pursue our own economic, social, religious and cultural development; to permanent control and enjoyment of our ancestral lands; to compensation for the loss of use of our lands, there having been no extinction of original title; to protection of and control of access to our sacred sites, sacred objects, artefacts, designs, knowledge and works of art; to the return of the remains of our ancestors for burial in accordance with our traditions; to respect for and promotion of our Aboriginal identity, including the cultural, linguistic, religious and historical aspects, and including the right to be educated in our own languages and in our own culture and history; in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, rights to life, liberty, security of person, food, clothing, housing, medical care, education and employment opportunities, necessary social services and other basic rights. It was at Barunga that the Prime Minister stated: There shall be a treaty negotiated between the Aboriginal people and the Government on behalf of all the people of Australia. This statement, as well as recognising the need to give the living their due, also embodied an acknowledgment of the rights of Aboriginal and Islander people as the prior owners of Australia. This year, 1988, is the bicentennial of the non-Aboriginal invasion of Aboriginal land, a year when the Hawke Government sought to ameliorate the concerns of Aboriginal people and work towards the acknowledgment of their just demands for the recognition of their rights. Unfortunately, the Opposition in this Parliament, instead of joining with the Government in seeking reconciliation, has embarked on a deliberate path of cynical political opportunism. This program has had as its most undesirable feature the objective of undermining community confidence in the ability of Aboriginal people to be self-determining. It has, in short, sadly sought the path of racial disharmony rather than reconciliation. At the very core of Aboriginal demands for the recognition of their just demands is their desire to question the legitimacy of their dispossession by English law, and the absurd notion of terra nullius on which that dispossession was based; that is, occupation based on the belief that the land belonged to no-one-an absurd and demonstrably hideous assertion in the case of Australia. The absurdity was given implicit recognition by the House of Commons in the report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Aborigines (British Settlements) London 1837. In referring to the dispossession of Aboriginal Australians it stated: Their land has been taken from them without the assertion of any other title than that of superior force . . . The question of title has been examined closely by various forums and is currently being debated before the courts. It is a question which has sought to establish that in a number of cases the doctrine of terra nullius is, indeed, fallacious. There is ample evidence of the forced subjugation of Aboriginal and Islander Australians-punitive, murderous expeditions were commonplace until well into this century. On one occasion in 1884, after four miners in the Northern Territory were killed by Aborigines, an armed police party expedition was set up. The Protector of Aborigines at the time, Dr R. G. Morice, estimated that `not less than 150 people have been killed altogether, a great number of them women and children'. We cannot rectify the misdeeds of the past, but we must acknowledge their happening and accept that indeed white Australia has a black history. We as a nation have a responsibility to deal with Aboriginal and Islander people with fairness, equity and justice. We must accept the challenge of reconciliation. We must also recognise that we remain the only former British colony that has yet to recognise the rights of its indigenous population either by treaty or by agreement or by any other constitutional mechanism. At the same time we are signatories to a number of United Nations charters and conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These covenants compel us to act to recognise the rights of our indigenous people, particularly the right to self-determination. One prominent international lawyer, Professor Russell Barsh, has argued that the principal of self-determination is the most fundamental human right to which all others are subordinate. While there is clearly debate amongst jurists about the point, it is clearly a view put by many Aboriginal and Islander people. Unfortunately, the term `self-determination' is merged into self-management, which in many respects translates simply as a term to defend a right, conferred as a privilege, to make a limited range of decisions within a legal, political and economic framework imposed from above. Negotiations over a treaty or compact provides an opportunity for Aboriginal Australians to articulate what they see as appropriate and meaningful in dealing with the wider Australian community. They may or may not choose to represent ideas similar to those that we as non-Aboriginal people may consider appropriate. But of fundamental importance in this regard is that whatever evolves does so from within appropriate Aboriginal and Islander social, cultural, spiritual and economic contexts. On the question of terra nullius, the Australian community and organs of government and judiciary are currently in the process of questioning and re-assessing the legitimacy of the British colonial acquisition of Aboriginal lands. This reflects changing domestic and international norms concerning the rights of indigenous peoples around the globe-norms which are emerging in the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, the International Court of Justice, and in domestic courts and legislatures in other jurisdictions. In Australia, the High Court has reserved its decision in Eddie Mabo and James Rice v. The State of Queensland and the Commonwealth, a case in which several indigenous inhabitants of the Mer (Murray), Dawar and Waier Islands in the Torres Strait are seeking declarations in the High Court that their ownership and usufructuary rights established by custom and under traditional native title continue over land on their islands and over parts of the surrounding sea, seabeds and reefs. The action was initiated in 1982 and continues. The High Court has reserved its decision on a demurrer entered by the plaintiffs in an attempt to have the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985 ruled invalid. This case may or may not fundamentally alter the status of customary Aboriginal title in Australia, depending on the scope and outcome of the judgment. If the plaintiffs are successful they may throw in doubt the earlier judgments in the Milirrpum and Coe cases. In Milirrpum, Mr Justice Blackburn ruled that Aboriginal law did not include customary native title nor that the plaintiff clans had established their links since time immemorial to the land claimed. Mr Justice Blackburn also ruled the common law did not recognise customary native title. In Coe's case a majority of the High Court rejected Coe's claim that Captain Cook's assertion of sovereignty was wrongful because it did not recognise the prior sovereignty of the Aboriginal people. Justices Gibbs, Mason and Aickin stated that it was fundamental that the Australian colonies became British pos- sessions by settlement and not by conquest. Justices Jacobs and Murphy would have allowed part of Coe's claim to be heard. The assumptions upon which these decisions rest have been thrown into doubt by new evidence and changing norms. The view that Australia was terra nullius=mthat is, was legally uninhabited because it was `desert and uncultivated'-has been shown to be wrong in fact. The settled occupancy theory under which indigenous Aboriginal owners have been denied land rights at common law is fundamentally flawed. As Professor Henry Reynolds argues so cogently in his many works on Aboriginal history, Aboriginals fiercely resisted British colonialism, often at great human cost. Evidence of the British Government's initial intentions to preserve Aboriginal native title on reserve lands has also been unearthed by Reynolds. The weight of historical evidence and legal precedent in support of the full recognition of the legal rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under a treaty is overwhelming. I conclude by quoting from the statement by Dr Nugget Coombs referring to the question of social justice and the decisions which this country must face in addressing the concerns of Aboriginal people: It's never divisive to correct injustice. The fact of injustice is divisive and will continue to be until we correct it and learn to live with it. People who benefit from injustice will oppose this, but you don't stop working for justice simply because people around you don't like it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Gayler —I have much pleasure in seconding the motion. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.17) —On what is likely to be the final sitting day of 1988 in the House of Representatives, I suppose that it was almost inevitable that our bicentennial year should conclude with a motion that calls on the Parliament to apologise and feel a sense of shame for what has happened in the 200 years that European Australians have occupied this country. I acknowledge that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) has given an uncharacteristically reasoned approach to the debate this morning. His normal approach of denigration and beration has been absent. Mr Snowdon —I thought you were a mate of mine. Mr ANDREW —Given that the debate is now but a few minutes old, I would have thought that the honourable member for the Northern Territory had little to complain about. Perhaps he could wait longer before he intervenes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Wakefield to get on with the debate. Mr ANDREW —I wish to make the point that standing in this House on the last sitting day of our bicentennial year and focusing on what are seen to be areas of shame and concern and talking of apology do nothing to resolve the real dilemma that faces the original Australians. In fact, the very tone of the motion now before the House calling on this Parliament to recognise the dispossession and denial of basic human, civil, political and economic rights itself denigrates the Aboriginal people. All the motion does is to say to Aboriginal Australians how grim, foreboding and hopeless their outlook is. Such a motion should be damned as paternalistic nonsense. The motion calls on the Parliament to endorse the concept of a treaty-the concept of establishing in Australia a separate state for the original Australians. I want proudly to say as an Australian that Aboriginal Australians are fellow Australians with me. I do not claim that I am a citizen of the best country in the world. Who knows which country should qualify for that meaningless distinction? However, I know this, in common with P. McGuinness, who, in the Australian Financial Review, wrote on 22 January this year: Australia is clearly not the worst country in the world. It remains one of the most egalitarian, democratic and tolerant societies we have. Furthermore, I want to say on behalf of all Australians, black and white, Australia remains home. I remind honourable members of the poem by Sir Walter Scott: Breathes there the man with soul so dead Who never to himself hath said This is my own, my native land! Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned As home his footsteps he hath turned From wandering on a foreign strand. I have shared with almost every other member of this House that unique experience of being away from Australia and wanting to return-not because it is the best country on earth, but because it is home for me as it is indeed for every Aboriginal Australian. I am not proud of what has happened to Aboriginal Australians over the last 200 years. I do not doubt that mistakes were made in our history for which we cannot adequately compensate those who occupied the nation before we did. But I want to make the fundamental and irrevocable point that it is difficult to find any other country that treated its indigenous people any better than Australia treated hers. Furthermore, I suspect that when the First Fleet arrived the intention was to cohabit peaceably with the Aboriginals. Much went wrong. What motivated the vast majority of people on that First Fleet was a desire, initially, to establish Australia as a penal colony but, ultimately, to develop this nation so that, instead of being an importer entirely dependent on the provisions of the First Fleet, it could become an exporter in its own right. Sadly, as a result of that development, Aboriginal people suffered. But that development was inevitable. Do we pretend for one moment that any other colonising nation in the world 200 years ago would have shown any more Christian charity than did the British colony here in Australia 200 years ago? My difficulty with this motion is that it demoralises the Aboriginal people. By its very tone, Aboriginal people are robbed of their sense of pride, self-worth and hope. Unfortunately, this motion maintains what has been the Government's tradition in dealing with black Australia. Sadly, I suspect that the real demise of Aboriginal Australia occurred not solely as a result of the arrival of the First Fleet, as the honourable member for the Northern Territory would have us believe, but largely as a result of the arrival of the Whitlam Government and the policies it introduced. For the last almost 20 years we have had a Parliament that has been caught up in a cargo cult mentality. I say this with some passion because I was once-during, one would say, 1 1/2 parliaments-a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I have visited Aboriginal communities from the southernmost point of my own State and in my own electorate, in the community of Point Pearce, to the northernmost community in the Torres Strait bordering Papua New Guinea. I have witnessed, as have the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory, all the filth, lack of pride and erosion of self-worth that have been part of these communities through no fault of their own, but entirely through the fault of an administration that has suggested to them that some sort of cargo cult mentality could solve their problems. I know that the honourable member for Moore, the Chairman of the Committee, and the honourable member for the Northern Territory are well-intentioned in what they say. Mr Snowdon —And right. Mr ANDREW —I take up that interjection by the honourable member for the Northern Territory. I must say that to be well-intentioned is one thing but to be blinded by one's philosophical prejudice is another. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory is to make a contribution to this debate he should equally be prepared to concede that honourable members on this side of the House have been similarly well-intentioned in their dealings with Aboriginal communities. There are no easy solutions to the problems that currently face Australia. Mr Snowdon —You didn't hear what I said, did you? I quoted Neville Bonner. Mr ANDREW —The honourable member for the Northern Territory says that he quoted former Senator Bonner, who was anxious that the Parliament should recognise prior ownership and agree to some form of compensation. This side of the House has no problem in recognising that Aboriginal Australians were here before we were. That is an historical fact. This side of the House has no difficulty with offering some adequate form of compensation. Our parliamentary Budget indicates the commitment we have to some form of adequate compensation. This side of the House is appalled at the way in which resources that currently are being channelled into assisting Aboriginals are being wasted and is appalled at the concept that setting up a treaty and dividing our nation could somehow do something to enhance our objective of one Australia. Only last week Senator Tambling made the point that much of what has been done with Aboriginal resources has been wasted. What was the response of the honourable member for the Northern Territory to Senator Tambling's plea? He said this: Over the last few weeks he- that is, Senator Tambling- 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 only describe as jumping into the gutter of racial division and character assassination for cheap and cynical political pointscoring. That was said of a man who went about exposing the uncomfortable truth that only 30 per cent of the resources of this Parliament channelled into Aboriginal affairs reach any real area of need. Worse than that, the uncomfortable truth is that in the life of the Hawke Government we have made available $100,000 in Aboriginal relief and resources for every Aboriginal family of six people. What Senator Tambling was saying and what I am saying is: What do we have to show for it? Nothing. That is the disaster of Aboriginal affairs. The disaster of this motion is that we should take taxpayers' resources intended by every taxpayer to relieve the needs of Aboriginal people and squander them. One hundred thousand dollars is sufficient to have built, in the last five years, a home for every Aboriginal family. We do not have a home for every Aboriginal family. In fact, that amount, in some areas, is sufficient to provide a small car as well. But they do not even have a home. The solution proposed by the honourable member for the Northern Territory is not to look at the maladministration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; that is our solution. No, his solution is to denigrate and vilify Senator Tambling and to call for a treaty. A treaty is the very thing that would further divide Australia. A treaty would imply that here, in our country, there are two races of people. I stand here as an Australian who is proud to be identified with the Aboriginal people as fellow Australians. I recognise, as the New Zealanders are rapidly recognising, that there are all sorts of problems under international law with treaties. Once we set a course for self-determination, we in fact allow people legally to undertake an area of self-development. That smacks of apartheid. I would not suggest for one moment that the honourable member for the Northern Territory would want to imply that in his motion. To propose such a treaty in this Parliament is to propose that Australia should be two separate countries-two separate races of people-who ought not develop together but apart. We need only look across our eastern coast to the experience of the New Zealanders to see the difficulties with treaties as such. This concept of a treaty-along with many other undertakings that have been entered into in the interests of Aboriginal people-does nothing but raise the expectation of Aboriginal Australians. If as a parliament we have anything to apologise for it is for the simple truth that we have spent our parliamentary lives raising the expectations of Aboriginal people only to dash them. Time and time again we have, as committees, as inquiries, or as government departments, visited Aboriginal communities, with good intentions, raising the candle of expectation only to extinguish it later. Currently, the Aboriginal people are suffering principally from the uncomfortable truth that they supposed that something useful would be done for them, but the end result is that nothing useful has eventuated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —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. The honourable member for Wakefield will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(11.32) —I 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. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) -Is the motion seconded? Mr Andrew —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr MacKELLAR —Funding for research and development in Australia has fallen to its lowest level in 20 years. For this to occur through a period of strong economic growth based on a technological revolution is the clearest possible sign of a serious national problem. I note that today's Canberra Times states: The leadership of Australia, in Parliament and in industry, is not just myopic about research, development and industrial productivity, it is blind, greedy and pig-ignorant. Those are not my words; they are the words of a research scientist at the Australian National University. When we look deeper and see that government funding of the nation's premier research body, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), has fallen by 31 per cent in real terms since the Hawke Government came to office in 1983, we can start to appreciate that, for many in the scientific community, Australia faces not just a problem but a real crisis. When more than 1,000 of Australia's traditionally conservative scientists were driven to demonstrate noisily their discontent with government policies at the opening of the $20m National Science and Technology Centre in Canberra last week, it is absolutely clear that, for many, it has passed beyond a crisis and is now, in fact, a tragedy. My parliamentary colleagues will know that I am not a person who uses the word `tragedy' lightly, but I do so on this occasion because of a very sincere belief that the Government must reconsider its priorities for a restructured scientific sector, the organisational framework it has created, and its management of specific elements of that restructuring. Above all, I believe that we are witnessing the tragedy of a government which has shown itself to be largely ignorant of the ethos of science and of scientists and of the costs to that community and to this nation if such fundamental restructuring is forced on them with unseemly haste. Before looking more closely at the Government's policies and approaches, a few facts will confirm the magnitude of the problem. Using constant 1987-88 dollars, funding to the CSIRO in 1982-83 was $460.1m. It has declined in every subsequent year to an estimated $315.4m in 1988-89-a decline of 31 per cent in just six years. Similarly, since 1982-83, total Budget allocations for science have fallen by 22 per cent, taking Australia's total research and development commitment down to about 1.1 per cent of the gross national product-one of the lowest figures for any Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country, and now at approximately the same level as for Iceland, Ireland and Spain. The Minister responsible for science-the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones)-has pointed out that the United States of America chemical company Du Pont now has a research program bigger than the Australian total, and that two American companies, AT and T and IBM, have produced more Nobel Prize winners than has Australia. These are extraordinarily sobering figures. The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technical Societies (FASTS), a leading organisation representing some 60,000 scientists and engineers, has pointed to an alarming drift of Australia's brightest young minds away from science and technology-based courses, with student levels as much as 40 per cent lower than a decade ago. The Federation also suggests that Australia is producing only two-thirds as many doctors of philosophy in mathematics, computing and statistics as it did in 1974-14 years ago-and has publicised survey results that reveal high levels of dissatisfaction and poor morale among university-based scientists. Who can blame them. All this makes it clear that something has gone badly astray with the Government's strategy for the restructuring of Australian science, the key elements of which are a reorganisation of the CSIRO and the establishment of an Australian Research Council (ARC) to co-ordinate Australia's science policies. I believe that the Government perceived the purpose of these and other reforms as being primarily to increase the efficient use of Australia's research resources, and to concentrate the Government's research and development funding on those programs with the greatest potential to contribute to Australia's well-being and international competitiveness. But I want the House to understand and to note the chasm that has opened up between those objectives and the stated aims of the 1983 manifesto. The rising levels of research and development investment referred to in manifesto 12 have been abandoned. So too has manifesto 13 with its commitment to excellence, even where there is a low probability of any immediate or short term return. The pure research commitment of manifesto 17 appears to have been replaced by a policy which states that the only acceptable basic research is that which can show an economic return. I will not take issue with the need for a review of the composition, direction and priorities of Australia's research and development programs. If for no other reason the technological revolution of the past decade made that imperative. However, it is when we examine the infrastructure and priorities now being put into place as a result of that review, and the management of that restructuring, that I find grounds for the greatest concern. My first concern is the fragmentation of science policy of the Hawke Government. We have today an emasculated Department of Science, Customs and Small Business, with the key elements of science now residing in at least four separate Government departments, but principally the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. This very clear lack of importance on science and technology is also reflected in the fact that the Government has created 11 Cabinet committees to support the work of Cabinet, but not one covering science and technology. Is it any wonder then that when Australian scientists see their portfolio distributed to generalist departments, apparently made subordinate to economic priorities, and under the administration of bureaucrats with non-scientific qualifications, they might justifiably feel that this also reflects the importance which the Government places on their work? Another important element in their growing disillusionment with this Government has been the creation of the Australian Research Council. As originally conceived, the ARC was to be an independent body which would take over the functions of the Australian research grants scheme and be responsible for the co-ordination of Australia's science policies. Instead, the Government subordinated it to the Department of Employment, Education and Training and has restricted its responsibilities to little more than allocating research grants to universities. The ARC has been in existence for only 12 months but in that time there has been so much media reporting of conflict between the Council's Chairman, Professor Aitkin, and other councillors that it is impossible not to draw the conclusion that difficulties and tensions exist within it of a most serious nature. If media reporting is correct, it would seem that Professor Aitkin considers scientists to be obstinate people who are resisting change per se, sees tight public revenues as the primary criterion in determining scientific priorities, and regards basic research as justifiable only where it can be shown to have economic benefits. Professor Aitkin's critics claim that he has made economic rationalism the master of all scientific endeavour, that he wants to dismantle the peer review system by which scientist have traditionally distributed public research money, that his approach will compromise scientific standards, and that it will be the death knell of basic research. Clearly there is open antagonism within the Council which must be preventing its effective operation, and the Government has been forced to acknowledge this by establishing an expert committee to re-examine the role and functioning of the Council. With the Council barely 12 months old, it is an embarrassing admission of concern about the role it has established for the Council and Professor Aitkin's administration of that body. It can be said that the Government wishes to centralise the control of research and development and make it heavily responsive to commercial and industrial applications. Scientists believe the Government is being heavy handed in implementing its objectives and fear that they will be achieved at the cost of basic research, scientific standards and a lowering of their traditional autonomy. The scientists' claim of Government heavy handedness appears to have some validity, and I ask whether the Government realises that it simply cannot, overnight, push a lifetime of scientific tradition and endeavour to one side in a manner which is humiliating and insulting to scientists, and then impose a fundamentally different scientific structure with predetermined, and very questionable, priorities and conditions. It would be grossly naive to expect any professional group to respond positively to such insensitive treatment, the more so when that group is the Australian scientific community, with its firmly established traditions of stability and professional autonomy. There is some evidence to indicate that this might also be the basis of the apparent hostility between Professor Aitkin and the scientific community. As is so often the case in circumstances such as this, and regrettably an increasingly common occurrence under this Government, the core of the problem would appear to be that single word `management'. I will not take issue in this debate over the correctness or otherwise or the Government's new science policy, but I will take issue with the tragedy which Australia's scientific community, and this nation, face from a management approach to that task which is offensively hasty, insultingly disrespectful to individual scientists, and indicative of administrators who have little appreciation of the ethos of science. This Government has already acknowledged its own concern about the course of events over recent months by agreeing to a re-examination of the Australian Research Council. I suggest that such a review should include a reassessment of Professor Aitkin's chairmanship of a body which must play a critical and skilful role in implementing the most significant restructuring of science this country has seen since the 1940s. I also recommend strongly that the Government reconsider the establishment of a separate department of science, preferably within Cabinet, and that this be supported by the creation of a science and technology Cabinet committee. Above all, I plead with the Government to acknowledge that the restructuring it seeks for Australian science involves infrastructure and human resources which will be more amenable to resculpturing than to recasting. That restructuring is too important a task to be seen as a short term political trophy, to be won this year or next. I am not suggesting that the Government step away from its objectives but rather that it step back from a management style that has all the earmarks of `restructure at any cost', and appreciate that its goals require a long time frame and an environment of communication, cooperation and mutual respect. This Government has brought Australia's scientific community to its knees and, more importantly and with great effect, to the political barricades. The Government is belatedly realising that the scientific community may well be a force that can bring this Government to its knees. There is no doubt that a strong feeling exists throughout the scientific community about the way the Government is implementing its science policies. Australia has produced many magnificent scientists. Much of our past economic success has been founded on scientific discoveries and their development here in Australia. It is utterly self-evident that our future success as a nation in an increasingly technological world environment will depend on the encouragement and practical incentive that Australians are given to pursue scientific advances. This applies across the board, whether to entrepreneurs, to managers, to young people with the capacity for scientific inquiry or to people already in the field. Science is an area where this nation can and should develop as an international leader. But to do so will require a much more visionary approach than this Government is offering. Science is the future, and Australian governments in particular should recognise this fact by providing the real incentives, the structure, the understanding and the vision to promote and foster Australian scientific expertise. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(11.47) —It is my pleasure to speak on this motion by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). It is not the normal practice for a Government member to support an Opposition motion but I must say that my view is that this is a very important motion and it should be supported by both sides of the House. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is Australia's premier scientific research organisation, carrying out approximately 15 per cent of all Australian research and development. A few years ago, before industries' research and development performance improved, CSIRO was undertaking about 20 per cent of the research and development in this country. That is about as much as the whole of the private sector and the universities were carrying out in the natural sciences. Since coming to power the Hawke Government has made profound changes to the organisation. In 1985 the Government instructed the Australian Science and Technology Council to examine CSIRO's role as the first part of a wide-ranging investigation of all Australian research and development. I move on to what has happened to CSIRO in this short time. The number of provisional patents taken out by CSIRO has quadrupled from 42 in 1984-85 to 172 in 1987-88. The number of commercial opinions provided to CSIRO by Sirotech Ltd, the commercial company set up in 1984, has increased from 130 in the first year to more than 350. The value of sponsored research undertaken by CSIRO for Australian companies has climbed from $4.3m in 1983-84 to $16.5m in 1987-88. CSIRO has entered into some 16 equity investments worth more than $20m during this period. This Government has forced CSIRO to look at itself, reassess where it is going, and make certain that it helps to pay its own way. This is very important. I have spoken to many scientists and I realise that they do not want to be involved in the commercial aspect of it. I do not think they should be involved. They are ideas people. They get the novel ideas and put them into practice, and they should leave them to someone else to market. That is the way CSIRO is going and I feel certain that in the future we will see more of CSIRO products being marketed and sold throughout the world. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) mentioned Du Pont at one stage. I think he said that the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) had said its research unit was bigger than CSIRO. This could be correct. However, we must remember that the quality of the scientists involved is very important. No doubt the House is aware that Du Pont gave the world that famous gas chlorofluorocarbon, which is causing a bit of a problem at the moment. It has given the world many other chemicals which have helped pollute this planet. The honourable member also criticised the move taken by the Government to make industry play a greater part in the funding of research. Mr MacKellar —No, I didn't. Mr CHYNOWETH —He commented on it. I personally believe that industry must play a part. For too long CSIRO has made very important discoveries. It has virtually handed them over to industry. Industry has made a large profit at the expense of taxpayers. Mr MacKellar —I think they should be encouraged to make a bigger contribution. Mr CHYNOWETH —I am sorry. I misinterpreted the honourable member's views. I believe that those who profit most from CSIRO's novel ideas should put something back into paying for it. That would also help the rest of the community. We would have to pay less tax if industry helped finance some of the ideas that CSIRO comes up with. Of the 24 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development nations Australia ranks twentieth in relation to research. This is not very good. In fact, it is wrong. The proportion of gross domestic product spent on research and development, at 1.18 per cent in 1987-88, is less than half the rate of the United States, Japan or Sweden and only 80 per cent of Australia's rate in the 1960s. The figures that have been handed out by the honourable member are correct. I also believe that we must do more, as he has stated. Normally, governments look at funding for only three years down the track. Science is not like that. It has a long lead time. We must look at funding for not only three years but five or 10 years down the track. We must find a way to attract more major Australian companies to be involved in funding CSIRO because whatever they give to that organisation is definitely in the national interest. I am pleased to see that in the last few weeks the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has indicated that he may support increased funding in the science area. This is a very important step. Not only is general science affected but every scientist in Australia must feel a bit concerned at the moment about where we are going. I believe that with the Prime Minister's support we will certainly see something happen. This change of view of some of the people within the Government has come about because of the increased exposure that members of this House have had to science, especially in relation to the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer. All of these things have raised the profile of science and the need for more research in this area. One of the other things that have raised its profile is the National Science and Technology Centre that was opened the other day and the protest that was held at the front of the building. That was important. I think it is fairly ironic that the majority of funding for that bicentennial gift was given by the Japanese. There has been a huge growth in the Japanese economy. I wonder whether the Japanese are giving us a message there somewhere. Mr Smith —There is no doubt about it; they are. Mr CHYNOWETH —The honourable member could be right. I will give an example of one of the things that have happened to one of our premier scientists who has left the country recently. His case is typical of many high ranking scientists. John Parise is one of Australia's best and brightest young scientists with a budding international reputation, a rush of novel ideas and a pressing ambition to succeed. At Sydney University he worked at the forefront of solid state chemistry, searching out new materials with special properties that may advance science and be harnessed by high technologies. In short, Dr Parise is the sort of relevant university researcher that the Federal Government says it wants to encourage, to sow the seeds of new brain-based industries through teaching and experimentation. He is about to take all his talent, experience and dreams to the United States where there are dollars and not just rhetoric. Dr Parise is heading off to the United States. The department in which he worked backed a plan to set up and develop a world class teaching and research facility. Dr Parise judged that another $120,000 was needed in the first year. That was pared back to $91,000 when he sought help from the Australian research grants scheme (ARGS). Meanwhile, he turned down an offer from the State University of New York of an associate professorship in a laboratory with equipment worth $1m. This was a post just vacated by one of the world's top solid state chemists. Then came the ARGS response. It was full of praise for Dr Parise's plan, but it offered a mere $22,500. The United States job offer was still open and he decided to take it. A newspaper article reported him as saying: When I saw that letter, I thought: `That's it, I'm going', he said yesterday. The choice was forced upon me. They'd offered me too little to do anything with, and just enough to hang myself. Solid-state chemistry is at the heart of the push for new materials. But we're lacking in the teaching of it, and you need the trained personnel to nurture the technology along in the future. Professor Freeman said that his departure would be a serious loss not just to the university but to Australian science. That is the sort of thing that is happening to many of our top scientists. Australia has been at the forefront in many areas in the past. One only has to think of our space research. In the 1960s we were at the forefront. Our rocket WRESAT went up in those days. I think we had the third computer in the world-CSIRAC. Mr Barry Jones —Fourth or fifth. Mr CHYNOWETH —The Minister informs me that it was the fourth or fifth. It was one of the first. I can remember seeing it a few years ago at the Chisholm Institute of Technology sitting in a hallway. This particular computer was valve and mercury tube operated. At that stage it was the fourth or fifth computer developed. It is still there. It is a sort of monument to our lack of forethought. The money was taken out of that computer project and it went into cloud seeding, of all things. I do not know whether that is a reflection on past governments. Maybe the National Party was involved in a bit of arm twisting. One of the things which always fascinated me with this computer was that it had a paper tape going through it which was fed by a couple of cogs. The shear pin for these gears was a three-inch nail. That is good Australian novel thinking. It really impressed me. We have been at the forefront in many areas but we have handed them back. We were at the forefront with the xerox copying machine. Mr Barry Jones —Colour xerox. Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes, and we also have a great opportunity in superconductivity. A report was brought down in the Parliament yesterday in relation to this. Superconducting may prove to be more important industrially than computing or space research, both areas where Australia has had early technological capacity but which, as I said before, we just threw away. We failed to seize or even see the technological opportunities that were there. They were just handed back. The Minister has always been a Minister with a vision. He has had a vision for Australia which will enable all its residents to share with the world the benefits of science. All we in this Parliament have to do is to get a glimpse of that vision and make certain that we play our part to determine that the Minister's views and his past cries in the wilderness are heard and heeded. Our researchers must have increased funding. We cannot allow Australia to fall behind the rest of the world. We have been world leaders in the past-in science especially. We must grasp the Minister's vision and make certain that we are leaders again. I would like to quote some famous words that have been used often in the past and which have been used recently. To me they sum up our present parlous state of science funding. I quote: It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom; it was the age of foolishness. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The House will be aware that this motion was seconded by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) before the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) commenced his speech in support of the motion he moved. I think it is an appropriate time to say that an honourable member who is seconding a motion to indicate his support for that motion should do so after the honourable member who has moved the motion has concluded his or her remarks. The appropriate time to do so is not, as appears to be a common misapprehension, after the mover has formally moved the motion. Strictly speaking, the mover of a motion, in yielding to a seconder, has forgone the opportunity to address the House further. I do not think that we would wish to so impose the Standing Orders as to leave the honourable member for Warringah with his mouth open and the words about to fall forth but not having the opportunity to utter them. On this occasion I did not call for a seconder when the mover had finished his speech. I hope that in future we will be able to adhere more strictly to the forms of the House so we can take the appropriate action at that time. 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 Smith —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I accept your ruling, given that it was made in the spirit of formally correcting the situation. In a sense what you are saying is that there now needs to be a seconding of the motion moved by the honourable member for Warringah. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting that motion because it was an exceptionally good motion and an exceptionally good speech. Science is important. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(12.03) —I 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. Today, I rise to speak on a matter of great importance-a matter which I believe is important not only to my electorate of Riverina-Darling but to many parts of Australia. Throughout the world, as all honourable members would know, the mosquito in all its different species is responsible for a great number of diseases-diseases ranging from malaria to encephalitis. Many of the diseases, some of which have probably not yet properly been identified, cause great debilitation and, in some cases, death. In many countries of the developing world these mosquito-borne diseases cause extreme havoc because of a lack of money and resources to fight the insect pest and also because of the non-developed health services in those countries. In 1974 in southern Australia there was an outbreak of a mosquito-borne disease now known as Murray Valley encephalitis which, although in relation to other diseases it claimed a minimal number of victims, was still regarded as being serious enough to be judged as being in epidemic proportions. Research has pointed to the Murray Valley encephalitis being carried by migrating birds and then transmitted from those birds to humans by the mosquito. This applies not only to encephalitis but also to Ross River fever and dengue fever. The weather pattern also has an effect on the spread of these viruses to the human population. Murray Valley encephalitis has the effect of making the victim drowsy and hard to rouse. This is caused by an inflammation of the brain membrane. The condition may be fatal. Following the outbreak of the disease, Federal, State and local governments undertook a program to monitor the mosquito population and the spread of the disease. The procedures required have been in place since that period. People with the necessary expertise are available to try to counter this mosquito menace. Broadly, the procedure for detection is as follows. From the start of the mosquito breeding season in summer, mosquitoes are trapped and identified as to type. Blood from a sentinel flock of chickens is collected and tested each week for antibodies to the known viruses. This enables doctors and other health workers to be aware of the existence of those viruses and, where necessary, to be made aware of their symptoms. In the case of Ross River fever it is important to positively identify the condition because the rash which can sometimes appear can be confused with the measles rash and, in the case of pregnant women, this identification obviously is very important. Naturally these mosquito-borne diseases occur mainly where there is a great deal of natural precipitation, particularly in warmer areas where mosquitoes can survive. It is particularly evident in irrigation settlements which, by necessity, have large areas of open water, channels and swamps. Of course, other areas are affected. I have here an article from the Melbourne Herald of 2 November which reported that a small town by the name of Loch Sport in Gippsland actually had erected signs on the outskirts of the town saying that it had declared mosquito areas. Of course, there are not only problems of health for people in these areas but also problems relating to the fact that if people want to go outside of an evening in summer it is almost impossible to do so. I note in the article that a resident of Loch Sport was reported as saying: You can't even have a cricket match. You can't send men on to the field because they get bitten through their caps. According to the spokesperson, some of the mosquitoes will travel up to seven kilometres. We can see that not only are irrigation areas affected but other areas, such as Gippsland, are affected also. I know that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who is presently in the House, has made a great number of representations on behalf of the Gippsland area to try to get something done in raising funds to fight the mosquito menace. Apart from the terrible symptoms and effects of Murray Valley encephalitis, if we look at the Ross River virus-which is probably the most common virus affecting people in the Riverina-we see that this disease also has very bad effects. Although the disease is not fatal, the health problems it creates can last for several years. Initially the victim is subject to influenza-type aches and pains with tiredness of the limbs. There is a general feeling of not being well. A rash similar to measles often appears. This rash is not always apparent but when it does appear it is usually located on the trunk of the body. Dr Fraser of Melbourne, who is an expert on the disease, is very concerned that the disease should be properly diagnosed as it can often be confused with other ailments. As I said before, a person can be incapacitated and not able to work for years after the initial attack, with arthritis symptoms in the joints. There is now some questioning of possible harmful effects being caused to the human immuno system as a result of the disease. From the details of the diseases I have just mentioned, it can be seen that not only are the diseases themselves of concern but also the fear of contracting these diseases has an effect on the region where these diseases are recognised as occurring. The effect on the economy in the early 1970s during the encephalitis epidemic in the Murray Valley was disastrous. That area, noted for its tourist trade, suffered a serious drop in the numbers of people using its tourist facilities. As it is an agricultural area, road transport is very important for getting produce to the market. It is recorded that during that period even the truck drivers were reluctant to enter the area. In the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally irrigation areas a great number of itinerant workers are required to pick the various crops that are grown. The possibility of catching a viral infection from mosquitoes has the effect of deterring those workers from entering the area. This would apply also to other irrigation areas in Australia. As with Mildura, the cost to the tourist trade must be significant. My main purpose in speaking today is to speak on behalf of the people living in the Leeton, Hay and Murrumbidgee shires, as well as the City of Griffith. Their local government organisations have for years supported both the Federal and State governments in their campaigns to fight the mosquito problem. In an effort to protect their citizens they have contributed their own money. Mr Peter Fisher —It has been very successful. Mr HICKS —It has been successful, as the honourable member for Mallee has stated. These councils have been part of the State-wide monitoring program which enables the assessment of the incidence of both Ross River and Australian arbo viruses, as well as lesser know viruses. Combined health departments have participated with the New South Wales Department of Health in previous years and have the necessary experience and knowledge to oversee a monitoring program. The data continually obtained enables implementation of an appropriate plan of action by the New South Wales Department of Health at the most beneficial time. Withdrawal of Federal funding will see the disintegration of an administrative structure and loss of expert personnel who are much needed to research methods of preventing viral disease. During the last six or seven years, the just mentioned local government areas have been used as a base for collecting information on mosquitoes in New South Wales. In one particular instance, it is understood that knowledge gained from three years of research into mosquito breeding in rice fields will be lost due to lack of funding to document these findings. I am pleased to report to the House that the New South Wales Government is to continue its share of the funding for the program, but if because of a lack of Federal funding New South Wales were to cease its sentinel chicken program, it would leave a void of knowledge as there is every indication that Queensland and Victoria will continue their monitoring. This monitoring is of vital importance locally as health organisations and medical practitioners when advised of the incidence of disease take action to confirm its presence in patients' diagnoses. Past records indicate outbreaks of Australian arbor encephalitis occur following heavy winter rains when followed by summer rains. This year heavy rains occurred over a wide area of New South Wales. Already local residents of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and the Collarenebri Irrigation Area have reported large numbers of mosquitoes in the areas. Because of my real concern for the situation, on 20 October during Question Time, I asked the Acting Minister for Community Services and Health (Mr Staples) whether the Federal Government intended to continue its funding for the monitoring and eradication of mosquitoes. Although the Acting Minister could not answer the question, my office was later informed orally that the Federal Government was to cease funding the program. As yet I have not received a written message telling me of the reasons for this decision but I am sure that the information will eventually arrive. However, whatever the reasons are, I believe that it is a grave mistake for the Federal Government to stop the funding for this project, not only because of the importance of the program to my electorate but also because of the importance to the rest of Australia and wherever in the world the war against the mosquito is being waged. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) -Is the motion seconded? Mr McGauran —Yes, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr GEAR(Canning)(12.13) —The Federal Government recognises that mosquitoes are indeed a big problem but I suppose the question that has to be answered is: who pays for the eradication of mosquitoes? Certainly the Federal Government has the view that it is the responsibility of the State governments. So when we talk about mosquitoes in New South Wales, they are not Commonwealth mosquitoes, they are New South Wales mosquitoes. Down in Victoria, they are Victorian mosquitoes. Of course, up in Queensland, they are Queensland mosquitoes. Mr Peter Fisher —You don't take that view with AIDS. Mr GEAR —I just had an interjection that we do not take that view with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). But that is a different area altogether. What we are talking about there is community health. Mr Peter Fisher —AIDS kills people too. Mr GEAR —We recognise that with AIDS there will be a significant cost to be borne by the community and it is only right and proper that we do include the cost in Commonwealth outlays. So far as mosquitoes are concerned, the honourable gentleman opposite talked about the effects on tourism. No doubt tourists coming to Australia would not like to be bitten by a Victorian or even a Commonwealth mosquito. I can understand it would be very unpleasant. Certainly the Opposition spokesperson on sport and tourism, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), took up this point when he accused the Federal Government of stopping its funding and the impact that might have on Queensland's tourism industry. It is relevant to point out that the tourism industry in Queensland is worth around $160m. It should not be suggested that an $80,000 grant from the Federal Government would somehow endanger that industry or that the industry itself could not generate sufficient funds to tackle a problem-if we are to believe that there is a major problem for the tourism industry-which it would want to eradicate. But the whole thing we are talking about today is not the effects of mosquitoes. I think that is very well agreed on both sides of the House. In fact, the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) spoke to me about the research that Australia is doing on malaria. It is a joint venture between the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in which this Government has invested considerable amounts of money. I am told that Australia is a world leader in developing that vaccine. Certainly with research into malaria, a mosquito borne disease, Australia is at the forefront and this Government has played its fair share in getting there. The Minister also informs me that Sir Macfarlane Burnet cut his research teeth, so to speak, on mosquito diseases. But, of course, whenever we get motions like this, it is always amazing to me, as a member of parliament, that what members here want the Federal Parliament to do is to spend more money and, of course, spending more money is justified if it is a Federal Government responsibility but in this case it clearly is not, even though we have provided funds since 1974-75. However, one would think that by now the programs for the eradication of mosquitoes would be well and truly in place and it is about time the States stood up for themselves and started to look after this responsibility themselves. The simple fact is that it is a State or Territory responsibility. They have the primary responsibility for the surveillance and the control of mosquito-borne diseases, and their local governments have responsibility for the mosquito control programs. Since 1974-75 the Commonwealth has permitted the establishment of infrastructures and programs of State and local authorities for the surveillance and control of vector borne diseases. The responsibility for the maintenance of these programs and infrastructures now reverts to the States. We hear a lot in this place about States rights. It seems to me that States rights is a one-way street in many members' minds. That is, so far as paying out money, the States are not too happy about digging their heels in so far as States rights are concerned. Certainly this issue is a classic example of that. If the States can get the Federal Government to pick up the tab, then States rights take second place. But of course if there is some benefit to be gained by insisting on States rights, they are the ones to call the loudest. Certainly, Tasmania, Queensland and my state of Western Australia over the years have been three States in particular which have talked about States rights when they perceive some benefit for themselves. But, of course, when there is a cost involved, then the States are quite happy to have the Commonwealth pick it up. Just to give honourable members an idea of the size, the Commonwealth allocation was $412,000 to the States in 1987-88 of which $40,000 was allocated to the Northern Territory and $80,000 to Queensland for their mosquito surveillance control programs. In 1986-87 the Commonwealth allocated $534,700 to the States of which $35,800 was allocated to the Northern Territory and $120,000 to Queensland. Environmental health is not a direct Commonwealth function. State governments have the responsibility for developing and maintaining public utilities, including drainage and sewerage systems and garbage collection services, yet I do not hear many members come in here and talk about the fact that the Federal Government should take over those responsibilities for the very good reason that there is no reason why the Federal Government should become involved. The Federal Government did become involved in this project, to set it up, to get it going, and it seems to me that after more than 10 years, it is about time the State governments did take up their responsibilities and started talking about the eradication of mosquitoes within their own States. Furthermore, the problems from mosquitoes and other biting insects in Queensland, in particular, have in many cases been exacerbated by tourist, waterfront and canal developments which disturb the natural wetlands. So here we have the developers moving in and making the profits that we read about in the newspapers. With the connivance of some of the Ministers up there, as the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct reports, they seem to get more than their fair share of the kickback. It is about time developments like that did make allowances, I believe, for the eradication of some of the problems they cause. It is not good enough that developers can get in there, make huge sums of money and then allow society, via taxpayers' money, to clean up the mess that they themselves have created. It is more logical, I would put to the House, that State and local governments run and monitor the programs which deal with their problems. Nobody can tell me that the control of mosquitoes across Australia would be better handled by Canberra. Queensland mosquitoes and Victorian mosquitoes need the local touch. Local people know what is good for mosquitoes and the best way of getting rid of them. It all comes back to money in the end. The honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), who moved the motion, and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who seconded the motion, would say that the Federal Government should spend more money on eradicating mosquitoes; yet at other times in other debates they will castigate the Government for high taxes and say that too many taxes are raised. The Government does not do that, and that can be proved. Every time the Opposition brings up one of its favourite issues that would commit this Government to spending money, we should think about who is providing that money. It is the taxpayers. Why should the money of the taxpayers of Perth, for instance, be used to get rid of the mosquitoes on the Gold Coast? Mr Hand —I was bitten the last time I was in Perth. Mr GEAR —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs points out the problem of mosquitoes in Perth, but there is not a mosquito problem in Perth because the Western Australian Government got rid of them long before this program was introduced. The Western Australian Government did not ask the Commonwealth to become involved. It seems to me that if honourable members come in here with genuine concerns that are generated within their local electorates, they should look to see where that problem could be better solved. In many cases local government could do it; in many cases State governments have the constitutional responsibility. The Government is saying that mosquitoes are a matter for the States. The Government is happy to let the States tackle the problem. