Thursday, 17 November 1983 Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. Les Johnson) 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: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows - That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bilney,Mr Burr,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cohen,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Mr Groom ,Mr Hollis,Mrs Kelly,Mr Kent,Mr Keogh,Mr McGauran,Ms McHugh,Mr Mildren and Mr Peter Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- We as members of a school parent club object to legislation that calls for the payment of the bank debit tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that exemption from the payment of bank debit tax will be granted to school parents' clubs working in government schools . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Dr Blewett,Mr O'Neil and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard,Mr Dobie,Mr Ronald Edwards and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby and Mr O'Neil. 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 the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free and Mr Goodluck. 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 the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committe to examine- (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck and Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That we women of Australia feel the threat of the nuclear arms race to the world, our children and our future. That the threat of nuclear war in Australia is greatly increased by the pressure of foreign bases. That we affirm Pine Gap near Alice Springs is one such key foreign communications base. Is a crucial link in the arms race, used for locating targets and therefore a prime target in the event of nuclear war. That we support the national womens' action to oppose the presence of Pine Gap and call for the removal of all foreign bases in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to honour Australia's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by supporting the Sex Discrimination Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multilingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. 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- 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members and the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the contribution to the North Queensland community by the Lavarack Barracks based North Queensland Army Band is such that any moves to scale down or do away with that band would be to the detriment of the community as a whole. It has been strongly rumoured that the N.Q. Army Band is soon to be broken up and its members absorbed into other army bands under the current Manpower Distribution Enquiry being conducted by officers under the Army Chief of General Staff. Any such move would be viewed with extreme disappointment by the large number of North Queensland residents who have come to rely on and appreciate the work done by the band. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the North Queensland Army Band be maintained at its current strength and position, and that the band be given every encouragement to continue the highly appreciated work being undertaken in the North of Queensland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lindsay. Petition to the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Re the deep and urgent concern being experienced as a result of the decision not to proceed with the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link, whereby employment security in the Iron Triangle cities of Port Pirie, Port Augusta, and Whyalla is adversely affected, and in some cases seriously threatened; and further, that the rail link is regarded as vital for Australia'a defence security; and also that the tourist potential of Darwin and the Northern Territory in consequence is gravely hampered. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will readdress itself to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway project as a matter of paramount priority in the light of the manifest detrimental consequences to employment prospects in the Iron Triangle, the necessity for stablising the State's economy , the significant requirement to add to national defence capability, and the express need to develop Northern Territory tourist opportunities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than 62 per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of territorial government or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to territorial or local government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Ukrainian nation has suffered a genocidal act at the hands of the Kremlin when 7 million Ukrainians perished of starvation in 1932-33 in a deliberately planned famine. Ukrainian Australians deplore the fact that the Kremlin has never been called upon by the free world to give a public account of this tragic event. Russian Great Power Chauvinism which caused this Famine survives to this day. The Ukrainian Helsinki Monitoring Group, in the forefront of the opposition to the Russification and Ukrainian cultural destruction has been ruthlessly eliminated and protests by the West on its behalf ignored. As the only founding member of the United Nations with no western diplomatic presence, Ukraine's political isolation allows Moscow to move unimpeded towards its goal of the complete elimination of the Ukrainian nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government denounce the Famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine as a genocidal act by the Kremlin against the Ukrainian nation. 2. The tragic events of the Ukrainian Famine Holocaust be highlighted during a day set aside by the Australian Government to honour victims of genocidal acts and imperialistic aggression. 3. The Australian Government immediately implement the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to convene a Standing Committee to monitor the adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of all signatories, in particular, the U.S.S.R. 4. The Australian Government immediately take steps to expand official government representation to include all member states of the United Nations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. Petitions received. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) will second: That this House- (1) notes the claim of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that comments critical of his conduct of his portfolio should be embraced within a substantive motion and not a matter of public importance; and (2) condemns the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for- (a) his irresponsible support for the Building Industry Agreement; (b) his failure to support adequately the recent decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission rejecting that agreement; (c) his action in inciting the parties to that agreement to find an artificial method of avoiding the consequences of the Commission's decision; (d) the gross bias he has displayed in favour of the Transport Workers Union; (e) his clearly stated intention to repeal section 45D of the Trade Practices Act; and (f) other legislative amendments, sponsored by him, removing protection for individual trade unionists and conferring undue power upon certain trade unions. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House applauds the efforts of the Hawke Government to bring industrial peace to the Pilbara region of Western Australia and pays special tribute in this regard to Senator Peter Cook and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Graeme Campbell. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern at the inordinate delays which so often occur in processing customs and immigration clearances of visitors and other entering Australia through major international airports; (2) notes that long queues and delays cause visitors, especially the elderly and parents with young families, distress and fatigue and give them a very poor first impression of Australia; and (3) calls upon the Ministers for Industry and Commerce, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Transport and Sport, Recreation and Tourism to initiate urgent action to eliminate these extraordinary delays, in the interests of passengers, the tourist industry and Australia's international reputation. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with satisfaction the high levels of housing approvals and commencements generated by the Government's First Home Owners Scheme; (2) notes the increased level of lending from building societies and banks consequent upon recovery in the housing industry; (3) notes with satisfaction recent reductions in interest rates by State banks, the Commonwealth Bank and some building societies, in particularly the role played by the Rural and Industries Bank, Perth Building Society and the Town and Country Western Australia Building Society; and (4) calls upon other financial institutions to follow suit by reducing rates on new and existing loans at the earliest possible opportunity. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the House- (1) notes continuing public concern at events leading up to the Australian Labor Party vote on uranium mining on 31 October 1983; and (2) calls upon the Government to abandon its cover-up of this scandal by immediately referring to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee for investigation and report, serious public allegations of intimidation and other improprieties. Mr Reeves proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman's notice of motion is out of order. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for-- Government members interjecting- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Mr DONALD CAMERON —Fair go, I am only new in here. Mr Acting Speaker, I ask for your protection. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman is entitled to put his notice of motion. Honourable gentlemen on my right will come to order. Mr DONALD CAMERON —My motion of which I give notice seeks to condemn the Government for: its policy of allowing elderly citizens to own paintings of the value of, or even higher value than, the famous Blue Poles, and diamonds even larger than those belonging to actress Elizabeth Taylor and also to receive a pension, while taking the pension from others if they own a weekend shack or a cottage. Mr Acting Speaker, if I can speak to this notice of motion today-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Young-I take a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. Is it in order for the richest pensioner in this place to move that notice? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I call the honourable member for Gippsland. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its profound concern at the disastrous effect of Medicare on Victorian Bush Nursing Hospitals; (2) recognises that Bush Nursing Hospitals are owned by the rural communities that they serve so well and are an integral component of the economic and social life of country Victoria; (3) condemns the Minister for Health and the Government for failing to consider the detrimental effects of Medicare on Bush Nursing Hospitals, and (4) further condemns the Minister for his delay in replying to the many representations to make alterations to Medicare so as to ensure the future of these vitally important institutions. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- notes with concern that (1) the introduction of Medicare will cause an artificial reduction in the Consumer Price Index and this will adversely affect the millions of pensioners and beneficiaries whose income is linked to the CPI, and (2) condemns the Government for its failure to recognise these facts and to take remedial action. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges the Government- (1) to consult with the Australian people so that by 1988 Australia can have a new flag that is more representative of the Australian people of today, and (2) not to be constrained by conservative forces who are resilient to change. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern the Government's inability or unwillingness to develop a comprehensive policy towards management of Australia's major World Heritage Areas and National Parks such as Kakadu, Uluru and South-West Tasmania, and (2) condemns the Government for- (a) using these parks as pawns in its efforts to meet the demands of left wing sectional interests; (b) its unwillingness to consider the long term concerns of the Australian people and the ecological needs of the parks; (c) its unilateral decision to scrap the management plan for Uluru, previously agreed with and implemented by the Northern Territory Government; (d) its decision to expand tourism within Kakadu to levels inconsistent with the recommendations of the Fox Inquiry established by the Whitlam Government, and with no thought as to the human impact on the environment which could be more damaging than controlled mining, and (e) its failure to meet the management standards required in the convention-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will bring the notice to a close . Mr CONNOLLY —It has one more sentence. My notice concludes: its failure to meet the management standards required in the World Heritage Convention required for areas placed on the World Heritage List, in particular South-West Tasmania. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes with grave concern that the Country-Liberal Party Government of the Northern Territory has, over the past 5 years, failed to properly apply the Commonwealth funds allocated to the Territory to overcome a situation where- (a) the level of home ownership is 30.8 per cent, or less than one half the Australian average of 68.1 per cent; (b) electricity charges have risen by 52 per cent in the past 2 years; (c) the level of annual average population growth has dropped by one third over the decades of the 1950s and 1960s to 4.2 per cent; and (d) the number of people receiving unemployment benefits- Mr Peacock-Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. I indicate to you again that I have no problem with the honourable member moving a notice of motion relating to the Northern Territory. However, the Standing Orders provide that information cannot be contained within a notice of motion. Therefore, I ask you to rule the notice out of order as you did before. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member is coming very close to the limit in respect of the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to bring his notice to a close and to cease giving information. Mr REEVES —I continue: (d) the number of people receiving unemployment benefits has risen from 2,977 in 1979 to 7,859 in 1983, or by 170 per cent. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes with deep concern the present serious imbalance in Australia's trade with Europe, now running in the order of $4,000m per annum; (2) calls on the Minister for Trade to discard the conciliatory approach he has adopted and to demand immediately greater access to European markets for Australia's primary products and manufactured goods; and (3) requests the Minister to report to the House from time to time on the progress, if any, he is making to reduce this serious and unacceptable imbalance in trade with Europe. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes the continuing concern of the honourable member for Denison that the Cabinet and the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party have come to a correct and popular decision on the question of developing Roxby Downs. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister, the leader of a government that has allowed so much anxiety and concern to be generated in the over-70s age group of this country. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates- (1) the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism on his decision to grant $ 140,000 to the sport of hockey; and (2) the honourable Member for Perth for his contribution to Australian hockey. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move-and this will be seconded by the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter): That this House- (1) congratulates the honourable member for Tangney for unambiguously stating the Government's position on the Australian flag; (2) repudiates the call by the honourable member to alter the flag; and (3) is of the opinion that the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians should be affected by retaining the flag in it present form. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I remind honourable members that all notices of motion are subject to the scrutiny of the Chair before they appear on the Notice Paper. Several of them will be very carefully scrutinised after today's proceedings. Notice of Motion Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice of my intention to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act relating to discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy and for related purposes, the short title of the Act to be the Sex Discrimination Act 1983. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance (10.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide funds for the major new participation and equity program which will commence in 1984. Programs for schools will be administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission while the tertiary and further education program will be administered by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The Department of Education and Youth Affairs will exercise a strong co-ordinating role. Because this program will be administered by both commissions the Government has decided to provide the funds separately from the States Grants (Schools Assistance) legislation and the States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) legislation for which the normal Bills are being introduced today. The participation and equity program is designed to encourage a significant increase in participation by young people in education and training, to provide a useful and fulfilling education, and to encourage the achievement of more equal educational outcomes. The program is directed towards bringing about wide- ranging changes in schools which will enable them to give all students, and especially those from a disadvantaged background, a rewarding, useful education through to the end of secondary schooling. The program will be directed particularly to secondary schools with low retention rates. The program will provide support for courses and activities in TAFE colleges which positively enrich and expand the range of options available to youth, particularly for those less academically inclined and those currently unemployed . Courses should meet community needs, individual needs, and the national need for an adequately educated and adaptable skilled work force. Funds will also be available for approved projects conducted by other State authorities, community organisations and other non-institutional bodies. As announced earlier this program will be funded on a triennial basis and the funds provided will be adjusted retrospectively for relevant cost increases. The amounts in this Bill are at levels reflecting the latest available data for the relevant cost indexes. For 1984, the Bill appropriates grants to the States and the Northern Territory totalling $73.408m. This comprises $40.043m for government schools, $4.523m for non-government schools, $28.188m for TAFE, and $ 654,000 for projects and programs of national significance. The Bill also provides grants of $73.408m per annum for 1985 and 1986. Both commissions have now submitted supplementary reports to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) on the structure and scope of this program and the Minister will be tabling these reports shortly. The participation and equity program will be a central part of the overall framework of youth policies that the Government is developing. Its twin objectives of increasing participation in education and of introducing greater equity in our overall provision for young people reflect the Government's basic priorities for meeting the needs of young people. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Coleman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(10.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 18 October the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) tabled in Parliament the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission containing its recommendations for the calendar year 1984, in response to the Government's guidelines to the Commission. This Bill gives effect to the Government's decisions on the Commission's recommendations on the distribution of funds for 1984, all of which have been accepted. At a time of economic difficulty and budgetary constraint, it is an indication of the high priority which the Government gives to education that it is providing for a significant increase of 2.8 per cent in real terms in expenditure on schools in 1984. The Bill before the House provides for the appropriation of some $1,290m in 1984, including $573m for government schools and $679m for non-government schools with $38m for joint programs for all schools. The Bill appropriates $6m a year for the new computer education program for the triennium 1984-86. This will enable school authorities to plan the implementation of this new initiative with confidence in the continued support of the Commonwealth for the first three years. Funds for the Government's other major initiative, the participation and equity program, will be appropriated under the separate Bill which has been introduced for this purpose. Grants for the 1984 programs in the Bill are at levels reflecting the latest available data for the relevant cost indexes. These amounts will be adjusted retrospectively for further cost increases in subsequent amending legislation, in accordance with the Government's announced policy for the re-introduction of retrospective cost supplementation. The Bill also contains a number of changes in specified areas in line with the Government 's policies. To promote the economic use of resources and to provide for better planning and improved co-ordination in relation to the development of new non-government schools, new conditions have been included in the Bill for general recurrent grants for new systemic and non-systemic non-government schools. These schools will no longer be automatically eligible for Commonwealth grants following registration by relevant State or Territory authorities. Schools will also be required to show that they have reasonable prospects of long term viability and, in the case of proposed operation in established areas, that there will not be a significant negative impact on existing government and non-government schools. Proposed new schools in developing areas will be asked to provide evidence of adequate consultation with State education authorities. It is the Government's intention to ensure appropriate planning and consultation which will benefit all students in all schools. The Bill implements the Government's decision to direct the limited additional resources that are available to the neediest non-government schools. Schools in group 3 will receive a 3 per cent real increase in per capita grants for 1984. This means that these schools will receive $5m more than they would have received under the previous automatic nexus funding arrangements. In this way the Government is redistributing resources between schools on the basis of need and is assisting in closing the gap between low resource schools and those operating at high resource standards. The Bill also implements the Government's decision to reduce general recurrent per capita grants by 25 per cent in 1984 for a small number of non-government schools. These are schools which have the capacity from their cash income from private sources alone to operate at 95 per cent or more of average government school standard costs. When Commonwealth and State grants are taken into account , these schools will still be able to operate in 1984 well above the average government school standard costs. The savings resulting from this decision amount to some $4.5m. Capital grants programs for both government and non- government schools will now include a designated secondary facilities element to complement the recurrent grants being provided under the participation and equity program. In addition, separate grants are being provided for each of the other elements of the capital programs to meet specifically identified national priority areas such as the upgrading of existing schools serving disadvantaged communities and capital facilities for schools serving predominantly Aboriginal communities. Eligibility under the government schools capital program will be extended also to hostels serving country children. This Bill incorporates Government decisions that accountability conditions attached to grants for both sectors will require educational as well as financial information, with satisfactory arrangements to be made in advance of payments for the year. This is necessary if we are to ensure that educational objectives and priorities to which these grants are directed are being achieved. School authorities will be required to certify that all students, regardless of their sex, are being given equal access to Commonwealth funded programs, subject to a qualification to allow for single-sex schools. The Bill also includes a requirement for State Ministers and systemic authorities to consult the Commonwealth Minister on the composition of committees administering Commonwealth programs. Provision has been made for both the ethnic schools program and the general support element of English as a second language program to be extended in 1984 to allow access for Aboriginals. The short term emergency assistance program is being extended to allow grants to be allocated where a school's local community suffers a significant economic decline which affects the school. Other amendments concern the availability of grants for capital purposes under the education centres program and the restriction of the use of funds under the professional development program for teacher replacement to in-service activities supporting Commonwealth specific objectives or programs. Consistent with the Government's decision to reintroduce retrospective cost supplementation arrangements for the Commission's programs from the beginning of 1984, the Bill amends the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1982 by replacing the previous Government's unsatisfactory system of prospective allowances for wage increases with retrospective adjustments to the grants. These adjustments take account of both the wages pause and the recent national wage case increase and result in a net saving of $48m. This adjustment is reached after taking account of the decision by the Government to supplement fully the grants for 1983 as a result of the national wage case. A total of $10. 3m extra is being provided for that purpose, comprising $4m for government school programs, $5.8m for non-government schools and $0.5m for joint programs. Provision for this increase was included in the Budget. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(10.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) tabled in the Parliament on 18 October 1983 the report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission recommending the distribution of funds for 1984 for tertiary education programs funded by the Commonwealth. This report responded to the Government's guidelines for financial assistance for capital and equipment programs for all tertiary education sectors and recurrent programs for technical and further education institutions. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1981 to provide for the Government's 1984 tertiary education program in the States and the Northern Territory. The distribution of these funds accords with the recommendations of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in its volume 4 report. I remind the House that at a time of economic difficulty and budgetary constraint it is an indication of the high priority that the Government has given to tertiary education that funds have been increased by 1.5 per cent in real terms for 1984, which is the last year of the current funding triennium. The 1984 program represents the first and significant step towards greater participation in higher education and towards more equal participation by disadvantaged groups. It provides evidence of the Government's recognition of the vital contribution tertiary education can make to economic and social well- being. The Bill before the House provides for the appropriation of $10.5m to assist universities and colleges of advanced education in meeting expenditure incurred in increasing enrolments in 1984. The Government's immediate objective is to provide for at least an additional 3,000 student places in universities and CAEs in 1984 under this program. The Government will look to institutions for a positive response which will lead to a wider range of opportunities for young people and special efforts to attract those social groups at present under- represented in higher education institutions. The Commission has now submitted its supplementary report to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs providing detailed advice on the implementation of this initiative for 1984 and the Minister will be tabling this report shortly. Because of the time constraints arising from the timetable for the Commission's supplementary report and the Government's legislation program, the Bill enables the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to distribute the special allocation between institutions. Funds for the Government's other major initiative, the participation and equity program will be provided under a separate Bill which I have already introduced for this purpose. In accordance with the Government's policy of encouraging equal opportunity in education for both male and female students, the Bill provides that, as far as practicable, the benefits and opportunities created by Commonwealth expenditure should be equally available to male and female students. The condition does not apply in relation to payments to student residences or affiliated colleges, to single-sex non-government business colleges or to special assistance provided to students of one sex in order to ensure they have equal opportunities with people of the other sex. The Bill currently before the House includes $173.3m for capital grants, of which $46m is for universities and colleges of advanced education. This includes $3.8m in 1984 for the Graduate School of Management at the University of Melbourne. The sum of $64.1m is appropriated for the 1984 equipment program for universities and colleges and $11.1m for technical and further education equipment. The 1984 recurrent grants for TAFE contained in this Bill amount to $ 112.6m. Grants for 1984 programs in the Bill are expressed in price levels reflecting the latest available data for the relevant cost indexes. These amounts will be adjusted retrospectively for further cost increases in subsequent amending legislation, in accordance with the Government's announced policy for the re-introduction of retrospective cost supplementation. Funds for Commonwealth institutions-that is, the Australian National University, the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the Australian Maritime College-are not appropriated in this Bill. They are included in annual apppropriations for the Commonwealth Department of Education and Youth Affairs. In line with the Government's policy on enforced amalgamations, it has already been announced that the University of Newcastle, the Newcastle College of Advanced Education, the University of New England and the Armidale College of Advanced Education will continue as separate institutions rather than be forced into the amalgamations envisaged by the previous Government. These institutions will be expected, however, to plan co-operatively for increased participation based upon the joint use of available resources including the technical and further education facilities in their regions. This Bill amends the principal Act to permit funds to be provided directly for each of these institutions and, at the same time, removes the coercive sections of the Act for all amalgamations . The Orange Agricultural College also will be funded from 1984 in its own right , as recently announced by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Consistent with the Government's concern for the educational needs of those sections of the community that have had limited access to tertiary education, capital funds have been provided for a new science-engineering building at Wollongong University, the commencement of stage 1 of the Campbelltown campus of the Macarthur Institute of Higher Education, a new multi-purpose academic building at the Footscray Institute of Technology and a resources centre and teaching facilities at Carseldine campus of the Brisbane College of Advanced Education. Other major capital projects will be commenced at Deakin University, Murdoch University, the University of Tasmania and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. As announced in the guidelines, the Government decided on a 25 per cent reduction in grants for collegiate residences in 1984 to be applied pro-rata to all residences currently in receipt of Commonwealth grants pending the Commission's review of future arrangements for support for student accommodation . The reduction will result in an estimated saving of $1.7m in 1984. Similarly the grants to special research centres included in this Bill take account of an estimated saving of $0.5m resulting from the closure of the Nerve Muscle Research Centre at the University of New South Wales due to movement of key staff. Funding for advanced English language instruction for migrants in TAFE is to be continued at the same level in real terms as in 1983, but funds will now be appropriated from the TAFE special purpose grants rather than from particular purpose recurrent funds as in 1983. Special purpose grants are directed to areas of national concern to TAFE where substantial action is required by all States. Particular purpose recurrent grants enable States to undertake programs of quality improvement which reflect the particular priorities of individual States . TAFE capital funds have been increased by 7 per cent in real terms. This level of funds will allow all ongoing commitments to be met and 21 new projects to be commenced. This means that new projects for TAFE will be undertaken in each State and the Northern Territory in 1984. Consistent with the Government's decision to re-introduce retrospective cost supplementation arrangements for the Commission's programs from the beginning of 1984, this Bill amends the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1981 by replacing the previous Government's unsatisfactory system of prospective allowances for wage increases with retrospective adjustments to the grants. These adjustments take account of both the wages pause and the recent national wage case increase and result in a net saving of $15.1m. This adjustment is reached after taking account of the decision by the Government to supplement fully the grants for 1983 as a result of the national wage case. A total of $17. 6m extra is being provided for that purpose. Provision for this increase was included in the Budget. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. [COGNATE BILLS: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENTARY TERMS) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INTER-CHANGE OF POWERS) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ADVISORY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (REMOVAL OF OUTMODED AND EXPENDED PROVISIONS) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.43) —As it is some weeks since we last discussed these referendum proposals in a cognate debate, I propose to touch on each of them. The first is the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983. Honourable members will know that at present a half Senate election costs some millions of dollars and that to avoid a half Senate election on its own one would have to hold an early House of Representatives election, which is also costly. This legislation, if enacted, will make it necessary to hold a Senate election whenever a House of Representatives election is held. This will take away the need for separate elections for the Senate. The Government believes that there will be two beneficial results from this action. Firstly, the Senate will more accurately reflect the will of the people because it will be forced to go to the people at the same time as they are considering whom they want to be in government in the House of Representatives. The legislation also ensures that the Senate is more accountable because if the Senate forces the Government to the people by voting against important legislation it will be forced to face the people and will have to share with the House of Representatives the brunt of the people's approval or anger. The next proposal is for four-year terms for members of the House of Representatives. The Constitutional Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill will also be going to the people in a referendum in late February 1984. In New South Wales there has been a Federal or State election in 10 of the last 12 years. In fact, the average term of Parliament since the War, two years and four months, is somewhat less than a three-year term. Had we had an election every four years , nine parliaments would have been elected at a saving of at least $80m on present day costs. It cannot be doubted that four-year terms would bring us elections less frequently than every four years, nor can it be doubted that extending to four-year terms would bring us fewer elections than we have now. A term of two years and four months may create an accomplished election winner. It certainly does not encourage a parliamentarian to become an informed representative of the people in a diverse electorate. Richard Reeves said that Congressmen, because they run for office every two years, are distilled politicians. That is the temptation in Australia now. Members are tempted to become show ponies rather than watch dogs. With electorates now double their 1950 size and the tendency to mid-term elections it is not hard for parliamentarians to become distilled spirits interested in point scoring but not in investigation, interested in appearing everywhere but less in effective representation. This becomes inevitable when time becomes an all- consuming factor. A four-year term will encourage responsible government. We need to do something to encourage governments to take necessary, sometimes unpopular, measures which can be beneficial to the community in the longer term. This Bill and a Yes vote on 25 February 1984 will bring Australian elections into line with four-year terms in Tasmania, New South Wales, Territories in Australia and all but three of 52 world parliamentary democracies. Two previous speakers on this legislation, the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), have both objected to eight-year terms for senators which would be necessary if we had four-year terms of the House of Representatives and passed the simultaneous election proposals. I have some sympathy for their view that eight years is quite a long time for a senator to spend as a member of parliament without going to the people, but I point out to those who object that simultaneous elections, so that the Senate goes to the people with the House of Representatives, may well reduce this sort of occurrence because elections for the Senate will be held each time the Parliament dissolves and doubtless the average lower House term will be less than four years. Political parties tend to re-endorse senators and many of them serve for more than one term. Our colleagues in the other place are elected on a State or Territory basis and I cannot see any significant problems for what will probably turn out to be anything from three-year terms to eight-year terms for senators. The third proposal I wish to deal with in this cognate debate is the provision which would enable advisory opinions to be sought by government from the High Court. I refer to the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill. I understand that this has been amended by the Senate. The important aspect of the Bill is that it enables the High Court to give advice to the Commonwealth on Commonwealth matters and to the States on State matters and to obtain advisory opinions from the High Court on specific types of questions. If the proposal is accepted, large and important proposals can be tested at the outset rather than challenged perhaps years after they have been implemented or months after enacting legislation has been initiated. It would be extremely convenient to the Government and the Parliament and far less costly to the community if advisory opinions could be sought from the High Court prior not only to the enactment of the legislation but also to possible appeals to the High Court perhaps years after the legislation has been enacted. Some of the States of the United States of America have these advisory opinions available to them. India and Canada are countries which have these advisory opinions available. In the Australian Law Journal, volume 51 of March 1977, it is stated that in practice most advisory opinions in Canada have been delivered in situations where the constitutionality of legislative acts was in doubt; that many essential constitutional issues have been decided by this means, particularly the question of the scope of the power of the dominion and provincial legislature; and that, according to Laskin, the typical constitutional reference has become almost the normal method of determining constitutional issues in Canada. I wish to touch briefly now on the proposal to remove outmoded and expended provisions, the fifth question suggested for referendum. It is not hard for governments to accumulate dead wood. Governments need to tidy up and spring clean their legislation and structures every now and again. Wendell Phillips said that all that is valuable in the United States Constitution is 1,000 years old. Probably the Australian Aboriginals would say the same thing about Australians. Most of us take the Constitution of Australia seriously. Some of our legislation becomes either outmoded or inapplicable. Therefore the various political parties agree that there should be a yes vote on the proposal to remove outmoded or expended provisions. The other proposal, the interchange of powers as between State and Federal governments, allows the States and the Commonwealth to refer powers to one another if it is convenient to both. Here again, the proposal seems to have the general approval of both Houses of Parliament. I point out that a lot of complaints are made that our country is over-governed. I say to those critics that out country is over-governed, not because we have too many members of parliament but because we have too many levels of government. We have the Federal government, State governments, local government and quite often an ethereal fourth tier, regional government or country councils, as they are called in New South Wales. We are over-governed in that we have too many levels of government. However, this Constitution alteration proposal is realistic in that it faces the reality that sometimes Federal and State governments want to exchange powers. The proposal enables that to be done. At the moment it is relatively easy for a Federal Government to receive powers from the States with the consent of those States. It is a little harder for State governments to receive certain powers from a Federal Government when it wants to give them. The proposal allows both States and the Commonwealth to refer powers to one another if it is convenient to both. The Bills being discussed cognately are the result of some very hard work by people on both sides of the Parliament and their predecessors. I congratulate members of parliament and staff of the Department upon the work leading up to these not particularly ambitious, but very important, proposals for referendum on 25 February 1984. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.55) —I have the opportunity in this debate to express views which, in the context of the Opposition coalition, do not represent majority views, but I am given this right because members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are permitted to speak in accordance with their conscience and to express views on matters of importance as they come up in this Parliament. Therefore, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak. I simply say that that is in marked contrast to the situation in some other political parties where, unfortunately, that right is not honoured. I find myself in a position in which I cannot support, and indeed must oppose the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill. I do not have any quarrel with the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill and I do not get myself into a state of great emotional turbulence in regard to the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill. My opposition to the simultaneous elections and parliamentary terms Bills is strong, committed and will not change. In relation to the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court Bill, I believe that there are grave errors in pursuing this proposal. I hope that it will be rejected by the people of Australia when they have the opportunity to vote in the referendum. In view of the time that has elapsed since the matter was last before the House, I might briefly remind the House and the people of Australia who are listening to this debate that the simultaneous elections and parliamentary terms Bills really, to a large extent, go hand in hand. As a matter of logic, and I believe the Deputy Prime Minister ( Mr Lionel Bowen) would share the view, what will probably be put to the people is that these two should go hand in hand; that it would be more consistent to vote yes or no to both proposals. It seems to me to be a matter of logic that there would be some inconsistency on a vote in favour of one but not the other. Of course, the electors in their wisdom may see these matters in a different light. I have to say from the outset that I do not believe a case has been made out for the simultaneous elections and parliamentary terms proposals. In other words , I will be arguing that there is no demonstrated need for either and, further, that both have very serious implications for this Parliament, for the Federation and particularly for the smaller States. The effect of the simultaneous elections proposal is that, if it were passed, in future there will be simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and the half Senate or, in the case of a double dissolution, for the House of Representatives and the full Senate. In respect of the parliamentary terms proposal, the people of Australia should note that there will be an increase of one year in the terms of members of the House of Representatives and an increase of two years in the terms of senators. In other words, House of Representatives terms will go up by 25 per cent, from three years to four years, and Senate terms will go from six years to eight years. On a previous occasion I expressed general approval for a four-year term because I believe, and I think the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) made the point quite well, that there is an argument for a longer term in the interests of better government, but as I also believe very firmly that the power of the Senate must not be eroded and whittled away, if I support a four-year term for the House of Representatives I am obliged to support an eight-year term for the Senate. I find difficulty in that because, quite frankly, I believe eight years is too long. Along with the Speaker of this Parliament, who is currently away, and a number of other members, I was privileged to serve in a State parliament before coming to this place. The term of office for a member of the Legislative Council in Tasmania is six years. I think that at the time I was elected to the Legislative Council in 1966 the term for members of the New South Wales Legislative Council was 12 years. I think the Deputy Prime Minister would confirm that, before that, it had been a life term; that a person was a member for life. Mr Ruddock —Sixteen years. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Dundas now draws my attention to the fact that the term was 16 years. I felt as a member of the State Parliament in Tasmania that a six-year term was long enough. I feel that if a person who may be elected with a good vote fails to carry out his or her parliamentary duties properly six years is a very long period of immunity. I have to say with the greatest respect to my colleagues in the Senate that I think an eight-year term is too long. The reaction I have noticed from electors in discussions I have had about these proposals is very much to that effect. I believe they would like to see a four-year term for the House of Representatives. I think that has been clearly established. But they do not believe that an eight-year term for the Senate is justifiable. The position is that the Government, along with the majority of the Opposition, will be going to the people of Australia and saying: 'We want simultaneous elections; we want an extension of the parliamentary terms '. The need has not been established. Since Federation there have been 33 general elections, but on only four occasions in the past 83 years has there been a half Senate election on its own. In other words, a half Senate election on its own is a comparative electoral rarity. I note the presence of one honourable member who has followed this debate with some interest in an academic area. Had there been a large number of occasions when half Senate elections took place out of kilter with the House of Representatives I believe there would be a stronger case in favour of this proposal. But I repeat that there have been 33 general elections since Federation and only four half Senate elections. These proposals have been put to the people of Australia on two previous occasions. Prime Minister Whitlam took them to the people of Australia in 1974. At that time I was a member of the Legislative Council in Tasmania. I joined with a few senators, one of whom was Senator Wright, who mounted the No case in relation to the proposals. The proposals were resoundingly rejected by the people of Australia. In 1977 an extraordinary thing happened. Prime Minister Fraser put the simultaneous elections proposal to the people of Australia. I was invited to conduct the Yes case for the four referendum proposals in my State. I simply say that that was an experience which I look back upon with some horror. I can well remember the television program Monday Conference being presented from Hobart on one occasion. We assembled at the University of Tasmania with 100 in favour of the Yes case for simultaneous elections and 100 against the proposal. I sat with 99 members of the Australian Labor Party on one side of the auditorium, and on the other side were 100 members of my Party. I led the Yes case. My Party in Tasmania was overwhelmingly opposed to it. It was an experience I will never forget. In the 1977 referendum the people of Tasmania resoundingly rejected the simultaneous elections proposal. It attracted a mere 39 per cent of the vote. Again, I will never forget the phone call from a property in Victoria called Nareen. I conveyed to the person speaking to me on the telephone the result in Tasmania. Mr Lionel Bowen —That was Tammy, was it? Mr HODGMAN —It was not. It was a very good male person, a very great Australian. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can see from what I have just said that I have had the unique experience of having been involved in this debate on two previous occasions-in 1974, opposing simultaneous elections, and in 1977, supporting the proposition. I guess people are interested to know where I stand in 1983. I am more convinced than ever that the stand I took in 1974 was correct and that the stand I took in 1977 was not. I have mentioned that this proposal will have an impact upon the Parliament. Let us not delude ourselves. It will weaken the power of the Senate. It will strengthen the power of the Prime Minister and the Executive in this place. I find both those points totally unaccceptable. I will oppose to the utmost of my ability any moves to erode, whittle away or diminish the power of the Senate. Had it not been for an agreement by the founding fathers on the Senate, its role and its powers, there would have been no Federation. I speak very much from the heart on this matter because in Tasmania in particular, along with Western Australia and Queensland, this point is an article of faith. Tasmanians see the Senate still as a States House. Nothwithstanding the operations of political parties in recent years, the Senate, to its great credit, has on occasions which I can bring to mind acted as a States House. I repeat that if the power of the Senate were diminished and the role of the Senate destroyed I can assure honourable members that in Tasmania there would be a feeling that the Federation had totally failed. Certainly those who from time to time argue quite rationally and quite fervently a case for secession would find their arguments tremendously strengthened. Because I believe that the simultaneous elections provision and the parliamentary terms provision will weaken the power of the Senate, will increase centralisation of power in Canberra vis-a-vis the States and will increase the power of the Prime Minister and the Executive over the Parliament, I strongly oppose both proposals. This is a third attempt at a power grab by a Prime Minister of Australia. Twice the people of Australia have rejected the power grab. I believe they will again reject the power grab being attempted on this occasion. I believe the vote in Tasmania will be overwhelmingly against the simultaneous elections provision. I believe the vote in Queensland will be No. Whilst conceding that the vote in Western Australia could be close, it is my firm belief that that State too will vote against the simultaneous elections proposal. I say with no disrespect whatsoever to the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or to the previous Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, that I think it is a bad thing for the Parliament and the people of Australia if the power of a Prime Minister and his Executive is strengthened. One day it might be 'her' Executive. I think the Exeuctive has too much power vis-a-vis the Parliament. I do not believe that is in the interests of parliamentary democracy. As both a back bencher and a Minister in the Fraser Government from 1980 to March this year, I have expressed that view whenever I have felt that there has been an attempt to strengthen further the power that resides in that office in the corner of the building occupied by the Prime Minister of Australia as against the power which resides in this chamber where the representatives of the people are assembled and in the chamber across King's Hall where the representatives of the States are assembled . Therefore, on those two grounds-a weakening of the power of the Senate and a strengthening of the power of the Prime Minister and the Executive over the Parliament and, therefore, over the people-I am opposed totally to the two matters concerning simultaneous elections and the extension of parliamentary terms. People of Australia should know that, if these proposals are passed, the Prime Minister of the day will have the power to dissolve, without giving any reason, the House of Representatives and half the Senate. Is that what the people of Australia want? I thought one of the arguments in favour of the fixed term proposals was that it would take away the so-called right of a Prime Minister to time an election for political purposes. Frankly, I do not find the right of a Prime Minister to time an election offensive in itself. But under this proposal, if this legislation is passed, a Prime Minister, without giving any reason, will be able to take the House of Representatives and half the Senate to the people of Australia at any time. I would now like to address some remarks to the advisory opinions proposal. Whilst it might not seem a matter of great moment to the people of Australia, I believe the issues involved here are very deep and very significant. The proposal is to give to the High Court of Australia an advisory jurisdiction. In his speech delivered in this House the Deputy Prime Minister, very fairly I thought, though perhaps injudiciously, summarised the main arguments against the advisory opinions proposal. I will take directly from his speech the arguments which he conceded were being put up by those who oppose the proposal and then I will indicate my response to them. He said that it was being argued that the independence of the judiciary would be affected. He went on to say: It is said that advisory opinions would make the High Court into an adjunct of government and sap its independence. I happen to agree with that and as a matter of interest so, I believe, does every judge of the High Court of Australia. I think the people of Australia ought to know that from the Chief Justice down, the High Court of Australia has expressed its opposition to this proposal. When I say 'the High Court', I mean the whole of the High Court and I am sure my friend Mr Justice Murphy-disagree though we may, and very strongly, politically-would not mind my drawing attention to the fact that he shares in the view. The second point is, it is argued, the danger of overloading the Court. There is no doubt about that. The Court is overloaded and grossly overworked. The highest court in the land struggles today to handle the business which comes before it. Is it the wish of the Government and those who support this proposal to burden further the High Court of Australia? It is under an intolerable burden already. I can speak with some knowledge of the matter because it was my great honour to serve as associate to His Honour Mr Justice Windeyer, a very great justice of the High Court of Australia, in 1962- 63. I know the pressure the Court was under then and 20 years down the track that pressure has gone up tenfold. The Deputy Prime Minister, again very fairly, said that an argument was 'the difficulty of giving an opinion in the absence of a concrete fact situation'. He hit the nail right on the head. I agree with him. What an incredible thing it is to say to the highest court in the land: 'We want an opinion but we are not going to give you a concrete fact situation'. It would be worse still for the High Court of Australia to spend weeks, if not months, preparing an advisory opinion only to find at the end of the day that the facts had changed, that the opinion that was given on false premises. The Deputy Prime Minister adverted to the uncertain status of advisory opinions and said that this was being argued. I think I have covered that point already. Lastly, the Deputy Prime Minister, in very great fairness, said that opponents were arguing the availability of alternative means of adjudication such as the declaratory judgment. The declaratory judgment is there already. It is a far more desirable course to invite the Court to give a declaratory judgment on facts that are concrete in litigation which is proper litigation than to go down the track of advisory opinions. Therefore, I ask the people of Australia to recognise that the High Court plays a basic and fundamental role under our Constitution in maintaining this great Australian Federation. I believe that every so often every member of this Parliament should re-read the premable to the Constitution whereby the people of Australia are guaranteed one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth. For those reasons I find myself unable to support-indeed, I strongly oppose-the proposals for simultaneous elections, a four-year term and the advisory opinions . As to the interchange proposal, I am ambivalent. As to the outmoded and expended provisions proposal, I have no opposition to it. I thank the House and I thank the Leader of my Party (Mr Peacock) for giving me the right to express the views which I have been able to put before this House and the people of Australia today. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(11.15) —In February next year the Australian people will have the opportunity to vote on five proposals to alter the Australian Constitution. Of these, the two most contentious are the proposal to introduce simultaneous elections between the House of Representatives and the Senate and the proposal to lengthen the parliamentary term to four years. This debate, as honourable members who have spoken previously have mentioned, is an adjourned debate. Some excellent and fine contributions have been made by honourable members on both sides. I note the speech of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) who has spoken recently, the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and a very fine speech from the honourable and learned member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). This proposal to alter the Constitution in these five ways has attracted a considerable level of bipartisan support. I thank honourable members opposite for their rationality and for their willingness to look at this in a bipartisan manner. One of the issues which were raised by my honourable friend from Eden-Monaro was that of cost. The first, and I think the most salient, point which will be to the fore in the minds of many of the Australian people will be the actual cost of these referenda and the results of their implementation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have sought permission from the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), the Opposition member who is at the table, to incorporate in Hansard a table, which I have also shown to you. I therefore seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the table concerned. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Comparative cost of Federal Elections, 1984-94, first assuming Houses continue out of phase (Columns 1 and 2), second assuming constitutional change brings them back into phase (Column 3), third assuming constitutional change introduces four yearly elections (Column 4). Total of first two columns is the cost if referenda not carried. Total of third column is the cost if referendum for simultaneous elections only is carried. Total of Column 4 is the cost if referendum for 4 year terms is also carried. Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 House of House and Infla- Represent- 1/2 Senate tion 1/2 Senate atives House and 4 yearly Factor* Election Election 1/2 Senate elections $ million $ million $ million $ million 1984 1.000 16.5 1985 1.100 18.7 19.3 19.3 1986 1.210 1987 1.331 22.0 1988 1.464 24.9 25.6 1989 1.610 28.2 1990 1.771 29.2 1991 1.948 33.1 34.1 1992 2.143 1993 2.357 38.9 41.3 1994 2.593 44.1 45.4 Total 1st Total Total two columns 227.4 Column 3 124.4 Column 4 88.8 * Inflation factor based on a constant 10% compounding factor. Mr WELLS —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The table, which I have had put together, demonstrates quite clearly that there will be massive savings to the taxpayer if these referenda are carried. The first referendum seeks to bring elections for the two Houses back into line. The honourable member for Denison ( Mr Hodgman), who has just spoken, pointed out that there have been only four elections when the Senate went to the people separately from the House. But the trouble with those four was that they were four more or less in a row. They were during the Menzies period; at least most of them were. We are facing a situation in which the Houses are out of phase. They could remain out of phase for the next 10 years. I am sure that even the honourable member for Denison would accept this. If that did happen, the cost to the Australian taxpayer in terms of the elections alone would be $227.4m. That is assuming eight elections, four for the House and four for the Senate, between 1984 and 1994. If, however, the Houses were brought back into phase by the passage of the first referendum, that is, the referendum to bring the Houses back into phase, the cost to the taxpayer would be $124.4m. That would be a saving of $103m over the course of the next 10 years. If, however, the other important and contentious referendum were carried, namely, the referendum to extend the parliamentary term to four years instead of three, that would involve a cost to the taxpayer of $88.8m over the 10-year period compared with the $227.4m over the 10-year period if neither referendum were carried. That means a saving, if both referenda are carried, of $138.6m. A lot can be done with $138.6m. That represents $14m a year approximately, not allowing for inflation. A lot can be done for the Australian people with that amount of money. When the minority of honourable members opposite, such as the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), who spoke some weeks ago in this debate, put forward their ideas and their objections to the introduction of simultaneous elections and extension of the term of a parliament's life, they put forward very expensive suggestions indeed. I say to those people who are inclined to accept the story which is being put forward by the minority of honourable members opposite that if they wish to buy that story it will cost them. In fact, it will cost them $138.6m. My honourable friend from Eden- Monaro also made some points about the costs of the referenda. His figures are a little more conservative than mine. The honourable member for Eden Monaro is noted for being a very cautious man. The figures that I have obtained are based on an inflation-indexed factor taken over the period 1984 to 1994 and on statistics for the base figures provided by the Australian Electoral Office. Having said that massive savings for the taxpayer are available if these referenda are carried, I would like to consider the questions of principle involved. I deal firstly with the referendum to bring the elections of the two Houses back into phase. I can do no better than to quote from the speech by the honourable member for North Sydney who said during this debate: When the times are out of phase there is a very great inducement to the government controlling the lower House, as it always does, to do something political and irresponsible at the time when a mid-term Senate election is called. In other words, the election atmosphere is more or less continuous. The government is responding to an election situation rather than responding to the needs of government. Too frequent elections mean that government is constantly carried on in a campaign atmosphere. This is the antithesis of good government. Objections to the proposals to bring the two Houses into phase came from the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Bass. The honourable member for Denison, in his more in sorrow than in anger persona, said that he did not like this erosion of the independence of the Senate. The honourable member for Bass said that the proposal to bring the two Houses into phase was destroying the system of checks and balances which made the Senate completely independent of the House. However, he also said that he did not wish the Senate to be independent of the electorate. During the last debate, the honourable member for Bass said: Again, it will destroy part of the checks and balances system, including the fixed term as a balance to the unfixed term of the House of Representatives. However, he went on to say: I recognise the case for a four-year term for this House but I could not tolerate a senator having an eight-year term. That would make him almost completely independent of the electorate. So, on one hand, the honourable member does not want senators to be independent of the electorate but he does want them to be independent of the House. Nothing in the legislation will stop the Senate from being a check or a balance to the House. All that is implied by the legislation is that, if the Senate acts as a check and a balance, it might have to face the electorate along with the House. The two honourable members I referred to made it clear that they did not mind the Senate having to face the people. So nothing will stop the Senate from continuing to be a check and a balance to the House of Representatives. Nothing will stop the Senate from being the useless pain in the neck that it always has been. The checks and balances will remain. What will change is that, if the Senate exercises this power to be a check and a balance, it will have to face the people of Australia. That, in the words of the honourable members who spoke against these proposals, is 'nothing to the harm'. The view of the honourable member for Bass and the honourable member for Denison that the Senate should not be completely independent of the people sits rather illogically with the tender concern they express for a Senate of the future which acts as a check and balance and then has to pay the horrific consequence of facing the people. As far as the simultaneous election proposals are concerned, I would like to make it perfectly clear that the role of the Senate as a check and balance will not be eroded. The role of the Senate in that capacity will remain. All that will change is that senators will have to pay the electoral consequence of acting as a check and a balance and face the people of Australia. I have referred already to the further massive savings which could be obtained if the second referendum were carried, that is the referendum to increase the length of the parliamentary term of the House of Representatives to four years. I turn again to questions of principle. Once more I can do no better that to quote from the speech by the honourable member for North Sydney who said: Governments should have a chance to implement their programs. In particular, when governments are new I think it is necessary that they should have a chance, in the interests of the mandate that they may have been given, to implement their programs. Yet new governments always go through a learning process. When a government comes to office it is almost immediately faced with the need for campaigning. Very frequently there is little chance for a government to deal with housekeeping matters and to attend to good government in the absence of an immediate election. Australian governments are plagued with too frequent elections. They are plagued with an inability to implement their mandate without having a constant eye to opinion polls and popularity ratings. We need a chance for some governing to be done free of an election climate. In the present climate, no governing in the last seven, 10 or even more years has been done free of an election climate. Some concern has been expressed by certain honourable members opposite, including the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Bass, about the legislation which seeks to extend the parliamentary term of the House of Representatives to four years. That concern is not so much because of the very sensible increase in the term of the House of Representatives to four years but because this would involve an eight-year term for the Senate. The honourable member for Bass pointed out that this would make senators independent of the electorate. I quote his own colourful prose. Without referring to any particular senator, he said: It would give him such a continuity of service that we might as well put him on the Public Service payroll . . . That continuity would allow him to not be answerable to the electorate. But the point which the honourable member for Bass misses out in this remark is that most senators-and he was not talking about a particular senator-are not answerable to the electorate now. Senators are not answerable to the electorate unless they happen to be last on the Australian Labor Party or coalition tickets in any Senate election. If they are number 1 to 4 on the preselection list for Labor or the coalition parties they are guaranteed election anyway. Most of them do not face the people. I do not want to give the honourable member for Bass, who is away from Canberra on parliamentary business at the moment, a lesson in logic during his absence, but his argument commits the fallacy of division. It does not follow from the fact that the Senate has to face the people that any particular senator faces the people. The only senators who are in any way in danger of losing their seats in the Senate are those who are last on the Liberal Party, National Party of Australia or Labor Party ticket. If honourable members opposite are serious in wanting the people's representatives in the Senate to be answerable to them, what they should be arguing for is a change in the method of electing the Senate. They should be arguing instead, perhaps, for the abolition of the Senate. We do not need the ossification of the Senate, but its abolition if the ideas of the honourable member for Bass in regard to making the Senate representatives are to apply. In short, the argument about giving senators eight-year terms is neither here nor there. Senators do not have to face the people most of the time anyway unless they happen to be the last on the ticket. It is totally irrelevant to say, as the honourable member for Bass said, that it is a shame to give them such continuity of service. They have it anyway, and they do not have to face the people. The other contentious Bill-it is contentious only in the minds of a few of the honourable members opposite-is the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill. These constitution alteration Bills were debated by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony), in fact. It is not clear to me whether he was damning the Bills with faint praise. I think that rather he was praising the Bills with faint damns. The Leader of the National Party seems to be, in most respects, of one mind with the Leader of the Opposition in supporting these Bills. The honourable member for Denison argued on several grounds against the moves to allow the High Court to have advisory jurisdiction. One of these reasons was the danger of overloading the Court. I assure the honourable member for Denison that the High Court is not particularly overworked. He pointed out that declaratory judgments are available in concrete situations. It would be better if the court were able to declare without having to go into concrete situations because these concrete situations are expensive. It costs money to go to the High Court. It wastes a lot of the time of various arms of government, and we would be better off without this. I realise that it is presently contrary to legal practice for courts to pronounce on hypothetical matters. This is a salutary doctrine. It preserves the court's judicial, as distinct from the legislative, function. By deciding only the cases before them as distinct from deciding a range of future possible cases , as we do in this House, the courts preserve that function. However, there are massive savings in expenses if parties to a constitutional dispute avoid the shadow boxing that goes on when neither party knows how legislation will be interpreted. It is the taxpayer who foots the bill for constitutional conflicts, particularly State and Federal conflicts. It is better if the issue is speedily settled by having the relevant provisions interpreted by the High Court. In conclusion I would like to say the following: Efficiency of government, the saving of taxpayers' money and sensible, rational representation, all require the passage of these Bills. The first Bill about which I spoke, namely, the Bill to bring the two Houses back into phase, will save the Australian taxpayer $103m . A saving of $138.6m would be available if the other referendum proposal, namely, the proposal to make four-yearly elections the rule, is introduced as well. Further savings will be available if an advisory jurisdiction by the High Court is permitted. The arguments which have been raised against this are nothing as compared with the logic and rationality which has permeated the arguments in particular of the Leader of the Opposition and the learned honourable member for Sydney. The bipartisan support which these Bills attract is a symptom of their value, their rationality and the sensible nature of the proposals. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.33) -When considering constitutional alteration the Australian people have demonstrated a natural inclination to say that the wisdom of our founding fathers has stood the test of time and ought not to be interfered with. I am much attracted to this-dare I say it-conservative approach . But I recognise also the need for the Constitution to be both relevant and responsive to Australia's modern needs. On 25 February next year the Australian people again have to decide whether the Constitution needs updating to make it more adaptable to changes which have occurred in our society. Apart from a reservation about the term of eight years for senators-a matter which I will address shortly-I support the proposed alterations. However, I add that my support is somewhat ambivalent. Indeed, it can be described as lukewarm for two major reasons. The first is the unnecessary cost to the taxpayer of introducing referendums separately in February 1984 away from a half Senate election or a double dissolution. My second reservation is the failure of the Government to address itself to the controversy surrounding the use of the external affairs power following the dams decision of the High Court of Australia. In regard to the unnecessary costs, to which I have referred, I understand that the cost to the Government-that is, the taxpayer-of these referenda next February is between $15m and $20m. It escapes me why the referenda cannot be put to the Australian people at the same time that the half Senate election is due late next year, or why they cannot be put at the next double dissolution or the next House of Representatives election. Mr McVeigh —Far more sensible. Mr McGAURAN —It is far more sensible as the distinguished honourable member for Darling Downs, who has been a member of parliament for some time, has just interjected. Furthermore, the cost of having these referenda at a half Senate or a House of Representatives election would be between only $3m and $5m. Let me address my remarks to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is seated at the table. I ask him whether he is able to say why this Government is spending unnecessarily between $15m and $17m next February. I am not the only one who asks that question. It is a question asked by many honourable members on this side of the House on behalf of the 750,000 unemployed in this country. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, that is not a pious platitude. Some $15m or $17m could be put-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair and not to the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr McGAURAN —Most certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Through you, I put it to the Deputy Prime Minister that the argument could be made that that money could be put to far better use in many different fields. My second reservation, which I have already mentioned, is the deliberate failure by this Government to address itself to the implications for our federal system of government following the dams decision of the High Court and this Government's reliance on the external affairs power in section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution. The implications of that decision have been addressed by a number of honourable members on this side of the House. They have been ignored by members of the Government. This Government has demonstrated, particularly by the introduction of the sex discrimination legislation by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) in another place, that it is prepared to rely upon the external affairs power to the detriment of our system of federalism, to the detriment of the States. For those two reasons I am lukewarm about the timing and the scope of the referenda proposals next February. I wish to address myself briefly to the five referenda proposals. The first, of course, is for simultaneous elections; the purpose being to reduce disruption and inconvenience for electors by eliminating separate, half Senate elections, as well as to ensure that the Senate more accurately reflects current public opinion and is more accountable to the people. I believe the advantages are clear and can be spelt out. Amongst a whole range of other advantages, the main advantage is to reduce the number of elections thereby minimising inconvenience to electors and cost to taxpayers. This will ensure that the Senate is more accountable and reflects the current wishes of the people. I must disagree with my colleagues and, I say with some liberty, my friends the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). I do not believe that a State will be disadvantaged by this proposal as the Senate naturally will retain all its present powers to review, amend or reject legislation from the lower House. I turn now to the four-year terms of office for the House of Representatives. The purpose of this legislation is to introduce greater continuity and stability into the electoral system to enable governments to undertake longer term planning and to be more economically responsible. I believe that the advantages are most compelling. This should encourage governments, in particular, to undertake necessary measures which are in the best interests of Australia, which are initially unpopular but in the long term will be beneficial to the community . This is also in line with developments in the States. New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have four-year terms. I understand that Victoria and some of the other States are moving towards four-year terms as well . The problem that I have-this matter has been addressed by other speakers-is the eight-year term for senators. In many ways that eight-year term for senators contradicts my earlier support that the Senate be made accountable to the Australian people. Mr Hunt —Some of them will be long in the tooth by the time they finish, won't they? Mr McGAURAN —Perhaps it can be said that some are already long in the tooth! Nonetheless, I believe the advantages for four-year terms for the House of Representatives and eight years for the Senate far outweigh the disadvantages. The next proposal I wish to deal with is the interchange of powers. This will enable the Commonwealth Government to confer legislative powers on State governments over matters otherwise within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. It will also enable the Commonwealth Parliament to empower State parliaments to vest in federal courts, other than the High Court, jurisdiction in matters arising under State law. This proposal eliminates to a large extent the duplication of authority between the States and the Commonwealth. It has to be a voluntary arrangement. Therefore, if a single State wishes to refer a power to the Commonwealth it may do so but if the Commonwealth wishes to refer a power to the States the power has to apply to all States and all States must be in agreement. This appears to be a very commonsense arrangement and will result in better and more efficient government. The next proposal is the removal of outmoded and expended provisions. Many minor changes to the wording and minor provisions of the Constitution need to be updated or removed. The advantages are clear. They are not changes of substance but they will make the Constitution more understandable, easier to read and more in line with modern terminology. Perhaps it can even be said that this is a proposal well overdue. I turn now to the final proposal, the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court. This proposal has attracted a great deal of comment within and outside this Parliament because its ramifications are of the utmost seriousness. Together with many other members I have had severe reservation about using the High Court to give advisory decisions. My reservation is, of course, that the High Court will give an opinion on a Bill before it has passed through the Parliament. Thus , it might be argued that the Parliament is subjugating its legislative duties to the High Court. My reservation is overcome by the Government's agreeing to an amendment put forward in another place by Senator Hill which provides that any referral to the High Court must be by parliamentary Act. Therefore, by virtue of this amendment, any referral will be debated in the Parliament and the Parliament will decide in what instances a referral is right and proper. For this reason I am able to support the referendum proposal. In conclusion, I have no objections to the legislation other than to the terms of honourable senators to which I have referred already. However, I reiterate that the referenda are unnecessary at this time. The cost has to be borne in mind. It is a matter of priorities. Where do this Government's priorities lie? The Government stands condemned for not concerning itself with the greatest constitutional problem since Federation, that is, the effects on federalism of the Tasmanian dam decision. All the proposals for next February's referenda are quite insignificant in comparison. I condemn the Government, as do honourable members on this side of the House, for not proposing changes to the Constitution which may overcome the effects on States of decisions such as the Tasmanian dam decision. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(11.44) —At the outset I will make a couple of comments on some of the matters raised by the honourable member for Gippsland ( Mr McGauran). He indicated at the start of his speech that he was attracted to limited change in matters of constitutional reform. However, he also added the rider that the Constitution must be adapted to the needs of a changing society. He indicated that he was prepared to give lukewarm support to the proposals before the House today. But he said one problem was the cost involved in putting the referenda proposals in February 1984. In that context he suggested that it might be more appropriate to put those constitutional proposals conjointly with a half-Senate election or even further down the track. The point that needs to be made is that if the referenda proposals are successful in February they will obviate the necessity for a half Senate election. Of course, the amount of money that would normally be expended for the half Senate election would not then be spent. That point is worth stressing. The honourable member also indicated some concern about the development of the external affairs powers. The High Court of Australia made the decision with respect to the Franklin Dam dispute. For a very long time the Australian people and, indeed, Australian governments have abdicated their responsibility to bring a horse and buggy constitution up to date. That abdication of responsiblity has been addressed by the High Court as a matter of necessity. The Strickland v. Rocla Pipes case of many years ago provided an interpretation of section 51 (xx) of the Constitution and is just one of many examples of the High Court being the reformer of the Constitution. I for one am not prepared over time to see the sort of responsibility that should reside with the Australian people being left to a group of unelected and, in my view, often totally unrepresentative justices of the High Court. The honourable member for Gippsland also adverted briefly to the advisory opinions proposal. I was reminded that the High Court has in the past given advisory opinions, obviously with no constitutional foundation whatsoever. Former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, felt no compunction at all in offering advice, in my view totally without any power to do so in terms of the constitutional provisions, to the now somewhat discredited former Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. In my view he acted in a most partisan fashion and in terms of the powers that he acted under he prostituted a very high office. I am glad to see that the honourable member for Gippsland does not accept that that power resides in the High Court at the moment. He may like to refer a copy of his excellent speech to the former Governor-General who may wish to add an addendum to his recently publicised apologia. Constitutional reform in Australia has been well addressed. However, it has not been conspicuously successful. Matters of constitutional reform and constitutional change were well developed during the period 1972-75 when we had, for example, the first double dissolutions in our parliamentary history, the referendum campaigns, electoral boundaries legislation, the crisis resulting from the filling of casual Senate vacancies and continued warfare on almost every policy area imaginable between the States and the Commonwealth. As is often the case, the heat in these matters dies down when the conservatives are in a position of ascendancy and they can take up the position that they often profess to adopt, that is one of more conservatism. Of course, it is easy to be conservative when all the constitutional provisions and the way they operate are working to one's political advantage. In any event there has now been a more dispassionate and detached approach to matters of constitutional reform and that needs to be commended. History speaks for itself. Parties are now coming to broad agreement that we need to change. I think the debates that have preceded my contribution fully endorse that perception. Until 1977, of the 32 separate proposals that were put to the Australian people only five were accepted; that is less than 16 per cent. Since 1977 we have had three successful referendum proposals and, hopefully, the increased predisposition of the Australian electorate to constitutional reform will be continued. Historically a number of methods have been utilised to approach constitutional reform. We can go right back to the all-party committee in the Bruce-Page Government. Subsequent to that was the mechanism of royal commissions to advise on appropriate constitutional reform. We had conferences of Commonwealth and State Ministers, we had conventions of representatives from Commonwealth and State parliaments and we had the 1956 Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, but substantially those came to nothing. The Australian Constitutional Convention has been more successful. It was established in 1973 with Federal, State and local government representatives and it went through various changes until it developed into the model that we now have. In my view, a representative Constitutional Convention is one of the most effective and representative ways that we can approach constitutional reform. It is one of the methods by which particular proposals will have the political heat drawn out of them prior to coming to some sort of sensible conclusion. The danger, I suppose, is that in that process one is often left with the lowest common denominator. Having regard to the lack of history of constitutional reform in this nation it seems to me that the lowest common denominator in some cases may be better than nothing. Of course constitutional reform will be successful only if we do not have a repeat of the spectacle earlier this year when the Queensland and Tasmanian governments stacked their delegations. Objectively, very few members in this chamber would not privately condemn that sort of roguish behaviour. If that were allowed to continue, the method of constitutional reform through these conventions would be doomed to failure. I will not go into much detail on this matter; I have limited time. The matters that have been addressed by the various speakers not only today but also previously have been commented upon I think ad nauseam by subsequent speakers, so there is no need to go into any substantive detail. I would just like to say that unless the Constitution is amended in terms of simultaneous elections and the extended terms proposals four Federal elections will be due in the next six years. For my own part, being a relatively young member of the House, my political recollections seem to be always related to a forthcoming election in the State, local government or Federal arena. There seems to have been elections every year that I have been actively involved in the political process. I think honourable members would agree that where political parties, and indeed members of political parties, are concentrating on the election of their own party colleagues, it leaves very little time indeed to address what should be the more important issues; that is, the issues that affect Federal, State and local governments. Four Federal elections are due in the next six years on the basis that the first two referendum proposals are not successful: There is a half Senate election between July 1984 and June 1985; a House of Representatives election by May 1986; another half Senate election between July 1987 and June 1988; and the following House of Representatives election by May 1989. Only an early House of Representatives election can break this pattern. A double dissolution election, which is not an option in the current circumstances but which may in due course become an option I suppose, is the only mechanism provided by the Constitution for early Senate elections. Because of the back-dating of Senate terms provided for by the Constitution, double dissolutions merely serve to aggravate the dislocation of election dates. The matter of four-year terms has been addressed by the honourable member for Gippsland and previous speakers, so I shall not be going into that matter in any detail, except to make the comment that in New South Wales 69 per cent of the people supported the proposal for a four-year term for State members. To some extent that was remedying a monster that they had created for themselves in 1874 when they changed from five-year terms to three-year terms. This unhappy change was also mirrored by Queensland and Tasmania, with the latter moving back to four-year terms in 1976. So it is not a matter so much of substantive change but of really going back to the original intent that many people who were involved in drawing up our Constitution may have had at the back of their minds. I shall not make any further comment except to add my agreement to the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) with respect to senators. I must say I am not personally delirious about the prospect of senators having eight-year terms. It seems to me that if we include a proposal to break the nexus with these referendum proposals, the degree of consensus that has been developed will quickly shatter because if there is one important impediment to constitutional reform in Australia it is the States' rights issues . Certainly the breaking of the nexus goes to the very heart of the States' rights matters. So whilst I am not delirious with this proposal, I think we will have to, like my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland said, put up with it in the interests of getting up the more substantive referendum proposals. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(11.55) —I intend to oppose all of these proposals and to vote against them in the House. I will explain both to the House and to the people of Australia that it is necessary for members to vote in the chamber against proposals if they wish to be eligible to participate officially in co-ordinating the No or the Yes case in a referendum. It is my intention to be officially aligned with the co-ordination of the No case for these referenda. For that reason I intend to vote against all of these proposals today in division. I must say, though, that I am relaxed about some of the proposals being put forward, but I find two of them to be particularly obnoxious. Therefore, under no circumstances can I accept those proposals. My reason for voting against all of these proposals is that I feel that to be putting forward propositions to the public on the basis that one should support some but oppose others would be merely confusing. It is for the sake of simplicity that I will be opposing all of them and helping to co-ordinate the No case. I feel that if we were to put to the public that they should split their vote and vote for some propositions and against others, it would be totally confusing and the public would simply not be able to understand and distinguish between these proposals. I find the proposal for the interchange of powers between the Commonwealth and the States and the proposal to remove outmoded and expended provisions within the Constitution to be of no great concern. I have no great problems with those provisions but, merely for the sake of consistency, I will be voting against them. Mr Goodluck —You are always consistent. Mr BURR —I thank the honourable member. I acknowledge the comment from my colleague the honourable member for Franklin. I have no great problems with those provisions. It is merely for the sake of consistency that I will be opposing them in this chamber, so that members of the public will not be confused when the matter goes before them at the referenda. I am equally relaxed on this matter; in fact, I have some favour with the four-year term. As my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) pointed out earlier, there are problems about extending the term of the Senate to eight years. I freely acknowledge the arguments in favour of having a four-year term for the Government of the day and for the lower House, the House of Representatives. It must be recognised that there are problems in extending the terms of senators to eight years and denying the public the opportunity to give a judgment on the performance of those senators for eight years. Mr Goodluck —It does not work. Mr BURR —As my colleague the honourable member for Franklin has said, it does not work. I will be voting against that provision in the House and co-ordinating the No case when the referendum comes around. My particular opposition is to the simultaneous elections proposal and to the proposal to give advisory jurisdiction to the High Court of Australia. In the brief time available, perhaps I could explain why I am particularly opposed to these matters. The honourable member for Denison very succinctly explained the arguments against the proposals. I shall repeat some of the points he made and relate some of the concerns that I have. I point out to my friends on the other side of this chamber that there is adequate provision now to hold simultaneous elections. The only reason why simultaneous elections for both the House of Representatives and the Senate are not held is that in the past the Government of the day has chosen to hold an election for the House of Representatives at a premature date. If both Houses of the Parliament were permitted to run their full terms there would automatically be simultaneous elections and there would be no need for this or any other similar proposal. My friend the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) said that this legislation will help to reduce the number of elections. I have to dispute that claim. Obviously, we can reduce or limit the number of elections only by allowing the Parliament to run its full term. This proposal does not ensure that the Parliament will run its full term. It gives a guarantee that the Parliament will not run its full term; that the Senate will have its term reduced. It will lead to more elections, not fewer elections. Added to that, as my colleague from Denison has already pointed out, this provision will undermine the powers of the Senate and certainly allow the Government of the day to hold a big stick over the Senate should it oppose the Government of the day on any issue. I cannot support these proposals for that reason, and I certainly intend to vote against them and to campaign against them during the referendum campaign. I turn now to the advisory opinions of the High Court of Australia. My colleague from Denison pointed out very clearly the judicial reasons why this legislation should be opposed. My additional reason is that, if this proposal is passed and the High Court is allowed to give advisory opinions on legislation before it is passed by the Parliament, the obvious extension is that the Government of the day will respond to the wishes of the High Court in the framing of its legislation. It is my very firm view that the Government of the day should respond to the wishes of the people as expressed by members of parliament. The Government represents the people; it does not represent the High Court. It is totally unacceptable to undertake any action that allows for any other situation; the Government of the day reflects the wishes of the people. I cannot accept collusion between the High Court and the Government of the day in relation to the type of legislation that should be brought into this chamber and passed into law, and I will therefore vote against this proposal. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.04) —in reply-I shall quickly answer a couple of matters. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said that half Senate elections were a rarity. I remind him that unless this referendum succeeds there will be three elections in three years-two in the case of the Senate, and this is a problem. I also remind him that the simultaneous elections proposal which was put to the people in 1977 received 62. 2 per cent support. There is no question of weakening the power of the Senate. There is always an opportunity to manufacture a double dissolution position, as the last Government did this year. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) felt that eight-year Senate terms were too long. Of course, they might not necessarily be eight years long; they will be equal to two terms of the House of Representatives, which we think will be less than eight years. The avoidance of half Senate elections over the next ten years will save the taxpayer $64m. The delegates to the Consititutional Convention suggested that we have referendums. This referendum is to avoid having a half Senate election. There is no effect on the external affairs power. I thank honourable members for their contributions. I remind honourable members that the vote is now about to take place. It will take at least 45 minutes, and for that reason we now have to close the debate. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Burr —Which Bill are we voting on? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Dobie —Mr Acting Speaker, may we have your advice on this matter? There are honourable members who wish to vote against the matter. Will you advise us at what stage it would be appropriate for that to take place? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The constitutional requirement is that a division take place on the third reading. Do I understand that a division is not required on the second reading? Mr Burr —We are happy to divide on the third reading. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 99 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Katter, R. C.Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Campbell, G. McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. McVeigh, D. T.Child, J. Macphee, I. M.Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Coleman, W. P. Mildren, J. B.Connolly, D. M. Milton, P.Cowan, D. B. Moore, J. C.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Peacock, A. S.Edwards, Henry Porter, J. R.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Shipton, R. F.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hawke, R. J. L. Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hicks, N. J. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. White, P. N. D.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Andrew, J. N. Goodluck, B. J.Burr, M. A. (Teller) Rocher, A. C. (Teller) Mr ACTING SPEAKER-There being 103 ayes and four noes, the question is therefore resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 101 —— Adermann, A. E. Howe, B. L.Andrew, J. N. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Anthony, J. D. Hunt, R. J. D.Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Katter, R. C.Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Carlton, J. J. McLeay, LesCharles, D. E. McVeigh, D. T.Charlesworth, R. I. Macphee, I. M.Child, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Coleman, W. P. Milton, P.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Morris, A. A.Cross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Neil, L. R. T.Drummond, P. H. Peacock, A. S.Duffy, M. J. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Robinson, I. L.Fatin, W. F. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Saunderson, J.Fisher, P. S. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Shipton, R. F.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Sinclair, I. McC.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Staples, P. R.Hall, Steele Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Street, A. A.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Hawker, D. P. M. Wells, D. McM.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Hicks, N. J. White, P. N. D.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Young, M. J. Burr, M. A. (Teller) Goodluck, B. J.Rocher, A. C. (Teller) Mr ACTING SPEAKER-There being 104 ayes and three noes, the question is therefore resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent consideration of the Constitution Alteration Bills being completed. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bells being rung for one minute only when dividing on the Constitution Alteration Bills. Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 101 —— Adermann, A. E. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. Hurford, C. J.Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Katter, R. C.Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert Lloyd, B.Brumby, J. M. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Carlton, J. J. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. McVeigh, D. T.Charlesworth, R. I. Macphee, I. M.Child, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Coleman, W. P. Milton, P.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Neil, L. R. T.Drummond, P. H. Peacock, A. S.Duffy, M. J. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Robinson, IanFatin, W. F. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Saunderson, J.Fisher, P. S. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Shipton, R. F.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Sinclair, I. McC.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hawke, R. J. L. Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hicks, N. J. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. White, P. N. D.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Burr, M. A. Goodluck, B. J. (Teller)Rocher, A. C. (Teller) Mr ACTING SPEAKER-There being 104 ayes and three noes, the question is therefore resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 91 —— Anthony, J. D. Hurford, C. J.Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Katter, R. C.Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert Lloyd, B.Brumby, J. M. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Campbell, G McGauran, P. J.Carlton, J. J. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. McVeigh, D. T.Child, J. Macphee, I. M.Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, H.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Coleman, W. P. Mildren, J. B.Connolly, D. M. Milton, P.Cowan, D. B. Moore, J. C.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllenDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Peacock, A. S.Edwards, Harry Porter, J. R.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Saunderson, J.Fisher, P. S. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Shipton, R. F.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Sinclair, I.McC.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Spender, J. M.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Steedman, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Hicks, N. J. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wilson, I. B. C.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hunt, R. J. D. Adermann, A. E. Goodluck, B. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Groom, R. J.Burr, M. A. Robinson, IanCadman, A. G. Rocher, A. P. (Teller) Mr ACTING SPEAKER-There being 99 ayes and eight noes, the question is therefore resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority, as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —As this is a Bill to amend the Constitution, the provisions of section 128 of the Constitution must be observed. Although there is no dissenting voice and a division has not been called for, it is desirable that the names of those members present agreeing to the third reading should be recorded. I direct those in favour of the third reading to pass to the right of the chair. The bells having been rung- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Since there are now dissenters, we shall proceed to division in accordance with the normal practice. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 101 —— Adermann, A. E. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. Hurford, C. J.Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Katter, R. C.Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert Lloyd, B.Brumby, J. M. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Carlton, J. J. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. McVeigh, D. T.Charlesworth, R. I. Macphee, I. M.Child, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Coleman, W. P. Milton, P.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Neil, L. R. T.Drummond, P. H. Peacock, A. S.Duffy, M. J. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Robinson, IanFatin, W. F. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Saunderson, J.Fisher, P. S. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Shipton, R. F.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Sinclair, I. McC.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hawke, R. J. L. Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hicks, N. J. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. White, P. N. D.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Burr, M. A. Goodluck, B. J. (Teller)Rocher, A. C. (Teller) Mr ACTING SPEAKER-There being 104 ayes and three noes, the question is therefore resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2 p.m. Mr STEELE HALL —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would he describe his meeting place in San Francisco with Sal Amarena, as described in the National Times on 29 July, as a 'hang-out for boozers, burglars, bookies- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The question is not related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities as Prime Minister. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. The Prime Minister has made a public statement about this subject. It has been publicised today. The Prime Minister therefore has involved himself in the question. His Press statement made at 1.20 p.m. today comments on this very question. I would have thought that, by the Prime Minister's involvement publicly of his own volition, you would allow me to question him further about the matter on which he has commented so far. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Chair cannot be expected to know what the honourable member has in his mind. If he directs a question to the Prime Minister on a different basis, I will give it consideration. Mr STEELE HALL —I will continue, Mr Acting Speaker, with your permission. Would the Prime Minister also describe it-this refers to the place at which the meeting occurred-as intelligence authorities have done, as a place the primary purpose of which was to provide a centre for meetings of organised crime members ? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what took place at that meeting, who the American trade union official was who organised it and how long the Prime Minister had known that trade union official? Has the Prime Minister subsequently been involved in any way with that trade union official regarding trade union or other matters. Mr HAWKE —I was asked a question at the Press conference today. I answered it. Let me go to that part of the question which I regard as relevant. In 1978, on the way to a meeting of the Socialist International in Vancouver with Mr David Combe I went to-I do not know how I would describe it, nor do I know how others describe it-a cafe bar in San Francisco that had been suggested as being an interesting place to have a drink by a trade union official who had been nominated to me from within Australia. I cannot describe what its functions then were, are now or are likely to be in the future. I cannot even remember how to get to the place. If I saw the people who were there then again, I would not recollect them. I could not remember them. I hasten to say that that is not a function of the condition in which I went into or left the place. It is a reflection of the fact that I have been there once. I had never seen the people there before and have never seen them since. I do not make a habit of trying to suggest that I can recollect over a period of years people I have seen for a matter of some two hours. As is well understood by every decent person in this House and outside it, it was a matter of total innocence in its arrangement and in its execution. Of course, since that time I have not seen or had anything to do with anyone who was in that place. As I have indicated, the matter was one of total innocence. There has been no subsequent association with anyone at that place as, of course , there would not be. As I say, I cannot even recollect the appearance of the people who were there. I conclude by saying what I said a moment ago: Every person of integrity in this House would understand the total innocence of my involvement. The person who disclosed this very interesting fact of my passing visit to this place was Mr David Combe. He has disclosed it for reasons of his own making. I do not suggest that the fact that Mr Combe was in that place with me for some two hours suggests that Mr Combe had or has any association with, knowledge of or connection with the people whom he happened to meet there any more than I did. Mr LEO McLEAY —No doubt the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has been drawn to a letter from the Honourable Barry Unsworth published in the National Times last weekend regarding the withdrawal of Australia Council funding for a community arts officer for the Labor Council of New South Wales and to yesterday's reported withdrawal of support by the Victorian Government for the Australian Ballet, the Australian Opera and the Australian Dance Theatre. In the light of these events, can the Minister advise the House whether the Australia Council has decided on its Budget for community arts for 1983-84? Will he assure the House that this withdrawal of support for the high arts will not further affect the Australia Council's allocations of funds for community arts, as instanced by the cutback in funding for the Labor Council of New South Wales? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for Grayndler for his question. The recent Budget contained a $4.5m increase in funding for the arts. At the September meeting of the Australia Council funds were allocated to various boards. The Music Board is responsible for the Opera, the Theatre Board for ballet and the Community Arts Board, obviously, for that activity. The fact is that funds cannot be reallocated between boards. So whatever was allocated at that time is under the control of those various boards. The Australia Council took substantial steps to implement government priorities-that is, access and participation-particularly through the Community Arts Board and special incentive programs. For example, $245,000 was provided for the 'art in working life' program. The multicultural program received $325,000; the youth arts program, $220,000; and the 'artists in the community' program $210,000. Since these central incentive funds must be matched by board expenditure, it effectively means a commitment of some $2m to these programs. In addition, the Council has established a special touring fund to increase access and participation with a budget of $750,000. I hope that honourable members will start to see the effect of that in their electorates in the future. In summary, the Council has not only boosted the Community Arts Board directly, but also it has committed a total of $2.75m to access and participation priorities. This figure is more than half of the $4.5m increase in the Council's cash budget. Putting it another way, it is significantly more than a real increase in the Council's budget after allowing for inflation. There has been a net reallocation of funds to these priorities. Little or no notice was given to the companies in question, by the way. No formal advice was given by the Ministry of its intentions to its governmental colleagues in regard to funding vis-a-vis the Theatre and Music Boards of the Australia Council. Unfortunately, the Council has no funds to make up the shortfall created by Victoria's action. Victoria has withdrawn support from the Australian Ballet, the Australian Opera and the Australian Dance Theatre. I recognise Victoria's problem. It is a serious problem. Its Arts Centre is a magnificent complex which will be opening early in the new year. However, every time the State Government decides to withdraw support from some section of the arts, the Australian Government cannot be expected to pick up the shortfall. Otherwise what would obviously happen is that every other State would follow suit. They would all pull out funding and expect the Federal Government to do it. With regard to the question of the Community Arts Officer in New South Wales, I have voiced concern about this matter. I have been accused of interfering in this matter. I have received requests from dozens of members in this House to follow up failures to provide grants in all these areas. It is my usual procedure to write to the Australia Council to seek explanations. I did so in this case. I got back what can only be described as a non-explanation. The Australia Council told me that it was not going to provide these grants but it would not explain why. I said that that was an unsatisfactory situation and I asked the Australia Council to do something about it. We, as a Labor Government want to know why-I am sure honourable members on the other side of the House want to see the 'art in working life' program extended as we wish to see that happen-the Labour Council of New South Wales, which has had previous grants, is no longer eligible at the moment. If it is doing something wrong, let us help it to make its application correctly so that it can get that grant. Mr PEACOCK —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the unusual personal intervention by the Prime Minister to promote a casino in the Australian Capital Territory, can the Prime Minister assure the House that he has at no time had discussions with any individual or group on the licence for a casino in the Australian Capital Territory? Will he also assure the House that he has at no time been involved in discussions on casino licences in other States of Australia? Mr HAWKE —Let me deal with the first part of the honourable gentleman's question. Obviously there could not have been any discussions -if I were of the mind to have any-until such time as a decision was made. I make it clear in regard to this question of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory that this is not simply a matter of a clear preference which I have, which I will continue to have and which I will assert strongly as being most appropriate in the interests of this Territory and indeed in the interests of Australia. I make it clear also that the decision is one which has the very substantial support of the structure of the parliamentary Labor Party; it is not just a prime ministerial idea. The answer therefore is: No decision has finally been made. I have had no discussions. Once a final decision is made, I certainly will not involve myself in that issue. Mr Anthony —I hope this is not another Richard Farmer reply. Mr HAWKE —The right honourable gentleman says that he hopes that I will not make a Richard Farmer reply. I assure the Opposition, as I have before, that I await with total confidence the report of the Royal Commission constituted to deal with that matter. I am quite sure that Opposition members do not await that report with the same degree of confidence. In regard to the second part of the honourable gentleman's question-that part dealing with the Queensland casino licence-there is an innuendo that I intervened in respect of the interests of Mr Kornhauser at that time. Let me make it quite clear what happened. A colleague-that might be a rather loose use of the English language, but at least a fellow member of the Australian Labor Party-used the Queensland Parliament in a way which recommends itself to the less reputable members in the Opposition in this chamber and, under the cover of privilege, made a totally unjustified and unsubstantiable attack on Mr Kornhauser who I assert in this chamber unqualifiedly is a close personal friend of mine, and I am proud of it. This person made a totally unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable attack upon Mr Kornhauser in the Queensland Parliament. Before I came into this Parliament I have never condoned-nor will I condone while I am here-the use of parliamentary privilege by members of parliament to make attacks on people which they are not prepared to make outside the House. As a result of that attack that was made upon a friend of mine, I certainly made representations within the Labor Party to try to have rectified what I regarded as a totally improper use of the Parliament to make an attack upon a person who happened to be a friend of mine. I repeat that if that sort of thing happens again, in this House or any other House, I would adopt the same position whether the attack was made by a member on my side of politics or by a member on the other side of politics. Mr HAND —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Territories and Local Government, concerns the decision to include a casino in the international hotel convention centre and office complex proposed for Canberra. How was this decision reached? Who was responsible for it? Mr UREN —This proposal for a complex which will take in an international hotel, a convention centre, office accommodation and a casino was the result of a collective decision of the parliamentary Labor Party. Discussions on the matter were held within the Cabinet committee, within Cabinet, within the Legal and Administrative Committee of the Caucus and within Caucus of the parliamentary Labor Party. Although a few members of our parliamentary party had reservations about the proposal, it was overwhelmingly supported by other members within our party. The White Industries Ltd proposal which I put before the Cabinet had a difficult passage. The former Government's proposal was for a minimum subsidy of $13m. Officers in the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance put the subsidy at between $20m and $30m but I have always argued that, in my view, it was about a $13m subsidy. Some of my colleagues felt that it was not a viable proposition. In fact White Industries Ltd sought from me a deferment of the hotel complex. Indirectly, through the Canberra Development Board, that company requested me to give a greater guarantee on the use by the Government of the convention centre. I said that we would go no further. It does not matter what honourable members' views are on the casino. When the former Minister for the Capital Territory put this proposal forward the then Cabinet was divided. I have been informed that that Cabinet vote was 10 to 7. So there was fairly strong feeling about this proposal. I do not know what the democratic processes were but at least it was a 10 to 7 decision in the Fraser Government. There was much more overwhelming support within our Cabinet. There were people with reservations about it, but very few, not only in the Cabinet itself but within the parliamentary party. I want to make that clear. As far as the economic proposition is concerned, I do not care what anybody says: If people examine this proposal rationally, the economic viability of this complex with a casino is a far sounder proposition than a complex without a casino. We have to look at the question whether we need a convention centre in Canberra that will seat 2,500 people. We have no such convention centre at which international organisations can meet in this country. No convention centre throughout Australia can deal with these numbers. The matter involves not only this issue but also the question of employment. If we look at the problem of the construction industry which we inherited from the former Government we see that last year it was 14 per cent down. This year it will again be 14 per cent down. If we can get this whole complex started, it will make a contribution generally not only for the construction industry in Canberra but also for the whole nation . We know that a convention centre in Canberra will be a great asset to Canberra itself. It will help to diversify the base of industry in Canberra as we know that at least 58 per cent of people in Canberra are actually employed in the public sector. I can see the former Minister for the Capital Territory nodding in agreement with everything I am saying. There has been a suggestion of something sinister in the Prime Minister's support of this complex. I wish I could get his support on every issue on the Australian Capital Territory that I put up. If I could I would do well. I stress clearly, without any reservations, that this is a collective decision of the Labor Government and the parliamentary Labor Party; it is not one man's opinion. I am the Minister who is responsible and I accept that responsibility. I ask honourable members opposite to examine the ordinance which we put before both Houses. It contains stringent conditions which are superior to any applying anywhere in Australia. Mr Ruddock —Not as good as Queensland's. Mr Sinclair —Look at Queensland's. Mr UREN —If the honourable members interjecting can suggest to us where we can strengthen the ordinance we will strengthen it. Let us be clear. It is a collective decision of the Government, of the parliamentary Labor Party; it is not one man's opinion or one man's thought. Mr SINCLAIR —Can the Prime Minister assure the House that his Government's attempts to put an early end to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and to introduce a watered down National Crime Authority are not the result of pressure either on him, his Ministers or members of the Government from any individual or group? Can he assure the House that there have been no pressures in any way linked with persons to which reference has been made in his answers to questions from the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Boothby? Does his Government's intention with respect to the early termination of the Costigan Royal Commission and the watered down National Crime Authority show an intention by his Government to go light on crime? Mr HAWKE —I repudiate with the contempt that it so obviously deserves the innuendo in the question that has been asked by the right honourable gentleman. Those who need to will make their judgment about this member. I put the broad position of the Government in respect of the Costigan Royal Commission. It was the hope-I think we still have some basis for maintaining that hope-that the legislation on the National Crime Authority proposed by the Government and which is before the Senate would be passed in time for that Authority to come into effective operation in the early part of next year. On that basis the Costigan Royal Commission would be able to finish its substantive work by the end of this year. Mr Sinclair —So you are going light on it. Mr HAWKE —Mr Acting Speaker, I will ignore that stupidity. It was then our hope that the early part of next year could be used by the Royal Commissioner and those associated with him to finalise the report and then, very importantly, there could be a period of some two months or so in which the very important work of transition, the handing over of personnel, the expertise and the equipment of the Costigan Commission, could be made to the Authority. On 26 October I wrote to the Royal Commissioner, Mr Costigan, informing him of the Government's strong support of the work of his Commission. In my letter of 26 October to the Royal Commissioner I offered Mr Costigan extension of his commission for a period to enable such an orderly transition from his Commission to the proposed new National Crime Authority. Discussions have been taking place and are continuing between Mr Costigan and Ministers and officials on the detailed arrangements for the transition. The position is therefore perfectly clear and incontrovertible. If the Senate passes the legislation the sort of program to which I have referred can be carried through. I would have thought that if not only the honourable member who asked this question but also other honourable members opposite had a real commitment to ensuring that there is in place the appropriate instruments for investigating and dealing with organised crime they would use their influence to ensure that the legislation can be passed so that that timetable can be adhered to. This Government has a complete commitment to ensuring that there be in place an instrument for investigating and pursuing organised crime. We bend to no one in our commitment in that regard. It is within the power of the parties in this House and in the other place to ensure that that course of action happens. We are doing our best to ensure that it happens, and those opposite would be better employed in joining with us to ensure that that happens rather than descending to the depths that they have with innuendoes and allegations which they know have no foundation. Mr GRIFFITHS —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to recent Press reports of comments made by the Director of the Victorian Employers Federation throwing doubt on the future of the prices and incomes accord. How does the Minister view these comments? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I have seen reports regarding statements made by Mr Spicer. I think in his case, as of course is the case with the Opposition, the wish is father to the thought. There is little likelihood of the prices and incomes accord breaking down. Its introduction has been a magnificent success in this country. We are totally committed to the prices and incomes accord. The wages policy is a central part of the accord. The Government put to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a few months ago in the national wage case that it should adopt the wages policy of the prices and incomes accord. That was done by the Commission. In that case we said to the Commission that it should, when making its decision, give effect to the wages policy of the prices and incomes accord and also apply a no-extra-claims provision, and that is that there should be a commitment by unions seeking the national wage increase under the centralised system not to make additional claims otherwise a centralised system could not be a success. That system, which was adopted by the Commission, was also adopted with minor variations by every State industrial authority. Essentially the States adopted the system brought down by the Commonwealth. So we have the Commonwealth's advocated system, the system of the accord, applying in the Federal jurisdiction and in all States. Almost all unions have made or will make a commitment in line with the commitment required under the policy. Only two unions have not made that commitment. They are the Food Preservers Union of Australia and the Confectionery and Mixed Business Association. Their combined membership is something of the order of 9,000 or about 0.15 per cent of the total wage and salary earners in this country. So we are talking about an extremely small section of wage and salary earners involved in that area of non-commitment to the policy. I believe that the situation of the confectioners should be understood. They have said that they are willing to make a commitment in many cases but not in respect of the companies which have not yet introduced the 36-hour week. An agreement was reached last year, not under this Government but under the previous Government, with many companies in that industry. They have since introduced the 36-hour week, in line with the agreement reached under the previous Government. There are also other transitional problems. I am aware of only two which are important. One relates to members of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia in Western Australia. There was a transitional problem in the sense that when the previous Government was in office an agreement was reached prior to the wages pause which gave effect to increases to electricians in Western Australia. There was a registered agreement in the Western Australian Industrial Commission under which wage increases were prevented by the wages pause. With the wages pause in Western Australia now over, there is an expectation on the part of the workers in Western Australia that they will get that increase. That is becoming an important problem in Western Australia. It is one which is before the Western Australian Industrial Commission and one which I hope can be solved within the guidelines of the new system as soon as possible because it is providing difficulty in the Western Australian building industry. The other area of difficulty is the building industry, which has been discussed recently in this House. I am not going to go into detail at this stage. I remain confident that it can be satisfactorily resolved within the guidelines of the system. Finally, the Government remains completely and totally committed to the prices and incomes accord and will do everything within its power to make sure that that accord remains in place and remains effective. We will certainly give contemplation to further policies which may be needed to ensure that it continues and survives, if that becomes necessary. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Alan Highet, MP, New Zealand Minister for Interior Affairs. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr ANTHONY —I ask the Prime Minister: If Mr Costigan believes it is necessary and in the best interests of his overall investigation into crime that he continue, will the Prime Minister permit Mr Costigan to continue with the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union? Mr HAWKE —Let me make the position quite clear, as I thought I had before. We want to have a situation in which there is no break or discontinuity between the Costigan Royal Commission and the National Crime Authority. I repeat that the achievement of that position is completely within the hands of honourable members opposite who are now carrying on so hypocritically. We have made it clear, and I repeat, that the discussions following my letter of 26 October between my Ministers, officials, Mr Costigan and his people have been on the basis that there shall be this continuity. If honourable members opposite put their votes where their mouths are we can in fact achieve that position. If as a result of the obstinacy and hypocrisy of the people opposite that timetable of continuity is not possible, this Government, through discussions with its Ministers and the Royal Commissioner, will take action to ensure that there is not an avoidable gap. Clearly it would be in the best interests of this country if in fact the legislation were passed and passed immediately. Then we can ensure that the great benefits of the acquired techniques, equipment and personnel of the Costigan Royal Commission are quickly, efficiently and smoothly passed over to the Authority, which can then be in place as quickly as possible. That is our commitment. We will continue to try to achieve that position in this place. If we are frustrated by the hypocrisy of the Opposition we will take steps in discussions with Mr Costigan to ensure that the continuity is achieved. Mr STEEDMAN —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Under what powers and for what purpose did members of the Australian Federal Police approach the management of a Canberra private charter company last week demanding to know the names of six women who chartered an aircraft to fly to Alice Springs to participate in the women's protest against the United States spy base at Pine Gap? Mr BEAZLEY —I am unaware of the circumstances to which the honourable gentleman referred. I shall make some inquiries of the Federal Police and give him an answer. I point out that if anybody has any complaint about the Federal Police at any time there is provision within the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act which sets out clearly the procedure for lodging of complaints by the public . If there is a grievance, the people who referred that grievance to the honourable gentleman have recourse in that area. I will make two points about the Federal Police in relation to the situation that has developed at Pine Gap. From the outset, when the police became aware of the situation that was likely to arise, that a demonstration was going to be held, two areas of concern have governed the policy and the activities that members of the police have pursued. The first has been, quite properly, the requirement to ensure that a highly sensitive security area and the integrity of it are preserved and that no unauthorised personnel are for any length of time within the secure area. The first obligation has been on members of the Federal Police and they have operated in such a manner as to uphold that obligation. The second point of concern for the Federal Police has been its understanding that in this country there is a right of public protest and that there is a right to demonstrate peacefully within the parameters of the law one's views on any particular matter, whether it is for or against government policy. Members of the Federal Police, in pursuing that understanding, consulted, before the event, people associated with those involved in the demonstration. They acted with restraint when the demonstration occurred. The charges which have been levied on the persons arrested are under the Crimes Act and they relate to trespass, which is not the most serious offence with which one can be charged but are appropriate to the recognition of that objective which is consonant with the democratic institutions of which this House is the peak. As I have said, no substantial evidence has been presented to me that members of the Federal Police have acted in any way that would bring about a breach of those two understandings of their responsibility. If people have any information on that matter, I am quite happy to receive it and I will pursue those matters. As I said, nothing has been presented to me in that regard. If people wish to pursue other avenues I draw their attention again , as I did at the outset of this answer, to those provisions within the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act which set out a very clear procedure for the lodging of complaints by the public. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to the first question asked of him today by the honourable member for Boothby. The last part of his question referred to the trade union official who organised the meeting which the Prime Minister described. In his question the honourable member for Boothby referred to a trade union official who organised this, and the Prime Minister confirmed that a trade union official had done that. Was this an official of the Teamsters Union, and was it Michael Rudy Tham? Mr HAWKE —This is like one of Mungo's straight off-breaks-not very probing and totally ineffective-and deserves the same treatment. Before I answer the question directly, let me refer to the whole process that has been involved in this pathetic line of questioning and innuendo yesterday and today. One would be excused for coming to the conclusion that the Opposition is totally satisfied with this Government's conduct of economic policy and the important issues of this country because there have been no questions directed to such matters. Mr Peacock —Because you are associated with the Mafia. Mr HAWKE —We have this tissue of innuendo-- Mr Peacock —It is a sad day when the Prime Minister associates with the Mafia. Mr HAWKE —We have this McCarthy-like tactic-- Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Peacock —Well, it is a sad day when this Prime Minister gets into bed with the Mafia. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —We have had member after member from the front bench of the Opposition interjecting in the last few minutes. I believe there is a need to observe some decorum. Mr HAWKE —Mr Acting Speaker, you will have noticed the continuation of the McCarthyist tactic by this interjection from the Leader of the Opposition that it is a sad day for this country when the Prime Minister gets into bed with the Mafia. That is the contemptible standard. I look at every member of the Opposition front bench and wonder whether he associates himself with it. I see two nodding heads. Let us have the matter right out. We have this McCarthyist tactic of guilt by association. Because, as I have said, on one occasion I spent two hours in a cafe bar in San Francisco and met a person-it turns out that completely unknown to me the person involved apparently had some Mafia connection-a person I have never seen again and would not recognise if I ever saw him again, that means getting into bed with the Mafia. I ask the people of Australia to make their judgment about me and about the Leader of the Opposition . I also ask all members of the Opposition, particularly those on the front bench, to make it clear whether they identify themselves with this allegation, this guilt by association on this basis. They should all face up to it and make it clear whether they-they know who I am looking at-associate themselves-- Mr Sinclair —Answer the question. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member for New England will remain silent. Mr Steedman —Andrew wants to know whether it was a gay bar. Mr HAWKE —Mr Acting Speaker, I knew as much about their sexual proclivities as I knew about their political, criminal or any other proclivities. I could not enlighten the House any more on that point than I could on any other of their other qualities. I wish to make this point-- Mr Goodluck —He is not answering the question. Mr HAWKE —I will answer the question; do not worry about that. It would be best if we had this right out. I have explained what happened-the total innocence of that couple of hours and the complete lack of former association or post- association. I ask all members of this House and the people of Australia to make their judgment based on that clear statement. I ask them at the same time to judge the Leader of the Opposition-and those associated with him-when on that basis he accuses the Prime Minister of this country of getting into bed with the Mafia. Mr Peacock —It will be interesting to see what David Combe writes if you don't answer the question. Combe will tell the truth. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman is obliged to listen to the answer and will cease interjecting. Mr Peacock —But he hasn't answered it. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Kooyong will have some regard for the dignity of this House. Mr HAWKE —I want to make the next point. There is an attempt to prove guilt by association in regard to a completely innocent situation. It would be quite easy , I guess, for people on this side of the House, if they wanted to engage in this tactic, to do so. I suppose that we could refer to the fact that people on that side of the House, their leaders and those associated with them, not only met with someone for two hours in a cafe but also had as an adviser a person who was sent to gaol for several years and has just been released. That was not a casual meeting in some cafe bar. The previous Prime Minister had as an adviser a gentleman-he went to him for advice-who has just been released from prison. I do not say in respect of this matter that because those opposite had this gentleman as an adviser they are tainted with his crime. Mr Peacock —It is a precis of David's forthcoming book. Mr HAWKE —It is a development of a good point. The name mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition is the correct name. This gentleman, Tham, was the person referred to me from within Australia and he was the person to whom I spoke. That is the fact. Never on my part has there been any attempt to deny that fact. I have spoken about this matter with many people; it is known to my acquaintances. It is a simple case of this derelict Opposition, now totally unable to deal with the important issues of this country-the economy and social problems-being reduced to attempting to prove guilt by association. I have put openly to this House the fact of that passing, totally innocent meeting in a cafe bar in San Francisco. I have put the facts. The Leader of the Opposition is saying to the people of Australia that on the basis of what happened there the Prime Minister has got into bed with the Mafia. I hope that the Opposition will continue to pursue this line because, if it is possible, the standing of the Leader of the Opposition according to public opinion will plummet even further. May I conclude on this observation: Yesterday, using this same tactic, that poor, pathetic creature over there said: 'The Prime Minister wanted to gaol me'. If there is one thing I do not want to do it is to remove this Leader of the Opposition from this place. He is the greatest asset that this Government and I have going for us. Mr YOUNG —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. I ask him a question regarding his-- Mr Sinclair —When is the report coming along? Mr YOUNG —It will not be very long. It will be better than the one that the right honourable member got. He wears striped suits so he will not have to change when the authorities get him. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for Port Adelaide will ask his question . Mr YOUNG —My question refers to the recent visit by the Minister for Trade to the Port of Adelaide. Was he impressed with the port facilities and skills involved in the industries surrounding Port Adelaide? Will he impress upon his ministerial colleagues the great benefits that could flow to this nation if those skills were fully utilised in great national projects such as the building of the submarines that we require? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I paid a visit to Adelaide recently in the course of my responsibilities in the area of trade. I congratulate the honourable member for arranging some aspects of the visit, which included meeting the port authorities of Port Adelaide and the Minister of Marine, Mr Abbott, as well as a number of exporters in the city of Adelaide. The question of trade is directly related to ports. As honourable members will know, one of the problems of the Department of Trade is to try to accelerate people's interest in the opportunities for export. I see the facilities at Port Adelaide as being first class. The people who have the use of those facilities have a great deal of interest in developing export potential. An honourable member opposite yawns. I would not think it was as boring as that. I met some of the very progressive people engaged in structural engineering, particularly those engaged in the construction of the Bass Strait off-shore platforms. They have developed special techniques in the fabrication of metal. In that concept I would say that there is every opportunity to develop the skills and talents of Australia, particularly those in Port Adelaide as exhibited by Mr White, an engineer there. I am anxious to impress upon not only my colleagues in the Ministry but also those in the Caucus the advantage of looking at the talents of Australians, not only in relation to metal and metal fabrication but also in the area of computer technology for which Professor Mudge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has developed world class facilities which I think would also have potential for the construction of submarines. All in all, it was a most successful visit. The city of Adelaide is well catered for by its port authority and facilities, not to mention the honourable member for Port Adelaide, who is also able to promote its cause. On the question of trade, it is important not only that the focal point of trade be Canberra, but also that we extend our branch organisation into all the capital cities and all the provincial centres. My Department is anxious to do that to guarantee that trade can continue to flourish. I look forward to every consideration being given to the case that the honourable member has raised with me. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, I present the Administrative Review Council annual report for 1982-83. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 29 (1) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the Human Rights Commission annual report for 1982-83. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report to the Attorney-General by the Administrative Review Council on review of pensions decisions under the repatriation legislation together with the text of a statement by the Attorney- General relating to the report. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Resources and Energy annual report for 1982-83. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the Remuneration Tribunals Act, I present a copy of the Remuneration Tribunal's November 1983 reports and determinations on the remuneration and allowances payable to holders of offices within its jurisdiction. The Government has accepted the reports and determinations and will introduce such legislation as is necessary as soon as possible. Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —I draw the attention of the Opposition to the fact that I am about to table three reports relating to gambling, which brings in about $6m a year for the Territory. The relevant authorities were established by the government of the day. For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Capital Territory Totalisator Agency Board annual reports for 1979-80 and 1980-81. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority annual report for 1981-82. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Poker Machine Licensing Board of the Capital Territory annual report for 1980-81. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 29 November 1983, unless Mr Acting Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1983 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1983 Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Amendment Bill 1983 Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill 1983 Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983 Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill 1983 Transfer of Prisioners Bill 1983 Transfer of Prisoners (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 1983 Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The alarm and confusion among Australia's aged over the proposed assets test on pensions. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.59) —This Government was elected allegedly on the basis that it would launch an attack on unemployment, but instead it has launched an attack-a vicious, arbitrary and highly discriminatory attack-on the aged, the most vulnerable section of our community. The Australian Labor Party says it wants consensus. What a sick joke that must sound now to the old people who are suffering at its hands. Labor's attack on the elderly is typical of this Government's approach. It picks on groups it thinks cannot defend themselves, on that sector of community whose members are least able to adjust their lives and to change their earning capacity in the face in a substantial decline in their income. I have raised today the Government's proposed assets test on pensions, but that is by no means the first of the attacks on our aged. On the contrary, it follows a pattern already established with the tax on lump sum superannuation payments and the introduction of a means test for pensioners over 70 years of age. This pattern was certainly not foreshadowed during the election campaign. In fact, not one of these measures was foreshadowed. At no stage-I repeat, at no stage- did Labor warn the elderly that their price for a Labor government was a reduction in their standard of living. It did quite the reverse. It promised increases in pensions and declared in the policy speech that a Labor government would not take money out of the pensioners' cheque. Those were indeed the Labor Party's words. One could not get a clearer commitment than that. One could not get more underhand, deceitful or indeed vicious reneging on that commitment than that which we have witnessed from this Government. Let us look at the latest of this Government's assaults on the elderly, its assets test on pensions. I remind the House that the assets test was abolished by the previous Government in 1976. The decision was taken for sound reasons. It was taken because the assets test was extremely complicated to administer. It was taken because it was extremely costly to administer. It was taken because the then Government wanted to eliminate the inequities inherent in an assets test. Those opposite know all about those inequities. They know how unfair and unjust such a measure is, but they have chosen to ignore these inequities in their callous and cynical grab for funds to pay for their ideological commitments. Let us remember the words of the former Leader of the Opposition and now Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden). He addressed this question last year. He said that an assets test was 'another kick in the teeth for the aged and retiring citizens as well as half a million widows, invalids and supporting parents'. Then he said : The argument about millionaires receiving pensions in a cruel and emotive device to cover up the Government's real intentions . . . of ripping the pension off ordinary people with modest savings they have worked for all their lives. The then Leader of the Labor Party recognised the inherent inequities in an assets test, as we had when we removed it in 1976. I am sure he still does. But his concerns have been swept aside. Now Labor says that its assets test is a good test. Now Labor says that its assets test is a fair test. Let us see how Labor's assets test shapes up against seven criteria for distinguishing allegedly good means tests from bad. I remind the House that these are not my criteria. The Opposition will repeal Labor's assets test because it is inequitable in that a person can be a millionaire and can have as many antiques and paintings and as much jewellery as he likes but if he has saved a nest egg and has only a weekender the pension will be ripped off him simply for that reason. This is the apotheosis of inequity of the spokesman for this Government in this area. If those opposite say that the assets test is fair and good because we are repealing it, let us test it against the seven criteria that have been put forward. They are not my criteria and they are not the criteria of the elderly pensioners who stand to lose so much from this Government's attack on them. These are independent criteria published by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, well known to honourable members opposite. Mr Howard —Certainly not pro-Liberal. Mr PEACOCK —No, certainly not pro-Liberal. Let us get to the Institute's test of fairness and equity as the Government argues that this is a good assets test. Firstly, it says that an assets test should give equal treatment under equal circumstances and that that is a basic requirement for a fair approach. I have just told the House what one can have and be knocked out of a pension and what one can have and still keep the pension. Under Labor's approach people who put their savings into some types of assets will be better off than people who put their savings elsewhere. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? The second criteria of eligibility for a good assets test, according to the Institute, would be 'well known in advance'. But by announcing its intentions in such an imprecise way the Government has already caused terrible distress and uncertainty to thousands of current and prospective pensioners. All this week we have not even had clarification of what is to be changed, whether the legislation will just sit on the table, whether it will be carried, whether it will be proclaimed or whether the exemptions will be lifted. We still do not know, and it was brought in here in August. Where is the predictability? I said earlier that those least able to change their circumstances are the elderly, and those opposite do not give a damn. They rapaciously seek more revenue for their ideological aims rather than having care and compassion for the aged. They know that they are going to be hurt. Honourable members opposite do not care. The elderly do not know the extent of that hurt or when they will be hurt. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? I will go through the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh tests. Thirdly, according to the Institute, a good assets test would not leave an unnecessarily wide discretion to those administering it. Yet Labor's test will require that bureaucrats put values on pensioners' non-exempt assets. Pensioners now have bureaucrats nosing about in their private affairs. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Fourthly, the Institute says that a good assets test would minimise the potential for administrative error. Let me raise this question. How are bureacrats going to place values on non-exempt assets of pensioners? Quite clearly, there will be considerable scope for bureaucratic error which can cause untold distress. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Of course, it is not. Fifthly, the Institute alleges that a good assets test would ensure that small inequalities of circumstances would be matched by small inequalities of treatment. But under Labor's test fringe benefit entitlements will be cut out completely when non-exempt assets exceed a threshold level. This means that people with almost identical wealth will be treated quite unequally by Labor. Again I ask: Is that fair? Is that reasonable? The answer has to be no again. Sixthly, a good assets test would not favour those 'in the know'. Under Labor's policies those who know how to make money in housing, in jewellery and in the art markets will do much better than those who do not. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Of course, it is not. Seventhly, if a means test is intended to redistribute income, the Institue says-not unreasonably -that care should be taken to ensure that this actually happens. But under Labor's test someone can have a huge art collection and not lose his pension while someone with a modest holiday home will have his pension entitlement either eradicated or at the very least reduced. Where is the fairness? Where is the equality? There are seven tests of fairness by the Melbourne Institute and seven failures by this Government. I repeat: We will repeal Labor's assets test legislation. We will not talk here about giving assistance to those most in need and then whack this sort of measure on people. To justify this test the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has talked of those with almost unlimited means automatically getting a benefit in times of stringency. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has spoken of millionaires receiving the pension and accused them of ripping off the system. We have asked him again and again for the evidence. My colleague Senator Messner has continually sought some substantiation of these remarks. He has asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to name the millionaires. He has asked the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for the reports from officials on which the decision is based. He has even gone to the lengths of seeking this information from the head of the Department of Social Security under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Ruddock —I bet they have not got it. Mr PEACOCK —Exactly. At every turn all the efforts of Tony Messner have been stonewalled by the Government. It will not give him the information because it knows it cannot substantiate any of the wild assertions it puts forward to justify this inequitable treatment of pensioners. These assertions are not reasons. They are just an excuse for grabbing an extra dollar because Labor is a high taxation party. For Labor high taxation is the vehicle for the redistribution of wealth. For Labor, high taxation is the vehicle for expanding the role of government. For Labor, it is the vehicle for directing the lives of individuals. The Government has made the elderly-those least able to rearrange their affairs-a prime target in its rush to grab hold of people's assets. The Government does not care. It proclaims it in the name of fairness and equity. It knows what the reaction has been out there. I do not blame people for expressing their concern not only orally and in writing but also through the ballot box, as when they increased the vote for the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) in the by-election last Saturday week? Mr Anthony —How much by? Mr PEACOCK —By 5.2 per cent. They knew what they were doing. They were registering a protest. The reaction will be greater when next we meet the Government in a ballot. Every time we meet it at a by-election we increase our vote, so let us have a few more. We are happy to meet it on the hustings at any time. People will not tolerate the double talk that the Government comes out with in justifying this inequity. They certainly will not tolerate the measure itself. The assets test on pensions comes on top of the new tax on lump sum superannuation payments. As if that were not enough, we had the Prime Minister talking yet again yesterday of investigating further the question of capital gains. Wealth taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, death duties-the Government is going to get into the lot. It has already started down the line in what it has done to the elderly in the community to date. All of the measures that I have mentioned have been floated by senior Labor spokesmen and we know that they are on line. When Labor talks of those sorts of taxes it talks of the wealthy, whom it claims must bear a fairer, as it puts it, share of the burden. What Labor is in fact proposing is taxing the modest assets and savings of ordinary Australians. It has chosen the elderly as the first group to attack. It wrongly believed that age was synonymous with weakness; it is not. The Government wrongly believed that the elderly would be too weak to resist; they are not. How wrong the Government has been proven to be; how important has been the resistance shown by the pensioners. They are leading the fight with us against Labor's mad grab for the modest savings of Australians and they have to be supported by others out in the community, not only because we must protect them against the ravages of this Government but because, if they succeed in their opposition, they will give heart to the millions of other Australians who now fear that their savings will be expropriated. The social injustice of this assets test, which we have raised today, was denounced by none other than Canon Peter Hollingsworth, the Executive Director of one of our most highly regarded social welfare organisations, the Brotherhood of Saint Laurence, who said: The assets test on pensions represents the imposition of a wealth tax on the elderly, but not on the rest of the community. The elderly should not have been singled out in this way . . . The Government's assets test on pensions attacks those least able to bear the burden. So it is not just the Opposition which opposes this iniquitous assets test. It is not just the pensioners. It is those throughout the whole community with a genuine concern for equity and social justice. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.14) —The farrago of stimulated passion to which we have just listened represents no indictment whatsoever of the Government's judgment and policy in this matter, but it does tell us a lot about the state of the Opposition. It has been said, I think, that power may corrupt, but quite clearly the loss of power has corrupted this Opposition absolutely. It has deserted every principle that it advocated when in government . It has abandoned every consideration of the real challenges that face this society, the real problems we will face in the next 20 years, in delivering fairly to this population welfare based on need which, of course, was once the theme of the party that now sits in opposition. I think it was Churchill who said that the task of an Opposition is to be critical, responsible and constructive. Let me say of the speech to which we have just listened-and I will prove each of these points-that it was hypocritical, unprincipled and simply destructive. Mr Donald Cameron —I rise on a point of order. He cannot say that, can he? Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Dr BLEWETT —Let me first refer to two statements by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, in the previous Liberal Government. First, in his 1981 Budget comment he said: The Government is concerned that, in the welfare area as well as in taxation, income rigging practices are circumventing the intent of the laws and throwing undue burdens on taxpayers generally. In turn such practices make it more difficult to help genuinely needy people. He went on to say: It has become evident that there is a growing practice of avoiding income for pension purposes, or even more commonly for pensioner fringe benefits. There is no essential difference-- Mr Hodgman —Why are you attacking the old? Why do you not attack someone your own age instead of robbing the grandmothers of Australia? Dr BLEWETT —When the noisy member for Denison has finished I will quote one of his own leaders speaking in the Senate when he was the Minister and was responsible. Senator Chaney said: There is no essential difference, so far as the general community effect is concerned, between this . . . he was referring to these pension practices- . . . and tax avoidance. It is, quite simply, the welfare face of the income rigging coin. (Quorum formed) In an endeavour to show the hypocritical stance of the Opposition on this issue I was quoting from the responsible statements by its leaders when in government. Senator Chaney continued: There is a real risk, however, that unless we can devise tenable strategies for directing welfare to those in the greatest need then, given the desire or perhaps the need for some overall restraint of welfare expenditure we shall begin to approach a position where we are failing to meet adequately the needs of the present groups in our community, those who are solely dependent for their incomes on the social security system. And this leaves aside the question of those for whom even the current provisions are inadequate. I believe that those statements of Senator Chaney represent much of the best thinking that remains in the Opposition on these kinds of issues, but which, for simply blatant, opportunistic purposes is neglected utterly in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Secondly, the speech was totally unprincipled in that there was no real effort to come to grips with the problems of an equitable distribution of our welfare resources nor any consideration of those in greatest need in the community. Finally, it was destructive because, although the Leader of the Opposition produced a valuable set of criteria whereby one could judge the assets test, he was not prepared to make real use of it for other than simply destructive purposes. He was not prepared to say: 'We believe in an assets test, but it has to be a good assets test. We will co-operate with you in having an effective assets test'. Mr Peacock —I do not believe in an assets test. Dr BLEWETT —As I said, his speech was simply opportunistic. Mr Peacock —I do not believe in it. We abolished it in 1976. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has made his point once. He cannot go on doing it all afternoon. Dr BLEWETT —The noisy interruptions of the Opposition Leader cannot disguise the fact that his speech was simply opportunistic. He presented a series of criteria on which to judge an assets test and then said: 'The Labor Party does not meet them, but even if it did we would have nothing to do with an assets test'. A constructive attitude from members of the Opposition in this matter would have been to recognise the real need for an assets test in this community and work together, as many other members of the community have, towards having a fair and adequate system whereby the resources of the community can be fairly distributed in the welfare area. If honourable members consider the points I have made they will see that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was hypocritical. It simply denied the basic principles which the Opposition parties advocated in government. Secondly, it was totally destructive. There were no constructive suggestions as to how we can deal with the real problems in the welfare area. Thirdly it was totally unprincipled in that there was no reference whatsoever to the real problems of equity and maldistribution in the welfare area. Let me say clearly why the Government has moved in this direction. We have imposed an assets test in order to prevent wealthy people exploiting, even cheating, our pension system. We will welcome the help of the Opposition in making it effective. Most responsible commentators, aware of the real problems we face in this field, have approved this decision. Press comment since the Budget has noted that the decision of the Government recognised the realities of the current situation. In addition, it has been recognised that far too many people, because of the rorts and manipulation permitted under the present pension system, are having doubts about the whole provision of welfare in this society. The assets test was abandoned by the former Government in 1977. It advanced no clear rationale at all for that abandonment. We heard today from the Leader of the Opposition that the decision was taken for sound reasons. Certainly, those reasons were never presented. As we know, it was simply a spur of the moment decision made for the election of 1975. It is true that Professor Henderson recommended the abandonment of the assets test in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, but only in conjunction with other major changes in the tax system, including the introduction of a capital gains tax. Dropping the assets test, according to the Government at the time, was thought to involve no net cost. That is what we were told by the past Government. It said that it could get rid of the assets test and it would not affect the welfare budget because it would involve no net cost. The net cost at that time turned out to be $70m a year. That $70m was denied to those in real need in the welfare system. If we allow for growth in rates and numbers since then it implies a loss of at least $120m now. With the growth of rorts and evasions in this area, which the ex-Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) knows about well and which every Opposition member knows about, we anticipate that the savings through the re-introduction of the assets test will be higher, by as much as two to three times that figure. Honourable members need to talk to people in the welfare area-counter staff and bank managers-who will provide them with case examples, all indicating the extent of the practices whereby the welfare system is being ripped off through the non-existence of an assets test. A unit trust is advertising how millionaires can get the full pension. This seems to us a staggering waste of money, an irretrievable loss. With it have been lost opportunities to help the most needy in our community. I turn to another point that the Leader of the Opposition made. One of his criteria was that the assets test and its principles should be well known in advance. The Government, from the beginning of this exercise, has been committed to that point of view. First of all, we announced in the Budget a series of proposals related to the decision to reimpose the assets test. We made it quite clear that it was the object of this Government, in the pursuit of its consensual policies, that these proposals would be discussed fully with all pensioner groups. My colleague the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has spent the last three months actively discussing with all the major pensions groups ways in which the limits and the exemptions can be improved, the way in which the assets test works and ways in which the transition period can be better handled. My colleague will be proposing a wide range of changes and modifications in response to those discussions. We are looking at a leisure style package which is particularly relevant to the holiday home issue which emerged. We will be looking at ways in which we can modify the gift limits. Another aspect brought to our attention by various pensioner organisations was ways in which we can provide better incentives for encouraging superannuation and annuities. Further we are looking at improved transition arrangements. All these matters have been thoroughly discussed. They will be further discussed within the body of the Party. Legislation will be presented and it will be another 12 months before that legislation comes into effect. We have sought very much to follow the very criterion laid down by the Leader of the Opposition. One other point was made by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that we are doing all these things because we have some terrible ideological hangups and commitments. Let me say quite frankly that if raising the pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings is an ideological hangup I am happy to have it. If providing much better rental provisions for those pensioners in rental situations is an ideological hangup I am happy to have it. If providing and paying for an integrated system of domicilary and community care for the frail aged is an ideological hangup I am happy to have it. We are making these tough decisions now, which many members on the Opposition bench recognised but did not have the guts to carry through in government, so that in the lifetime of this Government we can honour those promises to the broad pensioner community. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the seventh report for 1983 of the Committee, together with the minutes of evidence, relating to the Australian Wheat Board accommodation at Ceres House, 528 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, for Head Office and Victorian Branch. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —I present the fourth report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Report Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australia- Korea Parliamentary Group's Delegation to the Republic of Korea, from 5 to 12 June 1983. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr DRUMMOND —An invitation for the visit, both oral and written, was received by the Australia-Korea Parliamentary Group from the Vice-Speaker of the National Assembly and President of the Korean-Australian Parliamentarians Friendship Association, the Hon. Kim Eun-Ha. The visit represented the breaking of new ground in that it was the first time a delegation from a parliamentary friendship group of the Commonwealth Parliament had visited another country at the invitation of its counterpart. I certainly commend to honourable members that, should they have the opportunity, they visit the Republic of Korea. The achievements of that country in the last 20 years are nothing short of remarkable. A most notable point about the Republic of Korea is its economic growth and technological development, which have been achieved in a relatively short time. Our trade relations with it are substantial and are still expanding. As such, we should maintain a close interest in its general strategic situation because it is also likely to become increasingly significant as a regional power. Our visit to the Republic of Korea was very warmly received and we as a delegation were most impressed with what we saw and learnt. The National Assembly, the Korean- Australian Parliamentarians Friendship Association and all concerned with the visit deserve the highest praise for their efforts. In presenting this report, I wish to place on record the Delegation's absolute abhorrence at the flagrant disregard for human life shown by the Soviet authorities when shooting down a Korean Air Lines civilian aircraft on 1 September this year. Also, on behalf of the Delegation, I wish to extend our sympathy to the families of the victims of the bombing which occurred during the official visit to Rangoon of the President of the Republic of Korea. Members of the Delegation had previously met with some of those killed in the bombing, which served only to heighten our sense of shock when we learned of the tragedy. The appropriate messages were sent from our group to the Korean people. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Director of Public Prosecutions Bill now represents an important and historic development in the law and practice governing the prosecution of offences against Commonwealth law. The Bill establishes an Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions with the main functions of conducting Commonwealth prosecutions and exercising discretions in relation to prosecutions . Similar offices of Director of Public Prosecutions have existed in the United Kingdom since 1879 and in the State of Victoria since 1982. The experience of recent years, particularly the revelations of unacceptable delay and other deficiencies in the administration of the Commonwealth criminal law contained in the reports of royal commissions conducted by Mr F. X. Costigan, QC, and Mr Justice Stewart, has made clear the need to revitalise and reorganise Commonwealth prosecution processes. The establishment of an Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, which was foreshadowed in the Government's pre-election statement on law and justice, is an important step in this regard. It will interlock with the setting up of the National Crime Authority under the National Crime Authority Bill which is now before the Senate. Moreover, it is a step recommended by Mr Justice Stewart and Special Prosecutor Redlich. The establishment of the Office will proceed concurrently with the review of the Attorney-General's Department, which is well advanced. The circumstances relating to Commonwealth prosecutions are significantly different from those relating to United Kingdom and Victorian prosecutions and consequently the Commonwealth legislation will necessarily differ from the legislation enacted in those jurisdictions. At present, all prosecutions for Commonwealth offences, apart from very routine prosecutions conducted by a small number of departments, are conducted by officers of the Crown Solicitor's Division of the Attorney-General's Department. These officers belong to the deputy crown solicitors' offices in the six States and the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The number of persons in each of these offices engaged on prosecution work varies considerably from about 33 in Sydney to fewer than three in Hobart. In consequence, it is necessary to allow considerable flexibility to the Director when first appointed as to how he will discharge his functions in the various States and Territories. In the larger States, it is expected that he will establish his own offices at an early date. In the smaller States, he may well wish to exercise the option given to him by clause 32 to enter for an initial period into an arrangement with the Crown Solicitor to peform the Director's functions in the smaller States subject to agreed conditions and restrictions. As part of the review of the Department it is proposed to establish an Australian Government Solicitor in place of the Crown Solicitor, but in the meantime references in legislation must be to the Crown Solicitor. However, whatever arrangements are in fact made by the Director for performances of his functions in the States, the Director appointed under the Act will provide leadership, guidance and direction to, and will set high professional standards for, all persons engaged in the prosecution work of the Commonwealth. Role of the Attorney-General The Attorney-General, as First Law Officer, has always borne the ultimate responsibility for prosecution decisions and the legislation enacted in England did not alter this position. This is as it should be and, by clause 11 of the present Bill, the Director, in the performance of his functions, is made subject to directions and guidelines by the Attorney-General; these must however be published. Day to day prosecution decisions will ordinarily be made by the Director or his officials. It will indeed be very unusual for the Attorney- General to give a direction in a particular case. The possibility must however be provided for so that the Attorney-General may discharge his ultimate responsibility to Parliament and to the people for the conduct of the prosecution process. Functions and Powers of the Director The Director will be empowered to institute, carry on or take over proceedings for the summary conviction of persons in respect of Commonwealth offences, committal proceedings for Commonwealth offences and prosecutions on indictment for Commonwealth indictable offences. In relation to matters or classes of matters specified by the Attorney-General, the Director will also be empowered to take civil remedies in respect of matters connected with or arising out of prosecutions instituted or carried on by the Director or institute proceedings for recovery of pecuniary penalties or co-ordinate or supervise the taking of such proceedings. Experience gained under the Special Prosecutors Act 1982 has demonstrated the value of such a power. Under sub-clause 9 (6) of the Bill the Director will be empowered to give, where appropriate, undertakings to prospective witnesses that evidence given by them in prosecutions conducted by the Director will not be used against them in proceedings other than a prosecution for perjury. Several recent royal commissions have recognised the need to provide such undertakings in appropriate circumstances. The Director is further empowered by clause 11 to give directions or furnish guidelines with respect to the prosecution of Commonwealth offences to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, the Crown Solicitor or any other person conducting criminal investigations or instituting or conducting prosecutions for Commonwealth offences. The Bill does not change existing law under which, except in relation to a limited number of offences, any person may institute proceedings for Commonwealth offences. It does however enable the Director to carry on, or take over, any such proceedings except proceedings instituted by the Attorney-General or a Special Prosecutor. Mr Acting Speaker, the Bill is a carefully considered and positive response by the Government to the national awakening to the need to upgrade and improve the system of prosecution of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth. Moreover , it meets the special circumstances and difficulties that apply in relation to Commonwealth prosecutions. Establishment of the office of Director will meet a pressing need to place existing prosecution arrangements on a more effective basis. It will also, I believe, restore public confidence in Commonwealth criminal law enforcement. This Bill, taken together with the National Crime Authority Bill and the Special Prosecutors Act, which will also remain in force, will be the means by which administration of the Commonwealth criminal law, particularly in relation to organised crime and corruption, will be rendered effective, expeditious and just. I finally mention that I shall be moving an amendment to the Bill to remove the application of the Act to laws of Norfolk Island. That Territory is now in a special position, having substantial control over many internal matters. Under the amendment, the Director will have a role in relation to Commonwealth laws applying in the Territory but the Territory Administration will remain responsible for the prosecution of offences under the local criminal law. Thus, under the amendment, the position in Norfolk Island will be similar to that which will apply under the Bill in the Northern Territory. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill makes amendments to 14 Acts of the Parliament in consequence of the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill. The amendments can be placed in several categories. The first category represents amendments to Acts which vest in the Attorney-General an exclusive right to commence or conduct prosecutions or prosections of a particular kind. A like right will be given by the amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This category comprises amendments to the following provisions: The Geneva Conventions Act 1957, section 7; the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, section 21; the Royal Commissions Act 1902, section 10; and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, sub-section 7 (7). The second category comprises amendments to Acts which require the consent of the Attorney-General or an official to prosecutions. The proposed amendment will extend this function to the Director but preserve the Attorney-General's function. The provisions in question are: the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946, section 15 and the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971, sections 11 and 23. The third category consists of amendments to various procedural provisions which refer to the Attorney-General or an official . The proposed amendments will add references to the Director. The provisions in question are: The Crimes Act 1914, sections 20AA and 21AA; the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963, section 24; the Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972, section 22; and the Crimes (Protection of Aircraft) Act 1973, section 19. A fourth category comprises amendments to Acts to remove doubt as to the operation of the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill and certain Acts. The provisions in question are: The Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act, section 53; the Judiciary Act 1903, sections 69 and 71; and the Special Prosecutors Act 1982, section 8. Two amendments remain for mention. The first amends the Schedule to the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 to add a number of provisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to the provisions referred to in the Schedule, being provisions that do not apply when, in effect, arrangements have been made with a State for the prosecution of offences under applied State laws committed in Commonwealth places. The amendment to be finally mentioned is that made by clause 29 to section 6P of the Royal Commissions Act to add the Director of Public Prosecutions to the list of persons and authorities to whom a royal commission may communicate information. This Bill is a necessary complement to the Director of Public Prosections Bill and will enable the Director to discharge effectively the functions given to him by that Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is introduced pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co- operative companies and securities scheme. I would like to outline, for the benefit of honourable members, the administrative and legislative context in which the Bill has been prepared, and some of the principal amendments proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members for information. Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme The formal agreement executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978 provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth-State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration regulating companies and the securities industry. The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. In accordance with the formal agreement, this legislation has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. If passed by this Parliament, it will have the effect of automatically amending the corresponding State legislation. As indicated in our business regulation policy, the Government considers that the co-operative scheme should be retained while it demonstrates progress in the achievement of its aims. However, in the longer term we would prefer to move to a national system of companies and securities regulation administered by the national Parliament. Neither system can be effective if it does not extend to the whole of Australia, including the Northern Territory. The Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) is currently corresponding with the Northern Territory Government seeking their entry to the scheme. Law Reform Program It is the view of the Government that reform of companies and securities law is a high priority. The need for reform of the law is recognised by all governments in Australia, by the commercial community and the investing public. These reforms will take place on a number of fronts. First, there are Bills such as the one that I am introducing today. This is the first significant reforming Bill in the companies and securities area for quite some time. Up to now, changes made in the co-operative companies and securities legislation have generally been more of a fine tuning than of a law reform nature. Work is already proceeding on the next in the series of Bills of this nature. I anticipate that an exposure draft will be released for public comment in 1984. In addition to work of this nature, the Attorney-General is confident that there will be a quantum leap forward in this field with the establishment of the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee and the Accounting Standards Review Board. As promised in the business regulation policy statement the Commonwealth Government has been active in ensuring the establishment of these bodies. The Ministerial Council has decided that the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee will be in operation as from the start of next year. This Committee will be charged with the function of undertaking root and branch reform of the law. Establishment of the Committee will enable examination of fundamental issues of company law in a systematic fashion rather than on the basis of ad hoc amendments to meet individual difficulties emerging from the administration of the scheme. References to the Committee will be determined by the Ministerial Council following consultation with members of the Committee. This Bill lays the groundwork for the establishment of the Accounting Standards Review Board which will start operations on 1 January 1984. The Accounting Standards Review Board will consider existing and proposed accounting standards prepared by the joint accounting bodies through the Australian Accounting Research Foundation and legislative backing will be given to those standards. This, the Attorney anticipates, will improve the quality of financial reporting and will result in more meaningful information being given to investors, creditors, and employees. Public Consultation on Bill The Bill takes account of the many contributions that have been made in public submissions over the years. Some of the proposals in the Bill such as those relating to the objects and powers of companies can be traced to the calls made by the commercial community in submissions on the Companies Bill 1980 to further limit the scope of the doctrine of ultra vires as it affects the impact of actions by company officers on third parties. Other aspects of the Bill, such as those concerning the statements and reports to be prepared by company directors, reflect the comments made on the exposure draft of the Bill that was released for public comment in December 1982. The exposure draft was given considerable attention by the commercial community, with over 100 submissions being received. In most instances these submissions have been prepared by busy professionals in their spare time and the Attorney is grateful for their constructive contributions. Content of Bill An outline of the principal features of the Bill and, in particular, the main changes it makes to existing companies and securities legislation, is set out at paragraphs 23 and 24 of the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. I will now mention some of the more important amendments. Objects and Powers of Companies The Bill in clause 34 contains provisions which replace sections 67 and 68 of the Companies Act with new provisions designed to ensure that, unless it determines otherwise in its constituent documents, a company has the powers of a natural person. The related question of whether or not companies should be required to have specified objects was tackled in the exposure draft of the Bill by the preparation of alternative provisions-one set requiring companies to have objects and the other containing no such requirements. The overwhelming majority of commentators favoured companies not being required to have specified objects. This Bill reflects that view. Remedies for Shareholders in Cases of Oppression Significant amendments are made in clause 89 of the Bill to the remedies available to aggrieved shareholders where they believe that the affairs of a company are being conducted in an oppressive manner. The categories of conduct which would give rise to a remedy will be broadened so as to overcome a number of restrictive interpretations which the courts have placed on the precursors to the present provision such as section 320 of the Companies Act and comparable provisions in earlier Australian and English laws. Directors' Statements and Reports There are amendments to section 269 of the Companies Act concerning preparation of the director's statement accompanying the accounts which will improve the usefulness of the information provided by directors. Directors will now be required by clause 80 of the Bill to advise persons reading the accounts of relevant circumstances that have arisen and information that has become available since the end of the financial year to which the accounts relate. The Bill takes account of concerns that were expressed in response to these provisions as they appeared in the exposure draft by enabling this update on the accounts to be completed up to eight weeks before an annual general meeting rather than within the period of six weeks prior to the meeting. Similarly, the provisions modifying the content of the directors' reports as required by section 270 of the Companies Act have undergone significant changes in the light of public comments on the exposure draft. Directors will now be required by clause 81 of the Bill to furnish in their reports a review of the operations of the company and of the expected results of those operations, to note any significant changes in the state of affairs of the company, and to refer to any likely developments in the operations of the company in future years. These new requirements will produce more informative reports but, at the same time, companies will not be required to disclose information which would, in the opinion of the directors, be prejudicial to the interests of the company. Tracing Beneficial Interests in Shares The Bill also extends the operation of the provisions currently contained in section 261 of the Companies Act which enable tracing of beneficial interests in shareholdings. Relatively minor amendments were proposed in the exposure draft released in December 1982. Following calls from directors and shareholders for more extensive amendments to enable inquiries to be initiated as to the beneficial ownership of shareholdings, new proposals were released for comment in April 1983. These provisions contained in clause 76 of the Bill will put directors and shareholders in a better position to ascertain the identity of the persons whose voting power may affect a company's operations. Purposive Interpretation Clause 132 of the Bill inserts a new provision in the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act that will require the courts, when interpreting co-operative scheme legislation, to have regard to the purpose or object of the relevant legislation. The provision is similar to that contained in section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act. It is hoped that this provision will ensure that a less legalistic approach to interpretation is taken by the courts and that greater regard is had to the objectives of the co- operative scheme, as spelt out in the formula agreement as well as in the constituent legislative codes. Other Amendments Other clauses in the Bill designed to improve the operation of the co-operative scheme legislation are: (a) Clause 17, which amends section 60 of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act to enable the National Companies and Securities Commission to make a declaration of unacceptable conduct under the takeover code even though a Part A statement has not been served or a takeover announcement made; (b) clause 31, which inserts proposed sections 30A to 30S of the Companies Act so as to make adequate provision for the conduct of hearings by the Companies Auditor and Liquidators Disciplinary Board; (c) clause 68, which is designed to give greater flexibility to the administration of the prospectus and prescribed interests provisions; (d) clause 74, which rationalises the requirements of section 241 of the Companies Act for convening meetings upon requisition of members; and (e) clause 93, which inserts proposed new sections 324A to 324F of the Companies Act so as to clarify the powers and duties of receivers. Some of these provisions were not included in the exposure draft, but are considered sufficiently important to warrant legislative action at this stage. Financial Impact Statement Finally, I should make some references to the financial impact that this Bill will have on Government revenues. As mentioned previously, this Bill puts in place machinery to enable accounting standards approved by the proposed accounting standards review board to have the force of law. The board will commence operations from the start of 1984. The Ministerial Council has authorised interim arrangements on a restricted funding basis for the Board's operations for the period 1 January 1984 to 30 June 1984 using NCSC staff and facilities to provide support services for the board. The estimated cost of these arrangements is $35,000. In the first full year of the board's operations with its own staff and premises, the cost of the board's operations is expected to be $235,000 and $195,000 in subsequent years, of which 50 per cent is to be funded by the Commonwealth and the other 50 per cent by the States on a pro rata basis. Although this Bill does not contain provisions relating to the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee that I mentioned earlier, the expected cost to the Commonwealth of its 50 per cent contribution would be $70,000 in the current financial year, based on a 1 January 1984 commencement, and $140,000 in a full year. The Government commends the Companies and Securities Legislation ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate amendments- No. 1-Page 2, clause 4, lines 9 to 27, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Exemptions ''4. (1) Section 23 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting after paragraph (kb) the following paragraph: '(kba) payments by way of an open employment incentive bonus under Part VIIIA of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974;'; (b) by inserting in paragraph (s) 'one-half of' before 'the pay and allowances' ; (c) by inserting in paragraph (sa) 'one-half of' before 'the pay and allowances '; and (d) by inserting in paragraph (sa) 'one-half of' before 'any gratuity'. ''(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) (a) applies to payments made on or after 1 October 1983. ''(3) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) (b), (c) and (d) apply to pay and allowances in respect of service, and a gratuity in respect of a calling out, on or after 1 December 1983.''. No. 2-Page 9, clause 19, sub-clause (1), line 36, leave out ''a first instalment '', insert ''no prescribed''. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.56) — I move: That the amendments be agreed to. This Bill has been returned from the Senate with two amendments which had been proposed by the Government in that chamber. One amendment is of substance; the other is of a formal kind. The substantial amendment concerns clause 4 which, as passed by this House, proposed a phased withdrawal of the tax exemption for pay of part time members of the Reserve defence forces. One-half of payments in respect of service on or after 1 December 1983 and before 1 December 1984 were to remain exempt while payments for service on or after 1 December 1984 were to be taxable in full. Following representations on the matter the Government reconsidered the proposal, with a view to modifying the impact that the application of full marginal tax rates would have had on the pay of members with income from other sources, typically their regular employment. The main amendment to the Bill will have the effect that the second stage of the exemption withdrawal will not proceed. As a result, members of the reserves will be taxed on one-half of all pay and allowances for service on or after 1 December 1983. This will mean that remuneration for service in the reserve forces is effectively to be taxed at half the marginal rates of tax applying to other income. The formal amendment to clause 19, was necessary to correct a previously undetected printing error, in proposed sub-section 221YHAA (1), which occurred after the draft of the Bill had been settled and approved for introduction. The explanatory memorandum which was circulated to honourable members correctly explains the conditions for the operation of this sub-section, taking this amendment into account. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(5.58) —The Opposition will support the amendment that has been inserted in the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4) 1983 in another place. The Opposition welcomes the fact that the Government has partially corrected the mistake that we believe it made in the Budget in deciding to phase out the tax exemption applying to service pay for members of the Reserve. I have to say in all charity to the Government that this decision, which has only been partially corrected by the amendment now before the Committee, is a very good example of those foolish, unpopular, mean unproductive decisions that most governments on occasions make. I have to say to the Government that it is really building up a fairly impressive record of hostility towards members of the services in this country. In that context I take this opportunity of referring to an article in the November 1983 edition of the Pacific Defence Reporter under the heading ' Government in a mess over Service pay'. That particular article cites three areas where the Government has incurred the hostility of the services: Firstly, the reversal of its previously enunciated policy on reserve forces payments not being liable for tax-that is being partially corrected by the measure now before the Committee; secondly, the review of the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme only six weeks after it gave a clear undertaking that it would not do so; and, thirdly, it has treated the permanent forces grossly inequitably by setting the minimum age limit for partial exemption for the lump sum superannuation penalty tax at 55 years. All of us will remember that two or three years ago, when the former Government was endeavouring to encourage enlistment in the Reserve, to his credit the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), then the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, joined with the former Minister for Defence, Sir James Killen, in some joint advertisements encouraging Australians to join the Reserve. Those advertisements won very wide acclaim. They addressed the call to the young men and women of Australia. The thrust of those advertisements was: 'We would like you to do something extra for the defence of your country'. There was an implied covenant in those advertisements in which both Sir James Killen and the then President of the ACTU, the present Prime Minister, joined. The implied covenant was that if a person did his bit the Government would continue to do its bit. Part of the Government doing its bit was to maintain completely the tax exemption for Reserve pay. Therefore I think the Government's action has led to some disappointment and attracted proper criticism from the Opposition and other sections of the community. The Government must be becoming aware of the fact that there is great scepticism and hostility even towards it amongst Reserve personnel and amongst service personnel generally because of its apparently indefinite attitudes and willingness to make the first cut in the defence area, if it has to make cuts. All those matters taken together are not only putting the Government, as the article says, in a mess over service pay but also generally building up a climate of hostility towards the Government from those in our community who are concerned about the nation's defence and about the morale of those who serve in the nation's defence. We must be grateful for small mercies. The Opposition welcomes the Government's partial backdown. It would have been more intelligent of the Government to have gone the whole hog and admit that the proposal was a foolish idea and to have recanted in full. Partial repentance, whilst better than continuing sin, is inadequate for the task on this occasion. It will not secure the salvation that the Government would want. The effect of this proposal will take to at least $100m the cost to revenue of backdowns by the Government. I do not think this backdown will have much effect in the 1983-84 Budget but it will have an effect of $5m in the 1984-85 Budget. I refer also to other backdowns that have occurred, the fuel excise, the tax on grape spirit, the modifications to sales tax on swimming pools and, most recently, the decision not to sell 49 per cent of the Government's equity in Aussat Pty Ltd. Those decisions, taken together, this year will cost the Budget $100m. I am not saying that $100m in an overall budget of $45,000m or whatever it is, is a large amount. It clearly is not. But what it does do is give the lie to the argument that has been used by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister that because the Senate a few weeks ago rejected some quite unfair, unjust and inequitable taxation legislation it is necessary for the Government to increase the taxation burden on the ordinary taxpayer. The Government has thrown away more revenue by its own decisions than the rejection by the Senate of that measure. The total amount involved this year by the Senate's rejection of the legislation was only about $60m whereas the Government's measures total $ 100m. That simple comparison alone gives the lie to what the Government and the Prime Minister have been saying. They have said: 'Because the terrible people in the Senate rejected a quite outrageous piece of legislation' as the Treasurer and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) know 'we are going to have to put overburdening and terrible taxes on ordinary, decent, honest taxpaying Australians'. That is a nonsense. It is demonstrated to be a nonsense because the Government has thrown away an additional $40m revenue by these measures. The Opposition welcomes the partial repentance of the Government over this matter. I am sorry it brought it in in the first place; it was a silly measure. It is storing up a lot of hostility amongst service personnel around Australia. Heaven knows people make enormous sacrifices to serve in the Reserve. Young men and women give up enormous amounts of their spare time. They do it out of a sense of duty and service. I know there is no economic justification in a pure sense. It was put to me when I was Treasurer that this exemption was unjustifiable according to the purity of taxation principles. Of course it is. However, one must take more things into account than just the purity of the system. Apart from economic considerations other considerations are involved, as I am sure the Treasurer knows and is willing to apply in other areas. I am only sorry that he has gone half of the way and not the whole of the way. I hope that even at this late hour the Government will recognise that this is a silly measure. It has only half abated the problem. If the Government were willing to change its mind it would get the gratitude of the service personnel and it would receive the uncritical support of the Opposition. The change would not break the bank; in fact, it would not cost the Budget anything this year and a total of only $5m next year. The Government cannot be totally outraged by the principle because it is still allowing a 50 per cent tax exemption. Overall, it is a very great disappointment that the measure was brought in in the first place. However , having been brought in it is a great disapointment that the Government has not totally recanted. However, as I have said, we are grateful for small mercies. We are very happy to wish the measure a very speedy passage. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.7) —There is a dichotomy in the interests between the purity, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) puts it, of the so-called taxation principles and the considerations which apply in respect of other tax matters which arise but particularly one which applies to people who give of their time for other reasons and other motives. In this case the Government took the view that the taxation principles were important but upon reflection and indeed upon representation we believe that other matters might have weighed more heavily in the considerations by the Cabinet at that time. We are giving recognition to those factors and at the same time paying some regard to the taxation principles involved. The Deputy Leader made another apologia for the performance of his Party in defeating the recoupment legislation-the bottom of the harbour legislation-in the Senate. Again we on this side of the House find it very curious logic that the former Treasurer could make a distinction between the company tax payments, which would accrue to the Commissioner of Taxation as a result of his legislation, and the potential to collect the personal tax which would have been paid on the retained earnings from those very same dollars about which he waxed lyrical and fulminated last year when introducing his legislation to recoup company tax. The phoney argument given all the time in this respect is that some of the elements of the retained earnings in companies were legal at the time under certain judgments of the High Court of Australia. Therefore that exonerated the former Government from attempting to collect the personal tax even though it was clear in most cases that a strip of the company's assets was on. This is akin to having a debate with a burglar, when he is in the house about to steal somebody' s property, about what things he can steal. I think it is just a nonsense argument for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to be proposing when his Party is not prepared to kick the tax avoidance people around. If that is the case, that is fine, but his Party and his policy have to run the test of public scrutiny on that matter. He should not be trying to hide behind these changes to make those points. I will make another point: He talked about the $100m in respect of changes to budgetary measures calling into question, in some respect, the Government's budgetary stretegy. Mr Howard —No, I am not. Mr KEATING —The honourable member says he is not. Mr Howard —I am calling into question your consistency; that is all. Mr KEATING —The honourable member is calling into question the Government's consistency. I observe only that his last Budget had a projected deficit of $1.6 billion, if my memory serves me correctly, which became $4.5 billion. I am not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, but billions; a difference of over $3 billion, not $300m. The outcome in the 1982-83 Budget, to a very large extent, disqualifies my colleague from making any criticisms of the present Government in terms of overruns, changes in projections or the prospect for the outcome of the Budget for 1983-84. Mr Howard —But not of consistency. Mr KEATING —He says that he never, ever changed a budgetary measure. Of course, he did. Government must be prepared to look at measures; it cannot debate Budget measures with the public or interested groups generally before a Budget. It must be prepared to say that there is, if one likes, a problem with the application of a particular measure, as there was in respect of swimming pools, which the honourable member mentioned, or fuel oil or grape spirit. In each case the full application of the budgetary measure would have been too harsh. For the Government actually to stand up and make those changes to its Budget ought to be something of credit rather than something which should be detracted from and is a measure of the reasonableness of the Government. The Government always stands ready to be reasonable about any of its measures. We do not want to get to the crazy position in this country where we make a decision and, if we think the decision is wrong, we stand by it lest we seem to be, what is called, backing down. Everyone would like to get every measure right, but in the thousands of matters which are considered for a Budget they cannot always be right. The assessment of tax increases, bearing in mind particularly markets and the elasticity of demand , is not one which can be made easily or simply. It is really only when focus is placed upon the actual action of that measure or upon a particular industry, as the case may be, that one receives the sort of information that one would very much have liked to have had when the decision was being made. If a government is confronted with advice which indicates that the measure is too harsh, or that it is made on the wrong premise, I think it is incumbent on the government to make the appropriate changes. This Government has been prepared to do that. Frankly, I have never seen changes to budgets as something to be disparaged, but rather applauded if, indeed, there is a sound case for the change to be made. On that basis the Government was prepared to make these changes in the Defence Force taxation. I hope it does ease the disquiet of many members of the defence forces who may have felt that the Government was harsh in terms of the application of taxation on their earnings. There is of course an overwhelming case in taxation equity for it but, by the same token, I think it was having a detrimental effect upon the reserve forces. Substantially, if there had been any offsetting salary changes they would have upset the relativities which existed between the defence forces and the reserve forces and we may have had a more difficult problem to solve. I think essentially these amendments are appropriate in trying to meet those concerns and to ease the fears of members of the defence reserve and in arriving at the point where many of the people who may have thought it was time to quit the reserves will reconsider their position. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —For the information of honourable members I present the joint ministerial statement of the review of crisis and youth accommodation. The statement was made by Senator Grimes in the Senate today on behalf of himself as Minister for Social Security, me as Minister for Housing and Construction, and Senator Susan Ryan as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.16) —I move: That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of the Australia Telescope, New South Wales. The Australia telescope project will provide a multi-element synthesis array of reflector antennas for radio astronomy observation of celestrial objects. It will comprise the following: A compact array of six antennas at Culgoora, New South Wales, a seventh antenna at Siding Spring, New South Wales, and the establishment of a long baseline array in combination with the 64-metre radio telescope at Parkes, New South Wales. The Committee has tabled its report on the proposed work and has concluded there is a need for the Australia telescope to maintain Australia's high standing in world astronomy, facilitate international co-operation and collaboration in astronomy and to develop further Australian industry associated with the science. The Committee also concluded that the design of the Australia telescope is satisfactory and the sites selected are suitable. The Committee recommends construction of the Australia telescope. The estimated cost of the work is $30.7m at March 1983 prices and if the House agrees to support the motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the Committee's recommendations. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.18) —I move: That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of the Telecom State head office building, Adelaide, South Australia. Mr Howard —Your home town. Mr HURFORD —As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, this building is in my home town and is, therefore, of some interest to me. Mr Howard —A very nice town. Mr HURFORD —I agree with the honourable member that it is a very nice town. Any construction in this country is of great interest to me. The proposed work will enable Telecom Australia to bring together the South Australian Head Office staff who are presently located in seven separate buildings within the city. It is a major office building proposed for a prominent site in Pirie Street in an area designed by the City of Adelaide as suitable for a major office development of the type proposed by Telecom. The Committee has concluded that there is a need for the work and has recommended its construction at the estimated cost of $28.5m at May 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, the project can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.20) —I move: That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work without it having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Australian frigate project, Williamstown Naval Dockyard, Victoria. On 12 October 1983 the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) advised the House that the Government had decided in principle that two FFG-type vessels would be built at Williamstown Naval Dockyard, subject to a number of conditions being met relating to evidence of improved work practices and performance. A most important prerequisite to execution of a construction order is the exchange of formal agreements between each of the unions at the Dockyard, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Dockyard management covering a range of industrial relations and work practices issues. I am informed that this action is substantially completed. On the basis that a construction order is placed on the Dockyard before the end of 1983 the first of the frigates is expected to be delivered in about 1991. To preserve the option of having the ships delivered from a local build program , orders to the total value of around $300m have so far been placed on long lead time equipment from United States suppliers. The first items will arrive in Australia next year. The construction time-table is based on a need to avoid an unacceptable drop in destroyer numbers in the early 1990s, co-ordination with expected deliveries of the equipment already ordered and the desire to open job opportunities at the Dockyard as soon as possible. The time-table unfortunately precludes consideration of the proposal by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The fundamental reason for not proposing the construction order earlier has been the protracted period in obtaining sufficient demonstration that the problems which have beset the Dockyard in recent years have been resolved. In seeking exemption of the ship construction project from Committee examination the Government has provided for the necessary Dockyard upgrading modernisation works to be referred for consideration and report. The first stage is expected to be referred to the House before the end of the current sittings. The Public Works Committee has been advised of the proposal and the reasons for urgency. My colleague the Minister for Defence advises me that formal actions to execute the work cannot be held over until the next sitting days. Consequently I am proposing this exemption action in advance of formal advice from the Committee. I understand that the Committee has no objection in principle and indeed discussed this matter at its meeting today. The total cost of the program, including the Dockyard upgrading and modernisation elements, is $830m. If the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning and construction can proceed. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(4.24) —I confirm the advice given to the House by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works gave consideration to this matter this morning. Indeed , it had before it a letter and a submission from the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). The Committee is happy for this project to proceed without it considering it in detail. I pointed out this morning-I believe the Chairman of the Committee will point out this matter in correspondence to the Minister today -that we regret that it is necessary for this matter to proceed without due consideration being given to it. The Committee accepts without qualification the need for the project to proceed as a matter of urgency and understands that if approval is not given for this expediency motion the capacity of the Royal Australian Navy will suffer in about 1990. The Committee also understands that some fairly severe cost penalties could be involved. For those reasons the Committee gave its approval and acquiesces in the motion that the Minister has before the House, but it expresses the hope that, whilst there will be occasions when the Committee will need to be bypassed because of the urgency of a project, the Government will not abuse this procedure. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(4.25) —I shall add a couple of words to those of my colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife). The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) in his motion referred to the exchange of formal agreements between each of the unions at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Dockyard management. As we all are aware, there was a report by Mr Hawke regarding the change in managerial practices, which report has significantly been adopted. The management upgrading , to which this motion refers and to which the Minister in part adverted, is intended to ensure that the Dockyard is able to meet the construction schedule and to complete construction of the FFGs according to contract. However, one of the regrettable aspects of the Dockyard has been its very poor industrial relations record. Some of the Dockyard's work practices have evolved not because of the actions of either the unions or management but because of neglect by both . I know quite significant steps were taken over the years-certainly during the time of our Government-to ensure that those practices were improved and the prospect of meeting delivery schedules made more likely. It seems to me, however, that given the nature of these formal agreements and the fact that so much depends on the management, the ACTU and the Dockyard unions complying with their terms it would be appropriate for the Government to table those formal agreements in the House. We are all conscious of the difficulties involved in trying to formalise those arrangements, but time has passed. Those agreements should have been produced to this Parliament before the FFG program and the Dockyard contracts were concluded. While accepting the terms of this motion, I believe it would be appropriate for the Minister for Defence ( Mr Scholes), who has now come into the House, to table those formal agreements at the time they are concluded so that not only members of parliament but also the taxpayers, whose funds, after all, are to be spent to meet the bill referred to in the Minister's speech, will be aware of that contract and the prospects of ship construction being completed. The general managerial practices have been referred to before. We saw in the Auditor-General's report recommendations about project management. I hope they will be implemented. Without effective project management in the Department of Defence, the Navy and the Dockyard, the capability of the Dockyard will be impaired. I am sure no member of this House would want that to take place. I hope that the recommendations of the Auditor-General are put in place and that there will be periodic reports to this House from the Minister for Defence on the progress of ship construction. The Minister in his speech to the House today referred to a schedule. That schedule is necessary to ensure the availability of the frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. There are problems, of course, in regard to the extent to which the river class boats now in service with the fleet will need to be phased out. It is therefore essential for the maintenance of our naval capability that these contracts be completed on time. I hope that the Minister will be able to report to the House periodically. I ask that the Minister table the formal agreements in this House as soon as they have been completed and exchanged. Then we will understand the nature of them and the extent to which the parties can be held to the agreements so that the contracts can be completed in accordance with the schedule that the Minister outlined. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Defence Support)(4.30) —It ought to be said that over a period there has been a substantial commitment for reform at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. That commitment really goes back to 1973-74 when we were last in government. Over the last 10 years there has been a commitment to the modernisation of the Williamstown Naval Dockyard, to the improvement of management practice and to the strengthening of the senior levels of management particularly, to create, as the Hawke report sought an organisation review of Williamstown Dockyard, a much greater degree of autonomy for the Dockyard so that decisions could be made there and generally to improve the climate of industrial relations. Very often people suggest that industrial relations at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard had been catastrophic and had perhaps constituted the most serious problem there. I do not think that any fair reading of the Hawke report would suggest that. I think it is recognised that there were many problems in the Dockyard-problems of capital, problems of management practice and problems concerning the interface of responsibilities between the Department of Defence and the Dockyard . There have been a great number of problems. I am pleased to say that the actions of the previous governments over a period and, more recently, the responsibility I have taken as Minister for Defence Support and the actions of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) have resulted in further progress being achieved. I am not sure that it would be appropriate to table all the agreements. I certainly do not want to give that commitment today. There are a number of agreements, the most recent of which will be the subject of a statement by the Government on its commitment to the continuation of reforms. That statement of commitment will add some new matters but essentially it will bring together a whole range of agreements that have been achieved particularly over the last two years. There are additional clauses. I think it is reasonable that after these matters have been fully resolved and the exchanges occur a report be brought to the House giving some indication of the substance at least of the various agreements. Of course, the agreements do not go only to the responsibilities of the trade unions but also to the responsibilities of management and, indeed, government departments. There are a number of aspects to this matter. I will certainly consider the request of the shadow Minister for Defence and undertake to bring a further report to the House on the nature and content of the agreements. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.33) —in reply-I respond very briefly to the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) by saying that I appreciate the information he brought to the House in relation to the deliberations of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. I can understand the attitude taken by the Public Works Committee as conveyed by the honourable member. I can assure him that the occasions for by-passing the Committee's deliberations while I have stewardship of these matters and while this Government is in office will be very rare and that any such action will be taken for very good reasons. I am enormously supportive of the work of the Public Works Committee and I hope that there will be very few occasions on which I shall have to move the requisite motion to by-pass its work. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILL: TAXATION ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 9 November, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Madam Deputy Speaker , may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill 1983, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.37) —The Opposition will support both the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill and the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill. The Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill makes technical amendments to the Bank Account Debits Tax Act to overcome doubts about the constitutional validity of that measure. The Bill is necessary because of the doubts that have been raised about the validity of giving banks the right of recovery of the tax from account holders. The legislation currently before the House will impose a joint and several liability on the bank and the account holder. The Opposition notes that the Government is currently reviewing the Bank Account Debits Tax Act following its first six months of operation. I wish to take the opportunity of saying a couple of things about the nature of the tax and the way in which it has operated over the last six months. This measure was introduced in the last Budget of the former Government. I would have to say, as the person who introduced the measure in that Budget, that it is less than a perfect form of indirect taxation, and the former Government had a number of reservations about its introduction. I will not be surprised if, in the light of experience with the operation of the measure, the Government finds it necessary to sponsor some further amendments. I can assure the Government that the Opposition will take a constructive approach to any amendments, if they are sensible ones, that might be sponsored by the Government. I think one problem has to be addressed in any consideration of the operation of this tax. I refer to its inter-relationship with the financial institutions duties which have been introduced in New South Wales, Victoria and, most recently, Tasmania and South Australia. I hope that the Government will take the initiative over coming months to call together those State governments that have imposed financial institutions duties to see whether it is possible to establish a uniform approach between the Commonwealth and the States which are levying this type of taxation. I think this would not only improve efficiency of collection but also would come as a very welcome relief to users of cheque accounts and other financial instruments throughout Australia. I do not raise that matter in any partisan sense because governments of both political persuasions have introduced taxes of this kind although, I think in the interests of accuracy, it is fair to observe that no financial institutions duty has been introduced by the Queensland Government. But in all of the other States and at the Commonwealth level these taxes exist and I think something would be gained from discussing this matter perhaps at an early meeting of Premiers or a special meeting convened by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I hope that the Government will take the initiative to try to achieve a uniformity of system and a uniformity of collection to remove from the bank statements of the hundreds of thousands of bank account holders throughout Australia the ever-growing number of individual debits. I say that not in any partisan sense. I am not trying to score any political points off the Government , because the tax we are now examining was introduced by the last Government and because financial institutions duties have been introduced by State Labor governments. But in the interests of uniformity and commonsense, if we could have one impost, and one impost alone, collected perhaps at Commonwealth level and then dispersed to the States according to sensibly agreed proportions, everybody, including the financial institutions that have to collect the duty, would heave a very hefty sigh of relief and would thank the present Government for its commonsense and initiative. One problem that one should mention specifically in this context is that State financial institutions duty attracts bank account debits tax as State charges appear as debits on cheque accounts, and often financial institutions duty of only a few cents attracts bank account debits tax. Of course, this arises in those States that have financial institutions duties. In the examination of the operation of this legislation the Government might give some serious consideration to how that might be eliminated. I would also like the Government, in the review that I know it is carrying out into this legislation, to give consideration to the representations received from quite a number of organisations such as parents and citizens associations and girl guides and boy scouts associations about the operation of this measure. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —From the reaction around the Parliament-- Mr Lloyd —Even the Labor side. Mr HOWARD —Let us be fair on this. Members on both sides of the House have received such representations. The esteem of the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) would be even higher if, in his customary generosity and good faith, he were to accede to these good representations. When the original legislation was introduced, I made a mistake. The mistake I made was to rely upon the exemption precedent available in the stamp duty legislation of the Labor Government in New South Wales. I thought that would be an adequate precedent. When I talked to the Commissioner of Taxation about exemptions, I said that I wanted a sensible set of exemptions that exempted charitable bodies and non-profit organisations. He said: 'You have a precedent in the New South Wales stamp duty legislation which seems to be fairly representative of the exemptions available'. That recommendation was given in good faith. Were the Government to have a sensible look at the representations received in this area, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer would emerge from the exercise as a real statesman. He would be the toast of parents and citizens associations, of boy scouts organisations, of the Red Cross and of other organisations. The Minister would become their hero and would be able to give very satisfactory responses. I hope that the Minister responds to those representations with his customary generosity. Before concluding my remarks, I take the opportunity of saying something about the history of this indirect method of taxation. I said at the commencement of my speech that this is a less than perfect way of raising taxation indirectly. It is a less than perfect tax. I am sure that my comments on that would be echoed not only by bank customers but also by banks that have the responsibility of collecting the taxation. In making that acknowledgement, it is worth recalling the circumstances of the introduction of this tax. As honourable members will know, when I was Treasurer I had a very strong commitment to the proposition that the worst thing about Australia's taxation system was its excessive reliance on income tax as source of revenue and correspondingly its lack of reliance, if I can put it that way, on broadly based consumption taxes. Honourable members opposite, particularly my colleague from Adelaide the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, will recall that on two occasions while I was Treasurer it became publicily known that consideration was being given to the possibility of broadening our taxation base in a major way. In this moment of bipartisanship about other aspects of this Bill, I regret to say that the then Labor Opposition was less than constructive and helpful when it came to a serious and sober consideration of taxation reform. Mr Hurford —Never let it be said! Mr HOWARD —Well, I can pull out a few statements made by the then Leader of the Opposition and the Treasury spokesman. I think even my friend from Adelaide may have descended on occasions into public rebuke of the former Government for considering the introduction of indirect taxation. The debate waged at the time by sections of the retail industry illustrated the very great difficulty for any government in Australia, whatever its political complexion, to carry out fundamental reform of our taxation system. Everybody agrees on two things about taxation. We agree, firstly, that it is too high and, secondly, that it is very complex, very hard to follow and ought to be reformed. Whenever any government tries to bring about fundamental reform of the taxation system it is easy for an interest group, an opposition or a section of the community that will be affected by the change to whip up a fairly hysterical and emotional campaign against what is occurring. I suppose we have all on occasions been guilty of this. The present Government when in opposition was not alone in that. Had the former Government been more successful in another place in 1981 in broadening the taxation base when it tried to extend sales tax, which I believed then and still believe was an infinitely superior and more acceptable method of broadening indirect taxation than the introduction of such things as a bank account debits tax, I do not think we would have introduced that tax in 1982. The fact is that the Senate denied us more rational indirect tax options by what it did in 1981. The former Government was therefore obliged to introduce that measure as part of a very modest broadening and deepening of the taxation base in the 1982 Budget. I would not want the opportunity to go by without putting down very plainly that, although this is a less than ideal method of indirect taxation, the former Government really had run out of options if it wanted to broaden the tax base to accede to the views expressed right across the political spectrum in 1982, not the least by the Australian Labor Party and the Trade unions, that there ought to be reductions in personal tax. I repeat: If we are really serious about fundamental reform of our taxation system-I know that the Government has asked the Economic Planning Advisory Council to look at tax reform and that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer have said they are in favour of a more equitable taxation system-I say without any fear of equivocation and with all the conviction that I can muster that, unless we are prepared to embrace a fundamental shift towards broadly based consumption taxes, we will not achieve such an equitable and fundamental reform. We can talk about fiddling at the margin. We can make changes to superannuation tax. We can make changes in other areas. We can take some deductions away and bring others in. But unless we as a community are willing to bite the bullet about indirect taxation, we will never be able to achieve a substantial reduction in personal tax. We can talk about the theory of it, but I know that the practice and the numbers of it are such that, unless we are willing to embrace broadly based consumption taxes in this country, nobody with any atom of responsibility can possibly promise significant reductions in personal tax because the money simply is not there. The experience of successive governments in this country and indeed, dare I say, other countries, will illustrate that. It so happens, as I think I have observed before, that the total volume of taxation in this country is below the average for the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is something that people who believe in taxation reform ought to bear in mind. It is also worth mentioning that amongst the OECD countries no fewer than 39 different forms of taxation have been identified. In the scale of various forms of taxation thankfully, Australia is much lower than are many other countries. Although I suppose that Australian taxpayers believe that successive governments have piled all manner of additional taxes on them, it might be some comfort to them to know that in other countries of the OECD the situation is infinitely worse. I welcome the fact that the Government has committed itself to the cause of taxation reform. As someone who supports the ideal and treads the path of taxation reform , I will follow that inquiry with very great interest. I assure the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) who is at the table, and also the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), that after a decent period has elapsed they will be asked how that reform is going. If it is to be just a token exercise they will certainly attract a lot of opprobrium from the Opposition. I can perhaps say to them in advance that they are not going to produce a totally uncomplicated taxation system. It is an ideal that many people have. Perhaps I can quote from an article that I read the other day. It seemed to make a lot of sense. It stated: The structure of the federal income tax system is under increasing attack from the public, whose case has been taken up by politicians, economists and tax specialists among others. Many believe that radical reform is needed to prevent further deterioration of the system since piecemeal attempts at tax reform by simplification and increased compliance efforts are seen as being ineffective. Under current law, taxpayers are subject to complex and ever-changing rules regarding income, exclusions, deductions, credits and special methods for computing tax liability (e.g. income averaging and minimum tax). The combined effect of high inflation, the use of historical cost for tax purposes and progressive tax rates has resulted in increased real rates of taxation for many individuals, commonly referred to as bracket creep. It is really only the last two words of that passage which gives away the fact that the source is not Australian or British but American. That description of the complexity of the income tax system in the United States could, of course, be applied fully to the taxation system in Australia and no doubt, as part of his required reading, the Minister at the table has had a look at some of the articles in the Economist recently about taxation reform. That particular series of articles has canvassed the cause of the introduction of what was recommended, I think essentially by the Meade report-an expenditure tax. I might say to the honourable gentleman that that article has some very interesting things to say about wealth taxes, which are a first cousin to capital gains taxes. The Prime Minister, despite what he said so unambiguously during the election campaign, speaking in terms that he said facetiously could be understood by everybody-that there was not going to be a capital gains tax under a Labor Government-seems to have reneged on that promise and to be thinking about capital gains taxes. He launched a book yesterday and, when his attention was drawn to a paragraph which said that Australia was the only country in the OECD which did not have a capital gains tax, he said that was interesting and he would ask the Treasurer to have a look at it. That to me betokens a Prime Minister who has become very interested again in a capital gains tax. The people of Australia who listened to that particular promise by the Prime Minister during the election campaign will be very interested to hear what ultimately he does have to say about it. The point I want to make about wealth taxes-it is made very well by the Economist-is that they are an inefficient method of raising revenue. The examination it makes in its article, and indeed many other studies in Europe, indicate that wealth and capital gains taxes, for all their alleged equity purposes and so forth, are not particularly efficient and productive methods of raising taxes. As I said earlier, if the Government is seriously interested in the goal of taxation reform it must realise that what cannot be dodged and what lies at the very heart of the cause of taxation reform is making a profound shift away from income tax as a source of revenue and a correspondingly profound shift towards broadly based consumption taxes. All the studies that have been carried out in Australia, confirm this. Professor Mathews, a recognised expert on taxation in Australia and a person frequently quoted by Labor supporters in this House in debates on taxation, has said frequently that the path to achieving a better taxation system in Australia is to have greater reliance on indirect taxation. When I advocate that of course I advocate also a reduction in personal taxation and a corresponding broadening of the indirect taxation base. If I may refer again to this series of articles in the Economist, it points out -it is very relevant to Australia's circumstances in particular-that one of the great flaws in income taxation is that it encourages people to consume rather than save. I thought that that might appeal to Government supporters because one of the things that we do rather badly in Australia is save; we do not save much as we should. I frequently hear Labor Party members say that it is a great pity that we have to import so much foreign capital. The reason is that we have to supplement an inadequate level of domestic savings. We really cannot have it both ways. If we do not bring capital into Australia-not having saved enough as a nation-we must put up with a much lower standard of living. In view of our low level of domestic savings, if we did not bring in a lot of capital we would have to put up with a lower standard of living. In fact, importing capital over the last 20 years has meant that our standard of living has been much higher than it would otherwise have been, given the very low level of domestic savings generated. That fact is commonly forgotten about the Australian economy. Whilst countries that are not historically importers of capital, such as the United States of America and some of the contries of Europe, may be able to afford, in an overall sense, a higher reliance on income tax as a source of revenue and therefore a lower level of domestic savings, that does not apply in Australia and a switch away from reliance on income tax towards reliance on indirect tax would have a very great benefit not only in terms of the overall structure of the tax system. We all recognise that indirect tax is much harder to dodge. I believe all objective people would now accept that the great blows have been struck at the artificial tax avoidance industry; that the sophisticated paper schemes are now dead as a result of Part 4A of the anti-avoidance measure brought in by the previous Government in 1981 and the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Bill brought in by it in 1980; that the real loss of revenue now occurs in the cash economy for instance, when someone offers to do work for $300 cash or $500 by way of cheque. We all know that the practice is rampant throughout Australia and indeed in many other parts of the world. I believe, as I think many others believe, that a significant way to overcome that is to place a greater reliance on indirect taxation. Again, if we had a greater reliance on indirect taxation, the withholding tax measure which was brought into effect in regard to sections of the building industry-it has caused some teething troubles but I hope it is now working more satisfactorily, the Government having made some changes-would not have been quite as urgent in order to staunch the flow to the cash economy. Without, I hope, being too uncharitable to the Government-the Minister for Housing and Construction, who is at the table, knows that I never want to do that-frankly, those who prevented the introduction of a broad based indirect tax some years ago, those who waged such a vociferous campaign against it, including members of the then Labor Opposition, are, in a very real sense, responsible for the introduction of some other methods of indirect taxation and administration to ensure a more complete collection of personal tax. Certain measures in that area have had some undesirable features and are less than perfect methods of raising revenue. The measure now before the House which corrects a technical deficiency in the bank account debits tax is one that I naturally support. I remind the Minister again of his undertaking about that review and the great popularity amongst many voluntary organisations throughout Australia which will be his if he responds to their concerns in the area I have mentioned. In concluding, I refer to the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill which is designed to give legislative authority to a system of serving sommonses by post in respect of taxation offences which are punishable only on summary conviction and not, of course, indictable. The Opposition will not oppose this measure. My understanding is that some States already have relevant provisions to allow service of summonses by post and the measure currently before the House will remove a time consuming administrative burden on the police forces. As a former practising lawyer it has always been a source of amazement to me that governments throughout this country took so long to take away from our sorely burdened police forces the responsibility of serving so many summonses. To the extent that the practice now being sponsored by the Government will bring the taxation situation into line with what happens in the States, the Opposition offers no opposition to and will also support that measure. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.03) —I shall keep my remarks on the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill and the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill relatively brief. They are both straightforward pieces of legislation and they are not opposed by the Opposition. I commence my remarks on the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill. Its purpose, as has been noted, is to provide a uniform system throughout Australia of service by post of summonses issued out of a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of certain non-indictable offences under the taxation laws. Postal services of summonses under the proposed amendments will be limited to summonses in respect of offences for which the only available penalty is a pecuniary one. I think it is worth saying by way of background that more than 60,000 summonses are served annually throughout Australia for non-indictable offences against the taxation laws. Of those more than 50 per cent are served in New South Wales. In States where the summonses are served personally by State police officers the State authorities, and certainly police associations, have for some time expressed concern about the use of police officers for such work. The large volume of summonses presently being served personally could be seen to be an unnecessary waste of resources of both the State police forces and officers of the Australian Taxation Office who serve summonses personally in many capital cities. Members of the New South Wales police, to show their growing discontent with the present system, have, I think, refused in some areas to serve any further taxation summonses. I think it was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when he was talking about his past practice as a lawyer that concern has been expressed by many people about the use of very important and precious police time to serve summonses for non-indictable offences. It should be noted that in some States taxation summonses are already served by mail under the relevant State laws. That is occurring at present in Victoria, South Australia and Queensland, but in Western Australia, Tasmania and, very importantly, New South Wales, summonses are still served personally. The service of summonses by post will be restricted, as I have said, to taxation offences which attract only a pecuniary penalty and they will be subject to a system of safeguards. Under the system proposed summonses will be served by ordinary post and after conviction the following procedure will be followed: Firstly, the defendant will be advised by ordinary post of conviction and the amount of the fine. Secondly, 21 days will be allowed for payment of the fine. Thirdly, non-payment of the fine will be followed by personal service of a notice that the defendant has 14 days to pay the fine or seek a further hearing before a warrant of commitment is served. Fourthly, the warrant of commitment will follow 14 days after the failure to meet the requirements of the personally served warning notice. So very good safeguards are built into this legislation. It should also be emphasised that the service of notices preceding the warning notice will be by ordinary mail and not certified mail. In a number of States the authorising service by mail has shown addressees often refuse to accept the delivery of official looking mail. Safeguards will operate to ensure that a defendant who fails to receive postal notices will not be committed without further action being taken by taxation authorities. As I have said, this legislation is very sound. It is a common-sense piece of legislation and it has the support of both the Government and the Opposition. I certainly commend it. I now speak briefly on the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill. That tax was, of course, part of the former Government's 1982-83 Budget. The legislation was enacted in 1982. It was announced before the Federal election in March that 1 April this year would be proclaimed as the date of commencement of the tax. Following the election our Government decided to proceed with the implementation of that tax from 1 April but we also announced, very importantly, that the operation of the tax, including the appropriateness or otherwise of exemptions, would be reviewed after six months. We heard some comments previously from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition concerning those exemptions and I am pleased that he accepts responsibility for the original legislation and some of the difficulties it has created for certain voluntary organisations. I am certainly delighted to learn that the review of the bank account debits tax has already commenced in the Taxation Office. I have also received many representations concerning the operation of that tax, particularly from school groups and parents councils and, where they still remain, mothers clubs and parents groups. A number of petitions from schools and parents in my electorate have been lodged on that very matter. I certainly agree that the Minister for Houseing and Construction (Mr Hurford) would make himself a very popular person if some exemptions were provided in that area. Mr Hurford —Increasingly popular. Mr BRUMBY —I should have said that. The Minister was in the electorate of Bendigo only on Friday of last week speaking to representatives of housing societies and co-operatives. What he had to say about the building industry was extremely well received by everyone there. I do not need to emphasise for members of this House how well the building industry has taken off with the change of government and the excellent work of the Minister for Housing and Construction. While I do not want to get off the topic we are discussing, I was delighted to learn, as the Minister indicated in my electorate, that since the commencement of the operation of the first home buyers scheme on 1 October more than 170 applications have been received in Bendigo from single people and couples who want to buy their first homes. Of those, some 12 have already received their cash payments, their grants from the Commonwealth. Of course, that is wonderful for those people wanting to buy their first home. I mention that because, if the Minister were to exempt the operations of parents councils and mothers clubs at schools from this bank debits tax, the Minister would be even more popular than he is at present. Returning to the Bill and the background to it, I think it is worth saying that , subject to the existing exemptions-which include public benevolent and religious bodies, hospitals, certain accounts of schools, government departments and instrumentalities, foreign diplomatic and consular personnel and international organisations-the debits that are made to cheque accounts are made , where the amount concerned is less than $100, at the rate of 10c; where the amount is between $100 and $500, at the rate of 25c; where the amount is more than $500 but less than $5,000, at the rate of 50c; and where the amount is $5, 000 or more, at the rate of $1. I mention that because the general concept of this tax is that of a broad-based tax of wide application at a very modest rate. The estimate of revenue to be collected from this tax run at about $16m per month or $200m over a full year. I understand that at the moment the collections are running virtually at that amount, at about $15m per month. Under the operation of the tax within the terms of the 1982 Act, a bank which is liable to pay tax on debits to taxable accounts is given a statutory right to recover the tax from the account holders concerned. Over recent times doubts have, for largely technical reasons, been expressed about the constitutional validity of that particular aspect of the Act. The amendments proposed by this Bill will remove these doubts by imposing liability for the tax jointly and severally on both the bank and the account holder. In these circumstances the bank concerned and the account holder will each have a legal obligation to pay the tax involved and those obligations will be satisifed by payment of the tax by either party. The Commissioner of Taxation will, however, continue to look to the banks in the first instance for the payment of the tax. Where a bank pays the tax, the existing provision of the law will authorise the bank to recover from the account holder concerned an amount equal to the amount of the tax. Other amendments to the Bill are, of course, largely of a consequential nature. As I have said, the legislation is well supported. It is a straightforward and common-sense piece of legislation and I certainly commend it to the House. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(5.13) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome you back from your important assignment overseas. We congratulate you on your work on that assignment. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Thank you. Mr GROOM —We are dealing with two tax measures, the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill and the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill. During the debate so far we have had some fairly wide-ranging comments about our tax system. I agree with much of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said about the tax system. We certainly need to achieve somehow a greater equity in the system. It has not worked very well in recent times for the ordinary wage and salary earner and it has been far too easy to avoid paying taxation. Therefore, we certainly need to look at indirect forms of taxation to establish a greater equity in the system. Of course, we have not said very much about the expenditure side. It is terribly important that we continue to look at the expenditure side, which really is the ultimate answer to the taxation problem, that is to try to reduce our expenditure if we possibly can and in that way provide relief for taxpayers. As I have mentioned, we are dealing with two Bills. I wish to direct my remarks to the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill. The measure was introduce originally in the Budget last year and was proclaimed earlier this year. The reason for this legislation is that there has been a technical defect in the principal Act, it would appear, and there is a possibility of a constitutional challenge to the original legislation. So we are now endeavouring to overcome that problem by establishing joint and several liability on the part of the taxpayers and on the part of the banks which have to collect the tax and then ultimately bill the customers of the banks. I make the point that it appears there has been an oversight by the draftsmen. It would be unfair to attack the draftsmen because our parliamentary draftsmen have to work very hard. They work under great pressure and are expected to create miracles sometimes at very short notice. But the simple fact is that we are meeting as a Parliament to consider the legislation, which is necessary, it would appear, as a result of an oversight or a failure to appreciate some of the legal problems which could result from the original legislation. I believe it is necessary to make the point that there has been an oversight and it is essential that our draftsmen keep on their toes. I agree with the comments that have been made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) about the system of exemption. As has been mentioned, at the moment a review is being made of the tax and of the exemption provisions. No doubt all members have received many representations from community organisations about the fact that it appears that they are liable to pay this tax. We have had representations from school support groups, parents and friends associations, mothers clubs and those kinds of groups. We have had representations from the Boy Scouts Association, the Girl Guides Associations and those types of organisations. We have also had representations from the many service clubs in the community. I do not want to try to mention them all because no doubt I will leave some of them out, but perhaps some of them should be mentioned. Those that I have had representations form include the Rotary clubs, in particular, Lions clubs, Apex clubs, Jaycees, Penguins and a number of similar organisations. I think it is wrong that we should have a tax such as this that places an additional burden on these sorts of organisations which play such a vital role in providing very important community services to those in need and, for example, to our schools. I hope that the Government and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, will take heed of those representations, give full recognition to the valuable work of these organisations and provide exemption for them. I hope that the review can be expedited and that those exemptions can be provided at the earliest opportunity. I have had a number of representations, in particular from Rotary clubs in my electorate and from other parts of Tasmania. Recently, the Rotary clubs received from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Hobart, Mr McHugh, a letter dated 17 October 1983, indicating that Rotary clubs do not qualify as public benevolent institutions. That surprises me because of the nature of the work Rotary clubs do. The primary object of Rotary is to encourage and foster the ideals of service. Almost all of the work of the various Rotary clubs around Australia is to serve the needs of individuals in the community who need help in one way or another, or to serve the needs of the community as a whole. It is quite wrong for the Government to seek to collect money from those sorts of organisations, which have to work terribly hard to raise funds to help people in need, in order to finance programs such as Medicare and other very expensive programs that we are now attempting to fund. Certainly, I hope that that will be looked at. When we are looking at taxation, it concerns me that certain promises made during the election campaign, as a runup to the election, have not been kept. I refer particularly to the policy speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), then the Leader of the Opposition, on 16 February 1983 at the Sydney Opera House opera theatre, which perhaps was a very appropriate place to make that speech. It is worth noting that in that speech the Prime Minister promised quite clearly that there would be tax cuts, and that there would be tax cuts in the first Labor Budget. I quote from page 12 of the official speech issued to the people of Australia. The Prime Minister said: Our Government's total income tax package is being released concurrently with this speech. Its key elements include immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers, with the greatest tax cuts going to those on the lowest incomes who have suffered most . . . A taxpayer without dependants earning $225 a week, for example, will get a tax cut of $4.76 a week. I will not go on quoting from that speech. In the appendix to the speech a list of reductions in tax which would benefit particular individuals is set out. The appendix states: The new tax scales to be introduced in Labor's first Budget will be. . . It then goes into the details of the deductions: rebates of various kinds, general reductions in taxation, reductions in taxation in the various zones with special allowances for people living in zone A and zone B. What has happened, of course, is that we have seen none of these tax cuts. I think that it should be noted during this debate, when we are talking about general tax measures, that this promise, which was made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, has not been kept. How can we trust the Prime Minister with any other promises that he might care to make? No one, of course, likes taxation, but it is a necessary evil. Obviously we cannot remove tax altogether, but certainly there is an obligation on governments to reduce the tax burden as much as they possibly can. I think there is a tendency to take it for granted-not really to make the effort that we should be making to reduce this burden which destroys initiative and enterprise. The tragedy is that people around Australia are not working perhaps as hard as they might. We do not have as many business people developing enterprises and employing more Australians as we might because of the heavy taxation burden. If there is one thing that we can do to help this country, it is to reduce the tax burden borne by Australians. We can fiddle with the system; we can certainly do something about the equity and fairness of our taxation system but the only real way to reduce the burden is to look at the expenditure side. I certainly hope that this Government will make every effort to reduce the burden and the expenditure. The record so far has not been very good. We have seen increases in a number of areas of expenditure. Medicare will be the classic example. There will be a huge increase in the cost to the taxpayers of medical care and health care in this country as a result of that scheme. Mr Hodgman —Did not somebody promise immediate tax cuts? Mr GROOM —You have just walked into the chamber. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member will speak through the Chair. Mr GROOM —Perhaps I can respond to the particular point which was directed at me concerning immediate tax cuts. I have already made that point. As I said, it is disappointing that the Prime Minister has not honoured his promise to reduce taxes. I hope that in the near future he will be looking to provide real tax cuts for ordinary hard working Australians. I finish by saying that the measures we are now debating are straightforward. They are supported by the Opposition. I join in that support. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.25) —I support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and my colleagues in the House in drawing the attention of the House, and the Government in particular, to the dilemma that we face with the bank accounts debits tax legislation. I recognise that currently two Bills are before the House. I want to address my remarks this evening to the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 1983. In the spirit that has been shown in the House during this debate, it is not my intention, nor has it been the intention of the honourable member for Bennelong, I note, to apportion any blame for what have been difficulties with this particular form of legislation. The Opposition recognises that this particular impost-this measure for raising money-has been used by governments of all political persuasions. I stress to the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) the importance of the review that is currently taking place. This has been a very bipartisan debate. In fact, the honourable member for Bennelong has been very generous and kindly in his advice to the Minister. I would like to suggest that the only hazards the Minister faces as a result of hearing the advice of the honourable member for Bennelong is that his already skyrocketing popularity could easily exceed that of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ). Were it to do so, of course, it would be founded on a considerably more substantial and compassionate base than is the Prime Minister's. I recommend to the Minister that he particularly heed the advice of the honourable member for Bennelong that we would do well to review all the States that have been involved in the financial debit tax that runs parallel to the bank account debits tax. I suggest that such a review would be very much in the spirit of consensus about which we have heard so much from the Government over the past few months. I recognise that principally small amounts of money are involved in the bank account debits tax. But, of course, for some people the handling of relatively small sums of money represents a large part of their income. It is those people- the pensioners of our society, the people who are involved in charitable groups, the Boy Scouts Association and the school groups, as acknowledged by both the honourable member for Bennelong and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) -who are directly affected by this tax. We are not talking about a great deal of money. In fact, the issue before the House is not the amount of the money involved. We are talking about payment of 10c for a cheque of up to $100; 25c for a cheque of up to $500, 50c for a cheque of up to $5,000 and of course, a maximum of $1 for any sum in excess of that. We can suppose only that the Treasury had hoped that these relatively small sums of money would be-if I may use a topical illustration-rather like the rain showers we have had in Canberra over the past week; that a lot of these little drops would make a deluge. While I hesitate to take this illustration too far, might I be forgiven for suggesting that Treasury hoped that these small drops would ultimately have a real impact on Treasury income rather-if honourable members will pardon me-like drips on a stone. I suggest that the impact of this form of impost-the bank account debits tax- will be to discourage people from using cheque accounts and bank accounts, which are, of course, among the most efficient forms of saving that we have, and certainly among the most efficient forms of money management. The result-which has already been alluded to this evening-will be to force people to turn from cheque accounts to cash accounts and possibly to the plastic money bankcard alternative. I would like to reinforce what has been said by the honourable member for Braddon, which is that the issue that the House really faces when it deals with a Bill such as this and with the question of how it is or is not to raise funds, is why the Government needs these new areas of taxation. The problem that this Government faces, and that was faced by the former Government, is that of funding the tasks that are put before government. Even this week we have looked at the possibility of expanding the Parliament. That possibility involves the people of Australia in greater expenditure. We have to recognise that the people have made more and more demands on government and that the capacity of government to meet the demands of the people has outstripped the capacity of the people to pay. Honourable members should look at what happened in the year 1981-82, when the consumer price index was running at 12.3 per cent. The actual private sector portion of that CPI movement was 7.7 per cent. This meant that any employer was faced with an increase in revenue of only 7.7 per cent while the wages bill he paid, based on the CPI, was more likely to be running at 12.3 per cent. That sort of pressure resulted in the inevitable shedding of labour and the rising unemployment which is an abhorrence to everyone in the House. The bank account debits tax some have called a bad tax, playing on the initial letters of the first three words of the title of the Bill. If we change this form of taxation or any other form we must first change our attitude to government and to the demands we place on government. We have to recognise that every additional task the Government accepts increases the burden that must inevitably be placed on the taxpayer. I refer briefly to the emergence of the financial institutions duty, which is related to the bank account debits tax. I speak with some passion about this duty as it has appeared for the first time in South Australia as a result of the Bannon Government's Budget. The Bannon Government has determined that South Australians should pay 4c in every $100 in financial institutions duty. This duty is at a level higher than the level of any duty anywhere in Australia. Sadly, it did not bring with it the stamp duty relief that Bannon had promised prior to the Budget. Effectively, this financial institutions duty puts a taxation on taxation. Let us say that I, as a South Australian, choose to deposit $100. The financial institutions duty will then cost me 4c. Let us say that I later choose to withdraw that $100. If that happens, the bank account debits tax will cost me a further 10c and the stamp duty on that cheque will also be 10c. Mr Rocher —A tax led recovery. Mr ANDREW —One might say so, yes. This is even more marked if we look at the impact on company accounts instead of individual accounts. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a chart which makes a comparision between the impact of this duty in South Australia and in Victoria. Leave granted. The chart read as follows- VICTORIA-SOUTH AUSTRALIA-CALCULATION BASIS Examples of customer savings account costs: per quarter Personal 1- FID 1.20 1.60 Deposit totalling $4,000 Personal 2- FID 1.80 2.40 Deposits totalling $6,000 Examples of customer cheque account costs: per quarter Personal 1- FID 0.45 0.60 This is on an average small account with Cheque duty n.a. 1.30 transactions of 11 credits totalling $1500 Total State duty 0.45 1.90 20 debits, comprising- Bad tax (Commonwealth) 2.60 2.60 16 at $35 4 at $221 Total Government charges 3.05 4.50 (total 13 cheques) Personal 2- FID 1.05 1.40 This is based on an average loan account Cheque duty n.a. 3.00 with transactions of 10 credits totalling $3500 Total State duty 1.05 4.40 40 debits, comprising- Bad tax (Commonwealth) 5.75 5.75 30 at $35 9 at $221 Total Government charges 6.80 10.15 1 at $500 (total 30 cheques) Company 1- FID 11.40 15.20 This is based on a very small average company Cheque duty n.a. 5.80 account with transactions of 15 credits totalling $38,000 Total State duty 11.40 21.00 70 debits, comprising- Bad tax (Commonwealth) 15.00 15.00 40 at $35 20 at $221 Total Government charges 26.40 36.00 8 at $1421 2 at $6000 (total 58 cheques) Company 2- FID 180.00 240.00 This is based on a small average company Cheque duty n.a. 100.00 account with transactions of 80 credtits totalling $600,000 Total State duty 180.00 340.00 1000 debits, comprising- Bad tax (Commonwealth) 242.50 242.50 550 at $35 250 at $221 Total Government charges 422.50 582.50 150 at $1421 50 at $6000 (total 1000 cheques) Mr ANDREW —I thank the House. Honourable members will see that the chart illustrates that, for a small individual account, 13 cheques being used in South Australia will cost $1.45 more than they would cost in Victoria. For a small company cheque account, the transaction of 1,000 cheques could cost $160 more in South Australia than it would cost in Victoria. Fortunately, the Opposition in South Australia has been able to get total relief from this duty for churches and charitable organisations. That measure is to be welcomed since what was originally proposed was only a limited exemption. The South Australian Opposition has also been able to get relief for the extraordinary situation which occurs where one has a security organisation delivering large sums of cash to a particular company, taking a cheque in lieu of the cash delivered. In conclusion, I reiterate, as the honourable member for Bennelong has said, that we in the Opposition are not opposed to the proposals before the House. We recognise the imperfections that the Minister is endeavouring to correct. We simply plead with the Minister to hasten the review of this matter and to show his characteristic sensitivity in the review so that the organisations outlined by us-the boy scout groups and the parents and friends groups in schools, to name two-will get what we think is appropriate relief. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.35) —in reply-I thank all those honourable members who took part in the debate on this legislation-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew)-for their contributions. I appreciate the Opposition's support of these measures. Admittedly, they are of a technical kind. I give notice that, in the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill which we are debating cognately with the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill, a couple of small printing errors in the Bill as circultated and moved require the House to go into Committee shortly to make the necessary changes. I am also grateful to the Opposition for facilitating the passage, particularly of the second Bill, as it was only introduced on Tuesday. I appreciate the Opposition's courtesy in this matter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition addressed himself mainly to the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill, as did other honourable members. I assure him and the other honourable members that that six-monthly review is now taking place. I also assure the House that the position of voluntary associations is being considered. I have written, on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), to hundreds of associations and to many members of this House assuring them that this would be so. As usual, the Hawke Labor Government is keeping its promises. I noted what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had to say about interrelationships with financial institutions' duty in all States, except Queensland, which have a financial institutions' duty tax. I agree with him thoroughly that we need more effort in seeking complementarity between State and Federal imposts of this sort. There is also a need for uniformity of collection between States. This Federation which we are seeking to govern is a cumbersome one. Indeed, it requires more and more consultation between State and Federal authorities. Officials are meeting on the subject of seeking that complementarity. That was mentioned again at the June Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spent most of his time advocating an increase in indirect taxes. I say straight away that he was saying that in the context of wanting to reduce direct income taxes. I do not make any political point about this other than to say that his eloquence abut equity was noted. I remind him that when he talks about increasing indirect taxes he should mention I think that there is an urgent need for adjusting incomes of people in the lower income group. The difficulties arise in seeking adjustments to those receiving low award wages, unemployment and sickness benefits, aged and invalid pensions and so on. I say no more on that matter. It needs to be said that when he and his colleagues in the previous Government raised this subject they failed to make that point. He did not make that point again today. But I assure everybody in this country that the Hawke Labor Government will not desert those on lower incomes. It recognises that, if there are to be more and more indirect taxes, there is a regressive nature about indirect taxes and such adjustments would be absolutely essential. I confirm that the Economic Planning Advisory Council is acting as a catalyst for tax reform work which is being carried out within the Government. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that, overall, our tax is below the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. I assure him that members of this Hawke Labor Government want to keep it that way. We are not a high tax party. We want to be a fair tax government. Once again I thank the House for its support of these technical changes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 16 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.40) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 4, line 43, omit 'or (b), as the case requires'. (2) Clause 3, page 5, line 26, omit, 'sub-section 11 (2) or section', substitute 'section 11 or'. As I mentioned when closing the second reading debate, these amendments are merely of a technical nature due in one case to a printing error. Both amendments are formal and are necessary to correct references in proposed sections 13A and 13B to other provisions. The explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill to honourable members correctly explains the operation of sections 13A and 13B in relation to other sections. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.43) —The Postal and Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1983 is important legislation for Australia Post and the future of postal services generally in Australia. This legislation also appears to be the Labor Government 's response to the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission, otherwise known as the Bradley inquiry after its chairman Mr A. E. Bradley. The Opposition supports, with some reservations, the major thrust of the legislation to allow Australia Post to develop electronic mail services and to widen the exemptions from the letter delivery monopoly while maintaining that basic monopoly. Therefore the Opposition will not oppose the second reading of the Bill but will oppose and propose several amendments at the Committee stage. This legislation, as it takes only some of the Bradley recommendations, also raises the question of the Government's intentions for the other Bradley recommendations. I will return to this point later. Unlike the other communications authority, Telecom Australia, where business is increasing at a rate restricted only by the capital investment necessary to take advantage of the new technology, Australia Post, as with the postal services elsewhere in advanced countries, is facing possible stagnation in the future as traditional mail services are replaced by electronic mail, voice and data transmissions, courier services et cetera. The concern of Australia Post to be able to offer modern services and to retain a viable future was evident during the inquiry and has been reiterated in subsequent comments to me by senior Australia Post officials. The same concern was expressed to me in discussions with the United States Postal Service and Canada Post officials in July of this year. They are more advanced with electronic mail systems than we are. Obviously Australia Post can learn from their experience. However, to balance that comparison I must say that the United States Postal Service has only recently started to break even financially and Canada Post has until 1986 to make a profit. This year the combined deficit, including the second class mail subsidy for Canada Post, is estimated to be $500m. Australia Post has got beyond the problem which Canada Post is still facing. In July the standard letter rate in the United States was 20 cents and in Canada it was 32 cents. This Bill contains a number of major provisions. They amend the basic letter monopoly, re-establish the Australia Post courier service, allow private agency arrangements, operate an electronic mail service, clarify the by-law power of both Australia Post and Telecom, allow earlier retirement for employees and permit Australian Postal Commission decisions to be made without actually having a meeting. Bradley recommended that Australia Post retain the basic letter monopoly as it was essential for a national postal service. This is also the position in other Western nations. The previous Government and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in this Government have confirmed the acceptance of that part of Bradley's recommendations. The 1975 legislation establishing Australia Post listed six exemptions from the letter monopoly, including articles over 500 grams in weight. Bradley recommended four more exemptions. In this legislation the Government has accepted only one; and has done so in a slightly more restrictive way. Bradley also recommended that there should be incorporated into the Act the definition of a letter to clarify the letter monopoly position of Australia Post. The Government has legislated in relation to conveyancing of letters which are 10 times or more the standard letter rate; a letter need no longer be classified as a letter provided the charge for delivery is 10 times or more the standard letter rate. The Government appears to be defining what is not a letter rather than as Bradley recommended defining what is a letter. I am not complaining about the way the Government has tried to overcome that difficult problem. Bradley recommended a $2 limit and restricted indexing which is less restrictive than the $3 and full indexation proposed in this legislation. By comparison, the United States exemption is five times the standard letter rate. However, in reality $3 is probably the minimum cost for which a letter or article would be carried by a courier service. At the Committee stage of the debate I will move an amendment to the section of the Act concerning the letter monopoly to allow the additional minor exemptions recommended by Bradley. One of these amendments concerns electronic mail and is linked to our general encouragement for the introduction and development of electronic mail. We will oppose the reintroduction of a courier service and the extension of agency arrangements to the private sector. I acknowledge that Bradley recommended both of these measures to strengthen the commercial performance of Australia Post. But the Committee also recommended that as part of its commercial accountability Australia Post should also pay rates and taxes or equivalent amounts in lieu of rates and taxes. The more detailed reasons for our opposition to this measure will be given when the amendments are moved at the Committee stage. The Opposition is unhappy with the reduction in the voluntary retirement age, which is part of this legislation, from 60 years to 55 years, but we will not oppose it. I acknowledge that when in government we introduced the lower retirement age to the Public Service. Only recently the Statute Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) provided the same lower retirement age for Telecom Australia employees. However, I must point out that this was only one part of our retirement legislation for the Public Service employees; the other was the CERR Act, that is, the Commonwealth Employees (Retirement and Redeployment) Act which allowed management initiated redeployment and retirement . Thus there was a total or balanced package of employee and management initiated early retirement flexibility. Labor is repealing the CERR Act and consequently removing half or destroying, if one likes, the balance of that legislation. Therefore, on our return to government, this general area of Public Service and statutory authority employment policy will be considered. In the meantime I believe that it is odd that Telecom, Australia Post or other statutory authorities which pride themselves on being commercial, nevertheless implement such uncommercial or non-commercial practices. The Minister in his 9 August statement, when he detailed the Government's reaction to the Bradley inquiry, also mentioned several other aspects of that inquiry which are not covered by this legislation. I would like the Minister, when replying, to advise the House on the matters he has referred to. He stated: A revision of the leasing provisions of the Postal Services Act was under way to ensure that Australia Post properties were used or developed to their maximum potential. The Government does not intend to proceed at present with the financial recommendations of the Bradley Report . . . However, it has called for a review of the existing legislative provisions concerning Australia Post's financial structure and financial objectives. The Minister said that his statement generally should allay any fears about the future of Australia Post. His announcement, which I have just quoted, that the Government may proceed, and I am sure that is the equivalent of not to proceed at present, must increase some of the fears of Australia Post. These measures, which I have taken directly from the Bradley recommendations, could include taxes or payments in lieu thereof, separate accounting arrangements, revaluation of assets, a separate superannuation scheme which Australia Post people say is four times as expensive as a commercial superannuation scheme and, as the Minister and I were reminded last night at a communications seminar, ministerial approval for contracts above $500,000. I would have thought that the one which would have caused the most fear and uncertainty was the one concerning taxation. In addition to the points that the Minister made in his announcement, there are other recommendations of Bradley, some of which are very important, which have not been referred to either in the statement or in the Bill. I would like the Minister to comment on them if he is in a position to do so when replying. These include, first of all, postal insurance. The Committee noted that the present arrangements for postal insurance were inadequate and recommended a new arrangement using a professional insurer. In reply to a question that I put on notice to the Minister on this matter he stated that Australia Post agrees with the point made in the Bradley report and that a better arrangement is needed. So I would like some advice as to what is happening with that problem. Other recommendations mentioned separately by Bradley are that land transactions are to be free of Department of Administrative Services restrictions; exemptions from the Public Works Act and greater use of non-official post offices. I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister to the telegram problem . Australia Post acts as an agent for Telecom for the telegram service. The volume of telegrams continues to decline and this service continues to lose money. I believe this trend will accelerate as telex, the new forms of electronic mail, more universal telephone availability, et cetera, replace the telegram service's reason for being. Some countries have stopped their telegram service. The Davidson Inquiry into Telecommunications Services in Australia recommended the transfer of the service to Australia Post. I believe that Australia Post is not particularly anxious to take over the telegram service in its present form. However, the introduction and development of electronic mail provide an opportunity, which some countries appear to be testing at present, for an up to date replacement of the telegram service. In other words, I do believe in the near future there is an opportunity to overcome the telegram service problem and replace it with something which is newer and more efficient and which would fit in with the electronic mail services of Australia Post. The Minister's comment on the telegram service would be appreciated. Another point I want to raise with the Minister concerns mail path performance of letters; that is, the timeliness and reliability of the transmission and delivery of letters by Australia Post. The Minister will be aware of the criticism by Bradley of mail path testing procedures; that is, procedures to establish the timeliness and reliability of mail deliveries. The Minister has also answered several questions from me on this subject, the most recent being about a week ago. I put to the Minister the following questions: When will Australia Post have in place a national standard test procedure? How frequently will it be used? Furthermore, does he consider that procedure to be a satisfactory method to evaluate particularly weekend transfers of mail; that is, articles posted on Friday, Saturday or Sunday? It appears to me that the greatest weakness with our mail delivery system is the problem of no Saturday delivery. I refer here to the experience of the United States of America. I make the point that public perception of a government monopoly such as Australia Post is important. The comment of justice appearing to be done is appropriate with mail delivery performance testing. The problem of mail delivery, its reliability and the time it takes are the major complaints of the public against Australia Post. I believe the United States experience should be investigated. Firstly, a private organisation which is under contract to the United States postal service continuously audits or checks the mail path performance. In other words, it is just not an in-house operation which is subject to some cynicism in the eyes of the public. Secondly, a technical advisory committee has been set up to discuss and overcome the problems of mail deliveries. Canada has some of the same outside systems to increase the confidence of the public in the testing procedures. There is also a mail users conference in Canada. To conclude, I reiterate that the Opposition is not opposing the second reading of the Bill, but will be moving some amendments at the Committee stage. Debate (on motion by Mr Hollis) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Duffy)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent - (1) the consideration of General Business being postponed to a later hour this day, and (2) the consideration of General Business notices then being continued until 10 p.m. Debate resumed. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(6.00) —I regret that the Opposition feels it necessary to move amendments to the Postal and Telecommunications Amendment Bill; nevertheless we will deal with those amendments. The Australian Labor Party has always recognised the importance of an adequate postal service. With this in mind, the Party's platform as it relates to postal services contains commitments to: The development of an efficient postal system on the basis of a publicly owned national utility with exclusive rights to carry letters for reward. The postal system to be available to Australians who reasonably require the service. Electronic mail to be handled by Australia Post; Australia Post to be empowered to competitively market a variety of services including high-speed and door-to-door pick up and delivery services. The Postal and Telecommunications Amendment Bill gives effect to these commitments. In short, this Bill will bring Australia up to date with modern postal services. Mr O'Keefe —About time. Mr HOLLIS —The honourable member should look at what his Government did to Australian postal services. We would never have had an up to date postal service if the previous Government had remained in office; that is for sure. In the main , Australia has a good postal service. Of course, people are always ready to criticise when one article goes astray for some reason or other, but given the diversity of roles it performs, I think our postal service is a good one. Any service is only as good as the people who work in it. I pay a tribute to the men and women of Australia Post who have made the service what it is today. But that is not to say that the service cannot be improved. We must have a postal service that will adequately serve Australia in this technological age. The major elements of this Bill are those which give power to the Australian Postal Commission to operate courier services and to establish electronic mail services in its own right. Of course, the courier service is not new. Honourable members will recall that until 1980 Australia Post was successfully managing courier services in competition with the private sector, but those who now sit opposite did not like that. We all know their philosophy in regard to the private sector. They let the Government put up the money to commence some new initiative, iron out the problems in the first few years and then, when it proves to be successful and making a profit, they flog it off to their mates. The razor gang made many short-sighted decisions. I would hesitate to designate which of them was the most short-sighted, but the decision to remove the power of Australia Post to operate couriers must have been amongst the most short- sighted. Of course, the previous Government did not take account of Australia Post's need to provide the full range of postal and related services. The postal courier service had gained a reputation for reliability and efficiency, and it was a key element in a comprehensive postal services. There is a demand for speedy postal services, in particularly those services which provide for priority pick-up and delivery in special circumstances. The postal courier will carry articles weighing up to 20 kilograms. Its operation will be fully costed and there need be no fear of it competing unfairly on price because of internal cost subsidisation. I welcome the reintroduction of the postal courier service, I am sure many users of Australia Post's services will also welcome its reintroduction. Many postal customers want to use Australia Post for all their business-for their letters and parcels when normal postal services are adequate, and for items for which special transmission arrangements are desired. A comprehensive postal service, incorporating ordinary postal delivery, fast delivery by air or courier , and extra fast handling-for example, by electronic transmission-will facilitate co-ordination of communications and avoid the timing problems which can occur when more than one carrier is involved. Australia Post will operate competitively in the physical communications market . Australia Post is a business, and as such must be run on acceptable business lines. This means moving with new technology and taking full advantage of technological developments. The power for Australia Post to operate electronic mail services in its own right is necessary to ensure that it can remain at the forefront in providing modern day communications utilising the latest technological developments. Electronic mail services are simply another modern means of transferring information. In other words, they are a form of postal service using electronic means of transmission rather than transmission by air, land or sea. Australia Post, with its network of post offices and delivery services, will provide this new type of postal service employing the best of modern technology and offering speed and economy so that it is widely available to the public. Australia Post will compete in the market-place for business as electronic transmission becomes a more favoured option for certain types of communications now sent by conventional postal services. The power of Australia Post to enter into agency arrangements must be expanded to cover the private sector. This measure will enable Australia Post to utilise its national network of post offices to provide supplementary services. This will be of particular benefit to people in country areas. I know this is true because I live in a country area. Australia Post is now authorised to perform agency work for Commonwealth and State departments and authorities. The benefits to the community will be considerable. Australia Post will have one stop shop post offices with a variety of services to offer. Some services which are otherwise unavailable could be provided, say, in small centres, and the greater use of postal facilities will help to contain costs and charges. It will also mean a wider distribution network and provide access to outlets now available only to the public sector. For Australia Post these measures will mean more revenue, a greater scope for using the unavoidable excess capacity in some post offices, and even-handed treatment for the private and public business sectors. The more obvious avenues for private sector agency work are in printed matter, selling tickets and accepting subscriptions or other moneys at post offices, but there are many other business opportunities, especially in country areas, which would be worth while and beneficial to customers and principals. Australia Post will maintain its monopoly position, but letters subject to a premium fee will not be subject to this monopoly. Such premium fees are mostly charged by private courier services for the speedy pick-up and delivery of letters. The amendment in the Bill will regularise this situation without putting Australia Post's essential basic monopoly in jeopardy. It has been decided that the minimum premium fee should be 10 times the basic domestic rate, which, as the current rate is 30c, means that a private courier can carry letters for reward, exempt from the Australian Postal Commission's monopoly, if they charge a minimum of $3. Similar provisions have been made for the private sector carriage of letters to overseas destinations. The Bill also proposes a number of amendments of a technical nature. I was pleased to note that the Opposition will not oppose the lowering of the retirement age for officers of the commission to 55. There is no doubt that the proposals in this Bill will enable Australia Post to continue to provide an adequate service in this technological age. Indeed, the Bill will enable Australia Post to offer new and dynamic services, make more efficient use of its extensive network of post offices, better meet the needs of the public and tap potential new technological developments. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(6.09) —I also support the Post and Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1983. Like the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis), I think it is disappointing to see that the Opposition is to move some amendments. It is disappointing perhaps, but not unexpected, that it is still intransigent in its view in relation to the efficiency of public enterprise. When the Australian Postal Commission came into being in 1976 it set about establishing what was to become a very efficient service. As the honourable member for Macarthur said, there are always occasions on which articles may be delayed or lost for various reasons, but all in all the Postal Commission has provided an excellent service in the whole of Australia. As has been pointed out, the Bill reintroduces the courier services which operated so successfully before the Fraser Government bowed to pressure from its lords and masters and abolished it. The honourable member for Macarthur pointed to the areas in our party policy concerning the Postal Commission, one of which was the restoration of the courier service. The fact that we on this side of the House can cite policy indicates one of the major differences between us and the Opposition; that is, we have policies and it does not. That is one of the reasons why we will be on this side of the House for some time to come. When the courier service was operated by Australia Post I worked in an office which made use of contractors who took deliveries from our office to the central mail exchange. The Australia Post courier was the most efficient of all. That is probably why there was such hostility amongst private enterprise when the courier service was doing so well. Even though it had achieved only about 10 per cent of the market at the time it was abolished, it was becoming increasingly popular. That was not because it was undercutting everybody else in the market, it was charging what was considered to be at the top of the range of courier service charges. It was doing so well because it was providing a very efficient service. The previous Government, which hated to see public enterprise doing well and being efficient, set about with its razor gang to abolish public enterprise in those areas in which it could allow private enterprise to slug the community and provide inefficient services. Some people argue that Australia Post competes unfairly in the market place. If one looks at just one small area of service it provides one might be able to mount a case for that, but private courier services do not provide the overall services that Australia Post provides. The courier service simply complements the total service that Australia Post provides. Australia Post provides services in unprofitable areas because it is looking after the interests of the whole of Australia, not just the monetary interest of some small individuals. I am very pleased to see the courier service coming back in. Of course, the Opposition opposes it. It would like to leave the situation as it is, with no competition against the private enterprise which is simply slugging the community and providing a poorer service. It is interesting to note that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) spoke of our not introducing some measures recommended in the report of the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission, yet he has objected to our following some of the other recommendations in that report. The Opposition wants some things on the one hand but on the other hand does not want others, but we do not become critical. The most important point to be made about the courier service is that it will allow Australia Post to provide the full range of services that are needed by the community. It will provide a high speed door-to-door pick up and delivery service, which is an important part of a total, modern postal service. I think it is important that we clarify Australia Post's position with regard to electronic mail but I think it is also very important that we maintain Australia Post's monopoly in the total mail area. That is the reason we have not gone along with the Bradley report in terms of breaking up that monopoly in electronic mail. The electronic mail area is important because it is the growth area. I listened intently to what the honourable member for Murray said about the future of Australia Post. It is a fact that electronic mail will open up other areas for Australia Post, but in order for us to ensure that the total postal service proceeds in the interests of the whole of Australia it is very important that we maintain the current monopoly. We have received some criticism over the introduction of voluntary retirement. It seems to me that every time the Government comes forward with a progressive movement to improve conditions we get some criticism. The honourable member for Murray said that the previous Government introduced voluntary early retirement for workers in the Public Service but, of course, it introduced its penal provisions as well. We all know how well they worked. They are most inefficient. This Government, with its knowledge of and its rapport with the union movement, has started to amend those provisions. There is no doubt that the time is ripe to look at the introduction of early retirement. Certainly, voluntary early retirement is well overdue and the provisions that we are introducing in that regard are most welcome. Mr Hand —We are showing some compassion. Mr SAUNDERSON —We are not only showing compassion but also are allowing people who feel that they are in a position to retire, and who wish to enjoy life whilst they are still able and healthy, to have that opportunity. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not continue for long. I commend the Bill because it contains a number of very important provisions. We have looked at the allowance for people who have the carriage of letters with the premium fee and have introduced a very simple scale under which the system can work so that when the Postal Commission increases its rates there will be no complication. We have set the rate at 10 times the current rate, which means that the new rate will be $3. If at any time in the future the postal rate goes up, people providing that service will automatically know that they need to adjust their fees also and that will not require further changes or amendments. I think that is a good change and one which is worthy of the support of both sides of the House. I commend the Bill to the House. I believe that the opposition to the courier service will be rejected by the Government. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(6.18) —in reply-I wish to deal with a few of the matters raised by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). He indicated amendments which he proposes to move in the Committee stage and there is also a Government amendment to be moved at that stage. The honourable member for Murray referred to the need to free up the property transactions of Australia Post which, as he indicated, are far too restrictive. In fact, the Bill does this. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 9 of the principal Act by omitting from paragraph 3 (d) the words 'but not required for the purposes of the Commission'. That anomaly in the Act caused the difficulty which the honourable member for Murray quite rightly raised as a considerable problem for Australia Post. The difficulty was that unless the property was surplus to requirements, Australia Post was not able to deal with it by sale or lease or whatever other method it required at the time to make better use of the property . That anomaly in the principal Act has been amended. There is now no requirement for the property to be surplus to requirements to enable Australia Post to deal with it. Another matter raised was postal insurance. Currently Australia Post is actively studying a possible postal insurance scheme. It is a somewhat difficult matter because it is imporant that the scheme adopted is able to be operated in a reasonably simple manner as it will have to be handled by staff and at the same time be understood by postal users. The point made by the honourable member for Murray in relation to postal insurance is under examination by Australia Post. When that examination is completed, the Government will certainly be looking at it. The honourable member for Murray also adverted to the question of mail path. Australia Post is continually reviewing its systems and procedures which monitor mail path and network performance. It is a matter of some complexity. These systems are being continually redefined so that they provide more accurate indications of Australia Post performances. Development of these systems requires particular skills from staff. At this stage Australia Post, following a consultant's report, is strengthening that section which develops systems and monitors perfomances. This is another matter which the Opposition said was causing it concern. Note has been taken of that, but I assure those opposite that Australia Post is actively looking at that area at the moment. Another issue raised was the Public Works Act. It is unlikely that it would be acceptable to allow this exemption, but the Government is prepared to look at that matter. It ought to be noted that it was the Fraser Government which amended the Act to include statutory authorities such as Australia Post. Another specific query raised by the honourable member for Murray concerned the use of non-official post offices. There is some confusion on this point and some concern about it is expressed by people from time to time. Australia Post makes use of non-official post offices to the extent justified by commerical reality and the need for the services. This is one of the difficulties that an organisation such as Australia Post has. It is expected to perform financially; but, having regard to the social structure that operates within Australia Post and having regard to cross-subsidisation, these sorts of matters have to be looked at very carefully. It is not possible to make any more use of non- official post offices unless the need to provide these services is seen to be justified by commercial reality. Another matter raised this evening which causes a fair bit of comment from time to time is the telegraph service, a Telecom Australia service. Australia Post acts as an agent for Telecom and decisions on the need to upgrade equipment and services are decisions for Telecom. Plans to upgrade the service are currently under consideration by Telecom. The matters mentioned this evening probably concerned the previous Government, although it took a bit longer to do anything about them in its seven years of government. Nevertheless, this evening I will take the view that it was concerned. They also concern this Government, but more particularly are matters of concern to the statutory authorities. All those areas are currently under consideration. Mr Lloyd —What about the financial structures? Mr DUFFY —At the moment the Government is considering the financial structures of not only Australia Post, but that consideration is not sufficiently advanced to be discussed here. Financial structure is currently the subject of Cabinet discussions but the stage has not been reached at which any firm determinations have been made. Another issue which should be mentioned is early retirement. I do not know why the Opposition shows any concern about the early retirement provisions because this matter did not concern it when it was in government. Not all that long ago, in July 1982, the then Minister for Communications, the Hon. N. A. Brown, requested Telecom to review its position on early retirement. It was the view at that stage that early retirement should be introduced. On the assumption that it was good for Telecom, I assumed that it would be good for Australia Post. If there is any reason for distinction there, it certainly escapes me. I am pleased that, although the Opposition has indicated some concern about that issue, it will not oppose it. When we come to consider the proposed amendments we will deal in more detail with the courier service, but I think it ought to be pointed out at this stage of the debate that Australia Post needs the courier service so that it can offer the full range of services demanded by the community. Experience from 1976 to 1981 showed that high speed, door-to-door, pick-up and delivery services are an important part of the modern postal service; and a courier service will also be an important part of the proposed electonic mail service. I find it very difficult to understand how the Opposition can say what it has said, having taken the step that it took in 1980 when Australia Post was successfully managing a courier service in competition with the private sector. Under the very short sighted policy of the former Government, its power to operate the courier service was removed. We are all aware that that arose out of the proposals of what became known as the razor gang. The need for Australia Post to provide a full range of postal and related services is related very much to the need for it to have its express courier service. I am surprised that the Opposition proposes to contest that matter. It is worth pointing out that Australia Post will maintain appropriate accounting records of all revenue and expenditure attributable to the new courier service in order to monitor its financial viability. It will be expected to pay its way and to make a positive return on its operations and it will not be cross-subsidised. The Government takes the view, on advice from a statutory authority that the service will be able to maintain itself. If there is any doubt about that, it will maintain appropriate accounting records of its revenue and expenditure. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 3 to 5-by leave-taken together. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.02) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 2, paragraph (a), lines 4 and 5, omit ', by courier service' . (2) Clause 3, page 2, paragraph (b), line 10, omit paragraph (b) of the proposed definition of 'postal article'. (3) Clause 5, page 2, lines 20-38, omit proposed section 10. The amendments to clause 3 are consequential to the major amendment, which is to clause 5, and seek to remove all references to the courier service. The effect of the amendment to clause 5 is to omit proposed section 10, which refers to the re-introduction of the courier service of Australia Post. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), in concluding his remarks just prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner, made the point that the courier service had been introduced by Australia Post in 1976 and abolished by the previous Government following the review of Commonwealth functions undertaken in 1981. I understand that at that time it enjoyed about 10 per cent of the postal courier business. I acknowledge that one of the Bradley recommendations is that Australia Post be allowed to recommence a courier service but the Opposition opposes this because it believes that it is impossible for such a service to engage in fair competition. The whole cost of superannuation will be excluded from consideration as part of the cost of the service. I have been advised that none of the fixed costs will really be taken into account, although the superannuation cost alone due to the generosity of the superannuation arrangements, is four times that of a competing private service. I remind honourable members that one of the other recommendations of Bradley is that there be a separate superannuation fund for Australia Post, one which would be more commercial, if you like, more a form of superannuation that would be compatible with that available to the private sector and therefore to competitors in the courier business. I am also told that although Australia Post claims that it will keep separate accounts, such accounts will never be made public. How can there be public accountability for a service if no one can ever gain access to its accounts? There will not be true accountability. No one, in the Parliament or elsewhere, will be able to find out whether a commercial service is actually being operated . I believe that before the Opposition would be prepared to consider allowing Australia Post to revive its courier service business some of the other recommendations of Bradley should be adopted. I refer to the provision of superannuation on a different basis, one properly accounted for in costing, along with such other fixed costs as those for vehicles and furniture. Genuine public accountability should be required. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Those in favour say aye, to the contrary no. I believe the noes have it. Mr Lloyd —A division is required. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Two voices are required for a division to be called. The noes have it. Amendments negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clause 6 (Commission may act as agent, etc.,). Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.08) —The Opposition opposes the clause. It is our genuine intention not to call for a division on this clause, irrespective of whether there is someone here to second such a call. The clause extends to official post offices the power to act as agents for the private sector. As I understand it, non-official post offices have always been able to provide agency arrangements for both government and non-government principals but official post offices have been restricted to the provision of agency arrangements for the various levels of government. They do act in a number of ways as agents already in various States; for instance, in the collection of certain taxes or as lottery agents. Also, the Commonwealth Government uses them to assist the work of various departments, such as the Commonwealth Electoral Office and the Australian Taxation Office, in the dissemination of information, forms and so on. Bradley does recommend that the restriction on the ability to offer similar services to the private sector be lifted so that Australia Post can serve any private organisation that wishes to negotiate with it for a given service. I acknowledge that in some country areas this would be helpful because the total amount of business done in those small communities would not be adequate to sustain an agency arrangement by itself. In such a situation it would be helpful for Australia Post to be able to meet that requirement. While not calling for a vote on this point the Opposition believes that, taken in total, it is better for Australia Post to maximise its agency arrangements with government sectors. I note that the clause states 'being acts or things that can conveniently be done'. Obviously 'conveniently' is the key word. In other words, Australia Post should not be providing more employees, incurring any capital expenditure or taking time out of ordinary postal business. The Opposition's belief is that if there is spare capacity in post offices it should be reduced to bring about a leaner and more efficient staffing arrangement rather than, under Parkinson's law, building up the work to meet the available time or staff. We believe Australia Post should be efficient in that way rather than look for extra agency arrangements. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.11) —The matters raised by the Opposition indicate its intention to oppose the extension of the agency arrangements to allow Australia Post to offer agency services to the private sector. It is somewhat surprising that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), as a National Party of Australia representative, has taken the view that he has taken. He admitted the advantages that this service provides in country areas. I think it goes further than that. It has particular advantages to country areas. That the extension of Australia Post's ability to undertake agencies for private sector principals will create unfair competition is one of the criticisms that has been made. No doubt, private sector organisations will exercise their commercial judgment on whether it is advantageous and financially rewarding to engage Australia Post to undertake agency services on their behalf. At present unfair competition could be said to exist between public sector principals and their private sector competitors in some of the areas covered by the honourable member for Murray such as banking, insurance, lottery ticket sales and the bond market. The Opposition's attitude to the proposal to allow Australia Post into the agency area is, to say the least, surprising. Even at this early stage it is clear that there is considerable acceptance of this proposal because considerable interest has been shown by the private sector in allowing Australia Post to act in this agency area. It is a little disappointing that the Opposition has taken the view it has taken on this matter. It is a matter, I suppose, for the Opposition to decide. I find its attitude even more surprising, having regard to the advantage that the measure will give to country areas. Clause agreed to. Clauses 7 to 10-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 11 (Letters not to be carried for reward). Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.14) —On behalf of the Government I move: Clause 11, page 6, lines 7 and 8, omit 'section 18 for the transmission of that ', substitute 'paragraph 18 (1) (a) for the transmission of a'. The reason for this amendment is that following further scrutiny of the Bill it has been determined that a minor amendment is necessary to clarify a point in the changes in the Australia Post monopoly provisions. Clause 11 on page 6 of the Bill as introduced refers to an exemption from the monopoly where the charge is greater than 10 times the highest applicable under section 18 of the Postal Services Act. Section 18 refers to a number of charges and it is necessary to make clear what is referred to as the standard letter charge. The amendment therefore substitutes paragraph 18 (1) (a) which refers to standard postal articles. Parliamentary Counsel has cleared the amendment and the matter is therefore purely and simply of a technical nature to clarify what was somewhat obscure in the Bill when it was originally drafted. Amendment agreed to. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.16) —by leave-I move: (5) Clause 11, page 6, after paragraph (ab) add the folowing paragraphs: '(ac) the carriage or conveyance of a letter, regardless of the amount charged, in circumstances where the Minister determines that the suspension of the monopoly is warranted because the Commission is unable to provide a service; '(ad) the carriage or conveyance of a letter between branches of an organisation and between an organisation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries; '(ae) the carriage or conveyance of a letter which forms the input to, or output from, electronic transmission facilities;'. (6) Clause 11, page 6, at the end of the clause add the following paragraph: '(b) by omitting from paragraph (2) (c) ''the nearest'' and substituting ''any' ' '. The Opposition is attempting to extend the exemptions from the letter monopoly in the way that Bradley recommended. I will read the paragraphs on the amendments so that everyone is quite clear on what they are. They are basically as Bradley recommended. First of all, Bradley recommended that any letter above $2 be exempted. The Goverment, in clause 11, with its own amendment has brought in its version of that recommendation. It has provided for 10 times the standard letter rate which for the present is $3. I accept that that is accepting the Bradley recommendation in that regard. It obviously is the major extension of the exemptions from the letter monopoly. Bradley recommended a number of other exemptions as well. The first amendment states: . . . the carriage or conveyance of a letter, regardless of the amount charged, in circumstances where the Minister determines that suspension of the monopoly is warranted because the Commission is unable to provide a service; There are occasions when there is strike action and no delivery of mail takes place. I believe it is right and proper that in such a circumstance the Minister can suspend that monopoly, so that the mail can continue to flow in some way. Delivery of the mail is supposed to be national service and therefore it should be able to continue. The second paragraph of the amendment states: . . . the carriage or conveyance of a letter between branches of an organisation and between an organisation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries; I think that is common sense. There is a rather absurd restriction at the moment by which it is illegal to carry a letter from one part of a company to another part or a subsidiary or related company by some form of document transfer service. As Bradley has recommended, that is a sensible, minor exemption to the letter monopoly. The amendment further states: . . . the carriage or conveyance of a letter which forms the input to, or output from, electronic transmission facilities . . . I will come back to that point. I go on to the final amendment. It states: . . . by omitting from paragraph (2) (c) 'the nearest' and substituting 'any' . . . At present a person is entitled to carry a letter personally only to the nearest post office. If he forgets to drop that letter into the nearest post office and carries it to the next post office technically he is breaking the law. The amendment seems to be a sensible one to overcome that difficulty. There is no attempt to circumvent the fact that at some time a person will drop the letter into a post office and have it posted in the normal way. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible and minor amendment. Neither of the amendments threatens in any way the basic letter monopoly. I come back to the carriage or conveyance of a letter which forms the input to, or output from, electronic transmission facilities. Bradley made the point that Australia Post should be a principal in the development of electronic mail but that to allow experimentation and the more rapid development of electronic mail- because we have a long way to go with electronic mail developments in this country-there should be a little bit more flexibility in regard to putting material into the electronic mail facility at the post office and distributing it from there. I note also that Bradley mentioned in his recommendations-and this is a fair point-that the Government keep under review the possibility that the recommended exemption from the Australian Postal Commission's monopoly of letters which form inputs into or outputs from electronic transmission facilities might be exploited to avoid the monopoly applying to ordinary letters and stand ready to take appropriate remedial action should the need arise. In other words, let us see how things develop, let some flexibility and innovation come into the system , but stand ready to ensure that the basic letter monopoly as in the legislation at present is not threatened. In regard to electronic mail, to my knowledge so far Australia Post is only updating its facsimile transmission system to become part of the Intelpost system, which is a public access facsimile transmission system with international linkages. Some countries have been part of Intelpost for a number of years. Let us look at Canada and the United States. Canada Post publishes a fairly nice brochure detailing its electronic mail services. Canada has Telepost, which is a telex-based system. It has Envoy Post, which is a computer-based text transmission system. It has been part of Intelpost for a while. It is considering what the United States Post Office has been developing now for some years-ECOM, or Electronic Computer Mail. Under this system, if a company wants a mass of letters delivered to some distant place the computer takes over, transmits the data to the final post office where it is bulk printed, enveloped and finally delivered in the ordinary post. That is a saving to companies because they do not have to go to all the bother of handling all those letters. It is also a saving to the post office because the single major postal cost is processing. The mail does not have to go from post office A to post office B and so forth before it reaches the final post office. I am interested to hear the thoughts of Australia Post as to how far it will go, and how quickly, in regard to the development of electronic mail services. I return to the amendments. The Opposition believes that these amendments are sensible. They have been recommended by Bradley. They are not in any way gigantic or great extensions to the exemptions from the letter monopoly. They are sensible amendments which should be accepted and put into the legislation. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(8.23) —It is true that the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission recommended that a number of exemptions be introduced to Australia Post's monopoly power under section 85 of the Postal Services Act. But of course , there has been a change of government. This Government has accepted only one of Bradley's recommendations. That recommendation concerns private courier services. In implementing that recommendation, the Government is conscious of the fact that that aspect of the monopoly had to be dealt with at this stage so as not to disadvantage existing operators. In our view, for that reason, it would have been unreasonable not to deal with it. But the Government has not, in fact, accepted all the Bradley Committee's recommendations. We have accepted the exemption for the carriage of letters for which a premium charge is made. The Government decided that as some doubt had been expressed about whether some private courier operations were contravening section 85 of the Act in carrying letters it would place the matter beyond doubt by providing an exemption from section 85 to private couriers to enable them to carry letters for reward subject to charging a minimum fee set at 10 times the basic domestic letter rate . However, I think that members of the Opposition, in moving these amendments and suggesting that they do not in fact go to the basic monopoly of Australia Post, have not read or examined their amendments as carefully as they ought to have done, because whatever merits the amendments may have in the minds of the Opposition I must say that they are far too subtle for me. In any event, in their present form the amendments appear to me to be a recipe for disaster as far as Australia Post is concerned. In relation to the monopoly, one could drive a horse and cart through the amendments. For example, the amendment suggesting that the Minister should determine where there should be a suspension of the monopoly is, of course, designed to allow couriers and others to carry letters during industrial disputes. I merely think that it is quaint to say to a statutory corporation: 'We are not going to allow you to deal with industrial disputes. The Minister can determine in that sort of situation whether to have couriers or someone else come in and take over the running of the mail'. Mr Carlton —It is not a bad idea. Mr DUFFY —It is interesting to know that the honourable member does not think it is a bad idea. I am glad that he said that. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition faces up to these issues in another way. That is a typical example of the way in which the Opposition has dealt with industrial disputes-by legislation. In fact, the Opposition has for years attempted to deal with industrial disputes by legislation without much success. This is just another example of it. The Opposition also suggested that the monopoly not operate for letters between branches of an organisation or between an organisation and its subsidiaries. Mr Lloyd —Which is what Bradley recommended. Mr DUFFY —Bradley may have recommended it but I have told honourable members opposite that the government has changed. We do not necessarily accept that because Bradley recommended it ought to be implemented. Mr Carlton —He thought about it for a long while. Mr DUFFY —He might have thought about it for a long while. It might have been a better idea if he had thought about it for a bit longer. The Opposition does not even say in its amendments 'its letters'. I think the proposals that the Opposition put forward in regard to letters passing between branches or organisations or between an organisation and its subsidiary are just far too wide. I think that one could run a horse and cart- Mr Lloyd —If we change that, would you agree? Mr DUFFY — I would not care what you did to it; I would not accept it. I point out that the way the amendment is proposed at the moment, it is well worth drawing the attention of people to the absurdity of the definitions. I do not think that there is any reason why letters between companies-and I will come to the point the honourable member just made-should be exempt from the monopoly simply because they are subsidiary companies. As a substantive point, I do not in fact see why that ought to be. The suggested exemption from the monopoly for the input and the output of electronic mail would present an obvious way in which to avoid a monopoly. One can, in fact, have almost a contrived electronic input in respect of mail which would, in my view, allow the monopoly position to be avoided. I do not suggest that the Opposition had that in mind when moving its amendment but I think there are lot of difficulties in respect of that aspect. I do not think there is any argument in favour of it. The exemption from a monopoly of the carriage of letters to any post office rather than the nearest post office, as is the case in the present Act, is a matter which I would be prepared to examine further on the basis the Opposition has put forward. We can have another look at that. That is a matter which I think- Mr Lloyd —The point has been made. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member has had his go. I have taken the point that he has put forward that he considers that that is unsatisfactory. That is a matter which the Government- we are now the Government-will consider. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Lloyd's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Anthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Spender, J. M.Fife, W. C. Street, A. A.Fisher, P. S. White, P. N. D.Groom, R. J. Wilson, I. B. C.Hawker, D. P. M. Baldwin, P. J. Howe, B. L.Beazley, K. C. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beddall, D. P. Hurford, C. J.Bilney, G. N. Jacobi, R.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Young, M. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Brown, JohnNewman, K. E. Kerin, J. C.Hall, Steele Mountford, J. G.Millar, P. C. Jones, BarryBraithwaite, R. A. Cunningham, B. T.McVeigh, D. T. Theophanous, A. C.Cameron, Ian Kelly, R. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(8.42) —In this debate I am responding on behalf of the Opposition to the second reading speech of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. The Bill draws together amendments to four Acts in a number of distinct areas. The most significant changes are in the area of aged care, mostly relating to nursing homes. I shall return to that subject after I have dealt with the other areas covered by the Bill. A number of the changes arise from alterations to social security arrangements that require amendment to health legislation. These include: The restoration to unemployed school leavers of their entitlement to a health care card during the first six weeks after they leave school, before they draw unemployment benefits. This entitlement was inadvertently denied to them by previous legislation, but the anomaly was corrected administratively, so that this measure is a tidying up provision. The removal of the discrepancy between the health care card income test for sole parents and that for married parents with the same number of children. The issuing of health care cards to persons in receipt of unemployment and special benefits for a period of 12 weeks instead of the present period of two or three weeks, estimated to give net savings of $3m after allowing for the cost of some services obtained free outside eligible periods. The exclusion of the new remote area allowance from the definition of income for the purposes of the health care card income test for low income earners. Permitting the Director-General of the Department of Social Security to obtain information from a third party which may affect the entitlement of another person to a health care card. Bringing persons in receipt of the new spouse carer's pension within the category of eligible pensioner, and therefore entitled to whatever fringe benefits are available to eligible pensioners. The Opposition supports all these measures, together with the proposed changes to the isolated patients travel and accommodation allowance scheme-which we call IPTAAS-and the relaxation of referral procedures for patients with cleft lip or cleft palate. No major issues of policy are involved, but people will be assisted in needy situations, and administration will be improved. Similarly we support the amendments to the Medical Research Endowment Act to bring the administration of the Medical Research Endowment Fund into line with more modern accounting and auditing requirements. I must confess to being a little mystified as to why it should take nine months rather than six months to prepare and present the report on the fund to Parliament, but I am reluctant to question the progenitive processes of the biomedical research community, given its awesome assembly of brainpower. Perhaps it has more to do with the bureaucratic machinery with which it is of necessity encumbered. In passing I would like to acknowledge the bipartisan approach to medical research funding adopted by the present Government. I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear me say one or two nice things about his administration. Maybe it has something to do with the eagerness of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to impress constituencies outside his biennial party conference. It should be noted that the Government has met Mr Malcolm Fraser's policy speech commitment to increase the grants for medical research. This is in marked contrast with the Government's lack of success in meeting its own policy speech commitments. For example nine out of 10 Australian families are still waiting to pay less for their health care and to receive their promised tax cuts. A matter of interest and possibly concern to pharmacists is the proposed repeal of section 91 of the National Health Act, which imposes restrictions on the number of friendly society dispensaries in each State which are allowed to supply pharmaceutical benefits to members of the general public. I am informed only eight limited approval friendly society dispensaries exist, located in two States, South Australia and Queensland. I can understand the concern of community pharmacists in areas close to these eight dispensaries, as there would be a fear of loss of business. However normal businesses compete successfully with co-operatives in a number of areas of the economy, and it is therefore difficult to justify imposing trading restrictions on co-operatives in this particular area. Nonetheless I would like to warn the Government that the Opposition would vigorously oppose any further action by the Government to extend any special privileges to pharmacy co-operatives that would enable them to compete unfairly with independent private enterprise pharmacies. We have a firm commitment to small business, of which community pharmacies are a prime example. This Labor Government is highly suspect in its tendencies to use community health centres and hospital pharmacies to undermine private pharmacies. We would regard special privileges to co-operatives in a similar light. I turn to a totally different subject. The amendments to the secrecy provisions of the National Health Act to bring them into line with those of the Health Insurance Act. The inability of the Department of Health to provide certain types of information to courts and properly constituted professional hearings has hindered the pursuit of quite legitimate and necessary inquiries into fraud and malpractice. A number of examples arose during my period as Minister, and I indicated at the time my concern over this anomaly. There are, I believe, adequate restrictions on disclosure to protect the privacy of providers and patients without shielding wrongdoers. Another change in a related area is the proposal recommended by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts that medical or optometrical practitioners appealing against an unfavourable decision following an inquiry into overservicing will have to meet their own costs. It does seem rather unfair that this should apply in the case of a successful appeal, but we are informed that this provision follows the usual procedure for appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, so the Opposition will not oppose it. I understand that under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal system costs can be met under certain conditions. Perhaps the Minister will examine the matter to ensure that the rules are exactly in line with those applying to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I turn to the principal area of legislative change with which this Bill is concerned, the important and sensitive area of aged care. It is difficult to know how to approach the set of changes to the nursing home program outlined in this Bill. In themselves they are not sufficient to gauge the direction of change envisaged by the Government. They could be leading in a satisfactory direction, but they also have within them some signs that one bureaucratic nightmare is being replaced by another. Given the ideological bent of this Government and the natural inclinations of its advisers I fear the latter. At least on one thing the Opposition and the Government are in agreement: The need for change. The House will recall that as Minister for Health I expressed grave dissatisfaction with the existing order. In conjunction with my colleagues Senators Chaney and Messner, the then Ministers for Social Security and Veterans ' Affairs respectively, I set up a working party to carry out a thorough review of the aged care system. I also appointed a consultant within the Department of Health to examine in detail the systems of government subsidy for nursing homes. The Government will now have the benefit of the former study, although ominously the Department of Health expunged the consultant following the change of government, despite the non-political nature of the appointment and of the person concerned. I fear that this action has signalled a return to the Byzantine approach previously being followed by the Department in this area, and there were signs in the Minister's statement on Tuesday relating to fraud in nursing homes that this is the case. If so, God help the Minister and the Government, as they will be led down paths of unnecessary complication and bureaucratic interference with the voluntary and private sectors and in the end, as usual, the customers and taxpayers will suffer. The Minister says quite bluntly in his second reading speech that we have in Australia very ade- quate provision of nursing home accommodation, but inadequate community care services and hostel accommodation. Later on in the speech he describes his first steps towards 'achieving more meaningful assessment procedures' for determining the actual needs of the aged and disabled for various types of care. The assessment will address their medical, social and emotional needs. I agree with the Minister that this assessment cannot be carried out effectively by Commonwealth medical officers who do not, under the present system, have any contact with the patient. They only look, at the moment , at a form signed by a general practitioner, and they look at it in their office without seeing the patient. How on earth then, on the basis of existing assessments, can the Minister have the slightest idea as to whether or not Australia has, to use his words 'very adequate provision of nursing home accommodation'? I very much fear, from the Minister's speech, that he has prejudged this question. The mention of the cost of nursing home accommodation at the very beginning of his speech suggests that he is led to believe that to maintain a tight squeeze on nursing home accommodation and to rely on expanded hostel and community care facilities will both contain the cost problem and serve the aged and disabled better. Great caution must be expressed about such a conclusion. There is strong evidence from the United States of America that greater reliance on community care does not work out cheaper than institutional care. Also there is a limit to the capacity of families and friends to sustain the physical and emotional burdens of caring for the aged and disabled at home. Striking the correct balance between public demand and the legitimate call on the taxpayer is devilishly difficult in a non-market situation such as this, and the instruments currently available to the Minister, or even those available in the medium term, do not enable him to determine the balance he so confidently strikes in the opening section of his speech. Let us be quite clear about the concern of the Opposition in this area. The assessment procedures proposed by the Minister must not become instruments of coercion to squeeze the damand for nursing home places into a pre-determined mould, a mould set primarily by budgetary considerations. We will be watching these developments closely. The proposed new procedures for dealing with nursing home applications are subject to the same kinds of doubt. The power to decide on applications is transferred in this Bill from the permanent head to the Minister . We have no quarrel with that. The power will be delegated anyway. All the change means is that decisions on applications can be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and that is welcome. We also welcome the decision to table the principles for determining approvals for new or additional nursing home accommodation in the Parliament. It is to be hoped that there will be adequate consultation with the voluntary and private sector providers of accommodation and with members of this Parliament in the formulation of these principles. Members in this House in particular have a wealth of knowledge about the needs of their own community and of the potential contributions of community groups to the care of their own aged and disabled. Country areas have special problems in trying to provide local accommodation and are usually prepared to raise funds to build and maintain facilities that might not be regarded in isolation as strictly economic. Mr Fisher —Hear, hear! Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Mallee acknowledges that this is the case from his own personal experience. It is very important that the new procedures do not squeeze out these community initiatives which might take some years to develop and might not be able to respond instantaneously to a newspaper advertisement calling for applications in a particular area which is a provision of this new Bill. My Liberal and National Party colleagues will be watching these developments closely to ensure that community needs and aspirations are not crushed by the bureaucratic machine. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) who is in the House listening to this debate will acknowledge that there is a very great concern in country areas about the capacity of rural communities , which have a great willingness to contribute in this area, to be able to be fully involved in this particular process. Mr Cowan —That is right, and the conducting of administration. Mr CARLTON —That is exactly right. Also, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) has spoken to me about this matter. Unhappily I found this bureaucratic problem arising during my own period of administration as Minister for Health and I was seeking ways to overcome it in conjunction with State Ministers because they were also involved in this. As the Minister acknowledges, there is a need to decide these principles for new accommodation as soon as possible as the situation has been frozen for some time now and many communities and families are getting desperate. Let us do it quickly, but let us also get it right. Finally I would like to deal with some of the problems of those who provide nursing home accommodation in the private sector. I know that this Government has an inherent bias against the private sector, but I also acknowledge that the 1973 fee control system for which governments of both political colours must accept responsibilities turned out in the end, as all price control systems usually do, into both a lottery and a nightmare, with increasing proportions of booby prizes awarded to the participants. There is no doubt that some private nursing home proprietors did extremely well out of the scheme. It is equally clear that others were cheated and are still being cheated. There is no way that the administrative machinery of the Department can tell with any certainty which is which. Faced with rising costs and a crippling administrative burden, the Department developed a siege mentality on fee setting. The industry retaliated by increasing the number of appeals against adverse fee determinations, thereby compounding the processing problem. I must confess that in all my years of management experience, in private industry, in my own Party organisation and in the public sector I have never seen a tangle such as this one. I think my friend the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) will acknowledge that because he was the Chairman of a sub-committee of the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee which looked into this matter. I certainly regarded it as the most difficult political and management problem I faced as Minister. I regret that I was not given time to sort it out. The people spoke on 5 March and decided that I was not to be the person to do it and my friend opposite, the Minister, was given that task. It is also illustrative of the kind of situation that is all too prevalent in our system of government in which overworked Ministers are advised by civil servants with very limited management training, however substantial, as it often is, their technical expertise or intellectual qualities may be. There are ways of running billion dollar programs well, but our Public Service does not, as I have observed on so many occasions and will continue to do so until we sort the problem out, prepare its managers adequately to deal with these problems. As an aside, honourable members might be interested to know that the problem is not confined to Australia. In August this year I had the opportunity to attend a three-week course for senior managers in the United States Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. I was able to swap experiences with over 100 career officials, political appointees and military leaders facing similar problems in the United States. There are solutions to these problems, but they require a substantial reform of the Public Service of a kind not really addressed adequately, for example, in the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. However I will not dwell on this broader subject. Let me return to the question of fee determinations for private nursing homes. At first sight this Bill appeared to remove the statutory requirement on the Department to deal with a fee change application within two months. The removal of sub-section (1) of section 40AE of the National Health Act and the curious wording of the proposed new sub-section (1D) of section 40AD seemed to indicate that this spur to departmental action was to go. Although it was hardly ever met in practice due to administrative overload, it stood as a reminder that the world was not supposed to be mad, even if day to day it seemed to have taken leave of its senses. The Opposition decided to move an amendment to restore this requirement, a quixotic gesture some might say, but at least symbolic of our concern to restore some sanity into the situation. However, after lengthy examination of the twisted entrails of this Bill, assisted by officers of this House and drafting counsel, assistance for which I am deeply grateful, we have concluded that the new sections 40AD and 40AE, at least in theory, give nursing home proprietors a miniscule advantage over the present arrangements. What happens now is that a proprietor requesting a fee increase puts the application into the Department where it can languish well beyond the statutory limit of two months, and there is precious little the proprietor can do about it . Eventually the Department makes a decision. If it is not to the proprietor's liking, a not uncommon occurrence, the proprietor can ask for a review by the Minister. The Minister then seeks the advice of a Nursing Homes Fees Review Committee of Inquiry. There are literally dozens of these committees and the Minister for Health has to be very careful about remembering where they are, who belongs to them and who does the work. In bureaucratic machinery of this size an enormous number of people give almost voluntary service; they are paid some compensation, but they give almost voluntary service to carry out tasks which are of great complexity and, I suspect, in many cases relatively unrewarding. I pay them a very great tribute. The Nursing Homes Fees Review Committee of Inquiry then makes a recommendation to the Minister. The Department, in passing this recommendation on to the Minister, adds its own recommendation, which often conflicts with that of the Committee. Often it recommends a 50 per cent discount . It gives me no pleasure to report that, on the basis of my experience as Minister, this process is heavily loaded against proprietors and in some cases results in injustice. Endless delays can occur in the review process. The Committee of Inquiry has to rely on the same administrative processes that originally dealt with the application, and delays can extend over many months. Ministers, I found to my dismay, can be virtually powerless in trying to speed up this process. The procedure seems to have a life of its own, impervious to outside interference. In fact if honourable members want to examine this matter in great detail I refer them to the diaries of Richard Crossman; they are most illuminating. It is quite possible for proprietors to go out of business while all this is going on or, more likely, not going on. This Bill continues to exclude the fee determination process from Administrative Appeals Tribunal review, so proprietors will continue to have no redress short of legal action once the Minister has made his determination after a review. They can go to the courts, and some have. If honourable members doubt my comments about the rank injustice of this system, they have only to read the judgment in one of the more celebrated of these cases to have trenchant judicial confirmation of my views. As the Minister has foreshadowed a change in this system to one of program grants, the Opposition has refrained from moving an amendment to bring fee decisions within the ambit of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We will, however, watch closely to see whether the program grant system will act to the disadvantage of voluntary bodies or private enterprise in nursing home provision . If it does we will oppose it strongly, as most of the innovative developments in institutional aged care occur in the voluntary and private sectors. They must continue to be the main providers. The minor improvement in this Bill in regard to the fee question, which we eventually discovered by our reading of the Bill, is that it enables a proprietor to force a rejection of an application from the Department after two months, although the proprietor cannot force a considered determination. However , he or she at least has the opportunity to proceed with the review process once the rejection has been forced. There is no guarantee, of course, that the review process will not be subjected to delay and interference by the Department as it is now. I hope that the Minister will take steps to make that process work in the way it is intended to work. I tried. Overall, therefore, the Opposition offers no objection to the provisions in the Bill, although the House will note that our approval is heavily qualified and conditional. We will watch nervously on behalf of consumers, taxpayers and providers to try to ensure that they are not sacrificed to democratic socialism in practice. After the experience of the Medibank exercise, we confess to being very gloomy about the prospects. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(9.08) —This evening we are addressing ourselves to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). In the short time available to me I shall deal only with those matters relating to the changes in the Government's nursing home program. I am pleased to support the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in regard to this Bill. I was rather surprised to hear the Opposition spokesman for health say that he is worried about the provisions the Government has brought in in respect of the growth of nursing home approvals and by moving the approval for nursing home beds from a bureaucrat to the Minister. I got the firm opinion from the shadow Minister that when he was in government he intended to do just those things. There is no doubt that in Australia there has traditionally been a vast imbalance between the appropriations for nursing home beds and community care facilities. In fact we have one of the highest ratios of nursing home beds to aged population of any country. One has to look at why that imbalance occurred and at the steps governments need to take to rectify it. I suggest, as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, of which I am Chairman, suggested when it brought down its report entitled 'In a Home or at Home', that the main reason for the imbalance was the mechanism adopted by governments for approvals. The Minister most specifically is rectifying that approval mechanism in this Bill. In the past, if the Government wished to increase the appropriation for home care programs the matter had to be deliberated upon in the Budget Cabinet. However, approval to increase the payments to nursing homes or approvals for nursing homes did not even have to be given by the Minister; the job was done by the Director-General of Health. To give the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) his due, in his dying stages of his administration of the Department of Health he attempted to bring that matter under ministerial control. That was a commendable attempt but it came far too late. The statistics show that in 1976- 77 the Commonwealth appropriated $285m for institutional care. In 1982-83, the year of the last health budget presided over by the honourable member for Mackellar, the Commonwealth appropriated $848m for institutional care. In the same time, Commonwealth payments for home care rose from $32m in 1976-77 to only $77m in 1982-83. I suggest that the only reason for that imbalance was the mechanism of appropriation. The present Minister for Health is making sure that that does not happen in the future by providing in this legislation for the Minister rather than a bureaucrat to make those decisions. Nursing home beds will have to compete with home care programs in the Budget discussions. They will be on a par, which has not been the position in the past. I think the provisions proposed by the Minister to restrict nursing home bed growth will go a long way to providing more facilities for older Australians. My Committee found-I am sure that other members would agree-that very few people would choose to enter a nursing home. If given a choice between going into a nursing home and going into a hostel and having the same assistance provided to them, the vast majority of elderly Australians would choose a hostel. Governments cannot restrict nursing home growth and not increase provisions for hostels. This Government has taken that view. While we have put a restriction on the growth of nursing homes, we have increased funding for hostels. The savings which occur from the restriction of nursing home growth will ensure that more money is available for hostel approvals. However, I do not think the important thing is to have cost savings. Surely in this area of care for the aged we should be looking at what is most appropriate and desirable for the people with whom we are dealing. These people have gone through the Depression and the Second World War and have participated in the economic development of Australia. Surely they can look forward in their old age to the Government allowing them some dignity and allowing them to live out their lives in the manner in which they desire. I am sure that most of them would not like to live out their lives flat on their backs in a nursing home bed for which the proprietor receives the extensive care benefit. I am sure that hostels are far more appropriate institutions to provide that type of care. When the Auditor -General undertook an inquiry into the nursing home function of the Commonwealth Department of Health asserted that for 25 per cent of patients in nursing homes the level of care needed was lower than that provided. I suggest to the House that nursing homes were becoming a very expensive accommodation project for the previous Government. People were going into nursing homes because they were homeless. They were taking on that very expensive type of care when they did not need it. Why did that occur? It occurred, in my view, because of the lack of diligence on the part of the Commonwealth Department of Health. My Committee looked at one run of statistics which showed that of, I think, 149,000 applications for admission to nursing homes in New South Wales over a number of years only one was rejected. One would not think that that level of probability would apply to those ineligible for admission to nursing homes. The Minister put forward legislation earlier in this session and has now proposed amendments to the Health Act to allow the Government to institute assessment teams. These teams will ensure that the level of care people receive is matched to their level of necessity. As I said earlier, there is absolutely no point in admitting to a nursing home an ambulatory person who is cheerful but may have some slight disability when that person can be catered for far more competently and with greater personal benefits in a hostel. An assessment team will not be a big brother, as is somehow suggested by the rather more raucus members of the Opposition. In the words of the Minister for Health, the role of the assessment team will be to guide the people through the labyrinth. I think that is the most reasonable way to describe the assessment teams. The role of assessment teams will not only be to assess a person's eligibility for entry into a Commonwealth subsidised facility but also to provide advice to the person himself, his relatives and his general practitioner. These assessment teams are now in place and operating in many areas. The amendments in this legislation to provide for allocations for that purpose will ensure that people get a better deal. I spoke earlier about hostels being the vehicle by which we should provide an alternative method of care. I think, however, that when we look at providing more hostel accommodation we should not make the mistake that was made a number of years ago in providing sick bays in hostels. A number of hostel operators, both voluntary operators and those operating for profit, put to my Committee that all they needed to cater for many more people than they do at present was a couple of nursing home beds. I think if the Commonwealth ever allows that type of hybrid to come to pass again, it will only compound what occurred in the growth of nursing homes in the 1960s. The Government should resist at all turns and prevent that type of growth. Hostels are available for people who need some sheltered accommodation but who in the main can look after themselves, and that is what they should be for. They should not have attached to them some sort of halfway house between the hostel and the nursing home. I have been disturbed recently to see that a number of hostel operators are starting to charge people an entry fee or key money to get into their hostels. That unfortunate circumstance exists in retirement villages and the type of accommodation which is provided by the Commonwealth. I think the Commonwealth should ensure that it does not continue to occur in hostel accommodation. Hostel accommodation should be available, as is nursing home accommodation, to all those who need it, not only to those who can afford it. I believe that we should be making some assessment of those institutions or organisations that charge key money for entry into hostels and that, if possible, we should put a stop to that practice. In conclusion I raise two matters quickly. I know that a number of my colleagues want to contribute to this debate in the short time available. I am interested to see that the Minister in this amending legislation is starting down the line of providing protection for patients. This Bill will provide the power to curb some of the excesses of nursing home operators. I must agree with the honourable member for Mackellar that such operators are a minority, but some nursing home proprietors are taking advantage of their patients, in some cases considerable advantage. The provision the Minister has proposed to protect those nursing home patients who have given a power of attorney to a proprietor will go some way to putting a damper on many of those rorts that were found to be occurring in the industry. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, of which I am Chairman, suggested to the Government that it should set up a nursing home tribunal. The Government should look seriously at enacting legislation to set up such a tribunal because if any group in the Australian community is powerless, it is most certainly the group of people in sheltered accommodation such as nursing homes. Their problem is that once they have entered a nursing home, in most instances there is no way out. Having sold off their assets, they really are in the position that they have all their life's belongings in cubicles beside their beds. Once they have done that it is very difficult to get out of the nursing home. Those people are very much in the power of the proprietor or the voluntary organisation running the home. There needs to be some independent inspection unit. There needs to be an organisation to which proprietors, relatives or even agitator groups can appeal about some of the inequities that occur in a number of private nursing homes. A nursing home tribunal would confidentially receive complaints and would have the power to act . At hearings before my Committee 18 months ago I was pleased that the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Australia, the people who represent the private entrepreneurs, said they would be happy for that sort of tribunal to be formed. Indeed, Mr Gillroy, of the Australian Nursing Homes Association, said that he felt such a tribunal should have the power to fine proprietors who did not comply with the directions of the tribunal. While the Government is keen on consensus, we ought to look at that agreement from the entrepreneurs and form that tribunal so that people who have relations in nursing homes can make confidential complaints without their relations being discriminated against or being asked to leave because of the complaints. In conclusion, I commend the Minister and the Government on this legislation. It goes some way to implementing the Government's election promise to give a fairer deal to those people in need of sheltered accommodation in their declining years. The removal of the emphasis on nursing home accommodation will for a change allow people a real choice. I find it most difficult to understand the previous Government's much vaunted commitment to freedom of choice when one considers that in the nursing home area there was absolutely no choice. When a person got old, sick and infirm and needed care the only real choice for that person was a nursing home. The amendments which the Minister has introduced change that. With the Government's community health program and extended care program, old people in Australia in the future will have a choice. I commend the Minister on these amendments. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(9.23) —It is a great pleasure to follow the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) in this debate. He is certainly one of the better informed members of the Government on this and related matters. I cannot understand why he is not the Minister. Perhaps it is because he would turn up late for Cabinet meetings. I say that because of some personal knowledge of the honourable member. The Bill we are now debating is an omnibus Bill which amends the Health Insurance Act 1973, the National Health Act 1953, the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 and the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), with his usual expertise, covered many of the issues in this legislation now before the House, but I want to comment on some of those matters. Many of the provisions we are now discussing are not major policy matters. Many of them are really machinery matters and are not of great moment, but some issues are raised by this legislation. Much of the debate has related to nursing homes. I concur with some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Grayndler. Others I would certainly disagree with. Most of the significant amendments in the legislation relate to the administration of the Government's nursing home program. I believe the efforts of the previous Government in this area were exceptionally good. I think back to the efforts made by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle when she was the responsible Minister and to her successor, Senator Chaney, and the generous amounts of money they provided through their ministries for nursing homes around Australia. One thing to which the Fraser Government responded very well was the need and aspirations of people living in smaller communities and towns around Australia. In many towns in country areas nursing home accommodation was expanded and in some cases was provided for the first time. This is particularly important, because it is very sad when an elderly person has to leave his or her district to go to a nursing home many miles away. It is important that we try to provide accommodation for such people in their own environment, among their own families and friends and in familiar surroundings. I am sure that no honourable member would disagree with that contention. It is important that the provision of accommodation of this kind continues. Certainly we would have to agree that needs in Australia have not yet been fully satisfied. I am concerned by one comment made by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in his second reading speech: While Australia overall has very adequate provision of nursing home accommodation- He was suggesting by implication that he felt that overall an adequate amount of nursing home accommodation was available. The fact is that in many areas of Australia the need and demand have not been satisfied. It is important that the Minister is not complacent and that he recognise the needs. It is important that the Government is not complacent. It must do more, if it can, to provide more accommodation. I know that there is an argument that we should encourage people to remain in their own homes to be looked after by relatives or perhaps even to look after themselves. I may get on to that in a moment. Certainly the area I know best, my State of Tasmania, has a need. The nursing homes in Tasmania are screaming out for more beds and accommodation because they have large waiting lists, and it just is not good enough. It is very hard to determine accurately how long the waiting lists really are. I could not give the House a figure because sometimes people are on different waiting lists for different homes, waiting for suitable accommodation. The point is that there is a need which has not yet been satisfied. I agree with the notion that the ideal is for our senior citizens to remain in their own homes, if they can, or to live with their adult children or other relatives. No matter what the age or state of health of people may be, they can still make contributions to the community. This has to be recognised. They can pass on their wisdon and experience to younger generations, and the best way in which to do this obviously is for them to live in a normal environment in their own homes or with members of their own families. It is not as easy to pass on their wisdom if they are in an aged persons' home. That is the ideal, but ideals cannot always be achieved. Many people do not have their own home. They cannot afford to live in their own accommodation. In some cases they cannot care for themselves and, of course, in many cases members of their own family are unwilling, unfortunately, to provide accommodation for them. So, there is a job for the Government and it must obviously continue to assist these people and provide more accommodation, if possible. A problem I want to raise with the House and the Minister relates to the cost being borne by the pensioner when staying, for example, in a nursing home or a hostel. In many cases such people are required to pay a very large percentage of their pension by way of board. In some cases the home gobbles up the whole pension, so there is nothing left for individuals, to pay for additional needs, the little personal things that they might require in order to enjoy life a little more. That is very sad. In those cases, the pensioner has to rely on perhaps additional means that he or she might have, or help from relatives. That is not a very satisfactory situation. I understand that the Government recommends that 87 1/2 per cent of the pension of patients in nursing homes go to the home and that, where the patient occupies a hostel bed, the proportion should be 85 per cent. However, I know that certainly in my own electorate those recommendations are not always followed. This is causing hardship. It is something of which I am sure the Minister is aware and that must be watched very carefully. I wish to make a few comments about the isolated patients' travel and accommodation assistance scheme, IPTAAS, which is also dealt with in part of the legislation that we are now considering. This is a very valuable scheme and especially important to people who live in isolated areas. It gives them assistance in travelling to places where they can receive expert specialist medical care. It was a very excellent initiative of the Fraser Government and I am glad to say that the scheme is continuing. Indeed, the legislation embodies improvements which I am pleased to see. Two criteria are applied for eligibility under the scheme. One is that a person must be travelling to see a specialist medical practitioner and the other is that the person must travel a certain distance so to do. The distance specified is 200 kilometres from one's home to the place where one receives attention. In some instances, such as where one resides on an island, special conditions apply. I have in mind King Island, which has its own problems and is within my electorate. While I am pleased to note the proposed improvements to the scheme, I would like to mention certain aspects briefly to the Minister. I have already, on a number of occasions, made representations to him concerning patients on the north-west coast of Tasmania. That area is about halfway between Melbourne and Hobart. For official reasons, the Department has decided that Hobart is to be considered closer to the north-west coast than Melbourne. Physically, that is probably correct-depending on which part of the coast one lives in. The trouble is that many people go to Melbourne to receive their medical care; it is more convenient in many ways. One hops on a plane and one's destination is an hour away. To go to Hobart takes about four and a half hours, yet it is suggested that people should go there to receive attention under the scheme. I want to direct to the attention of the Minister two cases for his consideration. One is that of a man who was operated on in Launceston, Tasmania. The surgeon who performed the operation would not operate again although the man remained very ill. The man was referred to a specialist in Melbourne but the specialist could not operate on him for two months because of a heavy waiting list, so in turn the patient was referred to a specialist in Canberra. That specialist performed an operation and it was very successful, but the patient was not entitled to receive assistance under the scheme. In another case, a person had a life saving operation performed in Melbourne. His doctor on the north-west coast said that he should go there because there was a risk to his health if he travelled for four and a half hours by car to Hobart. Also a trip in a light aircraft across Tasmania can be very rough indeed . Therefore, it was recommended that the patient go to Melbourne by an ordinary commercial flight. Special arrangements were made; the patient went to Melbourne . Again the operation was successful. There were good reasons why the patient should actually go to Melbourne. Melbourne is a large population centre and more convenient in many respects for people living on the north-west coast. So, I hope that the Minister will give special consideration to people living in that area the next time he brings down amendments and thus help such people living in my electorate and others in similar situations elsewhere in Australia. I do not want to be parochial about this matter. The provision of skilled but non-specialist medical or related services is also important. There are people who have to travel large distances for dental care, for specialist optometry and for the fitting of prostheses-artificial arms and legs and so on. At the moment no assistance is provided under IPTAAS to these people. Again, I would hope that such assistance could be expanded to include people seeking such specialist services. I acknowledge again that under this legislation the Government is expanding the scheme to some degree. For that we are most grateful. There is always the matter of cost, but there is also the matter of equity and fairness to individuals in the community and when one analyses the scheme and the way in which it operates one sees that in some cases equity does not prevail. I ask the Minister please to look at the scheme again and bring down more amendments to establish a greater degree of equity for our citizens. Time is of the essence so I will wind up my remarks and allow time for other speakers to contribute. In short, the Opposition supports these amendments and I join in that support. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(9.36) —When we are discussing amendments to Bills which deal with the care of our aging, as we have been tonight and as I intend to do for the next few minutes, we tend to forget whom we are talking about. I would like to remind everybody here that we are talking about us as well as those people out there; that the quality of care for aging people is a matter of concern to each one of us. We anticipate living to a ripe old age and we hope that it will be a happy and comfortable one. We know, however, that it is probable that we will suffer some degree of physical impairment as we grow older and may suffer some degree of mental impairment also. It is important to realise that the things we are doing now we are doing not only for our constituents and for those people out there but also for our own benefit and that we need to be sensitive to some of the things that we say about that, I think. Because of those considerations, provision for a comfortable and secure old age is something that concerns us all. We in Australia for many years have not followed a practice which remains in some areas of the world, whereby aging parents live with the family and contribute to its daily activities. We have tended to isolate the various age groups in society, giving each group considerable freedom to determine its life style but denying each age group the support that family members can give each other. Very often that is a matter of mutual choice. It is not a matter of families neglecting to look after their elderly, or the elderly finding that they cannot get on with their families. It is simply a mutual choice which is often made in society. But the consequence is that elderly people are often alone when they are finding increasing difficulty in coping with the problems of daily life. Too often they are women who, because their lives are centred on caring for others, have learnt too little about caring and managing for themselves. We are reminded of that today by some members of the Combined Pensioners Association with whom we were talking. There is no doubt that many community organisations work very hard to alleviate these problems. Most are dependent upon voluntary assistance, which is given generously by many. The elderly citizens clubs, the Meals on Wheels programs, the day care centres attached to public hospitals and the large multi-level accommodation villages provide services of all kinds at varying levels. However for many elderly people the transition can be abruptly from home to nursing home , as suitable accommodation can be difficult to find and expensive to maintain. We do have an adequate number of nursing homes, not necessarily precisely where they are needed geographically, but adequate as to numbers of beds, particlarly if beds are not occupied by people who can remain in their own homes with adequate assistance. I know that many of the older people in my electorate would prefer to remain in their homes. Even if this presents a considerable degree of difficulty in managing their daily lives, they would prefer to stay where they have made their homes and they feel comfortable. It is important that there should not be an either-or choice. There is sufficient evidence already that elderly people who wish to remain independent can be helped to do that with adequate domiciliary care. This is a most important aspect of any coherent program for people and it is often forgotten because it has tended to lodge in the too-hard basket. Two aspects of domiciliary care are important. One is the continuing independence that it can support and the other is the portability of this type of care. The small rural towns we have heard discussed tonight are often too small to support any kind of institution for the care of the aging. In some towns the local hospital has frequently been called on to deal with long term care or people needing support have had to go to institutions in larger towns. We all know about the devastating psychological effect on elderly people who have to leave their familiar surroundings and live the remainder of their lives in an unfamiliar environment. That should be a last resort. The Bill amends the Act to provide for a restriction in the growth of nursing homes to provide funds for more varied and extensive care. In my electorate the eastern suburbs geriatric centre will operate as an assessment and day care centre to provide for the aging people of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne a more suitable range of choices for care and continuing independence. Such centres as these, funded with State and Federal moneys, have long been needed. I am pleased that it will be able to provide services for the aging people in my electorate as well as others quite soon. Centres which provide short stay programs with physiotherapy to assist movement, podiatry to improve walking ability, social activities to restore confidence and medical care where necessary, have a very important role to play in ensuring that aging people are not the forgotten ones. Too many elderly people in nursing homes in my electorate have no visitors from one end of the year to the other. Too many have no way to offer their very real wisdom and experience to the community and too many feel buried alive even though their physical health is cared for devotedly by the nursing home staff. There are, of course, people for whom full nursing home care is necessary. It is important then that the nursing home care be of very high quality. There have been some nursing home proprietors whose practices have been far from acceptable ; we all know that. The amendments which change the conditions of approval to protect patients from possible malpractice should be welcomed. In that context I share another comment that was made by some of us today, and that is that the restrictions and rules which nursing homes and some hostels use are humiliating to their customers and are unnecessary. I would like the people who own nursing homes and hostels privately and those who operate them for the Government to think very hard about whether it is necessary to make the rules before they do so. There have been sufficient examples of various kinds of malpractice over the years to indicate the necessity for the Government to take the greatest possible care with the ownership and practices of nursing homes. It is in the interests of everybody, especially those nursing home proprietors who observe the highest possible standards of responsibility and care, that clear and unequivocal conditions be imposed upon people who own or propose to own nursing homes. It seems reasonable to suppose that the combination of assessment teams, about which my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) has spoken, increased hospital accommodation, day and domiciliary care and short stay facilities for the restoration of social and physical skills is a more positive way of providing the necessary care for aging people than an ever expanding increase in the number of nursing homes. Age is not an illness, nor is it a reason to tuck people away from the wider community as if it were untidy and undesirable to be older. The achievement of independence is one of the most looked forward to and celebrated occasions in our lives. We should be very careful to ensure the continuation of that valued status for everyone as long as possible. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(9.44) —We have to appreciate that over the years in Australia there has been a very great increase in the services available for aged care within the community. When we consider the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No . 2) which is before the House we must keep that in mind. As the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), said earlier, there is a great need today to increase the services available and to come to grips with the problems that exist in aged care. When I speak about problems I refer to those of the Commonwealth and the States which cross each other's paths in providing this care. I trust that the legislation before the House will be a start to a much better arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States in providing accommodation for the aged. I appreciate that the Government has been considering for some time what its future policies should be. I know that committees in my electorate have been raising money for quite a period. They are anxious to obtain approval for Commonwealth grants on a one-third to two-thirds basis towards hospital units or nursing homes. They have not been able to proceed simply because the Government has been unable to make up its mind about its policies. I do not criticise the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for this. A committee was set up to report on what that policy ought to be and the direction in which the Government should go . As I indicated earlier, problems will be involved in providing future care for the aged. But I trust that the policy-this is the first indication of the new policy of the Government-will be directed towards providing proper care for aged people and developing the wish of the Government to care for the aged in hostels and at home. I do not think there is any conflict between the Opposition and the Government in thinking that we should as much as possible keep our parents, our uncles, our aunties and our aged relatives in their own homes, in their children's homes or in their friends' homes as long as it is possible to do so. But we have to be realistic. We have to appreciate that in many cases people do not have friends or relatives who are able to care for them, financially or in other ways. Many of our country towns in Australia do not have services available, either through district nurses, social nurses or hospitals, to care for people within the community. There is one group in the community whose work we must all fully appreciate. Approximately two-thirds of care for the aged is provided in private institutions. The other one-third is sponsored by the deficit funding scheme for nursing homes, and is paid for by the taxpayer. Public groups are formed within the community, sometimes through the church, to raise one-third of the cost of the erection of a building and to gain the approval of the Commonwealth and the States to operate a nursing home. I would not like the Minister to impose certain bureaucratic controls that could effect the proper operation of private nursing homes or hostels. This is very important. One of the successes with nursing home accommodation, particularly in country electorates such as mine and those of the honourable members around me, is the fact that those homes have been operated by local people. They have been operated by people elected by the community. They have gone to the service organisations and said: 'We want to collect money'. They got the money because they were enthusiastic enough to do so. They built the homes with the assistance provided by the Government and they conduct the homes under the regulations set down by the Commonwealth and the States. These institutions have been tremendously effective. I cannot criticise any that I know intimately within my own electorate or anywhere else in New South Wales. I never hear any complaints about them. I emphasise that they are conducted by local people. They are efficiently run and they provide a wonderful service that is so necessary for aged people within the community. I do not think that that should be overlooked in any way by the Minister or the Government. It has been suggested that the Government should put advertisements in the Press asking: 'Are local people interested? Is there a need here for a nursing home?' If those advertisements appear in the Press, the response will not be a true reflection of the community. As I said earlier, people within the community see the need themselves. They combine to raise the funds. If it were left to the Government to put an advertisement in the paper, people may not be alerted to it and may not be able to find out who wants to be in a nursing home. I think bureaucracy will intrude and people in departments will recommend that so many aged people in the community, 50 per 1,000 or something of the kind, whatever the yardstick is, should be admitted; that is what they have to go on. We will see a cluster of these new homes in the metropolitan area and not in the areas that the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) and I represent. That is the important thing. We come from the coast of New South Wales. I am sure that both of us have some feelings in common so far as the Nelson Bay area of the Lyne electorate is concerned. We have talked about this jointly. The local people are raising the money. They are building a hostel, with the assistance of the Commonwealth. They are seeking the money for a nursing home. The thing that we must remember is that people throughout the western areas, the smaller towns, off the farms and in the metropolitan areas want to move from those areas into pleasant surroundings near the beach, near their families, where they have care; they want to move into a nursing home or a hostel. I hope that these cases are not overlooked, because I believe they are very important indeed. I can recall the efforts of the people in one place in my electorate, Dungog. For years people there have been trying to build a nursing home. They have raised, I would say, approximately $100,000. Mr Carlton —A very good place. Mr COWAN —The honourable member for Mackellar certainly knows about Dungog because he received a deputation from the people there. Beside the State hospital are so many acres of land on which they want to build a nursing home. Because there is a conflict between the State and the Commonwealth, because they cannot work it out, they cannot build a home. There might have been instances over the years where deficits or expenses from the nursing home were cast on to the State. I do not know whether that occurs. Surely, with common sense, there must be some way of working out the cost of the operation of a nursing home compared with a hospital, so that taxpayer can be saved money. People in a nursing home can use the laundry, the kitchen and the facilities available. Yet the people from Dungog cannot receive approval, after all their work. They are willing to go ahead. They will administer the scheme, for sure. They will conduct the home. If an advertisement is put in the paper people will apply, certainly. Somebody will say: 'Yes, but the numbers are not there'. I say that many people from the Hunter Valley would go to Dungog. What occurs in that area is a typical example of what occurs in any other metropolitan area of Australia. These are the practical matters involved. I appeal to the Government. These are not synthetic things that we see in the legislation. I am very concerned about the legislation because it does not tell us very much about the future policy of the Government with regard to nursing homes, hostels or home care. We have not seen the guidelines properly. Mr Katter —Bush nurse care. Mr COWAN —The honourable member behind me said: 'Bush nurse care'. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) mentioned a while ago the care in his small country town by the district nurse and others at the hospital. The people are being cared for now, but there is room for improvement. The improvement that we want to see has to come from legislation. It should be practical to work. Local people should have a say. Under the legislation an assessment committee is to be formed. I ask: Who will sit upon the assessment committee? Think about our country towns. Who will appoint the members of that committee? The Minister, upon the direction or the recommendation of the Department? Will they be appointed upon the recommendation of the State or the Federal member? I do not know. However, I would be most interested to know who will sit upon the assessment committee in a country town in particular. Ms Mayer —Bush nursing sisters. Mr COWAN —Sure. I would be pleased to see them there. There will need to be more members than those. Who is to say that a person is eligible to be admitted to a hostel or a nursing home? I think these are the important questions. I was a member of a nursing home care committee in my community for many years. We had before us the advice of the nurse involved. We had the advice of a doctor who was probably a member of the committee. We had the advice of the chief executive officer of the hospital who was also possibly a member of the committee. What practical people in the community would be better to assess whether Mrs Jones or Mrs Smith should be admitted into a nursing home? This is the crux of the legislation. People working in the field can see how the good old folk who pioneered Australia are to be cared for. They do not want to be thrown about. I do not think the Minister wants the final say in this matter. Surely to goodness he does not want a pile of papers in front of him every morning of the week from a nursing home committee or from an assessment committee saying that someone is eligible and ought to be permitted to enter a nursing home or hostel. I do not think the Minister wants that. Leave it to the people out in the field who know what is needed from their own personal experience. I trust that the legislation will be practical when it is applied in the field. We look forward to hearing about other matters over the months to come and about the Government's policy with regard to aged care. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(9.58) —I commend the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) for his very thoughtful and positive contribution to this measure. I do not intend to delay the House, but I want to raise a couple of matters. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 is basically concerned with two matters that are of prime importance in the country, nursing homes and the isolated patients travel and accommodation allowances scheme. The remarks that have been made during this debate about the quality of medical and nursing home advice in the bush concern something that is of tremendous importance in my own electorate. I know how worried the proprietors of private nursing homes are at the changes that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is introducing and the implications of these changes in regard to their ability to sustain their operations. Numbers of proprietors are talking of either closing down or being forced to do so because of their inability to provide the same level of services which they have traditionally provided. If that were to happen I believe that it would be a great disservice to the community. It is something that I trust will not happen and should certainly not be induced by any legislative change introduced by the Government. I want to address in particular three areas which relate to the overall health policy of the Government. The first is that, of course, as far as nursing homes and hospitals are concerned, they will succeed only if there is an adequate level of qualified medical advice and medical services available. I am told that the Minister has had no discussions with visiting medical officers of the major public hospitals, whether in the country or in the city. Numbers of those medical officers have come to see me expressing concern at the changes that the Medicare proposals will impose on them. If these highly qualified specialists will not be able to receive something like fair compensation for the service they provide they too, like the nursing homes, will be forced to move on. Some will go overseas. Certainly, the level of service and attention that they provided, I feel, may well be prejudiced. I urge the Minister, given the very real degree of change that he is imposing on the visiting medical officers' way of life, to enter into consultation with them to try to remove some of the concern they now hold. In introducing this scheme, the Minister has very much changed a practice which for so long has seen most of these medical officers providing a contribution to the hospital on the basis that their own practices sustain their ability to provide those contributions to public hospitals for virtually no sessional payment. There are many variations between individuals. I believe that those problems need to be addressed. The second problem is that there are certainly very real difficulties in the maintenance of the way in which bills are to be issued by individual doctors. As I understand it, at the moment there is a necessity under the law to provide a number on a doctor's bill. It is different for each hospital and for each surgery. Wherever the doctor practises he is forced, even for the same patient, to provide a number. The consequences of that again will be an administrative nighmare and, I suspect, will not improve the medical care available to individual patients around Australia. I do not believe that is in any way in the interests of efficient administration of medical care in Australia. Debate interrupted. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being 10 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Dr Blewett-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr SINCLAIR —The other thing that worries me greatly in the general application of Medicare is that it seems to be based on 50 per cent of the community remaining members of private funds. In my view that will not be so. I do not believe that that will be possible of achievement in the country areas. I sense that the Medicare proposal and even the changes proposed in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) will finish up in a real medi-muddle, with higher costs and very real disadvantages for patients around Australia. I do not believe that the changes introduced by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) either in this Bill or in his other Medicare practices will in any way assist the average patient. The average taxpayer certainly will pay dearly. I fear that the patient will receive a far lower standard of medical care than has been the case traditionally in this country. Ms FATIN(Canning)(10.03) —I will not take up much of the time of the House. I would like to answer some of the problems brought up by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan). In a few moments I will address myself to those points. I join this debate tonight to comment briefly on existing aged care accommodation and aged care services in Australia. I am particularly pleased that this legislation removes the requirement for a Commonwealth medical officer to approve or deny a person's entry into a nursing home. A nursing sister will now be able to make that assessment in people's homes so that aged persons can be guided to the available services most appropriate to their needs. The honourable member for Lyne suggested that a group of persons or a board would make that assessment. That is not the case. A nursing sister rather than a Commonwealth medical officer will do it. She will be able to go into people's homes and make that assessment. Ultimately such assessments will be a precondition for aged persons either being admitted to a nursing home or receiving Commonwealth subsidised community care in their homes or at an hostel. Currently, approval of entry to a nursing home and approval of a person's eligibility for the higher extensive care benefit can be made only by a Commonwealth medical officer. This system does not involve any personal contact. The proposed measures are a step towards achieving more meaningful assessment procedures. Recently, the Federal Government ran a pilot scheme in Queensland to assess aged persons who had been recommended by their doctors for nursing home care. This pilot scheme proved to be a success, in that five per cent of the recommendations for nursing home care were reversed. I might add that the doctors were very happy with this. The nursing sister was able to assist elderly people and their relatives to choose alternatives to nursing care and to secure assistance in their homes so that they could stay within the community. The services they were offered included Meals on Wheels, home help care and visiting community nurses. The Bill now allows this type of assessment to be conducted throughout Australia. For a number of years I worked with aged people, mostly in the community. Like many nurses, I have been distressed with the plight of aged men and women who, against their wishes, have had to leave their homes and become permanent residents in nursing homes. At last we have a government which is prepared to address itself to this very difficult problem and commit itself to offering alternatives. As I said earlier, with this new home assessment it will be easier to keep people in their homes with adequate support schemes. I would like briefly to give just one example of the persons and the type of care to which I am referring. A gentleman for whom I cared was 87 years of age and blind and his wife was 95 and very frail. They had lived for 50 years in the community in which I worked and wished to stay in their home. With the assistance of domiciliary care, with home help so that they could have their shopping done and some of their home cleaning done and with a weekly doctor's visit, these people were able to stay in their home for three years, during which period I cared for them. They did some of their own cooking and they washed some of their clothes. The blind gentleman actually did his own gardening . I suggest that they contributed something to that community by being able to stay in their home, by being part of that community rather than having to leave that town and go into residential care in a town 50 kilometres away. Home care programs should be given pride of place by any government. This Government and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) are developing such a program. The basic strategy for a successful home care program is to create a community-wide structure of services designed to bring support to the elderly in their homes as well as to bring the elderly to daily community services. Nursing and other paramedical services should be delivered to the frail aged in their homes without charge. Home maintenance, home help, and delivered meals and home aids should also be available free of charge. A community is much healthier with its elderly citizens living within it. Not only does a government save money by helping people stay in their homes but it also enriches the community by doing so. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper)(10.07) —I feel it is necessary to make some further comments in respect of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) before the House because of the confusion brought about, in particular by the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin), who has just spoken. That confusion arises from a lack of understanding of what the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) told the House in his second reading speech about the proposals embodied in the legislation for admission to nursing homes and his quite separate reference to a consideration of applications for permission to construct nursing homes, or, in former terminology, applications for bed allocations for the construction or provision of nursing homes. The Minister said: Consideration of nursing home applications has been deferred while the new growth control guidelines are being settled and the arrangements proposed in this Bill are being put in place. I remind the House that, in answer to a question asked in this House at the beginning of the first session of this new Parliament, the Minister said: ' Proposals in the pipeline will continue. The Government will ensure that there will be no cessation of projects that are in the pipeline'. He did not qualify that statement. But I am sure that many communities in this country-certainly communities in my electorate-assumed that he meant that those nursing homes that had either a bed allocation or were applicants for a bed allocation and had funds to substantiate their applications would be regarded as being in the pipeline. I am very concerned-concern was also expressed by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan)-that there appears to be, on the part of the Government and certainly on the part of the Minister, a broken promise in sight. I hope that the words of the honourable member for Canning are not an attempt to back that up. Certainly members of my Party and other members on the Opposition side of the House have a very high regard for the principle that people should remain in their homes as long as possible and that every effort should be made to assist with the care of people in their homes. Home nursing services, Meals on Wheels and every other avenue should have the strongest support of the community. It must be recognised that the stage is reached when all that kind of help, no matter how it is delivered and in what circumstances it is given, can no longer meet the needs of aged people. This confusion that we have at the moment is very worrying not only for aged people who are anticipating going into nursing homes but also for those communities which have worked so hard to try to ensure that this will be possible. I am not referring to overservicing or to people who just for the sake of it apply to the Government for a subsidy for a nursing home project. I am referring to those who have a real need. I hope there will not be too much confusion between the assessment proposals and the well intentioned expressions of need to assist to a greater extent with hostel accommodation notwithstanding the increased provision which allows people to be so accommodated. I hope that the nursing home requirement will not be placed in a secondary role or become the play thing of a bureaucratic system. I hope, as the honourable member for Lyne said, that some obscure committee will not make an assessment of a region which as yet has not been explained in this House by the Minister for Health or described in the legislation. One can only assume that some rather obscure proposal will be made to deal with assessing whether a community needs a nursing home. I will give the Minister two examples of what is worrying me. In my electorate an application has been made for an additional nine beds in a nursing home to augment a project which is already under construction. Initially the project was given approval for 30 beds. In discussions with the Department of Health-the Minister's own Department-the project manager was advised that it was unwise to go ahead with the proposed 30 beds. There should be 40 beds. He was requested to put in an application straight away for an additional nine or 10 beds so, as the Department put it, that would be a more satisfactory proposition. This project is under construction. We have waited months for the Minister to respond to the application. I have had correspondence with him and he has replied to my representations. This is an abrogation of what was indicated in this House some months ago. I hope that the Minister will explain to the House tonight what his intentions are in the matter. The second matter that is worrying me relates to Macksville, a town in my electorate on the north coast of New South Wales. A constituent is waiting for approval for a nursing home project which will augment an existing situation. The number of beds have been approved and the local community has the necessary funds. Tenders have been called and a very satisfactory tender has been submitted. If the project were delayed, costs would rise due to inflation. Obviously, the project should proceed. The people concerned want it so. However, under this legislation the project is obviously threatened, although approval was given some time ago. Can the local community be sure that under the bed allocation the Commonwealth share of funds will be forthcoming? I hope that that kind of circumstance will be cleared up by the Minister and not left swinging as it is at the moment on the face of what has been explained in the Minister's second reading speech. If the system described by the Minister is introduced there will be little encouragement for communities to go ahead as they have in the past to raise funds. Sometimes it takes eight or nine years from the time it is suggested a home be built to its completion. It is known at the time that it will be in demand but this sort of work is not done overnight. I find it very clumsy and a very odd way to tackle the matter to advertise in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, the local newpaper and the metropolitan press as well as inviting applicants to submit a proposition for a nursing home and still have regard to the long established and successful system of building such homes with community support. I appeal to the Minister to consider some mechanism that would at least offer to the community in which there is a need, a preliminary opportunity to apply for the necessary permit to give the necessary lead time that the communities have experienced in the past. I refer to organisations such as the St Vincent de Paul Society which is in so many towns and Frank Whiddon Masonic Homes of New South Wales. These chains of homes for the aged did not come into existence a short time ago. They have been working in this field for 50 years. If they are to be confronted with the bureaucratic approach that we find in this legislation, obviously they will be able to contribute less to the community than other church organisations or community based groups that are formed for the purpose of sponsoring homes for the aged. Their work would virtually be put into mothballs becuase of the uncertainty, the doubts and the inability of people to respond to an adertisement in the Gazette. As I said a moment ago we need a mechanism that gives people a lead time in order to put up a proposition so that they can establish their viability by fund raising and all that is associated with it. Does this legislation mean that we would be handing over responsibility entirely to the other field as to private nursing homes? I have every respect for those who have invested capital in private nursing homes and who continue to do so. In some respects that saves the Government finding part of the capital required. For many years we have had private nursing homes and those sponsored by community groups. I hope that this Government will not cast aside the community group approach. I refer particularly to charitable work. Of course, that has been very much a part of the work of churches. I refer not only to the Roman Catholic Church but also to the Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and the Baptists. They have all worked exceedingly hard in this field in my electorate. Are we going to say to them: 'We are not interested in the way you have done things in the past. Your reward is to put in an application if you see an advertisement in the Government Gazette or local newspaper'? If honourable members opposite suggest that that is a sensible way of tackling this important charity work, this Government has gone as socialist as we expected it to. This Government has been so cornered by bureaucratic do- gooders that it has lost its way in this field. I appeal to the Minister to clear up this matter tonight in a manner that will be in the best interests of those who do the kind of community work that has been so successful assisting homes for the aged over so many years since the introduction of the scheme by the Menzies Government in about 1949. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(10.20) —First of all, I thank all members of the House who have participated in this debate. Apart from a few barbs from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) about the Medicare scheme-that is not relevant to this legislation-the House has, on the whole, displayed a welcome bipartisan attitude to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). I am very glad indeed that there has been general support from the Opposition for the changes we have made to the health care card. We have tried to make the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme-IPTASS-more flexible in regard to accommodation, travel and referral. Again, I welcome the support from all sides of the House. In response to the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), I accept the need for even greater flexibility in IPTASS. We are further investigating ways in which the scheme can be improved. I do have to point out, as I think he admitted , that it is very much a matter of cost. I note that, between the years 1981-82 and 1982-83, the increase in expenditure under that scheme was 45 per cent. This year we budgeted for an increase of 37 per cent in that scheme. So we must have regard to those costs; but, nevertheless, I accept the point for the need for trying to develop a more flexible and humane scheme. The Government is having a further look at a number of other related issues under the IPTASS proposal. The honourable member Mackellar has raised the matter of friendly society dispensaries. I simply assure pharmacists that this is a very minor amendment. It relates to only eight pharmacies-three in Queensland and five in South Australia-which have limited approvals and we have now given them full approvals . They are the only ones affected by the legislation. The State legislation in both South Australia and Queensland prevents any exploitation or further development. I point out that in the States of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, though there has been for many years room for great expansion under the full approvals, that expansion has not taken place. These pharmacies are not at all affected by this legislation. So we have no expectations that this will pose any threats to private pharmacies and small business pharmacies in this sector. The evidence is overwhelmingly against the claim that these changes which have taken place in certain specified States, or in the other States will have any effect on the rest of the pharmacy sector. The debate tonight has mostly related to nursing homes. I would just like to take up a few of the points that have been raised by members to see whether I can respond to some of the queries that were raised. First of all, there have been numerous references to my statement that overall there is an adequacy of provision in nursing home beds at this time. I did stress the word 'overall' because I accept the point made by the honourable member for Braddon-I think the point was also made by members on my own side-that there is still some significant maldistribution. Undoubtedly, there are areas in the country which are under-provided with nursing home beds. Whatever the overall picture, there is continuing maldistribution in certain areas. But, as the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) pointed out, we have considerable evidence that there is a general adequacy of provision. For instance, by comparison with most other countries of comparable economies, we do have a very high ratio of nursing home beds to aged population. As the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who is at the table, knows, a whole series of reports which came to him when he was the Minister for Health and to the honourable member for Mackellar, showed clearly that a significant proportion of people are inappropriately located in nursing homes. A conservative figure suggests about 20 per cent. I have no doubt that there will have to be some further growth in nursing home beds simply because of the expansion of the aged population in our community. But the ambition of the Government is to try to moderate that growth by building up the domiciliary and community provision for old people. We are not saying that there will be no more growth in nursing home beds. We expect that growth to take place inevitably because of the increase of the number of the frail aged in our society, particularly the very old frail aged. But we do hope to moderate that growth by providing more adequate home and domiciliary services so that the old people will be in a much better position to choose the kind of accommodation most appropriate to their emotional, social and medical needs. The issue of assessment was raised by the honourable member for Mackellar. I am very glad that some of the speakers on my own side did point out, very clearly, that assessment is not intended as some kind of instrument of coercion. We, on this side of the House, are very aware of the bureacratic dangers of the assessment system and, being aware of that, are determined to develop an assessment system which will serve the needs of the aged rather than simply allocate them to particular institutions. Firstly, we see assessment helping old people and their relatives to determine the most appropriate form of care for their needs; secondly, it will assist to guide old people through the rather labyrinth of services that often exists at the local level; and, thirdly, as I pointed out, the assessment system will help us very much to identify gaps in the provision of care for the aged in our community. I agree utterly with the honourable member for Mackellar about the extraordinary problems in the fee control area. He described it as a tangle of which he had never seen the like in all of his managerial experience. I think I would accept that description. I must say that that part of his speech sounded to me very much like a confession because in the end he said his time- Mr Carlton —You didn't given him much time. Dr BLEWETT —That is right. His time was up before he could deal with this problem. Hopefully, we are beginning to tackle some of these problems. Again, I thank very much the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) who has had a deep dedication to this field. He stressed the need to provide systems which would enable old people and their relatives to have a real choice about the type of care that would be provided. That notion of providing a range of services enabling old people and their relatives their relatives to have a real choice is central to the whole concept of the Government's policy. Finally, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) and the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) raised issues about general nursing home policy. But it did seem to me that they were based, first of all, on a misconception of how the system operates now and, secondly, on a misconception of how the system will operate in relation to this Bill. I would just like to explain both of those points. The system, as it operates now, is already based on regions. We are not designing any new regions. What happens now is that people put in an application for a nursing home, which is examined by the co-ordinating committee in each State which is made up of State and Commonwealth officials. If they find that nursing home bed numbers are not sufficient in the region already defined, they give an approval to the nursing home to go ahead, or give approval or a right to build a nursing home with a set number of beds. Mr Ian Robinson —Your Department will not identify the regions. Dr BLEWETT —That was true under the previous Government, as it is true under this Government; that is, a set of regions already exists. So there is no change whatsoever in this basic regional notion. That is the first point. The second point is that in fact the changes proposed in this Bill are designed to achieve the very objectives that the honourable member for Cowper and the honourable member for Lyne were talking about. Under the present procedures, it is first in , first served. So, if a private nursing home gets in first and makes an application and there is a bed need it gets the establishment no matter what other community groups have been working away to establish nursing homes in that area. There are several areas, particularly in New South Wales at the moment, where community groups have been clearly disadvantaged by this first in, first served proposal. This Bill is suggesting that the local people-it may be a private nursing home; it may be a community group-make the application and it is only if that application is recognised as identifying an area of need that an advertisement is put in the local Press. The whole of the community will get a chance to make an application which is most relevant to the needs of the community. For instance, a private entrepreneur with resources may look around the State of New South Wales and identify a low bed area and say: 'Here is an opportunity'. He puts in an application which is the first for the area. It is recognised by the co-ordinating committee that there is a bed need, but instead of giving it to that entrepreneur we say to the local community: 'There is a need for beds in this area. Are there any proposals?' So the need is identified first not by the bureaucracy but by an application made by some group in relation to that area. Rather than approve the application that gets in first we want to try to approve the best, which in many ways is most responsive to the community. I think the proposal will go a long way towards guaranteeing and protecting the interests of the community in getting in that area the best nursing home provision, the best bed provision, in terms of what the community thinks is most appropriate. It will certainly help to solve some of the unfortunate situations that have developed in parts of this country, particularly in New South Wales, where well organised private entrepreneurs have got in ahead of hard working local community groups, and because they have been first in under the present system they are the ones who get first serve. The proposals in this Bill will address the worries and concerns of both the honourable member for Lyne and the honourable member for Cowper. As regards the other question raised, all approved allocations when this Government came to power have proceeded. It has been one of my pleasures to open quite a number of nursing homes, particularly in New South Wales, but generally around the country, built on approvals that had already been made when we came to power. It is true that since we have been in power there have been no approvals; these will begin in the new year. We will put on extra staff so that we can very rapidly fill in whatever gaps have occurred in that nine-month hiatus period. I thank all honourable members of the House again for the co- operation they have given and for their support for these measures. I hope that at least in most of our health policies we can continue a reasonable and bipartisan support for health measures that will improve the health condition and health status of the Australian people. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Kampuchea-Public Education Motion (by Dr Blewett) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.35) — Over the last few months we have seen a growing debate about the Government's approach to the question of the Vietnamese occupation of Laos and particularly Cambodia. Unfortunately for this House and the people of Australia the Government has not seen fit to come forward with a considered statement of policy in relation to these most important matters, matters which, of course, have seen the development of dispute between our Association of South East Asian Nations neighbours and allies and the Australian Government as the Australian Government appears to be pursuing a policy which can give comfort and succour only to the Government of Vietnam and cause despair to those people of the Khmer origin who wish most vehemently to have the opportunity to decide their own form of government in the country of their birth . Tonight I shall take the opportunity to refer to a question posed to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at Question Time yesterday to which, unfortunately, he did not seem to have the answer. When he was giving a run down of editorial opinion as to the Government's policy, he was asked what Pravda said about Australian policy in relation to the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea. In the House of Representatives yesterday the Prime Minister replied: As I said, I regret that I cannot quote Pravda- We can help the Prime Minister. As we know, he will shortly leave Australia to go to a most important meeting in Bangkok. I think he should have the benefit of a complete knowledge of editorial opinion both in Australia and overseas as to the views which countries outside Australia have in relation to the policy being pursued by this Government. I shall quote from a 'World Service' commentary on 17 October at 15.30 Greenwich mean time by Oleg Zernov. That commentary states that the ASEAN-Australia conference planned for 24 October had been postponed following the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) that Australia would not vote for the ASEAN resolution on Cambodia at the United Nations. I shall quote the views of the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Australia's stand. I should like the Prime Minister, when he quotes editorials, also to bear in mind the Soviet's view of Australia's stand. That representative said: Australia's stand indicates that the true state of affairs in Kampucea, the obviousness of the national rejuvenation there, is slowly gaining recognition even among countries of what is called the developed capitalist world. There we have it: Firm approbation from the Soviet Union as to the Australian policies in relation to the continued Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. Why would the Soviet Union not approve of Australia's policies in relation to the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia? The fact of the matter is that the Foreign Minister in June of this year gave comfort and moral assistance to the people of Vietnam and the Government of Vietnam in their continued occupation of Kampuchea and also, of course, of Laos, by saying that he believed the resistance there was a wasting asset. He believed that the resistance to the Heng Samrin puppet government was a wasting asset. We all cast opprobrium on the activities of Pol Pot. Mr Baldwin —Do you want to give it all back to Pol Pot? Mr MacKELLAR —I am grateful for the interjection from the honourable member. Everyone in this House would have no truck whatsoever with the atrocious government of Pol Pot. But how many people on the Government side look at the history of the puppet government in Kampuchea and look at the history of the leader of that puppet government, Mr Heng Samrin? How many people on the Government side point out that Heng Samrin was a founding member of the Khmer Rouge? How many people point out that Heng Samrin was a close associate of Pol Pot? How many people point out that Heng Samrin was responsible for the movement of thousands of people from the towns into the jungles of East Kampuchea and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of intellectuals, teachers, public servants and the like in that area? There was not one peep out of the Government in relation to Heng Samrin, the puppet government installed by the Vietnamese occupying forces in Cambodia. There were a lot of words about Pol Pot but not one word about the person who was closely associated with Pol Pot who is the present puppet ruler of Kampuchea. The fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union and Vietnam are immensely pleased at the attitude displayed by the Government. In fact Australia is the odd man out in the Western world because of the attitude we have taken in relation to this horrific matter. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(10.41) —I refer to a statement that was made last Tuesday by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). I have advised the honourable member for Bennelong that I would raise the question this week if I had the opportunity to do so. During an attempt on the part of the honourable member for Bennelong to denigrate public education and public education school teachers in Australia, he said: We are dealing with a whole new generation of parents who are worried about the quality of the state education system. Mr Porter —Hear, hear! Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am pleased to hear the interjection from the honourable member for Barker to the effect that he endorses comments of that kind. We are becoming accustomed to them in this House. It reflects little credit on members of the Opposition that they continue to attempt to discredit the public education system in Australia. We know that the Opposition wants to starve that system of funds. The honourable member for Bennelong then compounded his attack on public education by going on to say: They are worried that the teachers unions in Australia contributed $750,000- The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) interjected: 'How much?' The honourable member for Bennelong repeated the claim. He said: They contributed $750,000 to the Australian Labor Party's campaign funds. That is a deliberate misrepresentation. It rests very uneasily on the shoulders of the honourable member for Bennelong, who is generally proud of the position of integrity which he maintains with some effect in this House. The claim was subsequently taken up on the same day by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), who said: . . . there is no doubt in my mind that this Government has been influenced by the Australian Teachers Federation which gave, as somebody said today- that was the honourable member for Bennelong, of course, who made the unsubstantiated and false claim- $750,000 to finance this Government in its efforts to come into power. The matter was reported in the following day's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald as follows: Mr Howard claimed the Prime Minister's admissions on education during the past two days confirmed that his Government was now meeting its obligations to the Teachers Federation following their contribution of $750,000 to the Labor Party at the last election. I do not know where that claim originated. I have more respect for the honourable member for Bennelong than to believe that he just dragged it out of the air. He was obviously quoting someone. I understand that it may have been that person in New South Wales called Mr Valder. I have taken the opportunity to examine the financial statements of the Australian Teachers Federation. Its campaign budget for 1983 indicates quite clearly that the total amount that it spent in the campaign was $166,205. That information comes from the audited financial statements of the Australian Teachers Federation. Not one item of that donation represented a donation to any political party. The affiliates of the Australian Teachers Federation, that is, the State branches, possibly spent up to $200,000. The cost of goods and services such as time could add another $100, 000 to that figure, making a maximum of $500,000 from all of the teachers' organisations in Australia as part of their own campaign. This all represents part of a continuing, malicious, deceitful and orchestrated campaign by the representatives of privilege in Australia against this Government, the Australian Labor Party, the 78 per cent of parents who have children at government schools, the pupils of those schools, the teachers of Australia and the professional organisations of teachers. Teachers within both the public and private sectors of our education system are overwhelmingly committed and dedicated people. They and their professional organisations should not be misrepresented to meet the miserable objectives of the Liberal Party of Australia. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.45) —Mr Acting Speaker- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 29 November 1983, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 10.46 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Hodgman to move- That this House- (1) Notes the Prime Minister's admission that he did not know what Pravda had said about Australia's policies on Vietnam; (2) Draws to the Prime Minister's attention an official statement on 17 October 1983 by a spokesman for the Soviet Union, who said Australia's stand indicates that the true state of affairs in Kampuchea, the obviousness of the national rejuvenation there, is slowly gaining recognition even among countries of what is called the developed capitalist world, and (3) In the light of the Soviet Union's enthusiastic applause of the misguided foreign affairs policies of the Government, calls upon the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to get back on the right track. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 17 November 1983: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1983-No. 12-Survey of migrants status-March 1984 Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Social Security-O. Taylor. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 357 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The table below sets out an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injuries for the years 1978 to 1983, by State: ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS No. No. accepted/ Sex of Year of claims rejected claimant Type of duties performed NEW SOUTH WALES 1978 nil 1979 1 1 accepted F Typing/Keyboard 1980 1 1 accepted F Typing/Keyboard 1981 2 2 accepted F Typing/Keyboard F Computer Operating 1982 4 4 accepted F Typing/Keyboard F Typing/Keyboard F Typing/Keyboard F Computer Operating 1983 2 2 accepted F Typing/Keyboard F Typing/Keyboard VICTORIA 1978 nil 1979 1 1 accepted F Loading/Unloading of dishwasher 1980 nil 1981 2 2 accepted F Typing/Keyboard F Lifting files and writing 1982 6 6 accepted F Loading food trays F Typing/Keyboard F Lifting of files F Accounting machinist F Typing/Keyboard F Typing/Shorthand 1983 6 6 accepted F Typing/Keyboard F Typing/Keyboard F Accounting Machinist M Shaping prostheses F Typing/Keyboard F Typing/Keyboard QUEENSLAND 1978 nil 1979 1 1 accepted F Date entry/Keyboard 1980 4 4 accepted F Accounting machinist F Lifting files F Typing F Repeated stamping 1981 3 3 accepted F Moving files F Moving files F Typing/Keyboard 1982 6 6 accepted F Typing/Keyboard F Index machining F Lifting files F Lifting files F Pushing trolley F Typing/Keyboard 1983 nil WESTERN AUSTRALIA 1978 to 1981 nil 1982 1 1 accepted M Report writing 1983 2 1 accepted F Typing/Keyboard 1 1 not determined as yet F Folding of laundry items SOUTH AUSTRALIA 1978 nil 1979 2 2 accepted F Lifting and carrying boxes of files M Cooking and preparation of food 1980 3 3 accepted F Checking chemist accounts F Filing F Cleaning and washing 1981 nil 1982 1 1 accepted F Lifting patients 1983 2 2 accepted F Keyboard-data entry F Typing/Keyboard TASMANIA Nil claims lodged for the years 1978-1983 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Nil claims lodged for the years 1978-1983 Question No. 406 Mr Gear asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Can the Minister supply up to date information for the Electoral Division of Tangney on the number of persons receiving payments from the Department of Social Security in each suburb (not postcode) by (a) types of benefit, (b) pension and (c) payment received, for each month from March to August 1983. [In substitution for the answer which was previously supplied to the honourable member] Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Information on the numbers of persons receiving social security pensions and benefits, and the payments received, in each suburb in the electoral division of Tangney is not available. Statistics are available only by postcode (not suburb) for pensioners at 30 June 1983 and beneficiaries at 27 May 1983. The postcodes included in the electoral division of Tangney as advised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, are (the bracketed percentages represent the proportion of the postcode's population which was in Tangney at the 1976 Census): 6,102 (100 per cent) 6,152 (50.5 per cent) 6106 (95.4 per cent) 6153 (56.1 per cent) 6107 (95.1 per cent) 6154 (26.6 per cent) 6108 (100 per cent) 6155 (100 per cent) 6109 (100 per cent) 6163 (7.6 per cent) 6110 (100 per cent) Due to changes in electoral boundaries of the electoral division of Tangney in 1979, the figures supplied are only an approximation. This information is not yet available for the 1981 census. The above percentages have been applied to the numbers of pensioners and beneficiaries in the postcodes to estimate the numbers in Tangney, as shown below. Numbers of pensioners in institutions paid by group cheque in the electoral division are also included. (a) BENEFICIARIES AT 27 MAY 1983 Unem- Postcode ployment Sickness Special Total 6102 544 44 23 611 6106 18 1 1 20 6107 1 165 68 35 1,268 6108 437 28 6 471 6109 350 50 13 378 6110 720 59 19 798 6152 383 25 15 423 6153 270 22 7 299 6154 55 3 1 59 6155 1,634 80 55 1,769 6163 147 10 6 163 TOTAL 5,273 355 181 6,259 (b) PENSIONERS AT 30 JUNE 1983 Supporting Rehab. Wives Wives Widows Widows Parents Allowees Postcode Age (Age) Invalid (invalid) A B Females Males Sea* & Wives Total 6102 2,181 37 239 62 99 135 197 19 1 7 2,977 6106 23 1 8 3 3 - 2 - - 2 42 6107 1,572 48 327 100 110 166 299 15 1 14 2,652 6108 382 13 71 24 41 44 90 5 - 8 678 6109 310 11 78 27 25 36 83 4 - 4 578 6110 1,004 25 159 50 66 85 177 8 - 7 1,581 6152 1,215 12 102 20 68 78 141 8 - 6 1,650 6153 904 8 71 16 29 49 55 1 - 4 1,137 6154 148 2 7 1 3 7 11 - - 1 180 6155 2,171 49 313 112 237 214 464 22 1 29 3,612 6163 185 6 51 19 22 22 48 2 - 2 357 SUB TOTAL 10,095 212 1,426 434 703 836 1,567 84 3 84 15,444 INSTIT- UTION CODES 363 1 21 - - 5 - - - - 390 TOTAL 10,458 213 1,447 434 703 841 1,567 84 3 84 15,834 * Sheltered Employment Allowees (c) Not available The Australia Post postcode publication for Western Australia (1982) lists the post offices or localities included in each postcode, but these are not always indicative of suburbs. Also, as only a portion of some of the postcodes are included in Tangney, it is impossible to tell which localities make up that portion. The following table shows the localities listed for the postcodes included in Tangney: Post Office, Locality Postcode (*) = Place Name 6102 BENTLEY Bentley South Bentley WAIT *Bunning Park *Carrawarra East *Clontarf *Rowethorpe St James WAIT Bentley 6106 Welshpool 6107 CANNINGTON Beckenham *Beeloo East Cannington Forbes *Fraser Downs East Kenwick *Langham Gardens Maniana Queens Park Queens Park East Wattle Grove *Waverley Wilson 6108 Thornlie *Crestwood *Homestead Park *Parklands *Partridge East *River Glades 6109 Maddington *Davison *Fairway Park *Glenwood East Orange Grove 6110 GOSNELLS *Blue Hills East *Crestville *Ellisbrook East *Heather Glade *Hillview Huntingdale *Karrilika Martin *Riverside Park *Seaforth Southern R 6152 COMO *Bonnie View *Collier Como Beach Como Station Karawara Koonawarra Manning *Mount Henry *St Lucia *Salter Point Waterford 6153 APPLECROSS Applecross North Ardross Brentwood Canning Br Applecross Coffee Point *Deepwater Point Mount Pleasant 6154 Alfred Cove Booragoon Myaree 6155 WILLETTON *Bannister Gardens Bateman Benningfield East *Bridgewater Bull Creek *Burrendan Canning Vale *Cedar Vale Ferndale Langford Leeming Lynwood Melville Glades *Parkwood Riverton Riverton Bridge Rossmoyne Shelley Sotheby East *Vellgrove *Wavel Downs 6163 HAMILTON HILL Bibra Lake *Blackwood East Coolbellup *Davilak *Hamilton Heights Hamilton Hill West Hilton Kardinya *Lorrain East *Melville Camp North Lake O'Connor *Phoenix *Robbs Jetty Samson *Sommerville Forrest *Southwell Spearwood *Walyangup *Winterfold Question No. 463 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) Which organisations in Western Australia received grants towards the cost of (a) sheltered workshops and (b) activity therapy centres under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act in 1982-83. (2) In each case what was the amount contributed by the Department of Social Security. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Table I lists organisations which received funding for sheltered workshops and activity therapy centres in 1982-83. Table II specifies the total assistance granted in 1982-83 to the organisations listed in Table I (under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974) in respect of all approved services they provide. Table III lists all new projects and grants approved for funding in 1982-83, including grants for salaries, equipment, rent and capital projects. TABLE I ORGANISATIONS FUNDED FOR SHELTERED WORKSHOPS Good Samaritan Industries Good Sheperd Convent Paraplegic-Quadriplegic Association of WA Inc Royal WA Institute for the Blind Slow Learning Children's Group of WA Inc Spastic Welfare Association of WA Inc Tuberculosis & Chest Association of WA Inc ORGANISATIONS FUNDED FOR ACTIVITY THERAPY CENTRES Paraplegic-Quadriplegic Assocation of WA Inc Slow Learning Children's Group of WA Inc Spastic Welfare Association of WA Inc Richmond Fellowship of WA Table II HANDICAPPED PERSONS ASSISTANCE ACT ASSISTANCE TO ORGANISATIONS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA OPERATING SHELTERED WORKSHOPS OR ACTIVITY THERAPY CENTRES1982-83 Amount Total Amount in in respect assistance respect of of activity 1982 -83 sheltered therapy for all workshops centres Organisation funded services 1982-83 1982-83 $ $ $ Good Samaritan Industries Equipment 1,988 1,988 Rental 17,951 17, 951 Salaries 294,362 294,362 Nil Training Fee 500 500 314,801 314,801 Good Shepherd Convent Salaries 45,516 45,516 Nil Paraplegic-Quadriplegic Association of WA Inc. Equipment 30,863 30,863 . . Rental 10,080 10,080 . . Salaries 612,678 541,635 71,043 Capital 364,385 364,385 . . 1,018,006 946,963 71,043 Richmond Fellowship of WA Equipment 9,145 Nil Amounts in respect Salaries 31,564 of ATC approval Maintenance 7,703 cannot be separated as service operates 48,412 a fully integrated residential/ATC program . Royal Western Australian Institute for the Blind Equipment 23,100 23,100 Salaries 113,116 79,808 Nil Maintenance 4,440 . . 140,656 102,908 Slow Learning Children's Group of WA Inc. Equipment 144,302 11,190 51,764 Rental 76,464 30,387 21,468 Salaries 2,666 ,836 115,851 903,022 Maintenance 39,961 . . 12,818 Capital 723,381 . . 521 ,699 Handicapped Children's Benefit 98,650 . . . . 3,749,594 157,428 1,510,771 Spastic Welfare Association of WA Inc. Equipment 66,494 20,348 9,241 Rental 28,182 24,574 * Salaries 570,705 *78,371 *44,194 Maintenance 3,293 . . . . Capital 1,052,602 400,848 * 1,721,276 524,141 53,435 Tuberculosis and Chest Association of WA Inc. Equipment 72,805 51,108 Rental 33,804 33,804 Salaries 235,669 210,036 Maintenance 2,493 1,310 Nil Capital 15,896 . . Training Fee 1,000 1,000 361,667 297,258 * Excludes administration staff. * Included in figures for workshop as premises are shared. Table 3 NEW PROJECTS APPROVED FOR FUNDING 1982-83 1. Projects requiring subsidy on buildings. Fundings approved (estimate of approvals in Organisation Project principle) $ Human Resources Foundation Adult training centre Morley and Bayswater and Osborne Park Rental Salary *7,174 *60,000 Paraplegic-Quadriplegic Association of Western Australia Inc New sheltered workshop additional grant Capital 366,445 Shire of Wongan-Ballidu Construction of children's hostel Capital Equipment Salaries 106,506 16,000 *25,500 Slow Learning Children's Group of Western Australia Inc Activity Therapy Centre conversion Fremantle Training Centre, Beaconsfield Capital Equipment Salaries 291,018 19,795 *77,284 Slow Learning Children's Group of Western Australia Inc Construct new premises for children's hostel Esperance Capital Equipment 49,600 8,000 Slow Learning Children's Group of Western Australia Inc Construct new premises Rockingham Activity Therapy Centre Capital Equipment 274,000 18,400 Slow Learning Children's Group of Western Australia Inc Rental of additional factory by Sheltered Workshop, Welshpool Rental *7,488 Slow Learning Children's Group of Western Australia Inc Rental of additional administration offices West Perth Rental *5,720 Spastic Welfare Association of Western Australia Inc Construct new Treatment and Training Centre, Coolbinia Capital 650,000 Spastic Welfare Association of Western Australia Inc Purchase of new sheltered workshop premises, Malaga 1st instalment (2nd instalment of grant approved for 1983-84, then brought forward to 1982-83-see below) Capital 160,000 Tuberculosis and Chest Association of Western Australia Inc Extensions to Florence Hummerston Hostel Capital Equipment 11,446 10,198 2. Projects originally approved for 1983-84 and brought forward to 1982-83 Paraplegic-Quadriplegic Association of Western Australia Inc Sheltered workshop nursery project, Wanneroo Rental *13,440 Slow Learning Children's Group of Western Australia Inc Purchase of 2 houses for community residential programme, High Wycombe Capital Equipment 55,480 2,815 Slow Learning Children's Group of Western Australia Inc Construction of Stage II Bunbury Children's Hostel Capital Equipment 87,744 10,000 Spastic Welfare Association of Western Australia Inc Purchase of new sheltered workshop premises, Malaga 2nd instalment (1st part of grant originally approved for 1982-83) Capital 240,000 3. Projects approved for 1982-83 which did not involve subsidy on a building Richmond Fellowship of Western Australia Combined Activity Therapy and Residential Programme Delta Project, Bassendean Salaries *21,750 Slow Learning Children's Group of Western Australia Inc Establishment of a Professional Programme Development and Evaluation Team Salaries Equipment *25,208 1,200 Slow Learning Children's Group of Western Australia Inc Citizen Advocacy Programme Salaries Equipment *13,585 6,000 Servite College/Order of the Servants of Saint Mary Training centre for children conducted jointly by Servite College and St Keiran' s Primary School Salaries *15,860 * Per annum. Question No. 572 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) How many independent Aboriginal medical services received federal assistance in 1982-83 and what was the total allocation of funds for this purpose. (2) What is (a) the name of each recipient organisation and (b) the amount allocated for 1983-84. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 31 Aboriginal medical services were funded in 1982-83 at a total of $4,701, 613 from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and $1,893,258 from the Commonwealth Department of Health (2) 1983-84 funding is as follows: Commonwealth Department Department of Aboriginal of Health Organisation Affairs (Est.) Total $ $ $ New South Wales AMS Redfern 756,600 (1) 247,000 1,003,600 AMS Durri 187,200 (1) 178,000 365, 200 AMS Gillawarra 49,000 - 49,000 St Pius X Mission 92,000 - 92,000 Wimpaatja Medical Co-op-Wilcannia 10,000 (2) - 10,000 Victoria Victorian Aboriginal Health Service 623,992 (1) 322,000 945,992 Gippsland and East Gippsland-Bairnsdale 55,500 121,000 176,500 Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-op- Shepparton 50,400 107,000 157,400 Central Gippsland Aboriginal Co-op-Morwell 134,900 - 134,900 Murray Valley Aboriginal Co-op-Robinvale 139,800 - 139,800 Lake Tyers Aboriginal Trust 32,100 - 32,100 Ballarat and District Aboriginal Co-op 57,400 - 57,400 Dandenong and District Aboriginal Co-op 19,900 - 19, 900 Echuca Aboriginal Co-op 24,300 - 24,300 Swan Hill Aboriginal Co-op 44, 600 - 44,600 Various AMS's: Bulk grant for emergency dental treatment 25,000 - 25,000 Queensland Aboriginal and Islanders Community Health Service- Brisbane 342,400 (1) 209, 000 551,400 Aboriginal and Islanders Community Health Service- Townsville 281, 900 (1) 134,000 415,900 Kambu-Ipswich 81,500 73,000 154,500 Aboriginal and Islanders Community Health Service- Mackay 65,000 - 65,000 Wu Chopperen-Cairns 258,900 (1) - 258,900 Woompera Muralug-Cairns 43,000 - 43,000 Aboriginal and Islanders Community Health Service-North Stradbroke Island 19,000 - 19,000 South Australia Aboriginal Community Centre-Adelaide 20,700 71,000 91,700 Davenport Community Council-Port Augusta 56,900 127,000 183,900 Western Australia AMS-Broome 149,800 - 149,800 AMS-Geraldton 123,600 - 123,600 AMS-Perth 338, 500 (1) 160,000 488,500 AMS-Kalgoorlie 78,000 - 78,000 Northern Territory Kalano Association Inc-Katherine 85,300 - 85,300 AIMS-Darwin 58,900 - 58,900 CAAC-Alice Springs 418,400 (1) 279,000 697,400 Urapuntja-Utopia 463,100 - 463, 100 Pitjantjatjara Homelands Health Service 747,400 - 747,400 Nganampa Health Service-Central Reserves 525,000 (3) - 525,000 Walangura Health Service- Kintore 70,000 (4) - 70,000 TOTAL 6,529,992 2,028,000 8,557,992 Notes: (1) Includes funding for dental services. (2) Capital funding only. (3) Does not include further funds of approximately $400,000 to be reallocated from the South Australian States Grants Health Program. (4) Interim grant only: further funds to be allocated when total budget for 1983-84 has been developed. Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) What are the terms of reference of the inquiry to be conducted by Dr Coombs into the operations of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the National Aboriginal Conference, Aboriginal Development Commission and Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. (2) With regard to the inquiry (a) how will it be conducted, (b) what resources have been made available, (c) when is it to be completed, (d) will the report be made public, (e) what form of consultations will be taken following the report and (f) what is the estimated total cost. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The terms of reference for the inquiry being conducted within my portfolio by Dr H. C. Coombs are: to assist and advise the National Aboriginal Conference in its consideration of its future structure and functions and its methods of operation; to report to the Minister on these matters and on the relationships of the NAC with other Aboriginal organisations and the agencies within the Minister's portolio. (2) (a) Dr Coomb's inquiry is to be based upon extensive consultation with Aboriginal communities and organisations and will include workshops with the NAC Executive. (b) In addition to research and support resources provided by ANUTECH, an Aboriginal Officer from the National Aboriginal Education Committee and an Aboriginal officer from the NAC are assisting Dr Coombs and further resources will be made available if needed. (c) The inquiry is due to be completed by the end of December 1983. (d) Yes. (e) A decision on further consultations will be made after receipt of the report. (f) The budget for the inquiry is $79,780. Question No. 580 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Is funding available to Aboriginal families to enable them to return deceased relatives to their tribal land for burial. (2) If so, (a) what amount was spent for this purpose in 1982-83, (b) what amount has been allocated for 1983-84 and (c) what form of assistance is available. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department does not provide direct assistance to Aboriginals for funeral and transport costs. However, Aboriginal organisations have been funded in the past to purchase appropriate vehicles to assist in the transport of bodies for burial. (2) (a) and (b) Nil. (2) (c) This matter is the responsibility of State and Territory welfare authorities. All such authorities will arrange a basic ('pauper's') funeral for Aboriginal people at the place where thay die should this be the only available option. This is not acceptable to most Aboriginal people. Some States and the Northern Territory will provide limited ($50-350) once-off payments or transport assistance, subject to a means test, to assist Aboriginal families with the cost of transporting and burying deceased relatives. I have asked the National Aboriginal Conference to examine the possible development of a funeral and death insurance scheme. In addition, I have asked the Aboriginal Development Commission to examine the possible establishment of a funeral fund or other appropriate arrangements. Question No. 596 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 11 October 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to plans of the United Kingdom organisation, Action for Research into Multiple Sclerosis (ARMS), to establish 40 treatment centres to contain a 3.72 tonne 3 metre diameter pressure chamber designed by Kelistone Marine Ltd of Suffolk and which is able to accommodate 6 handicapped persons at a time who can be observed through a window. (2) Is he able to say whether ARMS believes their proposed hyperbaric treatment will delay, possibly arrest and at times relieve multiple sclerosis following observations over 3 years in the United Kingdom and the United States of America . (3) Will he investigate current assessments of this type of treatment with a view to possible public support of one or more pilot treatment centres in Australia and the South Pacific. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) ARMS-Action for Research in Multiple Sclerosis is a voluntry self-help charity managed by a committee of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) to raise money and conduct research into this disease. The organisation is generally sponsoring, supporting and managing those avenues of research which its management committee feels have been less than adequatley funded and supported from traditional sources. One of the stated aims of ARMS is to enable the maximun number of multiple sclerosis people to benefit from the use of the hyperbaric oxygen chamber in the search of better disease management techinques. The Organisation's assessment of the situation is that in view of the evidence it is correct to make this treatment available to as many chronic sufferers as possible. The ARMS contends that whilst hyperbaric oxygen may be unable to prevent progression in some cases and that it is not a cure, it can offer improvement of a significant nature to between one third and one half of sufferers and that repeated treatment is required to maintain improvement. (3) Although there have been many reports over 30 years of beneficial effect on the progress of multiple sclerosis of hyperbaric oxygen, all the reports have been of studies performed without controls and not using an established disability to scale to measure to effects. All the studies did indicate a positive effect from the treatment. One only randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has been reported in the medical literature: that of Fischer et al, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 308, No. 4, on 27 January 1983. This study involved 40 people divided into 2 groups-one group received placebo treatment. The participants were followed up for one year. This study supported results of previous uncontrolled studies and demonstrated a mild and transient improvement in most patients. It showed that those with milder disease of short duration derived a more pronounced and longer lasting benefit. In concluding his report Fischer emphasised that the results should be received with caution and regarded as preliminary. They require confimation by other independent research centres. The author stated that the results indicated that furter consideration should be given to hyperbaric oxygen as a treatment for multiple sclerosis but that it could not yet be generally recommended for these patients. In the UK an uncontrolled study was carried out by Dr Phillip James, Senior Lecturer in Occupational Medicine, University of Dundee, on behalf of ARMS. A report of this study by Dr Duncan Davidson, who is the Consultant Neurologist to the Tayside Health Board and Hon Senior Lecturer in Medicine, University of Dundee, was published by ARMS. In this study the 38 patients who underwent treatment were followed up for 22 days and were assessed by the same scale as that used by Fischer. Improvement in approximately one third of patients with bladder symptoms, sensory symptoms and ataxia was described but no benefit overall in other functions. In concluding his report Dr Davidson stated that there was a risk that numerous small units may be tempted to provide hyperbaric oxygen therapy while its benefits had not been established. He stressed that large double-blind controlled studies should be established in one or more centres using better assessment scales and examining treatment of both acute relapse as well as chronic multiple sclerosis. Despite this warning form Dr Davidson, ARMS is proceeding with the establishment of 40 units to carry out treatment. The units are to be run by trained volunteers, no medical practitioner being in attendance during treatment . No controlled trials are being carried out by ARMS. The Multiple Sclerosis Society in the UK has started four controlled trials. Results of these trials will be evaluated in 2 years. The Medical Research Council (UK) has established a sub-committee on hyperbaric oxygen therapy. It is expected to report its findings to the Department of Health and Social Security next month. In Australia hyperbaric oxygen therapy is being used in the treatment of spinal injuries but no recognised units in a medical setting in Australia are working in the area of multiple sclerosis. Because of the nature of multiple sclerosis and in particular the great variety of symptomatology, and the variation in rate of progression of the disease in individual patients, large numbers of patients would need to be enrolled in a clinical trial in order to establish the effectiveness of the treatment. No one centre in Australia would be able to conduct such a trial; therefore it would be appropriate to await results of major trials being conducted overseas at present in order to assess this mode of treatment before establishing pilot treatment programs in Australia. Question No. 616 Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: When will the Government announce the future of the Port Wakefield, South Australia, proof range, in particular, Port Parham and Webb Beach. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Discussions have started between Commonwealth and State officials on how an extension to the proof range could best be implemented. An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared, following which a specific proposal would be considered by the Government in the context of the 1984-85 Budget. A government decision and announcement on the proposed extension of the Port Wakefield range is therefore envisaged in the latter half of 1984. Question No. 622 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: (1) When was the report Water 2000 completed. (2) Why has it not been released and when will he release it. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The report was finalised in July 1983 after consultation with the States in the Australian Water Resources Council. (2) The report was then sent to the printers together with associate consultants' reports. The main report was tabled in the Senate on 8 November and consultancy reports have been lodged in the Parliamentary Library and in libraries throughout Australia which have a particular emphases on water resources. Question No. 665 Mr Moore asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) Did the construction of a wheelchair ramp at the entrance to the Commonwealth Government Centre, Ann Street, Brisbane, ordered by the Fraser Government and constructed by the Department of Housing and Construction, take over 23 weeks to complete and during this time was the main entrance to the Centre closed to the public; if so, why did the construction take this time. (2) What was (a) the original estimate of time needed for the construction and (b) the final cost of construction of the ramp. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The wheelchair ramp was physically completed and available for use by the public 23 weeks after the date of award of the contract. The Ann Street entrance was closed to the public for approximately 18 weeks while the work proceeded. Access to the building was via the Plaza entrance. Completion was delayed because the contractor experienced difficulty in obtaining supply of stone facings needed to match the existing building. (2) (a) The time specified for completion of the contract was ten weeks. (b) The final cost of construction of the ramp was $40,705. Question No. 673 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in the Minister's Department and any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, from the date of assent to the Public Service Amendment Act 1983, 7 October 1983, to 31 October 1983. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) and (b) nil. Question No. 707 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 November 1983: (1) Has he received a telegram from the President of the Registered Seedgrowers Association of New South Wales, calling for the immediate release of funds for research into theagronomic and financial effects of stripe rust on the Australian wheat industry. (2) Did he meet the President of the Association at Sydney airport five days after the telegram had been sent and know nothing about it; if so, does this indicate that inadequate attention is given to serious and urgent issues that are raised with him. (3) Has a reply been provided to the Association; if so, (a) when was it sent and (b) what was its content. (4) If a reply has not been provided (a) what are the reasons and (b) when will a reply be sent. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I am unable to say whether a meeting took place; however, the matter raised in the telegram was under consideration by the Department of Primary Industry at the time. (3) (a) A reply was sent on 15 November 1983. (b) The response provided information in the substantial and continuing funding of research into stripe rust of wheat by the Wheat Industry Research Council since the discovery of the disease in 1979. It indicated that the Council had taken an active interest in the effects of the disease on the current crop, inspecting its effects at first hand and holding extensive discussions with growers and researchers on appropriate action. It also provided information on the Council and the other research bodies constituted under the Wheat Research Act 1957 with a view to facilitating a formal approach for funding should a specific need for additional research be identified. The response also indicated that the Association's concern has been brought to the attention of the Wheat Industry Research Council, and pointed out the need for Council endorsement of any research program before expenditure of funds can be approved by the Minster. (4) Not applicable.