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(12.22) —I am very pleased to second this motion from the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) and to have worked with him in putting this matter before the House. This is a tremendously serious issue that is affecting a number of parts of Australia, not least my own constituency of Gippsland. I refer particularly to East Gippsland but not exclusively. Before I address the substance of the motion, let me deal with the totally inadequate response by the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) on behalf of the Government. He essentially made three arguments in defence of the Government's withdrawal of the funding or any involvement in the eradication of mosquitoes. The first was that it is a State responsibility. The honourable member failed to advise the House that the States have always been involved in the funding of the eradication programs on a dollar for dollar basis and that the Commonwealth's involvement goes back to 1974. This is not a one-off involvement by the Commonwealth. It is a longstanding involvement which is matched dollar for dollar by the States. As late as January 1987, following inquiries from myself and other members, the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) was proudly boasting in his replies to us that the Commonwealth was delighted to be associated with the national diseases control program and of the Commonwealth's funding. Indeed, the last paragraph of his letter to the honourable member for Riverina-Darling dated 28 January 1987 reads: I am sure you agree that this is a Commonwealth initiative which is worthy of being brought to the attention of your constituents. So the Government was happy to capitalise on the political kudos that would accrue to the Government from assisting ordinary Australians, but now it bows out and completely hands it over to the States. The second point the honourable member made was that the Commonwealth should not be involved in community health. That is so ludicrous as to be laughable. The Commonwealth is involved in community health in a number of ways. In so far as it affects this issue, it is a preventative measure. If one really wants to institute preventative health measures, then the Commonwealth has no choice but to fund programs such as this. It is a very inexpensive investment which will save taxing of the Medicare system and the public health system in future. Evidence has now accumulated, and it is acknowledged by the Department of Community Services and Health, that mosquitoes do carry a whole range of diseases which draw on the public health sector. The third point made by the honourable member-and I cannot help thinking that he was being facetious here-is that there are no problems with mosquitoes in Perth. Presumably he also meant Western Australia. He asked why Western Australians should be funding programs to eradicate mosquitoes all down the east coast, Tasmania and South Australia. If that is what he wants, then Gippsland will keep its oil, gas and coal. Gippsland provides most of this nation's energy needs. A boundary will be drawn around Gippsland and will not share its tax revenue with any other parts of Australia. It is an extraordinary argument. It is part of the arrogance of the Government in a whole number of fields and this one in particular. Time is very limited, and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) who, together with myself and the honourable member for Riverina-Darling, has been pressuring the Government for a long time now will follow me for the remaining minutes of this debate. This is a problem that has been a long time coming. All honourable members whose constituents have been suffering the inconvenience and health risks of mosquitoes have lobbied the Government for a long time now. I met and had extensive briefings with the Department of Community Services and Health in January and February of this year. I warned the Department, and subsequently the Minister, that this was a problem which would quickly get out of control. There was no way that the States were going to pick up the withdrawal of Commonwealth funding. Bear in mind that Commonwealth funding had reduced substantially over the years. For instance, Victoria in the 1987-88 financial year received only $107,000, $40,000 of which went to local councils, the rest into necessary research. In 1986-87 it was $180,000; in 1985-86 it was $220,000. So there was a marked decline in funding. We took the view in any event that any funding was better than nothing at all. The result is that right across the coast of Gippsland from Marlo and Loch Sport to Paynesville, visitors and permanent residents are suffering. That has had a definable impact on the tourist trade, not to mention the health risk it causes. It is an intolerable position for this Commonwealth to abdicate so arrogantly, so completely, its responsibilities in this area. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(12.28) —Very briefly, I support the views of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), whom I commend for raising this issue in the House. I shall also say something about the views that have been put by the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). I wonder at this Government's priorities when one sees the decision in the last Budget to remove excise on beer for a saving of some $400m. Here is one of the most successful joint cooperative programs between Commonwealth and State governments for the benefit of people and in the interests of preventative medicine that we have ever seen; yet the Commonwealth has bailed out of it. The effect it had upon my electorate in 1974, when several people died from Murray Valley encephalitis and numerous people suffered permanent damage of their health, was quite phenomenal. In the city of Swan Hill, where the tourist trade realises approximately $30m a year, the trade virtually ceased overnight. The same situation applied right across the Murray Valley regions and Mildura, where the tourist trade of $90m a year was similarly affected. This has been a very successful and cooperative program between the States, the Commonwealth and local government. It basically fell into three areas. First, there was the monitoring of the problem, which has been highly successful. That particular program allowed Victoria to establish relevant expertise, surveillance and control programs. More importantly, it called for a detailed contingency plan for the control of future epidemics and outbreaks, and that is what we are talking about today. It allowed the research program to be established. Every year in the city of Mildura a training program was run for the whole of Australia, which brought together those people who were responsible for the monitoring and research programs and enabled them to update their skills. Why has the Government bailed out of this program? It has been extremely valuable to us. It is an area where preventative medicine has, over the years since its establishment, resolved the problem. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! It being 12.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 104a. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(12.30) —When Mr Frank Costigan wound up his Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in 1984, he passed on 42 references to the newly formed National Crime Authority (NCA). One of them was codenamed `Kong'. The `Kong' reference concerned abuses of the business migration program (BMP) that had come to the attention of Costigan's Royal Commission. In the Australian Financial Review of 27 July 1984 the then Victorian Minister for Industry, Commerce and Technology, Mr Ian Cathie, was reported as telling the newspaper that he was aware of the report relating to `Kong' and was concerned about the allegations contained in it. Mr Cathie said: We've had discussions at a senior level and we're making inquiries about it. The report in the Australian Financial Review stated: It is understood that the Cain Government's inquiries into the allegations will centre on its statutory authority, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation . . . Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) issued a press release, dated 24 November 1988, which stated: . . . the Victorian Government had conducted its own investigation of the VEDC. Requests from Victorian investigating authorities to the Department of Immigration received full cooperation. The information supplied to the Victorian authorities came from the Department's ongoing investigations of immigration malpractice. So from preceding information we can thus ascertain that there were two separate inquiries being conducted into the same matter-the first by the Victorian Government and the second by the Federal Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs-because, as Senator Ray concedes, the Federal Immigration Department was involved in ongoing investigations. In fact, Costigan's `Kong' reference arose when the two immigration officers involved in the investigation felt that their inquiries were being frustrated from within and so in desperation took the matter to Royal Commissioner Costigan. For reasons yet to be explained, the investigations of the Victorian Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs appear to have been allowed to just peter out, though the NCA appears to have maintained an ongoing interest from the Costigan `Kong' reference. Yet unresolved questions remain outstanding, particularly the relationship between two people identified in the 1984 investigations, Mr Paul White of Paul J. White and Associates, a company dealing in business migration, and Mr Gerry McCormick, who until recently was the head of the business migration program in the Victorian Department of Industry, Technology and Resources. Responsibility for BMP formerly rested with the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC), where it was also headed by Mr McCormick. Both Victorian and Federal authorities believe that McCormick, as head of the Victorian Government's business migration program, was referring potential migrants to Mr Paul White. Mr White would make up a BMP file for the people referred to him, charging between $15,000 and $30,000 for the service. When this was done Mr McCormick would then, as the head of Victoria's BMP, rubber stamp the case. Coincidentally, Mr White is a former Victorian State Government employee. There is, I believe, a pressing case for an investigation of the relationship between McCormick and White, especially into the nature of any financial or other arrangements between them. On 5 November 1987 the then Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Mick Young, announced that private migration agents would be taking over the processing of applicants under the business migration program. Many experienced immigration officers saw this proposal as dramatically widening the scope for abuse of the business migration program. In May of this year Dr Stephen FitzGerald noted that the BMP still lacked `ongoing monitoring'. Later in June during a rare public sitting, the head of the NCA, Mr Justice Stewart, made a veiled criticism of the Government's entry visa policies saying that many criminals who invoked the Triad name to engender fear travelled `with apparent ease' between Australia, Hong Kong and South East Asia. The House will by now be aware of the fact that a senior migration officer based in Hong Kong, Mr David Cray, has fled to the United Kingdom, presumably as a result of an internal inquiry being conducted by the Immigration Department. Whilst the Government has kept us in ignorance of the facts surrounding this very serious matter, I am now, after much investigation, in a position to enlighten the House as to the circumstances surrounding Mr Cray's decision to flee from Hong Kong. Cray has been in the Immigration Department for 25 years, was born in 1942 and is currently 46 years of age. He has dual nationality, both Australian and British. Prior to his posting to Hong Kong Mr Cray was based in Melbourne from January 1986 to November 1987. Mr Cray also knows Mr Paul White of Paul J. White and Associates whom he first met in 1983. Although not officially engaged in processing applications Paul J. White and Associates has run a least one seminar for business migrants and also given advice on how best to take advantage of the business migration program. The company is not an accredited business migration agent under the present scheme. Cray took up his post in Hong Kong in December 1987 travelling there via the United Kingdom where he picked up his de facto or girlfriend, Miss Janet Dalliston. Cray and Dalliston had lived together in Melbourne in earlier years and again lived together during his time in Hong Kong in an official departmental residence. Janet Dalliston was formerly an Immigration Department officer up to 1986. She had served with Cray in Hanoi. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I find it amazing that people can come into this Parliament and bring up matters such as this. Are personal attacks on individuals about their relationships in order? I think that that is extraordinary. The way it has been portrayed is obviously to discredit-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The Minister may have an opinion on the matter, but it is not a point of order. Mr ALDRED —The first suspicions that all was not well in the Hong Kong Immigration Office were raised in May 1988, through information conveyed to the Department of Immigration head office in Canberra. This information caused a formal investigation to be commenced. On 9 June 1988 a communication dated 6 June 1988 was found on Mr Cray's desk. This discovery accelerated the investigation. The communication was not a telex or telegram as has been reported in the press but a facsimile message. There were no specific amounts of money mentioned in the fax message. However, the fax, addressed to `UK One', says inter alia: What fee can be charged for perusing applicants submissions . . . bearing in mind your charges. The facsimile was from Paul J. White. Paul J. White and Associates also had a representative in Hong Kong. The name of that representative was Janet Dalliston. As I mentioned earlier, a result of the Immigration Department investigation was the decision by Mr Cray to flee as far as possible from Australian jurisdiction. This occurred on or about 16 September. He flew via Kuala Lumpur and it is believed he was accompanied by his girlfriend, Miss Janet Dalliston. On 15 November 1988 Mr Cray resigned from the Australian Public Service and is now seeking his superannuation entitlements through his British solicitors. I might add that at this early point in the Department's investigation there is already sufficient evidence to charge Mr Cray under the Public Service Act with conflict of interest in the discharge of his duties. Since Mr Cray's flight to the United Kingdom the Government appears quite happy to leave him there and make no efforts to pursue the investigation any further. I understand that the matter is to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). However, it is already known that there is insufficient evidence at this stage for the DPP to recommend that a warrant for Cray's arrest be issued and extradition proceedings started. In other words, the matter will, in all probability, be quietly dropped. The Government, and in particular the former Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), know full well that a proper investigation of the Cray case will open a can of worms. Furthermore, an investigation of the Cray case would factually confirm my allegations of abuse of the business migration program, plus the need for tighter BMP checks and better policing of private migration agents. A proper investigation would also cast doubt on answers given by the Minister, in his capacity respectively as Immigration Minister and then as Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, to questions in this House on 30 August 1988 and 28 September 1988. At the time he gave those answers, in which he arrogantly dismissed allegations against the business migration program, he must have been aware of the Cray case. Indeed, I believe that examination of the Minister's answers reveals an inconsistency with the known facts and therefore the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), if he has any respect for the integrity of his Government, should sack this Minister for not properly informing the House. Mr COURTICE(Hinkler)(12.39) —At the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct on Tuesday, Sir Edward Lyons, a former trustee of the Queensland National Party and confidante of the former Queensland Premier, revealed that an international construction company which donated $250,000 in cash to the National Party was awarded State government contracts totalling $52.496m. The donations were given in October 1983 at the time of the State election. Included in the contracts was a $34m deal in 1984 for the second stage electrification of the central Queensland rail system and a $7.6m contract for the Callide B power station project which began in January 1984. These contracts affect areas adjoining my electorate in Central Queensland. However, I am particularly interested in a contract awarded to Citra Constructions Ltd for the building of a new maternity wing at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. The new hospital was to replace the Lady Chelmsford. It was a major part of a proposed $8m redevelopment of the base hospital. It would include 48 beds, labour wards, an operating theatre, nurseries, reception and lounge areas. At its 22 September meeting the Bundaberg Hospital Board recommended that a Maroochydore firm, Evans Harch Construction Pty Ltd, be accepted for the proposal. The hospital board had received 36 tenders-20 on a rise and fall basis and 16 on a fixed price basis. The Evans group had succeeded in the board's view with its fixed price. On 27 September the board told the Bundaberg News Mail that the tender had been forwarded to the State Health Department for approval. At the time the State was governed by a minority State National Party Government awaiting the outcome of the State election. The newly sworn in Cabinet deferred a decision on the contract at its Cabinet meetings on 3, 10 and 17 October. The then chairman of the hospital board, Mr Caldwell, expressed concern about the delay because the time limit on fixed price tenders was running out. On 27 October 1983, Mr Caldwell was quoted in the media as saying that the board had recommended the fixed price tender from Evans Harch Constructions because on the board's valuations the rise and fall tender from Citra was more costly. The difference in price at the awarding of the contract was $78,127. The then Health Minister, Mr Bertoni, had given the media the impression the contract would be awarded to Evans Harch. Indeed Evans Harch was under the same impression. In the News Mail on 11 November 1983, Mr Bertoni acknowledged that it was most unusual for the recommendations of the local board to be overturned. In spite of this, the contract was awarded to Citra. As the board had predicted, the cost of the project escalated enormously. On 25 May 1984, the Bundaberg News Mail announced that the work on the $2.9m project was on schedule; the cost had then blown out by $500,000. The $250,000 Citra donation to the National Party had become a $500,000 body blow to the Queensland taxpayer. The key ministerial portfolios involved in this scam were held by the Premier and Treasurer, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, and the Minister for Works and Housing-- Mr McGauran —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, matters before a court are subject to the sub judice rule and matters before a royal commission or commission of inquiry are also subject to the same rules, although the interpretation of those rules is somewhat more flexible than in regard to appearances before a court. Nonetheless, I refer you to page 467 of Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice where he sets out the precedents in ruling on sub judice as it affects royal commissions. Of course, there is more latitude-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! What is the point of order? Mr McGauran —My point of order is that I submit the honourable member is transgressing the sub judice rule when he starts mentioning specific persons or specific actions as they relate to matters under examination by a royal commission. Mr COURTICE —You are frightened of the truth, are you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! For several weeks now members have referred in various ways to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct. These references have been permitted because of the basic principle that members should be able to refer to matters of public interest and importance, provided they remain within the Standing Orders and practice of the House. I do not wish to prevent the honourable member from raising or commenting upon significant national matters. But I remind him of the comments recorded on page 467 of House of Representatives Practice and of the need to balance the rights of the House to discuss matters of importance against the rights of individuals whose conduct may be the subject of inquiry. In particular, I request the honourable member, in so far as the behaviour and conduct of named individuals is concerned, not to put any construction on statements that have been made or evidence that may have been given before the royal commission. Whilst the Fitzgerald inquiry is described as a commission of inquiry and not a royal commission, I am sure that all members will recognise the importance of exercising some restraint when it comes to commenting on the situation of named individuals. The honourable member may proceed, but I ask him to bear these matters in mind. Mr McGauran —I take a further point of order. Mr COURTICE —I know they do not want the truth to come out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr McGauran —On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, the last words spoken by the honourable member were that the-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order because I have given- Mr McGauran —I wish to further add to the point of order. With respect, it is a legitimate inquiry. The last words spoken by the honourable member were that the ministries involved in this scam-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat because I have made a statement on this matter. I have said that the honourable member for Hinkler may proceed but I have asked him to bear these matters in mind, that is, retrospectively. The honourable member may proceed. Mr COURTICE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not surprised that the honourable member for Gippsland would want to stop debate on this matter. He stood up in this House recently and supported Mr Pinochet, who is a murderer-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr McGauran —The honourable member is casting aspersions on my motives in raising this matter before you. I simply want to clear up the practice of this place. He will withdraw that aspersion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member may continue under the conditions that I have outlined. Mr McGauran —No, I have asked for a withdrawal of the aspersion cast on my character. Mr COURTICE —The honourable member for Gippsland did praise Mr Pinochet, who is a murderer. I did not cast any aspersion; he made that statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will resume his seat. I would ask the honourable member for Hinkler to withdraw. Mr COURTICE —I withdraw. Many members of the Cabinet who were involved in the contract for the maternity section of the hospital are still there today. I believe that until they come clean on this contract there will be a taint and a stain of corruption and defrauding of $500,000 from the taxpayers of Queensland. Yesterday in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Rod Henshaw, Mr Henshaw said, `Suspicions have been going on for years and years of allegations of cronyism with the Bjelke-Petersen Government. You were a part of that government'-to Mr Ahern-`surely you were answerable for some of it'. Mr Ahern replied, `I am quite happy to be accountable'. Mr Ahern sat in on those Cabinet meetings, Mr Ahern was there and in the past Mr Ahern has put on his survival gear of corks in his ears, blindfolds over his eyes and masking tape over his mouth. The Queensland Premier does not have an impressive past when it comes to exposing corruption in his own party. The clothes of respectability he is now trying to wear are little more than the tatty garments he donned when he sat in those Cabinet meetings and allowed this type of contract to go through. The $500,000 could have provided better essential services in the city of Bundaberg, it could have provided better home and community care facilities for the elderly and the disabled in the Bundaberg district. It could have provided better housing or been used to start the new Bundaberg bridge. This is the way the people of Bundaberg are paying for the National Party contracts. The other reform desperately needed in Queensland at the moment is a public disclosure of all campaign donations. The National Party cannot be trusted with viewing contracts impartially once it has it hands on a donation. The National Party candidate at the 1983 election is an alderman on the Bundaberg City Council, Alderman Barritt. He should show some decency and send a copy of his campaign donations and expenditure to the Fitzgerald inquiry. As Queensland members would be aware, if the National Party is going to pork barrel an electorate with the building of a hospital, it is usually preceded with much fanfare. The fact that this did not occur in Bundaberg means that those on the National Party campaign committee knew what was going on; they were party to the decision. Does any honourable member really believe that a government candidate trying to win a seat in an atmosphere as desperate as that of 1983 would not know what was happening in regard to a project? Alderman Barritt was quoted as saying, `I will try to find out', that he had not been following the progress of the maternity hospital at all. With the deepest of respect, this is just nonsense. The hospital board is full of National Party appointees. It included a member of the Bundaberg City Council with whom Alderman Barritt was on council. By Wednesday, 26 October after the election the State Government announced-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BURR(Lyons)(12.49) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the nineteenth century French socialist, St Simon, once said, `We must be careful to ensure that the government of men is not replaced by the administration of things'. In contemporary Australia there is good reason for us to examine the principles and motivations that guide our political direction. Many Australians have either arrogant contempt, cynical disbelief or apathetic indifference for the statements and actions of politicians. Such responses are most unfortunate because decisions made by governments affect the daily lives of all citizens. The public has a right to demand that politicians and political parties will publish their code of principles and philosophy and that their actions will give expression to such principles. The unfortunate fact that philosophy has been replaced by expediency by all political parties is in my view beyond question. Clearly, the policies and philosophy of a government must have widespread popular support if the community is to be motivated and responsive to the decisions made. Cynical disbelief will only promote apathy. The thought that the government is the best of a bad lot must encourage mediocrity in the community. A belief that politicians are nothing more than a bunch of egotistical self-seekers must promote selfishness in other citizens. Yet behind all this, I believe the community is desperate for a government based on principles and integrity rather than expediency. With a government motivated by philosophy rather than personal power and ambition, a government that can be relied upon for consistency, only then can individual citizens have confidence that planning at the highest national level will follow a consistent, philosophic line so that their own plans can be made with confidence and certainty. Sir Robert Menzies in his 1946 policy speech said: If there has been a degeneration in the standard of politics, it is chiefly because we have tended to move rather blindly from expedient to expedient. In the long run, there can be no high politics unless all parties have a sense of direction. We need to return to politics as a clash of principles and to get away from the notion that it is a clash only of warring personalities. I think we should all agree that nothing has changed since 1946. The performance of the major political parties can give no comfort to any section of the community. The most common reason given by political parties for seeking public support is that the others are worse. Then when the opinion polls indicate that an issue is of concern to the public, the politicians make whatever statement they believe will win support or embarrass their opponents. it appears that no thought is given to adopting a position because of a philosophic belief based on principles. Take the debate on privatisation. Three years ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) promoted the idea quite vigorously. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) poured scorn on the idea, claiming that it would give unwarranted advantage to people in big business. Now under the guidance of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, the Australian Labor Party is implementing a privatisation program that goes well beyond the point that many Liberals would want and while all of this is happening, even the left wing of the Labor Party says practically nothing. But what does it all mean, Mr Deputy Speaker? For years politicians have played on the natural greed of human beings. `Put us in power and we will give you everything' has been the common campaign theme for all parties. That greed was stimulated by a buoyant economy and an advertising industry that convinced people that they were deprived individuals if they did not have everything that opened and shut. The finance industry provided facilities to buy now and pay later. In fact, it became the norm to mortgage present requirements for consumer needs against future earnings. Politicians found that they could win support by promising more of everything and massaging every conceivable interest group. The fact that we were doing it with borrowed money and therefore mortgaging our future national wealth was never questioned. To point out the inconvenient fact that our children's future was being put in hock would have risked losing a few points on the opinion polls. Much of the dilemma, I believe, can be traced to the economic theories of Professor Milton Friedman. The Friedman theories are based on unrestrained competition and greed. However, many Western leaders eagerly acclaimed Friedmanism because it was new, different and gave them a chance of achieving power, but in the process the competing philosophies and principles of all parties in Australia have been disregarded in an orgy of power seeking and ambition. Politics has now degenerated into a debilitating and rather futile debate about the administration of things. However, the point has been reached where the public is rightly demanding more. In particular, the younger generation is no longer hypnotised by the promise of material gain. Quality of life is becoming more important than instant materialism. In 1987 the public made two significant judgments that turned modern day political theory on its ear. First was the promise by the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign to reduce the level of personal taxation. Tempting as such a promise might be, it was rejected because the public realised it was more important for our children to pay off our national debt, rather than have immediate comfort. Second was the attempt by Prime Minister Hawke to introduce an identification card. The Prime Minister claimed that he needed the card to stop tax and welfare fraud and therefore ease the burden on other taxpayers. The policy was overwhelmingly rejected by the public because the danger to civil liberties was more important than economics. In 1982 there was no such concern about moral issues when Mr Malcolm Fraser brought in retrospective tax. We as the elected leaders in Australia should quickly recognise and react to this new mood in public thinking. A new era is beginning. I believe that unlike other political parties the Liberal Party of Australia has a comprehensive array of well-documented principles that are ideal to satisfy the emerging demands of the community. However, the Liberal Party must realise that community demands are changing, concern for people must take precedence over economic theories. No longer can we be deceived by the claim that the marketplace will fix everything. The marketplace has no social conscience; it does not acknowledge the danger of monopolies; nor does it identify the poor, the underprivileged, the less educated, the unemployed, the social misfits in our society and nor does it advocate policies on behalf of those individual people. Yet Liberal philosophy is based on concern for the individual. It believes that government has an unyielding obligation to intervene to ensure that there is equality of opportunity. The public interest is far more important than accommodating the rich and powerful who have become familiar with buying privilege. The Liberal Party is well placed to provide the government of men rather than the administration of things. At present Australia is being strangled by the dead hand of creeping socialism. However, we need to reject quickly the centralised authoritarian socialist approaches that are being implemented. The Chifley Government tried to bring in socialism with a full frontal attack. However, the Hawke Government has been much more subtle but very much more effective. Under socialism individual people exist to serve the state, rather than the state serving the people. Socialism means that the government acquires most of the national resources and distributes those resources according to government planning. If socialism is to work, human freedom and dignity must be relinquished to the government. It must also limit the capacity of citizens to work on account of themselves and their families and ensure that they work for the state. The Hawke Government has proceeded on a tactic of convincing people that the Government can provide their every need, but to meet the growing commitment taxes must be pushed higher and higher. This year the Treasurer holds out the carrot of a tax cut, yet budgets for pays as you earn tax to increase by 13.8 per cent. Surely the time is right to introduce an indirect tax system of tax collections such as a value added tax. By doing so, the payment of tax becomes automatic but the civil liberties of individual citizens are protected from the prying of government agents. Socialism cannot be disguised. It robs people of their freedom, their dignity, their initiative, their individualism and their spirit. In all respects I believe that socialism is unAustralian. I urge the Australian people to quickly realise where this Government is leading us and demand that we turn back to individual enterprise before it is too late. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(12.59) —The Canberra Permanent Cooperative Building Society Ltd (CBS) is a cooperative building society registered under the Australian Capital Territory Cooperative Societies Ordinance. The philosophy of cooperative societies is that they promote the economic interests and general welfare of their members. They are there to assist their members in acquiring some of the necessities of life such as furniture, tools of trade and housing. CBS was formed in 1965 and over the years has operated successfully in providing finance for its members to acquire homes. Through prudent management it has built up reserves which at 30 June 1987 were conservatively valued at $25m. Whilst it stuck to its principal objective of making loans to its members it continued to be successful. However, in recent years it has concentrated on activities other than housing loans to members; for example, commercial real estate development, particularly the development of the Canberra Centre at Civic; the acquisition of a real estate agency which proved an expensive failure; the taking over of a failed credit union; and involvement in a commercial finance company. As a result of these activities the percentage of value of the Society's assets in housing loans has fallen well below the prescribed percentage with the result that the Society has breached section 14ab of the ordinance. With the diversification away from the provision of housing for members, there has been a discernible change in the attitude of CBS directors with regard to their duties and obligations to members of the Society. Directors of a company owe their company and shareholders fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty as well as duties of skill and care. This fiduciary duty extends to precluding a director from turning to his own advantage information, property or opportunities that belong to the company or which present themselves to him by virtue of his position in the company. The obligation and duties of directors of cooperative societies to members of the societies are greater than those of a company director to his shareholders because of the cooperative philosophy and the whole nature of cooperative societies which are in existence only to further the common interests of members. This obligation on directors of cooperative societies is reinforced by section 51 (ii) (h) of the ordinance, which provides for the automatic vacation of office by a director if he has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the society, except in some specified instances. This type of provision has been developed by the common law and has been interpreted very strictly by the courts over the years. The activities of the directors of CBS over the last year have been in conflict with the duties and responsibilities required of directors, as the following facts will illustrate. On 30 June 1987 CBS had reserves of at least $25m and on issue 182 million withdrawable shares. Those reserves, in the event of a winding up of CBS or its takeover, belonged to the owners of those withdrawable shares. In August 1987 the directors had the rules of CBS amended to enable the withdrawable shares to be purchased by the Society at cost to the member and converted to deposits. No explanation was given to members of the consequences of such a change, particularly that by converting shares to deposits ownership of the reserves of $25m could change. In September 1987 the directors announced an offer to members of an issue of permanent shares of $1 each. They said that they were seeking to raise $10m from this issue but would accept up to $25m. In the offer documents issued by the directors they said that with the issue of permanent shares they proposed converting almost all existing withdrawable shares to deposits. No mention was made of the fact that by the simultaneous issue of permanent shares and the conversion of withdrawable shares to deposits, the ownership of most of the Society's reserves would be transferred to the owners of the permanent shares. In fact, the offer document gives the reverse impression by saying, `Funds converted from shares to deposits will continue to be held on the same conditions as before'. The directors then proceeded to convert almost all withdrawable shares to deposits without any payment or credit being given to the reserves element then attaching to the withdrawable shares. The shareholder was not given any choice, offered any options or even notified of the change to his shareholding. Twenty-five million permanent shares were then issued to applicants, of which over 50 per cent were taken up by the seven directors, their family members, or entities controlled by them. Apart from the very substantial shareholding of the directors and those associated with them, most of the other shareholdings by ordinary members of the society are small, in hundreds or a few thousand per member. About 2,500 society members applied for shares from an estimated Society membership of 80,000. It is obvious that the Society's directors, because of the huge investments they collectively made-over $12m-knew that the shares were a bargain, because of the transfer of ownership of the Society's reserves, something not made known to Society members generally. The effect of this action has been to withdraw the right to benefit from the society's reserves from the 80,000 depositors and to transfer them to the 2,500 permanent shareholders, of whom a few-the seven directors-hold over half. The story of the activities of the Society's directors and the profit they hope to make does not stop here, however. It appears that shortly after the directors began making these changes, they also began discussions with the St George Building Society about a merger or takeover of CBS. St George was keen to expand into Canberra and was prepared to consider a takeover of CBS. The proposal put by CBS directors was that St George take over all the CBS assets and business, but that it transfer to CBS permanent shareholders the Canberra Centre, in exchange for the 25 million permanent shares. According to the Society's balance sheet at 30 June 1988 this development at that date was worth $75m. If this proposal had been accepted by St George, the owners of the withdrawable shares still on issue-about 1.3 million shares-would not have received any part of this windfall gain. The owners of the 25 million permanent shares would have been entitled to the Canberra Centre development-worth about $3 per share-of which the directors owned over 12 million shares. In other words, the $1 per share investment less than 12 months previously was now to be worth $3, or the directors' $12m investment was now worth $36m. Fortunately, the St George directors thought this proposal dishonest and decided not to proceed. Civic Advance Bank then indicated an interest in taking over CBS. It offered in excess of $2 per permanent share but the directors of CBS held out for a higher price. However, by this time publicity began to appear about the proposed sale of CBS. The then Minister intervened by saying that urgent amendments would be made to the ordinance to prevent a sale of the Society or its assets without the members' and his approval being first obtained. These facts show that the directors of CBS have put themselves in a position to make personal profits at the expense of the general membership of the Society. They have turned to their own advantage information and opportunities which they obtained by virtue of their position as Society directors. They have been involved in one form of what is commonly known as insider trading. They are in breach of their responsibilities under section 91 (ii) (h) of the ordinance. One way in which the directors could possibly restore the reserves to their rightful owners, the 80,000 or so depositors with CBS, would be to make rule changes which would reinstate the rights of depositors to the reserves. Another would be simply to return to depositors any profits they make on sale of their shares. The sorry history outlined above also shows that a number of amendments should be made to the cooperative societies ordinance; amendments that will incorporate many provisions of the companies code governing the conduct of directors, into the ordinance. These amendments should also make it mandatory that much more information is to be given to society members and make it possible for members to have a greater say in the running of the affairs of cooperative societies. The rules at CBS at present have been so arranged that the members have very little opportunity of having any influence in the way the directors run their Society. Preparation of such amendments is well advanced. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that the directors of CBS will take corrective action so as to establish confidence in the disinterestedness and effectiveness of their management of the Society. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(1.08) —My grievance today is about Australia's overseas debt and the worsening balance of trade and current account deficit and the consequent fall in the living standards of our people. Sadly, this Government is not addressing the real underlying problems facing Australians. Our current account deficit and our overseas debt remain our biggest single economic and social problem. The Budget forecast of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of a current account deficit of $9.5 billion this financial year will now be closer to $12 billion. The overseas debt has now reached an all time gross record of $120.4 billion this year. This is nearly four times the debt the Labor Government inherited in 1983. In the mid 1960s, Australia was the eighth largest exporting nation in the world. Today we are twenty-third, falling behind Hong Kong and Singapore. Let us look at today's problems, face them and solve them. The facts are that there is a serious decline in our terms of trade; there is a real decline in our comparative standards of living; our competitiveness as a trading nation is deteriorating; our comparative inflation and interest rates are two to three times our competitors'; our productivity remains low; our waterfront performance remains one of the worst in the world; our work practices are unique; and our wage increases have doubled our trading partners' in the past five years. The enormous depreciation of the Australian dollar two years ago gave our export industries a period of relief-a respite-but high domestic interest rates and the fall in the United States dollar have resulted in an appreciation of the Australian dollar. The rising dollar is now set to cost our export industries billions of dollars. Farmers, miners and export manufacturers now face a bleak new year if our dollar appreciates to US90c as some economists predict. The spectacular appreciation of the Australian dollar from US67c a year ago to US87c today is costing Australians billions of dollars in export earnings. This event is eroding our competitive advantage on world markets and is threatening our balance of payments further. The full effect of this year's dollar appreciation will not be felt until next year. Already there are serious signs at hand. Let us look at our major commodities. Wool is our major export income earner, each United States cent rise in the Australian dollar slashes $30m from the value of wool exports in spite of the fact that 50 per cent of wool exports are traded in United States dollars. Wool has fallen from its April peak by 30 per cent-I do not think this is generally understood-and represents a loss of $1 billion in export earnings for that industry. Wheat is traded in United States dollars. Each United States cent rise in Australian dollar terms costs the wheat growers $35m. The estimated loss for the year for wheat growers is nearly $600m. Although the United States drought has lifted world wheat prices the expected rise has already been halved. Since January 1987 the United States price increased by 57.3 per cent; the Australian dollar has increased by 28 per cent. The exchange rate effect has cost 35 per cent of potential in wheat prices. Let us look at beef. There are already potential losses to the beef industry of an estimated $500m this financial year. Although beef prices in the United States are stable, the returns to Australian cattlemen fell by 20 per cent earlier this year. Coal, our second biggest export income earner, is losing $10m a week, a loss of over $500m in a year. All our coal exports sales are in United States dollar terms. Let us look at the resources industry. The resources industry faces staggering losses. Western Mining Corporation Ltd has calculated that for every United States cent rise in the dollar it is costing the company $130m pre-tax profit. For Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, every United States cent rise is reducing its pre-tax profit by $18m; CRA Ltd loses $15m, MIM Holdings Ltd loses $15m, and so it goes. But it will cost Australia millions. While the Treasurer continues to rely on monetary policy, imposing high interest rates, he will continue to collapse our export earning capacity and the hopes of a million young people endeavouring to buy a home. One of the most serious threats to our economy will be the deteriorating returns to our farm sector in 1989. Agricultural industries account for nearly 40 per cent of our export earnings. Australian farmers are not only producing in an uncompetitive domestic market but selling 70 per cent of their product into corrupted world markets at an artificially appreciating dollar value. They are therefore not only battling against huge domestic and export subsidies in the United States and the European Community; unless progress is made next week at the Montreal mid-term review of the Uruguay Round to freeze these subsidies as a first step towards their abolition, our agricultural industries will face a severe recession. I am not at all satisfied that the Government has fully appreciated the crises facing Australia next year. While the Prime Minister expressed sympathy, and I was pleased that he did, to the Australian farmers yesterday I am not confident that the Government has a fallback strategy to enable our farmers to compete against not only these agricultural subsidies on world markets, but also high interest rates, an overvalued dollar and an uncompetitive economy. Ever since Labor came to office it has selectively reduced assistance to the farm sector, while other sectors of the economy have had huge increases in budgetary outlays. There is an urgent need for the Government to concentrate on improving the competitiveness of our export industries; reducing the huge taxes on fuel; removing tariffs on all farm machinery inputs and spare parts; reducing government expenditure; reducing the level of taxation, which is at its highest level in post-war history; basing wage increases on productivity; removing uncompetitive work practices; deregulating our transport and waterfront system; and increasing the funding available to research, especially to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). There is an urgent need for the Government to rethink its micro-economic strategy to enhance the prospects of our export industries. Australia's overseas debt and the crushing current account demand it; Australian living standards demand it. Forget about such cocktail cliches as the level playing field and the free market forces. No other major economic power is allowing free market forces to prevail on the world market. Where is the `level playing field' in Japan, the United States and the European Community, the strongest economies in the world? Hope springs eternal, but Australians' backs are to the wall and our export industries will rapidly decline unless the Hawke Government and its Treasurer admit that its policies are failing Australians and our hopes to make the most of our natural advantages. Our natural advantages remain with our farm and resource industries. While every effort must be made to increase the exports from our manufacturing, service and hi-tech industries, our future lies in those two major areas of activity with their natural advantages. One cannot understand the idiocy of the Hawke Government's 30 per cent funding cut to CSIRO. Immediate action must be taken to inject that $60m into CSIRO before its programs collapse. I call upon the Government to face up to the economic mess of its own making during its six years of so-called restructuring. There is no point in blaming everybody but the Labor Government itself. Labor has been in government in this country at the Federal level for nine of the last 16 years. We all know our rot set in during the disastrous three years of the Whitlam Government. Unless the Hawke Government recognises that the biggest problems facing Australia are the rising current account deficit, the effects of its appreciating dollar on our export industries, and our overseas debt, we will plunge into a serious economic crisis in 1989 and I fear that the Treasurer's forecast that we are heading towards a banana republic could well come true unless the strategy is changed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(1.18) —There exists in Queensland a unit of the State Police Force which for the last 20 years has never been responsible for one single prosecution; has not reported to any person other than the Police Commissioner; and has never been included in the annual report of the Police Department to Parliament. Despite this apparent evidence of inactivity this same unit has helped to destroy reputations, has manufactured civil disorder and has acted as the political muscle of the National Party. Following the substantial confirmation of its clandestine operations by evidence submitted to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, I call on the Queensland Premier, Mr Ahern, to cease immediately all operations of the so-called Special Branch of the Queensland Police Force. Further, I demand that its activities from 1971 be subject to a judicial inquiry, along the lines of the Justice White inquiry into the South Australian Special Branch in 1978. The Premier should forthwith make the files available for examination by those Queensland parliamentarians, church leaders, academics, unionists and ordinary citizens on whom files have been compiled by Special Branch officers. Mr White —Including former members. Mr LAVARCH —Quite so. The need for these steps to be taken is established by the limited insight into the Special Branch by evidence before the Fitzgerald inquiry. Although far from complete, the evidence to date links the Special Branch to events surrounding the 1975 constitutional crisis, the resignation of Police Commissioner Whitrod, and the violence which occurred in Queensland streets between 1977 and 1979. The Fitzgerald inquiry is revealing the direct links of organised crime in Queensland, but equally damaging to the institutions of parliament in the rule of law is the prostituting of the Police Force as a political weapon. The Special Branch is the focal point of this occurrence in Queensland. The Special Branch was created at the outbreak of World War II and was charged with the responsibility for seeking out, monitoring and interning German and Italian aliens and those with alleged sympathy to nazi and fascist governments. It is ironic that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's first dealing with the Special Branch was as a victim of its scrutiny. During the war Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's European family background made him unjustly the subject of suspicion. After the war the Special Branch was continued in line with the paranoia of the Cold War period. From 1945 to 1971 it played a quiet role, or at the very least did very little to draw attention to itself. This was to change dramatically with the elevation of Sir Joh to premiership in 1968. In early 1971 the South African rugby team toured Australia. In response to anticipated anti-apartheid demonstrations, Bjelke-Petersen declared a state of emergency. The previously little heard of Special Branch was heavily involved in surveillance of protesters and actively participated in demonstrations, provoking rather than settling conflicts. It was the Springbok tour which shaped the relationship between Bjelke-Petersen and the police. From that point on the Special Branch was used to discredit and to manufacture political events to help to manipulate public opinion. In 1975 Bjelke-Petersen destroyed a time-honoured convention by refusing to appoint the Australian Labor Party (ALP) nominee to fill a casual Senate vacancy caused by the death of a Labor senator. In doing so, the ALP nominee was slandered during a parliamentary debate about the appointment. Senator Mal Colston had to endure the raising of untrue and unfounded allegations which related to a police investigation. That material could be obtained only through the police and it is likely that it was the work of the Special Branch. By 1976 the relationship between the Premier and Police Commissioner Whitrod had become extremely strained. Prior to Whitrod's resignation in November of that year a campaign of disinformation was waged against him. It appears that the now Commissioner Lewis used information from Special Branch sources to allege an improper connection between Whitrod and the ALP, including its Federal leader Gough Whitlam. Inspector Lewis forwarded documents to the Premier alleging meetings between ALP figures and Whitrod. Lewis attempted to convince the Premier that Whitrod was a Labor stooge. I believe there is prima facie evidence pointing to the use by Lewis of at least Special Branch gathered material in his push to become Police Commissioner. It is also possible that Special Branch officers gathered intelligence with the specific purpose of discrediting their own Commissioner. The chain of command of the Special Branch is that it should act only at the direction of the Commissioner. Its files are available only to the Commissioner and through him to the Premier and, if the Premier so decides, to Cabinet. Checks I have made with retired senior officers show that internal measures adopted by the police did not allow access to the files or even the area where the files are kept by non-Special Branch officers. In these circumstances Lewis could get access to the files only with the cooperation of the Commissioner or an officer of the Special Branch. Clearly Whitrod, who suspected Lewis of being corrupt, did not give him access to the files. How much Whitrod knew of Lewis's campaign and possible use of Special Branch material is unclear. However, it is known that Whitrod had a number of files destroyed prior to his resignation. What is clear is that political interference with the police was an everyday occurrence by the time Whitrod resigned. Whitrod stated this himself and made it clear that the Premier felt it to be his right to issue directions on specific cases. Commissioner Lewis, in contrast, has not baulked at directing the Special Branch to engage in activities in support of the interests of the National Party Government. The most clear-cut use of the Special Branch to shape political events was during the so-called right to march period of civil disobedience in September 1977 to August 1979. The National Party gained considerable support for its stand on law and order, as average Queenslanders were disenchanted by what was portrayed as the resort to violence by the demonstrators. However, it is now apparent that a major cause of the violence was the deliberate and calculated actions of the Special Branch. As well as its normal activities of spying, surveillance and photography of individual protesters the Branch engaged in the manufacture of violence. In March 1979 a uniformed constable, Michael Egan, resigned from the force when he intervened to stop the bashing of a young female at a protest march by a Special Branch officer. Egan stated that the Special Branch was given a brief to bring chaos into the demonstration by running through the crowd and stirring them up, pushing people over and going hysterical. He also claimed that the Special Branch officers started the violence which occurred. Actions of the Special Branch in creating a false impression of the reality of the street march issue helped Bjelke-Petersen establish himself as a strong national leader. By 1979 the slow and long road towards the end of the Liberal-National coalition had commenced. On more and more occasions decent and honest Liberal Party members began to question the actions of Bjelke-Petersen in a wide range of matters. In 1979 controversy raged at the insistence of the Premier that Tarong be the site of a new power station, despite the weight of all available evidence being in favour of another site. Some eight Liberal backbenchers, including the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who was then the State member for Southport, supported a call for an inquiry into the decision and crossed the floor to vote with the Opposition on the issue. In an extraordinary display of intimidation, Bjelke-Petersen brought into the Parliament a number of files which were apparently police records on each of the Liberal rebels. Attempts by the ALP and some Liberal members to debate Special Branch activities in collecting material on members of parliament were gagged. Up to that time, the Government had generally denied that files had been kept on members of parliament. That such files have been kept has now been confirmed by former officers in charge of the Branch, Terry Channells and Les Hagan. Mr Channells was reported in the Sunday Mail of 15 May this year as saying that files were commenced after February 1978, following the Hilton Hotel bombing. He claims that the files contained only information for security of parliamentarians. While this explanation sounds reasonable, it is inconsistent with other known facts. For instance, in January 1978, one month before the Hilton bombing and the alleged opening of the files, Senator Gerry Jones had his file sent to him, apparently by mistake. Senator Jones was at the time a Labor Party official and the file had information on him dating from his appointment as an Australian Labor Party organiser in 1967. The file contained no information particularly helpful in protecting the good senator's life, but did contain a rundown on his political activities, including his presence at protests against the Springboks. If there were any lingering doubts about the political activities of the Branch, these were shattered by the evidence of Commissioner Lewis and former Minister Hinze at the Fitzgerald inquiry. The Lewis diaries contain numerous references to discussions between Lewis and Bjelke-Petersen about the Special Branch. Further, Bjelke-Petersen gave directions to Lewis to get investigations going against former State President of the ALP, Dr Dennis Murphy, and former State Opposition Leader, Keith Wright. In Hinze's evidence he admitted acting on the direction of the Premier to get the dirt on Gold Coast Liberals Peter White and Bruce Bishop. Hinze passed this order on to Lewis. The dirt is, of course, the material contained in the two gentlemen's Special Branch files. If there was no dirt, no doubt the Special Branch would create some. This leads to the question of the Branch's methods. Former Trades and Labour Council general secretary, Fred Whitby, has stated that his phone was tapped and those of other union officials as well, and this has been confirmed by former Liberal members of parliament, including Colin Lamont, and existing member Terry White. The Premier, Mr Ahern, states that he wants to clean up Queensland. The Fitzgerald inquiry will go part of the way, but it will not touch on the Special Branch. The separation and the independence of the Police Force and the Executive are vital issues. The Premier must disband the Special Branch if he is fair dinkum about a fresh start for political life in Queensland. He must investigate the links between the police and the former Premier. He must investigate the true story behind the Cedar Bay raid, the street march issue and the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute. The public deserves an explanation of the Special Branch investigation into the Kingston State School and the acquisition of land to build the Samford to Dayboro road. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TAYLOR(Groom)(1.28) —In this place on 24 November I highlighted the critical nature of the recommendations contained in the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into Personnel Wastage in the Australian Defence Force and the very poor administrative record of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) in allowing such a parlous situation to develop. I welcome Mrs Kelly's attendance here today to hear the situation as it really is. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will refer to the Minister by her correct title. Mr TAYLOR —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let there be no doubt about it, those two Ministers and no-one else must bear the responsibility for allowing the unparalleled scale of personnel separation that we have seen over the last four years-over 40,000-many of them highly skilled and irreplaceable in the short term; the expertise of many lost forever. I have said it before and I say it again: both Ministers continue to tread a fine line between indecision and maladministration. I do not intend to dwell on this sorry state of affairs today other than to reiterate my support for most of the Committee's commendable bipartisan recommendations and to highlight one facet of the report which needs to be emphasised over and over again. Of the three insensitive, inflammatory statements quoted in the report as examples of the causes of anger, frustration and disillusionment amongst Defence Force personnel, two are attributed to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, and I quote: The whole issue is incredibly exaggerated. Wastage is not a problem in the ADF and the pilot retention bonus of April 1988 produced a highly successful result. Furthermore, the Minister said in this place on 18 October, `At present the Navy's morale is very high and that goes for the Air Force and the Army as well'. Clearly, not only has she failed in her portfolio responsibilities but also the report's findings confirm that she has misled the House in those matters. In no way am I denigrating the very professional contribution that hard working, overstretched Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel continue to make towards our national good. I take this opportunity to place on the public record the appreciation of all Australians to the ADF for a job well done, and once again in this our bicentennial year. However, it is about time that the Minister came clean on the real state of management perceptions and morale. Bureaucratic stalling techniques and rhetoric will not suffice and the earliest remedial action is needed on the many issues raised in the parliamentary report. Yesterday in this place the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) made a point that what is needed is less academic waffle and more substantive ministerial direction and action, rather than a hip pocket reaction to the issues by some of the Minister's highly politicised departmental officers. I endorse the honourable member's plea. That said, I welcome the Minister's announcement in this place yesterday that Rear Admiral Alan Beaumont will prepare a stratagem of action for the wastage report within three months. The admiral knows the nuances of the ADF, but most importantly, he knows how defence personnel tick. I applaud his appointment and I have every confidence that ADF personnel will be well served by his advice to Ministers, which I hope they will heed. Mr Deputy Speaker, with those remarks as a general introduction today, I would like to concentrate the House's attention on the sole dissenting views in the wastage report, those of Senator Vallentine of that other place. While her misguided views may be consistent with her highly public, disruptive activities across this country-and of course she is entitled to both in our democratic environment-they should not be left unchallenged on the public record. While her minority views in the report state that they should not be interpreted as showing disregard for the goodwill and dedication of the members of the ADF, by their very nature, their colourful theoretically based misconceptions and comment must undermine discipline and morale in the ADF. Furthermore, some of Senator Vallentine's views in the report must be refuted, not only in the interest of ADF personnel, but also in the wider community interest. Chapter 4 of the report makes it clear that many ADF members feel alienated by a general public, apathetic in defence matters, and more specifically, oblivious to the unique nature of the profession of arms. Senator Vallentine's comment in the report does not help to reduce that apathy. Once again let there be no doubt about it; not only is the profession of arms unique, but it is not glamorous or surrounded by mystique as Senator Vallentine suggests. It involves many unglamorous tasks-as I am sure the Minister would know-and plain hard work, the latter inadequately recognised in financial terms, arguably because of the inflexible Department of Industrial Relations umbrella under which it is forced to operate and despite the rhetorical protestations of both the Ministers. Furthermore, Senator Vallentine's comments do not engender self-confidence amongst service personnel who cumulatively and understandably succumb to social pressures, who increasingly question the worth of a service career and who, in eventual frustration, leave the ADF to rejoin a society from which they feel alienated. We therefore have in some way a self-perpetuating vicious circle in maintaining morale and commitment, not helped by comments such as those of the honourable senator. Mr Speaker, I also take strong exception to the honourable senator's views on military discipline and recourse to industrial action or trade union activity. The preservation of military discipline is critical to the ADF's professionalism and operational effectiveness. That discipline can be maintained only if the concept of hierarchical command is preserved; such command is reflected in military rank. That rank is the visible medium which puts discipline into practical effect. Unequivocally, the maintenance of discipline and industrial action or trade union activity in the ADF are mutually exclusive. There is therefore no contradiction, as Senator Vallentine suggests, between the powerful precepts of military discipline and a lack of recourse to industrial action, a point succinctly and well summarised by Chief Petty Officer Woods at page 79 of the report, where he said: The Navy is a disciplined service. I have been trained in a system which demands absolute obedience to authority. There is order in a military organisation. Each member knows his job and where he stands. There exists an attitude of trust and loyalty which brings a sense of pride in oneself and the job he is doing. Trust and loyalty are the keys, not industrial or trade union pressures, as the honourable senator suggests. Her comments about the dreariness of certain mindless military duties are also objectionable to the many dedicated service men and women who take the good with the bad in the defence environment. Her solution to this dreariness is to extend the ADF's role in community and emergency support. I would remind her that this already happens as emergency circumstances dictate. I reject out of hand any extension of this to her strategy of transarmament, whatever that may mean, leading to civilian based or social defence without any need for a professional military force. This is utter nonsense, more befitting the ramblings of inebriation than supposedly coherent thought processes of a senator in this Parliament. In my final point, I have to agree with the honourable senator on one issue, the need to address the capital equipment, facilities, personnel and operating costs balance; in particular, the reduction of expenditure on personnel from 49.9 per cent of total budget in 1982 to 43 per cent this year and at a time when more than 25 per cent of the total ADF has left in the past two years. In government this side of the House will correct that imbalance. Mr Deputy Speaker, while Senator Vallentine has a right to air her single issue views, those views encapsulated in such a vital report must not be allowed to cloud the real issues. In the Australian on 14 November Mr Peter Young made a number of very important points: that the first Cross report revealed disarray in our defences which could not meet low level threats in a timely and effective manner; that the second Cross report warned of the civilian domination of defence, a warning contemptuously brushed aside by Minister Beazley; and that this third Cross report is the most damning of them all. Mr Young's broad summary of the salient features of an effective solution seem to me to make very good sense, rather than any resort to rhetorical and superficial defence of a cover-up provided by the Minister in the Australian on 21 November. The Minister needs, firstly, to pay the military, including families, its worth; secondly, to stop politicising the senior leadership; and, most importantly, to tell the truth for once about the real state of our defences. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(1.38) —`Relax sex laws and abort AIDS babies.' We did not need to open up the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 November last week because `Relax sex laws and abort AIDS babies` was in large print right at the top of the page. I must say that when I read it I could see in my mind's eye the nervous paroxysms of Senator Harradine, in fact his apoplectic reaction to that headline. I do not reflect on his firmly held or sincere views on the topic, but I can imagine how he might have reacted to such a headline. I suppose I am having a swipe at the media here because that Sydney Morning Herald headline was at the top of a report which related to the tabling the day before of the Government's Green Paper, A time to care, a time to act towards a strategy for Australians. It relates to the Government's approach and a strategy for the future attack within this country on the disease of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). I raise this topic today because today is, of course, World AIDS Day. I know that there is much concern out in the community about this disease, as indeed there should be. But I point out how misleading that headline was because far from asking for a relaxation of sex laws, as indeed the headline indicates, the report mentions that firm consideration should be given to monogamy or one-and-one relationships, and it certainly suggests that if there are people who wish to be involved in casual sexual relationships, they should observe safe sex practices. Indeed, there are many recommendations and there was a great deal of information within the report that goes to a sensible and tidy way of dealing with this problem. Certainly the misleading headline of the Sydney Morning Herald goes nowhere to help us solve this problem. I suppose to be even-handed I must say, on World AIDS Day, that clearly the Government's report on page 16 and 17 provides a great deal of useful information and it is the sort of sensible and responsible reporting that we would like to see from the media in this country. The issue is in my view the most serious public health problem facing this country. Indeed, it is a public health problem that is worldwide. Already in Australia, and we have only maybe half a dozen years of experience since we recognised the problem, there are 500 dead, more than 1,000 people with the AIDS syndrome and the startling and frightening figure that if we take a snapshot of a human immune deficiency virus we may find that between 20,000 and, some say, as many as 40,000 Australians are already afflicted with this virus. That means that there are 20,000 or perhaps 40,000 Australians who are lining up for the black taxi in the future. We have perhaps on average seven or eight years after infection between the time the AIDS virus develops in full and the almost certain death which follows. We do not have a cure and the traditional thing, I suppose, is for us to ask modern medical science to make technological advances, but it does not seem that this is likely to happen in the near future. Immunisation of course, is the simplest, cheapest and most effective way of preventing viral infections. Since World War II there have been great advances. Smallpox, polio, measles and rubella are amongst those diseases for which there have been worldwide campaigns. For hepatitis B, varicella which is chickenpox, and a number of other viral diseases there are immunisation programs available. But presently we are really left with compassionate care of those people who have AIDS and prevention through education and any attempt to stop transmission. We need to understand the magnitude of this problem and in order to do so I got some figures out of the Parliamentary Library of another public health problem. Perhaps we do not see it as a health problem but certainly it impacts massively upon our health budget. I refer to motor vehicle accidents in this country. Over the last 10 years motor vehicle accidents have caused the deaths of 31,333 Australians. It is interesting to note that, as I mentioned earlier, if we take a snapshot of AIDS at the moment there are at least, estimates say, that many people affected by this disease who will eventually meet their maker as a result. We are talking about young, productive, healthy Australians in the prime of their life. Principally we are talking about those sorts of people in motor vehicle accidents. Between 1978 and 1987 there was a very interesting trend in motor vehicle accidents. In 1978, 3,705 Australians died, whereas in 1987 there were 2,771, a fall of nearly 1,000, lives lost in motor vehicle accidents. It is as a result of public policy changes, more than anything else. It is an example of how public policy changes can affect the death rate or can affect areas of health in this country, because it is better roads, seat belt legislation, better car standards, random breath testing and those sorts of public policy issues which have brought about this change. The same thing applies to this disease. We have a degree of bipartisanship presently when we talk about a strategy for AIDS in this country and it is necessary if we are to have rational and sometimes radical decisions made about how we view this disease. It is important that the fear, ignorance and prejudice that sometimes exists are pushed aside, because we have made great progress. We now have advocacy of programs to use condoms for safer sex. We acknowledge the realities of bisexuals and homosexuals and their behaviour in the community. We have the distribution of clean needles and syringes for drug addicts and, indeed, we have an epidemic here in its infancy. We talk about 30,000 Australians who may have the virus. In the United States they are talking about 1.5 million. We are talking about a massive problem for which we need a strategy which minimises transmission and cares for those affected. 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. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —This morning 72,000 citizens of this country petitioned the Parliament to call a National Day of Prayer for Australia. Our colleagues the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) and the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) presented the petitions with the 72,000 signatures. This was the culminating event of the National Cooee March. Inspired by the original Cooee March of October 1915, young people led by the Youth With A Mission organisation `marched' to Canberra over the period January to May this year from all corners of the country, holding local gatherings in towns and communities along the way to provide an opportunity for ordinary Australians to express their heart concerns for Australian and to sign this petition. The participants in the march converged on Canberra and joined in the great National Gathering of 7 and 8 May last when some 40,000 Australian Christians gathered here outside Parliament House, just preceding the opening by the Queen. The terms of the petition refer to the loss of hope among youth, the breakdown of the family unit, the increase of corruption and merging divisions in our community, and it petitions the Government to call `a National Day of Prayer for Australia, to seek God's help to heal our land'. Mr SAWFORD(Port Adelaide) —I wish to inform the House of an exciting new tourist development in the Port Adelaide area. On 10 December 1988 the Premier of South Australia, John Bannon, will officially open the Port Dock Station, which will be the best undercover railway museum in Australia. This $2.25m bicentennial project is a continuation of the redevelopment of the Port Adelaide area. A huge display pavilion will house the bulk of the railway collection, its main highlight being a recreated break-of-gauge railway station. Outside two steam trains will be operating around the site. A one-foot-six gauge steam train built by the museum will haul special trains on a 2,000 foot circuit. In addition a three-foot-six gauge steam engine also rebuilt by the museum will take passengers on a short journey within the museum grounds. A 1930 style east-west express cafeteria carriage will provide refreshments in real railway surroundings. Included in the railway museum's collection are 20 different locomotives on three different gauges, which will be joined by about 12 historical passenger coaches. Nearly all of these items are the last of their type still in existence and some date back more than 100 years. This project will without question become a major focal point in Port Adelaide and will complement both the maritime and aviation museums already in existence. It reflects also the commitment of the Hawke and the State Labor governments to preserve historic events in South Australia. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite) —The Australian six-day race held recently in Colac in the electorate of Corangamite is now regarded as the premier ultra-marathon race in Australasia and one of the best long distance races in the world. This year 14 runners completed the course, the winner being Frenchman Gilbert Mannix, who covered 963 kilometres over six days, which is 144 hours. Each 24 hours Mannix completed approximately 160 kilometres, a remarkable feat of athletic endurance and perseverence. Australian long distance runner, folk hero and local celebrity Cliff Young covered 670 kilometres at the age of 65 years. The Colac ultra-marathon began in 1984 and was inspired by Cliff Young's epic Sydney to Melbourne win in 1983. The Greek ultra-marathon runner Kouros broke the world record for the six-day event by running the first ultra-marathon held in Colac in 1984. Since that time international and Australian runners have consistently competed to win this prestigious event. I place on record the remarkable efforts of the sponsors and organisers in staging the 1988 Colac ultra-marathon. The city of Colac, Rotary, Apex, JCs and the organising committee are to be congratulated for its smooth organisation. Volunteers put in many hours recording lap times and assisting the organisers with 24-hour routines associated with the six-day race. The Colac ultra-marathon will continue to attract world class athletes, not only because of the unique 400-metre track, but because of the close relationship between the spectators and runners and support by the Colac district. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell) —I wish to bring to the attention of the House the activities of a group called Grey Power which has been getting some publicity lately. The Grey Power organisation has claimed that it is looking after the interests of pensioners. I just wish to explain to the House one case where Grey Power has sought to inflame needless concern and fear in the pensioner community. Grey Power has put out a leaflet which makes the following claim: `Be warned-and Beware. Grey Power is informed by a reliable Canberra source that certain very influential Ministers have been advocating that- The large majority of pensioners-those owning their own homes-lose their pensions unless they agree to enter into an agreement with the Department of Social Security, entitling that department to charge their estate upon the pensioner's death with the amount paid to them as a pension, such a claim (with interest) to be a prior claim against the estate. I wrote to Mr Robert Clarke, the President of Grey Power, over a month ago asking him to provide me with information which would allow me to investigate this claim. Mr Clarke has not answered my letter. I allege that Mr Clarke simply made up this allegation in a deliberate attempt to put fear and terror into the hearts of pensioners. This Government has no intention at all of recovering pensions form people's estates and any person with an ounce of intelligence knows that the claim is a lie. Mr ALDRED(Bruce) —Madam Speaker, the House will of course be aware that in February this year it was 25 years since the disastrous collision between HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Voyager. I thought the House might be interested in that respect in a letter I received from Mr Dennis Gist, who is very active in the ex-service community. He wrote: Therefore having a vivid memory of the tragic events of that night still with me, as I was on the HMAS Melbourne at the time. We lost 82 men from the Voyager and many more injured physically and mentally from both ships that fateful night as the Voyager went to the bottom of the sea. 25 years have now passed us all by, and it would seem appropriate that a memorial medal be struck and made available to the men who served on the Voyager and Melbourne. He goes on to suggest that, for any of the crewmen involved who are deceased, that memorial medal go to the nearest surviving relative. Mr Gist has asked that this be brought to the attention of the House, and in particular, to the attention of the Government, with a view to a memorial medal being struck in relation to that tragic event of 25 years ago. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —During November, Australia played host to a major international conference on adult education. Senior officials and practitioners from some 30 countries joined with their Australian colleagues to discuss the role of government in adult education. I had the honour to be a member of the organising committee and was pleased that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) hosted a dinner in honour of the participants in this Parliament. Adult education is too often ignored in the field of education and I hope this important conference goes some way to rectifying it. I do not think, Madam Speaker, we can stress too much the importance of adult education. It is the one form of education that is open to all and it is one, surprisingly, that more participants take part in than any other form of education. I thought that the conference that was held here, hosted by Australia, was a great success and I know it will go a considerable way to rectifying the deficiency in gaining adult education its rightful place in the mosaic of the education system. Mr PRATT(Adelaide) —I wish to commend the ability and attitude of the South Australian National Football League in resisting the attempts of the Victorian Football League (VFL) and the modern day pirates who are raping and pillaging the game of Australian rules. There is a governing body known as the National Football League (NFL) but it really is a puppet in the hands of the VFL, which continually sets the football agenda in the manner that only people without a controlled ego know. We had the Brisbane Bears, who play on a glorified cow paddock on the Gold Coast, and the Sydney Swans with owner No. 20 who bought them for $10. There are VFL clubs which are financially insolvent and are propped up by interstate licensing fees and the ability to re-finance by including players as assets and inflating their ability to borrow against that equity. The sad and sorry state that has hit Western Australian football epitomises the modern day corporate raiders who convinced the West Coast Eagles to be a part of the NFL. Yet the vision shown by Messrs Basheer and Whicker and the league directors of South Australia has again been vindicated. They have not been prepared to sacrifice a $25m industry that saw over 1.1 million South Australians go through the turnstiles. Consider the impact that South Australian football has on the social environment of our State-the employment, the financial turnover, the merchandising of product for small business, the impact on the media, their ability to cover the sport and enjoy revenue for the effects from advertising. Consider the boost in confidence the community gets when members of the Aboriginal community present their undeniable skills on the football arena. When you consider that the VFL draft system is run by jellybean journalists and used truck salesmen-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Pratt) is quite right. I would also say that this is happily the anniversary of the day on which smoking was banned on domestic airlines-with great success. I raise briefly a matter on local government, Madam Speaker. In my area, the local council has chosen to close a road which gives access to a beach and it has caused great difficulty with surf clubs, with surfers and with the local community. Despite the best attempts to persuade the council to open it and to make the beach more accessible, the local government authority is resisting that. There seems to be some unusual power or influence over the city of Stirling in this respect and it concerns me because there are more rational approaches that will enable people to better use the beach facility of Trigg Island and Scarborough than the current arrangement. I simply want to place on record in the House my concern at the failure properly to manage road planning in the area. We have the extraordinary situation where we have a road that has a cul-de-sac at both ends. I think that is perhaps a record in Australia. On that note I would like to wish all my colleagues in the House and the staff a merry Christmas. Mr BURR(Lyons) —I would like to congratulate the Federal Government and the Tasmanian Government on the commonsense agreement that has now been reached over the future management and protection of Tasmanian forests. I think that the final agreement after so many years should be a tribute to Ministers and the leaders of government at both levels because it does give a fair balance between conservation and the protection of our forests for future generations and also to provide commonsense development and regeneration of our magnificent forests in Tasmania. In addition, it protects the east coast township of Triabunna in my electorate. There will be no disruption to forest activities in that area. It provides for two new industries, one of which will be a new pulp mill on the north coast of Tasmania with an invested capital of around $1 billion and a new woodchipping plant to be established in the southern part of Tasmania. But, Madam Speaker, I would congratulate both governments. I wish the Ministers at both levels well in administering this new agreement and I hope now that the conservation movement will finally accept that commonsense has been achieved; that will be the end of the matter and we can get on with proper planning and development. Mr LAMB(Streeton) —I have just come from a gathering in the main committee room. We were there to farewell Dorothy Bennett, who has been the head of the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. Members, senators and staff were there to farewell her after some 16 to 17 years. We have all come to know and thank her for the excellent service that the section gives. Her charm, personality and excellence in the degree of academia and research led her to achieve the highest level for a woman in any parliamentary department associated with this Parliament. Honourable members would know that we would certainly be lost without the backup of the research service. She has also been long associated with the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International and has contributed so much to the fight of this group for human rights around the world. The huge gathering there was an indication of the high respect and regard in which she is held. I want to record in Hansard my personal thanks for the work that she has done in the time that I have been in the Parliament and, on behalf of all those others who have not had the opportunity either to attend that function or to speak in this Parliament, thank her for the almost lifetime's work that she has given us. I wish her a happy retirement and, like the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), I wish everyone here a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page) —I propose in the remaining few seconds to draw attention to the very serious problem confronting young home owners who are disillusioned while so many others in the community are enjoying what is a-- Madam SPEAKER —I do regret that it was a very few seconds. It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 106a, the time for members' statements has concluded. Mr SHACK —I address my question to the Minister for Community Services and Health. In asking my question, I note that today, 1 December, has been internationally designated as World AIDS Day in an effort to focus even greater attention on this very serious public health issue. I ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that one of the greatest concerns of health professionals is that the next round, or second wave, of HIV infection, and hence AIDS, will come about by intravenous (IV) drug users transmitting the disease into the heterosexual population? Is the Minister aware of significant development work being undertaken in this country and worldwide to produce one-shot syringes designed to mitigate against IV drug users sharing needles? Has any evaluation of this technology been done by his Department? Will he give urgent consideration to the drafting of specifications for such syringes with a view to implementing their use in Australia? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for his question and also take the opportunity to thank the Opposition for the support it has given across this country for World AIDS Day so that we can face the challenge in a bipartisan way. In relation to the honourable member's specific question, the Australian National Council of AIDS (ANCA) has set up a working party to look at some, I think, 10 proposals for non-reuse- able syringes. To date, I am told, there seem to be problems with most of them. There is also the difficult issue that the syringes which IV drug users might use are also used widely in hospitals; they are interchangeable. If we make decisions about moving towards using non-reuseable syringes in relation to the IV problem, we also occasion real considerations in relation to the provision of syringes in hospitals. It is a difficult and complex issue. As I have assured the honourable member before, anything that needs to be on the AIDS agenda is there. We are examining it through ANCA. I will certainly be happy to report the work of that working party back to him. Mr GRIFFITHS —I refer the Treasurer to the September quarter balance of payments figures released today. Would the Treasurer explain to the House how these figures relate to the process of structural adjustment in this country? Mr KEATING —The quarterly figures provide constant price estimates for the various components of exports and imports. Today they show that exports of goods and services were up by 1.5 per cent between September 1987 and September 1988. Imports are up by 20.3 per cent. Some of this was reflected in the national accounts figures of a couple of days ago. These figures provide a disaggregation of some of that data. They show that rural exports were minus 18.8 per cent. This very much confirms what the Government has been saying; that is, that this is due to a rundown of farm stocks. Contrary to the analysis that exports are flagging, we have simply run out of stocks to bring to market. Also, services were up 21.5 per cent. This is driven by tourism and the major investment in tourist facilities. Non-rural exports were up 7.8 per cent, which shows a steady expansion of our export base. While it may seem, at face value, that imports are growing strongly and that exports are languishing, the disaggregated information shows that the reason is simply that rural exports are showing a big minus, 18.8 per cent, because of the fact that we have now run down stocks of agricultural products and are now waiting to bring the current agricultural season to market. While all categories of imports are up, the strongest growth by far has been in the area of capital goods imports, which were up by 40.7 per cent over the year to the September quarter. The figures also show that consumption goods are up, but nothing like the staggeringly large increase in capital goods. Again I make the point that it is these capital goods imports which are restructuring the economy and changing the balance of payments as investment goes into place and as that investment produces more import competing and exporting products. These figures today shed a considerable amount of light upon the national accounts figures of two days ago and reveal the situation to be pretty much what the Government said it is. Madam SPEAKER —I draw the House's attention to standing order 307, which states: A Member who has been suspended from the service of the House shall be excluded from the Chamber and all galleries thereof. I ask the honourable member for Bradfield to leave the gallery. Mr PEACOCK —I ask the Treasurer to say how, in the words of the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Bernie Fraser, the progressive tightening of monetary policy can be expected to slow the growth in private demand and in imports when, according to a recent statement by the Acting Treasurer: This Government has set the circumstances whereby there will be a general downward trend in interest rates. Mr KEATING —I cannot recall precisely what the Acting Treasurer said during my absence, but I am certain that what he would have said is that, as demand moderates and as the inflationary floor under interest rates declines, there is obviously, in mechanical terms, scope for falls in interest rates. I do not see that as being at all inconsistent with any utterance by Mr Fraser that monetary policy is now playing a proper role in the economy. The evidence of the appropriateness of that role ought to be the fact that fiscal policy is as tight as it has been for 35 years. With a surplus larger than this country has ever seen as a proportion of gross domestic product, with negative growth in outlays or negative real outlays for the third year in a row and a fourth coming up, and with wages in the national account figures the day before yesterday running at 5.8 per cent for gross average weekly earnings, facing an inflation rate of around 7 per cent for the period, wages and fiscal policy is obviously tight. Therefore, if we have these demand pressures, monetary policy is not bearing any burden that it should not be bearing. It is there precisely and expressly to do that job; that is, to be used to moderate demand conditions in the economy. The fact that it is now being used in this way does not preclude its being diminished over time. Mr CHYNOWETH —Has the Prime Minister seen media reports on the reaction of some conservation groups to the agreement he reached with the Premier of Tasmania on World Heritage listing of 80 per cent of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests? Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the veracity of those reports? Does the Government's decision, as contained in the agreement with Tasmania, constitute a sellout to development interests in Tasmania? Mr HAWKE —I must say there has been a great deal of either inadvertent or wilful misrepresentation of the Government's decision by some elements of the conservation movement. Let me put the facts. More than a quarter of a million hectares-that is, 262,000 hectares; an area the size of Luxembourg-of forest and wilderness are to be nominated for World Heritage listing. This means that, when added to the existing World Heritage area, more than one hectare in every seven of the land mass of Tasmania will be on the World Heritage List. Eighty per cent of the area nominated by the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests, which was drawn up in consultation with the conservation movement, is to be placed on the World Heritage List, plus additional areas outside the inquiry area-the Beech Creek area, the Walls of Jerusalem and the Central Plateau conservation area. Without the agreement of the Tasmanian Government to World Heritage listing, there would have been a risk that the nomination would not be accepted by the World Heritage Committee. In that event, the tall trees and the wilderness areas would have no protection whatsoever-a consideration which, I might say, apparently has not worried some conservation representatives. Claims in some media reports that the Government has guaranteed mining in the World Heritage area are absurd. The treatment of exploration and mining leases in the proposed World Heritage area is no different from that for the wet tropics of north-east Queensland or the existing World Heritage area in Tasmania. No mining which threatens World Heritage values will be allowed. Equally absurd are claims that the agreement is a sellout. There were no further areas in Tasmania in consideration for World Heritage listing, so we have not sacrificed areas outside the inquiry area and the adjacent Denison Spires for the sake of reaching agreement. Indeed, through the Cook-Groom package, we are ensuring that the improved forest practices in those other areas sought by the conservation movement at the Helsham inquiry are implemented. My Government's conservation record is unmatched by that of any previous government, with World Heritage listing of Kakadu, the Daintree, Uluru, Tasmanian forests and New South Wales rain forests; the saving of the Franklin River; the toughest ozone layer legislation of any country in the world; and the initiatives that we are getting under way on the greenhouse effect. Our World Heritage record has been praised by the World Heritage Bureau and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), which have said, and I quote them-- Mr Goodluck —Shame! Madam SPEAKER —I know that the honourable member for Franklin is looking up to the press, but he might listen to the answer. Mr HAWKE —Our World Heritage record has been praised by the World Heritage Bureau, which-I ask the honourable member for Dunkley to note this with pride, as having been associated with this Government in achieving a situation where it made this statement about us-has said, `Australia has done more to implement the World Heritage Convention than any other single country'. The total area of Australia nominated for World Heritage listing is greater than the size of Switzerland, the area of Denmark, much greater than Holland and more than 1 1/2 times the size of Belgium. My Government deserves the support of environmentally minded people in Australia. Whether we get the support of all spokespersons for all conservation groups is another matter and it is not one that concerns me greatly. I urge the responsible elements in those groups to ensure that the Government's decisions are not misrepresented by their spokespersons and that they spend less time playing politics and more time supporting the protection of our unique environment. Madam SPEAKER —I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the Gallery this afternoon of Mr Lawrie Kelly, a former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. On behalf of the House, I bid him a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr TIM FISCHER —My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General. Is it a fact that the Law Council of Australia has described the War Crimes Amendment Bill as unacceptable in its present form and has lodged serious objections against the Bill, including the objection that a fair trial may not be possible under this legislation? Will he take this opportunity to stop tormenting or worrying World War II veterans by declaring either his support for the coalition's amendments or the withdrawal of the Bill in the light of the serious objections lodged yesterday and in order that veterans might have a happy Christmas? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Because of the way the question is framed, it does not deserve a very serious answer, in view of the history of this matter. The statement by the Law Council, whilst I do not agree with it, related to the fact that there might be difficulties in the trial. It had nothing to do with the question that the honourable gentleman has raised now that people are being tormented and tortured. In my view, because of the honourable gentleman's actions in this matter, suggesting that there would be a need to exclude Australians, a climate of torture and torment has been created unnecessarily. When this matter was before the House of Representatives no such amendment was foreshadowed or moved, nor was there any need to do so. It is political grandstanding of the worst type to suggest now in the Senate that Australian men and women who served in the Second World War may be war criminals. No other country has passed such legislation. Canadian legislation, which has been passed, makes the point that war criminals should not be excluded. The Opposition does not fix it by this ridiculous suggestion that there may be war criminals so we must exclude them. Where is the Opposition's logic? What other country has done that? What about the fact that the Geneva protocols are based on the principle that we do not exclude anybody on the grounds of nationality? Why does the Opposition upset 580,000 people who fought for this country on the basis that the Opposition has now thought up-and will use an opportunistic mechanism in the Senate, where it has not dealt with the Bill for 12 months-a funny idea that there is a need to excuse Australians who may be guilty of war crimes? No Australian ex-service men and women are guilty of those crimes. The Opposition, by its actions, has encouraged the likes of Derryn Hinch to publish a program here which he obtained from the Australian Archives. He sold it commercially to Japan before he even published it here, to make a buck out of it. Therefore, Japanese television came here saying, `Are there any war criminals among Australian service personnel?' The answer is no. The Japanese accept that. The Opposition's conduct is outrageous. It knows, from the report of the Menzies Review of Material Relating to the Entry of Suspected War Criminals into Australia and the investigation of the evidence here, that allegations have been made against people who are now Australian citizens but were not Australian citizens at the time of cessation of hostilities. That is the point. The Opposition should not get away from the seriousness of this situation. When the Menzies report was introduced in this House the Opposition supported it. It has only to look at Hansard to see that it said, `Yes, by all means have a special investigation unit. By all means find out what the issue is'. All of a sudden it has turned. I think that it leaves itself open to the accusations that perhaps some of the insidious influences in Australia might well be influencing the conduct of the Opposition. That is the position. No Australian service men or women are worried about it. The Opposition should ask itself who is worried about it. Mr Reith —The Law Council. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Flinders will cease interjecting. That is it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Law Council is not always right in its submissions. It is outrageously wrong to suggest that a court in this country would not administer justice. That is what Mr Denis Byrne has implied; that if one goes to a court in Australia one will not get justice. Mr Peacock —He is not saying that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He is saying it quite clearly. That is the ridiculous part of his position. He suggests that if a court takes a view that there is some factor in the accused's defence that he cannot get, the court will ignore it. That is rubbish. Let me make it very clear that, firstly, a prima facie case has to be established and, secondly, from the point of view of a prima facie case, at all times a defendant, if he has a respectable counsel, will get up and talk about the issues that he needs to have in by way of defence. That is very clear. Senator Chaney and others have come to see me in the past and I have explained that to them. They have accepted the explanation. So it is a bit belated of the Law Council to say now, `This is a dreadful thing'. How could one possibly say that one supports the Bill and then say, `Well, of course, it is too late now because a period of time has gone by'? It does not matter whether there is evidence to establish a prime facie case. It does not matter that witnesses have to stand up to cross-examination. It does not matter that evidence of identification has been produced, the attitude is, `Well, 45 years have gone by. I do not have to answer the question'. That is basically the thrust of what the Law Council is about. Let me make this very clear: Is the Law Council trying to suggest that a court would not grant a stay of proceedings or abort proceedings if a reasonable case were not presented from the defence? Does the Opposition suggest that? When this matter was debated from the point of view of Mr Menzies' recommendations, it was very interesting to note the switch in what happened at the time. I am mindful of the fact that when this matter was debated the honourable member for Flinders was very anxious to support the situation and said so. He said, `The Menzies report is a first class investigation, and we want to support the question of a special investigation unit.' It has only been in recent times, because it has been so long in the Senate, that the Opposition has decided to say, `We might want to talk about an abuse of process situation because of the delay'-I make the point that that is in the hands of the court-`We need now to excuse Australian service men and women on the basis that they could be war criminals'. I make the point that no other country in the world has so legislated, and to so legislate now is to cast a slur on the actions of Australian men and women, because there was no such person guilty. The only people making the accusations are the honourable member for Farrer and the honourable member for Menzies by the suggestion that there is something wrong with the conduct of Australian ex-service men and women. It is about time the Senate faced up to its responsibilities and dealt with the Bill. On that basis-- Mr Spender —Come on, Lionel. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will come on. It is a pretty important issue. If we come up with the issue of coming on-- Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is not simply a matter for a personal explanation after Question Time. I regard the remark that the Attorney-General made of me unbecoming and certainly offensive. To suggest that I had said that there were Australians who were war criminals is outrageous. The Attorney-General should withdraw it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Attorney-General cast no such aspersion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I said that it creates the logical implication that by moving the amendment, and it still sticks, to excuse war criminals you create the inference. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Speaker, I invite you to make a ruling on this; otherwise I will be taking my own action about it. I invite you to call on the Attorney-General to withdraw that. Mr Beazley —Madam Speaker-- Mr N.A. Brown —Sit down until I finish my point of order. You don't run this House. You can both sit down and wait. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Menzies will not threaten the Leader of the House. Mr N.A. Brown —I invite you, Madam Speaker, to ask the Attorney-General to withdraw that outrageous remark. Madam SPEAKER —The Attorney-General made no outrageous remark about the honourable member for Menzies. He made a remark about the implications of a statement or an amendment. I am not sure which it was. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for Menzies is very sensitive about the matter. I will advert to what he said in Hansard in November 1987: Firstly, we believe very firmly that if this Bill is to become law, as the Opposition's second reading amendment makes it plain, the Special Investigations Unit which has been set up should be wound up after about two years. And he supports that. The honourable member for Flinders said: Menzies recommended that the Government establish a small unit- we support that- . . . When this Bill is passed, Australia will join Canada in sending a firm, strong message that serious war crimes can never be tolerated. Once one accepts that fundamental proposition, as we did in February 1987 in my colleague's statement, which I reaffirm today, certain things follow as a matter of logic. What has happened that the Opposition never thought of an amendment then? What has happened since then that it had to think of this amendment? Mr Howard —Why are you so upset? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not upset. I am upset from the point of view of ex-servicemen being worried, tormented and tortured. It is about time those opposite faced up to their responsibilities. Ms McHUGH —The Minister for Community Services and Health has already commented today on certain aspects of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) issue. I ask: Can he inform the House of the significance of World AIDS Day and of Australia's response to this historic day. Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for her question and, coming as it does after the reference made by the honourable member for Tangney, it shows the bipartisan support in this House for the actions being taken. It also reflects the determination of this Parliament to be in the international vanguard of tackling the AIDS epidemic. Our participation in World AIDS Day also reflects Australia's continuing willingness to assist other nations and their communities in the global offensive against the AIDS epidemic which, in some parts of the world, threatens to change the nature of the world in which we live. The extent of this global epidemic is undeniable. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has now had reported to it 120,000 case of AIDS and, because of underreporting, it believes the number to be at least twice that. The effect of the disease on the world community has evoked a rare unity of action, a rare response from the world organisations, particularly from the World Health Organisation's global AIDS program. Australian and Australians are participating in World AIDS Day today. There are too many events taking place so I will not list them all, but they are all marked by a commonality of commitment and dedication. I will mention just a few. The two television commercials, which I launched this morning, will hopefully encourage safer sex practices amongst young adults; major rallies and vigils are being held across the country; and the media has yesterday and today demonstrated outstanding interest and responsibility in devoting generous space and time to the issue. I take this opportunity to thank all organisations involved in activities today and also to thank the community groups which have worked so hard and so effectively to stem the epidemic. Every State and Territory government has participated in the initiative today and I have already acknowledged my appreciation of the role played by the Federal Opposition. Finally, I would like to express my own sympathy and I believe that of all members of this House to the thousands of relatives and friends of the 530 Australians whose lives have been lost to AIDS. I believe we will be judged as a nation by our response to this epidemic. I believe and hope we will continue to meet it effectively with compassion and tolerance. Mr SHIPTON —I address a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs regarding the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation (NAIHO). It concerns an answer the Minister gave to a question I asked him on 8 November 1988. The Minister will recall stating that an inquiry was conducted by his predecessor into matters concerning funding arrangements for NAIHO and that funding ceased. The Minister will also recall advising the House that since that period there had been a restructuring of the body known as NAIHO and, while he had discussed funding arrangements with that body, he had yet to make a decision. I now ask the Minister whether he directed that NAIHO receive $180,000 in funding this year, prior to the answer he gave me to my question in this House on 8 November 1988. Mr HAND —As I said in my previous answer, discussions were going on with that organisation. There was an original amount of money, and I will have to find out what that was and let the honourable member know. A figure of about $180,000 to $200,000 was mentioned in those discussions. However, the answer still stands. I have not made a decision to re-fund NAIHO. Mr Shipton —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he will table documents to substantiate his answer, including the record of proceedings of a senior officers meeting chaired by the Secretary to his Department which was held on 5 September 1988. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has already given his answer to the honourable member. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(2.30) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Higgins tabling a copy of the record of proceedings of a senior officers meeting of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which was chaired by the Secretary to the Department and held on 5 September 1988. Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Campbell, G. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L.McArthur, F. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? I call the honourable member for Braddon. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the honourable member be not further heard. Mr MILES(Braddon)(2.38) —I second the motion, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The question is that the honourable member for Braddon be not further heard. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr Beazley —The Opposition was conducting a ballot today. I think it must be for a new tactics committee. I move: That the question be now be put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr Dobie —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask your reaction to this. The motion was put that the honourable member for Braddon be not further heard. He had not yet begun to speak. I am wondering what the Standing Orders say on that. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Cook will note that I waited for the honourable member to speak. Mr Dobie —But the point is that he had not started to speak. The motion was that he be not further heard. He had not even been heard. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair waited for him to start speaking before it put the motion. Original question resolved in the negative. Mrs HARVEY —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House of the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that proper information is made available on its spending and revenue decisions? Mr KEATING —From 1983, when this Government took office and it was revealed to us by Mr John Stone, now Senator Stone of the National Party of Australia, that the economic policy of this country was in such dire straits, we sought to make a fundamental restructuring of and change to the economy. In so doing we took the opportunity to start sharing information with the public, principally and firstly at the National Economic Summit, where we were entirely open with all the people who attended that summit-business and trade unions-about the state of public policy, and we gave them information about public policy which had never been given to them before. We gave them model scenarios of change, et cetera. That openness and consultative procedure continued with the structure of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, which now, nearly six years later, is still meeting quarterly, and where even more information is shared with the various groups represented and where issues of fundamental economic importance are examined by that body and made available to the public in general. We have always believed that good policy can be enhanced with good information. We have kept that information coming through in an unprecedented way in Australian public life. In budgetary terms we published the Forward Estimates. We are the first Government ever to publish Forward Estimates of outlays with clearly identified parameters. The out-year costs of programs are identified. Much of the information in the Forward Estimates not only identifies the out-year program costs but also gives a commentary on the way in which the programs have developed and are developing, and what their cost and growth profiles are likely to be over the ensuing years. We do the same in the Budget documents. We identify all new programs and their costs, both for this year and the following year. We identify all new tax measures because we publish-for the first time ever as a government-a statement which is virtually the Forward Estimates of the tax expenditures, as distinct from the outlays. All tax expenditures are costed. All new tax measures are described and costed. We then reconcile the previous year's outcome with the original estimates with those reconciliation tables in Statement 3 in the Budget Papers. This is done also in the Forward Estimates and May economic statement. Of course, this is the first real discipline on a government in terms of within-year spending, that is, the propensity of governments to spend after Budgets, between one Budget and the next. It has never been done before in Australia. We reconcile changes between the Forward Estimates and the Budget Estimates where new spending and savings, and parameter changes, which change the way in which programs are delivered, or the parameters sitting underneath them such as inflation or growth, are clearly identified. We have lifted the business of giving information about economic policy to an art form. We have created a standard and a discipline on the Government itself. We have created a standard which we now believe all parties in this Parliament should meet. When the Opposition parties seek to present themselves to the electorate and seek electors' support, we do not wish to see some resiling from these standards, some trip back down the time tunnel to the bad old days of the 1970s, whereby no information is tendered to the public, where the order of the day is no accountability, where the Opposition is not about describing the policy and its implications, but seeking to obfuscate all the way through in the presentation of policy and to obfuscate through to an election, just as we saw in the last election campaign when we had journalists finally chasing the Leader of the Opposition through shopping centres asking about technical details of outlays. The shadow Finance spokesman fancies himself as a bit of an economic whip. He has a great opportunity now to put his money where his mouth is-or his details where his mouth is. He has a great opportunity to say where the Opposition's programs will be and what they will cost. If that kind of detail is proffered by the Opposition, as the Government proffers it each time it makes major policy changes, the economic and political debate in this country will be very materially advanced. What we want to see from the Leader of the Opposition this weekend with his manifesto, and in the balance of this Parliament, is detail-not feelings, intuition or values, but detail-about what a budget would look like, what public policy would look like, under a coalition government, so that we then might start to see some real accountability from the Opposition instead of this dissembling waffle which has passed for policy in the past. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(2.47) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Higgins moving forthwith: That this House censures the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for misleading the House on 8 November 1988 when answering a question directed to him by the member for Higgins concerning the provision of funding to the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation. It is important that this motion be put to the House and that the issue of the ministerial reponsibility of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs be-- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr MILES(Braddon)(2.55) —Yes, I second the motion. The Department's records indicate that-- Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the honourable member be not further heard. Mr MILES —The Minister directed that- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Braddon will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member for Braddon. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGorman, R. N. J. Scott, LesGrace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J. R.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Smith, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hewson, J. R. Taylor, W. L.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Shipton's) be agreed to. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes ... 55 Noes ... 78 Majority ... 23 AYES Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R. Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M. Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G. Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C. Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C. Burr, M. A. Nehl, G. B. Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P. Cobb, M. R. Prosser, G. D. Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, Ian Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R. Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F. Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. L. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Taylor, W. L. Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L. Lloyd, B. Wooldridge, M. R. L. McArthur, F. S. NOES Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, G. T. Beddall, D. P. Jones, Barry Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller) Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B. Crawford, M. C. Milton, P. Cross, M. D. Morris, Allan Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, Peter Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G. Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, John Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, Les Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E. Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R. Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) -Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Freedom of Information Act 1982-Annual Report 1987-88-section 93 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Administrative Review Council-Annual Report 1987-88-section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Department of Employment, Education and Training-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922. Australian Trade Union Training Authority-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 58 of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. Department of Aboriginal Affairs-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922. National Board of Employment, Education and Training-Advice on Commonwealth General Recurrent Funding Arrangements: The Future of Resource Agreements-Report-sections 9 and 30 of the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. Correspondence Relating to the Delay in Tabling the Aboriginal Development Commission Annual Report 1987-88-section 34c of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Jila (Chila Well) Warlpiri Land Claim-Report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner-section 50 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Australia Council-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975. Inquiry into Metropolitan Canberra by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory-Government Response. International Labour Conference 74th (Maritime) Session 1987-Australian Delegation Report. National Capital Development Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957. Federal Airports Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 54 of the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986. Inter-State Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-section 32 of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975. Australian Shipping Commission (Australian National Line)-Annual Report 1987-88-Section 35 of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956. Australian Film Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 44 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975. Australian Children's Television Foundation Incorporating A.C.T.F. Productions Ltd-Annual Report 1987-88. Commonwealth Teaching Service-Australian Capital Territory Technical and Further Education and Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Components-Annual Report 1987-section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1946-together with a statement of reasons relating to the delay in tabling the Report-section 34c of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. A Proposal for Work Within the Parliamentary Zone-Construction of a Community-based Child Care Centre on a site adjacent to the Provisional Parliament House-section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974. Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council-Annual Report 1987-88-section 22 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council Act 1984. Fiscal Measures and Achievement of Environmental Objectives-Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation-Government Response. Qantas Airways Limited-Annual Report 1987-88. Independent Review of ACT Health Services-Final Report by Dr Brendon J. Kearney. Annual Returns of Ministers' Private Interests-1988. Australian National Railways Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 66 of the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983. ABC-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-Annual Report 1987-88-section 28 of the Broadcasting Act 1942. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accordance with the Standing and Sessional Orders of the House: Australian Retired Persons Association-pensioner entitlements-from the member for McMillan-approximately 6,000 petitioners Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield four-wheel drive track-from the member for Melbourne Ports-533 petitioners Concerned citizens for peace in Burma-from the honourable member for Swan-723 petitioners Effect of growth investments on pensioners-from the honourable member for Corangamite-91 petitioners East coast log hauliers association-from the honourable member for Denison-65 petitioners Food irradiation-from the honourable member for La Trobe-192 petitioners Foreign ownership of land-from the honourable member for Denison-1,875 petitioners Recalling of the $2 coin-from the honourable member for Hotham-113 petitioners X-rated videos-from the honourable member for Denison-21 petitioners Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —On behalf of Madam Speaker and pursuant to section 9b of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Joint House Department for 1987-88. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —Yesterday in endeavouring to make a fairly cheap political point in relation to salary rises for members of parliament-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member might get to where he was misrepresented. Mr HOWARD —I will tell the House where the Prime Minister misrepresented me. He sought to say that I had been guilty of double standards regarding salary rises. Comparing what he alleged to be my attitude regarding MPs and national wage cases, I make two points: Firstly, it is not correct for the Prime Minister to allege as he did yesterday, and as he constantly does, that it is my policy to oppose every national wage increase. That has not been the case for some time. Our policy very clearly is that we support real gains in income provided those gains are earned and are therefore based on productivity gains. That has been our policy for a long time. Secondly, I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the remarks that I did make and the only public comment I made about the Remuneration Tribunal's recommendations last Friday. They also deny the substance of what he says. I simply point out to the House that I have always had a consistent position in relation to these matters. I remind the Parliament that when the Prime Minister was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, he was in the vanguard of advocating that every recommendation be accepted- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member is arguing the point now. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr STAPLES —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr STAPLES —The Hon. Virginia Chadwick, a Minister in the New South Wales Government, made some comments in the New South Wales Parliament on 29 November 1988 in relation to a project under the supported accommodation assistance program. She claimed in the House-I will paraphrase her-that I am `anti-Christian, anti-Sydney City Mission and anti-women'. I find those remarks totally offensive, without foundation in fact or fantasy. They do no credit whatsoever to her or the New South Wales Government. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr N.A. Brown —During Question Time, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said, firstly, that I had accused Australian ex-service personnel of being war criminals. Secondly, he said that by inference I was alleging that some of them were war criminals. In my conviction that is, as I said during Question Time, an outrageous allegation to make. As there was some argument about what exactly he did say, I have had a look at the transcript of his answer in Question Time when he stated: The only people making the accusations- I repeat: `The only people making the accusations'- are the honourable member for Farrer and the honourable member for Menzies by the suggestion that there is something wrong with the conduct of Australian ex-service men and women. It is clear what the accusations were that he was referring to. I wish to say in my defence, first, that what the Attorney-General said of me, as well as being quite unprovoked, was untrue and without any foundation whatsoever; secondly, that I have said two things on this subject: the first is that Australian ex-service men and women who were subject to the military law and military courts during the war should not for that reason, 43 years after the event, be retrospectively subjected to the Australian common criminal law contained in the War Crimes Amendment Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think we need to get to where the honourable member was misrepresented, rather than arguing the case. Mr N.A. Brown —I am doing that; I have done half of it. The second thing that I have said on the subject-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies has to say not what he said, but where the Attorney-General has misrepresented him. Mr White —He is telling him where he is wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for McPherson will cease interjecting. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have told you that already, and in my defence I am saying that I said two things- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member says that he has told me that, he can resume his seat. Mr N.A. Brown —With respect, I will not resume my seat until I have finished this personal explanation. The second thing I said about the subject-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies should get to where he was misrepresented. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, you keep on interrupting me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member just told me that he had finished. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect, that is a very smart remark and it does not become you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We might get this back on the rails and the honourable member can tell the House where he was misrepresented. Mr N.A. Brown —The second thing that I have said about this subject-the Hansard will make it clear that I have already said where I was misrepresented; I am now explaining what the true situation is-which honourable members will read if they look at the Hansard, is that if no accusation as such has been made against any Australian ex-service men or women, the Government should amend its Bill to make it say what it wants to say, and not something else. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr BLEWETT —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Dr BLEWETT —In the House this morning the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) alleged that he had received no written reply to a question he addressed to my colleague the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) representing me in the House on 20 October 1988. A faxed response was sent to his office on 17 November 1988. I accept his word that his office does not seem to have received that letter, and I will see that a copy is sent immediately. Mr REITH(Flinders) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr REITH —Yes, I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr REITH —During Question Time today the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) responded to a question about the War Crimes Amendment Bill. In his response to that question he misrepresented the position which I took on behalf of the Opposition during the second reading debate in 1987. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There have been a number of rulings in the past that members cannot make a personal explanation on the basis of misrepresentation of an organisation. The honourable member for Flinders can be misrepresented himself, but he cannot make an explanation on behalf- Mr REITH —If I am given the opportunity, I will come to that. The point I was to make next was that during his response the Attorney-General specifically quoted from my address to the House during the second reading debate. He referred to and quoted-in fact, misquoted-what I had to say. I wish to correct that misrepresentation. What he said-he quoted me accordingly-was that I supported the Bill without any qualification. That is a gross misrepresentation. I refer the House to page 2734 and page 2735 of the Hansard. In particular, I refer honourable members to that part of my speech which makes it clear that I held considerable reservation as to whether the legislation before the House would ensure that justice would be done to those defendants brought before the courts as a result of the Attorney-General's legislation. For that reason I proposed in this place that that issue be referred to a committee of the Parliament for proper examination. It is a gross misrepresentation to say that that issue was not raised by the Opposition and that it is raised now for political opportunistic reasons. That gross misrepresentation should be withdrawn by the Attorney-General. He should not in future misquote from Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TIM FISCHER —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TIM FISCHER —I claim to have been misrepresented by the same remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) as were referred to by my colleague the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). Those remarks misrepresent my position. First, I have been a strong supporter and defender of the contribution of thousands of Australian service personnel throughout World War II and other conflicts. Secondly, I have highlighted throughout this sensitive debate that all those Australian service personnel have been subject to the Australian military legal system throughout and as such should not be within the ambit of the War Crimes Amendment Bill. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister: be fair, and amend the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the Attorney-General claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Attorney-General may proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I claim to have been misrepresented in respect of two of the matters raised. The first is that I said at the start that the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) had not moved an amendment in the terms now proposed. Secondly, in regard to the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), I did say that he had created torment and torture, and I am very mindful of the fact-- Mr Reith —He is debating the matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I am not debating the matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Attorney must tell the House in what way he was misrepresented. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In the sense that there was evidence of what the honourable member had said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Attorney is now starting to get to the stage of debating the matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I shall table, for example, an extract from the Queanbeyan Age, dated 28 November, which gives credibility to the statement. Mr Reith —This is not a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —A Minister can table a document whenever he wishes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The devastating impact of the Government's deliberate high interest rate policy. 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 SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.23) —Today the House of Representatives will adjourn for three months and will resume on 28 February. The Government is arrogant and is not prepared to respond in this House to matters of serious public moment. By adjourning this House, the core of those economic factors which affect the living standards of ordinary Australians will be forgotten while the Treasurer (Mr Keating) shuffles off and buys his clocks and enjoys his Christmas recess. This occasion is the last time that we on the Opposition benches are able to draw the public's attention to the reality of the economic malaise which Labor's policies are imposing. There is little doubt that interest rates, perhaps more than any other economic index, get to the core of how people are able to afford to do those things which they wish to do. Interest rates affect the degree to which people are able to buy their own homes, operate their own businesses, buy motor cars or whatever goods or prerequisites they need both for the necessities of life and for those add-ons that many of us have come to expect as our due. What makes the position worse is that in embracing Government policies, despite all the Treasurer's rhetoric in this place, fiscal policy virtually has been relegated to the too hard basket. We know that the Government is saying that so much depends on the wage outcome. While the Government is saying that, Bill Kelty is saying that he will require a significant tax cut and a major wage increase. In looking at the exchange rate, we know that, because the Government is being forced to rely on an ever-tightening monetary policy, the exchange rate is going up and the product will be that many people will find that the expected inflow of capital that is supposed to come from the commodities boom will be significantly reduced. Although I have brought this motion in general onto the agenda today, I wish to examine some of the elements of how these things will bite on the Australian community. It is important to understand that the exercise which the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) went through this morning is a farce. They were seeking to show that, had we been in government, our expenditure would have been way outside anything the Government is now embracing. There is no need for the Government to throw up its hands in horror about fiscal policy. In fiscal and wages policy there are steps which the Government should responsibly undertake. If that were to happen, the need for the Government to rely as much on monetary policies as it does at present would not exist. Let us look at a few of the arguments that were deployed this morning. There is no doubt that it is totally dishonest of the Treasurer to allege that there would be a $1.5 billion cost involved in our change to the fringe benefits tax arrangements. The reality, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), said, is that we intend to introduce a realistic assessment of benefits in the hands of the recipient. Tax on those would then be in the hands of the person who received the money and not, as now, in the hands of the employer. We recognise the peculiar difficulties of those who are in remote and isolated areas. We recognise the problems that face people who are seeking to undertake a mining development, in spite of the regulations and taxes and imposition of high interest charges. There should be no reason for such people to pay fringe benefits tax in the way they now do. We also need to recognise that half the figures that came from the Treasurer are based on leaks of old draft documents, and that it is all a smokescreen to try to avoid dealing with the real problems of the Government's failure to understand how living standards are being affected. What makes the matter worse is that in fiscal policy a whole series of Ministers are spending money and creating a climate which leads them to rely on a tightened interest rate regime simply because they are not prepared to go anywhere. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) is going over to Brazil. Why is he going? Not because he is trying to get within Australia a proper balance between the utilisation of resources and the environment, but because a few years ago he arbitrarily decided that it would be good for him to be in the environmental lobby and pick up a few votes. The cost of his policies to Tasmania, to north Queensland or potentially to Western Australia over Shark Bay is enormous. But this Government is not worried about how public money should be spent. It regards it as a good political gimmick. Even more apparent in terms of fiscal waste on the part of this Government has been the gross abuse of expenditure with the Aboriginal Development Commission and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. As an example of that we saw today the Government's failure to allow the Opposition to move a censure motion. The reason that we raised that censure motion is that it is a matter of what we see as abuse of public responsibility in the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. We have raised our concern about what we see as a diversion of $1 billion of taxpayers' funds to a body that will be some sort of independent government across State boundaries, without even consulting many Aboriginal interests which are properly concerned that the arrangement will not protect them. All the anomalies involved in that proposal are matters for another debate. We know that the Secretary to the Department has been dismissed, and he is the scapegoat while the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) and his predecessor are running around scot-free. We saw today that the Minister is still pretending that so far as he is concerned expenditure of funds in that area is totally responsible. That is the problem. There are areas where this Government can cut spending and is not doing so, and there are other areas where this Government is spending money and is pretending not to know anything about it. Our records show that at a senior officers' meeting on 5 September 1988-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The right honourable member will not pursue that course. Mr SINCLAIR —I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker? On what basis? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I bring the right honourable member back to the matter that is before the Chair. Mr SINCLAIR —Does not the Chair believe that fiscal policy is relevant here? I do not know anything about the Chair's understanding of economic affairs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —A few minutes ago the right honourable member said that the high interest rates had nothing to do with the policies in the Aboriginal area. Mr SINCLAIR —I am sorry; they have everything to do with it. The reason there are high interest rates-I suggest that it is not for you to argue the question-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I will bring the right honourable gentleman back to the matter before the Chair. Mr SINCLAIR —I would be very pleased if you did. The matter before the Chair is the failure of the Government to understand that its high interest rate policy is imposed on this country because of its inability to adopt a tightened fiscal policy, its inability to pursue the correct wages policy and its inability to understand that the value of the Australian dollar rises because it has failed in those other directions. The failure in Aboriginal affairs is part of the core. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) a moment ago engaged in an argument with the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). Why? It was because he wasted money on a referendum that was absolutely unnecessary. An amount of $50m could have been saved. That is exactly what this matter of public importance is about. If the Government tightened fiscal policy, interest rates need not be so high. Let me return to the Aboriginal affairs policy. We, on this side, are concerned that money should be spent in Aboriginal affairs. We are concerned that money should not be misspent and that interest rates should not be higher than they are now simply because the Government has not cut spending where it should. We have records of proceedings which show the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs directing the expenditure of $180,000 simply because he thinks that it might be a good thing politically. It does not mean that he-- Mr Peacock —When did he do that? Mr SINCLAIR —I intend to explain that. This is an example. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the right honourable gentleman not to explain that and I bring him back to the matter before the Chair. Mr SINCLAIR —I beg your pardon? This is appalling. You are saying that the waste of money from the public sector-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I bring you back to the matter of public importance. Mr SINCLAIR —I am. Interest rates are a direct product of high spending. At a meeting on Thursday, 1 September, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs directed that the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation (NAIHO) receive $180,000 this year in funding. This was to be confirmed in writing. That is gross abuse of public sector spending. His predecessor had said-- Mr Peacock —He has misled the House. Mr SINCLAIR —Indeed he has. His predecessor had said that that money should be spent. Today he told us that that money had not been permitted. Yet the records of a meeting which took place on 5 September, where the Secretary was present, show that-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House has already determined that that matter shall not be brought before it today. I bring you back to the matter before the Chair-the Opposition's matter of public importance. Mr SINCLAIR —The matter before the Chair is that this Government, with apparently your acceptance, from the inference of your speech, accepts that there should be a gross abuse of public funds when Ministers direct that funds that should not be spent be spent. This morning the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance spoke on this very subject and told us that our programs for expenditure were irresponsible. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I say to this House and the Australian public: the failure of this Government in fiscal policy is the reason that interest rates are where they are. Because interest rates are high, our dollar is too high and there is an astronomic burden on individuals and on our export industries. My concern is that the Government has not seriously attacked fiscal policy. It is not seriously attacking wages policy. It is not prepared to adopt a responsible attitude within which there is no need for Australians to bear the interest rate regime to which they are now subject. Whether it is the abuse of money through NAIHO, with the Minister misleading the House on a matter of critical importance in the field of public sector spending, or whether it is the Treasurer coming out, as he did this morning, and distorting the expenditure pattern of the Opposition, the Government has every reason to look very closely at its record and to understand that it should at this stage be looking at the abuse of public funds in a range of areas. I have mentioned the Attorney-General; I have mentioned Aboriginal affairs. We all know that there is a whole range of other areas where the Government frankly is not addressing its fiscal responsibilities. I want particularly to address, as far as interest rates are concerned, the impact we see on the export industries. At the moment the Minister for Trade Negotiations (Mr Duffy) is in Montreal. We wish him well. We should understand that the most significant event happening in the North American continent, apart from the recent elections in both the United States of America and Canada, is the negotiation of a free trade agreement. That free trade agreement means that Canada, henceforth, will be subject to enormous pressure from the United States on access for our Australian agricultural commodities. The product of rising interest rates is to force the relativity of the Australian dollar to the United States dollar higher and higher. Without any doubt, the fact that the US, with a free trade arrangement, will be able to bear down on Canada will have an impact on our returns. I am concerned that, at a time of a high current account deficit, a high inflation rate and a burgeoning foreign debt, it will be even more difficult for the Australian family farmer to sell his produce in a market which has been very important to us. I trust that the Minister for Trade Negotiations, when he is in Montreal, not only looks at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations but also realises that there is a real problem because his Government has done very little to persuade the Canadians that we do not expect a free trade arrangement between those two North American nations to in any way prejudice our access to them. Indeed, I am concerned, because of the particular burden that interest rates are imposing. They force the dollar up. Consequently, we will pay a very high price for access for our agricultural commodities and our minerals. Yesterday, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr Bob Johnston, said that high interest rates were needed to break the back of inflation. That we all accept. But the reality is that the other two arms of economic management are being ignored by this Government. Fiscal policy is in the too hard basket and wages policy is impossible. As with parliamentary salaries, the officers of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) tell this Government where to go. Mr Johnston in fact warned against relying for too long on tight monetary policy. The purpose of that and the reason we feel so strongly about the impact of interest rates on the dollar and our ability to sell our minerals and commodities is that it will reduce our ability to reduce our foreign debt and make it harder and harder for our agricultural industries to survive. There is little doubt that the export boom is a myth. In fact, even when the Australian dollar was at 86c to the US dollar we had very significant costs. My colleague the shadow Minister for primary industries, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), said yesterday that it is likely to cost the coal industry $500m; it will cost the wool industry $1 billion; and it will cost the beef industry $500m. It means that there is a significant impact on producers' terms and conditions of operation. It can be disastrous for the family farmer. Yesterday when the Secretary to the Treasury spoke to the 1988 International Corporate Finance Conference he concluded his remarks by saying: The real ringmaster of next year's performance will be the Government. I say to the people of Australia: this Government is no ringmaster. This Government has given away the game. This Government has given the ACTU a role in the ring. It is about time that people understood the consequences. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(3.38) —This is a significant day because this was to be the forum for the presentation by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) of the manifesto on Sunday. In fact people in the financial press expected that today would be the day of further analysis and further development of the argument. Many honourable members on this side of the House and certainly members of the financial press again thought that today's Question Time might be devoted to a probing of Government policies and to the development of analysis. All of us are now familiar with what happened in today's Question Time. It was devoted to attempts to censure the Government over another matter. The situation is this: we have been in government now for 5 1/2 years. People such as I have waited on the development of Opposition policy. It has not happened. Opposition policies have still not been developed and the Australian community is aware of that. The Australian community is very much aware that the speech we just heard from the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) is not a policy speech; it is a speech laced with rhetoric. Let me paint this picture: basically, the Opposition has gone down to the supermarket and picked off the shelves the things that look attractive. But it has not bothered to put them together in any package, any arrangement or any structure. This is an interesting time of the year. At this time of the year people undergo examinations and tests. Many people out there in the wider world have been doing that. I am sure that their success rate has been very high. But during this spring the Opposition has been submitted to two tests. The first was the response to the Budget and that was quite an inadequate response. The second test will come on Sunday: what will be the involvement of the Opposition in real policy making? So far there has been an absence of real policy making by the Opposition. I found today's speech by the Leader of the National Party surprising because yesterday was the anniversary of his serving 25 years in the Parliament. We acknowledge that. However, it is sad that, after 25 years in this place, there has not been more policy formulation from him. I think that the Opposition itself is in difficulty. I put this proposition to those opposite: the problem they face is that many people in the electorate, traditional conservative voters, want to vote for the Liberal Party but cannot do so because it is caught between two options. The first is that it has not developed proper policies and the electorate recognises that. The sadder and more serious option for both this Parliament and the Australian community is that, instead of there being the development of policy and the effective probing of government about its policies, it goes for the quick fix, for the smear and for the slur on people's public reputations. We see this regularly in Question Time. That will not work because the Australian community is much more sensible than to accept that. They seek the development of policies. I say that by way of preamble because I think it is very important. Frequently in my electorate people talk to me about this and ask, `Where are the Opposition's policies?' The fact is that we have not seen the Opposition's policy. This is the House of Representatives' last day of sitting in the Budget session of Parliament and there is still an absence of policy. Today's matter of public importance is about interest rates and their effect on the economy. The Opposition presents some difficulty to itself because it laid the basis of its claim on the effect that fiscal policy has on interest rates. What we had to do when we came into office-and this is on the record-was rescue the Australian economy. I quote the now National Party senator who was then Secretary to the Treasury and who wrote to the then Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition: When the estimated cost in 1983-84 of the new policy proposals announced in the (Liberals) policy speech is added, the prospect is for a Budget deficit of almost $10 billion. Such a deficit would be equivalent to 5 1/2 per cent of projected GDP, the highest in Australian post-war history. It is very difficult for honourable members opposite to come into this place and talk about fiscal policy when we will continue to remind the Australian community that that is the legacy that they left us with. Let there be no doubt about that. We are now looking at a $5.5 billion projected surplus from this year's Budget. The Opposition left us with a $10 billion projected deficit. There is a substantial difference in that. The difference can also be reflected in the state of the financial markets and of industry and in the ability of this Government to undertake a number of cost cutting activities. That is on the record. The extraordinary thing that has to be hammered home in this debate-I know that my colleague who will speak later will do so-is that what we have been able to do, whilst bringing about those cuts in outlays, is achieve significant levels of economic growth. That is in contrast to what happened when the Opposition was in government. In its last year of office there was negative growth which was extraordinary for the Australian economy. That resulted in some 250,000 people being thrown out of work. That was one element of it, but the other element that has to be emphasised is that the rate of economic growth that has been achieved in the 5 1/2 years of this Government has been significant. From 1983-84 to 1987-88, the rate of growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) in Australia was 4.1 per cent. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average was 3.6 per cent. So already there is a testimony to the fact that we have achieved real growth and that is a substantial improvement over the experience that we had when we came into office. Let me continue the narrative, because it is telling. There has been substantial growth in employment. When Government back bench members go around their electorates they find people in work and business back to business. That has been a substantial achievement. I would have to say, to be fair to the Opposition, that it did not achieve that sort of performance during the last couple of years it was in government. It has not developed policies which will achieve that. We have waited for the development of those policies. As I said earlier, the big test will occur on Sunday. The Opposition failed it after the Budget, but it will have another chance on Sunday. However, its policy will have to be better than what it has offered us in the past. What it has offered us in the past, using my analogy, is a quick trip through the supermarket, picking up from the shelves the things that it thinks look attractive. But the trouble is that when it gets them all in the shopping basket they do not add up in terms of responsible fiscal policy or responsible policies in general. Where is the Opposition's wages policy? The Leader of the National Party placed emphasis on that and I think that it was fair for him to do so. But it is also fair to emphasise that an effective wages policy can be achieved only when, firstly, the role of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is emphasised, which the Opposition does not want, and, secondly, there is substantial compliance with that system. When the Opposition was in power it did not achieve that; rather it created massive industrial unrest. People recognised that. Every time there was a major industrial dispute, it was put at the feet of the Opposition. That is not good enough. The Opposition must understand that not only the Australian community got sick of it but also the Australian work force, which wanted to be at work, was being denied the opportunity to work properly, not only through unemployment but also the Opposition's industrial relations attitudes. The Opposition destroyed the harmonious industrial relations system in this country. Government has to cooperate with people in the work force and in management in this economy, and we do so. However, we also need to have a wages policy with which people will cooperate. There has been substantial compliance in this country with a wages policy. However, it goes further than that. If we have an effective wages policy, we can engage in a wage-tax trade-off. We are now in a position of looking at that realistically. The Opposition would not have that option available. Not only does the Opposition not have a wages policy but also its tax policy does not work out. Its proposal in the run-up to the 1987 election was based on unfunded tax cuts. The Australian electorate rejected it not so long ago and it is understandable that it will reject the Opposition again when the test is there. The Australian community will not tolerate parties in this place that do not have substantial policies and do not put those policies together. The record is very convincing. The record is significant in that the Opposition had a deficit to which then Secretary to the Treasury Stone referred-I remind the Australian community again that this was the Opposition's fiscal policy when it was in government-as a projected $10 billion deficit. We have reversed that to a $5.5 billion surplus. The Opposition cannot come into this place and talk about an effective fiscal policy because it did not have any effective fiscal policy. The so-called Fraser razor gang did not do its job. We have made the hard decisions. We have reduced outlays as a percentage of GDP to the lowest level in 20 years. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), who are at the table, have been part of that process. Their platform and policy areas are affected significantly in terms of housing and welfare. What is more, not only have they been effective in their portfolios but also the net effect in terms of the Australian community is a fairer and more just society. We have achieved economic growth, people are back in the work force and we have policies which deal with their needs. If Opposition members were honest, if they went around the community and dealt with things seriously, they would talk to people and would understand that. But the trouble is that they do not do so. They make up with rhetoric for what they should have with policy. In this calendar year the coalition has undertaken a number of commitments. It is interesting to examine what those commitments come down to. I quote: Once again the Coalition has on record an orgy of commitments and implied promises, which if implemented would have a full year effect of reducing revenue by $3,329m and increasing outlays by $2,106m. The $5,435m total is almost sufficient to throw the historic surplus back into deficit and start another cycle of Government borrowing. That is the impact of what the Opposition would do-the $5,435m total commitment that it would give. The Opposition has been unable to exercise any degree of fiscal discipline. Further, the coalition has proposed new capital programs which would add, in total, a further $13,698m to the public sector borrowing requirement. Not so long ago, in the context of an election, promises were made by the Opposition regarding tax. What we found, when we began to ask the Opposition and the then Opposition spokesperson on Treasury matters how they would handle the tax cuts, we received different answers. The Opposition has never done the hard work, and the Australian financial press is now looking at the Opposition in those terms. The substantial work has not been put together. Turning to some of the specifics, I refer to defence policy. The Opposition has made an extraordinary series of commitments on defence, none of which makes any sense in terms of defence policy. I will list some: in-flight refuelling for F111s, an extra $56m; a third runway at Sydney airport, $525m; in the area of health, reinstatement of Commonwealth bed day subsidy to private hospitals, $198m; in housing, addition to first home owners scheme, $270m; in local government, remove clawback on Telecom and Australia Post rates, $23.8m; reinstate the rate of growth in real government grants to 15.5 per cent, $742.7m. One can go on. The honourable member for McPherson also has in mind introducing an aircraft carrier and aircraft on that carrier at a cost of $3 billion; also nuclear submarines, $8.8 billion. These are promises that the Opposition is prone to toss up. When members of the Opposition make those types of promises in the community and there is a government that knows what it is doing and it adds up the figures, when they are put in front of the Australian community and the press the Opposition is rejected, and for good reason. One cannot go around developing policy in such a grab bag way. The Government understands it very well and the Australian people understand it and they will reject the Opposition because it has not done the work and has not developed policies. This Parliament does not have an effective Opposition. That is what has been lacking for the last 5 1/2 years. Every six months there is a quick fix approach by the Opposition to questions and the development of debate. The important test has been that we have sat here and they have sat there, getting older, less relevant and less effective. Today, after 25 years in Parliament, the best that the Leader of the National Party could do was to make a rhetoric-laden speech which contained no policy proposals or cohesion. I point out that the National Party is currently on the witness stand in Queensland. All honourable members know how good they are. The trouble is that those opposite are fellow travellers and they will be carried away in the same sweep by the Australian electorate. That is the important thing. Do not forget about it. Do not worry about it and do not forget about it. The National Party is on the stand in Queensland today and has been for the last few weeks. It makes great reading. The sad thing is that we all knew about it all along. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(3.53) —Having listened to that performance, I do not think honourable members will be disappointed to see the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) pass on politically at the next Federal election. He who says that there is no effective Opposition in this country will be able to put that to the test at the next election in his seat. On this side of the House we have immense confidence that it will be goodbye to the honourable member for Stirling, the person whom the Treasurer (Mr Keating) refused to endorse during the last election campaign as a future frontbencher. In the early part of his speech he accused the Opposition of having no policies and of going around smearing people, but at the end of his speech he smeared the National Party in this place in the most abominable way, which brings the reputation of this House to a level that does not hold our system of democracy in good stead. He made some extraordinary allegations, which were a reiteration of the allegations made by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) this morning, that if the coalition's promises were implemented we would increase spending by $13 billion. That will be refuted and is in the process of being refuted from one end of Australia to the other and, in being refuted, will undermine once and for all the so-called credibility of the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance. To say that the coalition will spend $8 billion on submarines, a figure just clutched out of the air, to say that we are promising to buy all these nuclear submarines, is grossly dishonest, a massive distortion of the comments that the shadow Minister for Defence has made. In my own portfolio area it is claimed that we would spend another $270m on housing, and members of the Government quote a piece of our policy which they say is evidence that we would spend that money by increasing the proportion of funding for housing under the first home owners scheme. `Proportion': that does not mean we would increase the absolute level of funding; it means we would change the mix of funding. To say that that means we would spend another $270m is mendacious if ever there was an example of mendacity. That is the way this whole issue is being handled by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance. In Australia today we have a massive balance of payments problem and the Government will do nothing to encourage exports to overcome that problem. Its policy is to cut demand and reduce living standards so that people cannot any longer afford to buy anything, including imports. If people cannot afford to buy anything we will not have a balance of payments deficit. The policy instrument they use is to increase interest rates. The increase in interest rates will hurt not the high income people but the low and middle income Australians and the small business community, which is no longer able to invest and create jobs and prosperity because the cost of borrowing money is so high. Low income families can no longer hope to buy their own home in which to bring up their children. This policy of the Government, I noticed with interest in today's Australian Financial Review, has been roundly condemned not just by this side of House but, by implication, by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Johnston. The Australian Financial Review reports: But Mr Johnston also warned against relying for too long on tight monetary. policy-a veiled suggestion to the Government that it should again look at fiscal and wages policy . . . The Government has ignored fiscal and wages policy. It has ignored broader macro- and micro-economic change and it has concentrated instead simply on using interest rates. That is something that even the Governor of the Reserve Bank is growing increasingly concerned about. As I have said so often in this House and outside, in doing that the Government is destroying the Australian dream. At the next election people will say, `Let us remember the days when if you worked hard you could own your own home, because they have definitely passed since the Hawke Government has been in power'. Who nowadays can afford, when first married, to go out and buy a house and to have children? Only the rich can afford to do that. Somebody who has enough money to make a $50,000 contribution to the now Prime Minister's campaign to become Leader of the Labor Party-Eddie Kornhauser-can afford to do it. Warren Anderson, who goes pig shooting with the Treasurer and Kerry Packer from a helicopter in the Northern Territory, can afford to buy his own home. It is called Tipperary, a wonderful place. Nobody knows it better than the Treasurer himself. But what ordinary family in Australia, particularly young families, can afford to buy their own home? If one looks today at the house price figures produced by the Real Estate Institute, one finds that they are absolutely devastating, and the inequity of the figures is alarming. They show that in the 12 months to September 1988, the lower quarter of the price range of houses sold in Sydney rose by 65.7 per cent and the upper quarter of the price range of houses sold in Sydney rose by only 41 per cent. That is enough, but the lower quarter rose by 65.7 per cent, and add to that the increase in interest rates over the same period. Over the period of the Hawke Government housing interest rates have risen from 11.5 per cent to 15 per cent in the main, with the result that the higher costs of housing are hitting the lower income families, the weak, the poorer in society-not the Eddie Kornhausers and the Warren Andersons and the Paul Keatings. For the poorer people in society the whole concept of owning one's own home and having children has become a dream of yesterday. It has become a privilege that their parents had that they themselves will never be able to achieve. Their parents were lucky enough to have governments like the Menzies Government that made that sort of dream possible. More and more housing statistics have come out simply to confirm this appalling trend, the trend which was outlined so clearly by the chief manager for retail banking of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia when he said last week: To handle a mortgage, you need to put off having a family. Couples once would have thought of having a family at an early age, but that's being put back now. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said on a number of occasions the Government has a double income no kids policy, a policy which appeals only to double income households with no kids. That is the only sort of household that can afford to own a home and live in the sort of society that the Labor Party is increasingly creating. What a contrast that is to the way some of the advocates of the Labor Government's policies live. We saw a wonderful story in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald and a magnificent photograph of a part of Sydney called Roslyn Gardens Terrace. Who lives in Roslyn Gardens Terrace? Honourable members do not know anyone who lives in Roslyn Gardens Terrace, because I have just remembered that he lives in Canberra. But there is someone who owns a house in Roslyn Gardens Terrace, the neighbouring house having been sold for $1m. Of course, it is the Treasurer, who owns an identical adjacent house, also worth a million dollars. When he sells it honourable members can rest assured that he will pay no capital gains tax at all on the realisation of that asset because he will claim it is his home. He will claim it is his first family home while, of course, all along he is living in Canberra and claiming $18,000 or $19,000 a year travel allowance. That is the standard on one side of Parliament, the standard set by the Treasurer, the standard set by the Prime Minister and his mate Eddie Kornhauser, the standard set by the Warren Andersons of the world, so close to the Treasurer. On the other side of Australia there are hundreds of thousands of people who can no longer afford to own their own home and have children at the same time. What a shocking indictment that is of an appalling economic management policy process that this Government has undertaken. The average family which is buying its own home is $48 a week worse off in real terms than it was in March 1983. On top of that, it is worse off by $56 a week thanks to the Government's taxation policies. What a shocking indictment of nearly six years of the Hawke Government. The dismissive way Ministers abandon people is just inhumane. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JOHNS(Petrie)(4.03) —That was a fairly indulgent piece of rhetoric on the part of the former speaker, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). I must admit that the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) was also indulging himself in a grievance debate on the salaries of members of parliament. He had a tickle at the gallery when he suggested he should be getting a salary rise and that the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) was somehow controlling the process. He might well remember that it was our side of the House that decided to refer the whole matter of MPs' salaries to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, where it rightly belongs, so that we could have a clear and proper process to decide on matters of wages policy. That is at the very heart of this debate. The fact is that we on this side of the House believe in proper processes of control and management of the economy. We do not believe in the brutalisation of the economy by using just one mechanism such as monetary policy. It is that sort of contrast that I wish to make in the time allotted to me today. Essentially, the debate is about competence in economic management. It indicates to me that the Opposition has a fetish with monetary policy because it seeks to place too heavy a reliance on monetary policy. It ignores, to its own detriment, the proper place of government spending-that is, fiscal policy-and of the returns to labour and capital, but particularly to labour, of wages policy. This Government's record on fiscal policy is clear. It has been recorded and it has been brought down in six successive Budgets. We have the tightest fiscal policy on record in 35 years. We have a Federal Government surplus that has never been achieved before. The record is clear enough on our side. The problem for the Opposition is that it cannot and never will better that record. We have placed full and proper emphasis on fiscal policy-that is, the Government's ability to control its own expenditure. As far as the Opposition is concerned, that element of policy is out. It cannot use it because it cannot possibly outgun us on that score. That leaves the Opposition with wages policy and monetary policy. Average weekly earnings in the last year, as has just been announced, have risen by 5.8 per cent with the inflation rate for the same period at 7 per cent. In other words, we have found it necessary, and by agreement with the ACTU we have been able, to hold wages policy below the rate of inflation. I have to ask the Opposition what it wishes to do with wages policy. Does it want to crush the pay-packets of workers? It has to question its own motives. It is unable to outgun us on fiscal policy and it is backed into a corner on wages policy. That leaves only the option of monetary policy, because there are only three major mechanisms available to governments in the proper management of the economy. It seems to me that our Government is in touch with the Australian community because it seeks to use the best mechanisms available to it-that is, the proper expenditure of government and control through negotiation of wages. It does not seek to brutalise the economy through the use of monetary policy. We have to remember that where an opposition does not have the basis for a significantly tight fiscal policy, and does not have any basis for a wages policy, it must per force rely too heavily on monetary policy. It does not take much of a memory to recall that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was a high interest rate specialist in his time. We recall that the 90-day bills in 1981-82 were running at around 20 per cent. The basis for interest rates at that time was around 20 per cent. The same thing would happen if the Opposition were ever to be re-elected. It must rely on monetary policy and high interest rates to control the economy. We clearly do not have to do so. Sure, interest rates may move according to market dictates but we can control the basis of them because we have an excellent wages policy through negotiation and an excellent fiscal policy. We have a disciplined team which has been able through time to shift the balances according to our priorities and according to the priorities of the Labor movement. The shadow Minister for Finance, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), also has a problem. He wants to follow in the footsteps of the Opposition Leader. The shadow Minister for Finance has clearly indicated that he would like the Federal Government to tighten monetary policy further, the consequence of which, I presume, is to have higher interest rates. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot have a sloppy monetary policy. It seems to me that he wants a tight monetary policy, yet he criticises this Government for supposedly having one. He is turning in circles. I wish for a moment that he would stop just long enough to tell us the full implication of Opposition policies. How would it manage the money of the government? How would it manage wages? Consequently, how would it manage monetary policy? I think it has real problems. I have to take as my best record, as my best guide-let us hope it never comes to pass-to future Opposition dictates that it will do the same as Malcolm Fraser and John Howard did in their time. I have to balance that up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! I ask the honourable member to refer to members of parliament by their correct title. Mr JOHNS —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the former coalition Prime Minister and the former coalition Treasurer of that Government. We remember that we were not only brutalised by interest rates in that period but also brutalised by a deliberate policy of high unemployment. Honourable members will remember the rhetoric. They will remember that we were told that we needed to control inflation and that the way to do it was to bounce people out of jobs. We were told that the best way was to knock off demand. The best way to do that was to throw people out of employment. In 1982, shortly before the Fraser Government was rolled, around 300,000 Australians were thrown from their jobs. Many of those people have not recovered in the time since. Many of those people have been unable to get back into the work force because the work force and its skill requirements have moved on. That is a tragedy. That is a consequence of relying on a very narrow instrument of government. The former Government-the Government of members of the present Opposition-cruelled the lives of at least 300,000 Australians because it was unable to develop a clear wages policy or put sufficient restraint on fiscal policy, that is, on the expenditure of government. I hope that that is never repeated in this country. The reason that we currently run a tight Government expenditure policy and a tight wages policy is not that we have some sort of ideological commitment to the management and ownership of free enterprise in this country, or to the private sector as opposed to the public sector, but we readily acknowledge that the nation has to earn its standard of living-a standard of living based on its abilities and endowments. We understand that. The Opposition does not understand that. The nation's debt is too high but it is not the sole fault of any government, either Federal or State. However, that does not mean that we are not willing to pitch in and do our bit to get that deficit down. One of the ways to reduce the nation's deficit, its debt to the rest of the world, is to work our way out of it. By putting 1.2 million Australians into jobs since 1983, we are doing the right thing. I ask honourable members to remember that in the Fraser years we did not have one national productivity case-not one element of concentration on lifting the productivity of the work force. We based the last couple of years of wages negotiations on productivity; that is, that the wages of the workers should be raised because of their ability to produce. We said that we would look after the workers on the inflation front and keep real wages as high as is possible but would also allow them to increase their real wages based on their productivity. One of the enduring commitments of this Government is to continue to increase the productivity of the work force so that the real returns to the work force are lifted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Bill presented by Mr West, for Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will enable Australia to accede to the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 17 December 1979, which came into force on 3 June 1983. The Bill represents further evidence of Australia's participation in the international fight against terrorism. Other legislation implementing international treaties to which Australia has become a party in this area include the Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972, the Crimes (Protection of Aircraft) Act 1973 and the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976. Recent initiatives of the Government in the very important area of international co-operation to combat terrorism include participation in the negotiating of international instruments aimed at suppressing terrorist acts at airports serving international aviation and terrorist attacks on international shipping and off-shore drilling platforms. The Government intends to introduce legislation to implement these instruments in the autumn sittings of the Parliament. The question of the accession by Australia to the Convention has been the subject of consultation with the States and the Northern Territory and general agreement on it has been reached. Although some States have legislation which would most likely cover the offences of the kind envisaged by the Convention, this is not uniformly the case. Furthermore, State legislation does not have the extensive extra-territorial application required to fully implement the Convention. It is therefore more appropriate for the Commonwealth to enact legislation to allow Australia to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. The Convention requires a state party to make punishable by appropriate penalties any person who seizes or detains, and threatens to kill, injure or further detain, a hostage in order to compel a third party to do or abstain from any act as a condition for release of the hostage. Attempts and participation as an accomplice are also to be made punishable by state parties. A state party is required to establish jurisdiction over these offences if committed in its territory and also to establish extra-territorial jurisdiction in some circumstances, for example, where the offences are committed by its nationals or where the act is committed to compel that state to do or abstain from any act or where the alleged offender is present in the territory of the state and it does not extradite the person. Obligations under the Convention in relation to extradition are fulfilled by our extradition laws, treaties and practice. Provisions in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ensure that a defendant does not face double jeopardy by reason that a particular act may be an offence under the Bill and under other Commonwealth laws or State and Territory laws. Similarly, under the Extradition Act 1988, a person would not be extradited to another country to face prosecution for an act of hostage taking where the person had been dealt with by a court in that country or in Australia in relation to that act. Subclause 6 (2) prevents a person being convicted under the Bill for an act in relation to which the person has already been convicted under the law of another country. Prosecutions will be dealt with in State and Territory courts by virtue of section 68 of the Judiciary Act. Clause 8 of the Bill creates the offence of hostage taking and fixes the maximum penalty at imprisonment for life. It also establishes the limits of the jurisdiction claimed by Australia over the offences. In addition, by reason of the operation of clause 9 a person cannot be charged under the Bill where the act of hostage taking occurred in one country, the hostage and the alleged hostage taker are citizens of that country and the alleged hostage taker is found in that country. Clause 10 requires the consent of the Attorney-General to be obtained before a prosecution for an offence can be heard. This ensures that Australia can comply with its obligations under Article 7 of the Convention to communicate the final outcome of a prosecution under the Bill to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Clauses 11 and 12 deal with questions of venue for proceedings because of the requirement in section 80 of the Constitution that every trial on indictment shall be held in the State where the offence was committed. Clause 15 recognises the obligation under Article 6 of the Convention to allow an alleged offender who is not an Australian citizen access to his or her country's diplomatic or consular representatives. The remaining provisions of the Bill ensure that the operation of other Commonwealth laws and State and Territory laws are not displaced-subclause 6 (1)-and protect the jurisdiction of State and Territory courts, clause 14. With the passage of this Bill Australia will remain in the forefront of international endeavours to suppress terrorism. I commend the Bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.22) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Fitout works at 110 Goulburn Street, Sydney for the eastern region headquarters of the Australian Federal Police. This proposal, as I have just said, to fit out 110 Goulburn Street, Sydney, will enable various elements of the eastern region of the Australian Federal Police to be relocated into a single discrete building. This building is currently under construction and my Department of Administrative Services has precommitted a lease for 15 years with a further five-year option. The building will comprise 17 levels and provide 13,300 square metres of office space and 150 car parking spaces. The fit-out of the building will provide general office space to accommodate the various investigation units and the eastern region administration and support staff. It will also provide for scientific, forensic examination facilities, photographic processing areas, secure storage facilities, workshops, a pistol range and staff amenities such as locker rooms, showers, exercise room and a cafeteria. Accommodation for protected witnesses will also be provided. Access and facilities for the disabled have been incorporated into the base building and fitout designs. The base building is expected to be completed by January 1990 and the fitout will be completed in March 1990. The fitout of the premises is estimated to cost $8m at August 1988 prices. As the current accommodation of the Australian Federal Police is in such an appalling condition, I believe it is expedient that this work be carried out and I commend the motion to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.23) —On this side of the House, we have no difficulties with this motion except to say that the particular proposal that the Minister has put forward to the House today has not been drawn to my attention. I would have appreciated it if I could have had the opportunity to have a look at the proposal in some detail so that at least we could give a slightly more constructive reply than I am able to give today. I only ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West)-without being terribly angry about it-whether in future he would not mind passing these proposals to me before he introduces them into the House because as shadow Minister I have the responsibility for public works matters. I always say on these particular motions, too, that we do have concern about some of the work practices involved in the building industry and the construction industry. That concern, of course, extends to the public sector and we do not want to see taxpayers' money being abused in a way that will simply soak up that money in order to finance restrictive work practices. That argument applies as much to the fitout works of the eastern region headquarters of the Australian Federal Police as it does to any other public sector project. So, in the months ahead, I look forward to a constructive statement from the Minister on the industrial relations issues associated with these public works. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(4.24) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following works which were referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of new Commonwealth offices at: Frankston, Victoria and Oakleigh, Victoria. As part of the Government's continuing program of increasing ownership of its office accommodation in order to reduce overall rental outlays, it is proposed that two new office buildings be constructed in suburban Melbourne under the instalment purchase program. The first of these proposals is for the construction of a two-level office building of some 3,500 square metres net of office accommodation in Frankston. The site is centrally located close to the Frankston Civic Centre and contains an existing residence of local heritage significance. The proposed development has been designed to incorporate this residence and retain significant trees on the site. It is currently proposed to accommodate elements of the departments of Employment, Education and Training; Community Services and Health; Social Security; the Australian Electoral Commission; and the Federal member in this building. The estimated completion cost of this work is $13.2m. The second proposal is for the construction of a four-level office building of some 2,866 square metres net of office accommodation in Oakleigh. The site is located in the main retail centre in Oakleigh and is readily accessible to the public. In preparing the design for this building, careful consideration has been given to the local council's development guidelines for the area. Tenants currently proposed for this building include the departments of Social Security; Employment, Education and Training; and Community Services and Health. One of the design requirements of this building is that it be designed to accommodate a future extension of two further floors to realise the full development potential of this site and to accommodate possible future increases in Commonwealth office requirements in Oakleigh. From a building and operational point of view it is more practical that the building be constructed to its maximum size at the outset. To this end, the Department of Administrative Services proposes to seek an alternative submission from developers that would allow for the construction of the full six floors immediately at no additional cost to the Commonwealth over and above the four-floor proposal. The arrangements would permit the developer to lease the upper two floors for an agreed period. The estimated completion cost of the intitial four floors of office accommodation is $11.9m. I commend this motion to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.27) —The same comments that I made before apply to this particular proposal. Let me make one or two additional comments. The first is that I am actually pleased to see that these buildings are being constructed in suburban Melbourne and not in the central business district. Obviously, some of the services provided by the departments which are going to occupy the buildings relate to local communities and would be inappropriately located in some instances in the central business district. However, more than that, it is a matter of concern to me still that so many Federal Government buildings are located around Australia in the central business districts of our capital cities. It is clearly massively more expensive in terms of land costs if one is going to build the building, or rental costs if the building is rented, to do so in the central business district. It makes much more economic sense, wherever practicable, to choose suburban locations. I think I am right in saying that the electorate office of the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) is going to be in the Frankston area. I would hope that the fitout costs associated with the office of the honourable member for Dunkley in Frankston are not going to bear any relationship whatsoever to the enormous fitout costs of the office of Senator Christopher Schacht from South Australia. Mr N.A. Brown —What were they? Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for Menzies for asking that question because his fitout costs were well over twice the average fitout costs for a Federal member's office. That was a disgraceful saga. I think we ran through that saga fairly effectively, one way or another, in South Australia. I hope the same thing does not happen with the office of the honourable member for Dunkley. Honourable members can rest assured that on this side of the House we will be monitoring very carefully the amount of money the member expends on the fitout of the office. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston) —I present the report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure on the role and functions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr SAUNDERSON —by leave-The report which has just been tabled deals with the difficult, complex and fascinating subject of broadcasting and its regulation. The Committee has had to face-to use an apt phrase, given the current test season-a barrage of bumpers, of misconceptions, about the purposes of its inquiry. At the beginning, in January of this year, there was the view that the timing of the inquiry was a surreptitious way of deregulating the industry; of removing the claws from the already `toothless tiger'-a phrase used by the chairperson of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) to describe its lack of adequate powers. Just days before report presentation there was an implication in a report in the Canberra Times of 29 November that the Committee would be turning up the heat on the ABT. Depending on one's point of view, the report should dispel doubts or confirm suspicions about the intentions of the Committee. The terms of reference received from the former Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, in response to a broader request by the Committee, required us to examine the role and functions of the ABT in regulating the commercial broadcasting sector with particular reference to licence grants and licence renewals; ownership changes; establishment of program and advertising standards; and enforcement of these standards. Taken as a whole, they cover the case for and need for regulation. Chapter 3, `Overriding Issues', is the focal point of the report. The chapter, and in fact most of the report, deals mainly with television. Radio today does not raise the same concerns as television. The opening up of the spectrum has resulted in specialisation and greater diversity of choice, particularly in metropolitan markets. This is not the case with television and is unlikely to be so for a considerable time. The case for regulation of television is based on two factors which make broadcasting unique. The first is the impact of television, which is received into our lounge rooms and seen by adults and children alike. It deals with the particularly sensitive commodities of ideas, information, thought and opinion, compounded by the public perception of the mass media as opinion makers, image formers and culture disseminators. The second factor is the structure of the industry, where commercial television in Australia is dominated by three networks. It is television's powerful capacity to influence, combined with its ownership by a few, that has produced regimes of regulation and control throughout the Western world. Regulation itself can be separated into program regulation and structural regulation. The cases for these two types of regulation are discussed at paragraphs 3.39 to 3.60. I will not dwell on the detail and will list only the conclusions reached on program regulation. There is a clear case for program regulation of television which should cover the establishment and maintenance of program and advertising standards, children's programs, standards on taste and violence and Australian content. There is also a clear case for regulatory authority to have the power to improve the quality of television. Self-regulation, where appropriate, should be the outcome of a public participation process, with licensees being accountable to the regulatory authority. The case for structural regulation covers control of entry into the market, prevention of undue concentration, and restriction of foreign ownership and prohibition of foreign control of commercial broadcasting. Control of entry into the market has always been a feature of commercial radio and commercial television in Australia. Today, it is being questioned as an objective of structural regulation. Control of entry into the market is connected with the need for maintaining commercial viability. At present the Minister has the primary role and the Tribunal a subsidiary role in determining viability and thus regulating entry. The traditional argument supporting viability is the trade-off. Licensees are compelled to provide certain types of programs which result in both additional costs and loss of revenue. The trade-off for such costs and losses is the protection of advertising revenue by restricting entry. There are alternative ways of determining viability and all are related to what is called freeing up the market. One way is to protect the benefits as specifications in a tender process. After the capacity of applicants to meet these specifications has been tested, viability is then decided by awarding the licence to the highest tender which can meet the specifications. The Department says there is room on the spectrum for one more UHF service for Sydney and Melbourne. It can be used for another free-to-air channel, for public broadcasting, for the national broadcaster or for pay television. If the choice is between pay television and free-to-air, the question is whether the current method of controlling entry, the tender system, or something different is the best way of determining entry. The second reference the Committee received from the Minister was examination of the possibilities for the development of and the appropriate means of regulating new broadcasting related services. The best method of controlling entry will be a concern of that inquiry. In respect of structural regulation the findings of the Committee are that the regulation of entry into commercial television markets should continue until the possible effects of pay television-satellite and cable-have been fully considered; the Government should keep under constant review the issuing of new licences as a means of providing greater competition and increased variety of programs; regulation which prevents undue concentration of ownership and control of commercial broadcasting should be maintained; and regulation of foreign ownership and the prohibition of foreign control of commercial broadcasting should also be maintained. As the trade-off argument suggests, there are interconnections between structural and program regulation. Maintaining commercial viability is a major objective of broadcasting policy which has the capacity to sustain many other objectives, particularly those relating to the encouragement of Australian content and drama quotas and improvements in quality. It is what a United Kingdom House of Commons committee calls the `seamless robe' of broadcasting: that finance, structure and technical developments are all interrelated and that changes in one area would affect the whole of the current structure of broadcasting. There is a clear case for the regulation of commercial broadcasting. The need is conceded by all licensees who appeared before the Committee, though there are differing viewpoints on the extent and nature of that regulation. An associated matter then is the setting of roles and responsibilities of Parliament, Government and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in regulating commercial broadcasting. The Tribunal and others have asked for the Broadcasting Act to contain a concise set of policy objectives. This would show legislative intent in the regulatory process. The Committee has examined the stated objectives of broadcasting policy and has found them to be incomplete. For example, in our opinion, there should be an objective which could read as follows: `To protect the public and particularly children from offensive material by the setting of appropriate standards'. The Committee has accepted these proposals and has recommended that the Broadcasting Act specify the objectives of broadcasting policy. But by itself this is insufficient. It is well known that policy objectives are malleable, subject from time to time to different interpretations. My earlier comments on commercial viability illustrate that well. Therefore, the Committee has also recommended that from time to time the relevant Minister make a statement in the Parliament detailing the ways in which the policy objectives in the Act would be implemented. Chapter 3 has attempted to delineate the role and responsibilities of the Tribunal. We have said that the legislation should also give the ABT guidance on its role and functions. Our recommendation is that the Broadcasting Act should say that. Subject to judicial review by the courts and the institutions of administrative law, the role of the ABT is to protect the public interest by undertaking those functions set down in the Act; and having regard to the policy objectives in the Act and policy statements on broadcasting made by the relevant Minister pursuant to the Act. In short, the Tribunal is the Parliament's regulator of commercial broadcasting, and the recommendation I have just read out makes this abundantly clear. It must surely follow then that, if the words `accountability' or `public accountability' are to have relevance or meaning, broadcasters or licensees are accountable to the Tribunal and not to anyone else. The fallacy of broadcasters being accountable to the public gained currency with the Tribunal's 1977 report-self-regulation for broadcasters. This concept of public accountability is a misnomer. Licensees are not directly accountable to the public but to regulatory authority, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, by means of a process of public participation. The power of the Tribunal over licence renewals, for example, demonstrates the accuracy and relevance of the Committee's approach to accountability. Recognition of the reality of licensees being accountable to the Tribunal should reinforce the role of the Tribunal as the protector of the public interest, as described earlier. Broadcasters are accountable to the Tribunal which in turn is accountable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the quality of some ABT decisions. This is what our report refers to as the second tier of accountability. It is a tier some witnesses, particularly the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, want removed. The Administrative Review Council is examining the need for appeals to the AAT from Tribunal decisions. Because of this the Committee has made no recommendation on this matter. The Broadcasting Tribunal bases its case for exemption on two special features: the public inquiry process and the expert body argument. The Committee report does not concede either argument. In the broadest sense appeals to the AAT are a check against the possible misuse of power. It appears to me-this is not in the report-that administrative law is an application to public sector bureaucracies of Lord Acton's famous dictum: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is in this way that the appeals debate should be resolved, by considering the importance of those decisions. The Committee endorses the view that review of the merits of ABT decisions is part of an accountability process which in its essence should be no different from other important decisions made by other organisations subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I turn now to those chapters of the report which deal specifically with the terms of reference. The first is chapter 5, which deals with licence grants and renewals. The exclusive licensing criteria have been included under grants though this matter could have been located under renewals or ownership and control. The Tribunal and others want the criteria used in the granting of licences, the renewal of licences and the approval of share transactions to be made non-exclusive. Industry opposes such a move and places considerable emphasis on the certainty inherent in the criteria. Specific examples have been used to show how the criteria limit the Tribunal's decision making. Much of this is not convincing. I will deal only with the question of whether the Tribunal should decide on the level of industry concentration even if the licence grant or transfer does not contravene the ownership limits set by the Parliament. The Committee is of the view that if the criteria were made non-exclusive and the Tribunal allowed in effect to set its own limits, over time the will and intentions of the Parliament would become subservient to those of the Tribunal. The new audience reach limits have been set by the Parliament for specific reasons. They should be changed only by the Parliament and not by administrative decisions. Nevertheless, because the Committee believes the exclusive criteria cannot cover all the circumstances of every case, and because this applies more to licence grants than the other categories, an appropriate recommendation has been made. Turning to licence renewals the Committee has made the following recommendation in respect of the licence period: The current maximum period of three years for a licence be retained. Industry wants the period extended from three to seven years for television and from three to five years for radio. The basis for this was a proven track record and significant costs. The Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations said on 9 February that it would provide the relevant figures. In late November we received a global figure of $15m for all Tribunal-related matters-hardly an indication of the significant costs of renewals. The proven track record argument does not protect the public from poor performance which can go undetected for a longer period. Briefly, there are new procedures for speeding up licence renewals appropriately referred to as the `Manila Folder Inquiry'. An alternative to extending the renewal period is to examine the feasibility of making these procedures more flexible. Area inquiries is the next matter discussed under licence renewals. Such inquiries are provided for in the Act but the date from which such inquiries can be held is yet to be proclaimed. The purpose of area inquiries is to identify gaps in programming. This is why the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) should be required to participate. The definition of the area should be left to the Tribunal itself, but the Committee is firmly of the view that radio and television should not be combined. There should be separate area inquiries for each. To combine them, add the print media and then add on other broadcasting related services is to make the task unmanageable; to make a mountain out of a molehill. Finally there is the question of the outcome of an area inquiry. There are several possibilities. One is that an area inquiry could feed into the licence renewal process. The Committee supports area inquiries and has made appropriate recommendations in respect of them. Network licensing is the last of the matters considered in the chapter on licence grants and approval. Briefly, we fail to see what there is to be gained from the licensing of networks. We say that one does not need to license networks to overcome perceived deficiencies. Nevertheless, we agree with the view that there is a need for a mechanism to deal with network issues so that a decision made at a renewal hearing that is common to other commonly owned licences would be binding on those licensees. Appropriate recommendations have been made. Although not in chapter 4, I now refer to competitive licence renewal, a proposal made by the Tribunal. Frankly, we do not accept the doomsday warning of the industry with regard to this issue and believe that the modified proposal is a better last resort mechanism than exists under the current legislation. Our recommendation is: The Broadcasting Act 1942 be amended to provide that where the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal grants a licensee a short-term renewal and where at the end of that period the Tribunal determines that the licensee has not corrected the deficiency that led to the short-term renewal, the Tribunal can invite applications for that licence and select one of those applicants. The current option of cancellation of licence is seen as providing a solution which leaves the public worse off than with the poor service provided by the defaulting licensee. One of the objectives of broadcasting policy is to improve quality. In commercial broadcasting quality is determined in part by ratings. Ratings have been criticised for producing lowest common denominator programs for the largest possible audience, and thus for forsaking quality for ratings. The report recognises and endorses the important role of the Tribunal as quality controller in establishing and enforcing standards and improving quality. Quality can be maintained by not increasing the period of licence renewal. Quality can be improved by giving the Tribunal the power to conduct area inquiries, of monitoring networking and in special circumstances to make renewals competitive. Chapter 5 deals with ownership and control issues. One of the Tribunal's major roles is the supervision of changes in ownership and control of licences. As long as there is a licensing system, there is a need for a system of vetting changes in ownership or control in order to prevent licensing decisions from simply being subverted by the sale of a licensee company or the signing of an exclusive program supply agreement. But the present system is far too complicated, administratively burdensome and unclear about its basic policy base to continue in its present form. The Committee has re-examined the basic policy and has concluded that the Tribunal should concentrate on preventing changes in ownership or control of a licensee company which would nullify the Tribunal's decision to grant the licence to that company. By focusing on that policy objective, it is not only possible to produce a more effective system, but also to eliminate much of the regulatory dross that currently consumes Tribunal and licensee resources for little public benefit. The Committee has proposed a package of measures, incorporating the adoption of a trustee system for major share transactions along the lines of that in force in the United States, and the holding of mandatory inquiries whenever purchasers of shares cross certain shareholding hurdles. The Committee has also proposed a widening of the scope of the Tribunal's supervisory powers to cover any kind of change in control, not just that arising from a share transaction, coupled with the discretion to concentrate just on those changes which are significant in terms of the policy objective. The recommendations are in some detail and are at pages 73 and 74 of the report. The last two chapters of the report deal with program standards and their enforcement. Briefly, we believe, as already referred to, that such standard setting should continue. For example, the regulation of Australian content, including the determination of quotas for Australian drama, should continue to be determined by the Tribunal. It has been difficult to do much more than we have done in the area of standards because of the three Tribunal inquiries in this area-children's television, Australian content and the portrayal of violence on television. The Committee's concern about the portrayal of gratuitous violence on television is well demonstrated in the evidence. A problem with Tribunal standards is the exemption of the ABC and SBS from them. The Committee does not believe that the national broadcasters should be exempt. Granted that they have special functions, there is no reason why the Tribunal cannot take this into account when applying its standards to the ABC and SBS. Furthermore, one fails to see how special responsibilities absolve the national broadcaster from responsible presentation of the news or any other program. Our recommendations are that the Broadcasting Act 1942 be amended, firstly, to make the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service subject to all of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's powers to regulate program standards; and, secondly, to require the Tribunal, when enforcing such standards, to take account of the special responsibilities of the national broadcaster. I will leave to my colleagues the job of taking up other parts of the report which time precludes me from detailing. The inquiry into the role and functions of the ABT has been a long one. I appreciate the time, the contributions and the efforts of other members of the Subcommittee appointed to take evidence-Russ Gorman, the member for Greenway, and the Hon. Neil Brown, the member for Menzies, who due to his responsibilities in the shadow Ministry has been forced to resign from the Committee. His contribution will be missed. We were joined and well-supported by Alexander Downer, the member for Mayo, and by John Scott, the member for Hindmarsh. On behalf of the Committee I thank all those who made submissions, particularly those who made substantial submissions and appeared before the Subcommittee at public hearings. The Committee was also impressed by the contributions from people not directly involved in the industry. Whilst many of their submissions were not long in detail, they represented a clear concern of some sections of the community. The Committee appreciates that many more contributors would also have liked to appear personally before the Committee; it believes that the cross-section of witnesses accurately reflected the views of the community. I place on record my appreciation of the work of the Secretariat: Malcolm Aldons, the Secretary, and project officers Patrick Regan and Christopher Paterson, who collated and sorted the submissions, assisted in the organisation of the inquiry and the preparation of the report; and, in particular, June Murphy who had the onerous task of keying in our numerous drafts and amendments. I also thank Leo Grey, our adviser. The task of producing phototypeset in-house copies of the report in such a short period of time has taxed the resources, if not the patience, of parliamentary staff. I also thank John Stockbridge and Di Morrison who prepared the phototypeset copy, and John, Pat Norris and his team who printed, collated and stapled the report. Needless to say, this report is very much the product of considerable deliberations by members. It represents the views of the Committee. It is a report accepted and endorsed by all members of the Committee. Broadcasting, and particularly television, is a subject about which people hold strong, if not passionate and widely different views. Thus, any report on the controversial subject of broadcasting regulation could tend to be judged differently by those who win and those who lose from its outcomes. Our report should be judged by the contribution it makes to policy formulation in the regulation of commercial broadcasting. I commend the report to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —by leave-I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House on this issue, but I served as Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. I found the pursuit of our inquiry valuable and informative. It was partly so because it was a cooperative Committee that worked well together. I thank those who participated in its work. I refer particularly to the Chairman, the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson), the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr John Scott), the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman) and, at times, the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil). We worked as a harmonious committee. It was fortuitous that at the end of our deliberations, perhaps reflecting that harmonious approach, we were able to produce a single report and not have to end up with dissenting reports. I began my membership of the Subcommittee with a simple view-and I suppose I ended up in that fashion-as to the way in which the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal should operate and where it fits into the whole system of electronic media. I held the view, and still do, that consumers, the people of Australia, should be given diversity of choice so that they can make decisions about their own entertainment rather than having paternalists in Parliament preaching at them what they can and cannot watch, within some limitations to which I shall return. I hold the related view that there should be competition and that such competition should not be unnecessarily restricted-for example, through excessive concentration of ownership and control. That has been a concern of mine for quite some time. The third view is the obvious one that there is a limited amount of space on the spectrum, requiring some degree of regulation of the way the industry works. I have never doubted the fact, and this report confirms this view, that there is a continuing and important role for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal because of the very privileged position in our society held by licensees. Much concern was expressed in submissions to the Committee about the issue of standards on television, and less so in the case of radio. Initially, there was a view in the community that our Committee was examining the proposition that the Tribunal should be disbanded altogether and that we should not worry too much about standards. As far as I know, that view was never seriously entertained by the Committee, and is not a view that we have expressed in the final report. We all took the view that concern in the community about standards was real and important. I take the view that the Tribunal will have a continuing important role in ensuring that gratuitous sex and violence on television is not overplayed to cause offence to people in the community and harm to children. I have a particular concern about news programs, which are shown typically but not exclusively at six o'clock in the evening on television, which are accessible to children. At times the explicit violence in those programs can cause concern to children and possibly, in the longer term, even harm. The Tribunal has to walk down a difficult tightrope. On one side is the danger of plunging into the abyss of censorship, and on the other side it will encounter other sorts of problems. Some concern was expressed in submissions to the Committee that violence and some explicit sexual material on television was coming not so much from the commercial television stations as regulated by the Tribunal, but from our old friends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). In one case before the Committee there was reference to the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), but its ratings are so low that I suspect not many people who came before the Committee were habitual viewers of SBS. Some people expressed concern about the amount of violent and explicitly sexual material on the ABC. That is one very good reason why the ABC and SBS in setting standards should fall under the auspices of the Tribunal. It is important to recognise that the concerns in the community were reflected by myself and by other members of the Committee. Furthermore, much concern was expressed to the Committee-a concern I strongly share-about the power of what are sometimes know as the media magnates. These people, who are the controllers of the three networks around Australia, as licence-holders have a special and privileged position in society. It is interesting to reflect on discussion in the Committee on how one should quantify that privilege in the hands of media magnates. At the end of the debate it seemed to me that a licence in any one of the three networks is probably worth about $400 million, and that network assets are worth about $600 million. These are ball park figures, but there seemed to be a general view that those figures were reasonably accurate, so far as such figures could ever be established. It shows that the privilege of being a licensee is a $400 million privilege for the magnates who hold the licences. When they are given that privilege-and it must be a privilege because there is a limited spectrum; there cannot be sufficient competition to take away that sense of privilege-there must be proper regulation and accountability to the public. Let us not forget that that great privilege must bring with it serious obligations and those magnates must discharge the obligations, as the community would expect of them. There is a view in the community that from time to time licensees have been a little arrogant-a view which came across to us as a Committee. There was the view that licence renewal hearings were not renewal hearings at all, but were reviews only and were treated by the networks as such. That, as it turns out, is probably the only practical way of looking at licence renewals. We certainly came to the view that the concept of competitive licence renewals would bring with it enormous financial as well as other difficulties. I will not go into all of that now. That is covered in the report. It is important to note that we came to a conclusion that the Broadcasting Act should be changed so that, if there was only a short term renewal granted and there was a deficiency which persisted in spite of the short term renewal being granted, there should be a process of competitive renewals flowing. That is a good compromise on the part of the Committee. I do not think competitive renewals will be terribly practicable. If there are deficiencies which are not rectified, the magnates who have these enormous obligations to the community should be on notice that there will be a process of competitive renewals and therefore, in a sense, proper sanctions placed on them if they do not uphold the provisions that may be placed on them by the Tribunal. We have also been very concerned about the issue of change of ownership and control of the networks and the various stations operating within those networks. A number of different propositions in that context have been discussed. The present system of post-transaction approvals makes a mockery of the approval procedure. It seriously undermines the role of the Tribunal. In some instances, the media magnates have found, in my view, pretty creative ways of getting around some of the requirements of the Tribunal, although I am not suggesting for a minute they have done anything which is remotely illegal. But they have used creative ways to at least postpone the day the Tribunal will get around to giving its approval to the transactions. There is the famous 3DB story known as the passed parcels story amongst members of the Committee. That was a matter of real concern for us, particularly, as I have said, as change of ownership and control is a big issue in the community. When one is talking about these positions of privilege and power, it should be a matter of concern in the community. Some suggested that we should return to the days of prior approval. I noticed a number of witnesses who appeared before the Committee arguing that that would make takeovers extraordinarily difficult and would actually protect the position of incumbent licensees from any potential raiders. That would be a restrictive trade practice matter. For me, that was a very strong argument against moving back to the prior approval arrangement. The Committee has come up with a very good solution. I hope the Government will implement its solution. I will not go into the details of it, but it is a solution based on the American system of a trusteeship arrangement. This will give the Broadcasting Tribunal a substantially increased role in doing what it is supposed to do; that is, granting approvals for changes in control and ownership. Let me briefly refer to the issue of structural regulation, as it is known; the issue of how one restricts entry into the market and to what degree one should restrict that entry. I have already mentioned that, as everybody in Australia knows, in television as well as radio the spectrum provides limitations. The question is whether that spectrum should be the only limitation or whether the Tribunal, the Government or the Minister should add an additional limitation to the number of licences issued. The argument which is fairly widely accepted amongst people involved in this area is the so-called trade-off argument in which the Tribunal determines that certain standards be met. It determines issues such as local content and other standards of the kind I referred to earlier, such as violence, explicit materials and similar matters. Certain standards will be laid down. The trade-off is that there might be slightly less competition than would otherwise be the case if those standards were not imposed. I have never found that argument totally convincing. I think that, given minimum standards, the market would in any case be able to determine what was viable and what was not in terms of the number of, say, television stations that the system could cope with within the parameters of the spectrum. It has been put to us by the Department of Transport and Communications that there could be an extra television station in both Sydney and Melbourne. I see no reason why that could not go ahead, assuming that any extra licensee was prepared to meet the standards imposed by the Tribunal. It has been argued that an extra licence would not provide greater diversity of choice. I do not agree with that argument. It is certainly my view that an additional licence would provide additional choice; there would be no point in the new licensee providing an identical program to an existing licensee. Ipso facto it must follow that therefore there is greater choice for the community. One aspect of those structural regulations that I support is the restriction of foreign ownership. I note that the Committee wants to continue those restrictions on foreign ownership. We also want to avoid the concentration of ownership. In conclusion, I started off on this Committee not knowing a great deal about the communications industry. Some people may think that I still do not know a great deal about it. But I can tell the House that I know a great deal more than when I set out on this endeavour. I started off with a simple view about choice and competition, and concerns about limited space on the spectrum and so on. I retain that view and I think that the report of the Committee has provided some constructive ways of ensuring that that system, which fits within my view, can operate more efficiently than it has in the past. Let me join the Chairman in thanking the Secretariat-in particular, Malcolm Aldons, the Secretary of the Committee, and his good supporters-for all the work they have done. I am sure we have given them a bit of a run around and made life terribly difficult for them but they have always been willing and enthusiastic to help. Any secretariat that can put up with the impatience and impulsiveness of policiticians is patient indeed. They have certainly filled that bill. Mr JOHN SCOTT(Hindmarsh) —by leave-I join the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson), in thanking the staff for their contribution to the work of the Committee. I also want to congratulate the Chairman for the work he has carried out. I also single out the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), who attended most of the meetings and made extremely valuable contributions. In my remarks in support of the Committee's report on the role and functions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) I would like to concentrate on two major areas: first, the ABT's responsibilities and the means at its disposal to carry these out and, second, whether the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) should adhere to the ABT's program standards. The Tribunal came into existence in 1978 as a result of the so-called Green inquiry into self-regulation of the broadcasting industry. It replaced the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The Tribunal is obliged to consult with the commercial television industry. During the inquiry, the Committee heard a great deal about the ABT's procedures. We believe the public inquiry process is an appropriate means of involving the public and note the measures taken by the ABT to reduce the adversarial way these have been conducted for the greater involvement of viewers. The ABT's powers are set out in section 16 of the Broadcasting Act. These powers include granting, renewal and revocation of licences, determinations of program standards, holding of inquiries and publishing reports of those inquiries. In 1987-88, the actual appropriation for the Tribunal's activities was $8.023m. For 1988-89, the estimated allocation is $8.98m. To carry out its functions the staff years involved are estimated to drop from 145.6 in 1987-88 to 139.5 in 1988-89. In this financial year, it is estimated the Tribunal will collect $83.5m in licence fees from the 50 commercial television stations around the country-an average of over $1.5m from each of these stations. In addition to its other powers, the Broadcasting Act requires the Tribunal to classify children's television programs before they are screened. The ABT has determined that such children's programs must be shown from 4 to 5 p.m. each weekday. As a Committee, we believe that it is appropriate for commercial television stations to provide special programs for children. In order to advise on the classification of children's programs generally and to determine standards for those programs, the Tribunal has set up the Children's Program Committee. During its inquiry, evidence was taken from this Committee and I would like to pay tribute to the work it has done. We believe that regulation by the Tribunal of children's programs is appropriate and should continue. As our Chairman, the honourable member for Aston, has pointed out, this inquiry received a great number of submissions from all over the country. Many of these concentrated on a specific matter: the regulation of program standards. It is quite clear that there is a significant concern in the community about program standards generally and, specifically, about the amount of violence on television. It was also clear to us that the community does not understand the Tribunal's processes and that neither the Tribunal nor the commercial television industry has made adequate efforts to inform the community of these processes and their separate concerns. We have, therefore, recommended that both the industry and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal develop and undertake a public education campaign with the objective of improving the understanding of the operation of the broadcasting system and the responsibilities of both licensees and the Tribunal. The Committee has recommended that the Broadcasting Act be amended to include the objectives of broadcasting policy. Among these objectives are the protection of the public from offensive material and improvements in the quality of television. Given these objectives and our argument that these objectives are best achieved by regulation, we believe that there should be definite and observable links between program standards, methods of checking the observance of standards and, if they are not observed, methods of enforcing compliance. The latter point is dealt with in the report at some length, as is the question of standards, but I would like to make a few points about the checking mechanism. The Tribunal has the responsibility to establish and monitor various standards; the community is vitally concerned in the same area. Sanctions are a means of ensuring compliance with the objectives of broadcasting, and with the various standards. For this compliance mechanism to work properly, there needs to be some sort of monitoring process to detect breaches and bring them to the Tribunal's attention. Witnesses complained that the Tribunal was unable to deal satisfactorily with complaints about material being shown at inappropriate times, or the number of advertisements in a given time, because the ABT no longer monitors material transmitted on television. The Tribunal's Chairman confirmed that, for financial reasons, monitoring had been discontinued. By default, then, the Tribunal relies upon public interest groups and individuals to bring possible breaches of standards to its notice. It also places on licensees a serious responsibility of accountability to the public. Where there are complaints, these should be dealt with promptly. It seems to me that the current situation is not satisfactory. Because the Tribunal itself cannot adequately monitor performance against the various standards, the public cannot always get satisfaction for perceived breaches of these standards. The Broadcasting Act requires radio stations to retain tapes of news and current affairs programs for six weeks after they are broadcast. We do not believe that it is an imposition for commercial television stations to retain a complete record on tape of their programs for such a period. In fact, it would serve the interests of all those involved-consumers, licensees and the regulatory authority-if tapes were available to resolve disputes. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the Tribunal should institute a system of monitoring television and radio broadcasts based on random spot checking to detect breaches of program standards and licence conditions. It has also recommended that in the case of television and radio broadcasts, a complete record of each day's transmission should be retained by the corporation or licensee, as the case may be, for a period of six weeks from the date of transmission, and that these records be made available to the Tribunal on request. The second matter I would like to cover is the question of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service, the Broadcasting Tribunal's standards and the amount of Australian drama to be shown on television. At present, neither the ABC nor the SBS is required to adhere to the Tribunal's standards, although the ABC is obliged by its Act to take account of these standards. There is a community concern about this matter which we share. We do not accept that the current situation should continue and have recommended that the Broadcasting Act 1942 be amended, firstly, to make the ABC and SBS subject to all of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's powers to regulate program standards and, secondly, to require the Tribunal, when enforcing such standards, to take account of the special responsibilities of the national broadcasters. The other recommendation in this area is that section 6 (2) (a) (II) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 be repealed. Together with the amendments to the Broadcasting Act this would ensure the ABC was covered by the Tribunal standards. Commercial licensees are obliged to show at least 104 hours per year of prime time, first release Australian drama. In recent years the ABC has not been able to reach this level. We believe that if the amount of Australian drama to be shown on television is sufficiently important, for either cultural or economic reasons, to be regulated by the Tribunal, a national broadcaster such as the ABC should lead the way. Production costs for Australian drama programs are very high and this has been advanced as a reason for the ABC's poor performance in this area, at a time when its overall budget has been reduced. Canada considers the question of the content of its television so important that its Broadcasting Act includes an objective that the system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians for the protection of `the cultural, political, social and economic fabric' of the country. Another significant objective in that Act is the use of predominantly Canadian creative and other resources in television. If Australian values and identity are important, I believe that the ABC should be showing the way and producing no less Australian drama than the Tribunal stipulates. If adopted, our recommendation that the ABC and SBS be covered by the Tribunal's standards would oblige the ABC to show at least that amount. If the ABC needs more resources to achieve a yearly figure of 104 hours of Australian drama, or more than that, so be it. The Committee's report will, I hope, make a significant contribution to commercial broadcasting in Australia. It should help to clarify the Tribunal's powers for the benefit of the industry. If the education campaign we have recommended is implemented, the Tribunal, the industry and the public will benefit because the rules and public process which govern commercial television in Australia will be better understood. Effective monitoring of programs can only result in resolution of disputes more satisfactorily for all. We believe that the Tribunal, through its public inquiry processes, is the appropriate means of regulating commercial television. We support the community's view that the ABC and SBS should be subject to standards determined as a result of such processes. I commend the report to the House. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —by leave-Most points of substance have been covered in the remarks made already, so there is no need for me to delay the House very long. However, there are a few matters I would like to place on record. It is my view, and I am sure it is a view shared by all members of the Committee, that I should place on record my appreciation, firstly, for the work of the Chairman of this Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, who like Diogenes led us through the valley of darkness in search of wisdom and, to some extent, under his guidance we were able to acquire some knowledge and reach some sensible conclusions. Secondly, it is appropriate to thank Mr Aldons, the Secretary of the Committee and his able and competent supporters. I also thank and acknowledge the work of the adviser to the Committee, Mr Leo Grey, for his considerable assistance and help. This report is all embracing and it is difficult to select one recommendation which is important above all others. In my view the most significant recommendation is No. 13, which comes under the heading `Ownership and Control' and which sets up the proposed trustee structure for the holding of shares in broadcasting companies where there is a change in the interests of the ownership of the company or a change in control, and enables the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal as a result of that trustee situation to make its determination as to whether an approval should be given to the transfer of ownership. That is a very radical proposal for Australia. It is a model that comes from the United States and the Committee feels there is great merit in it. It is our attempt to resolve the question which has arisen many times in recent years: what do you do when suddenly you find that a television or radio station has been sold and the matter then has to go off to the Broadcasting Tribunal for approval? One can ask whether it is a real approval that the Tribunal is considering and what will happen anyway if the Tribunal says that it does not approve it. The egg has been scrambled and the question is how to unscramble it. Our solution is to prevent the egg from becoming scrambled in the first place and to enable the Tribunal to have real power and real influence and therefore make effective decisions in the interests of the public. It is an important recommendation for another reason, namely, that it should remind investors and licensees that their licences are not mere playthings to be bought and sold like football teams. They have an obligation to the community, and one of the manners in which that obligation can be demonstrated and expressed in a tangible form is to strengthen up the law relating to the transfer of ownership of licences so that no one henceforth need assume, and I hope this will be put into legislation, that simply because they go off and do a deal in the Melbourne Club or anywhere else, automatically that deal, if it is in radio and television, will be put into practice. It will now be subject to a real and substantial scrutiny by the Broadcasting Tribunal and, not to put too fine a point on it, that deal may be undone. I would like briefly to make a few other points. The first is that it must be said-and this is one of the general conclusions that we all reached-that people do expect better from television than they are getting today. Conclusion No. 11 is our way of expressing that, saying as it does: It is clear the Australian community believes that TV programs should reflect and maintain community standards. What flows from that proposition is that many people expressed the view to us=mand I think it is a community view; certainly a view held in some sections of the community-that TV programs today do not reflect and maintain community standards. There was a clearly demonstrated concern by some thousands of people who wrote to us and who gave evidence before the Committee that there is a widely held view in the community that television is not presently coming up to scratch for them. In many cases standards are not those that people would like to see maintained on television but rather are lower than the standards they would like to see demonstrated. There was a concern that there was not that wholesome nature to the programs that many people would like to see demonstrated. Sometimes people pour scorn on those who complain about falling standards in television programs, and it should be placed on record that all members of our Committee-and we can only speak for ourselves-took these comments and criticisms very seriously, and the concern expressed by the community about community standards in television, and to a lesser extent in radio, are reflected in the conclusions we reached, particularly the conclusion that the Australian community believes TV programs should reflect and maintain community standards. Without going through them in detail, I point out that a number of other conclusions follow on from conclusion No. 11 which set out what the Committee thinks should be done about it, ending up by reminding the Government that it also has an obligation when it appoints people to the Broadcasting Tribunal to remember that it is not just finding jobs for the boys or girls but putting people on the Broadcasting Tribunal in positions of trust and responsibility where one of their major jobs is to implement within radio and television these community standards I have been speaking about. Of course there were extremes, and one finds this in evidence given before parliamentary committees. One witness, for instance, maintained that the cartoon Bugs Bunny should be banned from television because it encourages warlike attitudes amongst children. Another novel idea which could not be put into practice but which expresses a sentiment in itself was that the evening television news should be divided into two distinct parts, the good news which should be shown first, and the bad news which should be shown second, and that in the interval, where there would be a commercial, children and others of a sensitive disposition could retreat so as not to be offended by the bad news. I have mentioned that not because it is something of an extreme but because it shows that there is a substantial section of the community who are almost frustrated as to what they can do when the media is not maintaining the standards they expect and the quality is not up to the standard they would hope for. The solution is not the solution that was promoted in the most absurd submission we had, which I think was from the President of the Free Speech Committee. His solution was that he banned his children from watching all television. That is not a practical solution. We have to accept that television is a major part of community life these days and we have to do whatever we can to help it serve a useful social purpose. I wish to draw particular attention to the fact that in conclusion No. 5 we touched on the question that the Government should keep under constant review the issuing of new licences as a means of providing greater competition and increased variety in programs. We have not said that the Government should immediately go out and issue new licences in radio and television. We certainly have not said that there is no case to justify new licences. What we are doing in that conclusion is reminding licensees that they may not necessarily be one of the only three members of the exclusive club forever. It is always open to the government to call for the issuing of new licences in radio and television. It is always open to people in the community to express the view themselves that if there were additional licences that would be one way of obtaining an improvement in quality, and certainly in variety, particularly in the area of television. Those who gave evidence against the issuing of new licences were-it follows almost as night follows day-the present licensees. Despite the fact that they held themselves out as doyens of free enterprise and competition they made it painfully clear to the Committee that the last thing they wanted was more competition. Although it was dressed up with some pretty lofty notions, at the end of the day that was really what they were saying. They did not want any more competition. Some, in support of maintaining their privileged positions, went to what I would regard as quite extraordinary and extreme lengths. For instance, Mr Skase, who gave us the benefit of his thoughts on this subject, used as an analogy the deregulation of the aviation industry in the United States. He painted a horrifying picture of aeroplanes falling from the sky as a result of the United States lifting controls on aviation, as has happened in recent years. Probably one of the most disappointing parts of the inquiry was the evidence from trade unionists. One would think that they would be in favour of more licences because there would be more employers and more jobs and more members would cease to be unemployed and would find jobs in the expanded industry. It was a matter of great regret to me that those who should, because they come from the creative sections of society, have been at the vanguard of opening up competition and expanding opportunities in this industry were unfortunately at the vanguard of keeping the doors closed and preventing any more competition. That was sad and unfortunate and I hope that they can see their way clear in due course to join the band wagon-I think it will become a band wagon-calling for additional licences and more competition in this field. I refer now to recommendation 4, which relates to the criteria the Broadcasting Tribunal uses when it comes to issuing licences. There was a big debate, which I will not touch upon, as to whether the Tribunal should use exclusive criteria-that is, a limited list of tests-or non-exclusive criteria. Our conclusion is that the criteria for licence grants should be made non-exclusive by allowing-this is the point-the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to take into account any other matter or circumstance it considers relevant. In other words, we are saying that when the Tribunal considers the grant of television and radio licences it should be allowed to take into account any matter or circumstance that it considers relevant; so it can take what is sometimes referred to as the broad picture in reaching conclusions about issuing licences. I mention this because it is my view-it is not the view of the Committee; we did not take the matter this far-that one matter that should be taken into account by the Tribunal is whether the licensee or the applicant for a licence has a long-term commitment to the industry, to radio and television. The Tribunal should apply that test. I regret to say that, unfortunately, some licensees these days do not regard themselves as holding licences so that they can advance the cause of radio and television; they hold licences simply as today's fashionable way of making money. It is regarded as an investment, nothing more and nothing less. There is nothing wrong with trying to make money but what concerns me is that the attitude of using a licence simply for investment could militate against quality, variety and long term improvements in radio and television. If people are there for a quick dollar, they will get in and out and probably sell the licence as quickly as possible. That is not a contribution to high quality in radio and television; it is a contribution to low quality. It seems that the equivalent of the bowling alleys in the 1950s, the shopping centres in the 1960s and the tourist developments in the 1970s is now radio and television. People get into it, make as much money as they can quickly-probably through a deal involving selling the licence a few months or a few years later, and then get out having made a lot of money. That attitude does not contribute to improving the quality of television and radio. I have no criticisms whatsoever of Mr Bond-I admire him very much, particularly for his attitude to the new university that he is establishing and for his courage in investing in Chile-but one of the television interests of his company, the Hong Kong television station, was sold after only a few days and the United Kingdom television service was sold only a few days ago. What is to become of Channel 9? Is that also to be sold? We were told that the reason he had interests overseas in television was to provide a worldwide network which would achieve great things for television which had never been seen in this country before. Now we see bits of it being sold off again. What is going to be sold next? I do not say that that company does not have a long term commitment to television. I simply raise this matter, and it is one that must be addressed. In my view one of the criteria that the Tribunal should have regard to is: Does the licensee or the applicant have a long-term commitment to radio and television or does he just regard it as another equivalent of beer and marmalade which will not contribute at all to the continuing improvement of quality in radio and television? That is one thing that I believe the Broadcasting Tribunal should look at. In conclusion, I think we would all hope-because this is a unanimous report-that the Government will accept our contribution as a serious and substantial one to the community's examination of the media. We hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the recommendations contained in the report. Mr GORMAN(Greenway) —by leave-I was one of the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure Subcommittee which travelled from coast to coast taking evidence from the large number of witnesses who attended the various public meetings. Mr Hollis —You did very well. Mr GORMAN —I have just received a compliment from my associate. The committee received about 4,000 submissions from the public and various organisations. Over 100 people, who represented a good cross-section of the community, came forward at the public meetings. I want to say a few things about the inquiry and the report. First, I will not attempt to top the statement by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) about the Chairman of the Committee. along with other members of the Committee I congratulate him for the effort he put into preparing the report. He certainly spent many hours doing that. I must say that we enjoyed the benefits because we are associated with a unanimous report. A great deal of the work was done by the Chairman and, of course, by the secretariat and secretariat staff. I would also like to thank all my fellow members, the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr John Scott)-who made a statement previously-and, particularly, the honourable member for Menzies, whom I follow in this debate, and all the other members who worked as part of the full Committee. As I stated at the beginning of my speech, I was fortunate in being a member of the Subcommittee that covered most of Australia in the various public meetings. Like many, if not most, members of parliament, I am concerned about the standards relating to television and any possible deterioration in these standards. I well remember many years ago when rugby league was first broadcast on television in Sydney. It started to look like the A-Team on a holiday. The cry went out to get those thugs off our television screens. The public is simply not prepared to tolerate the depiction of gratuitous violence and other departures from the norm in respect of standards. Taking this into account, each member of the Committee virtually came to the same conclusion regarding the following issues. It decided that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) should be required to comply with the standards of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT). That is not a suggestion that the Tribunal has embraced to its heart. It is not a suggestion that the ABC will accept with much relish, I am sure. The Corporation says that it should be exempt from complying with the ABT standards because of the special requirements of the national broadcasters. Our report states that the special requirements argument and those of applying the ABT's standards to the Corporation are not mutually exclusive. In other words, it is possible for the ABC and the SBS to be required to comply with the standards the Tribunal may set and also for the Tribunal to take into account the different responsibility of the national broadcasters. Our recommendation 15 at page 89 of the report does this. Briefly, what we have done is turn things around a bit. Instead of the ABC being required to take into account the standard set by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, we recommend that the ABC and the SBS comply with those standards and we ask the Tribunal in its undertaking to take into account the special responsibilities of the national broadcasters. Taken as whole, I suspect that the recommendations of the Committee would require the Tribunal to be given additional resources. I do not retreat from the need for this. I believe that the additional funding required to make sure that it has the resources to carry out its duties should be approved by the Government. I express my thanks to all persons from the public and, of course, those people from industry who came forward with answers to many questions and who supplied a great deal of information. In conclusion, I wish to sincerely thank the Secretariat and the staff. I thank Mrs June Murphy, Patrick Regan, Chris Paterson, the adviser Leo Grey, and all who were involved in making this report such a memorable one. I hope that the Government takes note of its recommendations and conclusions. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(5.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In July 1988 the Government released its policy statement on higher education which proposed, among other things, the consolidation of higher education institutions and abolition of the binary system. The amalgamation of the Australian National University (ANU), Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE) and Canberra Institute of the Arts (CITA) effected by the Australian National University Bill 1988 is in keeping with these proposals. The policy statement noted that the advantages to be gained from such amalgamations included the opportunity for greater breadth in course offerings available to students, improved career options for staff, enhanced teaching and research arrangements and economies in administration. In contrast to the approach of the former coalition Government, this Government has taken the position that any savings accruing from amalgamations will be retained by the institution. The policy statement also highlighted the advantages of attaining an approximate size of 8,000 equivalent full time student units (EFTSU). At this size there is the basis, in terms of staff numbers and resources, to provide a wide range of programs and study options and maintain a comprehensive research infrastructure. In July 1988 a steering committee was set up to advise on the amalgamation of the ANU, CCAE and CITA. The Steering Committee was chaired by Mr Hugh Hudson, formerly Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The other members of the Committee were Professor Laurie Nichol, Vice-Chancellor of the ANU, Professor Roger Scott, Principal of CCAE, Professor Peter Karmel, Executive Chairman of the Canberra Institute of the Arts, and Mr Keith Lyon, Deputy Secretary of the ACT Administration. The Steering Committee was assisted by a broadly-based reference group, including representatives from staff and students associations, the Trades and Labour Council of the ACT and the Confederation of ACT Industry. The Steering Committee presented its report in October. It noted that there were many advantages to be gained from an amalgamation. The amalgamated institution will have a student load in excess of 10,000 EFTSUs and will be a national institution capable of sustaining a broad range of teaching and research activities. There are also prospects for economies of scale, which, in the longer term, will provide the opportunity for an expansion in student numbers. Amalgamation should lead to wider subject choices in some degree courses and facilitate new developments such as engineering. For example, the decision to allocate over $8m for an engineering and information science building at the CCAE was taken on the assumption that this Bill would be passed and the enhanced Engineering School would become part of the new university. The Government has accepted the thrust of the Hudson Committee's recommendations and incorporated them in the present Bill. The Committee also commented on the role of the amalgamated university in the ACT and the southern region of New South Wales. The Committee envisaged the new university as a principal focus for growth for students from the ACT and surrounding areas, while retaining its position of national importance and attracting students and academic visitors from overseas. These dual roles have been specifically recognised in the legislation under the functions of the university. The Steering Committee recommended that the new university be called the Australian National University, while emphasising the need to preserve the existing nature of certain activities of the Canberra Institute of the Arts and the Canberra College of Advanced Education-namely, performance and creative aspects of CITA courses and the specifically occupational flavour of many CCAE courses. In framing the present legislation the Government has been mindful of the fact that it is creating a new university, not subsuming two existing institutions into a third. The separate character of the Institute of Advanced Studies of the present ANU will also be retained. The Steering Committee did not make recommendations on academic structures or staffing arrangements for the new university. Rather, these will be determined by the governing council of the new university upon establishment. A 13-member Interim Council chaired by Sir Geoffrey Yeend, a former Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and current Pro-Chancellor of the ANU, was established after the Steering Committee had presented its report. The Interim Council's task was to select the Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the new university. The Interim Council has recommended appointment of Professor Laurie Nichol as Vice-Chancellor and Professor Roger Scott as Deputy Vice-Chancellor. Professor Nichol is currently Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University and Professor Scott is the Principal of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I have accepted the recommendations of the Interim Council and the appointments will be made following the passage of the legislation. Identifying the Vice-Chancellor and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor at this time will overcome the problems which would have arisen had there been any extended period of uncertainty regarding the leadership of the new university. Professor Nichol and Professor Scott are both highly qualified and respected academics with extensive experience in the management of higher education institutions. The terms and conditions of their appointments will be no less favourable than those to which they are entitled in their current appointments. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor, as the next most senior officer after the Vice-Chancellor, would be expected to deputise for the Vice-Chancellor as necessary and to have duties ranging over the whole of the university's activities. It is seen as appropriate for Professor Scott to also have special responsibility for overseeing the effective integration of existing faculties of the Australian National University and the schools of the Canberra College of Advanced Education and for ensuring that recognition is given to the special needs of the Canberra Institute of the Arts. Finally, as first Deputy Vice-Chancellor, he will be a member of the univer- sity's Governing Council. As far as members of staff are concerned, the Bill provides for continuity of service on the same terms and conditions as applied in their employment immediately before the commencement of the legislation. Continuity of entitlements to benefits is also provided for. It is expected that titles for academic staff will reflect the character of the new university. The Bill provides for a permanent council of 18 members. Among those appointed by the Governor-General, two will be appointed on the recommendation of the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory in recognition of the relationship between the university and the self-governing Australian Capital Territory. I met with the four members of the Federal Parliament who currently serve on the council of the ANU. It was their unanimous view that a continued presence of Commonwealth Parliamentary representatives on the council would be beneficial to a national institution. Accordingly, two members of the Commonwealth Parliament will be appointed to the council, one on the nomination of the Prime Minister and one on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition. Academic staff, general staff, students and members of convocation are to be represented on the council as well. For a transitional period of one year there will be a 23-member council with two members, rather than one from each of the academic staff of the faculties, general staff and students. There will also be provision for an additional council-appointed position to be available for the transitional period. This transitional arrangement for a limited number of additional members is intended to help ease the amalgamation process, overcome any potential problems of discontinuity, and ensure adequate representation of the views of the parties involved. It is important to recognise, however, that this is a transitional arrangement. It is critical to the success of the amalgamation that there be no attempt to entrench distinctions between the component parts that will merge to form the new university. I would like to extend my thanks and congratulations to the many members of the existing institutions who have already put a great deal of effort into ensuring a smooth and effective amalgamation. Professors Scott and Nichol deserve special mention in this respect. I hope that the introduction of this Bill and the enthusiasm and leadership that have already been demonstrated will encourage a greater commitment from those few elements within the institutions that have been slower to recognise the opportunities that this change presents. Finally, I would like to make it clear that there will be the opportunity for all interested parties to consider the Bill carefully before it is debated. Certain aspects of the Bill will properly be the topic of discussion and debate. The Government believes that the Bill presents the best formulation for the structure and operation of the new university. Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be useful ideas on matters such as the ways in which both post-graduate and under-graduate students can have an appropriate level of input to university decision-making. The Government is willing to listen to well-considered views on such matters and is prepared to examine possible amendments if a case can clearly be made for changes which will improve the operation of this Bill, without detracting from its essential elements. I table the report from Sir Geoffrey Yeend in relation to the recommendations of the Interim Council and also the report of the Steering Committee. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, I present the Committee's report on the use of ionising radiation, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Ms McHugh)-by leave-proposed: That the House take note of the report. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Peacock had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the view that: (1) a thorough analysis of Australia's contribution to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development is long overdue; and (2) in future, the Australian Government should take a more active role in the forums of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to explain this nation's growing concerns with the bank's management and direction, and to convey the message that a more efficient utilisation of the bank's existing resources must eventuate before further contributions to its capital base will be provided'. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(5.55) —I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I take this opportunity of making a general comment about Australia's development assistance program. Unfortunately, that program has taken something of a beating under the present Hawke Labor Government. In the last financial year 1987-88, expenditure on the program was just in excess of $1,000m, representing about 0.36 per cent of the gross domestic product. In the first full year, 1983-84, of this Hawke Government, the ratio of international aid to gross domestic product was 0.51 per cent. If that percentage had been maintained, with gross domestic product amounting to $292 billion in 1987-88, the total expenditure on aid and development assistance would have been $1,490m, nearly 50 per cent higher than the $1 billion actually spent in 1987-88. That is the clearest indication of the very large deterioration quantitatively in the aid performance of this Government. That is inexcusable, but it does make it all the more important to ensure that we get maximum value for the money that is spent. It is, in fact, true that the average figure for the richer developed countries has itself been lower in more recent years. I make the point that when account is taken of the capital and interest payments on the vast trillion dollars-that is, $1,000 billion-of debt of the developing countries, which is a major subject in itself, then according to some estimates the net flow to the developing countries has been actually negative. That is to say, there has been a reverse net flow of financial resources from the poor countries to the rich countries. It is a totally perverse position, not only in terms of international social justice-I think of the maxim of Christ, `Of those to whom much is given, much will be expected'-but also in terms of plain, long-term, economic and political self-interest of us all. As I say, it is a totally perverse position. However, this Bill is specifically concerned with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, often referred to for short as the World Bank. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development was formed in the early post-World War II years to aid in post-war reconstruction and the development of newly independent countries. Australia became a member in 1947. The bank, particularly over the past decade, has grown to a very large institution-some would say, disparagingly, a vast bureaucratic empire. It is worth noting that the bank has an annual budget of the order of $15 billion, which it is envisaged will grow to the order of $20 billion if the current proposed $75 billion capital increase is finally achieved. This Bill before the House is to approve Australia's contribution to that capital increase of a nominal order of nearly $1 billion but involving in actual paid-in portion of $US28.5 million. As the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris) said in his second-reading speech, Australia has been a strong but not uncritical supporter of the World Bank. But criticism of the bank has been growing stronger. My colleague the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) enlarged on criticisms of the bank earlier in this debate. I support much of what he has said. He would advocate a very careful look indeed in agreeing to this proposed capital increase. One aspect of that is that the major and traditional emphasis on project lending has increasingly given way to so-called policy-based lending in recent years. That means, in a word, telling the developing countries how to organise their economies in return for loans. That is tied in with increasing emphasis on so-called structural adjustment loans (SALs), which in practice can finance anything from specific physical investment, rationalisation and adjustment programs, to a general budget deficit. To the extent that those loans encourage less regulation and freer markets and allow the citizens of developing countries more freely to invest, trade, produce and reap the rewards of their efforts, that is a good thing, although there is a question whether that is a proper role for the World Bank. It is rather like a longer term lending equivalent of the International Monetary Fund. However, even in that area, unhappily, the record has not been too good. The more important and positive point I want to make is that tied in with that policy-based lending should be a role of the bank as coordinator, encourager of private lending and development activity. Certainly, the bank and other development institutions and governments should be much more active in the role of catalyst in promoting private lending and private initiative in development assistance activity than they have been. The encouraging of more appropriate policies in developing countries, thus encouraging direct investment from rich countries' multinationals, investment fund managers and so on, is one aspect of what could be involved there. Another aspect is the work of non-government organisations (NGOs) in the development assistance field. We are all familiar with such organisations as World Vision and Community Aid Abroad. I mention, in addition, the Maranatha Trust of Sydney, which is recognised worldwide as one of the most effective and professional of non-government organisations. The encouragement of the work of the private sector-cum-NGOs offers a more cost effective way of doing something directly for the world's poor than much of the activity of the bank or actions, of government. In this respect, I refer to the increasing awareness worldwide in development assistance policy circles of the size and importance of the `informal' or `illegal' sector in developing countries. There is an increasing awareness of the crucial role that millions of people, in particular tiny entrepreneurs, in the informal sector of the developing countries-non-persons so far as the country's population records or other official of non-official listings are concerned-toiling away in the nooks and crannies of the developing world so to speak, can or should play in stimulating development and alleviating poverty. The focus is increasingly on such `microenterprises'. Quantifiable date is difficult to come by, precisely because of the informal or illegal nature of the sector. Authoritative persons, such as Dr Chandavarka, a former senior IMF official, have expressed the judgment that the sector could well embrace up to 50 per cent of the population of some developing countries, and in some cases also up to 50 per cent of the nation's gross domestic product. However, I repeat that it is virtually impossible in the nature of the case to demonstrate that conclusively. There was a conference held in June this year in Washington DC in the United States of America, the International Conference in Support of Microenterprises, sponsored by the World Bank, the subject of the legislation at present before the House, which focused on these very issues to which I am referring. It was co-hosted by the United States of America, the African and Asian development banks and all the major donor agencies of the world. Unhappily, the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) was not represented. There was a clear recognition at that conference of several points. One was of the severe limitations of governmental action and of the ability of the World Bank and other such major institutions to deal with or relate effectively to this informal sector, in contrast to the apparent ability, although still imperfect, of some non-government organisations to do that. Another view expressed and strongly supported at the conference was that the poor in the informal sector, without collateral, could be better credit risks and, in particular, more reliable loan repayers than their richer fellow citizens in the ordinary `formal' sector. Putting those two points together, the possibility arose-and the conference devoted much of its time at looking at this-of linking the formal and informal sectors, using responsible and committed NGOs as the vital link in the chain. I stress this matter because I am firmly of the view that this is an important part of the way forward in helping the world's poor, and with more achieved per available dollar-we began with the way in which the dollar value of aid had fallen so much relatively-and doing it this way; not by the World Bank but by the mobilising of the services of responsible NGOs, particularly those with demonstrated relationships and performance in the informal sector as financial intermediaries between the poor and commercial and government banking institutions. In this context I refer back to the Maranatha Trust which I mentioned a few moments ago. As the Chairman of that Trust's overseas aid committee, I have considerable knowledge of one NGO in the Philippines, which has been nurtured by the Maranatha Trust, namely an organisation in Manila called Tulay Sa Pag-Unlad Inc. (TSPI), which means `bridge to opportunity'. I conclude by making two points briefly in that regard. One point that is made in the literature associated with the World Bank is `the majority of small enterprise borrowers from IBRD-financed development finance companies are in arrears in their debt repayments'. In contrast, TSPI, with its indigenous roots, and stress on responsibility and accountability, regularly reports repayment collection rates of the small loans it makes of about 90 per cent. The second point is that that organisation has, in recent years, put forward a blueprint for a large expansion of its type of program. It is based in Manila, but it has looked to achieving similar organisations in most of the 15 provinces of the Philippines. In fact, a master plan, a vision, put forward in this area was costed at 118.3m pesos, which is about $US6m, over six years for a program generating in excess of 60,000 jobs in about 20,000 small businesses with the number of beneficiaries totalling nearly 500,000. That works out at about $US100 a job. I contrast that with some of the reports in the literature of jobs promoted by the World Bank activity coming out at a cost of $A500,000 a job-very capital intensive areas. I draw the attention of the House to this in conclusion because I am happy to say that the present Philippine-Australian community assistance program (PACAP), instituted in the wake of the Aquino takeover, is providing a measure of support towards the setting up of such new organisations fostering microenterprise development along those lines. In a context where quantitatively the Australian aid program has been so reduced, as I said at the beginning, this is one way in which quality assistance to the poor in a cost effective way can be achieved. Debate (on motion by Mr Brumby) adjourned. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the United States of America. In tabling the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation which visited the United States in January this year, led by Mr President, I want to draw the attention of the House to several matters. This delegation represented the real value which can be derived from parliamentary delegations making official visits overseas. This value is reflected not only in having a particular message heard in the areas of the United States which we visited, but also in the knowledge and the experience gained by individual members of the delegation. This delegation had three major objectives: first, to reiterate the difficulties Australia faces in the international trade area; secondly, to raise the awareness of Australia's technological capacity and of trade and investment opportunities in Australia; and, thirdly, to explore the thinking of senior United States officials, business leaders and experts in the public and private sector on a number of important issues to Australia's future, including economic development, regional concerns and strategic matters. The successful achievement of these goals, as illustrated in the delegation's report, was brought about by the harmony within the delegation and the united voice that it presented on many vital issues. Many political and business leaders remarked on this feature of meetings with the delegations especially when it was realised that all three major political parties were represented. The delegation had a full round of meetings and briefings with senior Reagan Administration officials and congressional leaders in Washington. The delegation also visited San Francisco, Houston, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Atlanta and New York. It found this to be a very valuable way to approach a country as large as the United States not only because it demonstrated the great diversity of the country, but also because local business and political leaders went out of their way to assist a delegation from a country which does not often send official visitors to regions outside the Los Angeles, New York and Washington triangle. Congressional representatives were able to spend a good deal more time with the delegation in their local areas than would have been the case had we been simply in Washington. I commend the report to the House and briefly mention the delegation's major recommendations: first, that Australia, through its representatives in Washington, must not relent in repeating in a forceful and well-explained way its trade message to congressional and administrational leaders. Secondly, consideration should be given to engaging a specialist lobby firm to work on Australia's behalf in addition to the already valuable work which is being undertaken by our permanent officials in Washington. Thirdly, in recognition of the dramatic economic growth in the southern region of the United States, centred particularly on Atlanta in Georgia, a review of Australia's trade and consular representation in the southern region of the United States should be carried out with a view to achieving a greater official Australian representation in the area. The establishing of a consulate-general or an Austrade office in Atlanta should be explored as a means by which to achieve this. Fourthly, Australian delegations and visitors from both the public and the private sector should, we think, visit more places outside the Los Angeles, New York and Washington triangle. The interest in Australia, especially in investment and trade opportunities, is enormous, and this potential should be explored and harnessed whenever possible. Finally, I pay a particular tribute to all members of the delegation, especially the leader, Mr President, and the Deputy Leader, Senator Chris Puplick. The delegation operated as a well-tuned team representing a united front at all times. The visit to the United States demonstrated to me, and to many, the real value which can accrue to this Parliament and to Australia when official parliamentary delegations travel overseas. Mr JENKINS(Scullin) —by leave-This morning, before the application of sessional order 102c, I had indicated the belief of the Joint Committee on Publications that there needs to be a relaxation of the current system which ties Commonwealth departments and others to the Australian Government Publishing Service and had outlined measures that the Committee believes are necessary to place the AGPS on a firmer commercial footing. In addition, the Committee believes that the AGPS should regularly report to the Parliament on its operations, performance and outlook. The Committee is aware that significant reforms have occurred at the AGPS during the last few years. While these may be applauded, many were overdue. If the AGPS is to continue to be viable in the long term, it must continue to accept the need for reform and regular review of its operations. The AGPS should not be a static organisation. It must be pro-active. It must be responsive and adaptive to needs and varying levels of demand. It should expand or contract its operations within the terms of the Commonwealth charter of printing and publishing responsibilities. I now turn to the relationship of the AGPS with the Parliament. As honourable members may recall, the origin of the AGPS stems from the work of this Committee and its predecessors. The Committee believes that the priority status and special position of the Parliament should continue to be recognised by the AGPS. It should also be fully reflected in the Commonwealth Charter of printing and publishing responsibilities. As the AGPS implements a policy of full cost recovery for parliamentary work it may be necessary to increase appropriations for parliamentary printing and publishing as cost recovery rates will recoup all costs incurred with parliamentary work plus costs not recovered from non-core work charged out at commercial rates; and AGPS should no longer receive any deficit funding. To minimise the impact of this increase in parliamentary printing and publishing costs, the Committee has recommended that parliamentary computing systems and in-house printing capabilities be developed to meet the needs of users in this building for Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives; Journals of the Senate, and the Notice Paper of each House. The Committee recommends that, for these parliamentary publications, the AGPS continue to meet the needs of users outside this building by using the camera ready copy supplied by the chamber departments. The Committee believes that major savings and efficiency improvements will also be gained if computer systems for the electronic transfer of Hansard to the Government Printing Office are developed as quickly as possible. The AGPS has had the equipment to receive and process electronic data since 1984. Although considerable action has already taken place on this issue, it will be necessary to introduce fully systems for the electronic transfer of Hansard as soon as possible if costs are to be contained and reduced. This is particularly the case as the AGPS moves towards full cost recovery. To maintain the links between the Parliament and the AGPS, the Committee has decided to meet regularly with the Government Printer and senior officers of the AGPS during each of the Budget and autumn sittings. The Committee will report to the Parliament on the outcome of these meetings, where appropriate. I would like to thank the members of the Committee for their cooperation during this inquiry and their ongoing diligence to the work of the Committee. The expanded parliamentary committee system creates many additional commitments and the time and effort that members were able to provide is appreciated. In conclusion, I thank the Committee's Secretary, Peter Mason, for his support and the long hours he has put into the reference, especially as his committee work load is in addition to his duties in the Bills and Papers Office. I commend the report to the House. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —by leave-I associate the Opposition members of the Joint Committee on Publications with the findings of this short but very important report outlined by the Chairman. I express our appreciation also of the services of Mr Peter Mason, the Secretary, who laboured long and diligently on the project. Debate resumed. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations)(6.19) —I thank those honourable members who participated in this debate on the earlier occasion and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), who participated in it this afternoon. In response to the remarks made by the honourable member for Berowra, Australia's overseas aid as a percentage of gross national product is approximately the same as the average of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development donors in 1987. If one were to pick up the proposal put forward by the honourable member for Berowra, it would mean an increase in Australia's expenditure on foreign aid from $1 billion to almost $1.5 billion. Dr Harry Edwards —That is precisely what I said. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is precisely what the honourable member said. He is suggesting that this year, in a time of severe economic restraint, when both the Opposition and the Government believe, as the Opposition puts it, that we should be spending less, on this one item alone there be an increase of $500m in outlays. That is not possible. I know that the honourable member has good intent in his views on the Bill, and I shall go no further than to register that point. In regard to the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), I note that in relation to the first proposed amendment that analyses have been undertaken on Australia's contribution to international financial institutions. The report of the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program-the Jackson Committee-in 1984 recommended that support for development banks in general, and for the World Bank and Asian Development Bank in particular, should be increased in relation to other multilateral funding. In 1987, in introducing the International Development Association Bill, which authorised the contribution by Australia to the Association, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade said that a review of a number of international financial institutions as a basis for determining further Australian contribution to the International Development Agency, the Asian Development Fund and the International Fund for Agricultural Development had been carried out internally by the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau. That bureau-AIDAB-concluded that development banks are in general effective institutions and that Australian participation in their activities complements Australia's own bilateral aid program. In the context of this subscription, the Government has also considered the effect- iveness of the World Bank. It will be doing so again in 1989 in the course of our consideration of the forthcoming ninth replenishment of the bank's soft arm, the International Development Association. Honourable members will also be aware that when introducing the Bill I drew attention to the fact that Australia was a strong supporter of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), but we were not an uncritical supporter of the bank. We have a concern to ensure that the bank maintains a high quality in its lending and that the bank continues to be cost-effective in its activities. On occasions we have criticised the bank. We have criticised it as we consider appropriate, and we will continue to do so, because we are concerned with improving the overall level of efficiency of the bank. On the second proposed amendment, I would point out that Australia already takes a very active role in the forums of the IBRD through its day to day advice to the executive director, representing Australia on the World Bank board, and through ministerial attendance at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings. The detailed plenary statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) at the September 1988 International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings was the subject of a press release and of considerable coverage globally. I also note that Australia's executive directors have established a high reputation on the bank's board. As I said a few moments ago and in my second reading speech, we have not been uncritical supporters of the bank. It has a role to play, but it needs to do it cost-effectively and needs to look to improving the level of its own efficiency. Australia will continue to monitor closely the World Bank's operations to ensure that its resources are used efficiently and to the benefit of developing countries. The decision whether to subscribe to the remaining 2,854 shares of the general capital increase to Australia will be taken in the future, in the light of Australia's economic circumstances at the time and of the bank's operational performance and needs. For these reasons the Government is therefore unable to agree to the amendment proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I commend the Bill to the House. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(6.26) —I do not wish to prolong this debate, but the point I made in the beginning of my remarks was that if the same ratio that applied in 1983-84, the first year of the Hawke Government, applied today, it would mean an expenditure not of $1 billion but, as I said, of $1,490m-an increase of $490m. I said that this was quantitatively impossible and that we had to look to ways to improve the quality of the program. That is what I sought to suggest. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the following reports: the 292nd Report-Public Accounts Committee in Sittings of the Senate; the 293rd Report-Activities for 1987-88; the 294th Report-five efficiency audits. Ordered that the reports be printed. Mr TICKNER —by leave-These reports give an indication of the range of work of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and some of the difficulties it faces in achieving its targets. Report 294 covers five efficiency audits of the Auditor-General presented to the Parliament in the period June 1986 to June 1987. These audits cover a diverse range of subjects such as Army mapping, stock control, Customs agents, meat inspection, and offshore petroleum royalties and excise. With the exception of some outstanding matters mentioned in the report, the Committee is satisfied that departments and agencies have responded positively to the Auditor-General's findings. Report 293 is the annual report of the Public Accounts Committee and will give members some indication of the wide range of subjects covered by the Committee. Time precludes a comprehensive discussion of the report, but I wish to highlight one major initiative which demonstrates the Committee's commitment to improving the system of parliamentary scrutiny as a whole, and not simply dealing with public administration issues on a case by case basis. That issue relates to the Committee's inquiry into the reform of the Australian Audit Office. The Committee is of the view that it should always be looking towards proposals and initiatives for significant reform in public administration which will improve the system of public accountability of Commonwealth departments and agencies. In this respect the Australian Audit Office performs a crucial role, and the Committee believes that, in terms of its possible long term ramifications, this inquiry is one of the most important yet undertaken by the Committee. The Committee is also committed to reforming its own procedures to ensure that it operates in a more efficient and targeted manner. I turn to report 292, which deals with the Committee sitting during sittings of the Senate. Unfortunately, the Committee must advise the Parliament that some disagreement between the Public Accounts Committee and the Senate continues. The Committee remains committed to its view, previously expressed in report 264, that the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 must prevail over the conflicting Standing Orders of the Senate which purport to restrict the Committee from meeting during sittings of the Senate. To comply with the Senate's request would prevent the Committee from properly undertaking is heavy task of scrutiny alluded to in my remarks on report 293. However, the Committee is conscious of the concerns of the Senate. For its part, our Committee will continue to ensure that its program does not put its senator members in a position where they will not be readily available to participate in Senate proceedings as required. In conclusion, I particularly want to thank all those who have supported the Committee, especially the past and present staff of the secretariat without whose dedication our work would not be possible. Finally, I take the opportunity, as Chairman of the Committee, to commend my colleagues, including the Minister for Land Transport and Shipping Support (Mr Robert Brown), for their days and months of dedicated service in the five major inquiries currently being conducted by the Committee. I commend the reports to honourable members. Mr UREN(Reid) —I seek leave of the House to present the reports of the Australian delegation to the seventy-eighth and eightieth Inter-Parliamentary Union conferences held in Bangkok, Thailand, and Sofia, Bulgaria, respectively, and to make a short statement in connection with the reports. Leave granted. Mr UREN —I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the seventy-eighth Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) held in Bangkok, Thailand, from 12 to 17 October 1987. It is with some pleasure that I present this report of the Australian Delegation to the seventy-eighth Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I attended my first Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Dublin in 1965 and, 23 years later, now present this report as leader of the delegation. However, neither I nor other delegates had attended Inter-Parliamentary Union conferences in recent years. It is normal practice for the leader and the deputy leader of the delegation to attend conferences for the duration of a parliament and it is preferable if there is some overlap as to the conferences attended to pass on knowledge about the organisation of the conference and some of the issues and individuals. At the Conference in Bangkok this was not the case. Both the deputy leader, the honourable member for Higgins, Mr Roger Shipton, and I had not attended recent conferences. However, the delegation was fortunate in having as an adviser from the Department of Foreign Affairs Mr Geoff Crawford, who had attended the previous three conferences and who was able to provide a degree of continuity. Notwithstanding this problem, members of the Australian Delegation approached subject areas debated at the Conference with enthusiasm. Delegates spoke on all subject items and attended at committee sessions where draft resolutions and memoranda were considered. Those on the delegation were myself as leader; Roger Shipton as the deputy leader; Senator Noel Crichton-Browne; Senator Michael Macklin; Allen Blanchard, the honourable member for Moore; Ric Charlesworth, the honourable member for Perth; and Tim Fischer, the honourable member for Farrer. I wish to congratulate the members of the delegation on their approach to record my thanks for their support and cooperation at the Conference. I want to stress the outstanding speech made by the President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Council, Dr Hans Sterken, who was a conservative member of parliament from Germany and who has, for a number of years, been the President of the Council. It is interesting to note that a man of this outstanding calibre was not only a man of great compassion but also a fluent and great communicator in English, French and German. From time to time he would flow freely between the languages. In the great spirit of the Inter-Parliamentary Union it is interesting that I, as a socialist all my life, can stand up here and praise a conservative in German politics for his great leadership. At this stage in history I believe that the next decade will be the most important of this century, basically because of the relationship between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the one hand and the United States of America on the other. That warms me tremendously. I would also like to thank members of the Thai National Groups for the manner in which they organised the Conference. The support provided for members of our delegation and the facilities at the Conference were excellent. This, combined with the hospitality they offered to all delegates at official functions, made the Conference a most enjoyable one. The first topic dealt with at the Conference concerned the contribution of parliaments to the respect, development and promotion of human rights and to the respect for fundamental principles, treaties and obligations governing relations among nations in order to solve the problems of refugees and displaced persons. This topic was particularly relevant, given the refugee problems facing Thailand at this very moment. One member of the Australian Delegation, Dr Ric Charlesworth, was able to take the opportunity to visit the refugee camps in Northern Thailand. With regard to the human rights aspects of the topic, the resolution that was finally passed affirmed that universal respect and observations of human rights was an essential factor in the attainment of peace and security as well as being a basis for freedom, justice and well-being. However, it should be noted in this regard that the Special Committee on Violations of Human Rights of Parliamentarians submitted resolutions, which were adopted on a consensus basis in Council, setting out the situation of 100 parliamentarians from seven countries whose human rights are currently being violated. This is a great aspect of the IPU because it is working particularly hard. It keeps those countries and bureaucracies on their toes. It is a major factor that gives some hope for the parliamentarians' release. Conference support about the plight of refugees was indicated by the fact that the resolution was adopted without a vote. Both Australian delegates speaking on this topic, Allen Blanchard and Tim Fischer, pointed out that over 100,000 Indo-Chinese had been accepted by Australia for re-settlement and that 30,000 of these people had come from camps in Thailand. However, it is vital that refugee agencies should promote humane repatriation programs and take to task those countries, some of them member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, that are generating the influx of refugees. The second topic discussed at the Conference concerned the contribution of Parliaments aimed at implementing the declaration of the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples and eliminating apartheid and all forms of racism. As could be expected with such a topic, National Groups were divided as to how this issue should be dealt with. This was reflected in the vote on the draft resolution which was finally adopted by 791 votes to 122, with 207 abstentions. The resolution finally adopted covers some seven pages of text, concentrating principally on the problems of apartheid in South Africa as well as that country's relations with neighbouring States. A supplementary item was also considered at a Conference about the contribution of parliaments to achieving a comprehensive and just peace between Iran and Iraq. We know that this has now been settled. It is pleasing that progress has been made in that area. It is also significant that the support committee for the convening of an international peace conference on the Middle East is to be established. Such a committee was first suggested at the seventy-seventh conference with the aim that it would study information and observations gathered from the national groups by the Secretary-General. The report which follows provides an account of the deliberations of delegates and the resolutions reached at the seventy-eighth conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Bangkok, Thailand, with particular reference to the contributions of the Australian delegation. The group was a harmonious and comradely one. We worked well together. The second conference was held in Sofia, Bulgaria from 19 to 24 September this year. Again, I led the delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union's eightieth conference. The delegation comprised the honourable members for Higgins, Mr Shipton; Calare, Mr Simmons; McEwen, Mr Cleeland; and Fadden, Mr Jull; and Senator Jenkins from Western Australia. Let me say at the outset that this was a happy delegation which worked well together. There was cooperative teamwork. Each member freely voiced his own thoughts and voted accordingly to his individual judgment. Indeed, the IPU is a forum for parliamentarians, not for representatives of governments, and it was therefore refreshing to see members of our delegation sometimes split in their votes on the various resolutions. This was in marked contrast to a number of other delegations which recorded a bloc vote-in other words, following the Government line-on the resolutions. I believe that it is the strength of our democratic system of government that we can have dissenting views without any fear of the consequences. I might say that, as the delegation leader, I have always encouraged delegates to express their own independent position, for I well remember that, as a young delegate attending my first IPU conference, I was able to express a view in April 1965 on the war in Vietnam. The IPU was established 99 years ago at the initiative of an Englishman and a Frenchman. The centenary meeting will be held in London in September 1989. Its aim then-as now-was to promote personal contacts between members of all parliaments and work for the establishment and development of representative institutions, as well as the advancement of international peace and cooperation, particularly by supporting the objectives of, first, the League of Nations and now the United Nations. To this end the IPU delegates warmly welcomed changes currently taking place in Burma as well as the holding of a limited plebiscite in Chile. These are promising developments and hold out the hope of a return to democratic practices in both those countries. I think we should welcome that progress. The IPU met in Sofia during this period with some optimism. The lessening of the East-West tensions since the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev and those comrades around him offers the world a most promising scenario for conflict resolution since the period following the end of the Second World War. The IPU, under the energetic, competent and inspirational leadership of Dr Hans Sterken of the Federal Republic of Germany, has also worked tirelessly for peace and the easing of tensions. I stressed earlier my great praise for Hans Sterken, who is a fluent and courageous leader. Dr Sow of Senegal, who was elected President of the IPU in Sofia, has pledged the organisation to the continued promotion of peace. In Sofia, Australia was represented on the drafting committees for the IPU resolution dealing with decolonisation, racism and apartheid as well as the supplementary item dealing with the uprising in the Arab territories occupied by Israel. Members will see that both final resolutions carried what I would call `intemperate language' in some of the preamble as well as in the operative clauses, despite the best efforts to modify the language. As a result, a number of Western nations either voted against the resolutions or abstained. In an explanation of the vote on the Middle East item, I stated why I voted in favour of the resolution. I supported the thrust of the principles embodied in the resolution and the solidarity expressed with the people of the West Bank. I thought the resolution was directed to the converted, not to the middle ground of politics. Whilst I was aware that some delegates were still deeply hurt and angry, I think this was unfortunate, for if we are to advance the cause of the people of the West Bank we have to win the middle ground. I supported the resolution on the basis that it acknowledged that a solution to the conflict required both a recognition of the right of Israel to exist within secure borders and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. All my colleagues in the Australian delegation concurred with my explanation. Similar intemperate language in relation to the Falklands issue and claims of United States colonialism in Puerto Rico led many Western delegates to vote against or abstain on the decolonisation resolution which had mainly positive aspects, including a call for the release of Nelson Mandela. Again, I voted in favour because I felt that the thrust of the resolution outweighed the detracting factors contained in some of the operative clauses. I was also concerned that, in the drafting committee, the Indonesian delegation sought to have all reference to East Timor excluded from the resolution. Speaking as an individual parliamentarian, I said that the continuing large Indonesian military presence in East Timor gave cause for concern. Every country, including Australia, had some dark chapters to its history but the cause of peace and the lessening of tensions would not be served by trying to sweep such matters under the carpet. Nor should delegates be cowed by Indonesian claims that any mention-even in a positive vein-by the IPU of the talks between Indonesia and Portugal, under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, would irreparably damage the peace process. In my view, East Timor is an international issue and as such should legitimately be addressed by the IPU. I was disappointed to see, for example, that Argentina supported the Indonesian proposal to bury the East Timor issue. It is a sad reflection that some people have a very short memory of other regimes which, for many years, swept issues under the carpet. It was pleasing to see that a resolution on human rights was accepted without dissent. It regrettably remains a fact, however, that while many countries profess a commitment to human rights they pay little more than lip service. The continuing solid work of the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians highlighted continuing problems within our own region-particularly the incarceration of parliamentarians in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is hoped that the continuing focus on the human rights of parliamentarians in those countries leads to their early release. It is important for an organisation such as the IPU to keep up the pressure and indicate to colleagues what is an unacceptable conduct of affairs. People in prison often have very little prospect of release and we can only hope that continued international focus and embarrassment can be made to work in their favour. In relation to human rights the 12-plus grouping, a caucusing group comprising the Western European nations, together with the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand-what I call the white man's club-has also decided that because of Romania's continuing abuse of the human rights of its minority Hungarian population, the members of the group will not attend a conference on security and cooperation in Europe to be held in Bucharest in mid-1989. The decision is a serious step and it will no doubt embarrass the Romanian authorities, as it should. There is, of course, still ample time before the conference for Romania to observe international norms on the treatment of minorities. I believe that much of the good work of the IPU is done in the informal discussions `in the corridors' outside the formal bounds of the conference. It is one of the few forums where, for example, the British can talk to the Argentineans, the Israelis can talk with their Arab neighbours, the Vietnamese can talk with the Chinese, and the Indonesians can talk with the Portuguese. Hopefully, through the establishment of contract and trust, relationships can be formed which will enhance peace prospects in some of those regions afflicted by conflict. I myself have urged Japan to take a greater role in IPU affairs. As an economic giant, Japan also needs to advance its political position and assume greater political responsibility. The meeting of an Asian Pacific group, which includes Australia and New Zealand, is another recent positive move. At the Sofia meeting, Asian Pacific delegates agreed that Australia should take over from Thailand the chairmanship of the Asia Pacific group. In our next conference in Budapest, Australia will resume the chair of the Asian Pacific group of the IPU. If people believe in internationalism, the hard work to maintain contacts in the IPU is enhanced. I would like to thank members of the Australian Embassy in Belgrade, particularly the Ambassador, Mr Hoyle, the Third Secretary, Ms Katherine Smits, and Ms Christina Bogiatsis, for their assistance. Their efforts were greatly appreciated by all members of the delegation. I would also like to record our thanks to the host Bulgarian Government for organising the conference, and also to the Norwegian Parliament for the excellent organisation of the 12 Plus meeting in Oslo prior to the IPU conference. I extend my special thanks to the Foreign Affairs representative, Fred Peppinick, and our Secretary, Rob Diamond. I commend to honourable members the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the IPU eightieth conference held in Sofia, Bulgaria. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I seek leave to speak on the tabling of the reports by the Australian delegations to both the seventy-eighth conference of the International Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the eightieth conference. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Beazley —Only just. Leave granted. Mr SHIPTON —I thank the Leader of the House. I am aware that the House wants to go into valedictories. I am sure there was nothing else in the mind of the Leader of the House when he made that comment and I will respect the wishes of the House in that regard. I am pleased to speak in this debate on the tabling of these two reports of the Australian delegations to the two conferences of the International Parliamentary Union. I was pleased to serve this Parliament as deputy leader of the Australian delegation. The leader, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), has just spoken, and I will not go over a lot of the ground he covered in his report to the Parliament. It is important to say that the International Parliamentary Union is a forum where members of Parliament from all over the world, of different creeds, colours and backgrounds, and from countries that do not have parliaments in the Western democratic sense as we understand it, meet formally twice a year. It is a meeting of parliamentarians, and certainly from the viewpoint of Western democracies they are meetings of independent members of Parliament, not of governments; that cannot be said of all the delegations. One of the aims of the IPU is to develop representative parliamentary institutions, and I think that the work that goes on, both formally and informally, at the conferences and the influences one can have are not to be underestimated. I make the particular comment, and I think the Prime Minister will be interested in this, that the former member for Wills, the Hon. Gordon Bryant, and I were at the United Nations 10 years ago and formed a group there. That group, which is now the United Nations Observer International Parliamentary Group, had its tenth annual meeting under the auspices of the Australian delegates who are at the United Nations General Assembly at the present time. I have stated that we as members of the Australian Parliament go to the Inter-Parliamentary Union as individual members and that we often disagree and vote in different ways. I think that is healthy. There is goodwill, however, amongst the members of the delegations. I am pleased to say there has been no dissension even though there are often different views. There is also goodwill amongst nations and, as the honourable member for Reid said, individual members of parliament from different countries can talk informally. He spoke of the British and Argentineans talking behind the scenes. A lot more of that goes on than ever gets written about in newspapers and it is important in international relations between countries. We must not underestimate the nature of the various Australian delegations' ability to work for Australia at the bilateral level, country to country, both publicly in the forums and informally behind closed doors. The honourable member for Reid talked about the 12 Plus group. He called it the white man's club. It comprises members of the Western democracies. They meet first and have shared values in democracy and the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. That is a useful grouping to share ideas and views. Like the honourable member for Reid, I thank our hosts in Norway for hosting the recent 12 Plus meeting. However, he also referred to a meeting of the Asian Pacific group which Australia has been asked to chair. This is perhaps a foretaste of things to come in other international forums, where we in this country are seen by our neighbours as having an important role to play. We are not a superpower; we are seen as impartial in many respects, and we are respected by our neighbours. Mr Tim Fischer —Particularly Thailand. Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member for Farrer makes the point about Thailand in particular. We have great respect for the Thai delegates, and I think that is reciprocated. The Asian Pacific group includes all the countries of the region, communist and non-communist, and everybody walks into the room with a spirit of goodwill. Obviously there are different points of view, but there is an important role for Australia, and I predict that in the future we will have to face decisions at the IPU as to whether we stay in the 12 Plus group and whether there is any conflict. I cannot see it happening next year or the year after but it is something we will have to face as a nation. I can see that in the United Nations itself and other international forums we will be asked to join Asian Pacific groupings, and I welcome that. Australia is a global power and it is flattering to be asked firstly, to be a member of the Asian Pacific group and then chosen to be chairman of it-the honourable member for Reid will be the chairman of that group-and that we are associated with the 12 Plus group, the Western democracy group. In conclusion, I join the honourable member for Reid in thanking the staff of the delegations. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have received advice from the Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Burr to be a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in place of Mr Connolly and Mr Jull to be a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure in place of Mr N. A. Brown. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the termination of this sitting of the House to the date of the next sitting. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) -I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 28 February 1989, at 2 p.m., unless otherwise called together by Madam Speaker or, in the event of Madam Speaker being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees. We have now completed the final sitting week for this House in this bicentennial year and our first sittings in this magnificent new Parliament House. The Bicentennial gave all Australians an opportunity to take stock of where we stand as a nation. It has been a year of celebration and spectacle. Millions of people across this country were able to witness and enjoy at least some of the bicentennial activities. It has also been a year of constructive and enduring achievements. Of these, this new home for the Parliament is a visible and permanent statement of our bicentennial year as well as a celebration of Australia's commitment to parliamentary democracy. It is appropriate at this time that once again we place on record our gratitude to everyone who was involved in the planning, oversight and actual construction of this magnificent building. Moving into this exciting and spacious building has been a challenge. It is a challenge of the way in which we as politicians communicate and coordinate our activities with the unfamiliar geography and greater distances. I have no doubt that all of us as a result are very much fitter. It has certainly challenged the staff of the parliamentary departments, the Parliament House Construction Authority, the Department of Administrative Services and our own personal staff in both orchestrating the move and smoothing out the wrinkles once we were finally here working out of our more comfortable and spacious offices. Many people have contributed during the sittings to the smooth working of this House. Your own role, Madam Speaker, is a critical one in this process. This has been a challenging period for you in your responsibilities of running this House. I am sure that you are glad that moving the Parliament to its permanent home went as well as it did and that all the efforts in planning were implemented with such good effect. Throughout this sometimes unruly sitting period you have maintained your humour and you have ruled with firmness and fairness in sometimes testing situations. You have been ably assisted by the Deputy Speaker, Mr Leo McLeay, and by all those who serve as Deputy Chairmen of Committees. We thank you and we thank them for invaluable service to the House. I have already mentioned the parliamentary departments' role in moving and establishing the Parliament in its permanent home. This year, as we know, was also Australia's turn to host the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference. I would certainly like to thank the staff who worked on the conference which, took 2 1/2 years of planning. We need to thank the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, the Serjeant-at-Arms and other parliamentary officers for their efforts and for the day to day role which they so effectively play in the smooth working of this place. Other parliamentary staff have worked very hard and have maintained their traditional high standards throughout the year: the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and Hansard staff who are, I think, now training for the marathon in the daily distances they have to walk in this place; the Parliamentary Librarian and staff who have to meet all manner of requests and always do so efficiently and courteously; the Secretary and all staff of the Joint House who look after our needs for food, accommodation and cleaning; John May and his ever ready transport team; and the attendants and telephonists. All of them deserve special mention for their invaluable assistance to the members of this House throughout these sittings. I am told that Jeff Brecht, the Deputy Principal Attendant, will have retired before we meet again in this place after 20 years of service, seven and a half of them in the House of Representatives chamber. We all thank him for his service and we wish Jeff and his wife a very happy retirement. I need to note the very busy bicentennial year with the intense schedule of visits by overseas heads of state, heads of government and other dignatories who have visited us. All honourable members would have had the opportunity to be present at some at least of the parliamentary luncheons or dinners which have been held in our magnificent new Great Hall, with increasing frequency as the year progressed. I certainly wish to thank all who have been associated with what was virtually a flawless series of official occasions. Looking back on the sittings it would be easy to focus on the drama and conflict which sometimes takes place as providing the theatre of politics. All of us know only too well that the business of this House is based on a considerable degree of consultation and cooperation. The role of our energetic Leader of the House, Mr Kim Beazley, his counterpart in the Opposition, Mr Wal Fife, our respective party whips and their staff, and the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Barbara Belcher, deserve without question our considerable thanks for the behind the scenes activity which manifests itself in the much more calm and orderly conduct of business. Finally, we must mention our ever vigilant friends in the Press Gallery, who must be rejoicing in their much more salubrious quarters and who, in spite of the geography of this building-- Mr Lionel Bowen —Where are they? Mr HAWKE —They are listening on the intercom; they are not missing a word. They will give us a good report if they listen to what I am saying. In spite of the geography of this building they have made it their business to pursue and observe every story which might be breaking in these offices, corridors and lobbies. With some occasional exceptions they do a good job in keeping the people of Australia informed, and maybe even interested, in what goes on in this place. Without question we wish them all well. In the same vein I extend our appreciation to the broadcasting team of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I conclude by wishing all honourable members and those who serve and are associated with the House and their families the very best for a happy Christmas and a restful holiday break. I look forward to seeing all members assembled on 28 February refreshed and ready for a productive 1989. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the (Opposition) —I would like briefly to support the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I join him in extending good wishes to you, Madam Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and your respective families for the Christmas season. I would like to record the thanks of the Liberal Party to Alan and Lyn, the Serjeant-at-Arms, and others associated with the running of the Parliament. I also express the thanks of the Opposition to the press for its role-- Mr Beazley —You do not mean that, John. Mr HOWARD —I am forever charitable. The season of Christian charity is very much upon me. Two of those three great pillars that keep us a free society, a free press and the parliamentary system, are joined here and we would not be quite the same without them. As the Prime Minister said, it is a very special year because of the move to this new building. I think a word of special thanks to the catering staff for the large number of official functions and entertainment that we have had this year is in order. I think they have done a superb job. It is not easy catering for all those functions. They have not had, on occasions, the most brilliant facilities for normal dining purposes. I think the staff have handled themselves with very great good humour. There have been some splendid occasions. I would like to thank them personally, in particular, for the work that they have done in relation to those occasions. Many of the bicentennial occasions will live in the memory of all of us. The opening day of the new Parliament House on 9 May was a very special Australian occasion. The occasion was made the better by the presence of Her Majesty as the pinnacle of our constitutional system. The opening of this remarkable building was a day that many will remember for many years in the future. As this is the last occasion on which we will have an opportunity of speaking in the building during the bicentennial year I think a special word of thanks should be conveyed to Jim Kirk, the Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Trying to run a bicentenary is pretty hard. Everyone is an expert on what we ought to celebrate and remember. It is a bit like every politician thinking he is an expert on the electoral laws. Every Australian in the bicentennial year has thought he has been an expert on how we ought to celebrate. I think Jim and his colleagues have done a first class job. To them I convey my very special thanks. I would like to thank Ewen Cameron and Neil Andrew for keeping the Liberal Party in order and seeing that we are here on time. Whenever we have had the numbers over the Government we have been able to win the divisions. They have done a first class job on those occasions. I thank them. I thank all of my colleagues, including Wal, our never ruffled, calm and highly respected Manager of Opposition Business. I would also like to thank Ian Sinclair, my friend and colleague, the Leader of the National Party, for his cooperation and support during the year; my Deputy Leader, Andrew Peacock, and my other colleagues in the leadership group, Fred Chaney and Austin Lewis, who perform in another place. So to all of my colleagues and all of those with whom I enjoy jousting on the other side-- Mr Holding —If that is what you call it. Mr HOWARD —I enjoy it immensely. I enjoy jousting with the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) so much that he follows me around to functions. It really is very very good. I wish all honourable members opposite the very merriest Christmas. For me Christmas is a family time and a time of some religious commemoration. Whatever one's views are about the importance of the occasion, I wish all honourable members a very happy time with their families. I certainly intend to have a decent holiday. I commend it to everybody else. I look forward to coming back and getting stuck into you lot as quickly as possible next year. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I would like to join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in saying that not only do I enjoy the jousting but also I wish well for the Christmas season all those who play such an important role in the functioning of this place. As both speakers have said, our bicentennial year has been an extraordinary year. I do not think that there was any more significant event than 26 January-a magnificent Australian birthday. I think it was a day when the goodwill and basic characteristics of this very diverse society of ours were best exemplified. I think that anybody who looked on it from outside must have felt a pride in being Australian or sensed the pride that we had in being Australian. I think that much of that reflects in the character of the rough and tumble and the hurly-burly of Parliament. It is a place where so many contribute. You, Mr Prime Minister, have referred to most of them. I refer to you, Madam Speaker and your deputies; the Clerks, whose assistance to us all is invaluable; the Serjeant at Arms; and Barbara Belcher, who as the first lady to fill the office of Parliamentary Liaison Officer I think has filled the role with considerable distinction. I would like to commend her for the way in which she has been able to serve as a liaison between the good offices of the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) and the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Fife), to whom we are also indebted. I refer to Hansard, to John Campbell and the staff over there. I know that there has been, really, some improvement in the circumstances in which they are working, as there have been for us all in this new place. I think that we are all bedding down a little. We are not too sure whether we like all the features. I have heard some comments about the dining room and the tucker. In all, I think it has been a remarkable period of settling in to what is a magnificent testimony to our democratic system. I guess it is to that that the living members and the adversarial arrangements that are part of our daily lives contribute. I thank the Parliamentary Library. I thank our transport people-John May and Paul Felsman, whom we are delighted to see back looking so well again, and Brian Flanagan. I thank members of the Parliamentary Dining Room, the chefs and the staff. I thank the attendants. I join with the Prime Minister in wishing Jeff Brecht well. I thank the security staff, the cleaners, the telephonists, those in the Joint House Department. We have already spoken about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). I noticed that those in the ABC broadcasting booth turned the flashing lights on a short while ago. I was quite impressed. I know that there is a concern by some of our members as to whether their voices, and ours with them, will be heard out on the highways and byways of those rural and remote electorates. We hope that David Hill ensures that they will be. I know that it is a bit of a tenuous relationship that we in the fishbowl enjoy with those in the press gallery who watch down over us. The press is a vital function of a democratic system. Whilst we might not agree with members of the press, we trust that some day they might learn to recognise the intrinsic value of members such as the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) who, I am sure at times, feels that the press does not reflect his innermost sentiments. To my colleague John Howard, I say a particular thanks. I think that John has been a stalwart in spite of a few of the ups and downs and the vicissitudes of being in opposition. I remember that when the Governor-General designate was Opposition Leader, he said on a number of occasions that there is no worse job in the House. I only hope that the present Prime Minister enjoys it after the next Federal election. To my other colleagues, my Deputy Bruce Lloyd, Andrew Peacock, Ralph Hunt; to the Whips, Noel Hicks in particular and to Gerrie Van Dam and her staff, to Ewen Cameron; Barry Cunningham for the role he has played; to Louise Pyke, in Ewen's office, on whom we all rely on so many occasions, I say thank you. I thank all those other people who make this place what it is. We have had builders wandering in and out of our offices; gardeners who still seem to abound around the place. They have all played a role. I know that I would also be neglectful if, on behalf of the National Party, I did not say to Paul Davey and his crew down there: Thanks for a job well done. There are two other groups I wish to thank. There are our personal staffs on whom we all rely inordinately. I have a member of staff who is about to join her husband far from here. I wish her, particularly, success in her new life. I thank also our spouses and families. They have a hell of a time. Our spouses probably have the worst time of all in being away from us and so often having to bear the rough and tumble of our electorates in our absence. I know that we are all indebted to our spouses and families. To all the members of this House, on behalf of the members of the National Party, I wish a happy Christmas and a pleasant period of rest and recreation. I know that when the New Year comes there will be any number of new challenges from this side of the House. We look forward to ensuring that the period in which we stay in opposition is as brief as possible. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Madam Speaker, it really has been a tough old year for many of us in this place. There has been an awful lot to have to adjust to and get used to. An awful lot of work has gone into putting us into these extraordinarily decent-- Mr Porter —Salubrious. Mr BEAZLEY —Salubrious and, indeed, magnificent conditions. There are far too many people for those of us who speak on this special adjournment to really express our appropriate appreciation to. For some members of this House this year has involved a degree of personal tragedy. At this time of the season our hearts go out to them. We do not lead an easy life in this place, as all of us have occasion to know. We are not well appreciated out there in the community. Some of that is our fault; some a genuine lack of understanding. If we cannot at least have a collegiate appreciation of each other here at this time of the year, then practically nobody will. Madam Speaker, my thanks go to you and to your Deputy for the way in which you have conducted yourselves in this place in these extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I think that moving into new circumstances, leaving old conditions, leaves all honourable members a might tetchy. Nothing quite works as one expects it to do. When one has a compulsory athleticism imposed on one by the dimensions of the place, one's temper can get even shorter. Mr Tim Fischer —The best doors and lifts are always locked. Mr BEAZLEY —As the honourable member said, the best lifts are always locked and all the rest of it. Madam Speaker, I think that you have had a particularly difficult job which has been imposed by geography and a number of other things which we all appreciate have made your life hard. We appreciate the way in which you and your deputies have overcome that situation. As Leader of the House I think that I ought to focus at least first in my thanks on the people who run this house-make the business of this House tick over so effectively. Of course, first thanks there must go to the Clerks of the House for the job they do. They have had an extraordinarily difficult time, probably more difficult organisationally than most of us. They have had to keep this House running through what has been quite a normal parliamentary year, though in abnormal circumstances, to ensure that the business of this House is conducted. At the same time they have had to ensure that all the affairs of the House have been appropriately administered on behalf of the Speaker and the President of the Senate. They have done an exceptionally fine job. I understand, too, that in addition to that, they have been presiding over a number of publications which we will see next year. In the circumstances that has been an extraordinarily intellectual as well as physical effort. We do rely on them utterly. We rely on their discretion; I know the Opposition does as well. They have been appropriately thanked by honourable members on both sides of the House. I rely totally on the real leader of the House, Barbara Belcher. I am rather sorry that she has not managed to make it in here for this valedictory. I rather suspect it is because she is very modest and very embarrassed about it all. The staff who work with her are here. My thanks go to them. They conduct an awful lot of the negotiations that keep this place ticking over very effectively. I thank them for their help. My thanks, too, to my counterpart on the Opposition benches, Wal Fife. He is a very calm and phlegmatic man, as has been remarked on. He is also as cunning as a barrel of snakes. One does not spend 15-plus years in the Ministry without picking up a few tricks along the way. He needs to be constantly watched but he does have also an appreciation of the fact that the business of the House must be done and I thank him for that. I thank, too, the Whips on this side of the House. I do not particularly thank the Opposition Whips but I wish them well for Christmas. On our side of the House I do thank Barry Cunningham and Tony Lamb who keep those 75 votes here in a very effective manner indeed, though to the odd complaint of members of the back bench at different points of time. They have a tough old job to do, and we on this side of the House do appreciate the work that they do. Of course, there are the Parliamentary attendants. They are very essential to the business of this House. The reporting staff from Hansard and the broadcasting staff have all been appropriately mentioned here. The Bills and Papers Office staff who largely work outside the public view, and indeed, the view of most members of Parliament, are the people who keep the paper ticking over in this place. Going further afield, I know members are very dependent on the effective work done for them by the staff of the Parliamentary Library. The catering staff has been mentioned. We ought particularly to mention in these valedictories-hopefully, we will not have to mention them in a special way ever again, but just in a normal way-the job that the cleaning staff have been obliged to perform when dealing with the first of, I hope not terribly many, plagues that have been visited upon this place, namely, Bogong moths. I do have occasion to come to this House quite early, at about 7 o'clock in the morning, and I have seen a number of the cleaners with the depressing job of going through the many fountains in this place getting the moths out of the water and, not least, getting them out of my office and I am sure the offices of most members of the House. They have had a particularly difficult job to perform. So indeed have the gardeners. They have had a building that relies even more than most on the care and maintenance of its gardens and the gardeners have done a particularly good job. There have been some special little developments in this place that need a mention here. We ought to thank the tour guides. The tourist potential of this House has increased dramatically, of course, and they have had a much more difficult task by virtue of both the demand and the distance. They have done a particularly effective job. We could not pass mention here of the newer facilities. The post office, of course, is an old one, but there is Westpac, Qantas and very particularly-he holds a special place in the hearts of Ministers and is now starting to hold a special place in the hearts of members-Aussie's Capital Hill General Store. If honourable members have not yet had occasion to see that, because it is over closer to the Senate side, I do suggest that they go over and avail themselves of it. If they think there are no benefits of multiculturalism in this country, it might just persuade them slightly in an opposite direction if they see the material that is available for sale in Aussie's shop. I particularly have to thank the pool and aerobics staff, particularly Mary, who manages that pool so effectively. She is beginning to take pounds off a number of members of this place-- Mr Hawke —It is not obvious. Mr BEAZLEY —Not quite enough off me, but some other members are obviously benefiting enormously from the opportunity of availing themselves of those facilities. The fact that we have access to them is indeed one of the most useful additions to our standard of living. Mrs Kelly —We even have an aerobics room now. Mr BEAZLEY —There is an aerobics room as well. I should thank, too, the committee staff who work for all the parliamentary committees. Frankly, mostly those committees are a bloody nuisance but nevertheless they really do a useful job so far as this Parliament is concerned. They certainly do keep the Executive hopping. I probably have more reason for grief than most Ministers. That would seem a totally unreasonable remark, I might say, for most Ministers, but I did discover the other day that of all departments in the Ministry the Department of Defence, though only 9 per cent of the Budget, has attracted 55 per cent of the committee attention. I should say that this is historically the case. It has not got much worse, so it is not really the responsibility of an incompetent Minister in this instance. It is the natural tendency of the committee structure to find the Department of Defence far more interesting than anything else. I thank the press for its participation in our affairs. The Leader of the National Party described us as being in the fish bowl, observed from outside. I think, in fact, we play in a bigger league now. This is a bit more of the dimensions of an American football field, so one can talk of rose bowls or super bowls, if one wants to draw the appropriate analogy. Mr Howard —A colosseum. Mr BEAZLEY —Or colosseum, I will take that point as well-the Christians versus the lions. The Christians are on this side. The fact that the members of the press are observers of our affairs who report them is part of the essential process of communication in a democracy. I thanked one member of the Opposition. I thank other members of the Opposition for their role in this place. The Leader of the National Party was confident that it would be a short period in opposition. We reckon that that record of 23 years of Menzies is worth breaking and he will, at the end of it, really be quite good but most of us will not be here to witness those developments. We thank our drivers. We thank the Caucus secretaries. I thank my Caucus colleagues who bat on in here in solid defence of the Government through the weeks and months and not always having necessarily the degree of recognition that I think their talents deserve. I thank my ministerial colleagues and their staff. I thank particularly my staff who have had a difficult job since they have had to switch their attention purely from defence matters to look at what happens across the board in the Australian political system. I do wish all honourable members here all the best of the season and we have made a slightly more generous provision for holidays at this time of the year. There seemed to be some mumblings of disappointment in that regard from the Opposition benches but I am sure they are insincere. We have had a tough, difficult year. Next year will be infinitely worse. I think that honourable members deserve a reasonably long holiday to gird their loins for it. Madam SPEAKER —I would like to have a few words as we finish our first session in this House. We did have an enormous task to move up here and I think the transition was remarkably smooth and has been a great credit to all concerned. Even the task of packing up what came out of members' offices was handled almost with computer-like efficiency. I thank all concerned in that. I think it has been a great credit to the dedication of our staff. Our thanks go to the great efforts of all concerned with the building and the two openings. I think they both were a great credit to everyone involved in them. I think the greater task has been coming to grips with the operations of the Parliament since moving in. Most of the members have been patient, tolerant and understanding with the difficulties that have been imposed upon the administration-the door knobs falling off and the lack of hooks, no towel rails and all these things. Eventually we will get there. I think acclimatisation with the building will continue for some time. We will need your understanding with all the bits and pieces that go wrong. The President and I did put a moratorium on any main changes to the building until we have been in it for 12 months. We think as we get used to it that some of the changes that we originally thought would have to be made will not have to be made. Every member of this House owes the parliamentary staff appreciation for the great efforts that have been made throughout the bicentennial year. Honourable members will have to bear with me for a few minutes while I thank some special ones. The Joint House Department, without doubt, is where the greatest responsibility has lain since we moved up here and it was made greater by the number of state occasions we had as the Prime Minister mentioned. I think it did a fantastic job. In fact, the comments made by overseas guests and reported back, particularly through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, were very flattering indeed. I would like to thank the engineering services. I have thanked the catering services for a great performance and I am sure honourable members are all going to be very comfortable in the new room that Carol Southwell is fixing up with the bistro and the other things which makes it look almost like home and which we brought up from the old House. The function organisers, guides, public relations and book shop staff have coped with one million visitors. In the first six months 112,000 people have come into the galleries, as against 23,000 people in the old House in the same period. My thanks go to management services, the garden staff and the loading dock staff, in fact to Joint House: a great job well done. To the Library and Hansard: the usual high standard of performance under extremely trying conditions. To the information systems staff: I have been down this afternoon to have a look. They are the perfect example of what amalgamation can do-and I am not speaking to the Bill now. It is an efficient use of the dollar, it is an efficiency of service, and an enormous boon to the Parliament and to the members. To the technicians and the switchboard girls: thank you for your care. To the security staff, transport and printers: the printers are downstairs in the basement and on this side of the House we have a great crew in the printing-duplicating room. They have been very quick to adjust to their new surroundings. I think they had one small hiccup and then went off. To my own Department, to the Clerks and to all who make up the House of Representatives-procedures, bills and papers, PRO and all the rest: thank you very much for your loyalty and support. The tribute I am giving is for all the staff of the House of Representatives. They have been tremendous. Their dedication and the long hours they work are really appreciated by everybody. We wish you a well deserved, restful and happy break over the festive season. Finally, to Leo: I do not know what I would do without you. You have been a tremendous support and given me great loyalty, not just in the House but also with much of the administrative burden that comes on my shoulders. I am often able to use you as a sounding board. I thank you very much for your friendship and your help. To my own staff: words could not really thank them, as all of you would know. They have been tremendous. Their loyalty to me has been wonderful. I thank them, and love them very dearly. Father Christmas came to Parliament House today. It is the first time he has ever come. It was actually Allan Rowe, who is one of our guides. I thought it was a great innovation-and I loved those black jellybeans! This momentous year is now over. We have another one coming. To each and every one of you, I hope you have a wonderful Christmas with your families. Have a good holiday, because the Leader of the House was threatening us when he said that next year was going to be worse. So you had better come back rested. Just as a footnote, I am walking about eight to 10 kilometres a day, and I am losing weight as well. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 7.34 p.m. until Tuesday, 28 February 1989, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 1 December 1988: Defence Act-Determinations under section 58b-1988- No. 66-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 67-Overseas Living Allowance. No. 68-Complementary Allowances Payable to Member serving on Duty Overseas. No. 69-Disturbance Allowance. Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act- Reports-Equal Employment Opportunity programs- Commonwealth Banking Corporation, dated September 1988. Reserve Bank of Australia, dated 30 June 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1090) Dr Woods asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) Has an anti corrosive Australian product called KONRUST manufactured by Corrosion Concepts Pty Ltd, been used by the RAAF since 1985. (2) Has KONRUST been field tested at the Materials Research Laboratories at Maribyrnong and was identified by the Army (8030-66-130-0068). (3) Was KONRUST, when field tested by Defence personnel against FERTAN and EXTEND products manufactured outside Australia, found to be superior. (4) Has the manufacturer, Corrosion Concepts Pty Ltd, since prior to July 1987 been seeking to have KONRUST identified by the RAAF. (5) Were the manufacturers advised on 20 May 1988 that on the advice of AFMED 2, KONRUST would not be identified because (a) information supplied by the supplier and manufacturer was not sufficiently satisfactory with reference to composition and hazards, (b) irritation of eyes and respiratory tract was being experienced, particularly when using the product as an aerosol and (c) a satisfactory product (LOCTITE EXTEND) had been identified; if so, (i) was no additional information requested of Corrosion Concepts Pty Ltd, (ii) did all RAAF non-commissioned officers who had used KONRUST and were questioned by Corrosion Concepts Pty Ltd report no ill effects from using KONRUST and (iii) (A) actual field testing by RAAF personnel confirmed that EXTEND was an inferior product, (B) RAAF has been purchasing KONRUST since 1985 and (C) no problems, either of a medical or application nature, have been experienced by the Army who have identified it. (6) Why did the Army find KONRUST satisfactory while the RAAF found it so unsuitable. (7) Will he ensure that details on the KONRUST data sheet and safety data sheet submitted at the request of the Occupational Health Division of his Department will be kept totally confidential. (8) Can he give an assurance that the decision not to identify KONRUST was fair and unbiased. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The product may have been used by individual RAAF units from the date stipulated. (2) I understand that the anti-corrosive properties of KONRUST were tested at the Materials Research Laboratories. I understand further that the product was found to be effective with at least two coats applied, and was allocated a product stores number by Army. (3) No formal field testing, either specific to KONRUST or competitive, has been undertaken by a Defence testing organisation. (4) Yes-since March 1987. (5) I am advised that the manufacturer has not been formally told of the reasons for non-identification, however at the invitation of the Acting Minister (letter of 9 September 1988) Mr Cartwright met with involved RAAF staff in Melbourne on 21 September, and I believe was provided a full explanation. Alternative products are available, and when the manufacturer of one of the constituents of Konrust did not provide complete product data as requested, toxicological testing by the Director of Air Force Medicine-which was seen as a necessary precursor to formal identification and cataloguing-was suspended. A contributing factor in this decision was the belief, since corrected, that the product was no longer in use at RAAF units. (6) The RAAF had not found KONRUST unsuitable, but had been unable to confirm its toxicological acceptability (due to lack of data) as is required within the RAAF. The Army has not conducted such testing. (7) All product data supplied to the RAAF, including that relative to KONRUST, is handled as `Commercial in Confidence' and is not released to third parties. (8) I have no reason to doubt that the handling of this matter has been fair and objective. Moreover, since some units do use KONRUST, RAAF has resumed a toxicological evaluation of the product. At present the RAAF is awaiting receipt of data from Corrosion Concepts Pty Ltd on the chemical composition of the product. This data is being sought by Corrosion Concept Pty Ltd from one of the Company's suppliers. Allocation of a stores catalogue number would be contingent on the product meeting RAAF toxicological standards. (Question No. 1307) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: With respect to (a) the purchase program of the F/A-18, (b) the construction program of FFGs 05 and 06, (c) the P3C upgrade program, (d) project DISCON, (e) project PERENTIE, (f) project BARRA and (g) project HAMEL, what (i) was the estimated project cost when the project was announced, (ii) is the final or current estimated project cost, (iii) are the costs referred to in parts (i) and (ii) expressed in constant dollar terms and (iv) is the expected completion date of the project. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) The estimated project cost when the project was announced was as follows: (a) F/A-18-$2427.396m (Aug 81 prices); (b) FFG's 05 and 06-$830.000m (Dec 82 prices); (c) P3C UPGRADE-$242.000m (Aug 81 prices); (d) HAMEL-$74.423m (Aug 81 prices); (e) PERENTIE-$82.722m (Apr 85 prices); (f) BARRA-$14.664m (Mar 74 prices); (g) DISCON-$92.870m (Apr 83 prices). (ii) The final or current estimated project cost is as follows: (a) F/A-18-$4802.154m (Apr 88 price and exchange); (b) FFG's 05 and 06-$1216.915m (Jun 87 price and exchange); (c) P3C UPGRADE-$402.042m (Mar 84 price and exchange); (d) HAMEL-Phase 1-(completed at a cost of $0.055m); Phase 2-$16.101m (Jul 87 price and exchange); Phase 3-$54.067m (Jul 87 price and exchange); Phase 4-$47.946m (Jul 87 price and exchange); Phase 5-$12.515m (Mar 87 price and exchange); (e) PERENTIE-$151.568m (Sep 88 price and exchange); (f) BARRA-Development Phase completed at a cost of $59.681; Production Phase-1st Production Contract satisfied under-Development Phase-completed at a cost of $12.488m (Jun 81 price and exchange); Second Production Contract $25.280m (Dec 81 price and exchange); Third Production Contract $16.342m (Aug 83 price and exchange); Fourth Production Contract $12.106m (Apr 85 price and exchange); Fifth Production Contract $19.838m (May 87 price and exchange); (g) DISCON-$219.617m as follows: Phase 1-$127.960m (Apr 88 price and exchange); Phase 2a-$8.675m (Apr 88 price and exchange); Phase 2b-$.212m (Complete); Phase 2d-$82.770m (Apr 88 prices and exchange. (iii) The costs referred to in parts (i) and (ii) above are shown in the relevant price base. The revised approval level shown in (ii) is generally not in the same price basis as the original approval. (iv) The expected completion date of each project is as follows: (a) F/A-18-This project is for the acquisition of 75 F/A-18 aircraft. Current delivery schedules indicate that the final aircraft will be delivered in mid 1990. (b) FFG's 05 and 06-FFG 06 is expected to join the Fleet as a fully operational vessel by November 1994. (c) P3C UPGRADE-The acquisition of 10 aircraft and 99% of spares sought by this project have been delivered. Remaining expenditure is for long lead time items currently scheduled for progressive delivery to mid 1992. (d) HAMEL-Project HAMEL is a multi-phase project (8 phases) of which the first phase is complete. Phases 2-5 are active, and have scheduled completion dates as follows: Phase 2-December 1989; Phase 3-January 1991; Phase 4-May 1993; Phase 5-Jun 1989. No firm date for approval to the remaining phases 6-8 is currently available. (e) PERENTIE-The final delivery date as per the current Perentie contract is December 1990. (f) BARRA-It is anticipated that the RAAF will have an ongoing requirement for replenishment of Barra Buoys. (g) DISCON-Anticipated completion dates for this project are as follows: Phase 1-Sep 1990; Phase 2a-Jun 1990; Phase 2b-Completed in 1984-85; Phase 2d-Dec 1991. (Question No. 1317) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: How many combined ANZUS exercises have had to be (a) cancelled or (b) restructured by Australia as a result of the alterations to the US-NZ defence relationship since the Lange Government came to office in 1984. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As a result of the alterations to the US-NZ defence relationship since the Lange Government came to office in 1984, four combined ANZUS exercise series no longer occur. Three of those series of exercises have been replaced by five separate, bi-lateral exercises. (2) In addition to these replacement exercises, the Australian Defence Force's programme of combined exercises also includes a further six bi-lateral exercise series that have been restructured by Australia from previous combined ANZUS exercises. (Question No. 1318) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: (1) What sum was expended on the EMF Gun (Rail Gun) project in each financial year of the project's currency. (2) What stage had the project reached when it was cancelled. (3) What benefits have flowed to the ADF from this project consequent on its cancellation. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Research work on electromagnetic propulsion was carried out by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) for a seven year period from 1979 to 1986. The annual expenditures were as follows: Fiscal year Expenditure $ 1979/80 ... 173,000 1980/81 ... 428,000 1981/82 ... 582,000 1982/83 ... 636,000 1983/84 ... 485,000 1984/85 ... 420,000 1985/86 ... 315,000 (2) The project was completed in June 1986 in accord with DSTO program planning. All task objectives set for the program were achieved. (3) The aim of railgun research in DSTO was to develop a technology base in electromagnetic propulsion which could contribute to the assessment of potential new, high velocity weapons based on railgun concepts. Such weapons were seen as future options for ADF requirements in anti-armour land warfare and close-in-weapon-systems (CIWS) for the defence of ships against missiles and aircraft. No operational weapons systems have become available from overseas manufacturers and hence there has, as yet, been no requirement to undertake any technical assessment of specific weapon proposals. The DSTO work however has ensured that a well-documented information base is available when such advice is called for by the ADF. The DSTO, through a range of studies including on material wear and energy sources, has identified a number of critical technical areas which will need to be addressed if weapons based on plasma-based propulsion are to become practicable. The DSTO has briefed senior ADF staff, in particular Navy staff, on possible weapon configurations and their size, weight, performance and cost. One important aspect of DSTO work was the investigation of battery-powered railguns. The work involved co-operation with Australian industry which has now received contracts for the supply of substantial quantities of batteries to the USA for pulsed power applications. In summary, DSTO has satisfactorily concluded work on providing an information base on railgun technology which is available to assist the ADF. DSTO has also promoted concepts which have led to marketing opportunities in the USA for an Australian battery manufacturer. (Question No. 1329) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 November 1988: (1) Which of the recommendations proposed by Mr R. J. Cooksey in the Review of Australia's Defence Facilities have been accepted for implementation by his Department in (a) full or (b) part, in the 1989-94 Five Year Defence Plan (FYDP). (2) What is the estimated cost of any proposed implementation of those recommendations. (3) What are the estimated (a) manpower savings, in dollar and establishment terms and (b) savings in operating cost reductions as a result of any proposed implementation, for each year in the 1989-94 FYDP. (4) Has the Government accepted recommendation 1.1 of the review; if not, (a) why not and (b) is a facilities policy to be developed. (5) Has a long-term facilities planning document been developed, as contained in recommendation 2.1 of the review; if not, (a) why not and (b) is such a document to be developed. (6) Did the Facilities Division within his Department receive a copy of the review prior to the official presentation of the review to his office on 18 December 1987; if so, (a) when did the Division receive the review and (b) what action has the Division or any other departmental component taken in respect of the review and its recommendations. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) The Review of Australia's Defence Facilities, prepared by the former Ministerial Consultant, Mr R. J. Cooksey, is an independent analysis of Australia's Defence facilities. It is not a statement of Government policy. The report contained more than 170 recommendations. At the time of the report's release many of its proposals and the facilities in question were already under review within Defence or were projects which had been initiated or were being further developed; for example, the Government's position on the two ocean navy and facilities developments at HMAS Stirling were presented in my statement on the Fleet Base Relocation Study Report on 25 February 1987. The Cooksey program is a long-term one extending to 25 years. In drawing together many complex and wide-ranging issues, the report provides a perspective that can be drawn upon in the development of Defence facilities as resources and priorities permit. (6) (a) Copies of the final and complete version of the Cooksey Report were not passed to my Department until 23 December 1987. Prior to that point, the Department had sighted parts of the report in draft. (b) See my answer above. (Question No. 439) Mr Howard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1988: (1) How many Qantas flights land at Bahrain each week. (2) How many Australians disembarked at Bahrain in 1985 and 1986. (3) Why was the Australian Consulate-General in Bahrain closed. (4) What consultation occurred with Qantas prior to the decision to close. (5) Did the Government own property in Bahrain; if so, (a) how was it disposed and (b) at what price was it sold. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) 42. (2) There are no statistics available on the number of Australians who disembarked at Bahrain in 1985 and 1986. However the following details may be of assistance: (a) From: The Australian Bureau of Statistics (compiled from information on outgoing and incoming passenger cards in Australia) (i) Passengers whose journey origin or destination was Bahrain: 1985 1986 Australian Residents ... 582 679 Visitors ... 1,927 2,187 TOTAL ... 2,509 2,867 (ii) Passengers whose points of uplift and discharge were Australia and Bahrain: 1985 1986 Qantas ... 4,623 5,640 Others ... 1,103 512 TOTAL ... 5,726 6,152 (b) From: Qantas, Bahrain (passengers disembarking from Qantas flights in Bahrain) 1985 1986 Ex Australia and Singapore ... 4,580 5,460 Ex London and Manchester ... 7,177 5,956 TOTAL ... 11,757 11,416 (3) The Australian Consulate-General, Bahrain was staffed, funded and operated by Austrade, the Australian Trade Commission. Austrade's decision to close the Consulate-General and redeploy its resources from Bahrain was taken in the general context of providing the most cost effective world wide services to Australian exporters. (4) The Australian Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other officials from the Australian Embassy, Riyadh visited Bahrain for discussions with the Qantas Manager, Bahrain. These talks covered the likely effects on Qantas of the proposed closure of the Australian Consulate-General, Bahrain and arrangements necessary for the issue of entry visas for Australia to residents of Bahrain should the Consulate-General close. (5) No. (Question No. 640) Mr Uren asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: Is the Minister able to say what changes there have been in the attitude of the international banks and OECD members toward assistance to Vietnam since his predecessor's answer to question No. 3973 (Hansard, 6 May 1982, page 2534) was prepared. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Since the previous reply of 6 May 1982 to the honourable member's question on this topic there has been no substantial change in the attitude of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank of the Asian Development Fund towards assistance to Vietnam; no new proposals for loans to Vietnam have been submitted to or processed by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank or the Asian Development Fund. The situation with regard to assistance to Vietnam from members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is as follows: Canada, the United States, Ireland, Portugal, Denmark, Belgium and Greece currently do not provide aid of any kind to Vietnam; Danish bilateral aid projects were suspended in 1986 and have since been completely phased out. The Swedish bilateral aid program of approximately $60 million per annum will conclude in 1990 and will not be resumed until Vietnam has withdrawn its forces from Cambodia. Finland has a continuing bilateral aid program for Vietnam of approximately $15 million per annum, and Norway has for several years provided project aid, with expenditure in 1987 of approximately $333,000. France and Austria provide cultural and humanitarian aid at a modest level. Japan, Italy, Belgium, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Spain, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the European Community provide no bilateral aid, but have provision for emergency and/or humanitarian assistance to be channelled through non-government organisations and multilateral agencies (as Australia does). (Question No. 730) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Was (a) Mr P. Adams, (b) Mr J. Singleton (c) Mr R. Cameron of ANOP or (d) any company, organisation, joint venture, partnership or other structure in which these persons have a beneficial interest, employed, engaged or otherwise remunerated or compensated by the Minister's Department or any instrumentality or organisation responsible to the Minister in (i) 1986-87 and (ii) 1987-88. (2) What was the nature of the work undertaken. (3) How was it decided to allocate this work. (4) What was the total cost. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) (b) (c) No. (1) (d) Without details to identify the organisations listed in part (d) of question 1, it is not possible to determine whether payments have in fact been made. (2) (3) (4) See above. (Question No. 892) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 20 April 1988: In 1987-88 what are the (a) annual salaries, (b) annual Overseas Living Allowances, (c) annual vouchable representation funds, (d) annual non-vouchable representation supplements, (e) annual Difficult Post Allowances, (f) current market values of the official residences and (g) annual costs of the domestic staff, of the Heads of Mission at (i) Dublin, (ii) Jakarta, (iii) Madrid, (iv) The Hague, (v) Wellington, (vi) London, (vii) New York (Consul-General), (viii) Beijing, (ix) Vancouver (Trade Commissioner), (x) Geneva (GATT) and (xi) Geneva (Disarmament). Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) (i) $56,092; (ii) $57,727; (iii) $56,092; (iv) $84,551; (v) $89,653; (vi) $84,551; (vii) $84,551; (viii) $75,727; (ix) $51,184; (x) $65,910; (xi) $61,001. (b) (i) $23,970; (ii) $26,530; (iii) $23,367; (iv) $32,309; (v) $14,761; (vi) $28,094; (vii) $38,655; (viii) $17,900; (ix) $25,922; (x) $63,260; (xi) $62,019. (c) (i) $9,140; (ii) $18,280; (iii) $10,280; (iv) $12,560; (v) $13,700; (vi) $19,380; (vii) $22,560; (viii) $20,560; (ix) Head of Post, Vancouver does not receive a personal representation allowance. A bulk amount of $8,500 for representational activities is provided in the post's annual operating budget to be drawn upon by Austrade staff members as required. (x) $9,740; (xi) $16,380. (d) (i) $3,199; (ii) $6,398; (iii) $3,598; (iv) $4,739; (v) $4,795; (vi) $6,783; (vii) $7,931; (viii) $7,196; (ix) $1,595; (x) $3,405; (xi) $5,733. (e) (i) Nil; (ii) $3,180; (iii) Nil; (iv) Nil; (v) Nil; (vi) Nil; (vii) Nil; (viii) $4,330; (ix) Nil; (x) Nil; (xi) Nil. (f) (i) No formal valuation available; (ii) No formal valuation available; (iii) Rented; (iv) No formal valuation available; (v) $1,558,000 (valued 25.11.87); (vi) $12,363,000 (valued 1.3.88); (vii) $3,827,000 (valued 1.3.88); (viii) Rented; (ix) $411,783 (valued 30.6.88); (x) Rented; (xi) Rented. (g) (i) $97,287; (ii) $21,161; (iii) $46,732; (iv) $118,138; (v) $19,997; (vi) $133,380; (vii) $54,905; (viii) $21,953; (ix) $16,773; (x) $37,542; (xi) $173,455. (Question No. 893) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 April 1988: (1) Has the Government received from the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) a report on the alleged role of Mr R. Kelly of the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union in the 2 coups d'etat in Fiji in 1987. (2) Will he table the report of the investigation into Mr Kelly's activities commissioned by AIDAB officials in Fiji. Mr Duffy —The Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. (1) No such report was prepared. (2) There was no such investigation. (Question No. 1074) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What week-end conferences, including management meetings and team-building exercises, and involving overnight accommodation have been conducted out of Canberra for staff of the Minister's Department for the year ending 31 May 1988. (2) When and where were the meetings held. (3) How many days were involved. (4) What was the agenda for each meeting. (5) Who attended each meeting from the Minister's Department and from outside the Minister's Department. (6) What was the total cost to the Minister's Department. (7) What were the itemised costs, including transportation, accommodation, speakers, food and drink costs. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2)- New South Wales Office: One weekend conference held at The Entrance from 17 to 20 April. Queensland Office: One Senior Management Conference held at Kooralbyn Valley from 13 to 15 March 1988. Central Office: Two Manager Development Conferences held at the Jamberoo Convention Centre from 27 July to 31 July 1987 and from 31 January to 6 February 1988. One weekend Executive Conference held at the Lincoln Downs Motel, Batemans Bay, from 20 to 22 November 1987. (3)- New South Wales: Three days. Queensland Office: Two and a half days. Central Office: Fifteen days. (4)- New South Wales Office: To develop team effectiveness and corporate objectives and strategies. Sessions commenced at 8.30 am each day and included formal evening sessions on the 2nd and 3rd evenings that went until midnight. Queensland Office: Policy directions of Departments of Community Services and Health. Developing/clarifying roles between Branches Role clarification exercise, role understanding between State Managers, Deputy State Managers and Branch Managers. Identification of common areas/issues between programs. Identification of additional issues. Central Office: Manager Development Conferences- Complex mixtures of training, discussion, planning and review seminars related to year long Manager Development Program. Weekend Executive Conference- Discuss objectives of amalgamated Department. (5)- New South Wales: Tony Ayers Secretary Jenny Bedlington State Manager Jim Hetherington Deputy State Manager Pat Griffin Deputy State Manager Rod Gilmour Manager Corporate Services Frank Hegarty Manager Residential Programs Phillip Moore Manager Community Programs Peter Fogarty Manager Medical Jillian Farmers Manager Hearing Services Patricia Campbell Manager Rehabilitation Maurice O'Brien Manager Housing Lindsay Jones Manager Pharmaceutical Mike Smith Manager Disability Services Patricia Leehy Assistant Manager, Corporate and Staff Development Jennifer Gavin Senior Training Officer, Corporate and Staff Development Edward Lowe Peter Howes Consultants-Human Resources Management Queensland Office: Glen Rees Deputy Secretary Allan Hawke First Assistant Secretary, Corporate Services Susan Forster Manager, Hearing Services Charmaine Ockenfels Manager, Rehabilitation Robyn Renneberg Assistant Manager, Corporate &Staff Development Allan Green Manager, Pharmaceutical Services Mike Wills Manager, Corporate Services Barry Wight State Manager Peter Hand Deputy State Manager Ian Jones Manager Residential Programs Judith Williamson Director, Medical Services Suzanne Fletcher Assistant Manager, Secretariat &Planning Peter Ulrich Deputy State Manager David Pockley Manager, Housing Services Graham Schlecht Manager, Disability Services David Simpson Manager, Community Care Greg Kerswell Manager, North Queensland Regional Office Peter Howes Consultant-Human Resources Management Central Office: (1) Manager Development Conferences Martin Quinn Director of Training Terri-Helen Gaynor Gerry Smith Peter Nolan David Gaunt Georgina Ekin Julia Richards Paul Isaacson Chris Bradly Jenny Epsom MDP participants Elizabeth Granger Staff Development Officer Brian Lewis Assistant Director, Training Phill Boas Consultant (Precision Communications) (2) Weekend Executive Conference Dr Neal Blewett Minister Deborah Snow Peter Read David Butt Kate Moore Mike Clarke Andrew Barnes John Rau Minister's Staff Tony Ayers Secretary John Simpson Glenn Rees Alan Bansemer Deputy Secretariat David de Souza Chief Commonwealth Medical Officer Mary Murnane John Deeble Ian Lindenmayer Bob Egan Terry Slater Richard Madden Peter Pflaum Ken Riordon Peter Edmonds Marie Coleman Alex Proudfoot First Assistant Secretariat Jenny Bedlington (NSW) Di Shogren (Victoria) State Managers Peter Eveille Support Staff (6) New South Wales Office; $19,540.51 Queensland Office; $11,301.25 Central Office: $26,494.20 (7) Itemised accounts are not readily available. (Question No. 1083) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) Has his Department become aware of proposals by Libya to train personnel, in particular, as police, for the Vanuatu Government; if so, (a) when did his Department first become aware of any such proposal, (b) what was the nature of any such proposal and (c) what action did the Government take. (2) Has the Government received approaches from the Vanuatu Government for the training of Vanuatu personnel, in particular, as police; if so, (a) when were such approaches made, (b) when did the Government reply and (c) what was that reply. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (1) (a) The tentative proposal to train members of the Vanuatu police force in Libya became known on 27 November 1987, in a political debate during the 1987 general election campaign in Vanuatu. (1) (b) The Government is not aware of the details of the proposal. Given that the proposal was at no stage any more than a possibility, it would appear likely that questions such as timing, the duration and the exact nature of the training to be provided were never firmly established. (1) (c) The Government did not judge it politic to speak to the Vanuatu Government about a revelation made during an election campaign. The Vanuatu Government was of course well aware of the Australian Government's views on Libyan involvement in the region on the basis of public statements made in the course of that year, and, in particular, of the briefing given the Vanuatu Government by the Prime Minister's special emissary to Forum members in May 1987. (2) Yes. (1) (c), (b) and (c) Australia has provided training for a total of 27 members of the Vanuatu Police Force (VPF) (which includes the Vanuatu Mobile Force) since 1980. This training has included courses in communications, patrol boat operations and maintenance, firefighting, vehicle operation and maintenance, catering, ammunition technician, bandmaster and musicianship and corps promotion. In addition Australia has sponsored the training of some 120 VPF personnel on courses conducted by the PNG Defence Force. Requests for training are received from time to time, but are generally submitted in a consolidated form once each year. They are discussed during the Defence Cooperation discussions held in Port Vila each years. A number of requests for the provision of a range of police training, including unarmed combat and counter terrorist-related training, under Defence Cooperation, were received from Vanuatu in 1986-87. In response to these requests, a Police Training and Assessment team visited Vanuatu in August 1987 to make an assessment of the police training requirements of the VPF. The Vanuatu Government has recently advised its formal acceptance of the team's report and action has commenced progressively to implement its recommendations, which cover the broad range of police training as well as training in military skills. (Question No. 1084) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 3 June: (1) Is the Government still committed to the UN target of 0.7% of GNP for official development assistance programs; if so, when is this to be implemented. (2) What (a) countries in Africa, (b) littoral states of the Indian Ocean and island countries of the Indian Ocean, excluding African countries covered under part 2 (a), and (c) other countries, are receiving, or are to receive, Australian aid in 1987-88. (3) In respect of each country referred to in part (2), what are the particulars of all forms of bilateral, multilateral or other aid, including a brief description of each aid program. (4) What practices are followed by the Government to determine that Australian aid in each such country is being distributed in accordance with the intention of the Government and how does the Government oversee the distribution of aid in countries where Australia is not represented by its own diplomatic mission. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Government continues to adhere to the ODA/GNP target of 0.7 per cent set by the United Nations. Australia's progress towards that target will depend, however, on its own economic circumstances and capacity to assist. (2) and (3) A table showing total flows of Australian official development assistance (ODA) to individual recipient countries in 1987-88 is included in my answer to the honourable member's question No. 1086 (6). Particulars of Australian aid to recipient countries in 1987-88 are contained in Budget Related Paper No. 4, Australia's Overseas Aid Program 1987-88. Any additional information required for individual recipient countries is available on request. (4) For most Australian bilateral aid activities, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is negotiated with the recipient government. The MOU formalises a common understanding between the two governments on the contributions and management responsibilities of each. MOUs are arrangements of less than treaty status; while not legally binding, they carry in international relations moral and political suasion. As the Government agency primarily responsible for the implementation of Australia's aid programs, AIDAB monitors the adherence to arrangements agreed in the MOU in a number of ways. In the case of a project AIDAB requires the Australian agent it contracts to manage a project to produce regular (quarterly/six monthly) reports assessing whether the project is on track, identifying any problems and proposing solutions. A project MOU normally provides for a joint `Project Governing Board' (PGB) to oversee implementation. Each report is analysed by the relevant Australian mission and the project is regularly inspected. Representatives of the Australian mission then meet with the recipient government agency (by way of the PGB) to reach decisions on any matters requiring action on the part of either government. For larger projects periodic reviews are arranged as required: these usually involve a specialist AIDAB team visiting the project to review progress and performance, overcome specific problems and refine the project's design to improve its impact and effectiveness. In the case of Australian commodities provided for development (mainly food and equipment) AIDAB requires reports from recipients. Such reports can be expected to assess the progress of any development projects to which goods are applied. The report should also confirm that goods have been received in good working order by the intended recipient and note the allocation of any proceeds derived from re-sale of goods. Where Australia agrees to the recipient government re-selling commodities to the private sector the MOU specifies that the proceeds should reflect the full market value of the goods at the prevailing rate of exchange and should be credited to appropriations of the recipient government for development purposes agreed jointly by the two governments. In addition, and wherever possible, Australian missions monitor the condition of food and goods on arrival, their handling and storage, the way in which they are used/disposed, their acceptability to users and their impact. The MOU may also provide for AIDAB to conduct formal periodic reviews to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of commodity assistance. In the case of emergency or refugee aid, reports are required from implementing agencies outlining how the funds are used, including an assessment of the timeliness and appropriateness of assistance and of the number of people reached. For projects carried out by non-government organisations (NGOs) and partly subsidised by AIDAB, the implementing NGO is required to provide project reports to AIDAB. Projects may also be inspected by joint AIDAB/NGO review teams. In appropriate cases Australian missions are able to visit NGO projects. In countries where Australia has a bilateral program but not a resident mission, a nearby accredited mission makes regular monitoring visits. AIDAB head office staff also conduct visits as required to review the program and/or individual activities. These procedures are designed to ensure that Australian aid is not misused. However, the difficulties involved in conducting aid activities in countries remote from Australia, including in circumstances of emergency or natural disaster, often without the possibility of direct supervision or oversight by Australian officials, make it impossible to guarantee that Australian aid is distributed in accordance with the intentions of the Australian Government in every detail in all circumstances. Nevertheless, the Government is confident that the procedures currently in place provide a high and cost-effective level of protection against possible misuse of Australian aid. (Question No. 1086) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 3 June: (1) Is the total value of Australian sourced foreign aid for 1987-88 equivalent to the lowest percentage expenditure of gross domestic product on foreign aid programs by any Australian Government since 1963. (2) What are the expenditures and the percentages those expenditures represent in terms of GNP on foreign aid programs by Australian Governments for each year since 1963. (3) What checks are made on how equipment provided under Australian aid programs has been used and maintained. (4) What records are kept of the effective lifespan of equipment provided under Australian foreign aid programs. (5) If neither checks nor records are kept, how does his Department satisfy itself that equipment provided under the Australian foreign aid programs is being efficiently and effectively maintained and utilised. (6) What cutbacks or changes in the allocation of Australian official development aid by country took place in the allocations in (a) 1983-84, (b) 1984-85, (c) 1985-86 and (d) 1987-88. (7) Has it come to the attention of his Department that in the years from 1983-84 to 1987-88 Australian official development aid given by bilateral, multilateral or other means, (a) has been misappropriated, (b) has been misapplied, (c) for any reason was not applied for the purpose for which it was intended; if so, what are the particulars of such matters and the foreign governments, organisations, officials or other persons considered to be responsible. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) Details of Australian official development assistance (ODA) expenditure since 1963 are as follows: Year...Expenditure- Current Prices ODA/GNP Ratio $million (%) 1963-4 ... 86.4 0.47 1964-5 ... 97.8 0.50 1965-6 ... 109.6 0.54 1966-7 ... 125.7 0.56 1967-8 ... 141.3 0.59 1968-9 ... 148.0 0.55 1969-70 ... 171.5 0.58 1970-1 ... 180.6 0.56 1971-2 ... 200.5 0.55 1972-3 ... 219.2 0.53 1973-4 ... 264.9 0.53 1974-5 ... 334.6 0.57 1975-6 ... 356.0 0.51 1976-7 ... 386.2 0.47 1977-8 ... 426.1 0.48 1978-9 ... 468.4 0.45 1979-80 ... 508.7 0.44 1980-1 ... 568.0 0.44 1981-2 ... 658.0 0.45 1982-3 ... 744.6 0.47 1983-4* ... 931.8 0.51 1984-5 ... 1011.4 0.50 1985-6 ... 1031.0 0.46 1986-7 ... 975.6 0.38 1987-8 ... 1019.5 0.37 * The Australian Government contribution towards the education of students from developing countries within Australia has been included as ODA from 1983-84. (3) The system for monitoring the implementation of aid activities allows AIDAB to oversee activity performance and to be alerted quickly to any problems arising with equipment. (Please refer to my answer to the honourable member's question No. 1084 (4)). After a project is completed, responsibility for the use and maintenance of equipment is transferred to the recipient government, which is ultimately responsible for the sustainability of the project. Where appropriate, Australia assists this process by building into the design of projects training components to provide counterpart staff with the skills necessary to maintain equipment; by requiring recipients to contribute to the capital costs of projects (thus helping to secure their long-term commitment to maintain activities); and by carrying out evaluations of selected projects some years after completion. The latter allows the long-term sustainability of equipment and other inputs to be assessed and recommendations to be made to the recipient government to correct any problems. (4) During the implementation phase of a project a register of assets belonging to the project is maintained by the managing agent. This register records equipment purchases and write-offs. Service records are also maintained for equipment. At the completion of the project, assets are turned over to the recipient government which becomes responsible for their upkeep. (5) See (3) and (4) above. See also my answer to the honourable member's question No. 1084 (4). (6) The following table shows the total flow of Australian Official Development Assistance (ODA) to developing countries and regions since 1983-84. The major component of these flows is Country Programs expenditure which is jointly programmed on a country basis by Australia and recipients (this includes project aid, technical assistance, training, commodity aid and co-financing assistance). Aid is also provided for activities which are not programmed on a country basis but that can later be identified as ODA to a particular country or region. In some cases, AIDAB only becomes aware of the total country flows during or at the end of the financial year as it undertakes a detailed statistical review of all items of aid expenditure for the fiscal year. The final destination of some of this expenditure is not directly determined by the Australian Government. A number of non-country based expenditure items can sometimes be attributed as Australian ODA to a particular country: it is possible to identify the destination of projects funded from the Women in Development Fund, support for voluntary agencies, assistance under the DIFF and expenditure by Australian diplomatic missions under the Direct Aid Program Agencies such as ACIAR provide AIDAB with returns of ODA expenditure by destination Support for emergencies and refugees is targeted on individual recipients (although the destination of allocations only becomes clear during the fiscal year) The country destinations of Australian contributions to a number or regional programs such as the ASEAN Australia Economic Cooperation Program and the Indo-China regional program can be identified in full or in part In some cases Australia's contributions to international organisations can also be identified as being expended in particular countries. Australia's contribution to the World Food Programme is an example Information is provided to AIDAB by other government departments and agencies on their expenditure of ODA much of which is country based Australia also subsidises the cost of educating private overseas students from developing countries to study approved courses in Australia. The origin of these students is guided by a quota system determined by the Government. While the bulk of the quotas are directed to particular countries, some quotas are allocated on the basis of region only. The final cost by country of the student subsidy is collated through the financial year as student census material becomes available. Very small amounts recorded against some recipients usually only represent student subsidy payments or assistance under the Direct Aid Program. AUSTRALIAN OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WHERE IDENTIFIABLE BY COUNTRY OR REGION AT CURRENT PRICES Recipient Area/Country 1983-84 (a) 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 (p) $'000 PAPUA NEW GUINEA ... 302,280 321,699 327,473 333,399 306,774 SOUTH PACIFIC Cook Islands ... 371 995 494 1,352 1,631 Fiji ... 10,524 16,384 17,693 19,647 19,036 Kiribati ... 2,283 3,459 3,602 3,058 2,986 Nauru ... 48 58 61 63 160 New Caledonia ... 5 54 137 90 55 Niue ... 132 105 195 441 379 Pacific Islands (US) ... 94 227 316 379 466 Polynesia, French ... 12 96 . . 85 243 Solomon Islands ... 7,270 8,629 17,643 8,364 11,196 Tokelau ... 5 . . . . . . . . Tonga ... 4,986 6,789 6,759 7,367 9,340 Tuvalu ... 1,187 1,385 1,256 9,186 1,629 Vanuatu ... 5,134 5,584 7,183 13,056 9,984 Western Samoa ... 5,314 5,271 6,376 6,514 9,902 Regional ... 13,237 15,179 17,330 17,862 19,518 Total South Pacific ... 50,602 64,215 79,045 87,464 86,524 SOUTH EAST ASIA ASEAN Brunei ... . . 135 266 250 428 Indonesia ... 61,104 76,029 65,579 70,124 84,654 Malaysia ... 7,465 64,649 64,115 57,201 49,847 Philippines ... 20,041 20,457 18,158 28,152 27,817 Singapore ... 2,273 10,523 7,809 6,430 5,015 Thailand ... 24,615 30,067 31,844 24,618 25,069 ASEAN Regional ... 3,962 3,726 3,060 2,377 9,422 Total ASEAN ... 119,460 205,586 190,831 189,152 202,252 Burma ... 10.747 9,148 12,020 9,936 11,835 Indo-China Region (b) Cambodia ... 3,435 6,038 3,122 2,575 6,132 Laos ... 3,110 3,816 3,953 6,056 7,115 Vietnam ... 498 4,061 4,621 1,507 13,998 Regional ... 150 4,645 8,446 6,144 561 Total Indi-China Region ... 7,193 18,560 ... 20,142 16,282 27,806 South-East Asia Regional ... 9,594 6,824 3,660 833 Total South East Asia ... 146,994 240,118 226,653 216,203 241,891 OTHER REGIONS East Asia China, People's Rep. ... 14,017 34,930 26,381 19,682 34,146 Hong Kong ... 105 12,682 11,920 9,990 8,105 Korea, Dem. ... . . . . . . 2 2 Korea, Republic of ... 220 1,002 936 887 836 Taiwan ... . . 186 233 22 168 Regional ... 4,285 4,442 5,799 6,167 79 Total East Asia ... 18,627 53,242 45,269 36,750 43,335 South Asia Afghanistan ... 6 . . . . . . 20 Bangladesh ... 30,733 19,510 21,866 17,159 14,224 Bhutan ... 860 451 994 166 111 India ... 2,048 3,429 2,742 2,647 2,795 Nepal ... 3,286 2,738 2,186 4,088 3,439 Pakistan ... 6,916 5,405 7,502 4,549 5,314 Sri Lanka ... 5,663 6,991 3,910 1,963 4,106 Regional ... 17 250 136 100 135 Total South Asia ... 49,529 38,774 39,336 30,672 30,144 Southern Africa Angola ... 18 927 820 186 978 Botswana ... 382 796 563 597 664 Lesotho ... 211 442 514 156 116 Malawi ... 1,987 543 422 495 872 Mozambique ... 2,602 4,400 5,721 7,120 11,010 Namibia ... 92 97 128 116 142 Swaziland ... 325 511 196 315 394 Tanzania ... 10,858 6,572 4,502 2,947 3,772 Zambia ... 3,816 3,095 633 514 2,201 Zimbabwe ... 5,774 6,051 4,298 1,059 1,187 Southern Africa Regional ... 361 384 134 1,288 4,264 Total Southern Africa ... 26,426 23,818 17,931 14,793 25,601 Other sub-Saharan Africa Benin ... . . 340 242 . . 412 Burkina Faso ... . . . . 23 204 91 Burundi ... . . . . . . 1 17 Cameroon ... . . . . 233 90 . . Cape Verde ... . . . . 3,045 536 429 Chad ... . . 27 7 . . 520 Congo ... 195 . . 105 . . 6 Djibouti ... . . 522 909 . . 682 Ethiopia ... 5,423 23,945 16,677 11,383 19,935 Equatorial Guinea ... . . 27 . . . . . . Gambia ... 265 231 304 76 10 Ghana ... 2,115 1,189 4,072 3,506 292 Guinea ... 117 111 221 86 . . Guinea-Bissau ... . . 105 722 . . 415 Ivory Coast ... . . . . . . . . 5 Kenya ... 3,135 7,846 4,070 2,685 1,310 Liberia ... . . 17 10 206 . . Madagascar ... 654 851 264 . . 2 Mali ... 1,950 150 1,788 5 903 Mauritania ... . . 71 390 480 . . Niger ... . . . . 11 . . 226 Nigeria ... 467 553 559 387 436 Rwanda ... . . . . 10 . . . . Sao Tome and Principe ... . . 589 . . 246 . . Senegal ... 152 48 109 . . 953 Sierra Leone ... 34 46 75 90 97 Somalia ... 3,583 3,742 5,827 3,888 2,986 Sudan ... 1,186 3,600 3,883 2,370 771 Togo ... . . . . 51 44 284 Uganda ... 4,892 534 374 534 210 Zaire ... . . 33 . . . . 63 Regional ... 6,175 8,227 6,516 4,680 3,126 Total Other sub-Saharan Africa ... 30,343 52,804 50,497 31,497 34,181 Indian Ocean Island States Comoros ... 325 404 607 534 328 Maldives ... 615 1,287 1,234 1,161 912 Mauritius ... 2.922 2,512 2,926 2,280 3,679 Seychelles ... 707 715 1,021 1,365 1,693 Total Indian Ocean Island States ... 4,569 4,918 5,788 5,340 6,612 North Africa &Middle East Algeria ... 14 76 14 6 . . Bahrain ... . . . . . . 29 11 Egypt ... 6,677 7,940 9,332 11,394 13,986 Iran ... . . . . . . . . 837 Iraq ... . . . . . . . . 129 Israel ... . . 17 25 42 81 Jordan ... 421 741 694 718 848 Kuwait ... . . . . 3 . . . . Lebanon ... 4,106 467 542 35 316 Libya ... . . . . . . 25 6 Morocco ... . . 113 (2) . . . . Oman ... . . . . . . . . 3 Saudi Arabia ... . . . . . . 25 10 Syria ... 198 574 422 1,241 21 Tunisia ... 13 83 1 7,400 United Arab Emirates ... . . . . . . . . 5 Yemen, Democratic ... 1,047 664 128 5 . . Yeman, Rep. ... 14 54 46 5 3 Regional ... 1,439 2,167 2,106 392 539 Total North Africa &Middle East 13,929 12,896 13,311 13,917 24,195 Rest of the World Antigua ... 19 8 5 10 Argentina ... 70 . . . . . . 1 Bahamas ... 60 46 33 20 Barbados ... 3 7 3 17 5 Belize ... 29 31 43 14 19 Bolivia ... . . 56 8 . . 11 Brazil ... 10 47 38 20 120 Chile ... 5 43 10 21 59 Colombia ... . . 27 1,978 76 38 Costa Rica ... . . 24 22 10 1 Cuba ... . . . . 981 1,894 1 Cyprus ... 71 59 59 16 Dominica ... 14 4 46 1 . . Ecuador ... 669 200 . . 36 123 El Salvador ... 75 81 28 151 26 Greece ... . . . . . . 114 57 Grenada ... 71 57 . . . . . . Guatemala ... . . 10 13 . . 37 Guyana ... 42 88 120 50 6 Haiti ... . . 7 34 116 25 Honduras ... . . 8 156 29 57 Jamaica ... 382 304 243 163 63 Malta ... 249 32 29 13 12 Mexico ... 87 190 1,100 179 168 Nicaragua ... 82 198 33 99 47 Panama ... . . . . . . . . 17 Paraguay ... 5 . . . . . . . . Peru ... 15 13 32 . . . . Portugal ... . . . . . . . . 2 St Kitts-Nevis ... 45 38 46 37 18 St Lucia ... 13 77 106 35 19 St Vincent ... 82 45 . . 1 25 Trinidad &Tobago ... . . . . . . . . 1 Turkey ... 535 . . . . 911 34 Venezuela ... 4 10 10 28 29 Regional ... 316 467 403 206 239 Total Rest of the World 2,953 2,177 5,579 4,267 1,260 Total Other Regions ... 146,376 188,629 177,711 137,236 165,325 Unallocable by country or region ... 186,916 196,742 220,082 201,314 219,009 Student subsidy (a) ... 98,600 . . . . . . . . Total Official Development Assistance ... 931,768 1,011,403 1,030,964 975,616 1,019,526 Symbols: (p)-Provisional, may be subject to further revision x-Expenditure less than half the final unit shown ( )-Negative value (a) The costs involved in educating students from developing countries in Australian secondary and tertiary institutions have been included as Official Development Assistance expenditure for each country from 1 July 1984. (b) Australia does not give direct bilateral aid to Vietnam or Cambodia. However we do contribute to the programs of multilateral and non-government organisations in Indo-China. The figures for Indo-China, particularly at the individual country level, should be regarded as indicative only. For 1987/88 only, regional contributions have been allocated to individual countries where possible. NOTE: Discrepancies may occur between sums of component items and totals due to rounding. AUSTRALIAN OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WHERE IDENTIFIABLE BY COUNTRY OR REGION AT CONSTANT 1987/88 PRICES Recipient Area/Country 1983-84 (a) 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 (p) $ '000 PAPUA NEW GUINEA ... 394,107 396,181 377,273 357,724 306,774 SOUTH PACIFIC Cook Islands ... 484 1,225 569 1,451 1,631 Fiji ... 13,721 20,177 20,384 21,080 19,036 Kiribati ... 2,977 4,260 4,150 3,281 2,986 Nauru ... 63 71 70 68 160 New Caledonia ... 7 67 158 97 55 Niue ... 172 129 225 473 379 Pacific Islands (US) ... 123 280 364 407 466 Polynesia, French ... 16 118 91 243 Solomon Islands ... 9,478 10,627 20,326 8,974 11,196 Tokelau ... 7 Tonga ... 6,501 8,361 7,787 7,905 9,340 Tuvalu ... 1,548 1,706 1,447 9,856 1,629 Vanuatu ... 6,694 6,877 8,275 14,009 9,984 Western Samoa ... 6,928 6,491 7,346 6,989 9,902 Regional ... 17,258 18,693 19,965 19,165 19,518 Total South Pacific ... 65,974 79,083 91,066 93,845 86,524 SOUTH EAST ASIA ASEAN Brunei ... 166 306 268 428 Indonesia ... 79,666 93,632 75,552 75,240 84,654 Malaysia ... 9,733 79,617 73,865 61,374 49,847 Philippines ... 26,129 25,193 20,919 30,206 27,817 Singapore ... 2,963 12,959 8,997 6,899 5,015 Thailand ... 32,093 37,028 36,687 26,414 25,069 ASEAN Regional ... 5,166 4,589 3,525 2,550 9,422 Total ASEAN ... 155,750 253,185 219,851 202,953 202,252 Burma ... 14,012 11,266 13,848 10,661 11,835 Indo-China Region (b) Cambodia ... 4,478 7,436 3,597 2,763 6,132 Laos ... 4,055 4,700 4,554 6,498 7,115 Vietnam ... 649 5,001 5,324 1,617 13,998 Regional ... 196 5,720 9,730 6,592 561 Total Indo-China Region ... 9,378 22,857 23,205 17,470 27,806 South East Asia Regional ... 12,508 8,404 4,217 894 Total South East Asia ... 191,648 295,712 261,121 231,977 241,891 OTHER REGIONS East Asia China, People's Rep. ... 18,275 43,017 30,393 21,118 34,146 Hong Kong ... 137 15,618 13,733 10,719 8,105 Korea, Dem. ... 2 2 Korea, Republic of ... 287 1,234 1,078 952 836 Taiwan ... . . 229 268 24 168 Regional ... 5,587 5,470 6,681 6,617 79 Total East Asia ... 24,286 65,569 52,153 39,431 43,335 South Asia Afghanistan ... 8 . . . . . . 20 Bangladesh ... 40,069 24,027 25,191 18,411 14,224 Bhutan ... 1,121 555 1,145 178 111 India ... 2,670 4,223 3,159 2,840 2,795 Nepal ... 4,284 3,372 2,518 4,386 3,439 Pakistan ... 9,017 6,656 8,643 4,881 5,314 Sri Lanka ... 7,383 8,610 4,505 2,106 4,106 Regional ... 22 308 157 107 135 Total South Asia ... 64,575 47,751 45,318 32,910 30,144 Southern Africa Angola ... 23 1,142 945 200 978 Botswana ... 498 980 649 641 664 Lesotho ... 275 544 592 167 116 Malawi ... 2,591 669 486 531 872 Mozambique ... 3,392 5,419 6,591 7,639 11,010 Namibia ... 120 119 147 124 142 Swaziland ... 424 629 226 338 394 Tanzania ... 14,156 8,094 5,187 3,162 3,772 Zambia ... 4,975 3,812 729 552 2,201 Zimbabwe ... 7,528 7,452 4,952 1,136 1,187 Southern Africa Regional ... 471 473 154 1,382 4,264 Total Southern Africa ... 34,454 29,333 20,658 15,872 25,601 Other sub-Saharan Africa Benin ... . . 419 279 . . 412 Burkina Faso ... . . . . . . . . 91 Burundi ... . . . . . . 1 17 Cameroon ... . . . . 268 97 . . Cape Verde ... . . . . 3,508 575 429 Chad ... . . 33 8 . . 520 Congo ... 254 . . 121 . . 6 Djibouti ... . . 643 1,047 . . 682 Ethiopia ... 7,070 29,489 19,213 12,214 19,935 Equatorial Guinea ... . . 33 . . . . . . Gambia ... 346 284 350 82 10 Ghana ... 2,757 1,464 4,691 3,762 292 Guinea ... 153 137 255 92 . . Guinea-Bissau ... . . 129 832 . . 415 Ivory Coast ... . . . . . . . . 5 Kenya ... 4,087 9,663 4,689 2,881 1,310 Liberia ... . . 21 12 221 . . Madagascar ... 853 1,048 304 . . 2 Mali ... 2,542 185 2,060 5 903 Mauritania ... . . 87 449 515 . . Niger ... . . . . 13 . . 226 Nigeria ... 609 681 644 415 436 Rwanda ... . . . . 12 . . . . Sao Tome and Principe ... . . 725 . . 264 . . Senegal ... 198 59 126 . . 953 Sierra Leone ... 44 57 86 97 97 Somalia ... 4,671 4,608 6,713 4,172 2,986 Sudan ... 1,546 4,433 4,474 2,543 771 Togo ... . . . . 59 47 284 Uganda ... 6,378 658 431 573 210 Zaire ... . . 41 . . . . 63 Regional ... 8,051 10,132 7,507 5,021 3,126 Total Other sub-Saharan Africa ... 39,561 65,030 58,150 33,576 34,181 Indian Ocean Island States Comoros ... 424 498 699 573 328 Maldives ... 802 1,585 1,422 1,246 912 Mauritius ... 3,810 3,094 3,371 2,446 3,679 Seychelles ... 922 881 1,176 1,465 1,693 Total Indian Ocean Island States North Africa and Middle East 5,957 6,057 6,668 5,730 6,612 Algeria ... 18 94 16 6 . . Bahrain ... . . . . . . 31 11 Egypt ... 8,705 9,778 10,751 12,225 13,986 Iran ... . . . . . . . . 837 Iraq ... . . . . . . . . 129 Israel ... . . 21 29 45 81 Jordan ... 549 913 800 770 848 Kuwait ... . . . . 3 . . . . Lebanon ... 5,353 575 624 38 316 Libya ... . . . . . . 27 6 Morocco ... . . 139 (2) . . . . Oman ... . . . . . . . . 3 Saudi Arabia ... . . . . . . 27 10 Syria ... 258 707 486 1,332 21 Tunisia ... 17 102 1 . . 7,400 United Arab Emirates ... . . . . . . . . 5 Yemen, Democratic ... 1,365 818 147 5 . . Yemen, Rep. ... 18 67 53 5 3 Regional ... 1,876 2,669 2,426 421 539 Total North Africa and Middle East 18,160 15,882 15,335 14,932 24,195 Rest of the World Antigua ... 25 10 6 11 . . Argentina ... 91 . . . . . . 1 Bahamas ... 78 57 38 21 . . Barbados ... 4 9 3 18 5 Belize ... 38 38 50 15 19 Bolivia ... . . 69 9 . . 11 Brazil ... 13 58 44 21 120 Chile ... 7 53 12 23 59 Colombia ... . . 33 2,279 82 38 Costa Rica ... . . 30 25 11 1 Cuba ... . . . . 1,130 2,032 1 Cyprus ... 93 73 68 17 . . Dominica ... 18 5 53 1 . . Ecuador ... 872 246 . . 39 123 El Salvador ... 98 100 32 162 26 Greece ... . . . . . . 122 57 Grenada ... 93 70 . . . . . . Guatemala ... . . 12 15 . . 37 Guyana ... 55 108 138 54 6 Haiti ... . . 9 39 124 25 Honduras ... . . 10 180 31 57 Jamaica ... 498 374 280 175 63 Malta ... 325 39 33 14 12 Mexico ... 113 234 1,267 192 168 Nicaragua ... 107 244 38 106 47 Panama ... . . . . . . . . 17 Paraguay ... 7 . . . . . . . . Peru ... 20 16 37 . . . . Portugal ... . . . . . . . . 2 St Kitts-Nevis ... 59 47 53 40 18 St Lucia ... 17 95 122 38 19 St Vincent ... 107 55 . . 1 25 Trinidad and Tobago ... . . . . . . . . 1 Turkey ... 698 . . . . 977 34 Venezuela ... 5 12 12 30 29 Regional ... 412 575 464 221 239 Total Rest of the World ... 3,850 2,681 6,427 5,478 1,260 Total Other Regions ... 190,842 232,302 204,736 147,249 165,325 Unallocable by country or region ... 243,698 242,293 253,551 216,002 219,009 Student subsidy (a) ... 128,553 Total ODA ... 1,214,821 1,245,570 1,187,747 1,046,798 1,019,526 Symbols: (p)-Provisional, may be subject to further revision ( )-Negative value (a) The costs involved in educating students from developing countries in Australia secondary and tertiary institutions have been included as Official Development Assistance expenditure for each country from 1 July 1984. (b) Australia does not give direct bilateral aid to Vietnam or Cambodia. However we do contribute to the programs of multilateral and non-government organisations in Indo-China. The figures for Indo-China, particularly at the individual country level, should be regarded as indicative only. For 1987/88 only, regional contributions have been allocated to individual countries where possible. NOTE: Discrepancies may occur between sums of component items and totals due to rounding. (7) Australia maintains an effective system of monitoring to ensure that Australian aid funds provided to recipient developing countries are used according to the purposes for which they were intended. (See (3) and (4) above. See also my answer to the honourable member's question No. 1084(4) ). Australia also evaluates the performance, including the financial accountability, of international organisations receiving Australian official development assistance. Where there have been allegations of misuse of Australian aid funds they have been investigated. Over the period of 1983 to the present there is no instance in which investigations have established legal responsibility for any misuse of Australian aid. The Government's capacity to ensure the proper use of Australian aid funds will be enhanced by the implementation of a system of fraud control in accordance with the recommendations of the 1987 Review of Systems for Dealing with Fraud on the Commonwealth. (Question No. 1165) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 31 August 1988: (1) When did Dr R. Garnaut commence work on the study, announced on 25 May 1988, into the implications for Australia of economic development in the East Asian region. (2) When is Dr Garnaut expected to complete the study (3) What work has Dr Garnaut so far carried out as part of the study (4) What sums have been paid to Dr Garnaut and to what sum will Dr Garnaut be entitled for the study Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Dr Garnaut commenced work on his study into the implications for Australia of economic growth and structural change in East Asia on 30 June this year. (2) He is expected to submit his report to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in mid-1989 (3) Dr Garnaut has had discussions with heads of relevant Departments and completed a preliminary outline of the study (4) No sum has yet been paid to Dr Garnaut. Following a determination by the Department of Industrial Relations Dr Garnaut will be paid a fee of $30 000 for his work on this Report (Question No. 1184) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) Did the Executive Board of UNESCO, at its 125th session and in the context of the International Year of Peace 1986, urge member states which had not yet done so to examine the possibility of ratifying, or acceding to, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the Protocol thereto which were signed at the The Hague on 14 May 1954. (2) Did the Executive Board, at its 129th session and in the context of the war between Iraq and Iran, invite states which are not yet parties to the Hague Convention and Protocol to examine the possibility of becoming parties thereto. (3) Did Australia ratify the Convention on 19 September 1984. (4) Is the Minister able to say which other states are parties to the Convention but not to the Protocol. (5) Has the Government examined the possibility of ratifying the Protocol subsequent to my question No. 638 (Hansard, 22 August 1988, page 46) being answered; if so, with what result. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (3) Yes (4) Thirteen other States are parties to the Convention but not the Protocol: Burkina Fasco, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Ivory Coast, Mongolia, Oman, Panama, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Sudan, Tanzania. (5) The question of ratifying the Protocol has not been examined by the Government since the honourable member's question No. 638 of 22 February 1988. I am advised that the possibility of ratification was considered by Departments in 1985, at which stage it appeared that the Protocol raised complex issues which would require considerable research and consultation. It also appeared that legislation would be necessary to enable Australia to meet its obligations if it were to ratify the Protocol. The matter has not been pursued since then because resources have been committed to other priorities. (Question No. 1185) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 5093 (Hansard, 30 April 1987, page 2377), have the interested Departments completed their re-examination of the question of possible adherence by Australia to the 1950 (Florence) Agreement and the 1976 (Nairobi) Protocol on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials. (2) Which are the interested Departments. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The examination of this matter by interested departments has been completed. A major impediment to Australia's accession to the 1950 (Florence) Agreement and 1976 (Nairobi) Protocol was removed by tariff changes announced in the Economic Statement by the Treasurer in May 1988. Steps have been initiated towards the introduction of minor legislative changes which are necessary to remove other remaining tariff impediments. (2) The Departments of Industry, Technology and Commerce and of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (Question No. 1186) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: Further to the answer to question No. 112 (Hansard, 2 November 1987, page 1869), has the Government completed its consideration of the question of accession to the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organisations or between International Organisations. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Due to more urgent commitments to prepare treaties and arrangements, the Government has not been able to complete its consideration of the question of accession by Australia to the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organisations or between International Organisations. (2) In setting its priorities for treaty action, the Government has had in mind the fact that the Convention has not yet entered into force and is not expected to do so for some years, as thirty-five States must ratify or accede before this will occur. At present only three States (Austria, Senegal and Sweden) have become parties to the Convention. (3) The Government will however ensure that the honourable member is informed as soon as a decision has been reached on the question of Australian accession. (Question No. 1190) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: Is the Minister able to bring up-to-date the information which was given in answer to Question No. 4417 (Hansard, 11 October 1979, page 1998) in relation to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) The following States became parties to the 1951 Convention on the dates indicated: Algeria ... 21 February 1963 Angola ... 23 June 1981 Argentina ... 15 November 1961 Australia ... 22 January 1954 Austria ... 1 November 1954 Belgium ... 22 July 1953 Benin ... 4 April 1962 Bolivia ... 9 February 1982 Botswana ... 6 January 1969 Brazil ... 16 November 1960 Burkina Faso ... 18 June 1980 Burundi ... 19 July 1963 Cameroon ... 23 October 1961 Canada ... 4 June 1969 Central African Republic ... 4 September 1962 Chad ... 19 August 1981 Chile ... 28 January 1972 China ... 24 September 1982 Colombia ... 10 October 1961 Congo ... 15 October 1962 Costa Rica ... 28 March 1978 Cote d'Ivoire ... 8 December 1961 Cyprus ... 16 May 1963 Denmark ... 4 December 1952 Djibouti ... 9 August 1977 Dominican Republic ... 4 January 1978 Ecuador ... 17 August 1955 Egypt ... 22 May 1981 El Salvador ... 28 April 1983 Equatorial Guinea ... 7 February 1986 Ethiopia ... 10 November 1969 Fiji ... 12 June 1972 Finland ... 10 October 1968 France ... 23 June 1954 Gabon ... 27 April 1964 Gambia ... 7 September 1966 Germany, Federal Republic of 1 December 1953 Ghana ... 18 March 1963 Greece ... 5 April 1960 Guatemala ... 22 September 1983 Guinea ... 28 December 1965 Guinea-Bissau ... 11 February 1976 Haiti ... 25 September 1984 Holy See ... 15 March 1956 Iceland ... 30 November 1955 Iran (Islamic Republic of) ... 28 July 1976 Ireland ... 29 November 1956 Israel ... 1 October 1954 Italy ... 15 November 1954 Jamaica ... 30 July 1964 Japan ... 3 October 1981 Kenya ... 16 May 1966 Lesotho ... 14 May 1981 Liberia ... 15 October 1964 Liechtenstein ... 8 March 1957 Luxembourg ... 23 July 1953 Madagascar ... 18 December 1967 Malawi ... 10 December 1987 Mali ... 2 February 1973 Malta ... 17 June 1971 Mauritania ... 5 May 1987 Monaco ... 18 May 1954 Morocco ... 7 November 1956 Mozambique ... 16 December 1983 Netherlands ... 3 May 1956 New Zealand ... 30 June 1960 Nicaragua ... 28 March 1980 Niger ... 25 August 1961 Nigeria ... 23 October 1967 Norway ... 23 March 1953 Panama ... 2 August 1978 Papua New Guinea ... 17 July 1986 Paraguay ... 1 April 1970 Peru ... 21 December 1964 Philippines ... 22 July 1981 Portugal ... 22 December 1960 Rwanda ... 3 January 1980 Sao Tome and Principe ... 1 February 1978 Senegal ... 2 May 1963 Seychelles ... 23 April 1980 Sierra Leone ... 22 May 1981 Somalia ... 10 October 1978 Spain ... 14 August 1978 Sudan ... 22 February 1974 Suriname ... 29 November 1978 Sweden ... 26 October 1954 Switzerland ... 21 January 1955 Togo ... 27 February 1962 Tunisia ... 24 October 1957 Turkey ... 30 March 1962 Tuvalu ... 7 March 1986 Uganda ... 27 September 1976 United Kingdom ... 11 March 1954 United Republic of Tanzania 12 May 1964 Uruguay ... 22 September 1970 Yemen ... 18 January 1980 Yugoslavia ... 15 December 1959 Zaire ... 19 July 1965 Zambia ... 24 September 1969 Zimbabwe ... 25 August 1981 (b) The following States became parties to the 1967 Protocol on the dates indicated: Algeria ... 8 November 1967 Angola ... 23 June 1981 Argentina ... 6 December 1967 Australia ... 13 December 1973 Austria ... 5 September 1973 Belgium ... 8 April 1969 Benin ... 6 July 1970 Bolivia ... 9 February 1982 Botswana ... 6 January 1969 Brazil ... 7 April 1972 Burkina Faso ... 18 June 1980 Burundi ... 15 March 1971 Cameroon ... 19 September 1967 Canada ... 4 June 1969 Cape Verde ... 9 July 1987 Central African Republic ... 30 August 1967 Chad ... 19 August 1981 Chile ... 27 April 1972 China ... 24 September 1982 Colombia... 4 March 1980 Congo ... 10 July 1970 Costa Rica ... 28 March 1978 Cote d'Ivoire ... 16 February 1970 Cyprus ... 9 July 1968 Denmark ... 29 January 1968 Djibouti ... 9 August 1977 Dominican Republic ... 4 January 1978 Ecuador ... 6 March 1969 Egypt ... 22 May 1981 El Salvador ... 28 April 1983 Equatorial Guinea ... 7 February 1986 Ethiopia ... 10 November 1969 Fiji ... 12 June 1972 Finland ... 10 October 1968 France ... 3 February 1971 Gabon ... 28 August 1973 Gambia ... 29 September 1967 Germany, Federal Republic of 5 November 1969 Ghana ... 30 October 1968 Greece ... 7 August 1968 Guatemala ... 22 September 1983 Guinea ... 16 May 1968 Guinea-Bissau ... 11 February 1976 Haiti ... 25 September 1984 Holy See ... 8 June 1967 Iceland ... 26 April 1968 Iran (Islamic Republic of) ... 28 July 1976 Ireland ... 6 November 1968 Israel ... 14 June 1968 Italy ... 26 January 1972 Jamaica ... 30 October 1980 Japan ... 1 January 1982 Kenya ... 13 November 1981 Lesotho ... 14 May 1981 Liberia ... 27 February 1980 Liechtenstein ... 20 May 1968 Luxembourg ... 22 April 1971 Malawi ... 10 December 1987 Mali ... 2 February 1973 Malta ... 15 September 1971 Mauritania ... 5 May 1987 Morocco ... 20 April 1971 Netherlands ... 29 November 1968 New Zealand ... 6 August 1973 Nicaragua ... 28 March 1980 Niger ... 2 February 1970 Nigeria ... 2 May 1968 Norway ... 28 November 1967 Panama ... 2 August 1978 Papua New Guinea ... 17 July 1986 Paraguay ... 1 April 1970 Peru ... 15 September 1983 Philippines ... 22 July 1981 Portugal ... 13 July 1976 Rwanda ... 3 January 1980 Sao Tome and Principe ... 1 February 1978 Senegal ... 3 October 1967 Seychelles ... 23 April 1980 Sierra Leone ... 22 May 1981 Somalia ... 10 October 1978 Spain ... 14 August 1978 Sudan ... 23 May 1974 Suriname ... 29 November 1978 Swaziland ... 28 January 1969 Sweden ... 4 October 1967 Switzerland ... 20 May 1968 Togo ... 1 December 1969 Tunisia ... 16 October 1968 Turkey ... 31 July 1968 Tuvalu ... 7 March 1986 Uganda ... 27 September 1976 United Kingdom ... 4 September 1968 United Republic of Tanzania 4 September 1968 United States of America ... 1 November 1968 Uruguay ... 22 September 1970 Venezuela ... 19 September 1986 Yemen ... 18 January 1980 Yugoslavia ... 15 January 1968 Zaire ... 13 January 1975 Zambia ... 24 September 1969 Zimbabwe ... 25 August 1981 2. The Convention and Protocol apply to the following Territories in the Pacific and Indian Oceans: Australia-Norfolk Island France-All Territories for the international relations of which France is responsible United Kingdom-Nil. Whether Territories to which the Convention and Protocol was applied and which have since become independent, are now parties, raises questions of State succession. Of the States concerned, Fiji and Tuvalu have registered a declaration of succession with the depositary. (Question No. 1215) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade upon notice, on 28 September 1988: (1) To which international treaties and conventions is Australia a signatory. (2) Has a treaty entitled Genocide Convention been ratified by Australia. (3) Could I be supplied with copies of any treaty or convention relating to (a) religion and (b) local government. (4) What obligation is placed on Australia following the signing of a treaty or convention. (5) What opportunity is given to the Australian People to comment on the provisions of a treaty or convention before it is signed by the Government. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Australian Treaty List, including the Cumulative Supplement, sets out all the treaties which Australia has signed or to which it has become a party, and provides reference to the printed text. Copies of the List, which is part of the Australian Treaty Series, are held in the Parliamentary Library, as well as by State and University libraries. (2) On 8 July 1949, Australia ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, done at Paris on 9 December 1948. The text is published in the Australian Treaty Series (Aust. T.S. 1951 No. 2). (3) The only treaties relating to religion of which I am aware are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done at New York on 19 December 1966, which Australia ratified on 13 August 1980 (Aust. T.S. 1980 No. 23); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, done at New York on 19 December 1966, which Australia ratified on 10 December 1975 (Aust. T.S. 1976 No. 5); and the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, done at New York on 21 December 1965, which Australia ratified on 30 September 1975 (Aust. T.S. 1975 No. 40). Copies of these treaties will be sent to the honourable member by my Department. I am not aware of any treaties relating to local government. (4) Once a treaty has entered into force for Australia in accordance with its provisions, Australia's obligations are those set out in the text of the treaty. Some treaties enter into force on signature alone; others enter into force at a specified time after signature, and others including most multilateral treaties, only enter into force after signature has been confirmed by a later step such as ratification. If Australia signs a treaty and that treaty has not yet entered into force, Australia is obliged, in accordance with Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty. (5) The Federal Government informs the States and the Northern Territory in all cases of treaties being negotiated and, if requested, consults with the States and the Northern Territory concerning them. Depending upon the subject matter of the treaty, the Federal Government also consults relevant interest groups. A treaty entered into by the Federal Government is not legally binding in itself in domestic law. That law, whether it be Federal, State or Territorial, should be brought into conformity with the treaty before Australia can become a party to it. The people of Australia, through their elected representatives, determine whether necessary legislation is enacted to give effect to the provision of particular treaties in Australia. (Question No. 1247) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 12 October 1988: (1) What (a) is the present purpose of the National Media Liaison Service (NMLS) (b) has been the cost of running this service for each financial year since its inception and (c) is the estimated cost for the current financial year. (2) What persons have been employed by the NMLS since its inception and (a) where are they located, (b) what is each paid and (c) for what periods have they been employed. (3) What selection methods were used to select the present director of NMLS and who was responsible for his selection. (4) What criteria and qualifications are required of prospective employees of NMLS. (5) Is it a legitimate function of a taxpayer funded body to constantly provide the press gallery with politically biased stories as revealed in the article by Paul Kelly published in the Australian on 22 September 1988. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The purpose of the National Media Liaison Service remains unchanged from that declared by the Government in May 1983 and is to provide accurate and timely information on Government policies and programs to the media throughout Australia as well as information on policies to interest groups within electorates. (1) (b)- $ 1982-83 ... 1 167 1983-84 ... 934 012 1984-85 ... 1 177 114 1985-86 ... 1 202 583 1986-87 ... 1 092 189 1987-88 ... 1 099 160 1 (c) $1 135 720 (2) (a), (b), (c) Mr N Andrews Hobart Journalist Grade A2(+) 28.10.85-present Ms J Askey Hobart Secretary/Typist 19.8.85-4.12.85 Mr A Bolt Canberra Journalist Grade A1(+) 16.2.87-7.8.87 Ms R Boucher Townsville Secretary/Typist 13.1.86-7.8.87 Ms H Brain Hobart Secretary/Typist 10.10.88-present Ms B Brine Adelaide Secretary/Typist 12.12.84-12.4.85 Ms S Brooke Sydney Secretary/Typist 23.5.83-30.8.85 Ms J Bullock Canberra Secretary/Typist 15.6.87-present Ms S Chandler Melbourne Secretary/Typist 10.12.87-29.1.88 Ms R Church Canberra Research Officer 29.4.85-present Ms D Clarke Canberra Secretary/Typist 4.5.87-12.6.87 Mr R Creswick Darwin Journalist Grade A1(+) 24.10.83-present Ms E Cusack Townsville Secretary/Typist 31.8.87-present Ms C Dargie Perth Secretary/Typist 23.5.83-21.6.85 Mr P Dwyer Hobart Journalist Grade A2 12.9.83-7.10.85 Sydney Journalist Grade A2 8.10.85-12.10.87 Ms R Farrugia Canberra Secretary/Typist 7.1.85-present Mr M Fishpool Brisbane Journalist Grade A2(+) 9.6.86-present Mr J Ford Canberra Journalist Grade A2 14.11.83-22.2.85 Ms K Galbraith Darwin Secretary/Typist 7.8.86-28.11.86 Mr D Gleeson Sydney Journalist Grade A2(+) 8.8.88-present Mr W Goff Canberra Journalist Grade A2(+)# 4.7.88-22.8.88 Ms M Gore Hobart Secretary/Typist 23.5.83-21.6.85 Mr S Gray Townsville Journalist Grade A1(+) 1.4.86-present Ms J Green Melbourne Secretary/Typist 1.2.88-present Ms P Hassell Darwin Secretary/Typist 30.1.85-6.6.86 Ms B Hatcher Brisbane Secretary/Typist 19.9.83-23.8.84 Ms M Holder Adelaide Secretary/Typist 23.5.83-present Ms C Kandelaars Adelaide Secretary/Typist 6.5.87-19.8.87 Mr M Kassay Canberra Journalist Grade A1(+) 16.5.88-29.7.88 Ms L Kilburn Darwin Secretary/Typist 5.6.86-8.8.86 Mr J Lake Canberra Journalist Grade A2(+) 19.5.86-present Mr M Laurence Sydney Journalist Grade A2(+) 12.10.87-12.8.88 Mr D Lawler Canberra Journalist Grade A2 10.4.85-7.4.87 Ms E Lewis Melbourne Secretary/Typist 19.9.83-23.8.84 27.10.86-14.11.86 Ms K Lewis Canberra Information Officer Grade 1 23.5.83-27.5.83 Ms R Lewis Darwin Secretary/Typist 25.11.86-present Ms A Litster Townsville Secretary/Typist 5.12.83-3.1.86 Mr T Loftus Adelaide Journalist Grade A2(+) 4.3.85-present Ms L Logan Canberra Secretary/Typist 13.8.84-9.11.84 Mr F Lyon Canberra Secretary/Typist 23.5.83-27.5.83 Ms J McCarthy Perth Secretary/Typist 8.7.85-24.4.86 Mr T McEwen Adelaide Journalist Grade A2 5.9.83-17.5.85 M J Marchionni Sydney Secretary/Typist 16.5.88-present Ms V Moloney Melbourne Secretary/Typist 25.7.85-11.2.87 Ms D Morgan Sydney Secretary/Typist 5.2.86-3.6.88 Ms C Olney Perth Journalist Grade A2(+) 29.2.88-present Mr C Palmer Brisbane Journalist Grade A2 25.7.83-4.4.86 Ms S Parkinson Hobart Secretary/Typist 13.1.86-18.3.86 Ms M Perkins Canberra Secretary/Typist 23.5.83-24.8.83 Mr V Pham Canberra Clerical Assistant 23.5.83-present Ms E Raffaele Canberra Secretary/Typist 19.9.83-1.1.86 Canberra Assistant Private Secretary 1.1.86-23.5.86 Ms G Read Perth Journalist Grade A2 15.7.85-19.2.88 Mr S Scully Canberra Journalist Grade A2 23.5.83-2.5.86 Mr J Shaw Sydney Journalist Grade A2 8.8.83-6.9.85 Ms R Smith Darwin Secretary/Typist 3.11.83-1.2.85 Mr G Sorby Canberra Journalist Grade A2 10.10.83-30.1.86 Mr J Stanaway Townsville Journalist Grade A1 14.11.83-23.3.86 Ms P Steele Canberra Research Officer 10.10.83-30.1.85 Ms L Stirling Perth Secretary/Typist 21.4.87-present Ms V Swan Melbourne Secretary/Typist 29.8.84-26.7.85 Mr N Taylor Perth Journalist Grade A2 7.11.83-12.7.85 Mr G Walsh Melbourne Journalist Grade A2(+) 13.5.85-present Ms S Weaver Hobart Secretary/Typist 7.1.85-26.4.85 Ms J Willis Sydney Secretary/Typist 12.9.85-6.2.86 Ms T Yaxley Hobart Secretary/Typist 1.12.86-5.2.88 Ms R Zibar Canberra Secretary/Typist 26.9.83-21.3.84 (2)- Salary Rates as at 17 March 1988 $ *Journalist Grade A2 (+) 43752 *Journalist Grade A2 41324 *Journalist Grade A1 (+) 39452-40775 *Journalist Grade A1 37269-38516 *Information Officer 37310-38626-40121-41614 32151-33005-34498-35818 28574-29455-30333-31299 25752-26417-27082-27747 *Assistant Private Secretary *Research Officer 27747-28574-29455-30333 24986-25752-26417-27082 22991-23658-24321 Clerical Assistant Administrative Assistant 21685-22226-22765 20041-20583-21122 18737-19113-19492 Secretary/Typist 20701-21313-21928 18870-19329-19791 * Ministerial Staff Allowance (MSA) currently $8499 per annum, is payable in addition to salary. + Ministerial Staff Allowance (MSA) not payable (3) The former Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Honourable John Brown MP appointed the Head of the Ministerial Media Group, Mr Colin Parks, to direct the activities of the National Media Liaison Service from 2 May 1986. The appointment was made on the basis of Mr Parks' wide experience as a journalist in newspapers, television and radio. (4) As with all staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, criteria and qualifications for employment are not specified. The employment of Ministerial staff is subject to their satisfying the usual security and pecuniary interest requirements. (5) The premise of the question, that the National Media Liaison Service provides the Press Gallery with politically biased stories, is rejected. Drawing attention to actual statements by the Opposition cannot be construed as political bias. (Question No. 1260) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 17 October 1988. What (a) action has been taken by the Government in keeping with the commitment made in Parliament by his predecessor on 24 March 1988 to make representations to the Mozambique authorities for remission of the sentence of Mr I. Grey, an Australian citizen sentenced to imprisonment in Mozambique on 24 March 1988, (b) responses has Mozambique made to such representations and (c) further action does the Government now propose to take on Mr Grey's behalf. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Government has taken a series of actions on behalf of Mr Grey. Officials of the High Commission in Harare have raised the case with Mozambican authorities on a number of occasions and my predecessor discussed the case with Foreign Minister Mocumbi. In addition, a visiting Australian Parliamentary Delegation discussed the case in Maputo last July and this has been followed up in a visit by an Australian officer from Harare in September. The matter was also taken up by me with the Mozambican Foreign Minister in discussions in New York in October. (b) The Permanent Commission of the People's Assembly (which has authority to rule on petitions for clemency) met on 6 July and rejected Mr Grey's request for clemency. The Commission noted that Mr Grey had already received a considerable reduction in his sentence and saw no reasons for granting a further measure. The decision does not rule out further consideration at a later stage and Foreign Minister Mocumbi told me in New York early October that he would have the case looked at again. (c) Action is being taken to follow up on the Foreign Minister's offer to have the case reviewed. The Government will continue to stay in touch with the Mozambicans over the Grey case. It will also continue to provide appropriate consular assistance to Mr Grey. (Question No. 1288) Mr Taylor asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 October 1988: (1) Did his Department issue a directive on 14 October 1988 that substantial number of civilian employees in RAAF Stores Depots in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, including 11% of the civilian work force at No. 7 Stores Depot in Toowoomba be sacked; if so, where and in what numbers will the dismissals take place. (2) Will he explain the rationale behind those sackings, and in particular, whether his emphasis on the increased employment of civilians in 700 defence force logistic support positions announced in 1987 has now changed. (3) Will he give an assurance that the operational effectiveness of the RAAF will not be degraded by any industrial action similar to that reported in the Toowoomba Chronicle on 18 October 1988 which suggested that union action could ground F111s. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (2) No directive has been issued to sack civilian staff at RAAF Stores Depots. As a result of budgetary constraints the Department has decided to reduce its staffing levels. On 11 October 1988 Air Force advised its units of certain measures necessary to reduce civilian staffing numbers by 207 in order to achieve the level allocated for the financial year 1988/89. When averaged across the larger RAAF establishments, No. 7 Stores Depot was required to reduce its number of civilian employees from 177 to 157, a reduction of 20 jobs. Actual positions have not been identified by Air Force Office and it is expected the reduction will be achieved through natural attrition. Following a dispute with the Federated Storemen and Packers' Union and a subsequent hearing before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, it has been agreed that an establishment review be conducted to ascertain the current workload and number of personnel required at the depot. These staff reductions are quite independent from the process of civilianising logistic support positions formally occupied by Service personnel. This program continues. (3) Obviously, it is impossible to give assurances that the operational effectiveness of the Services will not be affected by industrial action. However, my Department will continue to make every effort to ensure that Service operations are conducted with minimal disruption from industrial action. (Question No. 1299) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Trade Negotiations, upon notice, on 1 November 1988: (1) Is he able to say what tropical products from developing countries have the USA, Japan, Finland, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand offered reduced protection through GATT. (2) Does any element of protection remain in those offers. (3) What products are on similar lists submitted by Australia, Canada and Hungary and what is the extent of reductions in protection being offered by each of those countries. Mr Duffy —I have provided an answer to the honourable member's question. The information which has been collated for the honourable member is too lengthy to be published in Hansard. A copy is available at the House of Representatives Table Office for perusal. (Question No. 1314) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: Will he bring up-to-date the information contained in answer to question No. 3942 (Hansard, 22 August 1986, page 603) concerning the use of Commonwealth cars during the years 1985-86 to 1987-88. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Financial Years 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 Defence Central ... 2,935,851 3,031,034 3,944,598 Regional Offices ... 586,714 755,930 932,102 Services ... 5,113,022 5,785,905 4,812,579 8,634,587 9,572,869 9,689,279 Note: These figures include the hire of vehicles when Commonwealth cars are unavailable.