Tuesday, 29 November 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is overseas. I am Acting Prime Minister until Mr Hawke returns late tomorrow. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is acting as Leader of the House. I also inform the House that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) left Australia on 20 November for discussions in the United States of America and Europe concerning nuclear waste management and renewable energy generation. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is Acting Minister for Resources and Energy until Senator Walsh returns. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) commends the honourable member for Hindmarsh and others for their personal courage in publicly exposing the fact that a recent resolution was 'bludgeoned through Caucus' amidst discontent and anger; and (2) in the light of this additional evidence of intimidation, calls upon the Government to call on for debate notice of motion No. 261, General Business, standing in the name of the honourable member for Denison to refer this national scandal to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee for inquiry and report. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the encouraging signs of economic recovery provided in the latest Bureau of Statistics figures for the three months to the end of October, in particular those applying to the production of steel, bricks, cement and refrigerators; (2) recognises that these figures and those on capital inflow provide further evidence of the success of the Federal Government's economic policies; (3) notes the further encouraging trends in interest rates; and (4) calls on other financial institutions to follow the recent round of interest rate reductions. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes- (1) that the time-honoured title for the best rifle shot in the Australian Army , the Queen's Medal, has been awarded annually since 1924; (2) that the Queen is still Queen of Australia; and (3) therefore urges the Government in the strongest possible terms to reinstate immediately the Queen's Medal as the top honour for the Army's champion shot. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. What is today' s position on the assets test? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The position is unchanged. There will be an assets test. I note the honourable gentleman says that there will not be an assets test if he is ever elected. I do not suppose we need discuss that any further. It is a question of equity between people who have no assets and no income and have to rely on the pension and those who have substantial assets and apparently no income and collect the pension. That is the problem to which I think any government, if it is interested in looking after the welfare of its citizens, might have regard. It is quite ridiculous to think that people with substantial assets but with no income-some of them putting money into property trusts for capital accumulation-can avail themselves of other taxpayers' money by way of a pension. The real issue for any government is to improve the standard of living of those people who are no longer able to work and who have to rely solely on a pension for their sustenance. That certainly makes it very clear, does it not, that if the pension is the only income those people have and if others have hidden income by way of capital appreciation which entitles them to get around the thrust of the problem, a government must do something. The Government has been looking at the issue from the point of view of equity for all people of pensionable age. It is very anxious to guarantee that people obtain at least 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, and that will mean an increase in the present base rate of pension. To be able to increase that base rate of pension adequate funds need to be available. It is a misuse of financal resources to give them to people who do not need them and not to give them to those in need. As the honourable member would be aware, many people, even in his electorate, would be anxious to improve their standard of living by getting more by way of a pension. It can be done. I want to assure the honourable gentleman that regardless of what test is brought in and when it is brought in, it will be fair and equitable and in accordance with the dictates of what one would call the conscience of the Australian people. Mr KENT —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program and Press articles concerning Australia's aid project on the island of Samar in the Philippines, which it is claimed is assisting in supporting the Marcos regime? In view of the Australian Labor Party's policy that overseas aid should not be given as a means of securing political or military advantage and the serious reservations that have been expressed in the media, does the Minister consider that there is justification for discontinuing this project? Finally, would the Minister agree with me that Australia's aid in the region should be aimed at the eradication of extreme poverty and should be given without any political ties? Mr HAYDEN —I have not seen the programs to which the honourable member referred. However, I am aware of the case of Northern Samar and of the controversy which continues to surround that project which was undertaken by the last Government in about 1978-79. My reading of the relevant documents suggests that, at best, the economics of the program are highly questionable and that, more likely, it is not a viable economic proposal. When the second stage of the program was presented to me I required that some alterations be integrated into the program so that some of the proposals for concrete highways were changed and all-weather gravel-surface roads were substituted. A number of other adjustments were made. I still have doubts about the economic viability of the project. Nonetheless, the project is well developed. Sometimes, much as one may not like making these sorts of decisions, one must weigh up the political considerations. I am sure they would have weighed on the mind of the last Government and I have not sought to embarrass it on this matter. In relation to the military use of the highway, I am not sure what the figures are in relation to Northern Samar, but in the case of Zamboanga del Sur, concerning which similar criticisms were made, survey material made available to the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, which it has passed on to me, suggests that utilisation of the road by the military is under 2 per cent of the total utilisation. If roads are put down obviously military forces will use them , as will a lot of other groups. I am sure no one would argue that road construction should not proceed because drunken drivers are a risk to the security of people and they will use highways. It is an incidental. The evidence in Zamboanga del Sur is in fact that there has been a substantial improvement in income levels as a consequence of that program being developed there. The final question raised by the honourable member to which I should address myself is whether our aid should be provided, I presume exclusively, for the elimination of poverty and without any political requirements tied to it. I am not quite clear what the honourable member has in mind in regard to political requirements. I am unaware of any. Certainly I cannot recall seeing any reference in any of the papers I have seen to any political requirements being imposed on the recipients of this aid. But I say to the honourable member that while there is fairly actively promoted in Australia by some committed and well- intentioned groups, for whom I have a great deal of respect, a campaign based on the argument that all aid should be grass roots aid-whatever that might mean-and none should for infrastruture, that is not a view which I share. In fact, it is a view which I hotly dispute. I believe that there ought to be a blend of both. I think that it has to be recognised that infrastructural development is essential if the rate of economic growth in these areas is to be accelerated. If that is not accepted the rate of improvement in the condition of all people, including the poor people of these particular countries, is going to be much slower than it otherwise would be. Mr ANTHONY —I ask the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade whether he recalls in the Prime Minister's speech to the Australian-Thai Chamber of Commerce in Bangkok on 22 November, the following comment: We need concerted efforts to re-establish conditions consistent with an open, multilateral trade regime. We must get beyond words and exhortations-purposeful action and a sense of commitment is what is required. I ask the Acting Prime Minister to explain how he reconciles that statement with the report that the Government will move early next year to restrict imports of four-wheel drive and light commercial vehicles by limiting imports in the next two years to the import totals for this year? Will the Acting Prime Minister take this opportunity to follow the advice the Prime Minister has given and announce that such a further restriction in an already restricted market will not go ahead? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is always a great difficulty when dealing with a question of trade in getting the balance between what people want to sell us as against what we are able to sell them. When one looks at the automotive industry, it is very important to look at the fact that a large number of people are employed in that industry. As the right honourable member would be aware, particularly from his own experience at the time, we cannot afford to place an industry in jeopardy simply because there might be no restrictions on imports, for example, of light commercial vehicles. Those particular vehicles have now developed what we might call a popularity of design which certainly affects the ability of car manufacturers in Australia to maintain their market. The reason is not so much that they are commercial vehicles as that they have now become private vehicles. So it would be rational, would it not, to ask: Why not give them the same classification as is already given to private vehicles? One has to look at this matter in relation to what is affecting the market. I do not know whether the right honourable gentleman accepts the position that it is helpful to have more unemployment in General Motors, Ford or Mitsubishi on the basis that import penetration is occurring in the area of private vehicles when, in fact, they have the classification of being light commercial vehicles. Any honourable member who looks at it from that point of view will see that that is consistent with what the Prime Minister is saying. I think that when he was talking about regional development he was not just saying that he was concerned about the fact that the Japanese market, which basically is from where the light commercial vehicles come, was to be in any way affected by some regulatory mechanism. I do not think that is the issue at all. What he was concerned about in regard to the question of regional trade is certainly what we all ought to be concerned about-that Australia, I repeat, is one of the least protected of all markets in the region. We compare very favourably with Japan from the point of view of where the protective devices are. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has basically been a failure because it relied on tariffs and did not in any way address itself to non-tariff mechanisms. Perhaps we can start to address these factors ourselves with the countries in our region. It is very important to talk to member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations and all the other countries in the region, including Japan, which is on the Pacific rim, about having in the region a fair and good market which does not have the restrictions and non-tariff mechanisms that apply not only in our market but also in the European market at present. The honourable gentleman spent a fair bit of his time in government quite fairly berating the European Economic Community and others for their protective devices, particularly in respect of agricultural subsidies. He knows full well that there is no such thing as a free market. There is a forced market and a protected market. It is about time that countries, even if only those in our region, addressed those factors. It is perfectly consistent for Australia to look after the employment of its people in the same way as Japan looks after the employment of its people. In no way does it affect-- Mr Anthony —It is a double standard. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not a double standard. I want to make that point. It is very fortunate that the Leader of the National Party of Australia can enjoy the luxury of saying that he is not interested in the manufacturing base. But if we applied the same import test to the issue-- Mr Ian Cameron —What about the farmers? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, what about the farmers? If the test of efficiency were the cost of the import, what would happen to our agricultural produce? It would be competing with the subsidised agricultural produce of the EEC countries and every other country. It is on that basis-- Mr Lloyd —It has nothing to do with efficiency. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The import test has everything to do with efficiency. I make the point that it must also be very clear to the Leader of the National Party that the domestic consumer in Australia pays a very fair and equitable price for the agricultural product, but that, it is fascinating to know, often that product is sold overseas at a lesser price. That is the significant point of which the honourable gentleman ought to be mindful. I welcome the question, but I see no disparity in the claim that we ought to be talking about conducting trade on a fair and equitable basis, particularly in our region, but that in no way should it affect employment in the automotive industry. It is not inconsistent to suggest that there be some regulation of the importation of light commercial vehicles. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Has the Treasurer's attention been drawn to the taxation policies of the Liberal Party of Australia, as set out by the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday? What effect would these policies have on the Budget and budgetary policies and what would be the revenue cost of the Liberal Party measures? Mr KEATING —My attention has been drawn to a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition-I have a copy of it with me-to the Kooyong electorate on 24 November 1983, talking about the policies of the Liberal Party. Essentially this document reveals-it is a very revealing document-that the Leader of the Opposition believes in lower levels of taxation, no expansion in the Budget deficit, but no reduction in public services. As we read through the document we find that the policy of the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the fiscal area basically revolves around the question of reducing administrative costs. This very revealing speech is essentially an attack upon the Public Service. The document stated: The chief problem in controlling public expenditure is not that public opinion is opposed to cuts but that the public service tends all too often to manipulate them so as to pass all cuts to the consumer rather than absorb them within the gigantically inflated administrative system. Who was running the supposedly gigantically inflated administrative system if it was not the Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member in the years of Mr Fraser's leadership? This once again is another cowardly attack on the Public Service. As one reads through this speech one finds that the Leader of the Opposition says he is opposed to the assets test. He argues that no one on average weekly earnings should be caught in the 46c area of taxation. He is opposed to Labor's lump sum taxation arrangements. He says that Labor has reduced the tax threshold for children and that it has made a vicious attack upon the elderly. It has attacked farmers, he says. It has increased excises. He is opposed to the prescribed payments system and he also says that Labor will tax people's health. He talks about the destruction of morale in the defence forces. He is opposed to the removal of the first $1,000 of dividend income. He is opposed to the removal of the home loan interest rebate. When one looks at implementing the Leader of the Opposition's objections, this year the cost in respect of the Budget would be about $1.6 billion, and in a full year it would be about $3 billion. I would like to know, and I think other people would like to know, just how the Leader of the Opposition, who believes in minimising Budget deficits and who is also ostensibly concerned about the pick-up in private investment, the problems of crowding out and recovery, the problems of financing a high level of public sector debt and large Budget deficits, equates all of these things. How does he equate this tremendous explosion in what would be the structural component of the Budget deficit with these objections to our policies which are synonymous with growth in the economy? It is about time he told us, because he is running around the country attacking the Government, but without putting one proposal into place. Let me say this: If the Leader of the Opposition and his Party think that business is in the slightest way impressed by this poor opportunistic approach which he adopts, let me assure the honourable member that business can see right through him for the phoney which he is. In the 14 years in which I have been in this Parliament I have never heard the present member for Kooyong speak about the domestic economy. It is as if it never existed in all the years I have been here. All of a sudden he has discovered the domestic economy. He is opposed to change in taxes; he is against all of the reforms the Labor Government has brought in in respect of the structural deficit. He is opposed to high Budget deficits. He is for growth. He is opposed to high interest rates. That speech reveals that the Leader of the Opposition's policies are a sham. They would not stand up to any scrutiny. I want him to tell this Parliament how he believes he will make up the shortfall of $1.6 billion for the rest of the financial year and how he will in a full year make up the $3 billion shortfall which would be the consequence of his policies. Unless he says that, we can put the appropriate weight on the nonsensical views expressed in his speech last weekend in Melbourne. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Let us go from the powerful treatise which I produced last week to one which had the same degree of shock but for which there was greater reticence in bringing it forward. I refer to the updated National Economic Summit Conference projections by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which have been concealed from the Parliament and the public. Will the Treasurer advise the House exactly what the impact of the recent improvement in housing, farm output, stocks and employment will be on the Department's projection of between 820,000 and almost one million people unemployed by 1985-86? Will the Treasurer ask the Prime Minister's Department to adjust the projections to take account of these allegedly significant changes in economic indicators and make the revised projections public? Will the Treasurer advise the House whether most of these revisions are likely to involve mainly timing changes over three years, leaving the ultimate unemployment levels little changed from their disastrous projected levels for 1985-86? Mr KEATING —I have made the point on a number of occasions since last week when this projection, or part of it, was released in a business magazine that it is a projection and not a forecast. It is not an official Government forecast. The purpose of the projection, for some of the dummies on the Opposition back benches, is to illustrate a result of key parameter changes on a certain set of assumptions. The Government can make use of those assumptions and examine the likely impact of changes in respect of its policy mix. To that extent there is a substantial difference, a quantitative difference, between a projection and a forecast, which is a forecast of what might actually happen. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question in relation to unemployment. The Government asserted at the National Economic Summit Conference and also in the Budget, and remains committed to it, that the Government will achieve its target of creating 500,000 jobs over a three-year period which would put the unemployment rate somewhere between 9 and 9 1/2 per cent instead of the projection figure of 11.1 per cent. In respect of some of the assumptions in the projections, particularly those in respect of migration, population changes and also of the participation rate, I indicate that the Government disagrees with some of those assumptions. Therefore, because of the sensitivity of the projection to those assumptions, particularly over an extended period, one does get a different effect and one can see a different effect between a projected unemployment rate of 11.1 per cent and that which the Government has been forecasting of 500,000 jobs in the period. I simply make the point that the growth in employment so far, if extrapolated over the three years, would indicate that the Government would easily achieve the target of 500,000 jobs. We can see an employment growth of 82,000 since April compared with the disastrous period of the former Government, when we saw a rise in unemployment of 250,000 in the previous year. The likelihood is that from a very slow start employment growth will indeed pick up and at that level we would be in a position to meet that target of 500,000 jobs. Mr Howard —What did EPAC think of this? Mr KEATING —In responding to the interjection, the Economic Planning Advisory Council questioned some of the assumptions on which the projection was based and did not accept the paper. I make this point and will quote the projection to the Leader of the Opposition because it may be his first lesson on the difference between a projection and a forecast. The projection says: It bears repeating that the results are not to be interpreted as forecasts or predictions of 'likely' outcomes. Actual outcomes may well differ considerably from what is projected here, as a comparison of the Summit projection with the outcome for 1982-83 . . . It goes on to say: For the purpose of the projections a series of illustrative policy options has been specified, including in respect of budgetary settings. Of course the actual policy to be followed will be determined in the light of conditions at the relevant time. Those choices, in turn, will have implications for economic developments. The projection goes on further to say: The aim of the projections, therefore, is to provide a concrete focus for examining the implications of changing some key economic parameters. The Government then has the opportunity to examine what effect certain parameter changes would have on outcomes. Finally, it goes on to say: . . . there is therefore more to be gained from comparisons of the three projections than from consideration of any one in isolation. In other words what is being said by the authors of the projection is that it is not the outcomes which are important but the differences in the projections on the assumptions which have been included in each projection. Mr Sinclair —Time! Mr KEATING —A member of the Opposition has asked a question but honourable members opposite do not wish to have the reply. The differences are that with different inputs there are likely to be different effects, but the importance is between the effects, not the outcomes. That may be complex and difficult for the geniuses on the front bench opposite to understand, but that is essentially it. In respect of the more important point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the economy is running along very strongly. To indicate to the Leader of the Opposition the economic upturn, I refer him to page 1 of the Melbourne Age, which indicates again the increasing strength in production, a strength which has also been apparent in employment since April, and in retail sales. It refers to the 9.2 per cent inflation rate as a result of the 1.6 per cent quarterly increase, the lowest quarterly increase for five years, and the decline in interest rates of 2 per cent since the beginning of the financial year. By and large, on the dwellings front construction is now running at an almost record level of 140,000. So on the basic assumptions on which the Leader of the Opposition's question was based, the economy is performing much better than either scenario A or projection one. Indeed, the Government does not accept the unemployment asessments in projection one, which we have rejected for the reasons I have stated today, amongst others. Hence it is the Government's belief that its target of reaching 500,000 jobs over a three-year period is achievable. Upon such realisation, the unemployment rate after three years will be very much lower than the 11.1 per cent in projection one. Mr Wells proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's question is out of order. It seeks opinions rather than questioning matters which are under the Minister's administration. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to the statement he issued on 25 November regarding the Prime Minister and Cabinet document, in which he said, inter alia, speaking of the Economic Planning Advisory Council's response to the document: . . . generally rejected it as inconsistent with likely future trends in the economy. He has confirmed that response in the answer he has just given. Is it not a fact that, far from rejecting the document, EPAC described the projections as a useful tool in examining the economy? Further, did EPAC consider the implications of the study so disturbing that further technical work should be done because if there was little prospect of achieving substantial reductions in unemployment over the next few years, as the projections showed, then radical new economic policy approaches were warranted? Was EPAC so disturbed by the projections that it set up a committee to examine them in detail, along with results from other available models and, if necessary, develop further projections, and to report back to next month's meeting? If the Treasurer disputes this, will he table the minutes of the 7 October meeting of EPAC, or would he prefer that I table them? Mr KEATING —Nothing I have said is inconsistent with the view that projections can be a useful tool in looking at certain policy responses. If one looks at the scenarios and the projections which were referred to the National Economic Summit Conference, one finds across those scenarios or projections A, B and C, that with extended wage restraint one was able to get better growth figures, for instance. Of course projections and their inputs can be useful and play a useful role in determining the likely responses of the economy to certain changes in basic economic parameters. That is the purpose of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, and it is the reason for having these projections undertaken in the first place. The fact is that the rejection is in respect of the outcome. It does not concern the fact that the scenarios are not a useful tool or that in fact certain trends do not reveal other trends. That is one thing, but it is another to accept the outcomes mentioned in respect of a particular set of projections. What I said was that EPAC questioned technical assumptions and generally rejected the outcomes. I stand by that statement. Let me make it clear that EPAC is a body composed of representatives of business, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, consumers, the States, local government and small business. I would not be surprised or even slightly surprised, as the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are surprised from time to time, about proceedings within EPAC. The fact is that their projections are undergoing a technical analysis by a technical committee in the same way as they were subject to a technical committee at the time of the Summit, and more work may or will be done on them. In respect of the outcomes, EPAC, as I said, generally rejected them-and I stand by that statement-and the Government rejects them as being too pessimistic in the economic circumstances which exist, for the employment growth we have already seen and the prospects of an upturn in production, investment and employment over the period and the creation of 500,000 jobs which would impact on the key parameter which was the unemployment figure of 11.1 per cent. I reject absolutely any implication in the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I have in any way mislead the House or misrepresented the position. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table extracts from the minutes of the meeting of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member does not have the call. The honourable member for Moore has the call. Mr BLANCHARD —Is the Minister for Aviation aware that the requirement of the professional engineering course at the University of Western Australia and the Western Australian Institute of Technology is that students must obtain a minimum of 16 weeks and 12 weeks respectively of practical experience? Is he further aware that many students from both institutions are unable to obtain employment during the summer vacation, with the consequence that their graduations are in jeopardy? Is the Minister further aware that the Department of Aviation in Western Australia has decided not to employ students during the forthcoming long vacation, whereas it has done so in the past? Will the Minister take action to reverse that decision- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member please bring his question to a conclusion. It is rather a series of questions. Mr BLANCHARD —Mr Speaker, I am coming to a conclusion now. Mr SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member do so very quickly; otherwise he will be sitting down. Mr BLANCHARD —Will the Minister take action to reverse that decision so as to allow the opportunity for some additional students to meet the requirements of the course and ensure their graduation? Mr BEAZLEY —I very recently became aware of the matters to which the honourable gentleman referred in relation to the qualifications required for engineering graduates of the University of Western Australia and the Western Australian Institute of Technology. I am very sympathetic to the problems that those graduates experience and I will look at the situation in my Department in relation to the decisions that may have been taken not to employ graduates over the long vacation period. My response to any information that I obtain from the Department in that regard will be governed to some considerable degree by the obligations of my Department in relation to the aviation industry. As honourable gentlemen would be aware, my Department is unusual among Commonwealth Departments in that its expenses are substantially cost recovered from the aviation industry and are not wholly, as in many other departments, a burden on the taxpayers. That obliges us to be highly responsible in our employment policies to ensure that we are not requiring of the industry the carriage of a burden that ought not legitimately to be placed upon it. We are not intending this year to have any increase in personnel in the Department. It is the hope of the Secretary to the Department, with my support, that over successive years we will be able to reduce the size of the Department, certainly in the policy areas if not in the operational areas because we are aware, as the whole aviation industry is aware, that there has been a very substantial downturn in the industry over the last few years. The capacity of the industry to meet all the costs that are imposed upon it, including the costs imposed by my Department, is very much less than it was a few years ago. When I eventually respond, as I shall respond, to the questions that were raised by the honourable gentleman in relation to the employment on a temporary basis of engineering students that, I am afraid, will be the overriding consideration in the determination that I will eventually make. Mr DOBIE —I ask a question of the Treasurer. If the Treasurer really believes that economic projections of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet-or non-forecasts as he would have us know them-have 'no particular status', can he tell the House whether the Treasury's unemployment projections for the next three years, which presumably would have some status, are based on better or worse criteria than those used by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which do indicate unemployment rising to between 820,000 and almost one million by 1985-86? If so, will he try to clarify the confused answer he gave to the Leader of the Opposition earlier in Question Time? Will he inform the House as to what forecasts he and his Department do consider as having some status for the next three years? Mr KEATING —The Treasury does not do three-year projections on the economy, let alone on unemployment. Ms MAYER —My question is to the Minister for Science and Technology. When will the Government be in a position to announce the research grants to be awarded under the national biotechnology program? How many applications have been received? What is the total dollar value of the applications? Is it possible to make any assessment of the quality of the applications? Is the $1.5m allocated to the scheme going to prove inadequate? Are more major breakthroughs in biotechnology expected? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Chisholm for her question. In the 1983-84 Budget we adopted the recommendations of the Australian Science and Technology Council to provide $1.5m for the first year of a national biotechnology program to run over three years. The Government set up a Research Grants Advisory Committee under Professor Bruce Holloway to administer the fund. The Committee has received 107 applications for research grants totalling $22.6m in the first year; in other words, 15 times more than it can spend under the program. The Committee has selected 33 applications for further consideration, these requests totalling $9.9m in the first year. Throughout the month of November these applicants have been interviewed by the Committee in the various capital cities and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement, possibly before the end of the week. The applications will be independently assessed for scientific excellence and commercial potential. Understandably ASTEC underestimated the likely volume of demand and the quality of applications because activity in that area has increased so rapidly in the last year. Professor Holloway has reported to me that the Committee is very impressed with the quality of the applications received. He said that about 80 per cent of them are of first class international standard and they indicate the great strength that Australia has in this area. One of the important results of the setting up of the scheme is that the Committee has been able to survey the needs of biotechnology research in this country, something that has never been done before. Biotechnology continues to be the most exciting area in modern science and, on the basis of my observations from Japan and Korea, the one in which Australia has the clearest lead. Work on the 'jumping gene', which won the 1983 Nobel Prize in chemistry for Barbara McLintock, is being carried out with spectacular success at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation by Dr Jim Peacock-that is, the achieving Peacock. This should lead to significant increases in crop yields and is exportable. I draw the House's attention to a remarkable discovery by two Americans, John Baross and Judy Deming, published in Nature on 2 June. Mr MacKellar —What page? Mr BARRY JONES —It is the first article. They explored the waters of the Pacific Ocean 2,650 metres down at a split in the earth's crust where water is at a temperature of 350 degrees Celsius, under enormous pressure. They have found bacteria down there which are not only living but thriving at such temperatures, increasing a thousandfold every six hours. This is an extraordinary discovery because it overturns all the assumptions that we have grown up with from children about the nature of cellular life, cell structure, the time scale of evolutionary processes and the origins of life itself. I say to honourable members: Just ponder what that means. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it correct, as reported in yesterday's Australian Financial Review, that the Government's uranium decision has blocked negotiations on contracts to supply uranium worth more than $500m to three United States of America power utilities? Is it also true that details of confidential commercial negotiations with these utilities were contained in a Cabinet submission prepared by the Minister for Trade and were revealed by the honourable member for Melbourne at the Victorian Australian Labor Party Conference? On what basis was the information provided to the honourable member for Melbourne? Was he authorised to reveal it to the ALP Conference? Was the information freely available to all members of the Labor Caucus when they voted on the uranium issue? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member's question is a very fair one. No information was provided to the honourable member for Melbourne. There was, in the course of recent determinations by the Government, a submission by my Department as to the present position in respect of uranium contracts, two of which were approved. That was a factual documentation and presentation of the position. There was no release of any confidential information. There was certainly the Cabinet submission which, of course, is confidential to Cabinet. I was also concerned to read in, I think, the Australian Financial Review that three contracts which I had suggested be approved were not approved. That is completely erroneous. The only proposition that was given to Cabinet at the time was that Energy Resources of Australia Ltd had two specific contracts. Of course , the Government approved those contracts, which has caused a fair amount of controversy, as the honourable member will be aware. The issue is that those contracts were in negotiation for a long period. The initial negotiations started in the time of the Leader of the National Party. It was on the premise that the company had been in the market for some time prior to the election of the Government that those two contracts were approved. They are contracts for a limited tonnage. In no way was any information given to anybody else. It is, of course, a fact of life in the uranium market that a number of power utilities, particularly in the United States, are showing interest in Australian uranium. At the same time the market price is very much below what we regard as an effective floor price. If that is the position, there is obviously difficulty in obtaining a price which we regard as an effective floor price and which is somewhat consistent with the floor price set in the life of the Government of honourable members opposite. The spot price for uranium is now about $10 a pound below that floor price, so honourable members can understand that nobody is jeopardised with regard to contracts. Of course, the issue is still of continual interest to uranium producers in Australia. I noticed that Mr Grey of Pancontinental Mining Ltd felt that he had been unfairly dealt with on the basis that no approval had been given for him to develop a mine. He understood the position at that time. Mr Peacock —He does not understand it now. It is very confusing. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He understood the Labor Party's position at the time of its election. Let me make this very clear. It goes without saying, as we have said in the course of debates of matters of public importance, that 100,000 tonnes of uranium from existing mines has still not been sold. Market forecasts predict that there is not much chance of that being sold within the next eight years. So we must ask ourselves where we think markets will be if new mines are opened. That is a very interesting aspect, particularly bearing in mind- Mr Lusher — How would you know? You would not know. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a fact of life. I know that the honourable member would not know, but I take some interest in the matter. Mr Lusher —You ought to let the people who have got the stuff go and sell it. That is in the national interest. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that it is National Party policy to dig up all our resources and flog them at any price to foreign investors at any time. The National Party ought to be indicted for that because all it has done is waste the assets of Australia. To come back to the question, which was fairly asked, there has been no leakage of information and no information has been given out. Mr Peacock —Someone has dropped it to Gerry Hand, or he has made it up. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He would not have to make it up. The contracts the company felt it could have got are probably a matter of public knowledge. If one went to the annual general meeting of that company, it could well say: 'We were anxious to negotiate further contracts'. So it still is and so it still can. That is the important part. The Government's position is very clear. The two contracts have been approved. No other contracts have been approved. The matter is now the subject of an inquiry by Professor Slatyer, who will be reporting in May or June of next year. Following that, there will obviously be further discussions from the point of view of the Government as to the future of uranium contracts. Mr Porter —At what price will you sell it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As and when it is determined that there can be an effective market, I would say that we will sell it at a price above the present price. Mr YOUNG —I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I do not wish to reflect upon the sports men and women who have been named in recent stories as having received moneys from the former Government for taking part in the boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games, but is the Acting Prime Minister able to give the Parliament any more information on this matter? If he is not able to give further information to the Parliament today, will he assure the House that he will inquire into this matter and give the Parliament a full statement as to how this took place? Mr COHEN —The Government is aware that payments were made to sporting bodies and individuals which withdrew from participation in the Moscow Olympics. Such payments were allowed for in the Budget of 1980-81, although both the then Treasurer, and the present Leader of the Opposition have recently commented in the media that they cannot recall the payments. People in politics often get bad memories when it suits them. Yesterday the honourable member for Grayndler, as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, however, highlighted some strangeness in relation to the payments made to various athletes. For the information of honourable members I will list the payments. The equestrian organisation received $125,000; yachting, $52,840; men' s hockey, $90,374; boxing, $13,784; women's hockey, $45,740; volley-ball, $120, 000; shooting, $41,000. Then $6,000 was paid to John Higham, Raelene Boyle, Mark Morgan, Tracey Wickham, Terrence Reilly and Alexander Watson. Ladies and gentlemen-Mr Speaker-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr COHEN —It is ladies and gentlemen now, if honourable members opposite had not noticed. There are six of them in this House, the most talented people in the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to address the Chair. Mr COHEN —Mr Speaker, you are also talented. The facts speak for themselves. They are an obvious indictment of the discredited Fraser Government, which took every opportunity to prostitute its principles for political gain. It is unfortunate that sport, like so many other areas in our society, has had to suffer such undignified behaviour on the part of the previous Government. As some sporting commentators have noted, the Fraser Government may have placed in jeopardy the amateur status of these athletes by paying money to individual sportsmen instead of paying money through their respective sporting organisations. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —by leave-I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith: That this House censures the Treasurer for having misled the House regarding the response of the Economic Planning and Advisory Committee to the latest economic projections of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The motion is in writing and seconded. Mr Dawkins —The Government will give leave for the motion to be moved forthwith. Motion of Censure Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(2.58) —As all members of the House will know, the most solemn duty imposed upon a Minister of the Crown in the Westminster system of government is to be truthful and candid to the Parliament of this country. For that reason I move: That this House censures the Treasurer for having misled the House regarding the response of the Economic Planning and Advisory Committee to the latest economic projections of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is worth taking the House back to the events of only last Friday morning, when there appeared in an issue of Business Review Weekly a very lengthy report from Stuart Simson which detailed the projections of a 55-page analysis of the Australian economy prepared by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Even the most cursory reading of that analysis of the Australian economy indicated very clearly that it was starkly at odds with the representations the Government had been making about the Australian economy from almost the time the Hawke Government was elected in March of this year. The House will be aware that the National Economic Summit Conference adopted the policies put forward by the Government on a certain basis. It is therefore fundamental to the continuation of the Government's economic integrity and credibility that if there were any fundamental change in the basis of what was put to the Summit by the Government, the Australian people should be taken into the confidence of the Government. So important was that that at the time of the national wage case the Government went to the Australian Conciliation and Arbritation Commission on behalf of the people of Australia, representing, as the Commonwealth Government does, the public interest at wage cases, and said: 'Don't worry, the Australian economy can afford an immediate return to full wage indexation'. As a result of that representation, that was noted by the Arbitration Commission itself, when it said that, amongst other things, one of the reasons it handed down the decision it did was that the Government had told it that there had been no material changes in the economic outlook from those presented at the time of the Economic Summit. That is a very important element, because what the Government was saying to the Arbitration Commission was, 'What we put to the Economic Summit has not materially changed', or in other words, 'Projections on which the decisions of the Economic Summit were made remain as true now as they were in April when they were put in the Economic Summit'. Yet at the very time those representations were made on behalf of the Commonwealth Government of this country to the Arbitration Commission, the Government must have had in its custody or must have had detailed knowledge of the 55-page projection on the Australian economy prepared by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Mr Willis —Rubbish! Mr Keating —Lie! Mr HOWARD —Honourable members opposite call out 'rubbish' and 'lie'. I will deal with rubbish and lies in a moment. Let me go to the statement of the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) issued on 25 November. This is what the Treasurer of Australia said only last Friday when talking about this economic projection, and I quote from his statement: The projections do not have any particular status other than as a background paper for EPAC. At its meeting EPAC members criticised technical weaknesses in the paper and- listen to this- generally rejected it as inconsistent with likely future trends in the economy. EPAC 'generally rejected' the document-- Mr Keating —That is right. Mr HOWARD —And still the Treasurer misleads the Parliament by nodding assent to the statement he made last Friday. Still he nods assent. Still he asserts that the Economic Planning Advisory Council rejected the document at its meeting on 7 October. At the end of his statement, in criticising the very balanced and pungent comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) about the economic projections, the Treasurer said of the Leader of the Opposition: He will need more than a rejected background paper to an EPAC meeting. That is what he said-'a rejected background paper'. Let us have a look at the minutes of the EPAC meeting held on 7 October. Let us remember that this Economic Planning Advisory Council was set up by the Government to advise it about the last Budget. Of course EPAC did not meet until 25 July. By that time all the Budget decisions had been put to bed. A fat lot of use EPAC's advice was in the preparation of this year's Budget, but I will pass that over. EPAC, at its very first meeting, asked for an update of the material that had been put to the Economic Summit. Let there be no argument about it. The three scenarios put to the Economic Summit were not prepared by the Treasury, so the Treasurer cannot run around now and say: 'Look, do not take any notice of this latest survey because it was not a Treasury document', because the scenarios presented to the Summit were not Treasury projections either. They were projections of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If it is good enough for those things to be recognised at the Summit, it is good enough for them to be recognised now. So the Treasurer cannot run around now and say: 'Forget about these projections because they are not Treasury projections'. The minutes of the EPAC meeting on 25 July record that these projections were asked for. It is very interesting to read from the minutes. They note, of course, that-and I do not dissent from this: the projections were not forecasts of the future, but rather a tracing out of the possible implications . . . The minutes went on to say: . . . the projections were a useful tool in considering the consequences of various developments. . . . All three projections produced a less favourable scenario for Australian economic prospects than did Summit Projection 'A'. I repeat that all of them produced a less favourable projection for the Australian economy than did any of the scenarios presented at the Summit including, of course, projection A. In other words, the Department in its latest summary was saying to the Economic Planning Advisory Council: 'We, who gave you the Summit scenarios, now say to you that the outlook for the economy is worse than we thought it was at the time of the Economic Summit'. No wonder the Treasurer tried to suppress it. No wonder he tried to conceal it. No wonder he has tried to represent to the Australian people that EPAC rejected it. But, unfortunately for him, the truth is otherwise. EPAC did not reject it. So far from rejecting it, EPAC decided to set up a committee to examine the projections . Does the Treasurer seriously say that if a body sets up a committee to examine projections it is rejecting them? It gives a new meaning, a new contortion, a new tautology to the English language for anybody to suggest that if a body says 'We will set up a sub-committee to examine these projections' it is rejecting them. One has only to state that to realise how absurd it is. The Economic Planning Advisory Council-the body chosen by the Government to advise it-- Mr MacKellar —Chaired by whom? Mr HOWARD —Chaired by none other than the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke) . This is the body that is supposed to have rejected these projections. It went on to say: . . . the implications of the projections were disturbing. Of course they were disturbing; they are disturbing. It is disturbing to know that a government essentially won an election because it was able to persuade people that it could do a better job with regard to unemployment than did the government it replaced. It is very distrubing that the Leader of that Government , the present Prime Minister, during the election campaign said 'If you elect the Fraser Government, unemployment will approach one million people in 12 months' time' and that now the economic projections of his own Department are that on one scenario, on one outcome, almost one million people will be unemployed by 1985. Of course EPAC regarded it as disturbing and the Australian people regard it as disturbing, but it was even more disturbing that the Treasurer sought to conceal from the Australian Parliament and from the Australian people the knowledge of this projection. Over the months I have been berated in this Parliament by Government members because I did not mention a figure that had been given to me as a result of a 10 -minute phone conversation during the evening before the election. They have tried to hang me on that matter. But the Treasurer sits on a 55-page detailed analysis of the Australian economy and has the temerity to say that he has not misled the Parliament. It is an absolute double standard and it just shows how absolutely selective is the morality and the approach of the Government on these matters. It is very interesting that EPAC wanted to set up a committee comprising industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and State governments. It wanted that committee to examine these projections. So it is clear, on reading the minutes, that the Treasurer was not telling the truth when he issued this statement on 25 November. He can laugh, he can guffaw, he can fulminate as much as he likes, but nobody with the most elementary understanding of the English language can possibly deny that in his statement he said that the document was rejected. Yet when we read these minutes we find that, so far from rejecting the document, EPAC was disturbed by it and it decided to undertake further study. One can only contemplate what were the motives of the Treasurer and, indeed of the Government in this whole very sorry exercise. No doubt in the cover-up the Treasurer will hide behind all sorts of explanations. One of those will probably be, when he replies to me: 'You don't want to take too much notice of what the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet says because the Treasury view of what will happen is different'. I say to the honourable gentleman and to the House that if the Treasury has a more optimistic outlook on the employment front than does the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, it will be about the first time in 20 years that that has occurred, because normally the Treasury's outlook on the economy is infinitely more pessimistic. I know why the Treasurer will not come in here and tell us what the Treasury thinks will happen to unemployment. It is because he knows darn well that the Treasury, root and branch, is opposed to this crazy return to cenralised wage indexation. He knows as well as I do that what Max Corden wrote in the Australian Financial Review this morning about wage indexation locking the unemployed out is the truth about the economy. Forget about the beat-ups on the front page of the Melbourne Age about steel production; the real truth lies in the middle pages of the Australian Financial Review. With chilling logic Max Corden spells out very clearly that full wage indexation is remorselessly locking the unemployed out of a future in Australia. That policy is being supported and encouraged by the present Government at the behest of the Australian trade union movement. That is one of the reasons why these scenarios have been suppressed. If honourable members opposite think that that is a little exaggerated, I will read from another section of the minutes of the meeting of 7 October. This is the meeting at which they did not reject the projections although they did reject them. They did not quite accept them so they decided to have an examination of them. That is what the Treasurer is trying to tell us really happened. It is very interesting that when one gets to the end of this extract from the minutes one comes across a statement which really gives a very interesting clue to one of the reasons why the Government should be adopting this course of action. The minutes state: It was noted that while the ACTU-- that is the Australian Council of Trade Unions- supported the further development of models, it considered that the Summit scenarios had been put to an inappropriate use by some parties in the National Wage Case. Scenarios had been put to an inappropriate use. In other words, the truth hurt a little at the national wage case. When the truth hurts, in the eyes of the ACTU it is not the truth hurting; it is other wicked people putting something to an inappropriate use. The trade union representatives went on to say: The trade union movement would not continue to support work in this area if it were to be misused. In other words, if the work were to be made public the movement would not go on to support it. If one reads that statement one will get some idea as to why the Government has been so cravenly desperate to suppress knowledge of these projections. That is why when these projections became public the Treasurer could not get up and say: 'Here is a copy of the document. Of course these scenarios are more pessimistic. I do not accept them for the following reasons.' We all know how difficult economic forecasting is, but no, the Treasurer could not do that. He had to get on his high horse and try to discredit the projections. He had to try to misrepresent the position of EPAC. He had to try to prove that black was white. But in reality, far from rejecting these projections, the EPAC body has been very greatly disturbed by them. If one were to look at the beginning of the last paragraph of the extract of the minutes, which I invited the Treasurer to table, one would see that it states: Although the results of the PM & C projections were considered disappointing, emphasis was given to the fact that certain policy approaches would produce better employment results than others. Of course they would produce better results. A policy approach on wages less irresponsible than that followed by the present Government would produce better results. A continuation of the wages pause would have produced better results. So would a lower Budget deficit and a more responsible monetary policy than the present Government is now running. The money supply is already about 2 per cent above the projected target brought down in the last Budget. All those things certainly would have produced a far better policy outcome than have the policies which have been followed. The fact of the matter is this: These projections are a chilling reminder of the absolute folly of the Government's policies, particularly in the wages area. What the projections do is to cut through the temporary light which we have seen at present, largely as a result of the breaking of the drought and the beneficial effects of the wages pause flowing through to our inflation and earning levels. I defy the Treasurer to say to me and to this House that the Treasury would take a more optimistic view of the employment outlook than that taken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. These projections very starkly, very clearly and very chillingly say to the Australian people that when all the froth and bubble is past, when all this temporary aberrant upsurge is behind us, we will be locked into a much higher level of unemployment than we would have thought possible only a very short while ago. So far from these projections supporting the belief and the commitment of the Government that it is going to create 500,000 new jobs in its first three years of office, they disprove it. One of the scenarios, and it is a very likely one, is that the prices and incomes accord will not hold together-unemployment in 1985 will be 50 per cent greater than it was during the last financial year of the Fraser Government's term of office. Yet the Australian Labor Party was elected to do something about unemployment. Its members were the people who said that we had failed on unemployment and that they had some kind of answer. These were the people who believed that through their special compact with the trade union movement they were going to rescue the unemployed of Australia. Of course the Labor Party has demonstrated that special compact. It has demonstrated a unique relationship. It has demonstrated that it will always do the bidding of the trade union movement. It is not only doing it over the unemployed-in the words of Max Corden through indexation it is locking the unemployed out of things-but also it is doing it over such things as the repeal of sections of the Trade Practices Act. Shamefully at the same time as fines on Australian businesses are being increased to half a million dollars the trade unions engaged in militant conduct are being let off altogether. That is the sort of double standard which time and again this Government is demonstrating. However, far more serious than all of that is that having been caught out, having been shown that its policies would produce higher unemployment, as we said they would-from the time that the Government was elected we argued against its wages policy-we reminded the Australian people that if they went back to full wage indexation unemployment would go up and not down. But having been caught out on that, instead of coming clean, as the Treasurer is always exhorting other people to do, instead of being honest in the face of a 55-page document, and not some kind of oral advice, and being dinkum about it, what does he do? He remains silent. He tries to conceal the document. On Friday he publicly misled the Australian people by saying that the Economic Planning Advisory Council had rejected this document. But that is not enough. Worst of all, for a Minister of the Crown, the Treasurer comes into this Parliament and he misleads it. He confirms the accuracy of what was said last Friday in his Press statement. He demonstrated the sensitivity, the vulnerability and, by his disception of this Parliament, I believe he demonstrates an inability to hold the office he now has. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr Peacock —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.18) —Of course I absolutely reject as absolutely fanciful the motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). His first and principal charge is that the Government suppressed the document. In the same minutes which the honourable gentleman has-this will give honourable members some idea of his honesty-it is stated: A report on this work should be prepared for the next meeting. In the meantime it was important that the preliminary work reported in the paper remained confidential to Council members. The honourable member knew when he stood up here that the minutes of the Economic Planning Advisory Council which he had in his possession confirm that EPAC wished to keep the projection results confidential to Council members. So there was no attempt at all to suppress the results. Indeed over a period all sorts of things will be tendered to EPAC. It would totally destroy the purpose of the Council to publish everything as it was reported to the Council. The second fallacious charge made was that the Government knew of these things when it presented its case to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That is a lie and the honourable gentleman knows it to be a lie. We presented that information to the Arbitration Commission between 14 and 20 July and we were in receipt of these projections in October. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition realises that, and he knows that that assertion is just as fanciful and misleading and dishonest as was his first. The third assertion he made was that I misled the House by saying that, generally, EPAC 'criticised technical weaknesses in the paper and generally rejected it as inconsistent with likely future trends in the economy'. It did; if it had not it would have accepted the projections. I did not claim, then or at Question Time, that the projections are not useful. Of course they are useful . Projections are a useful tool and they show that, with certain inputs, one can perceive certain changes in outcomes. But it was the outcome that I and EPAC rejected and not the technical inputs or the sheer usefulness of having such a tool. As to being forthcoming with the public, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the champion liar of 1982-83. He is the man-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Treasurer to withdraw that remark. Mr KEATING —Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the gentleman who in the heat of the last week of an election campaign, when people were making up their minds on a critical election, was told by his Department not about a three-year projection but about a forecast of 12 months, after an estimate had been taken of the Budget Estimates-I am not talking about forecasts and projections; I am talking about the Budget Estimates in November and the outcome-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in speaking to his motion, was heard in relative silence. It is a serious motion for the Minister to answer. He should be given the opportunity and the same courtesy as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was given. Mr KEATING —In that critical week of the election campaign the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the then Treasurer, was giving not a projection about three years, with all sorts of assumptions, but an estimate by his Department, after the forward Estimates had been undertaken, of the Budget deficit within that year-of the likely outcome for 1982-83, and then for 1983-84, of $9.6 billion. He sat on that estimate and let the world believe that the deficit would be $6 billion, and that is the basis on which we went into the election campaign. How can he get up in this chamber and talk with any shred of credibility about anybody else's reputation in respect of coming clean or telling the truth? I simply made a commentary on the fact that EPAC rejected the outcome of the projections. I did not say that the projections were not useful. Of course they are useful. They show all sorts of things. As I said during Question Time, the three scenarios, A, B and C, presented to the National Economic Summit Conference, indicated that, with more wage restraint, one had a better growth outcome and lower inflation. All that is simply a commentary on the fact that if we hold wages down long enough we will get a bigger restoration of the profit share, higher investment and growth. The fact is that the judgment then had to be made about the industrial relations realities of such a policy. That is why the projections were useful. Essentially , that is why the Government came to its own conclusions and returned to a centralised wage fixation policy. There is no point in the Deputy Leader of the Opposition quoting from this morning's Australian Financial Review on the same matter. A judgment has to be made. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition's policies in respect of wages are policies for a recession. They are not policies for a recovery. He would have no idea about how to restrain wages in a recovery. He would sit back like a stunned mullet, as he did in the years when he was Treasurer, and watch wages, inflation, growth and unemployment blow out. This man is the biggest job destroyer since the bubonic plague. He is the man who saw unemployment rise by 250,000 in one year. He is the high unemployment and high interest rate specialist. He does not have any credibility. It is a joke that he is his Party's economic spokesman! The only reason he is the spokesman is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is totally economically illiterate. That is why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the only one in the Opposition who understands the expressions gross domestic product or growth, or any other technical terms or any basic rudimentaries about the economy. To have him sitting here as the economic spokesman of the Opposition after his destruction of a very nice economy is a damning indictment of the Australian parliamentary system and the coalition parties. I reject absolutely the notion that he has any shred of credibility when attacking me or any member of this Government about any element of wages policy or about these projections. In the course of the discussion the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also raised the other two projections. He talked about the likely outcome of projections two and three. Of course, if we take the gloomy view that he takes, that the world economy will collapse, I suppose we are all in trouble. But that is not the view of the International Monetary Fund or of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition persist in being the pariahs of the economy, the people who go around talking down the economy. When I was being attacked on Friday by Bib and Bub-the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy-I was having lunch with the Board of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. BHP is getting on with the economy , as we can see in today's newspapers. There was no interest there whatsoever in the doomsaying of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or of the Leader of the Opposition. The Board of BHP wants to see the Australian economy grow. The remarks by the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition are not appreciated by business in Australia. It does not matter where one goes, one always hears about how disappointed business people are with the Liberal Party and its incapacity to get across the basic economic issues. Let us look at the performance of the Leader of the Opposition the other day in the Kooyong electorate, which I referred to in Question Time, and his view of the fiscal parameters. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about how we do not have a deficit outcome of the kind he envisaged. How does he match those remarks with the idiot remarks of his Leader on the weekend about what the Opposition would do with the structural component of the deficit? The Opposition does not have a policy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition's own foolish notion about wages-this latest nonsense he is speaking-is to let certain companies and certain unions opt out of the system. The people who can opt out-the people who can actually try to eke high wage claims out of the economy-are the people who are likely to opt out. We would have the strong pushing for higher wages while the rest receive indexation from the centralised system. That is a nonsense proposal and a disgrace coming from a man who was Treasurer of this country for five years. It would be a recipe for high inflation and wage disaster. In fact the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said something very revealing on the Sunday program last week. He said: 'In my view wages policy was the weakest part of the Fraser Government's economic policy'. Mr Howard —True. Mr KEATING —The honourable member acknowledges that fact. He was the Treasurer for five years. What he is saying is: 'I ran the economy for five years but I could not get it together on wages. The economy destroyed itself and inflation and unemployment came up. I could not hack it on wages. We did not have a policy '. He said on the Sunday program: 'We did not really try decentralisation of wages . We had a schizophrenic approach'. He confirms that statement. The fact is that on both these counts the Deputy Leader of the Opposition admits that during his five years as Treasurer he was not able to get a wages policy together. Now he calls up these projections to support his assertion that in the six or eight months since he lost the Treasurership of this country he had discovered the formula on wages. He is now the guru on wages policy in Australia. We are supposed to say 'Yes, we will adopt your policies', and that anything he wants to claim from the projections he can embrace and drag to himself after having wrecked the Australian economy and put it into negative growth for the first time in 30 years. One of the other things he said in his attack on me was that projection one was not as optimistic as scenario A. That is true because scenario A was based upon the November national accounts. A judgment was made that the economy would be better at the close of the year on 30 June. In fact, when we got to 30 June, which was essentially the end of a year of still operating under the previous Government's policies, we found the economy was much worse. Because projection one was based on the June accounts it reflected that fact. That is the reason-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not want to listen to that-for the difference. The economy performed much worse in 1982- 83 under his policies than we assumed it would at the time of the National Economic Summit Conference. When we based projection one upon the June accounts rather than the November accounts we were in a position to base that projection on the fact that the economy was performing much worse. This is really an attack of sour grapes. With this puerile attack the Opposition is claiming that the Australian economy is on the path of economic mediocrity, but for seven years we have had its disaster. When we look at the performance of the present Government in this period we see that the inflation rate is down to 1.6 per cent in the September quarter, the lowest quarterly increase for five years. The annual inflation rate is running at 9.2 per cent. In December it will be running at somewhat over 8 per cent. We see an employment growth of 82,000 since April. Retail sales are up 2.5 per cent. Interest rates have come down by 2 per cent since the beginning of the financial year despite the fact that we are financing a fairly large Budget deficit. We see a pickup in production. We see a dramatic pickup in the number of dwellings-they are now running at an annual rate of about 140,000. On that basis, what the coalition parties can see is that the economy is responding to the policies of the Government and that business and consumer confidence in starting to pick up. In fact, when the previous Government likes to chance its hand at another election we will see that it has no chance whatsoever of overcoming the successful performance of the Government with its economic policy. I reject absolutely this puerile, stupid, phoney and amateur attack on me on the basis of this projection . Let me just repeat the charges. On the first charge, the Government made no attempt to suppress these matters. It was the decision of EPAC not to publish that particular document. The second charge is the claim of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we had the information and did not give it to the Arbitration Commission. That is untrue and he knows it, because we gave that submission in July and we received these figures in October. The third charge is the Opposition's claim that I claimed that we reject absolutely EPAC projection one. In fact, what I said was that EPAC rejected the outcome of the projections, but that the projections are a useful tool. I stand by that. There is no basis for the censure motion. We reject it absolutely and we will continue to put the economic policies of the economically illiterate Leader of the Opposition and his failed Deputy under the kind of scrutiny that the Australian public deserves that we put them under. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.34) —I rise to support the censure motion moved by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). It is a long time since this Parliament has seen such a dereliction of duty and such a blatant misleading of the House as we have witnessed today. Despite the fact that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) would not allow the minutes to be tabled in the Parliament today-neither would he table them, nor would he accept the request by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to table them-they are now being circulated, and properly so because they will nail him for what he is, a man who has misled not only this Parliament but also the Australian people. When I listened to the honourable member at Question Time today I thought he was just stumbling, but as his answer struggled on it was obvious that he was deliberately misleading this Parliament. No wonder, I suppose, because the first lie was told last week. The message of the projections of the Australian economy was leaked last Friday. It was a chilling message. It was time that the Government came clean on the matter. It was time it had the guts and the courage to admit that any economic strategy which produces ever rising unemployment must be a wrong strategy. But this Government did not have the guts to face up to its responsibilities and it does not have the guts to admit that the Economic Planning Advisory Council did not in fact reject the results of the projections. The Government prefers to pursue its blatant deception of the Australian people which started with its election promises. I said the deception started last Friday. When one looks at the minutes and examines the Treasurer's Press release , which the innocent would have accepted as being a faithful recording of the realities and the truth, one finds that in fact he said in his Press release last Friday: At its meeting EPAC members criticised technical weaknesses in the paper and generally rejected it as inconsistent with likely future trends in the economy. Mr Howard —That is false. Mr PEACOCK —It is absolutely false. EPAC members rejected it? Let us look at the truth. I quote from the minutes of that EPAC meeting which supposedly, in the Treasurer's terms, rejected the projections: Council considered that the implications of the projections were disturbing. Is that rejection? The minutes continued: It was suggested that if there were little prospect of achieving substantial reductions in unemployment over the next few years, radical new approaches were warranted. It was the Government's policy that it had laid down beforehand that was being rejected, not the projections that were put before EPAC. The Treasurer lied on Friday and he has lied today, and the minutes show that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) -Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that remark. Mr Keating —Yes, I take exception to that, Mr Speaker. It is the first time the honourable gentleman has got out from under the sun lamp-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is asked to withdraw that remark. Mr PEACOCK —I withdraw the word 'lied' and say that he misled the people and he misled the Parliament today. Let us go on with the minutes to show the situation and nail the misleading for what it is. After saying that radical new approaches were needed-far be it from a rejection-the minutes go on to say: Although the results of the PM & C Projections were considered disappointing,-- that is putting it mildly- emphasis was given to the fact that certain policy approaches would produce better employment results than others. It was noted that some work was currently being done on the development of socially constructive employment opportunities outside the conventional labour force, and that the Government would be in a position to present a paper on this subject for discussion at the next Council meeting. Where is the rejection? Further work is being done. What are the projections from which the Government is running scared? According to the re-work projections, at best real non-farm product is likely to be 2 1/2 per cent lower than projected before, total employment is likely to be 1 1/4 per cent lower than projected before and no substantial improvement in profitability is projected. The chilling summary of it all is that unemployment rises. No wonder the Government wanted to deceive and to cloak these projections with the misleading phrases emanating from last Friday and carried through to the Parliament today. No person can come into the Parliament and stand here as responsible for a department, and a department as important as the Treasury, and mislead this Parliament as to what is transpiring by way of projections that are put forward to bodies on which he participates. Indeed his own officials must liaise from time to time. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has rightly pointed out that if one were to ask for Treasury projections they would probably be infinitely worse than the ones that are being covered up today. I suppose we can say 'No wonder the Treasurer tried to deceive the House', but that is working on the assumption of the way in which he has sought deception from last Friday. It is pointless for the Government to say, as it has today and on other occasions, that these figures are mere projections and not forecasts, that there has been an improvement in some indicators since the projections were made and that the Opposition is just being negative. That is absolutely avoiding the issue. The Government is stumbling blindly on. It is treating people like statistics, like digits in a computer, not human beings. It is treating expert projections-55 pages of expert analysis-like political fodder. Now we learn that it is desperately trying to hide the fact that EPAC felt sufficiently disturbed to talk about the need for radical new approaches. Why did the Government not come clean when it got these projections? The Treasurer says that he got them on 7 October. That was the date of the EPAC meeting. Did no member of EPAC get these projections before the meeting? Did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) not see them in September? Did the Treasurer not receive them in September? If, as I suspect, this man has misled today, he will mislead in regard to the date on which he received the documents. If the projections were so bad as to occasion more work, by EPAC not rejecting them, why did the Government not seek leave to appear before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and point out to the Commission that the assumptions that had been put to it were now found to be wrong? These projections have not been rejected. They have occasioned further work and they have gravely disturbed members of EPAC. Why did the Government not come clean not only before the Parliament but also before the Commission? The reason is that it has done its deal not with the unemployed but with the unions. It is locking out the unemployed. The harsh reality is that all the indices that are showing any improvement are doing so solely because of the policies of the previous Government. Who put the wages pause in place? It was not this Government. We put the wages pause in place with the assistance of every other government in Australia. The only group in Australia that opposed the wages pause is that consisting of the former incumbents of this side of the House, the present Government. State Labor governments went along with us. The Government will not now move from its position. Had it sought to extend that pause we would see the benefit next year. The present Government told us when we announced that we would seek a wages pause that no-one would go along with us. We got the support of the trade union movement and the State Labor Premiers. The present Government would not have the guts to even try it. A 4.3 per cent increase in wages has now been granted following a submission by the Government that is now revealed to be wrong by the Government's own experts and the Government has committed us to wage indexation next year. We were told in the Treasurer's own Budget papers that there will be further labour shedding next year. The basic reason given was that profits would be squeezed, that Australia was uncompetitive. The Government, whilst Australia is still uncompetitive, is locking us into full wage indexation at a rate that is more than double that of our competitors, further exacerbating our present uncompetitive situation. No wonder the Government's experts are advising it that more and more people will join the dole queue. The Government is going to adopt the stance that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions adopts. Quite obviously it will say: 'Our responsibility is now for the 89 per cent or the 88.8 per cent who still remain in work; we will forget the 11.2 per cent who are unemployed'. That is the chilling reality of the programs that the Government is following. It is the chilling reality of the figures that are put down by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The reality is that the Government is desperately trying to hide behind the fact that unemployment is continuing to rise and will reach over 11 per cent in 1985-86. Let us change the argument from statistics to people. This Government- all of the honourable members opposite who claim to have a social conscience-is following a strategy which will damn at least one in four of our young people to the dole queue, to the trauma of social rejection with the inevitable consequences for this country. The projections for the Australian economy, leaked last Friday, about which the Treasurer has made consistently misleading remarks, indicate graphically that the Government's economic strategy is a strategy of higher unemployment, higher inflation, higher deficits and hence high real interest rates. The projections are a chilling indictment of the Government. They indicate clearly the price the unemployed are required to pay for the Government's deal with the unions. An increasing number of statistics have made clear that recovery is beginning. Why? Because the rains came and the wages pause was in place. The Government ignores these factors and it ignores the pushing of more and more people onto the dole queue. No wonder the Opposition was moved to propose this motion immediately after Question Time, after the Treasurer had further misled and exacerbated the misleading statements last Friday. Unemployment is destined to continue growing. Instead of engaging in some deceitful orgy of self-congratulation, instead of turning every welcome sign of employment into another source of unwarranted self -confidence, the Government should be taking the expert projection seriously, as are members of EPAC, and examining what changes are needed in its strategy to get unemployment down, not in four years but now. The strategy urged by the Government's advisers is to 'ensure that home grown disabilities in the Australian economy do not prevent the nation from taking best advantage of such world economic growth as might occur'. The essential elements of an economic strategy to deal with unemployment are simple. They rest mainly on a wages policy aimed at restoring our competitiveness and at reducing inflation to a level at or below that likely to be experienced by our major trading partners. They must be aimed at a reduction in the public sector deficit to a level which allows for reductions in real interest rates and removes constraints on private sector recovery. Most importantly, they rest on a return to private sector profitability to a level which encourages new investment, new economic activity and new employment opportunities. The Treasurer should not come before the House and say that his strategy is working. His own advisers have indicated that it is not working. He mentioned earlier in his speech that he could not table the minutes of EPAC. He quoted from them to justify that. He quoted the words: 'In the meantime it was important that the preliminary work reported in the paper remained confidential to Council members'. That quotation was from the paper, the 55 pages of advice that were tendered to the Government, not the minutes. The minutes reflected the request for confidentiality regarding the document itself. Even in regard to the minutes the Treasurer misled this Parliament. Therefore, this motion should receive support. The Treasurer should be censured for misleading the Parliament, for indicating that expert advisers had put forward a scenario that deeply troubled members of EPAC. It was not rejected but, in fact, has been carried forward. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(3.49) —I oppose and utterly reject the hypocritical motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) . Let us get straight what this debate is really about. Yet again in this House we have a preselection debate, not a debate about the economy. We are witnessing a contest between the contending leaders of the Liberal Party. We know, of course, that earlier today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) gave notice that he intended to propose a matter of public importance, but so petrified were members of the Opposition at the prospect of yet again having to listen to his feeble attempt to attack this Government and to try to peddle some recently and badly learnt economics that they decided to change their tactics halfway through . They said: 'For God's sake, John, how can we get you into the act? How can we get you into leading this debate? We do not want to go through the embarrassment of having the Leader of the Opposition taking a leading role in an economic debate, a debate about which he knows nothing?' His speech just now has revealed exactly that. So, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had to be saddled up to take the lead on this matter. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: 'Oh, I know how I will get into this debate. I will move a motion about misleading the House because no one knows more about misleading the House than I do. I am the expert on deception'. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —Oh, these screeching jackals! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! the honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The House will come to order. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The Opposition has made its point. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, will you make sure that the Minister for Finance does not alter the greens? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Darling Downs that another point of order as provocative as that will warrant action from the Chair . Mr DAWKINS —No one in this House knows more about deception and deceit than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not guilty just of misleading the House. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is guilty of a much more heinous crime. He is guilty of misleading the entire nation. Before the election it was not just a question of not telling the people the truth about the prospective deficit for 1983-84. Not only did he not tell us what he knew, but also he tried to doctor the figures. He tried to say that a different figure, a different deficit, was in prospect. So it was far from just a cover up; it was a quite deliberate attempt to deceive and to mislead the Australian people. Now this discredited former Treasurer tries to lecture us here about the prospects and the outlook for the economy. The people opposite are the greatest economic iconoclasts this country has ever seen. They are the ones under whose management of the economy unemployment doubled. These are the people who saw the dole queues double. Yet they have the nerve to say that we will not be able to turn round as quickly as we would like the devastating depression in which we found this economy. To the extent that there is a difference between the projections earlier released and the projections available to the Economic Planning Advisory Council more recently, the difference is that the forecasts on which the earlier ones were made did not anticipate or realise the depth of the recession and the extraordinary damage which our predecessors had done to the Australian economy. These people are the demolition experts. They know all about how to destroy an economy. However, they know nothing about how to retrieve the economic fortunes of this country. Even worse than all that, this debate indicates the extent to which the Opposition is prepared to pervert economic debate within this country. Everybody knows-even the most infantile and idiotic commentator or participant in the economic debate-that at the beginning of this year the economy was in very deep trouble. All the indicators were going precisely in the wrong direction. Everybody knew that we would begin to restore the fortunes of the Australian economy only if we could begin a process of getting all the people involved in the economy to work together and to co-operate rather than fighting each other and confronting each other in the way in which they had been encouraged under the Fraser Government. This Government not only convened the National Economic Summit Conference but also established the Economic Planning Advisory Council. The purpose of that Council was to ensure that employers, unions, the States and others who had an interest in the economy and were able to influence the economy could sit down with the Government and work together through the problems that existed to try to find solutions to them. This Opposition is so desperately scared that that strategy will work. It is trying to destroy the efforts which have been made hitherto and which are now in prospect. Not satisfied with having destroyed the economy under its own administration, it is prepared to sabotage the improvement in the economy already occurring under this Government. The Opposition displays hypocrisy in wanting to distort and to misuse a process of co-operation, a process of sharing information with important elements in the community, to try to fabricate some charge of deceit on our part, to try to fabricate some charge of a cover up and, more fatuous than anything, to try to accuse the Treasurer ( Mr Keating), the man responsible for overseeing a vast improvement in the ecomomy, of some wrongdoing. To the chagrin of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he will see in a year's time the success of this Treasurer, in just 12 months, so outshining his feeble efforts over five years that he will not be able to show his face publicly. The economy is on the mend, but we have to remember that the economy was much worse than even we realised at the time we took office. Mr Howard —What about answering the charges? Did he lie or not? Mr DAWKINS —Of course, he did not lie. I would not be standing here defending him if I thought he did. The whole point is that EPAC discussed this matter. EPAC said that it was not prepared to accept the projections quite simply because it believed they were not an accurate likely outcome of the events as the members of EPAC were then able to predict them. They said: 'We believe that things are going to be better than this'. That is why they wanted more work done on the underlying assumptions that were used for the basis of those projections. The Treasurer has already gone to very great lengths to indicate that those projections were not intended to be a description of a likely outcome. They were designed to say what might be expected to occur, given certain circumstances and certain policy positions. In fact what had already been put in place at the time of the earlier projections, and certainly at the time of the later projections, were changed policies. We were not going to sit pat and rely on the failed policies of our predecessors. We have put in place policies which are already beginning to bear fruit. One has only to look at the most recent statistics and the most recent indications of what is going on in this economy to realise that the prospects for the next 12 months are very much more optimistic than has ever been thought. We have found recently that the turnaround has been much more dramatic than was expected even at the time of the Budget. Of course, the former discredited Treasurer might have a view of time being frozen at the time he makes particular decisions, but this Government recognises that things change and that our policies begin to have an effect and to improve likely outcomes. Therefore, we are prepared to provide information about how that is occurring. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot accept that this Government has been the first Government prepared to publish and to share the information it has. Mr Howard —That goes well. You will not even table a minute. Mr DAWKINS —It is all right for those opposite to have purloined documents. They are experts at that as well. The documents, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows, are the property of EPAC and it is for EPAC to determine whether it will publish its minutes. But as to the docment, the important- Mr Howard —Wilson Tuckey will see that you do. Mr DAWKINS —Do not worry about him; he will have his own problems to worry about before much longer. I refer honourable members opposite to the Sunday Independent. The point is that EPAC was not prepared to publish those projections; but that is not to say that at some later time EPAC will not be involved in the publication of important material which will be helpful to the whole of the economy in terms of planning for the future. That is why EPAC has been established. This Opposition cannot understand that we are a government which is prepared to make information available. We were the first government to make available the forward estimates report in March or April of this year. That has hitherto been a secret document. We are the first government which has been prepared to provide as much information as we have in our regular publications and in the Budget. All that is part of a very careful strategy to ensure that those other decision-makers in the economy have available the most up to date and reliable information the Government can provide. The Opposition is really concerned that the economy is doing much better and that it will continue to strengthen. We now know that real farm gross domestic product will grow by as much as 30 per cent instead of the Budget-time expectation of 20 per cent. We see that in the housing sector commencements rose by 12.4 per cent in the June quarter-very much more than was earlier predicted. We see that production statistics indicate that the manufacturing sector has now joined the recovery. We find that motor vehicle registrations have continued on a healthy trend and that consumer confidence is returning to the economy for the first time in years. What we have in so many areas-it is written on the wall everywhere-is the fact that the economy is improving. We have already been prepared to acknowledge-we have acknowledged time and time again-that one of the last indicators to turn around will be unemployment. As confidence grows, as people see that the policies of this Government are working , more and more people will be registering for employment. They will not be driven by the despair which coloured the last seven years into withdrawing entirely from the work force. They will say: 'We want to work'. Therefore, for a while we can expect, as we have admitted time and again, that there may be some increase in the unemployment figures, but underlying that will be a strengthening growth in employment. That, of course, is the point the Opposition will not face up to. It knows that in that statistic is the harsh reality of its fate, not just for the next three years but for the next three decades. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(4.04) —The deception and duplicity by the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) and the misleading of the Parliament and the people of Australia cannot be condoned. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.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.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Anthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Brown, John Fisher, P. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Anthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R.E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.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.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A.G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Fisher, P. S. Brown, John Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —The Chair is pleased to acknowledge the presence of Mr Bruce Graham, a former honourable member for the electorates of St George and North Sydney. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 88 of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974, I present the 1982-83 annual report of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 41 (4) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 and Section 20 (4) of the Export Expansion Grants Act 1978, I present the Export Development Grants Board annual report for 1982-83. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations annual report for 1982-83. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 22 of the Commonwealth Employment Service Act 1978, I present the Commonwealth Employment Service report for 1982-83. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, I present the annual report for 1982-83 on the operation of the Act and the operations of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development insofar as they relate to Australia. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 49 (4) of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979, I present the annual report for 1982-83 of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) — Pursuant to section 33 of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981, I present the Independent Air Fares Committee annual report for 1982-83. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations) —For the information of honourable members, pursuant to section 53 (3) of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, I present the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) annual report and financial statements for the year ended 31 March 1983. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communi- cations) —Pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975, I present the Australian Postal Commission annual report for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the report of the Western Australia Local Government Grants Commission 1983-84 which contains the recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth funds to individual councils by the Western Australian Government Grants Commission. Payments to Western Australia were made in early September 1983 by the Treasury. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 untilising 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 Andrew,Mr Beazley,Mr Bilney,Dr Blewett,Mr Burr,Mr Cadman,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Cross,Mr Dawkins,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Mr Fife,Mr Hayden,Mr Hodgman,Mr Howard,Mr Humphreys,Mr Katter,Mrs Kelly,Mr Lindsay,Mr Lloyd,Mr Lusher,Mr McVeigh,Mr Mildren,Mr Milton,Mr Peter Morris,Mr Porter,Mr Rocher ,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: 1. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of ' base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 3. We call upon the Federal Government, however, to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own Special Programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 4. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Charles,Mr Fife,Mr Howe,Mr Les Johnson,Mrs Kelly,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton,Mr Staples,Mr Steedman and Mr Street. 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 Beddall,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Cross,Mr Dawkins,Mr Dobie and Mr Macphee. 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 in government schools. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Hurford,Mr O'Neil and Mr Porter. 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 the 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 Members of 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 Hodgman and Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in the schools of Australia. That the reorganisation of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases, negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore pray that the government will reconsider its decision, and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps . by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That Australia's meat exports are being placed in an uncompetitive position by the imposition of substantial Export Meat Inspection Charges whilst Australia 's competitors receive free inspection plus considerable subsidies. 2. These charges are causing substantial loss of business for export abattoir operators and loss of jobs for their employees due to the disparity in inspection costs of export and non-export works arising from a 200 per cent increase in Federal Government charges at export works. 3. That immediate steps should be taken to end the serious injury being done by these charges to export abattoir operators, their employees, livestock producers and all others dependant on the Australian meat and livestock industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will act to immediately suspend all export inspection charges for a period of three years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, is a fundamental human right; and That it is both the duty and the responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society' s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, or pregnancy. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth. 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 we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitition, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we request that the Government take steps to ensure: (1) The construction program of Radford College, Bruce, proceeds immediately. (2) Parents freedom of choice in education is fostered by continuing to provide a basic grant for all Australian children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that, the government of President Marcos of the Philippines is engaged in the denial of human rights, such as imprisonment and torture without charge or trial, and that a situation of defacto martial law exists in the Philippines. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ask that, all military aid or military cooperation, and the sale of defence equipment from Australia to the Marcos government be ceased. All government-to-government development aid from Australia to the Philippines cease until it can be shown that such aid will benefit the poorest people, rather than furthering the interests of the military. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. We your humble petitioners do hereby pray that: 1. This government re-affirm its needs based funding policy for non-government schools and continue to pursue its mandate in this regard. 2. The government re-affirm its primary obligation to the needs of government schools. 3. We support the Schools Commission Community Resource Standard as a basis for funding government schools. 4. The recommendations of the Australian Schools Commission in respect to the funding of non-government schools be accepted. by Mr Keating. 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 multi- lingual 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. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we are very anxious to promote peace in our world. To that end, we are grateful that an Ambassador for Peace has been commissioned, but we respectfully say that this is not enough . We ask that a Summit be held where government, community organisations, and the people consult on a Ministry for Peace. We would like to see a Ministry for Peace given the same priority as a Ministry for War. A war office is geared for war. A Ministry for Peace will balance that and hopefully keep peace throughout the world. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament in Canberra will speedily hold such a Summit, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia ( electors of the division of Grey) respectfully showeth: That controls preventing Adelaide commercial television stations from extending full-strength coverage to the iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie are contrary to the concept of free competition which is the basis of our economic system. That such controls prevent citizens of this important and populous group of decentralised industrial cities from enjoying a freedom of choice in television programs which is in any way comparable to that applying in the metropolitan area. That television is the only form of audio-visual entertainment within the financial scope of a large proportion of the population of this area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that any restrictions limiting television coverage of this area should be removed and market forces be permitted to stimulate a broader program choice and better quality. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two 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 citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will 1. Prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. Declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of uranium in Australia. 3. Prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of parents' club bank accounts by way of the bank account debit tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are school councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt parent clubs from the tax in the same way as are school councils. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Brumby,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Fisher,Mr Howe,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Kent,Mr Macphee,Mr Milton,Mr Staples and Mr Willis. 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. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Burr,Mr Hunt,Mr O'Keefe and Mr Ian Robinson. The honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectively showeth that : 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson,Mr O'Keefe and Mr Snow. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of this immediate area respectfully showeth: That they recognise the necessity for an increase in the Caloundra Community Youth Support Scheme's funding. It is imperative they receive this increase to pay for extra staff and facilities to cope with ever increasing problems of the unemployed. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government see the necessity and grant the extra funds. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania showeth: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. 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 Australian Citizenship Act contains provisions for an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her Heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance, to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her Heirs and successors. That the said Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled will ensure that the present Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained, and will strongly oppose any attempts to remove all references to God and The Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and any attempts to remove all references to The Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth that your petitioners are outraged and disturbed by the inhumane slaughter of baby harp seals off the coasts of Newfoundland and in particular, the Gulf of St Lawrence and the Magdelen Islands. 1. That, as a people of a democratic society, we urge the Australian Government to halt all imports of seal products. 2. That we can be assured that the murdering of harp seals be discontinued in all forms at the real and perilous threat of the extinction of yet another arctic animal species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take heed of their petitioners' protest, and give seals the right to life. 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 living in Melbourne, Victoria, showeth: That Vietnamese refugees have endeavoured to settle in Australia and integrate into this community, and in a comparatively short time have achieved encouraging progress. However, settlement is a long and difficult process, and this process has been made harder because of unemployment and adverse economic conditions. We respectfully submit that it is in the interest of our community that refugees who are accepted in Australia after having to risk their lives to escape persecution are helped in every possible way to surmount haunting experiences of the past, so that they can devote all their minds and energies to building a new life in Australia and making a positive contribution to this society. We respectfully express our concern at the proposed increased level of visits by Governmental and other delegations from Communist Vietnam. Such visits, especially if they are frequent and highly publicised, will have the unfortunate effect of upsetting and unsettling those people who have suffered from the policies of the Communist regime in Vietnam in the recent past. Such visits will create confusion and tension and detract the refugees from their efforts of settlement. We respectfully state that we are for diplomatic dialogue and that we support the Government's efforts to bring peace back in Cambodia on the basis of self- determination, as well as to uphold human rights all over Indochina. We respectfully ask that the Government, in pursuit of its policy in South East Asia, take into account the settlement needs of Vietnamese who are now members of our community and avoid any aspect or measure of policy that is likely to have an unsettling effect on them and hamper their settlement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I believe the honourable member for Wakefield wishes to make a personal explanation. Does he claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER — He may proceed. Mr ANDREW —In the Hansard record of proceedings of this House of 17 November at page 2865 there appears the record of a division on the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983. I was present in the House and opposed that Bill. But the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) is recorded as having opposed the Bill. He was not present in the House. I suggest that confusion has been caused by the alphabetical sequence of our names. I would appreciate a correction being made. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair will make inquiries to see whether the request can be complied with. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Customs and Excise Amendment Bill 1983 States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1983 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill 1983 International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill 1983 Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Bill 1983 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 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 Prisoners Bill 1983 Transfer of Prisoners (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 1983 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Customs and Excise Amendment Bill 1983 States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1983 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 Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Mr Speaker has 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 increases in unemployment resulting from the Government's economic strategy . 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)(4.30) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the message of the projections of the Australian-- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Anthony, J. D. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Brown, John Fisher, P. S. Question so resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILLS: STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) BILL 1983 STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1983 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1983 because they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. I call the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), whom I am pleased to welcome back to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(4.39) —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The three measures before the House, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, represent a package of legislation which gives effect to education funding guidelines announced by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) in the Senate on 25 August 1983. With other decisions announced in the Budget, these represent the Government's financial proposals for education in Australia for 1984. They are proposed in the context of the Government's election undertaking and in light of advice provided to the Government by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Based on the knowledge of the Government's election undertakings and the advice of its expert advisory bodies, the Government's plans for education in 1984, to say the least, are disappointing. The Government started out on the election trail early this year with a roar about the extra funds that it would provide for education in all sectors and, of course, has finished the year with a mere whimper. There is a long list of broken promises and so far as the recommendations of the advisory bodies are concerned there is a list of advices that have been either disregarded or not responded to. I think the latter is probably the most concerning because it is the prerogative of government to either accept or reject advice that is made available to it. The Government stands condemned for not responding to a large number of those recommendations particularly in the schools area. Clearly the Government's post election rhetoric does not correspond to what it said prior to the election. At the second reading stage of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill I intend to move an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) condemns the Government for its many dishonoured promises to Australian secondary students; (2) insists on the right of every Australian child to a basic grant for support of his or her schooling at a level which is predictable and related to educational costs in Government schools; (3) supports the principle of absolute freedom of choice in education and the right of all parents to be supported in that choice; (4) deplores the restriction on the free development of non-Government schools as an expression of the will of parents, and (5) condemns the Government for the unexplained and arbitrary cuts to some Schools Commission Programs, in particular, the Professional Development Program . When the House deals with the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill at the second reading stage I will move another amendment. I give notice of my intention now. The amendment will read: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for its many dishonoured promises to Australian tertiary students'. I mentioned earlier and in the context of giving notice of my intention to move amendments that at this very early stage the Government has a sorry record of a long list of broken promises in the education field. First I think it would be appropriate to draw the attention of the House to what has occurred in relation to funding. Since the last Budget-that is the 1982-83 Budget-costs in Australia have risen by around 11 per cent. Therefore any financial allocation with less than this level of increase has actually fallen in real terms. It is therefore unbelievable, given the rhetoric of the Government when in Opposition, that the Australian Labor Party's first contribution to education in Government includes a reduction of total education spending as a proportion of total outlays by 0.3 per cent in real terms. It has reduced expenditure on all student assistance schemes by 2 per cent in real terms. It has reduced assistance for tertiary students by 6 per cent in real terms. It has reduced the tertiary education assistance scheme eligibility by 0.8 per cent in real terms by failing to widen the means test limits to keep pace with wages. It has reduced post-graduate award living allowances by 4 per cent in real terms. It has reduced adult secondary education assistance by 4 per cent in real terms for living allowances and by 0.8 per cent in real terms for eligibility. It has also reduced expenditure on the aboriginal secondary grants scheme, the aboriginal study grants scheme and the assistance for isolated children by 4 per cent in real terms. Of course we have seen under this Government the gap widening between unemployment benefits and the student assistance schemes increasing disincentive to greater educational participation. I think as well as dwelling on those financial figures we should have a very quick look at what Labor when in opposition undertook to do when returned to government and look at how many of those undertakings have not been honoured. For example, under the heading of higher education, the Government undertook to provide post-doctoral fellowships for 300 scholars to boost the national research effort. That undertaking, of course, has not been honoured. The Government undertook to increase progressively student assistance through TEAS until it equalled the single unemployment benefit and then to maintain that nexus. I have already drawn attention to that and of course that undertaking has not been honoured; in fact the gap has widened. It undertook to raise the TEAS means test until it equated with average weekly earnings. That is another undertaking which has not been honoured. It said that it would establish an emergency student loans scheme to replace the student loans scheme and that undertaking has not been honoured. In the schools area the list is longer and equally devastating. The Government undertook to institute a new program for primary schools at a level of $9m per annum. That undertaking has not been honoured. It said that it would provide an additional $37m in its first year in government for recurrent resources in government schools. That is a very significant undertaking so far as government schools are concerned which has still not been honoured. The Government said that it would provide an additional $16m in the first year of the program for needy non-government schools. That undertaking has still not been honoured. It said also that it would provide $24m over three years for the computer education program. That undertaking has been partly honoured and I will come back to that in some detail a little later. The Government said that it would establish a revolving loan fund with an initial contribution of $5m to bring forward construction of planned new non-government schools. Of course we know that is also an undertaking that has not been honoured. In the technical and further education field the Government said that a special triennial program to cost $ 30m to upgrade equipment and facilities for latest technologies and to stimulate employment in the Australian manufacturing area would be undertaken. That, of course, has not commenced. An immediate boost of $15m in capital for recurrent funds to the States was also an undertaking which has not been honoured. The migrant education field is a tremendously important area and one which I would have thought Government members would have supported. They said, in opposition in the runup to the election, that a $45 per capita grant for ethnic schools would be provided. That undertaking has still not been honoured. The Labor Party said that the provision of $3.68m per annum to cover costs involved in transferring all eligible casual migrant teachers to permanent positions would be put into place. Still we have heard nothing of this undertaking. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill gives effect to the guidelines that were announced for funding universities, colleges of advanced education and TAFE for the calendar year 1984. Honourable members will be aware that 1984 is the last year of the current triennium. Presumably at this time next year we will be considering funding for the 1985-87 triennium. I said 'presumably' as it is dependent upon whether the Government continues triennial funding. So many of the promises given have been breached already that one cannot be certain that triennial funding will be continued. When the present Government was previously in government it cut out triennial recurrent funding for universities and colleges of advanced education. The former Government restored recurrent funding to give some certainty about ongoing funds for universities and colleges of advanced education. At that time the then Opposition, the present Government, had the temerity to be critical of the government of the day for not providing capital funds on a triennial basis. Presumably, having criticised us for not doing that in Government, this Government intends to provide capital funds for universities and colleges of advanced education on a triennial basis. I and the Opposition await with a great deal of interest details of what the Government proposes in this area for the 1985-87 triennium. Members of the Opposition are not the only people who remember the Government's education promises. They are not the only people to have expressed disappointment. Following the March election this year expectations were high in the community as to what would occur as far as education funding was concerned. Given the rhetoric of the present Government, there was an expectation abroad that there would be massive increases in all sectors and that funds would be made available , not at some time in the future but in the first year of the Government's term of office. The staff associations are equally concerned and have been as vocal as the Opposition in this regard. On the day that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) announced the guidelines for 1984, the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations issued a media statement. In that statement FAUSA said in part: The Federal Government's Tertiary Education Funding Guidelines for 1984 released today contained fine sentiments but little substance. That is what the University Staff Associations had to say about the funding decisions for universities announced by the current Government. We find also in the guideline statements, and provision is made in the legislation now before the House, that a great deal of emphasis was given to the fact that the Government proposes to set aside an additional $10m in 1984 to provide 3,000 additional places in universities and colleges of advanced education. I do not know whether members of the Government Party have done their sums. If they have they will find that the cost of providing one student place in higher education in this country is about $6,000 per annum, whereas provision of funds, on the Government's own calculation, will be only $3,333 for a student place, given the 3,000 additional places that are supposed to be provided at a cost of $10m. Thus , despite the overall increase in funds in 1984, on the Government's own figures -I stress that there will be a reduction in the real funding level per student. As far as equipment funding is concerned I would have thought that, given the rapid changes in technology, this would have received priority treatment. What has occurred? An allocation of $70.7m has been made for equipment funding for 1984. That figure is no higher in real terms than that which was allocated in 1982. This means that the rate of technological change in the work place is not being reflected, even in a modest way, in equipment funding for universities and colleges of advanced education. All members of the House who either represent country electorates or are interested in country electorates, and I hope that that embraces all members on both sides of the House, will be really concerned at the mean decision of the Government in relation to halls of residence. A reduction of 25 per cent in the subsidy for colleges and halls of residences is included in the legislation before the House. This is a harsh blow. It is not so much a harsh blow against the institutions concerned as it is a harsh blow against the individuals concerned. This Government has some kind of perverted view that, in this area and in another area to which I will come in a moment, it is attacking the rich. I draw attention to the fact that many people who are in colleges and halls of residence are people of very modest income. Indeed, many of them have great difficulty in meeting existing costs, let alone the inevitable fee increases that will occur. Although it is enshrined in this legislation I hope that in the near future the Government will reconsider this very unfair and harsh decision. There is already a critical shortage of residential accommodation on many campuses. The inevitable fee increases that this decision will bring will cause a great deal of heartache, concern and, obviously, financial distress to the people concerned. Mr Gear —What did you do about it? Mr Carlton —What does the honourable member for Tangney think about it? Mr FIFE —The honourable member for Tangney obviously has not voiced any opposition to this, or, if he has, he has not been listened to. I hope he joins in the debate and I hope he is very critical of this matter. I hope that the Government will take some notice of what he says and what I am saying now. The other Bill, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, deals with what is represented as being a new scheme. The program covered by this Bill really does very little more than dress up the school to work transition program which was introduced by the former Government. Indeed, at the time of its introduction and during the remainder of the period the former Government was in office, the present Government, the then Opposition, was very critical of this scheme. It is interesting to note that this Government has embraced the scheme. It tried to dress it up, and given it a new name. However, I am bound to say that the difference between the old scheme and the new scheme is no more than just a little bit of tokenism. This part of the debate is about inducing young people to remain in constructive, educational activities rather than opt for unemployment in a period of low demand and it is about helping to resolve inequities in the opportunities open to certain disadvantaged groups in the community. As I have just pointed out, the former Government started the school to work transition program. I would have thought that, given the fact that the new Government has decided to embrace this scheme and give it a new name, it would have provided some additional resources over and above those that have been enshrined in this legislation. It is generally acknowledged that if education participation rates are to rise two matters must be addressed. Firstly, we believe that perversities in the current structure of income support for youth which make unemployment the best paid option must be corrected. Secondly, educational offerings must be improved so that further study comes to be regarded as valuable and worth while. The participation and equity program tosses a small sum of money at the latter problem, far too little to cause significant qualitative improvement in courses offered, and fails to address the former problem at all, and I stress that. In fact, the 1983-84 Budget contains changes to existing benefits, changes which marginally worsen an already poor situation. I said earlier that I would say something more about the Government's attempt to introduce a computer education program. I think we should pause for a moment to look at what various groups have said about what should be done in this field that is growing in importance and urgency. During the run-up to the last election the then Government-the Liberal-National Party coalition-indicated that if returned it would provide $100m, that is, $20m each year over a five-year period, for the computer education program. During the run-up to the election the Labor Party said that it would provide $8m per year over a three year period ; that is, a total of $24m. The Commonwealth Schools Commission has recommended that $125m be allocated over five years. What has the Government done? What has the Government provided in the legislation before the House? The Government has provided only $6m per year over a three-year period; that is, a total of $18m compared with its own undertaking of $24m, the Liberal and National Parties' undertaking of $100m and the Schools Commission recommendation of $125m. I am sure that even if no other member of the Government is concerned, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) would be gravely concerned about this matter. The Commonwealth Schools Commission has been critical of the Government's financing. On page 1 of its report it stated: This will necessitate-- that is, the Government's decision- increased contributions from government and non-government school authorities if the objectives of the program are to be realised. School teachers must also be concerned for themselves as well as for their students at the way in which the Government has dealt with its first attempt so far as finance is concerned in the educational field since coming to office. The Government has reduced the professional development program of the Schools Commission by a massive 40.56 per cent. I have already referred to a large number of broken promises in the schools area. Let me again remind the House of the fact that, so far as government schools are concerned, the proposed new program for primary schools of $9m per annum is not being implemented by the legislation before the House or by any paper associated with the Budget. The additional $37m promised in the first year of government for recurrent resources in government schools has not been forthcoming. But if, as is clear, government schools have fared badly under this Government, non-government schools have been knocked into a state of shock. The Government has removed the nexus or the percentage link between the cost of educating a student in a government school, and over a period government support for non-government school students will fall as a result of this measure. The Government has removed the concept of a basic grant for all children in non -government schools. It has reduced support for 41 non-government schools, claiming that those schools are wealthy, privileged private schools. It said nothing about the parents of the children attending those schools. It has introduced measures that effectively ban the establishment of many new non- government schools throughout Australia. It is possible that all of this has something to do with the massive political debt owed by the Australian Labor Party-the present Government-to the Australian Teachers Federation. Across Australia the Teachers Federation contributed no less than three-quarters of a million dollars-$750,000-in support of the Australian Labor Party before and during the 1983 election campaign. It is not a question of how much support is given to schools. The real question concerns the degree of financial support for students and parents. The Opposition believes that the Commonwealth and State governments together have the responsibility to fully fund government schools and thereby accept that responsibility for the students and the parents of students who attend government schools. We believe also that governments-Commonwealth and State governments together-have a responsibility to partly fund non-government schools in an equitable way. The removing of the nexus removes the certainty that non- government schools had. Under the policy of the former Government there were three groups. Those with less need in group 1 received 20 per cent of the average cost of educating a child in a government school; those with lesser resources in group 2 received 30 per cent of the cost of educating a child in a government school, and those non-government schools with the lower resources received 40 per cent of the average cost of educating a child in a government school. They are hardly percentages that should be of concern to parents and students and those who work in schools that receive 100 per cent from the Commonwealth and State governments. When returned to government the Opposition will restore the nexus so as to restore confidence and to provide that certainty which non-government schools require. We believe also that the Government should continue to provide a basic grant as well as to top up that basic grant on a needs based funding formula. We believe that every child attending a non-government school, regardless of the school and its resources, is entitled to that basic grant. The Opposition is not alone in this assertion. Every non-government school in Australia and certainly those who speak for non-government schools believe that that basic grant should be built into the funding formula. Mr Simmons —Rubbish. Mr FIFE —Let me say to the honourable member that he has not been about if he believes that the non-government school sector does not believe in a basic grant as well as topping it up on a needs basis. Probably one of the most concerning aspects for non-government schools is the fact that it will be more difficult to establish new schools. This situation has occurred under a government that calls itself a consensus government. I believe that the policy the Government is pursuing in this area is deliberately designed to cause division between people, division between those people who have children at government schools and those people who have children at non-government schools, and division between those parents who have children at Catholic schools and those parents who have children at non-Catholic schools. The Age newspaper today reports the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) as saying that the campaign that is being waged by parents of children attending non-government schools reflects the political interest of the extreme right of that group. I believe that the Minister is being offensive to those parents, and I am sure this will be reflected in the days ahead. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(5.09) —The States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, which are currently before the House, I believe represent great advances for education at all levels -in this country primary, secondary and post-secondary. The Bills represent the legislative response to two important reports that were tabled in this Parliament on 18 October 1983. The reports that I am referring to are, first of all, the report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission which made recommendations for the distribution of funds for 1984 for tertiary education programs funded by the Commonwealth Government. The second very important report is the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission containing the recommendations for 1984 in response to the Government's guidelines to the Schools Commission. I remind the House and honourable members present of the comments made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), who represents the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), when presenting these Bills to the House in the last sitting week. Referring to the States Grants ( Schools Assistance) Bill the Minister stated: 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. Referring to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and to the difficult economic situation that was facing the Government, coming to office as it did at a time of a record economic mess left by the people opposite who call themselves the Opposition, the Minister stated that the Government has given a high priority to education. On tertiary education the Minister stated: . . . funds have been increased by 1.5 per cent in real terms for 1984 which is the last year of the current triennium. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) made a number of comments on tertiary education. Before proceeding to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance ) Amendment Bill, I take up the point the honourable member raised on the funding of student halls of residence. I remind honourable members that the Government is well aware of representations made by members of the Opposition and certainly by Government members with respect to assistance for students in halls of residence. I know that the Government plans to address the totality of this important question, particularly for people living in rural locations and for institutions located in rural parts of Australia. After all, there is a significant difference between the campuses in residential facilities such as in my electorate, the Orange Agricultural College and Mitchell College of Advanced Education, and Sydney University. I can assure the honourable member for Farrer that the Government is likely to give greater consideration to the reasoned representation of honourable members such as the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis), who I know has taken a great interest in this subject, and myself than to the emotional rhetoric that we hear from time to time from the rabble opposite who purport to be the Opposition in this place. I turn now to important States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. In 1984, the Commonwealth will provide $2,199.7m for all tertiary education programs in technical and further education colleges, colleges of advanced education and universities. As I indicated previously, this represents an increase in real terms of 1.5 per cent. One particular area that I have taken a great deal of interest in since becoming a member of this chamber, indeed for some 12 months, is the amalgamation threats that were being made by the previous Government. I am delighted that in this Bill the Government is removing the amalgamation requirements. The provisions placed in existing legislation by the previous Government to force the amalgamation, the educational shotgun marriages, of these institutions are now to be repealed. As I said in the House on 2 November, this accepts educational reality. One important institution in my electorate, the Orange Agricultural College, had the educational sword of Damocles held over its head for some time. I am delighted that this decision by the Government ends years of indecision about the college's future. As from 1 January next year the Orange Agricultural College will proceed as an autonomous institution. As I said, I think that is a recognition of educational reality at the tertiary level. The other important area is cost supplementation. The Bill provides retrospective adjustments to 1983 grants to take account of both the wages pause and the recent national wage case increase, resulting in a net saving of $15.1m. This adjustment is reached after fully supplementing the grants as a result of the national wage case. Grants for 1984 will be supplemented retrospectively by amendment during 1984. I know that all colleges and universities throughout Australia certainly welcome this move. On the matter of tertiary education, in my electorate I am pleased to see that the Mitchell College of Advanced Education at Bathurst is to receive an allocation of $12.133m for 1984 from the Schedule contained in the Bill. Orange Agricultural College, which I previously mentioned, will receive, for the first time as an autonomous institution, $2. 111m. Another significant aspect of this Bill relates to the great mining community of Lithgow, which is in the eastern end of my electorate. The Lithgow College of technical and further education will receive an allocation for 1984 of $3.541m, part of a total allocation of $6.344m for building, fitting and machining, electrical and automotive courses. I know that decision has been greatly welcomed by the people of Lithgow and district. I now turn to the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill 1983. The purpose of the Bill is to provide funds for the participation and equity program which will commence in 1984 and will continue through in 1985 and 1986. The program is designed to encourage a significant increase in participation by young people in the post-compulsory years of education and training to provide a useful and fulfilling education and to encourage the achievement of more equal outcomes of education, such as access to higher education and to employment. These are values that are certainly highly regarded by all honourable members in this chamber. The programs for schools will be administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission while the TAFE program will be administered by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. This program has been welcomed already as part of the Government's progressive policies on education. Despite some of the great distortion in the education debate that is taking place in this community at present, I am sure that those people who have had an opportunity to consider the aims and objectives of the Government's participation and equity program will see that it does have a great deal of value. I believe there is real concern about retention rates in Australian schools in recent years. It has, as its basis, a number of factors: First of all, there has been a significant decline in retention rates since 1979 after some 10 years of increases. Also, a comparison of the Government school rates with those of the non-government school sector does show some alarming differences. Most importantly, Australia does not rate particularly well with other countries. Indeed, I have a table from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Observer of March 1982 which indicates that, in 1979, 44.4 per cent of the full time school enrolment of 15 to 19-year-olds as a percentage of the total age group proceeded beyond the basic secondary education level. Member countries of the OECD that are below that level are countries such as Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal, Austria, Turkey and Iceland. We certainly do not see included countries such as the United States of America or Japan. I believe there are some very sound reasons for the Government trying to encourage an increasing participation rate in education. First of all there is the intrinsic value of education. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), in his very well reasoned book Sleepers Wake!, noted on page 156: More equitable access to education will not necessarily end the inequalities in society or lead to universal improvement in job status: it would deceive the poor to promise everyone better jobs as a result of more education. Many will achieve this many will not-those who climb the socio-economic pyramid will continue to displace others and push them down. We must, however, assert that education is a good thing in itself-a human right, a consumer good and that it is better to be educated and unemployed than uneducated and unemployed. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission last year, on page 55 of its very well reasoned report 'Learning and Earning', made similar comments. It noted: Education is an investment in the quality of life; it is a good in itself and must be seen as such by students and the community. Its impact on the personal development of the individual is related to the whole of life, not merely paid employment. While one may assert the intrinsic value of education, I believe there is difficulty in relating such expressions to the experience of many early school leavers. For example, a recent survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics entitled 'Reasons for Completion or non-Completion of Secondary Education', in June 1983, gave as an important reason the fact that almost half of the school leavers were 'fed up with school', to use their comments, and considered some subjects to be useless. Clearly, the educational experience of these young people is not perceived by them as a worthwhile personal investment and a consumer good. I believe there will be a need for changes to the nature and form of secondary education if perceptions of the value of the product are to be shared by its consumers. In many respects, this is really what the participation and equity program is all about. With respect to the very difficult problems facing the economy with regard to employment, an alternative method-some might say a cynical alternative-of reducing unemployment is to decrease the labour force. An increase in retention rates would, in one respect, help to achieve this. For example, the recurrent cost of keeping a student in a government secondary school is about $2,840 per annum. This would be a great deal less than the cost of creating a job for the same individual, which would be of the order of $11,000 to $12,000, including the administrative, equipment and training costs. There are all sorts of other reasons that I could go into with respect to the displacement factor, other employment creation aspects and the general question of participation in higher education, but perhaps the most important factor to which I should allude is the social effect. High levels of youth unemployment have been associated with a number of social problems. Society tends to accord status on the basis of occupation. Unemployed young people feel shut out and denied the chance to become useful members of society. They can become demoralised, alienated and sometimes quite desperate. Studies have correlated the rise in youth unemployment with increased delinquency, drug abuse, crime, ill health, depression, suicides, teenage pregnancies and homelessness. It is most important, I believe, that the Government take measures to retain young people in education; to help alleviate some of these problems by providing them with an occupation and, most importantly, with a sense of purpose and direction. Although the increased time spent on education would provide no guarantee of a job, it would certainly increase an individual's chance of employment. I now turn to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill. I think it is most important that we see this Bill very clearly, as distinct from the honourable member for Farrer, quite obviously, in the context of some of the emotional debate that has surrounded the whole question of funding to non-government schools. I believe the current debate has been characterised by distortion, misrepresentation and, certainly, a great deal of misunderstanding. I think it is most important to point out a number of important facts. For example, one should not lose sight of the fact that there are some 2,200 non-government schools and that the Government will increase in real terms the level of funding for the majority of those schools. In fact, 1,870 of the poorly resourced level 3 schools will receive an increase of 3 per cent in real terms. I remind honourable members opposite that this represents an increase of approximately $ 20 per student for primary school students in 1984 and $32 per student additional to what the schools would have received if the automatic nexus had not been broken. There is a very good reason why the automatic nexus needed to be broken. It is simply that as far as the disparity between very wealthy schools and very poor schools in the community was concerned the gap between the funding in 1974 and that in 1983 was getting wider and wider. I guess a number of honourable members have been besieged, as I have, with letters from concerned constituents, who, I guess, in many cases have misunderstood the position. Some have certainly been part of the rather deliberate political campaign to distort what the Government is trying to do. I quote from a copy of one letter addressed to Senator Ryan by a Dr William H. Feneley of Bulli, New South Wales. I guess he has written to many other members in New South Wales. he stated: . . . the Victorian Bishops are all deeply concerned about your own guidelines and also moves made by the Victorian Government. Also Archbishop Francis Carroll of Canberra is greatly concerned about things that have gone on in the Australian Capital Territory since you have been Minister for Education. It is not just some Catholic Bishops; I think I can safely say I speak for them all with the exception- I ask the House to note this- of perhaps Archbishop James Carroll, Sydney, who has let his political inclinations outweigh his judgment on this important matter of State Aid. It seems to me that as long as one person's point of view agrees with that of someone else that is fine, but if it does not, rather disparaging comments such as those I have just quoted are made about a most important person, who, I might add, is Chairman of the New South Wales Catholic Education Commission. Because he has made certain comments the Opposition seeks to make rather disparaging comments about people like him. Dr Feneley not only attacked Archbishop Carroll but also made a very savage attack upon the New South Wales Minister for Education, a very fine Minister, Mr Ron Mulock. It is rather interesting that such people as Dr Feneley talk about the golden age of education some time in the dim distant past. It was rather interesting to go through Dr Feneley's letter because not only does he share the attribute of some other members of the medical profession in that it is very difficult to read his writing but also his letter is full of spelling mistakes. I think the whole education funding debate has been greatly distorted, and, I might add, for gross political purposes. It is most important that all honourable members in this House and all people listening to this debate are aware of the fact that there is not a united Opposition as far as this Government's education program is concerned. I have mentioned the fact that Archbishop James Carroll, the Chairman of the New South Wales Education Commission, thinks the guidelines are very useful. He made the following comments: The guidelines contain many initiatives which should rebound to the benefit of education in both government and non-government schools. Similar comments were made by Reverend Father Doyle, Director of Catholic Education in Victoria, and Mr Faulkner from the Catholic Education Office. I make the point that those people who are the providers, those people who are involved in the Catholic education offices throughout Australia, know what the Government's policy is all about and know what it means to the vast majority of children in non-government schools. I congratulate the Government and I commend all three Bills to the House for its support. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(5.29) —I support the amendment foreshadowed by my colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) and endorse the remarks he made. In this cognate debate on three education Bills we are in essence debating this Government's education policy. What a sorry policy it is. Instead of having before us a package of Bills aimed at lifting the standard of education available to all Australian children, we are debating three Bills which continue Labor's typical trail of broken promises, tokenism and a blind commitment to ideology. The education of our children is vitally important; indeed, it is fundamental to the future of this country. But there is precious little in these Bills to raise the standard of education and much to cause hardship and anxiety to thousands of Australian parents. I will not dwell on the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill except to note that in this area Labor has failed to honour any of its pre- election commitments. It promised to increase the tertiary education assistance scheme until it equalled the single unemployment benefit and to maintain that nexus-not done. It promised to raise the tertiary education assistance scheme means test until it equalled average weekly earnings-not done. It promised to provide 300 post-doctoral fellowships-not done. It promised to establish an emergency student loans scheme to replace the previous Government's student loans scheme-not done. It promised to assist student parents with the provision of child care on campus-not done. It promised to improve access for disadvantaged groups, particularly those rural students who will be further penalised by a 25 per cent reduction in the accommodation subsidy paid to residential colleges. That is a long list, but typical of this Government in so many areas. Nor do I wish to speak at length on the States Grants (Education Assistance- Participation and Equity) Bill which replaces the previous Government's school to work transition program. I note only that the Bill before us smacks absolutely of tokenism. It tosses up a small sum of money aimed at improving the attractiveness of further study but far too little to cause any significant qualitative improvement. It does nothing at all to correct the current absurd situation in which unemployment is a better paid option than further study. I wish to concentrate my remarks on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill because it is in this Bill that this Government reveals its true colours. This Bill exposes the Labor Government as one intent upon creating conflict by destroying long-established agreement, reducing freedom of individual choice, breaking fundamental commitments it has made to the Australian people and disguising its actions in high-sounding rhetoric. By abolishing the percentage link between the cost of educating the child in a government school and the grant paid to children at non-government schools and by reducing the basic grant to children at the 41 schools on the so-called Government hit list, the Government has dealt a devastating blow to our dual educational system. The percentage link was more than a financial formula. It was an expression of faith in a strong independent school system. It was a commitment on the part of the Government that it would not arbitrarily alter the whole basis of government assistance and that it would not allow short term political considerations to intrude into the long term planning decision of independent schools. This formula permitted independent schools to make rational long term decisions on the basis of the amount of future help they may expect from the Government. Now this certainly has gone. Long term decision making will be paralysed as schools are left in doubt as to their future financial position. They will instead have to await the outcome of the annual bargaining session, not knowing whether they will that year be classified as a 'wealthy' school whose assistance can now arbitrarily be cut back. As they await the outcome of each year's Budget bargaining, supporters of independent schools will know also that Labor is $750,000 in debt to the Australian Teachers Federation whose more militant members believe in zero government funding for non-government schools and who want to see the closure of independent schools because they prefer a uniform State system promulgating values more in line with their own collectivist view of the world. Egalitarian rhetoric about 'need' and 'redistribution from wealthy to poor' should not conceal the extent to which this Government has destructively rekindled the divisive State-aid debate. Nor should the rhetoric conceal the dishonesty behind Labor's egalitarian claims. Labor says that it is diverting the resources from the wealthy to the poor, but that argument is patently false. Taxing so-called wealthy schools to assist relatively poor people is just like using a sledge hammer to squash a fly: It will not likely miss the target and will do a hell of a lot of damage in the process. To suggest that so-called wealthy schools cater only for so-called wealth parents is absurd and the correlation between parental income and the so-called wealth of schools is, to put it mildly, extremely weak. Many parents who send their children to independent schools do so at considerable personal sacrifice to themselves, often including the need for a parent to take on a second job just to keep that child or those children at independent schools. For many parents with two or more children the expenditure on private school education is the largest single expenditure they ever make, in many instances even more than what they spend on housing. Clearly if they did not want to make this choice, if they were happy to rely on total State support, they would have many thousands of additional dollars to spend on their material standards of living. But they choose a contrary system. They exercise their freedom of choice to send their children to an independent school at considerable financial sacrifice. Many of these people are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but they happily and willingly choose a significantly lower material standard of living because they are utterly convinced about the intrinsic value of an independent education . The fact that there is a surge in applications for non-government schools in the midst of an economic recession and that this has happened while the former Government increased real support on a per capita basis for government schools shows that thousands of Australians are exercising their fundamental right to choose the type of education and the type of school most suited to their children. These are the people who stand to lose from Labor's punitive treatment of individual schools. These are the people who in their thousands are attending protest meetings, for they realise-- Mr Hodgman —And they will continue. Mr PEACOCK —They certainly will continue while this Government seeks to eradicate freedom of choice and-implicit in the program and in the minds of some opposite-eventually to eradicate the independent system itself. These people, who in their thousands are attending protest meetings, realise that this Government's actions are threatening their fundamental freedom of choice. They realise that not only has Labor broken the percentage link and selected a hit list of schools which, according to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), could well increase in future years, but also that it has increased funding to non-government schools this year by less than one-third of the percentage increased granted to the government sector. There is a widespread belief in the community that this is only the start of things to come. Why else would the very people the Government claims to support have made it quite clear that they do not accept its reasoning? On 1 September this year the Central Commissioner of Catholic Bishops of Australia released a statement in Canberra assessing some aspects of the Government's policies. These bishops were speaking for the 45 Catholic bishops in Australia. They were speaking for Catholic education in Australia. Their assessment of what has happened was quite unambiguous. They reasserted their belief in a basic grant for all children as the only way of protecting the rights of Catholics to send their children to schools which reflect their religious values. The bishops described the abolition of the percentage link as 'potentially destructive of non-government schooling'. The Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, Bishop Kelly, wrote to the Age newspaper stating: It has been announced that cuts will be made from the so-called 'wealthy' independent schools. But note the cunning inbuilt contradiction, the money from these cuts will not be given to indigent government schools, rather it will go to 'poorer' independent schools, i.e. mainly Catholic schools. He went on to state: In the face of that blatant sectarian tactic, I challenge any Catholic indepenent school to accept this judas money. They are not my words but the words of Bishop Kelly. Labor's attempt to buy acceptance of its proposals by the Catholic Church was undoubtedly dramatically unsuccessful. Sectarianism is an irresponsible way, to put it mildly, of handling any issue, particularly education. The Archbishop of Melbourne, Sir Frank Little, recognised this when he referred to what he saw as a bitter sectarianism 'running riot'. It has to be said that Labor's education policy is obviously the reverse of any kind of long term commitment to the protection, still less the expansion, of the independent schools system. Labor's ultimate aim is the integration of private schools into the public sector, as recommended by its hand-picked Radford Committee. In a whole string of broken promises education stands out as the most inhumane in its implications, together with the iniquitious attack on the elderly which is continuing today. Children at one end of the age spectrum and the elderly at the other are the two most vulnerable groups in the community. Yet Labor has threatened the need for children to move from independent to state schools in the middle of their school careers, as casually as if it were simply the same as changing brand names in a supermarket. Labor's education policies are playing quite irresponsibly with the lives of Australian children. Before the election in March Labor indicated quite clearly that funding to non-government schools would be maintained at present levels until a community standard had been determined by the Schools Commission. It also clearly stated that adjustment assistance would be provided for at least two years to ensure there was no disruption to the learning program. What must the 41 schools feel about the worth of Labor's promises? I know only too well not just what the schools think but also what the parents think as they write to us in their thousands and as they attend protest meetings in their thousands. The Government should mark this: They will not stop simply at attending meetings in their thousands. They will continue to call for a reversal of this program the Government has embarked upon. What schools will be hit next and what additional costs will they be burdened with? One of the worst aspects of Labor's education policy is the way it claims that it is not trying to level down standards, at the same time as it condemns excellence as being 'elitist'. As the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, said: I don't like the pursuit of excellence, it has elitist overtones which I really dislike. Mr Howard —Was that Senator Ryan? Mr PEACOCK —It was Senator Ryan, the Labor Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, levelling down and being anti-elitist. There is no opportunity for levelling up. When Labor's Minister for Education and Youth Affairs says such things as that how can Labor validly claim that it is not advocating the levelling down of achievement or, indeed, the suppression of excellence? Levelling up by levelling down is a totally misguided way of achieving anything requiring a commitment to quality. As Abraham Lincoln so aptly expressed the idea: You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong. We may achieve mediocrity in this way but mediocrity will not help people get jobs in a competitive job market, nor sell products in a competitive trading market. Education should not be concerned with a notion of social equality as the lowest common denominator. This kind of notion is absolutely in direct conflict with the fundamental sources of progress in our rapidly changing society. Education is only one of the increasing number of policy areas in which this Labor Government is dividing Australian society in the name of so-called consensus, so-called social justice and so-called equity. What do these rhetorical terms really mean? In practice they mean the reverse of what they say . The higher fees which Labor's approach will inevitably bring about will make non-government schools more elitist and less accessible. This is just the result which Labor professes to oppose. It is certainly not a result which the Opposition favours. Because of these higher fees many children will be forced to switch, at great cost to their personal and education development, but Labor does not care. To Labor these children are just necessary sacrifices to its long term desire to transform our education system. We believe that our independent schools play a vital role by encouraging those traditional Australian values which hold our society together. All right, Labor wants to change these values. Why not be more up front and say so? Time and again we have seen that that is what the Government is at, what it is about. It should come forward and proclaim it. As the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs-this time she has admitted it-has said, it wants to use education to enable people 'to resist manipulation by the massive institutions of capitalism'. I repeat the words of Senator Ryan: To resist manipulation by the massive institutions of capitalism. This is the woman I quoted earlier, who said: I don't like the pursuit of excellence, it has elitist overtones which I really dislike. Many people dislike what she is propagating, what she is about, what she is doing to the education system of this country. I do not want our education system to become a vehicle in some ideologue's class struggle. The widespread community support for independent schools suggests that I am far from alone in this view and that the Opposition's view is shared by the overwhelming majority of Australians, who want to retain their freedom of choice in education. I have said on many occasions that I do not believe and the Opposition does not believe in opposing just for the sake of opposing. I welcome Government decisions that I believe are in the best interests of this nation, but in the case of the Government's approach to education I have absolutely no doubt where my duty or the duty of the Opposition lies. The Government is engaged in an ill-conceived attack on some of our most important education institutions. It is an attack which will set religion against religion, and school against school, which will restrict the basic freedom of choice to which our citizens are entitled and which will place under threat some of our most important values. I think that the Government is making an appalling mistake, a dreadful mistake. I have no hesitation in joining that very large and growing number of Australians who reject its approach in its entirety. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(5.50) —We have just heard another waffly, prepared speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) promoting divisiveness- Mr Hodgman —You rotten little socialist. Why do you hate the Catholic schools? Mr GEAR —Members of the Opposition can jump around, but we on this side of the House believe in education. We know it will do us some good, because education- Mr Hodgman —Bye, bye, George. Mr GEAR —'Bye, Bye' says the honourable member for Denison. I will be here long after him. Do not worry about that. It is our education policies amongst others that will make sure I stay here. Firstly, I would like to turn to an area of education which has been neglected by the Opposition, not only in its policies but also in the speeches of its members. I will return to some of the points made by the Leader of the Opposition if I have time. In rising to support the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1983 in its entirety, I shall focus my comments on my own area of interest and experience, that is, the technical and further education sector. TAFE has traditionally been a grey area in the educational spectrum, taking on the task of education where what is required is not convenient to the more formalised structure of established institutions, where standard procedures are not appropriate, or where the whole exercise appears less profitable either in terms of money or easily documentable results. (Quorum formed) The scope of educational activities undertaken by TAFE is monumental in size and quite outstanding in its diversity. In my home State of Western Australia, TAFE offers over 3,000 subjects in 600 different courses. These do not fit neatly into hierarchies and logical patterns such as would please education planners in more defined and traditional sectors. Their implementation has been guided by demands, restricted only by feasibility. Choice, of course, in response to apparent need and interest is a guiding philosophy that has ensured that TAFE always had an overriding vocational role. Most often this role has been complementary to experiential or on the job learning, through courses designed in consultation with employers specifically to develop employable skills. State and Federal funding of TAFE has meant that the taxpayer has assisted in a direct way in meeting the costs of training skilled people for the work force. Employers have also borne some of the cost during the initial training period, while their employees have developed skills that could be put to use in earning an income. In this way there has been an acceptable level of investment from both parties. It is clear that society in general and business in particular have benefited from the arrangement. In examining the success of the TAFE system we could focus attention on the flexibility accorded it to cast off traditional approaches and mould its course content and structures to meet the needs of students, all on a very small scale. This needs-oriented flexibility, coupled with employer contributions and the history of stringent budgets in comparison to the traditional education sectors, has resulted, in an outstandingly efficient system. Current estimates put the cost to the Government of maintaining a TAFE student at $108 a year, while to maintain a student in a university or college of advanced education costs around $5,000 a year. I appreciate the difference in student patterns when I make those comparisons. I know that they are not directly comparable, but even so, the discrepancy is quite staggering. In 1981 just under 700,000 students were enrolled in TAFE. So the savings to the Government on this basis are quite substantial. TAFE is not, however, just an option. It has emerged as substantially the only government-provided skills development and training program available for some 85 per cent of the Australian community, which is that percentage not requiring a degree or other higher, professional qualifications. In 1974 the Kangan report , 'Technical and Further Education in Australia', identified the TAFE sector as a growth area where the community's investment would be handsomely rewarded in improvement of national skill levels. It also pointed to aspects of TAFE requiring urgent attention to ensure continued development. This led the Whitlam Government to introduce Commonwealth contributions to recurrent funding, a practice which has been continued and expanded, although the States continue to provide the bulk of the finance. The Technical and Further Education Teachers Association is very concerned about this particular aspect because of the inability of some State governments in times of economic stringency to cut back on educational funding. It seems that if the Commonwealth gives more money to the States, the States just lop that amount off their Budgets. So the contribution to TAFE in these terms is zero. I think we really have to look at the recurrent funding formula between the States and the Commonwealth. Traditionally the Commonwealth has picked up more and more of the tab for services in the education sector. TAFE is dragging its feet a little, but I sure that in the next triennium we should have a look at recurrent funding of it. This also led to a push for improved staff training and development as a way of increasing the efficiency of the TAFE sector. This continues to be a particular problem for TAFE because of the short duration of some of its courses and the need to hire teachers on a short term basis for specific courses. It is also important that teachers who are in TAFE on a long term basis-the permanent teachers-have constant skill updating. The cost of that should be taken into account in our future deliberations. Clearly, an efficient sector cannot be run on a shoestring if such stringent budgeting prevents its programs from being maximally effective. That is precisely the threat which TAFE has faced. An inescapable fact of the last seven years of conservative rule-and I see most of the conservatives have left the chamber now, after having called for a quorum -is the collapse of industry-- Mr Hodgman —No. Mr GEAR —It is good to see that the honourable member for Denison is still here. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the dramatic drops in youth employment opportunities and in apprentice intakes. In some industries, apprentice intakes have collapsed by as much as 40 per cent. What this Liberal- led economic disaster means for TAFE is a reduced capacity for industry to make a substantial contribution to the costs of passing on skills and developing new skills. Reduced apprentice intakes and reduced industry support for TAFE constitute a major threat to Australia's pool of employment skills, at a time when the importance of that skills pool has never been greater. We have all heard much talk of the urgent need to ensure that we have trained people to take quick advantage of the inevitable economic recovery which seems clearly to have already begun. I point to the front page of today's Age as clear evidence of that. If we are not quick to rebuild our production capacities we will lose markets to those who have maintained their skills pools throughout the recession . I point out to the House that in a South Australian submission to the Technical and Further Education Council, according to a survey, 96 per cent of TAFE students are in need of skill updating. That is, 96 per cent of the students who have been through the TAFE system, in the last five years have had their skills updated to meet modern technology. So TAFE comes right to the forefront when it comes to the skills updating area. Even more urgent is the need to develop skills for the new industries-the sunrise industries-on which we will have to rely for employment and national income in the immediate future, as the importance of primary and manufacturing industries in the total economic mix continues to decline. We are at a time when we should be placing greater emphasis than ever before on training. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has predicted that within 10 years industries based on skills will produce more wealth than industries based on natural resources. The need is clear. But at the same time the capacity of a ravaged industrial sector to meet that need is severely reduced. Australia's employment structure is different from that of many other countries in that over 90 per cent of our businesses employ fewer than 10 people. The capacity of such small businesses to institute and maintain long term training programs has been particularly and seriously affected by recession. Instead, employers are relying on the large pool of unemployed to provide individuals who have sought their own training in a highly competitive jobs environment. While unemployed people battle for jobs, employed people with relevant skills and experience are finding that they are in greater demand and can readily change jobs. The normal cyclical fluctuations of the overall economy are becoming more complex, with cycles of differing lengths and amplitudes operating simultaneously in different industries. At the same time the range of job tasks in the work force is widening rapidly and the length of time for which a particular job category can expect to exist is shortening. This is apparent in the growing need for retraining programs for workers whose traditional employment is no longer available to them. As I have already point out, that is partiuclarly so in the TAFE sector. To cope with the rate of change, which will only increase, and to make up for the reduced capacity of industry to be involved in training, Australia needs a vocationally oriented, flexible training sector which offers a high variety of courses planned from the bottom up. TAFE can be developed to fill that role. I commend the legislation now before the House as a step towards addressing the critical problems of transmitting the skills and knowledge necessary for economic recovery. It is an indication of the high priority this Government attaches to education that funds to tertiary institutions have increased by 1 1/2 per cent in real terms, in spite of the economic mess handed to us by honourable members opposite . The funds include $11.1m for TAFE equipment and 1984 recurrent grants totalling $112.6m. TAFE capital funds have been increased in real terms by 7 per cent-enough to meet ongoing commitments and commence 21 new projects throughout Australia-but once again I point out to the House that this is an area of real need within TAFE and another one that really needs looking at. Special purpose grants will be directed to areas of national concern to TAFE where substantial action is required by all States. TAFE is not without its problems and I will now address a few of them. The first one that was brought to the attention of a sub-committee that visited Western Australia last week-the education sub- committee of the Caucus Social Policy Committee-was the fact that TAFE had a marketing problem in establishing its identify in the community. It has many worthwhile courses which people generally, and employers in particular, simply do not know about. Few people realise the scope of TAFE's operations, or its capacity for generating new courses in response to needs. This is a limitation on its impact in the community and is something which we will have to address. Another current problem relates to the vital area of youth training. I note that both the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) alluded to the participation and equity program. I will put the other side of the story. Currently there are 50 different programs on offer-that is, 50 stabs in the dark by the previous Government-in an attempt to meet youth training needs. Many of these training provisions are outside the education portfolio. As an example, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations controls student subsidies and therefore has a significant impact on what courses are offered within TAFE colleges. Indications are that in the past there has been very little or no consultation between departments, with the result that many of the programs lack effectiveness and in some cases are contradictory . Common sense dictates that programs that affect our youth should be co- ordinated. It is pleasing to see that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has given high priority to this aspect. As I have said, the participation and equity program proposals before us today have the potential to develop a co-ordinated policy and therefore increase the effectiveness of the money spent. A sound start will be the visit to Australia by a team of experts from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to advise the Federal Government on policy in the youth affairs area . Another problem facing TAFE has been the restriction placed on funds. The education sub-committee was able to see an example of this during its visit to Western Australia last week, when I showed members through TAFE facilities in my electorate. Restrictions on government funds have in the past been based on the apprenticeship model, a rigid approach which has nullified the effectiveness of some programs in two ways. Firstly, the programs do not meet the needs of employers when the pre-apprentice completes his year's training. It would seem much more sensible to allocate funds and specify the outcome in terms of the results of the program. In this way TAFE could liaise with employers to maintain relevance and assure acceptability. The current plumbing pre-apprenticeship program in Western Australian TAFE colleges is an example of industry and TAFE working together to compile a worthwhile program promoting employment, yet it initially attracted opposition from the bureaucracy because of its unorthodox approach. The second restriction that I know of results from an undue reliance on the apprenticeship model. I refer to apprenticeships as a training system in the rural area. The only funding for rural based farm training schemes in Western Australia is for those adopting an apprenticeship model. This is not suited to the large area, and dispersed population, and the seasonal nature of the work in many areas renders the system impractical. The need to train workers for an increasingly automated rural industry remains. What I am suggesting is that alternative approaches to training be investigated and have access to funding on an equal footing. If rigid constraints are applied, many important areas of vocational training will be neglected. Lack of constraint by rigid guidelines, as I have already pointed out, has been one of the hallmarks of the TAFE success story. I am hopeful that through the education sub-committee of Caucus, of which I am a member, some of these problems can be addressed and brought to the attention of the Minister, for she has shown that she is more than willing to listen to advice. Currently there are moves for substantial expansion of the numbers of tertiary places available, which forms another important part of improving Australia's reserve of skills and reducing unemployment. At the same time, however, there is a tendency for universities and institutes of technology to move down line to attract students, by offering associate diploma courses. Colleges of advanced education may also move to set up such courses where they do not exist. This is another example of the need for effective co-ordination, for many such courses are already offered by TAFE. A comprehensive educational policy must ensure that increased resources really do expand educational opportunities, not duplicate existing facilities, and that an expansion of other institutions into TAFE areas includes recognition of qualifications gained by students in the TAFE system. I now turn to another problem-that is, the inadequate labour market analysis and planning. TAFE has found it necessary to undertake a considerable amount of labour market analysis in order to ensure the relevance of its existing courses and identify needs for new courses. This task, however, is beyond the scope of TAFE to carry out fully. It requires co-operation and co-ordination of several government departments and bodies and should be done in conjunction with labour market planning. I suggest to the House that this approach would also assist our industry-the gathering of statitics and forecasts and also the general information that would be made available not only to educational planners but also to those people who are in industry and who rely on such statistics to look at markets and expand their businesses. Finally, I commend TAFE for its initiatives in the area of women's interests. Sadly, these have not attracted the level of support that was hoped for. But I feel sure the current Minister will bring her enthusiasm for this area to bear in ensuring greater success in the future. In the few minutes remaining to me I will refer to some of the waffly nonsense spoken so far by Opposition members. There is no doubt that they are using political opportunism. They do not have any policies on anything. I note that they are jumping up and down now. The Leader of the Opposition could be excused because his popularity is plummeting through the floor. He is grasping at anything he can. He sees an opportunity in this area to promote divisiveness within the Australian community and he has leapt on the bandwagon. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is shaking his head. I predict that when he speaks in this debate he will say the same things that were said by his leader. Members of the Opposition alluded to the fact that the Australian Teachers Federation helped the Australian Labor Party at the last election. Maybe they should ask themselves why that was so. The Federation is not affiliated with us in any way, but certainly there must have been reasons why it thought that the Australian Labor Party would make a better government than the present Opposition. I will give just a few reasons off the top of my head. I have not written them out. Mr Hodgman —They will not be caught twice. Mr GEAR —That is okay; we will see. They will not back a Liberal government next time, we know that. Obviously, the Australian Teachers Federation saw that our policies were much fairer than those of the previous Government. That is why it backed us. It knows that the Australian Labor Party is not soft on education. If it needed any reminder of the fact that the Liberal Party was soft on education it had only to look at Western Australia, where Sir Charles Court, in a Budget a couple of years ago, did not want to maintain the same level of funding; he wanted actually to cut funding. That action led to one of the biggest strikes by the Western Australian teachers union. That strike attracted much more support than the divisive policies which honourable members opposite are trying to promote. It attracted support right across the State, including support from people in the non-government sector. They saw that the Liberal party in Western Austarlia wanted to cut back on education funding. Thanks to the efforts of the State School Teachers Union of Western Australia (Inc.), Sir Charles Court had to climb down and admit that he was wrong. Honourable members opposite have come up with the same sorts of propositions today to try to promote divisiveness. They have no policies. Nothing coming from their side of the House will give us any indication of what they would have done had they remained in government. We will not have to worry about them being in government for quite a while. The Opposition talks about dishonoured promises. It raised dishonouring promises to an art form. I am just looking at the Opposition amendment to the motion for the second reading. A basic grant is called for. Honourable members opposite should not worry about that. We have increased funding to non-government schools; we have not decreased it. The Opposition talks about freedom of choice. People still have freedom of choice. We are not stopping anyone from going to a non-government school; we are making it easier by giving them more money. What a wonderful policy the Labor Government has. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(6.10) —This debate on the States Grants (Education Assistance- Participation and Equity) Bill and cognate Bills is of fundamental importance to people right across Australia and particularly to parents in Australia. That is what honourable members opposite have to understand about this debate. They can talk all they like about figures and percentages and that sort of thing, but the fact of the matter is that out there in grass roots Australia this is an issue. It is not an issue which is being drummed up or stirred up by us; but it has become an issue because of the actions of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) in the Hawke Government. It is as simple as that. Last night in my electorate in the town of Cowra 700 people came along to a public meeting which had been organised by parents to express their concern about what is going on in the field of education in this country. Some 700 people attended. They came in buses from Dubbo, Nyngan, Warren, Junee, Wagga Wagga, West Wyalong and Cootamundra. All 700 of them came to Cowra to let this Government know what they think about its policies. Mr Hunt —And that was not the only meeting. Mr LUSHER —No. The Minister for Education did not come, but she sent the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Free) as a representative and as a person from the Australian Labor Party who is interested in education. Some 20 people from the Government side are listed to speak in this debate and we assume that all of them have some interest in education. The honourable member for Macquarie is not one of the speakers on the list. It interests me that the honourable member for Macquarie was sent to Cowra by the Minister to defend her policy last night before 700 concerned parents and that he is not amongst the list of 15 of his colleagues who are to speak in the debate today. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) made the point-and so he should-that the meeting in Cowra was not the only meeting. That is true. There was a meeting in the Sydney Town Hall which he and I and some of our colleagues attended a couple of weeks ago. Some 5 ,000 parents went there to express their points of view on this Government's education policy. What has been going on in Albury, Dubbo, Ballarat, and I do not know how many other centres around Australia- Mr Hunt —Bourke. Mr LUSHER —Bourke. Mr Hunt —Echuca. Mr LUSHER —Echuca. Mr Hodgman —Hobart. Mr LUSHER —You name it. The fact of the matter is that parents do not come out in their hundreds and in their thousands to meetings of that nature unless they are concerned about what is going on. Honourable members opposite cannot say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony ) and I are out there stirring up trouble. Mr Hand —You are. Mr LUSHER —The honourable member for Melbourne says we are stirring up trouble. He is giving us great credit in saying that we are able to attract crowds of 5, 000 to listen to us. They are coming out because they are concerned about what is going on in the area of education policy. This is an issue on which emotions run hot, and so they should, because it is an issue which goes to one of the fundamental rights of the citizens of Australia. Mr McVeigh —What is that? Mr LUSHER —That is the fundamental freedom of choice of parents to be able to educate their children in the school of their choice and to receive some support in terms of a refund of their taxes for so doing. That is the issue and it is a simple one. Over a long period of years in Australia, education policy has developed around one simple and fundamental thing, that is that there will be a nexus between the cost of educating a child in a government school and the cost of educating a child in a non-government school. It cannot be much simpler than that. That formula has allowed certainty in the education policy of this country . It has allowed people who are involved with schools and councils to be able to plan. What has been happening for years is simply this: A category 1 non-government school-that is a school where parents make the bigger effort in terms of sacrifice to pay fees-receives 20 per cent of the cost of educating a child. A category 2 school gets that 20 per cent plus 10 per cent more for need. A category 3 school-this category educates about 80 per cent of the children who are in non-government schools-gets the 20 per cent base grant plus 20 per cent for need. What Senator Ryan has done, and what has caused so much concern out there amongst the community of parents in Australia, is that she has busted that nexus. She has said: 'No more will there be any fixed relationship between the cost of educating a child in a government school and the cost of educating a child in a non-government school. From here on in it is arbitrary. You might get something, but I am not giving you any guarantees'. So all the certainty has gone out the window. All the planning has gone out the window. The rights of parents and their freedom of choice are now under threat. Is it any wonder that people are now coming out in their hundreds and in their thousands to protest at what this Government and this Minister are doing? It does not surprise me a bit. Honourable members opposite cannot say that it is an issue which has been stirred up by the Opposition. It has been stirred up by parents who are fair dinkum and genuinely concerned about what is being done to their rights as parents. These are rights which have been fought for over years and years and which have been put under threat by the actions of this Government . Mr Braithwaite —The Government did it itself. It stirred them up. Mr LUSHER —That is the key issue in this debate. A range of other issues needs to be mentioned. In the category 1 schools, that is those schools which the Government regards as wealthy because the poor parents of the poor kids make a huge sacrifice to send those kids to those schools-- Ms Mayer —It costs $4,000 a year to do it. That is not a poor parent. Mr Hodgman —They think it is funny. Mr LUSHER —The Government thinks it is a joke. It might interest the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) to know that in category 1 schools parents pay 51 per cent of the cost of educating their children. If those kids were to go to the local government high school, the Government would pick up 100 per cent of the cost. These parents make the sacrifice. They exercise their freedom of choice to get their kids away from the teachers federations. They want to get them into a system which has decent standards and some discipline, a system in which some effort is required of the children and some learning is done. The parents pay 51 per cent of the equivalent standard cost of educating a child in a government school. Because those parents are making that sacrifice and paying 51 per cent of the cost, the Government is saying to them: 'We are going to reduce the 20 per cent basic grant that you get by 25 per cent and we are going to reduce it by another 25 per cent next year. We are going to reduce it by another 25 per cent in year 3 and by another 25 per cent in year 4.' Ms Mayer —Who said that? Mr LUSHER —Senator Ryan. So by the time we get to year 4, those category 1 schools will not be getting any of the present 20 per cent basic grant from federal taxpayers' coffers. That means that parents who are now paying 51 per cent of the standard cost of educating children in those schools will be paying the lot, because the State government, at least in New South Wales, is withdrawing funding at the same rate from those schools. Across Australia there are 41 schools in that category. In the State of New South Wales there are 15. Those 15 schools in New South Wales are getting the same treatment that they are getting from Canberra. In the poorest possible schools, that is the schools where parents contribute 30 per cent or less of the standard cost-- Mr Lloyd —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Can we have the microphones checked? The voice of the honourable member for Chisholm, who is speaking at just an ordinary level, seems to be coming through a microphone that should be turned off. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — Order! There is no point of order. Mr LUSHER —There is that 25 per cent reduction in the basic grant to category 1 schools. In category 3 schools the private element is 30 per cent or less. That means that the Government is paying 20 per cent, there is a needs element of 20 per cent, the State government is giving 16 per cent and 30 per cent or less is coming from parents. If those schools try to do something to raise the standard of education available for the students in those schools so that parents are asked to pay an increased amount in fees and the private effort goes over 30 percent, what happens? I will tell honourable members what will happen. The needs grant goes from 20 per cent down to 10 per cent. So as a result of increasing the effort that the parents make on behalf of their children the Government says: 'Thanks very much. We will reduce the needs element of your grant from 20 to 10 per cent'. That is the sort of anomaly, that is the sort of stupidity, that this Government is implementing and which is being supported by its members. I think it is an absolute joke. If the honourable member for Chisholm wants to go around the schools in her electorate and tell them that, I will be happy to come along with her and make sure that she does not distort the truth. What else has happened? Let me look at the cynicism. The other night I heard this story; it is absolutely delightful. When the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs was appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) he called her in and said: 'There are only two things I want to tell you, Sue. The first thing is keep the tykes on side and the second thing is do not cross the Teachers Federation'. Was not that interesting? The Minister went away with her riding instructions and said: 'The Prime Minister does not want me to get the tykes off side so what I have to do is fix these wealthy schools without getting the tykes off side'. She worked out a way of making sure that there were no cuts in any of the 41 schools. Mr Maher —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to Standing Order 75 which states: 'No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof . . .' I draw your attention to the Standing Orders because I believe the Leader of the Opposition got away with some considerable excesses. The honourable member for Hume is attacking personally in a most offensive manner the Minister in another place and that is in breach of Standing Orders. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I take the point made by the honourable member for Lowe. It is a point of order. I believe that a word was used in a derogatory manner and I ask the honourable member for Hume to use the Queen's language when he is speaking of people. Mr Lloyd —What is a tycoon then? Mr LUSHER —I am not too sure what the word means. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) has graduated from bus stops to parish schools. It is about time, because he has a lot of poor parish schools in his area and the bishops who are in charge of them are expressing inordinate concern. I am sure that half of the 5,000 people who came to the Sydney Town Hall came from the electorate of Lowe. It is about time that the honourable member stood up and took notice of that and tried to talk some sense into this Government. All it is doing is creating a divisive issue in the community and it is doing it in such a way that it will re -open the wounds that have been healed for years and years in relation to State aid. What I want to say and what is important is that no Catholic schools were included in the 41 which were on the hit list. However, what the Government did was to tip the whole of the couple of million dollars that it took off the 41 schools into category 3 schools which are almost exclusively Catholic parish schools. If that is not designed to cause disruption in the education community I do not know what is. If it was done without malice and if it was not done deliberately-I am prepared to admit that it may have been-all I can say is that Senator Ryan needs to have her political head read because she ought to have foreseen the sorts of problems that might arise as a result of that action. The next point of concern is the fact that next year is going to be an interim year for school funding. Regardless of whatever funding the schools get there are absolutely no guarantees about where we will go from there. The Commonwealth Schools Commission has been told to go away and bring back some guidelines, I understand, by early next year. The Minister has given undertakings that there will be consultation. There is a lot of concern as to whether in the time frame that is available that consultation will be adequate. In any event that is a cause for concern because there is absolutely no certainty about where we are going. The next point of concern is the impact statement which has been developed by Senator Ryan so that there can be controls over the new places in non-government schools and over the establishment of new non-government schools. That ought to be of concern to the honourable member for Lowe, the honourable member for Chisholm and a range of honourable members on the other side of the House. If the growth in the number of students at the Concord parish school is such that it demands a new classroom or a new classroom block there is no way in the world that that is going to be done if the local teachers federation says that that will have an adverse effect on the local government school. That is what it is all about, that is why parents are concerned and why would they not be concerned ? Mr Maher —I will tell you about the Concord parish school. Mr LUSHER —The honourable member ought to be concerned because he has kids at such schools. What is happening? What is happening is simply this: Kids are leaving government schools in droves and they are going into non-government schools. My colleague the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) told me this morning about a school where 157 parents in Queensland had applied to send their children to a local Catholic school and the headmaster had to turn them away. There was no room. That is indicative of the extent of the problem. What is wrong with education in Australia today is simply this: It is not doing the job. It is not meeting the aspirations of parents, it is not meeting the needs of the children and it is not meeting the needs of the employer. People in the market-place are trying to send signals, as clearly as possible, to governments at Federal and State levels, that they are dissatisfied with education in this country. Why do honourable members think that in ever increasing numbers parents are sending their children to the non-government school sector and getting them out of the government school sector? Is it because they are happy about what they are getting in the government sector? It is time the government sector sat back and took notice of this and said: 'What are we doing wrong? Why are we losing customers? Why are we losing community support?' It is about time the Government had a good look at the matter and started to understand it instead of saying: 'What we have to do is victimise the system to which those parents choose to send their children.' They are exercising their free democratic choice by sending their children to the schools at which they prefer to have them educated and they pay money for it. That is the laugh. The Government wants to have us believe that this wonderful system, this government school system, is such that everyone will want to be educated in it. Mr Maher —What do you have against government schools? What is wrong with government schools? Mr LUSHER —I say to the honourable member that parents are leaving that system in droves and are putting their children into independent schools. They have the freedom of choice to put their children in schools that have lower resource levels than the government schools and they have to pay money for the privilege to do it. If that does not indicate to the Government that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system I do not know what does. The fact of the matter is that there is a burning issue in the community about the quality of education and the funding for education. The longer this Government tries to sweep the matter under the carpet, the longer this Government says that there is nothing wrong with the system, the longer this Government seeks to discriminate against the non-government school sector and the longer this Government seeks to impinge upon the freedom of choice of parents, the sooner this Government is going to meet its just deserts at the ballot box. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.00) —I am sure that people will be interested to know that the Opposition Whip and one other member of the Opposition are in the chamber, but it seems that members of the Opposition, particularly the shadow Ministers, are not concerned with education. They seem to be more preoccupied with their dinner at this hour. It is good to see the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) in the chamber. We think that education is important. Somehow honourable members opposite do not seem to think so. I hope that the people out in the wider community understand that. Quite a lot was said today with respect to attitudes towards education. It seems that members of the Opposition have had a number of things to say about attitudes in Australian society. The Australian Labor Party has a philosophy of government and that philosophy is related to bringing about some changes, doing something to improve the general structure and the delivery of a number of things in Australian society. Education is one of those things. (Quorum formed) I thank my colleagues on the Government side. Again I indicate to the people of Australia that still only two members from the Opposition are present in the chamber. It shows their dismal state in terms of their attitude towards education. I am sure that the people of Australia will be delighted to know that , on this important matter, while opposition members tub thump in the wider Australian community, when it gets down to the substantial debate they cannot front up. The Australian people know it. It is a disgrace. All that Opposition members have been able to do during this debate is to call quorums and talk about divisiveness and sectarianism. The Australian people will not be misled by this. They know what is on. We know that we have some substantial policies. Look at the members of the Opposition-the limp, desperate mob left over from the last election. Only two of them can front up in this chamber. It is an appalling show . Mr Speaker, as you well know, the talent on this side of the House is quite considerable and the Australian people know that. When the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) calls quorums he should take into account the fact that we have a substantial team that fronts up and does a good job, and his team does not. With all that in mind, I am sure that the Australian people recognise that, in this debate tonight, Opposition members are not in the chamber. They are out rabble-rousing, trying to stir up a fight between Catholic and non-Catholic schools. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member to refer to the legislation before the House. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I am talking about attitudes toward the Australian people. Members on the other side of the House have shown that they really have very negative attitudes. We have positive attitudes, and that is reflected in our education policy and in some matters that I want to run through now. When we look at the sorts of things that have been said by honourable members opposite it is important to note that they have made great play about the fact that we have broken the nexus between the government and non-government schools. That question does need to be addressed. If we are to do something about those schools that are poorer in the Australian society, be they government or non- government schools, we have to do something about redistributing resources. We do not back off from that. We recognise that that is an important goal and we have pursued that goal. Honourable members opposite might want to stir up a lot of anger and talk about victimisation in the Australian community, but the people will not fall for it. They recognise that our policy is equitable. We recognise that those schools that are somewhat better off in terms of resources also reflect the community in which they exist. That community, generally speaking, has a higher level of income and a higher level of resources than the average in the Australian community. We are not here to try to find a sectarian argument. We are here to try to put to the Australian community that we have a responsible attitude towards education. I began by saying that we have a philosophy of government. We understand something about the needs of society. We recognise that education plays a role. I should like to say something in a moment about the structure of the society in which we operate, the role that education plays in improving participation in the work force, and the important role of increasing participation of students in the schooling system. We believe that that is important. We believe that the Australian community recognises that it is important. Certainly that is what a lot of parents are concerned about. I believe also that it is important to talk about such issues as the role of universities, colleges of advanced education, and technical and further education. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) made a very major contribution to the debate in regard to TAFE, and I will say one or two things about it. I believe it is important that we recognise that we have a responsibility in government to provide a framework and a structure of education which is equitable, which offers people not only equality of opportunity but also, hopefully, some degree of equity in terms of outcome. Those are our goals; those are our objectives. I think it is rather disappointing that in this debate there has been an absolute lack of attention by the Opposition to matters such as equity, the objectives of education, curriculum content, and the sorts of ways in which we might improve the professional development of staff. These are all the sorts of things that we believe are important in educational objectives but which honourable members opposite have neglected. They have chosen, however, to talk about a meeting in Sydney, which understandably was a very important meeting for those angry people. If honourable members opposite had taken a responsible role they would have said that the real situation in the Australian community is that there are some very poor government and non-government schools , there are some middle level government and non-government schools, and we have a responsibility to deliver resources to those schools. That is what we are on about, and we are trying to do that fairly and with equity. It also has to be emphasised that in this process we are not afraid to have consultation with people in the community. I have had considerable consultation with people in the electorate of Stirling. There are people there to whom I owe a considerable debt because I believe that they have assisted us in talking about these major educational issues. Some of the people with whom I have had consultation are Mr Neal Rudefurth from the Carine Technical College, Father Nestor and Mr Michael Beech from the Catholic Education Commission of Western Australia, and Brother Valerian and Mr Brian Martin from Newman College. Mr Martin represents the parents and friends organisation. I mention also Mr Grenville Murray from the Servite College. Mr and Mrs Girando, parents of children at the Servite College, are an example of parents who make a major contribution to their children's education. I am saying this because we on this side of the House recognise that we need to understand that school plays a major part in children's development. If we look at the research that was done by Malcolm Rosa for the Australian Council for Education Research in 1973, he indicated that there are some factors that determine the performance of a child through life. The first factor, the family, takes priority. The second factor is the peer group and the third is the media and its all-pervasive influence. The fourth factor is the priority of schooling. As a government we recognise that we have a wider responsibility to do something towards ensuring that children have some degree of equality of opportunity and, certainly, some degree of equity of outcome of education. I now wish to talk about the contribution of people in the community who have helped us, people such as Mr Peter Tennant and Mr Peter Ryan of Scarborough High School and Daryl Schorer from the Education Council. We have had many productive discussions. At Balga High School I thank Brindley Gearon who acts as my liaison officer there. My children attend Deanmore School. Alan Green is the principal there and does an exceptionally good job within the government structure. Dianne Passmore is the head of the Parents and Citizens Association. We have a commitment to some understanding of the people in the education system and to have discussions with them. I chose to mention those names because we believe it is important that education proceeds on the basis of consultation and on the basis of some agreed objectives. We are concerned in this debate here tonight and in our whole attitude towards education to try to develop some objectives that recognise that Australia is a society with great potential. One of the ways of achieving that potential is to begin to mobilise our human resources more effectively. We recognise that some part of that is the role of education. We need to deal with certain myths, however. For example, it is not true to say that if we spend more money on education we always get better outcomes because other factors play a part, such as the morale of teachers. One of the comments we could make-one hesitates to make partisan comments-is that under the previous Government and under some State conservative governments a great effort was made to be negative and highly critical of schools and school teachers. Some of the malaise we find in state school systems can be traced back to the attacks and lack of support from some of our conservative politicians throughout Australia. They did not provide positive support. There was no commitment to professional development. We believe that is important and we are providing funding. But I believe importantly one has to provide a climate of discussion and consensus. Again in this debate we are not about trying to find fault, we are about trying to develop a commitment towards education policy based upon some agreed social objectives and some procedures to achieve those objectives. I talk in those terms because I think it is important that people listening to this discussion recognise that those are the ways to go about developing appropriate education policies. I said that one should say that funding is not the only way to improve education, but we cannot reverse the coin and say that if that is the case we ought to take away funding because we on this side hold that if one grows up in Redfern, Fitzroy or Balga and has a lower level of social amenities in terms of the house one lives in, the street one lives in, the neighbourhood in general, the parks, the family and income, one at least ought to ensure that the schooling experience is a pleasant experience and that one can take some joy from knowing that at least one got some equity and equality. In this sort of debate the Opposition must pay attention to the fact that we cannot in conscience proceed in this society and say: 'We can allow a schooling system to function in which some schools are markedly poorer, be they government or non- government schools'. We would not do that and we believe the Opposition should not do that. In all the discussion the Opposition has about the 41 schools there is a singular lack of care and concern about all of those schools-government and non-government-that are at the bottom of the heap. We are not pretending to have a monopoly of wisdom on our side and we do not say that we are the only ones who recognise this circumstance. But what we are saying is that if one is sincere about the matter and looks at the education policy, a logical conclusion is that one must do something to provide an increase in funding for those schools which are down the heap. Bear in mind that I have said already that funding is not the only answer, but one cannot in conscience allow demonstrably poor schools to exist in those suburbs where people are demonstrably disadvantaged. One cannot allow that situation to persist. We believe that, be they government or non-government schools, there ought to be a policy commitment to reducing that inequity. That is the general thrust of our policy. We have talked in terms of needs. We are looking at a much wider community based index of need which we believe will take account of a number of other social factors. That index provides a substantial recognition that the criterion for success in educaton is not only a financial one. Such important factors as the kind of climate that the school functions in, the professional development and morale of teachers, the facilities and the external factors that operate on education are all part of the approach. We believe we recognise those factors. We hope we are creating a climate of educational debate and discussion in which those factors are taken into account. I hope that following this debate tonight there will be a greater recognition that those factors are important. I need to touch briefly on the fact that one of our commitments towards what we call participation and equity is to try to provide increased funding so that people are more likely to stay at school towards the end of their secondary education. That is not a way of trying to avoid the recognition that unemployment is high, but it is a way of saying that one improves one's job mobility and access to jobs when one increases the amount of one's education. That is an important goal. We believe that funding is one way of achieving that goal. It ought to provide a basis of resources in those suburbs where in fact resources are currently rather limited. In fact, in 1984 we will provide $39.5m for government schools and $4.5m for non-government schools. For technical and further education-I believe this is important-we will provide some $26.9m. They are important goals. We believe that both government and non-government schools and the TAFE sector offer opportunities for improving people's access to jobs. It is one way of working towards that goal of equity. They are important commitments. If honourable members look at the figures they will notice that there is some disparity between government schools and non-government schools. Again this policy recognises that it is important to provide funding in areas of need. Already a priori we have some recognition that in fact those areas of need tend to be around some of the areas in which government schools are based. That is very important. The question of the labour market is also important. One of the things we must increasingly see in the Australian community is a greater recognition of the role of tertiary education-TAFE, the colleges and the universities-in meeting the demands of the labour market. Obviously there is a role for what we might call pure research but there also must be considerable emphasis given to that important goal of giving people job skills that they can use. I know that the Management Development Centre of the Western Australia College of Advanced Education is doing a substantial job. It is making the transition between what one might call the commercial industrial world and the tertiary education world. A colleague at the college, Maurie Woodworth, does a substantial job in building the bridge between those two environments. I think we recognise that bridge in terms of our goals of education but in terms of philosophy those who set up the structures and run the educational institutions have increasingly to recognise that, be one on the other side of this House or on the Government side, we have some major national problems. Obviously all those problems cannot be redressed by education. Quite clearly, one of the ways of coming to terms with improving society and getting a greater level of performance and equity is to do something about human resources. That is what we believe the role of education is about. It is to do something about generating human resources in such a way that people feel that they have at least some equality of opportunity. We cannot be so sure about the equality of outcome because, as I have already indicated in my earlier remarks, other factors outside a school play a part in educational attainment. Those factors, particularly, the family and peer group pressures, are quite considerable. As I said earlier about the 41 schools, we already recognise that those schools, given that they have certain degrees of resource coverage, clearly do not need a disproportionate amount of resources because in effect other supportive factors determine their educational performance. To sum up, I think it is important to say that in this sort of debate that we have in the Australian community and in the Australian Parliament, we must recognise that we have a policy on education which attempts to do something about equity and participation and which attempts to do something about restoring some of the education imbalances that were allowed to grow under the previous Government. It is obviously not an exercise in which one ought to point the finger and score points. It is an exercise which is of vital importance. A lot of people are engaged in it. About the most important resource that Australia has is its people. We are very proud of our people, but we have a commitment to ensure that the education systems offers those people some degree of equality of opportunity, certainly some degree of resource equity and, hopefully, some degree of dignity in terms of their life performance. I believe that these Bills set the foundation, the framework for achieving these goals. We hope that in this discussion on education the Australian community shares our perception that these are very important goals. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.20) —The States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill are being debated at a time of enormous public concern about the Government's intentions regarding the availability of funds to educate young people in Australia. Two matters I want to refer to in particular are the funding of non-government schools and the funding made available to residential university colleges. The funding for residential university colleges is dealt with under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill, one of the three Bills which we are debating cognately tonight. At present collegiate residences at universities and colleges of advanced education receive an operating subsidy of about $9 per student per week. This subsidy will be reduced by 25 per cent in 1984 pending a review by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission of future arrangements for support for student accommodation. Before I talk about university colleges I suppose I ought to declare an interest. I went to such a college and, as such, am an old collegian. I also continue to have an interest in that I do, on occasions, make contributions when they are seeking donations in order that the college may continue its work and in order that student fees may be kept down to enable as many students as possible to receive the benefits of accommodation and other facilities which are provided for students during their university studies. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has decided to review the future funding arrangements for such student accommodation. But before the review body has had a chance to put in a report she has taken unilateral action to reduce the Government assistance provided. That is totally consistent with this Government's irresponsible and non-sensical approach to these issues. First, the Government has cut the funding, then it has set up a review to see whether it should have cut the funding. One could not find a more incoherent approach to Government policy making. Mark you, this is not the only area in which this is being done. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has taken the same attitude to the funding of non-government schools. But I shall deal with that in a moment. University residential colleges are places where university students, especially from country areas, can be accommodated whilst undertaking their university courses. Because of the limited number of universities and CAE's in country areas, if country students want to pursue tertiary education more often than not they have to go to the city and, therefore, they have to find accommodation. Universities and CAE's provide a residential base where life is oriented around the educational institution in such a way as to be supportive of these young men and women trying to attain tertiary education qualifications. I know that some country parents whose daughters especially are going to the city perhaps for the first time feel more at ease, at least in the first few years, to know that their children have a residential base at a university college which provides a supportive and relatively secure environment. This is particularly the case where the family has in the city no relations on whom they can rely. No doubt the Government will argue that country people should be able to afford this increase in fees because the drought has broken. Let me tell the Government that just because the drought has broken it does not mean that farming families are suddenly out of their financial difficulties. Certainly for the grain growers the prospects are brighter than they were, but most have not yet got their crop off, nor have they been paid. When they do get their grain cheque, where will the money go? Of course, after the hard years we have had it will go to repay debts and reduce mortgages. Some farmers will make a start on maintenance which has been put off for so many years, or perhaps they will try to replace old equipment. Other sections of the industry have yet to see the benefits of the breaking of the drought. Lamb prices have been down, wool prices are flat and many cattle prices have fallen since March-April when the drought broke. Of course, many farmers are in the process of rebuilding their sheep flocks and cattle herds. In addition, they face problems which have been incurred recently as a result of the Government's selective action in imposing large new burdens on the rural sector. I will give a few examples: The Government imposed a 200 per cent increase on meat inspection charges; it has imposed a new wine tax. Mr Maher —Stick to the Bill, for goodness sake. Mr PORTER —I can understand the honourable member's embarrassment. Not only is he from a city electorate, he also amply represents the Government. He has no idea of what is happening out in the bush and the problems the people there face . This education Bill will affect the country people. Their children go to university colleges and the honourable member just does not care. That is the problem with this Government. The honourable member is a very good example. He sits smug in his electorate in Sydney and thinks the rest of Australia can go to hell. Well I am telling the honourable member that the rural people will not let him allow the rest of Australia to go to hell and he will be reminded of that at the next election. As I was saying, despite the promise made by this Government to impose no wine tax, it has imposed a wine tax. It has increased phone charges . The Government has broken nearly every promise it made to the rural industry. For example, promises made in respect of wool promotion funding, the national soil conservation program- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Really, the honourable member is getting rather away from the education Bills that are before the House. He can make passing reference of the sort he has, but I would ask him to come back to the education Bills. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The problem is that the list is so long that in trying to mention just a few of the-- Mr SPEAKER —The problem is the nature of the Standing Orders. I invite the honourable member for Barker to get on with the debate. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I make is that all these charges which have been imposed on the rural sector have made it very difficult for farming families. The issue is that the outrageous increases in costs which have been imposed on rural families has been added to now by this legislation which again will represent an outrageous increase in the cost of student accommodation imposed by the Government. It will have its greatest effect on a group of people -that is, the sons and daughters of farmers-at a time when farmers are fighting to ensure that every dollar earned is spent in ensuring that there is a recovery in the rural sector and economic growth which will benefit all Australians, even those in the city electorate of Sydney. This added burden on the rural sector is yet another indication of this Government's prejudice against the battling farming families. I will quote to the House the heartless words of this socialist Government in the second reading speech on this Bill. It states: 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 presently 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. There is not to be a 1 or 2 per cent reduction in funding but a 25 per cent reduction, with not a word of explanation, and the Government wonders why it is losing the confidence of the Australian community. I now turn to an equally serious matter which is the subject of growing concern both in rural electorates such as mine and in the rest of Australia. I refer to the breaking of the funding link for non-government schools. I want to take a moment of the time of the House to explain just what this socialist Government has done. In the past, every non-government school student received a grant payable to the school equivalent to 20 per cent of the standard cost of educating a student in a government school. In other words, whilst the former Government had an obligation to ensure that children had access to education in Australia, it did not fund all children alike; rather, those children who went to non-government schools were funded to the extent of 20 per cent of the cost of a student in a government school. In other words, the taxpayer was saving 80 per cent of the cost of education of a child if he or she went to a non- government school. Of course, government schools are virtually fully funded by the taxpayer through the Government although many parents and friends committees assist in the provision of some extra facilities. I welcome the work that those committees do. In addition to the 20 per cent grant which was paid to the non- government schools an extra 10 per cent was paid to needy non-government schools and an extra 10 per cent was payable on top of that to the very needy non- government schools. This method of grant gave people the freedom of choice between a government school and a non-government school. They knew that they would have to pay fees to make up the difference if they sent their children to a non-government school . The amount they would have to make up was obviously the difference between the grant that was being paid by the Government and the actual cost of running the school. The non-government schools planned their budgets and parents acted on the certain knowledge of the likely liability that they would face if they sent their children to non-government schools. As has been said in this debate, many people who choose for one reason or another to send their children to a non- government school do so often at enormous personal cost. But now, under the socialist Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, all that has changed. Perhaps we should have expected it, bearing in mind that Senator Ryan comes from the employ of the Australian Council of State School Organisations, which is implacably opposed to providing a 20 per cent grant to non-government schools. She is also not known for her moderate political views. Recently she told the Queensland Teachers Union that she looked to the education system to ' enable the individual to resist manipulation by the massive institutions of capitalism'. That is good stuff, I must say. I suppose it is no wonder that she has cut the nexus between the standard cost of educating a student in a government school and the 20 per cent grant paid to the non-government schools. Guaranteed funding has gone out the window. So far 41 non-government schools have been told that their funding has been cut -not held but cut. They will no longer get 20 per cent of the cost of educating a student in a government school. The Minister now arbitrarily decides which schools are to be funded. So far 41 schools have been affected and we are not told how many more are to go. The dark cloud hangs over our non-government school system. Which schools are to be next? Will the parents have to withdraw students because of the increase in student fees? These are the sorts of questions which have been raised in the wider community. Mr Andrew —Who will educate them then? Mr PORTER —That is the point. Let me relate to the House the sorts of expressions of genuine and sincere concern which I am receiving. I shall read two paragraphs of a letter I have received from the Catholic ladies auxiliary of a small non-government school in the Mallee area of my electorate. It stated: As parents of children who have exercised our right of freedom of choice of education we wish to state our alarm and abhorrence at the proposals currently being passed. It went on to say: Could you please advise of any further funding cuts and what we might expect for the future of our children if we continue to exercise our right and keep them in non-government schools. Mr Gear —You will get more money; that is what you will get. Mr PORTER —That is interesting, because in a moment-- Mr Maher —An increase in funding is what they will get. Mr PORTER —I wonder whether the honourable member will guarantee that. His promises so far have not been too good. He suggests that that school, as a Catholic school, will get more money. It is interesting to hear what the Catholic bishops say about that. Let me read to the House what the Most Reverend John Kelly, Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, has said about the Government's proposal that supposedly other more needy independent schools will receive the funds. These are his words: It has been announced that cuts will be made from the so called 'wealthy' independent schools. But note the cunning inbuilt contradiction, the money from these cuts will not be given to indigent government schools, rather it will go to 'poorer' independent schools, i.e., mainly Catholic schools. That is what the Catholic bishop said. He continued: In the face of that blatant sectarian tactic I challenge any Catholic independent school to accept this Judas money. The Government is saying that this concern is false and has been beaten up by right wing groups in the community. We have heard all the excuses but the letter from the ladies' auxiliary of a school in a very small Mallee town in my electorate indicates the concern and worry the parents there have for the future of their children. I wish to give the House just one more quotation. The Central Commission of the Catholic Bishops of Australia sent me a statement dated 1 September explaining its views about the Government's changes in funding to non- government schools. It said: The Government has decided to abolish the nexus between the cost of educating a child in a government school and the level of the recurrent grants to non- government schools. I ask the House to note the following: This is against the Bishops' stated policy and is potentially destructive of non-government schooling. The removal of this automatic linking also minimises the capacity of non-government schools to plan. The Bishops went on to say: . . . they affirmed the right of every child to educational justice and the duty of Government to protect the right of parents to choose the kind of education that will be given to their children. That was not the Liberal Party or the National Party talking; it was the Central Commission of the Catholic Bishops of Australia. There is genuine concern in the community and the Bishops are reflecting that concern. A number of very plain questions are left unanswered by this socialist Minister for Education's breaking of the nexus. Let me recount them very quickly to the House. First, funding for non-government schools is now up to the arbitrary decision of the Minister. Secondly, schools, the administrator of schools, teachers, parents and students are now constantly under threat. They have no certainty as to the extent of the funding that they will receive or whether their funding will continue. Thirdly, the decision has been made before the review which the Minister has implemented has reported. Fourthly, 25 per cent of the school population goes to non-government schools. For some reason or other they have left the government school system or never started in it. The final point I want to make is that many of the non-government schools are boarding schools. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(8.40) —The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) was really defending the indefensible in his speech tonight. He used the discussion on needy schools and aid for poor schools to try to justify the continuation of maximum aid to university colleges when the whole purpose of this exercise is to increase the equity and participation of young boys and girls in Australian schools in which there is no opportunity to sit for even the final two years of secondary school. Instead of debate on that part of the legislation, we heard argument about why university colleges should keep their funding. I think they are very lucky to have any funding at all. I do not know how it is justified. When the Liberal Government in New South Wales of which the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) was a member found out that the Government was contributing to the salary or stipend of university college principals, the first thing it did was to chop that off. Suddenly someone pointed out that the Government was still paying, as it had for 100 years, something towards the salaries of college principals. The first thing Eric Willis did was to cut that out. In my electorate there is no systemic school that goes to year 11 and 12. Ninety per cent of the non-government schools are systemic schools-Catholic, Lutheran or Jewish, but mainly Catholic. No systemic school in the whole electorate goes to year 11 and 12. At Christian Brothers, Burwood, and at the two Catholic girls high schools students are kicked out at year 10 and have to fend for themselves. They have to try to fit into another school in the Catholic system in another area or they have to go to one of the private Catholic schools . Under this legislation these schools will now have a chance-I hope they act on it-to offer courses to years 11 and 12. This tremendously important legislation will give this opportunity to young people in these schools, mainly from ethnic families. The honourable member for Barker would never have seen ethnics. They are people who were born overseas and who came here to make this country the great nation it is. The children of these people should not be disadvantaged just because they speak a language other than English at home. In the junior school at Christian Brothers, Burwood, there are 188 boys. They play in a playground smaller than this chamber. The teachers told me that because it is so tiny the boys have to play sedentary games such as marbles. These people in the Opposition who ruled this nation until recently did nothing for the small schools like Christian Brothers, Burwood, which is the only systemic Catholic boys school in the whole of my electorate. I went to the junior school of Christian Brothers, Burwood, to talk about the Parliament. The noise from the traffic on Parramatta Road was such that I could not be heard. I was shouting. Suddenly the outdoor telephone in the car yard next door started to ring, and that totally destroyed my concentration. It was a high pitched scream from an outside telephone right next door to a boys school. The lady teacher told me that the noise from the outside telephone and from the roar of the traffic was the despair of all of the teachers. She said that, because of the noise, they cannot even open the classroom windows in the heat of summer. This is a disadvantaged school. It is a school that we will help. By breaking the nexus, this school will get more money. Members opposite certainly did not talk this evening about poor schools. For the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) poor schools, the 90 per cent of parish and systemic schools, do not even exist. Honourable members opposite talked about the 41 schools, 14 in New South Wales, that have lost a little of their funding. They also talked about meetings held all over the nation. In the Australian the headline was: 'Applause not boos for Senator Ryan at the state-aid meeting at Ballarat'. I was at a meeting of the Parents and Friends Association at Strathfield where I represented the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). The Sydney Morning Herald said that a resolution was passed condemning the Minister for not being there. It was passed, but no one was given a chance to speak against it. I pointed out to the chairman that it was just put and passed and that, because the Minister was not there, the meeting carried it. That meeting was not a nasty meeting. A lot of information came from Dr Tannock. It was explained to all present that the Catholic system or any other school system can go on opening schools as long as the schools have adequate facilities and are properly run. I am delighted that in my electorate next year a ballet school will open which will offer boys and girls the opportunity to learn ballet whilst they continue secondary studies when previously they might have left school at 15 or have finished their education at year 10. I congratulate the Government for looking at the way in which money is spent in this regard. We have heard a lot about 'Judas money' allegedly mentioned by Bishop Kelly in Victoria. This gentleman is not known to me and I have not seen his statement, but if he believes the money given by the taxpayers through the Government to needy schools is Judas money, his diocese should not take it or he should send it back. I assure the honourable member for Barker that many schools in my electorate, government schools, Catholic schools and other non-government schools, would welcome any surplus funds from Victoria. I have talked to the Catholic Archbishop in Canberra about the statement put out by the Catholic bishops. None of the Opposition speakers tonight have mentioned the second part of that statement. The Catholic bishops put out a statement which not only spoke about equal grants to schools but also pointed out the importance of the need aspect. I took the opportunity to ring Archbishop Carroll at his residence here and to ask him about the statement. He said that the statement contained two aspects, the second of which is that needy schools must get aid. In my electorate practically every non-government school is needy. Even non-government schools in the higher categories have very old buildings. They have inadequate playgrounds. Some of them have very poor facilities. Because some of them have small class sizes, unfortunately that one test has rated them as level one or level two schools, but the overwhelming majority of non-government schools in my electorate and in the electorates of most honourable members are level three schools. Many of these are very needy. Tonight a quite outrageous statement was made by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) about a school in Bourke. Apparently a meeting was held at Bourke. I have been to St Ignatius School in Bourke. I have a cousin, a nun, who teaches there and I have seen the school. I know how bad the facilities are. One-third of the kiddies are Aborigines who for various reasons, mainly because their parents are out of work , pay no fees. There is a notion that a school gets 20 per cent government funding and the rest is supposed to be made up by parents. Well, if the parents cannot pay fees no one makes up the funding. Yet tonight we heard this bleating from the Opposition about how we are taking away a bit of money from schools which have wonderful facilities and which have higher incomes than any state schools and most of the non-government schools. My wife has been to Cranbrook School in the electorate of Wentworth. She did a week's course there some years ago as a scientist. Cranbrook School is a wonderful school which I greatly admire. I know the headmaster and I say good luck to anyone who can afford to send his child there. My wife told me that the laboratories at Cranbrook were better than the laboratories at the University of Sydney where she taught. It is very good that the boys at Cranbrook have these facilities, yet honourable members tonight were saying in the House that Cranbrook deserves the same amount of money per child as Christian Brothers at Burwood. This is absolutely outrageous. Under the Liberal Government needy non- government schools which were lacking space and facilities were getting worse and were going backwards at a great pace. I believe that if the non-government schools, the poor schools, keep deterioriating, the whole nation will eventually turn against state aid because people will see money being wasted with only the well-off schools benefiting from the taxpayers dollar. I have always believed that the people will eventually turn against waste and any system of funding which does nothing for the poor. In a sense all schools in the non-government bracket have ridden on the back of the poor parish schools. I do not always support the concepts of editorial writers in the Sydney Morning Herald, but I was attracted by one comment in the newspaper which said that people with a lot of money have a great deal more freedom of choice than those who are less well off. The editorial stated that it should have been pointed out to the meeting at the Sydney Town Hall that both Mr Mulock and Senator Ryan were not reducing the amount of money to be given to non -government schools but have in fact increased the amount of money going to non- government schools. They have, in fact, increased the amount of money going to non-government schools. We in the Labor Party and people throughout the nation know the debt we owe to Kim Beazley Sr, the man who did an enormous amount to take the whole question of sectarianism out of state aid. It has come back only with this phoney campaign that is being whipped up by people who have not been inside any school except the one school which they may have their children attending. If we really want to know something about schools we have to look at government and non-government schools in our areas. It will be seen, as some of the other speakers have said, that some of them are not too bad but that most are very poor. In my electorate of Lowe most of the non-government and government schools are very much in need. At one state school, a very big primary school in Burwood, every child in kindergarten is housed in a demountable classroom. That is an appalling situation in hot weather. Little kiddies, many of them Vietnamese, Chinese or Lebanese, are housed in these demountable classrooms. What a start to school, an introduction to education! It is most depressing to have to put little kids into these situations. In the parish schools the situation is even worse. This does not apply just to Christian Brothers schools. Umpteen schools are without fire escapes or proper playgrounds. Even at level 2 have no playgrounds. The Christian Brothers school at Strathfield, Saint Patrick's College, has been trying to get a bit of roadway that runs through that school just to increase the size of the playground-there are 1,200 or 1,300 boys there-but the local council will not co-operate at all. This may be beyond the scope of the Federal Government, but we have a Schools Commission. It should look at these older suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and see the problems of children who have nowhere to play and who, like the boys at the Christian Brothers junior school in Burwood, have to sit down, as the teacher told me. There are classrooms such as those at North Strathfield Public School which are right on a highway. The teachers cannot be heard and windows cannot be opened to let in a bit of a breeze in the school which was built without air-conditioning. I could talk all night about the problems of the schools in my electorate, but I must not do that because the legislation is extremely important and many honourable members wish to contribute to the debate. I commend the Government for getting its priorities right. Very limited funds are available to the Government in the present difficult financial position, with many people out of work. The Government has many other pressing commitments. The Government is committed to building up the poor schools and to making sure, through this legislation, that young Australians will have a chance at least to enjoy school. The Government is making sure that teachers will not be depressed and despondent about their school situation and that parents will at least be interested in the school, that the school will look like an interesting and exciting place with a stimulating atmosphere. The Government is making sure that the young people will be able to stay on at school. In the whole of my electorate, which was a Liberal electorate until recently, not one Catholic systemic school goes to year 11 or year 12. Only private schools do that, and even those private schools have to accommodate vast numbers of children from all over Sydney. There are two private schools, one Catholic private school for boys and one for girls, but neither can accommodate any additional pupils. I do not believe any school in Australia should chop off the last two years of schooling. I look forward to seeing some activities by the Catholic Education Office in the electorate of Lowe. I commend this legislation to the House. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(8.54) —The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill is of historic importance. It marks a new stage in Australian education-a new and, in my view, worrying stage. It is a legislative declaration of war by the Government against parent's freedom of choice in the education of their children , against an educational system which encourages diversity and standards, and against the independent school system with which one million Australian families are associated. It is a declaration of war and the first shots in the war, but only the first shots. The strategy is clear and the objective of destroying the non-government school sector as we know it, of destroying its independence, its control over curriculum and teaching methods, and its growing appeal to the public, is still some way off, but the first steps have been taken. This Bill does three very grave and very objectionable things in clauses 23 and 24. Firstly, it breaks the automatic nexus, the percentage link, between the government school recurrent costs and the per capita subsidy to non-government schools. From now on funding is to be the subject of political uncertainty each year, subject to the whims of the Minister. Planning ahead will now become impossible. This applies as much to, say, Cranbrook in my electorate, which the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) just mentioned, as it does to, say, Saint Peter's, a school in Surry Hills, which has a wonderful spirit and drive but by normal standards is a disadvantaged school and is also in the Wentworth electorate. Secondly, the Bill implements the decision to cut funds to 41 non- government schools by 25 per cent. The Government and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) say that they are wealthy schools, but it is parents who pay the fees. All the evidence indicates that many of the parents who use these schools are not wealthy. They make real personal sacrifices to be able to send their children to the schools of their choice. A majority of the families involved have both parents working or one parent doing two jobs to raise the fees. These are the people who will suffer when the fees go up. The very people who are already making the greatest sacrifices will be the hardest hit. Thirdly, the Bill removes the automatic eligibility of a school for a Commonwealth grant once it is registered by the State or Territory authority. Now it will have to show, to quote the provisions of the Bill, that it 'is not likely to have a significant adverse effect upon the viability' of any other school in the area. In other words, existing schools, however bad in the eyes of parents, will have a right of veto over the establishment of a new or better school which is perhaps planned to be opened purely because of the believed badness of the school which has the right of veto. Really, this is a form of madness. Why is the Government doing this when so many people are showing a preference for non-government schools? Incidentally, this preference for non- government schools is not a development I welcome. The country needs a respected government school system. We can take no comfort from its fall in public regard. But the figures are there. Government primary schools face a 12 per cent drop of 175,000 in the number of pupils between 1983 and 1987, or a number equal to about 500 average-sized primary schools. At the same time, the numbers in non- government schools are expected to rise by 17,000 or 4 per cent. Why this is so is a good subject for debate, but obviously it has something to do with what are seen as higher standards of teaching and discipline in non- government schools. The terrible record of strikes and demonstrations in government schools is also a factor. As I have said before, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs talks about restoring the prestige of government schools, which would be a good thing. If she is serious about it, she should have been using her influence, which must be powerful, in New South Wales to stop the Teachers Federation strikes which destroy the prestige of government schools. In my electorate, for example, we saw the shocking Teachers Federation- organised picket lines and sit-ins at Dover Heights Boys School, which the Labor Government agreed to lease to Moriah War Memorial College. In the end the Labor Government gave in to the Teachers Federation. The Australian newspaper in an editorial last week referring to the Teachers Federation officials stated: They encouraged the students of the school involved to take part in them- That is, the picket lines and sit-ins- thus helping to indoctrinate children in its members' care with the belief that a dissatisfied minority is right when it acts outside the law to prevent the functioning of a democratically-elected government. The editorial concluded: The Teachers Federation leadership can justly boast that its tactics have worked. But those who believe in our democratic values have been left with nothing whatsoever to console them. Is it any wonder that parents increasingly send their children to non-government schools? They do not want their children under the influence of the leadership of the Teachers Federation, and that feeling is very strong. Fortunately in New South Wales the teachers have acted in this respect and have elected a new leader who is drawn, according to what I read in the Press, from the Centre Unity of the Australian Labor Party. We can only hope that the tide is turning. Nevertheless, the teachers' unions have a record of advocating the phasing out of state aid and have policies, State and Federal, to achieve this-to limit registration of new schools and the expansion of existing ones, to deprive them of their charitable status for taxation purposes, to restrict transport concessions, to improve new taxes and so on. I am referring, for example, to the 9 August issue of the Victorian newspaper Teachers Journal. No doubt these unions, which make such large donations to the ALP, expect concessions in the policy field from the Government. This Bill is one of them. However, it would be unfair to the Minister, in my opinion, to imply that she takes orders from the Teachers Federation. The record shows that she honestly opposes non-government schools. She does not need to be prodded into it by the Teachers Federation. She was an employee of the Australian Council of State School Organisations, pledged to abolish state aid. She does not believe in helping parents to have freedom of choice in education. In a speech she made in Sydney at the Danebank Church of England Girls School on 24 September she said that it is a specious view-' specious' is her word-that: parents who choose non-government schooling for their children have a 'right' or entitlement to government funding of that choice because they are taxpayers. That, she says, is a specious argument. In other words, she conscientiously rejects the view that every Australian child has a right-I emphasise a right-to some basic assistance with schooling. There is no right, in her view, to a basic grant. We had quite a kerfuffle in September in the media and in the Senate about a book review the Minister wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of years ago. One sentence in the review was this: It is with reluctance that I for one conclude, after reading this book, that the freedom to send one's children to an independent school, is bought at too high a price for the rest of society. Of course, when she became the Minister for Education, people naturally paid particular attention to that sentence. It was frequently quoted in the Press and in Parliament. In the end the Minister had to correct the review in the Senate and in the Press. She wrote to the Press pointing out: 'Unfortunately, an editing error resulted in this comment being attributed to me'. In fact, she was quoting Shirley Williams, the British parliamentarian. By some editing error the quotation was attributed to her. Naturally, everyone accepts the correction, which in any case can be confirmed by referring to the book being reviewed, by Shirley Williams, which contains more or less the sentence attributed to the Minister in the review. The Minister was simply quoting Shirley Williams. We agree with all that. But the point is that she made no public statement or parliamentary statement two years ago to correct the editing error. Even in her letter to the Press in September she did not repudiate the Shirley Williams point of view. She simply corrected an editing error. She agrees with the Shirley Williams point of view. She accepts it. She repeated it more or less in Hurstville on 24 September, a matter of days after her letter to the Canberra Times and the Sydney Morning Herald. It is specious, in her view, to believe that every Australian child has a right to a basic education grant. She rejects that view; it is specious. The plain fact is that she wants to phase out state aid and independent schools. Today, the first steps have been taken. Indeed, the Bills before us even go beyond schools and deliver a blow to independent residential colleges at tertiary levels. Clause 6 of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill reduces operating subsidies to colleges by 25 per cent in 1984. This is of a piece with other anti -student policies of this Government. The Government broke its promise to bring the tertiary education assistance scheme to the level of the unemployment benefit; in fact, the gap has widened. It broke its promise to establish an emergency student loans scheme and its promise to assist student parents with the provision of child care on campus. The Government has certainly given the students a very raw deal. This Bill today adds to that record by, in effect, putting up college fees around Australia. But the point I am making at the moment is that it is further evidence of the Government's animus against the whole non-government sector in education, whether it be schools or residential tertiary colleges. I repeat that everyone on this side of the House supports the idea of restoring the prestige of government schools. I am very proud of the fact that my electorate has in it such distinguished schools as Sydney Boys High School, Sydney Girls High School and Vaucluse Boys High School. Restoring the prestige of government schools must have a very high priority. May I say in passing, with reference to the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, that the best way to keep students at school and to increase their participation would be to raise the standard and quality of schooling. Yet the Bill unfortunately does very little about that indeed. Nevertheless, the object is good. But restoring the prestige of government schools does not conflict with preserving freedom of choice in education, diversity in schooling and a strong non-government school sector. The Government is damaging education as a whole by trying to undermine the non-government sector, as it does in these Bills. The Government has aroused tremendous opposition with these measures. Protest meetings have been called around the country. I convened such a meeting in August in my electorate where some 6,000 boys and girls are affected and where cuts of some three-quarters of a million dollars in funding are involved. It was a crowded and lively meeting and involved all non-government schools in the electorate-the so-called wealthy schools as well as the disadvantaged schools; not just the six on the hit list. They all saw the threat to the non-government school sector as a whole. Similar meetings have taken place in most electorates. They culminated in a meeting of 7,000 people in New South Wales in the Sydney Town Hall-- Mr Hollis —Hey, hey; 5,000. Mr COLEMAN —There were 5,000 inside and 2,000 outside. Mr Hollis —You were not there. Mr COLEMAN —Nor did the Minister bother to send a representative. As well as meetings, there have been petition after petition and many thousands of letters to all members of this Parliament. Public opinion has been aroused, but the Government has ignored it and pushed ahead with its campaign to destroy freedom of choice in education and the non-government schools. I believe that it will live to regret these Bills. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(9.07) —The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) deliberately set out to misquote the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and then set out to cover his tracks with all the rebuttals. There was no need to go through that matter. It has been gone through in the House before, but it is typical of the deceit that has gone on on that side of the House during this debate. No one screams louder than the privileged when their privileges are threatened. No one screams louder to protect the privileged than the conservative National-Liberal parties in this Parliament. They have been at the forefront and behind the scenes of a national scare campaign, a national campaign of personal vilification against the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and a national campaign of division of the Australian community. They have used a $4m reallocation of resources in a total Commonwealth education Budget of more than $3,500m as the hysterical argument that this Australian Labor Government is hell-bent on destroying the non- government sector of education in this country. They have used this reallocation of $4m to play on the unwarranted fears of thousands of Australian parents. The language of the Opposition and the forces of sectarianism and privilege in this community is rabid and inflammatory. Before we get into the real issue of education, I say that this so-called state aid debate is not a debate about education of the 25 per cent of children at non-government schools: It is about the privileged resources of a very small minority who want far more than their fair share. So let us expose the campaigners of fear and misinformation. We in this Parliament hear a lot about hit lists. What is a hit list? What is all the fuss about in real terms? Forty-one schools out of 2,312 non-government schools have had the Federal Government recurrent cost subsidy that they received last year cut by $2 a week for each primary student and by $3.35 a week for each secondary student. That is what this fear campaign is all about. These 41 schools will still receive from the Australian taxpayer $258 per year for each primary student and $408 per year for each secondary student in recurrent funding alone. These 41 schools, out of more than 10,500 schools in Australia, have private incomes available to them which are equal to 95 per cent or more of the standard cost per pupil at government schools. These 41 schools operate at resource levels far above the level of the standard government and non- government school. These 41 schools are part of a group of 210 so-called level one schools which, in the Fraser years of 1976-82, received increases in recurrent funding from $189 up to $509 per pupil-an increase in real dollar terms of more than 250 per cent. While the 210 schools in this group received an increase of more than 250 per cent, the schools that the Fraser Government had the primary responsibility for supporting-the Government schools-had their funding chopped by 12 per cent in real terms. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and others wants to talk about hit lists, so let us talk about them. Let us hear no more about the hit list of the 41 resource richest schools in this country. It is about time we heard about the hit list of the 7,200 government schools and the hit list of the 1,870 resource poorest non-government schools at level three. That is what I call a hit list. That hit list affected more than four out of five Australian children and it will, and has, affected the lives, opportunities and futures of those children. The Australian Labor Party's education policies are needs based, and they are needs based because the needs clearly exist. The needs exist because the former Liberal-National Party coali- tion Government put four out of five Australian children on its hit list. I repeat: We are talking about a reallocation of $4m in a total education budget of $3,500m. That is what this hysterical debate which has been whipped up in the community is about. That is what the forces of privilege are screaming about now. That is what these forces are using to scare the thousands of parents whose children attend schools with some of the lowest levels of resources in this country. It is about time that the parents of students attending those non- government schools realise that they are being used, and used badly. Their names and voices are being used to protect an elitist system that has failed to adequately provide an education system for their children. If it were not for the needs-based funding policy of the Australian Labor Party, many of those schools would not exist today. The Australian Labor Government's education funding is made on the basis of need and that is clearly the best safeguard of and the fairest policy for the education of all Australian children. Honourable members on this side of the House will further highlight the hollow facade of concern of the Opposition parties for equality of opportunity and freedom of choice for all Australians. Freedom of choice is a poor schizophrenic phrase that has been belted around this place. It has a different meaning from what was intended by the United Nations Charter. The Charter states that parents are to have the freedom of choice to have their children educated how and where they see fit. The United Nations Charter does not say a thing about the freedom of choice having to be paid for by the taxpayer. That is one of the things that the Opposition has dreamt up. Australians have freedom of choice and the Opposition knows it. Australians have freedom of choice of where to send their children to school. The definition of freedom of choice that has been bandied around by the Opposition is that the state must pay for education. That definition virtually applies nowhere else except in Australia. It does not apply in the United States of America or Great Britain. Yet those countries support the United Nations Charter. It is interesting in a limited way to listen to the contribution to this debate by the Opposition. Throughout the debate we have heard very little talk about other aspects of education. We have heard very little constructive talk about technical and further education colleges, colleges of advanced education, universities, participation rates, disadvantaged groups, treatment of government schools and the resource poor schools. No wonder members of the Opposition will not speak about those subjects. Their record is so incriminating and damning that they do not have the gall to talk about it. They have latched on to what they do best-that is, to create division in the community and promote privilege, and that is all that they are good for. But to broaden the real issues of this debate I want to highlight an aspect of education that has held back this nation socially and economically. I want to make some comments about the participation and equity program. I am sure that speakers following me in this debate will also speak on this topic because that is what the building of our skills and our education base is all about, and that is what is vital for employment prospects. The participation and equity program which will start in 1984 is designed to encourage young people over school leaving age to continue to participate in useful and fulfilling education and training in schools and TAFE colleges. This program is an integral part of the overall development of a framework of co- ordinated youth policies. The programs will be directed towards those areas that show low participation rates in secondary education. As a supposedly developed nation, we are clearly undereducated and underskilled. The former Government, the remnants of which now justly sit in opposition, is responsible for much of this situation. Under the prime ministership of Malcolm Fraser the percentage of the Federal Government's contribution to the total recurrent costs of government schools fell from 10 per cent to 7 per cent. In dollar terms that is $111m less than what should have been spent on government schools. The Opposition claims that expenditure per pupil went up in that period. What it did not say is that the total number of pupils dropped. What did it ever do about that situation? It is a national disgrace that that was the case. The participation and equity program and the best of the Government's other education programs will seek in time to erase that national disgrace. I can provide the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) with 20 million differences between the school to work transition program and PEP. He did not seem to know that there was a difference between the school to work transition and PEP. Those 20 million extra reasons are the $20.4m which will be spent in the schools sector of this program alone-$20.4m more than was allocated by the former Government. PEP will work to overcome the current educational inequalities that rely on differences of socio-economic background, sex, geographical location and ethnic origin. I said before that PEP is part of the co-ordinated framework of youth policies of this Government. At this very time a mission from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is in this country at the Government's request. It is here to investigate and advise on, among other things, appropriate income support systems for our young people. The Australian Labor Party Government is determined to raise the education and skill levels of this nation. In difficult economic times we have clearly made the quality of education for all Australian children one of the highest priorities of this Budget. If education is too expensive, the lack of education is costing us a hell of a lot more. We have paid too much for a low national level of education and we cannot afford to pay for it any longer. These Bills, despite the hysterical protestations of the privileged and the misled, are the start of the regeneration of the total education system from where it was left in 1975. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.17) —I am very pleased to be able to support my colleagues the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in this debate on the Government's discriminatory, destructive and divisive proposals on education in Australia. I believe the divisions which this legislation has caused are absolutely disgraceful. The resentment and bitterness that is now being generated by divisions within our society are contrary to the ethos of the Australian Labor Party campaign-the so-called 'bringing Australia together' campaign. That was absolutely phoney. Mr Ruddock —A charade. Mr ANTHONY —It was a deception and a charade. Nothing shows it up better than the legislation that is before the House at the moment. I enter this debate on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill to express my very grave concern at the direction the Government is taking with its education policy and the effects that this policy is having on the education of Australian children. The quality of education is important for the future of our children. Quality of education is very much a matter for the judgment of parents. I hope parents continue to have the right to that judgment. The range of opportunities that is available is now coming under threat by the action of the Government. It is fundamental to the Australian way of life that Australians be given the opportunity to choose the sort of education they wish to have. Yet this sort of legislation is casting doubts on that matter. Mr Holding —What do you know? Oh, God! You would say anything. Mr ANTHONY —I listen to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is prattling away. But he is obviously very sensitive about it. He knows that the direction in which the left wing of the Labor Party wishes to take education in this country. Like my colleagues, I am very concerned about the three Bills which are before the House. But, like the Leader of the Opposition, I want to concentrate my remarks tonight on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1983. I believe that this Bill, very simply, is the despicable pay-off to the Australian Teachers Federation for its $750,000 election bribe to the Labor Party; the biggest electoral donation in Australia's history. It was so big that nobody can look at it as being a donation to the Labor Party; it is buying the Labor Party. It is bribery and corruption in the worst form. The propositions of this sort of donation make it quite clear that it is not a donation. The Teachers Federation is buying the Government so that it will do exactly what it wants it to do. This Bill is a pay-off to the various unions-I emphasise 'the unions'-not the teachers as a whole for the campaign of distortion and outright deception they waged against the former Liberal-National Party Government. This Government came to power with the support of a group of unions which wanted the education system of this country destroyed. They wanted it destroyed because as long as it exists it puts the spotlight on the absurdity and the destructiveness of their policies . They are being embarrassed by more and more parents opting to send their children to non-government schools, even though in many cases they have to make a considerable sacrifice to do so. This Government is obliging the unions by its support in destroying the non-government schools. The teachers unions have handed over the cheques. This Bill is the Government's receipt. The Government is not game to move immediately to implement the policies of the Teachers Federation. It knows how unpopular these policies are and how they have brought education in this country into disrepute. The Government knows that if it endorses them lock, stock and barrel there will be a reaction across Australia which will put it out of office. So with the State Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill it is digging a hole, a tunnel, under the foundations of the bipartisan educational policy that has served this country very well since the 1950s. Its aim is to so weaken those foundations that the policy will collapse. Thus it will achieve the aims of the Teachers Federation without bringing blame to itself. This Bill sets out to achieve that aim in two main ways. The first is to destroy the long established percentage link between Commonwealth funding for independent and government schools. Instead of this fixed predictable basis for funding, the Government proposes that the level of funding for independent schools should be in the hands of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan). Instead of independent schools being able to depend upon a basic level of per capita support, they now have to depend on a yearly bargaining process involving a Minister for Education and Youth Affairs who has made no secret of her bitter rejection of non-government education in Australia and of her willingness to be influenced by the Teachers Federation. The second way in which the Bill works to undermine the foundations of national education policy is by ensuring that in future Commonwealth capital funding will not be available automatically for new independent schools if there is a possibility that these schools will take pupils away from existing government schools. The aim of this measure is to put a brake on the growth of independent schools. It is designed to ensure over time that no more independent schools are built, or at least very few. It places enormous power in the hands of the Minister. It does not matter whether the people wish to have an independent school; the Minister can override their wishes. There is a two-pronged assault: Firstly, to reduce slowly the funding for independent schools, thus limiting their ability to grow; secondly, to ensure that as few new schools as possible will be built. We can all be sure that whatever new independent schools are proposed, this Government and its cronies in the Teachers Federation will find reasons why the schools should not be built. We can also be sure that the reduction in funding for independent schools which has already begun will continue to accelerate. As we have seen so often since March, the Government has done its best to conceal its real intentions. It has cloaked its efforts to undermine education in Australia with the usual campaign of deception and propaganda both in regard to its own policies and those of the former Government. If the public were to believe the claim of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the Liberal-National Party Government was an unrelenting enemy of government schools and the Labor Government was their so called champion. Only a Labor government was supposed to be able to look after education. The facts are very different. The Liberal-National Party Government, of which I was proud to be a part, increased aid to government schools in real terms on a per capita basis during its seven years in office. This Labor Government, in its first Budget, despite all the rhetoric that we have heard-and it is so strong on rhetoric-cut total education spending as a proportion of total outlays by 0.3 per cent in real terms. It cut spending on all student assistance schemes by 2 per cent in real terms and it cut assistance for tertiary students under the tertiary education assistance scheme by 6 per cent in real terms. It also made a number of other cuts. I will point out three in particular: Spending on the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme, the Aboriginal study grants scheme and the assistance for isolated children. In the latter case assistance was cut by 4 per cent in real terms. If this is the record on which this Government rests its claim of showing concern for education, it is a very flimsy one indeed. The fact is that this Government is not concerned with improving the standard of education in Australia. What it is concerned about is putting its own ideology into practice. That ideology is expressed in the policies bought and paid for by the Teachers Federation in providing a cool $750,000 in the last election campaign. I have already noted two major thrusts on the part of the Government in its attempt to undermine the national education policy. A third one is also provided in this legislation-that is that cuts will occur in the 1984 Commonwealth recurring grants for the 41 independent schools on the Government's now infamous hit list. The nature of the schools chosen for this hit list is interesting. The list was clearly intended to drive a wedge between the churches involved in independent schools. Rivalry and sectarian tension once again has been brought forward and is now bedevilling the education system within Australia. Fortunately, the Government's efforts to cause this division have been stifled and have failed. For instance, the Archbishop of Melbourne, Sir Frank Little, condemned the Government's blatant resort to promoting sectarianism. The Central Commission of the Catholic Bishops of Australia condemned out of hand the Government's action as being wrong in principle. The Government and particularly the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs have attempted to justify the hit list by claiming that all schools involved are wealthy schools. The Government has tried to create the impression-Labor always tries to divide groups within the community-that only a small number of wealthy people will be affected. I will return to these claims in a moment. However, the Government has not been able to conceal the fact that the 41 schools on its hit list are only just the beginning. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has confirmed that in future more and more schools will be affected-not just 41, but more schools. Of course, the very existence of this hit list is a disgrace to a government which claims that it governs for all Australians. It is also a clear breach of election promises, but we are used to the breaking of promises by this Government. What concerns me most is the way in which this Government is trying to justify that hit list. We are all told that only a small number of people will be involved, but according to the Government's figures, the 1982 enrolments of students in the schools involved totals over 36,500. We are told that they are all wealthy schools. I am not sure what that really means. What I do know is that a great many of those 36,500 students do not come from wealthy families; they come from families who are prepared to work hard and to give their children the sort of education they believe they need and which is not available to them in the public school system. They come from families which are prepared to make considerable sacrifices to give their children the best education they believe is available for them and they come from families which pay taxes, just like all of us, to the Government to provide funds for services such as education. Australians want the choice. They do not want to be deprived by Labor's dogma and subservience to the militant teachers union which does not want to have the competition from non-government schools. It seems to make economic folly to want to be restricting people from going to non-government schools when it costs $1, 000 less for a child to go to a non-government school than a Government school. What is the rationale? What is the sense of it? Of course we all know that the Government is tied, ball and chain, to the teachers union of this country which is one of the most militant unions and which has been one of the communist led unions of this country. The Government is bowing to that union. Why? It is because the union has bought off the Government with $750,000. What annoys me is that many of the hit schools-indeed the great bulk of them- happen to be boarding schools. They are schools that provide accommodation for children from country areas where there are no secondary schools, where there is no opportunity other than for their parents to send them away to schools. Here again is another classic example of this Labor Government wanting to discriminate against country people. It talks in terms of country people, who have suffered drought, who have suffered low prices, who have suffered all the adversity of many years, as being wealthy. Such people have a belief in their children. They want to see them get a good education, in many cases a Christian education, and education opportunities which are not available in the public system. However, this Government by its means-I have mentioned the three means-is now putting strict limitations on the growth of the non-school systems in this country and it is doing it for only one reason and that is that it is bowing to the pressures of the teachers union which bought it for $750,000 in the last election campaign. Nobody could ever claim that that is a donation. It is buying the Australian Labor Party. There has never been a donation of that nature in Australia. I think it is a disgrace and it is a disgrace that the Government so blatantly brings this legislation into this House tonight and expects us to allow it to pass without condemning it in the severest terms we possibly can. The breakage of the link which operated automatically between non-government and government schools was the greatest degree of confidence that one could give to non-government schools. They knew exactly where they were going and how to plan. Giving the Minister the power of being able to use a discretion whether a new school is allowed to be built because it might have some interference in public schools is again an example of the doctrinaire policies of the Labor Party to reduce or suppress the growth of independent schools in this country. I believe independent schools ought to be a right of this country, that people ought to have the right of making a judgment where they send their children to school. Today the fact is that more and more children are going to independent schools and that is what is hurting the teachers union. It cannot understand, it cannot bear the competition. The non-government schools are providing a quality of education, they are providing the discipline and they are providing the guidance that the parents feel confident the children are getting but are not getting in many cases from the public schools. Why try to restrict them? It ought to be the right of Australians. Certainly as I mentioned in economic terms it makes no sense at all to be trying to force more and more children into the public education system because every extra student that one moves from an independent school to a government school is going to cost the taxpayer of this country another $1,000. That is an enormous amount. It cost more than double to send- Mr Hollis —That is not right. Mr ANTHONY —That is absolutely right. Here the Government is with the blatant propaganda, the lies and deceptions trying to defend the public school system. I am all for the public school system. Mr Holding —It didn't do much for you, mate. Mr ANTHONY —I happened to go to both school systems so my faults lie with both. It is interesting to note that in 1982 to send a pupil to a government school cost the Commonwealth and the States $1,974. To send a pupil to a non-government school cost the State and the Commonwealth $940. That is less than $1,000. Yet the logic of this Labor Party in wanting to try to save the taxpayers money is so totally false and it is based on the wrong premise. We know why it is doing it. It is an ideological belief that there should not be the independent school system in this country. We know that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has a bitter feeling against non-government schools and it is a great pity that we have this sort of legislation coming into the Parliament. It is causing such enormous resentment and divisions amongst the Australian people particularly when the Labor Party went to the Australian people and said: 'This Government will bring Australians together'. It is doing exactly the opposite. Government members have already seen the great protest meetings that are being held across Australia. If they are not getting the message already they will certainly get it at the next Federal election. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(9.36) —The Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) knows quite a lot about buckets but unfortunately this one was a bit empty. One of the things that we have heard from the Opposition in this debate is the repe- tition of malicious distortions one after the other. As far as a cut in Aboriginal secondary grants is concerned I will read from the Budget papers 1982-83 which state that $21 1/2m was provided for 1982-83 and $25 1/2m for 1983-84 is allocated. If that is a cut then the honourable member ought to go back to school and learn his arithmetic a bit better. Just in case he read the wrong line, I point out that in 1982-83 Aboriginal study grants totalled $13m and in 1983-84 they totalled $15m. So if that is a cut let us have a whole lot more cuts in a lot of programs like the one I have mentioned because that sort of cut will certainly assist a great many people. There are two issues in this debate, the funding for the participation and equity program and the funding for non-government schools. The participation and equity program is designed to increase retention rates through providing funding for more relevant and attractive courses of study with the assistance of the Curriculum Development Centre, to provide greater participation in courses leading to technological skills, to provide greater access to arts education and to give girls a chance to develop their talents free from the discrimination which has for so long been a feature of the education and employment practices. There is real desire on the part of young people to remain in education, to develop their budding talents, to receive an educational experience directly related to their vocational choices and that is illustrated by the fact that every technical and further education program in Victoria will turn away up to four times as many applicants as they accept. The Box Hill TAFE college which conducts years 11 and 12 specific skills programs is one in this position. Every TOP course has such competition for entrance and the teachers at those colleges know that much talent is going to waste in the community as only a few of the very talented gain admission to the course of their choice. The success of these courses so far amply demonstrates the waste that has been involved through the narrow choice of courses available to our young students. The planned expenditure in 1984 of $26m for TAFE and $39m for government schools with some flexibility in the allocation between these areas will allow development of courses and programs where the appropriate populations exist and where existing resources can be increased. The previous Government had a blinkered view of education, blinkered by its concern with traditional forms of education, blinkered by its failure to understand the need of the education systems to match developments in society and in employment and blinkered by its attachment to elitism as a philosophy. The low retention rate of young people in education is a measure of the failure of that kind of approach. One of the reports that has been published about that, the Studies of Tertiary Student Finances Volume 4, states: It is important to recognise at the outset that the principal limitation on rates of participation in higher education in Australia is the low rate of retention in the senior years of secondary school. What are our policies in that regard? Our participation and equity program recognises that we can no longer choose to waste the talents and resources of our young people by continuing to look backward with nostalgia instead of forward with confidence. The education of girls and young women has a special place in this program. Mounting evidence has shown us that girls have not and do not receive the same education and access to education that boys and young men traditionally have had. Differential courses, differing treatment in the classroom, differing expectations and differing career advice have all mitigated against girls achieving their full potential as individual members of society. This Government is firmly against discrimination in education and employment, and it is very aware of the damage to our progress as a nation resulting from such discrimination. Funding for projects of national importance will enable the Schools Commission to undertake projects arising from the results of its present examination of the educational needs of girls and young women. The Curriculum Development Centre will have a very important role to play in the development of appropriate curricula for the participation and equity program. Any development of school and post-school courses must be underpinned by the appropriate consideration of the curriculum best suited to the aims and objectives of the course. Additionally, curriculum planning must look forward to the needs of the future. It must look at the gaps in present curricula and provide creative proposals to fill in those gaps. As we are all experts on education, I assure honourable members opposite that I have been in education for 30 years and I actually know what I am talking about. They should listen to what I have to say. One of the most shameful characteristics of our schools curriculum is that studies of Aboriginal history and culture have only been undertaken in the sketchiest fashion as appropriate curriculum resources simply have not been developed. Part of the work of the reactivated Curriculum Development Centre, which was abolished by the previous Government, will be to assist in providing those resources so that this omission in our school curriculum can be rectified. It will work also on curriculum in the areas of education for girls, education in the arts, and the development of community languages. It seems a little odd that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and some of his friends talk of the vital importance of education to the country when the Government of which he was a senior member abolished the Curriculum Development Centre, ignored the plummeting retention rate, ignored the waste of talent, and ignored the changes so necessary to the curriculum and resources of the schools and post-secondary education institutions. The so-called pursuit of excellence left excellence and opportunity out of the education system and left in a blind pursuit of narrow competitiveness. One of the most distasteful parts of this debate has been the sanctimonious way in which Opposition members have assisted in the orchestration of the defence of the wealthiest schools in this country against the proposition that they should share with less wealthy schools some of the money available for education in non -government schools. Those schools have more money made available to them for capital works, indexed against inflation, which is something the previous Government did not think about. They will be able to take advantage of the participation and the equity program and computer education programs. The drum that Opposition members are beating on behalf of a few of their constituents is empty of everything but noise. It seems proper to repeat the facts, and they have been stated by the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples). Some 41 schools, which can and do charge between $3,000 and $4,000 a year, are being asked to take a cut of between $2 and $3 a week for each student. That represents $134 a year for secondary students. Honourable members opposite have the same evidence that I have. Those are the kinds of fees those schools are charging. Considerations of equity, resources, participation, retention, planning for the future, access to decent education for girls and many young people for whom the tradition-tied school programs have no meaning, have all been put aside by the Opposition. Members of the Opposition have shown no concern at all for any aspect of our education system but the income of schools which have the option to lower their fees by cutting some of the more extravagant trimmings rather than raising them, to disadvantage parents whom they have said are making sacrifices to give their children what is advertised as a first class education. The question that must be answered is this: Why do some parents think that non- government schools give their children a better chance? The answer lies in the abysmal record of the previous Government in respect of government schools and educational institutions. Members of the previous Government, now members of the Opposition, never hesitated to blackguard the government schools, the teachers, the students and the parents. We recognise that government schools deal with the most difficult students, who can be problems to themselves, their parents and their teachers. The very people who carry the burden of educating the majority of Australia's children and young people were neither supported in their difficult task nor praised for their efforts. The Government has a real responsibility to all Australia's children and young people. The participation and equity program provides support for equity of educational outcome. It recognises that we are moving towards an information society, to a society which should and will be proud of its history, not just 200 years of it but the whole of it, a society sensitive to its environment and the artistic expression which arises from it, and to a society in which women will no longer be trammelled by discriminatory educational and employment practices. There is some need to talk about nexus. There is a nexus educationally between geography and tertiary education. My colleague the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has pointed out on a number of occasions that an examination of the suburbs from which university students come shows that few students come from his electorate of Lalor, for example, compared with the the number who come from the electorate of Kooyong. Does that demonstrate an equitable outcome or does it demonstrate a real need to share educational goods? Will we have a nexus between need and funding or between greed and funding? Giving equally to all is giving equity to none, and that is the result of the previous Government's policy. I conclude by quoting the Australian Council of State Schools Organisations, an organisation which represents the majority of Australian parents: Education is a responsibility the community accepts for all its children, not something bought and sold in the market place by those who can afford it, or choose to afford it. The schools which need this Government's support are the schools which will get it, and that is most of the schools in this country. Even the 41 schools are receiving a measure of Government support which is generous to say the least. Schools in this country are not like schools in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, where parental choice is paid for wholly and solely by the parents. Schools in this country are funded very generously, and the participation and equity program will continue the generosity of that funding. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(9.48) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. 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.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Street, A. A.Hall Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Brown, John McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(9.58) —I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) condemns the Government for its many dishonoured promises to Australian secondary students; (2) insists on the right of every Australian child to a basic grant for support of his or her schooling at a level which is predictable and related to educational costs in Government schools; (3) supports the principles of absolute freedom of choice in education and the right of all parents to be supported in that choice; (4) deplores the restriction on the free development of non-Government schools as an expression of the will of parents, and (5) condemns the Government for the unexplained and arbitrary cuts to some Schools Commission Programs, in particular, the Professional Development Program '. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hodgman —Yes. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Fife's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hollis, C.Beazley, K. C. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beddall, D. P. Jacobi, R.Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, E. J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Young, M. J. Aderman, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. 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.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Street, A. A.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Brown, John McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.08) —The Government's activities in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill can only be described as reprehensible. They are effectively undoing the progress which took the last 20 years to put in place, a system of dual education in Australia by which all Australian parents and their children have the right to choose the form of education they wish. We see in this legislation the first step to cut back by a cunning manoeuvre, to restrict the freedom of choice and thus slowly to throttle the rights of all Australian parents to decide on the education they want for their children. If we were dealing with a government which was responsible, if we were dealing with a government that believed in the rights of every Australian citizen to make these choices for their children, this Government would be asking us to debate legislation which gave universal family support based on the principle that the future strength of Australia must be based on economic and social stability which can only be given by our families. A key element of such a policy must always be that parents be given reasonable freedom of choice in the education of their children. This is not a privilege but a right enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations on Human Rights. It was the Liberal Party of Australia at both the State and the Federal levels during the 1960s which recognised that if the law required that all children should be educated it was the state's responsibility to ensure that this objective was met, not solely by the provision of government schools, but through allowing parents in the community to assert their right also to choose a non-government system of education if they so wished. We believed then and we still believe now that freedom of choice in education is not an attainable option for many thousands of parents and their children when they are expected to contribute through their taxes for the education of other people's children but have to pay the full load and more to assert their independent rights. Clauses 23 and 24 of this Bill quite clearly put in legislative form the provisions which will undercut once and for all the traditional rights and responsibilities which we believe that all parties in this chamber and elsewhere throughout Australia accepted; namely, that the state has the responsibility to give to the individual citizen the right of freedom of choice. That is what we are seeing taken away tonight. How is that being achieved? The Government has broken the nexus or the link between per pupil grants for non-government school children and the cost of educating children in government schools. That link was the result of a bitter state aid debate in the 1960s, a debate from which the Government of this country has made a fundamental step back. It is encouraging people once again to have those divisions in our society for which there should be no place in the Australia of the late 1980s. All the political parties over the years recognised that parents had that right yet today the Australian Labor Party, the Government of this country, wants to turn back the clock. It will live to regret this move because so many people, both in the private and the public system, believe fundamentally that the people of this country should have that right of choice. They believe that the right of choice should not be locked out to them by cost, especially when the element of cost to such a large degree depends on the parents who send their children to the non- state system rather than the state system, a choice for which they have had to pay heavily for many years, ever since the 1880s. As I said, the nexus no longer exists. The key link has been broken. Grants from 1984 onwards will be made on a completely arbitrary government decision, disguised by the principle of 'needs basis'. The annual haggle over funds which we will see from now on will be yet another element which will destabilise the non-state school system. One could well ask of this Government, which received such a vast amount of money, $750,000, from the Teachers Federation during the last election campaign: Is this the pay off which now has to be paid for by 25 per cent of Australia's citizens who have done nothing more than exercise their right to send their children to the school of their choice? We have been told by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who has been unable to give a definition of the concept of needs based school funding, that all the children who go to the 41 schools which are the edge of this bayonet which has been thrust at the heart of the education system of Australia are children of the rich. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of those children attend those schools because their mothers and their fathers have gone out into the work place to earn an income sufficient to keep their children at schools of their choice. In addition to that they have, through their taxes-many of them are major taxpayers-also contributed to the school funding of the children of honourable members opposite and everybody else in this chamber and throughout Australia. That is not something that has been denied them in the past; that has been a right which the Liberal Party in government believed was fundamental. Suddenly thousands of parents throughout this land are now wondering what they can expect next. Forty-one schools have been affected this financial year. How many schools will be affected next year? Where will it stop? Is there a Catholic school, a systemic school or a private school belonging to any church or denomination in Australia that can look to this Government with trust and confidence that it will live by its policies? In this debate tonight one thing has come through quite clearly. When the shibboleths have been removed from the arguments of members of the Government one cannot but conclude that what we are seeing tonight is simply a niggardly, small-minded approach because some people who support the Labor Party believe that one can buy a standard of education simply by spending more and more money. If hundreds of thousands of Australian parents have voted with their feet to take their children out of the public school system, I think one has a reason to say that they must have some difficulty with the system as it currently stands. It is not my role to attack the public system, it is not my intention to attack the thousands of excellent teachers who work in the public system. It is certainly my role to attack that Marxist controlled element of the Australian Teachers Federation which has had for many years as its principal objective the destruction of the right of freedom of choice which has been given to the Australian people. When my constituents want to know why next year they will have to take their children away from the schools of their choice I will tell them, as my colleagues on this side of the chamber will tell their constituents, that members of the Government, unaided except for the financial support of a certain militant group of Marxist controlled trade unionists in the guise of teachers who have insulted their profession, are setting themselves up as the arbiters of standards of education in this country. Unlike the Government, we believe not only in freedom of choice but also that freedom of choice carries with it responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is that when people go to the trouble of sending their children to a school, whether it be a public or a private school, they expect from that school a standard of education which will help their children throughout their lives and enable them to become fearless and decent Australian citizens and to carry their full responsibilities as citizens. Tonight we are seeing the first step forward in destroying that right which means that the Australian education system will ultimately be the loser. When we finally get back into government we will have to unscramble the eggs that honourable members opposite have broken. It will be at a cost which all Australians will have to carry. We will let them know the reason why. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.19) —Madam Deputy Chair,- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the question be now put. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. Adoption of Report Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the report be adopted. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.20) —It is an absolute scandal that this important legislation is being bulldozed through this Parliament in this manner. At least 20 speakers on both sides of the House wish to contribute to this debate. They are being gagged. Mr Dawkins —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Is it in order for an honourable member to be speaking to this motion? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Yes. It is in order. Mr HODGMAN —This legislation will shape the pattern of Australian education for a generation. It is evil, socialist legislation. It continues the Hawke Government's vicious attack on Australia's non-government, independent and church schools. It will seriously disadvantage Australian universities and Australia's university students. It will have a savage impact on migration education because fewer and fewer migrants- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.22) —Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an absolute scandal. I hope the parents of Australia will see the way in which this rotten socialist Government is attacking church schools. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(10.24) —I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for its many dishonoured promises to Australian tertiary students'. 3016 REPRESENTATIVES 29 November 1983 States Grants (Tertiary Education) Bill Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.25) —It is seconded. In seconding the amendment, I believe the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) has once again done a great service to the people of Australia. Mr Dawkins —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. It was agreed by the House that there would be a cognate debate covering the subject matter of these three Bills. It was also agreed that separate questions would be put at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest that it is not in order for the seconder of the amendment to be speaking to the motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is unable to recognise such arrangements. The honourable member for Denison is entitled to the call. Mr Dawkins —I just indicate to the Opposition that in these circumstances, where cognate debates covering related matters are agreed to by the House at the commencement of the debate, the Government is perfectly happy to facilitate the Opposition in moving its amendments to second reading motions. But the arrangements comprehend that the subject matter of the debate should be during the second reading debate on the first Bill. That is the normal arrangement. Of course, the Opposition can decide to breach these arrangements whenever it likes , but I think there are-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I must interrupt the honourable gentleman. As I understand it, the Acting Leader of the House is not raising a point of order as such. Is he seeking indulgence to make a statement? Otherwise, the honourable member for Denison has the call. Mr Ruddock —On a point of order, the Minister has been speaking to a procedural motion. It is clearly out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —I think the Minister was indicating that the appropriate time for me to speak was in Committee. If that is so, I will not speak now. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Fife's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Johnson, LesBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Young, M. J.Hollis, C. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. 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.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Street, A. A.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Brown, John McVeigh, D. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being past 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Dawkins-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.36) —In the previous legislation dealt with by the chamber the Hawke socialist Government violated 20 solemn election promises dealing with primary and secondary education. At the next Federal election it will pay the penalty for these breaches of these very solemn promises. But the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, the Hawke socialist Government, to its discredit, will breach no less than six separate solemn election promises. I remind the Committee and the men and women of Australia listening to this debate that the Hawke Government promised before the election on 5 March, firstly, to increase the tertiary education assistance scheme until it equalled the single unemployment benefit and to maintain that nexus. I hope that every university student and college of advanced education student in Australia will note that that promise has been dishonoured. The second promise was to raise the tertiary education assistance scheme means test until it equalled average weekly earnings. I hope that every university student and CAE student in Australia notes that that promise has been shamelessly dishonoured. The third promise was to provide 300 post-doctoral fellowships. I hope everybody who was hoping to undertake a post-doctoral fellowship in the academic year 1984 will note that the Hawke socialist Government has shamefully dishonoured that promise. The fourth promise was to establish an emergency student loan scheme to replace the previous Government's student loan scheme. Again, I hope that every university and every CAE student in Australia notes that that promise has been shamelessly dishonoured. The fifth promise was to assist student parents with the provision of child care on campus . I hope that every mother and every father will note that that promise solemnly given, has been shamefully dishonoured. Now we come to the sixth promise-to improve access for disadvantaged groups. The Government has certainly belted the migrants in this legislation. The legislation refers particularly to those rural students who will be further penalised by a 25 per cent reduction in the accommodation subsidy paid to residential colleges. I ask all rural members of this Parliament on both sides what they think of a government which will make it harder for the young men and young women of rural Australia to undertake tertiary education? I think that this is a most shameful, disgraceful and dishonourable act by a government. The Government went into the country areas and said to these young people: 'Under our Government you will be able to attend universities. You will be able to attend residential colleges'. As my colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) pointed out, it is not just the ordinary residential colleges which are affected. Once again, the Government is attacking the church colleges and once again it is attacking the church teaching colleges, because it is slashing by 25 per cent the subsidy which would be available to those attending residential colleges. The Government will be condemned on every campus in Australia, in every university, in every college of advanced education and in every theological and teaching college as the greatest bunch of socialist hypocrites ever. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the question be now put. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Arab League: Canberra Office-Tax Avoidance-Grain Harvesters-Western Australian Liberal Party-Mr John Griffin Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(10.43) —Recently the Government announced that the Arab League would be permitted to open an office in Canberra. This gave many people concern for two reasons. The first is that the Palestine Liberation Organisation -a terrorist organisation-is a full member of the Arab League. The second cause for concern is that the Arab League organises a trade boycott of Israel; that is , it insists that any company trading with Arab League countries must not trade with Israel. In the ensuing controversy, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) met a deputation from the Jewish community and apparently satisfied most, if not all, of them. He explained that the Arab League would have to meet two conditions to open its office in Canberra. One was that it would not organise trade boycotts of Israel. The other was that it would not include the PLO. Mr Leibler, one of the leaders of the deputation, was quoted in the Press as saying that he was satisfied that, in fact, as a result of these conditions, the Arab League would probably not open an office in Canberra. Be that as it may, why should it open an office in Canberra when we read, as we have read in Saturday's edition of the Australian, that the Arab League does not need to organise the boycott because the Commonwealth Department of Trade has been organising the boycott for the Arab League? We read in that report of Damien Simonis of Saturday: In June of this year, the West Australian office of the Department of Trade notified the Perth Chamber of Commerce that in order to trade with Arab countries it would have to be a party to boycott measures against Israel . . . * * * * In August, the Melbourne division of the department drafted a letter to be sent to any exporters inquiring about the conditions of trade with Arab League nations. It explained the circumstances of the boycott. Since then the Department and the Government have made it clear that there will in future be an additional sentence added to the letter stating that the Australian Government does not condone such a boycott. That is no doubt a step forward, but it seems to be an inadequate step forward. It is a very serious thing indeed when a major question of this kind is being handled in this way in June and July and since by a department of the Government. One is entitled to agree completely with the editorial in the Australian today which states: This is not merely a question of trade. It is a matter which vitally affects our foreign policy. If that policy means anything, the Government should instruct its employees to cease those ill-considered activities which make a mockery of its protestations. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.47) —When this Government came to office it made a commitment to the Australian people to end tax avoidance. We therefore proposed to legislate to do that, only to find that the Liberal Party of Australia opposed it, the National Party of Australia opposed it and the Australian Democrats opposed it. Why? One can come to the conclusion that they opposed it only to protect their friends, that is, the tax avoiders and the tax avoiding industry. Recently, it has been brought to my attention that members of the Liberal Party in New South Wales are involved in what can be described and may best be described as the New South Wales Liberal Party tax avoidance scheme. Recently in the media and in the State House in New South Wales comments have been made about a publicly listed company in that State. The company is known as White River Corporation Ltd. It is operated by prominent members of the Liberal Party in that State. The family that operates this corporation had accumulated profits in the family timber business which, if distributed by dividend, would have been taxable in the hands of the recipients or, if undistributed by the companies operated by this family, would have been subject to coporate withholding tax. Mr Ruddock —I take a point of order. It might be helpful to the honourable member, before he continues his remarks, to know that there has been a report from accountants on these matters which completely clears the company and its- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr HAND —On listing, the White River Corporation bought out the family interest, that is, the interest of the family of the prominent Liberals, in the business for a lump sum and an acknowledgement of indebtedness. Questions at this point must be asked. Was the sale price treated as a capital receipt? Did this family pay tax on the funds received on the sale of the timber business which we understand and in fact know had accumulated considerable profits at the time of the sale? I think it is high time, given the comments being made in other places and in the media, that this prominent member of the New South Wales Liberal Party Opposition came forward- Mr MacKellar —I raise a point of order. Is it in order for an honourable gentleman to refer to a situation where there has been an audit certificate supplied which completely- Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. He is quite in order in raising the matter before the House. The honourable member for Warringah will resume his seat. Mr HAND —And stated quite clearly what taxes were paid by him, particularly, and by other members of his family. Mr Coleman —I take a point of order. Since it is well known to whom the honourable member is referring- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member should come to his point of order. Mr Coleman —Is this not a matter which should be the subject of a substantive motion? Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HAND —It is interesting to note that the Opposition does not want to hear what is being said. Mr Coleman —We do not want to hear your garbage. Mr HAND —There is no garbage in it. There are documents and a long list of questions have been asked today in the New South Wales Parliament. I will name the person they concern-the Leader of the Opposition, that great champion of honesty and integrity, who has ripped off people, avoided taxation and misappropriated funds, according to these documents. Here we have the Valder report-- Mr MacKellar —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. On a previous point of order it was ruled that nobody had been named. The honourable gentleman has now named a particular person. I take the point of order again: Is it in order for an honourable gentleman to refer, in a matter of this nature when there has been, as I am informed-- Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member is debating the matter. I call the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr HAND —Mr Greiner must tell the public, particularly the public of New South Wales, whether tax-- Mr Coleman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It follows from the preceding point of order. In view of the fact that the honourable member has named the person to whom he is referring, is it not now the case that he should proceed by means of a substantive motion? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member misunderstands the Standing Orders. I call the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr HAND —If so, how much tax was paid on the sale of the shares in the proprietary family business to the newly listed White River Corporation? If tax was not paid-I am not making any accusations, I am just asking the people to explain-the allegation may strongly and critically be put that this family, the Greiner family, was involved in a premeditated tax avoidance scheme. I again at this point challenge the Leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales-the Valder report of the Liberal Party Committee of Review states that 'Liberal Party leaders must have integrity'-to reveal to all concerned-- Mr Spender —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable gentleman has apparently challenged a person who is not in this Parliament to debate in this Parliament, and that cannot be allowed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is quite within the Standing Orders. I call the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr HAND —You see, Mr Speaker, what we may have here is a very clever business exercise-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(10.53) —Grain farmers in various areas of Australia are greatly concerned at the 15 per cent tariff on all imported grain harvesters which was recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission in its recent inquiry. The IAC inquiry was made pursuant to a referral from the then Minister for Administrative Services, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), who called for an inquiry and report on whether there should be any changes in the form of assistance provided to the producers of grain harvesters in Australia. Submissions to the inquiry by the National Farmers Federation and the Livestock and Grain Producers Association favoured assistance from tariff to bounty and recommended that if assistance was needed for the manufacture of local grain harvesters it should be provided by means of a bounty. The IAC found against this evidence and made a recommendation to the Minister for a tariff duty of 15 per cent on all grain harvesters imported. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) endorsed these findings and, of course, since this decision farmers across Australia have voiced through NFF and LGPA considerable opposition to such action. Petitions against this decision bearing the names of thousands of farmers have been presented to this Parliament by me in the past few weeks, expressing bitter disappointment and concern. The use of the tariff as a form of assistance for the local manufacturers of grain harvesters is highlighted by the declining market share of locally made machines and the inability of local manufacturers to produce large capacity machines of advanced design to satisfy the majority of the grain industry's harvesting requirements. Tariffs or quota assistance would increase the cost of an essential and major input to all grain growers. Profitability of the grain industry-one of Australia's most efficient low-cost industries-would be reduced, as would the ability of Australia to compete on the world's grain market, where over 70 per cent of its grain production is sold. Thus a tariff or quota would contribute to a less efficient industry structure, leading to low farm and national income, and a reduction in employment numbers. By contrast, because a bounty would not increase the cost of an essential major input, and because local manufacturers of grain harvesters would have to compete against imports in terms of price, quality and performance of their products, a bounty would contribute to a more efficient use and allocation of Australia's resources. The bounty for the local manufacturer of grain harvesters should be structured in such a way that it does not discriminate on the grounds of local content or machine size. Many independent farmers have also approached me requesting a bounty instead of a tariff recommended by the IAC. Representations have been made to the Minister requesting that, as there are other flaws in the IAC report, he investigate the situation and find in favour of the grain producer's stand. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(10.55) —In my contribution tonight I should like to refer to an article in today's West Australia entitled 'WA Libs from group to fight referendums'. The members of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party in this regard are troglodytes. They cling to a document framed in the nineteenth century and oppose any change to give it relevance to the society of today. What they propose to do, in opposition, is to set up a Liberal Party front to oppose proposals that were overwhelmingly agreed to by this year's Constitutional Convention in Adelaide, including, I might add, the Federal Liberal Party. To support my contention that it is a Liberal Party front, I offer the following evidence from the Press statement of today. Firstly, its formation arose from a motion at the Liberal Party State Executive. There are a few fertile minds there, good at dodging tax. Obviously they have come up with this one. Secondly, the West Australian Liberals in opposition to the referenda are exactly the same as the groups. That is rather convenient because, as I shall show later, they are supposed to be independent. Thirdly, the chairman has been appointed by the Liberals, not elected. One would expect that from them. He is also unnamed. It could be anybody. It could be Wilson Tuckey over there, or Noel Crichton-Browne- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that he should refer to honourable members of the House by their electorates. Mr GEAR —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your guidance. I meant the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The fourth point is that the group, when it meets, will be told that Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Robin Gray will be invited to speak on their behalf by the West Australian Branch of the Liberal Party. What a great couple of speakers to have for anything. Fifthly, it is supposed to be independently funded and staffed. We know that in Western Australia the Liberals are fairly good at laundering money in many ways. It would not surprise me if this independently funded front was in fact funded by the Liberal Party. The sixth point I make is that the group has been formed to oppose referenda but will be ongoing, continuing past the referenda date of 25 February. Why should it do that? Those concerned set it up for a specific task and then they make it an ongoing concern. My theory on why this front has been set up, this so-called independent group to be formed-- Mr Tuckey —Someone wrote this for you. Mr GEAR —I write my own, unlike the honourable member. Ray O'Connor's handlers are trying desperately to fortify his tenuous grip on the leadership. He is just trying to erect a smokescreen to divert attention from his lack of initiative in presenting policies to assist the real needs of the people in Western Australia. Let us have a look at the three proposals that the front is trying to oppose. The first is the simultaneous elections. Look at the spurious reason given: It would make the Senate a puppet of the lower House. All the old emotive terms that we usually associate with the Liberal Party in Western Australia really come out in this Press article. What it will really do, of course, is save money by having elections for both Houses at the same time, something which Malcolm Fraser was in favour of in 1977; but not so this year. The second one that is to be looked at is the interchange of Federal and State powers. Members of the group reckon that over 80 years experience it has been demonstrated that ' Canberra would use its powers to blackmail'-there is the old emotive term again- 'the States into agreeing to a one-way flow of powers'. It is rather strange that they should say that, because obviously in the last 80 years we have not had that power. Also, they are going to oppose the right of governments to seek advisory opinions from the High Court. Their reason for that is that the Party says that this could politicise the Court. What a load of garbage. In the United States of America and in Canada, where these powers exist, they have not led to that situation. They work very well there. I am sure that such a power would work well here. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(10.59) —In a number of speeches I have explained to the House the immigration problems of Mr John Griffin in his attempts to be admitted as a permanent citizen of this country. On 4 November Mr Griffin presented himself for an interview at Australia House in London in support of his application for permanent entry to this country. During that interview- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Keating to present a Bill for an Act to make provision for the surveillance of, and the holding of inquiries into, prices charged or proposed to be charged for the supply of certain goods and services in Australia. Mr Beazley to present a Bill for an Act relating to certain remuneration and allowances. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to establish a Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board, to provide for the licensing of certain companies by the Board and to regulate the investment activities of licensed companies. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act relating to the provision of assistance to the steel industry. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain steel products produced from certain steel mill products. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain high alloy steel products. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 November 1983: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1983-No. 13-Household expenditure survey: January to December 1984 Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 272 Defence Act-Determinations-1983- No. 24-Overseas Ration Allowance No. 25-Allowance Payable for Travel on Termination of Service Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 273 Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 279 Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 275, 276, 277, 278 Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Industry and Commerce-D. M. Bockmann Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances-1983- No. 55-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 3) No. 56-Police Offences (Amendment). Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 17 November 1983 States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the states of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia, dated 12 November 1983 Statutory Rules Publication Act-Statement relating to the unavailability of Electoral and Referendum Regulations, Statutory Rules 1983, No. 235 The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 90 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Will he undertake to institute taxation measures as incentives to promote hardwood plantations and amenity forests; if so, what form will these measures take. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government's policy for agriculture specifically provides for the use of incentives such as taxation measures to promote hardwood plantations and amenity forests. Implementation of this and other policies relating to the agricultural sector are under study by my Department and proposals will be considered by the Government and progressed as rapidly as possible in the current budgetary climate. I will also be looking for advice from the Australian Forestry Council to assess priorities and assist in determining the appropriate course of action. Question No. 234 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Is it a fact that justices of the peace and bank managers have been removed from the list of persons qualified to witness passport applications; if so, (a) why and (b) can he indicate whether many justices of the peace are now questioning their standing in the community. (2) Can he indicate whether justices of the peace are trained to witness documents. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) In a statement to Parliament on 8 December 1982 the former Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined the response of the then Government to 'Interim Report No. 2-Passports'-of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking headed by Mr Justice Stewart, and gave details of proposed changes to the passport issuing procedures that would be introduced progressively according to an agreed time-table. The present Government expressed its support for the proposed changes and on 14 June 1983 I issued a statement confirming that the new procedures referred to by the honourable member would become effective from 1 July 1983. The change of categories of persons eligible to certify an applicant's identity for the purpose of passport issue is one of the changes designed to counter passport abuse. Justices of the peace have been excluded because, when taken as a group in all states and Territories, they are too numerous to facilitate an easy and quick security check. My Department's survey showed that in one state alone there were an estimated 160,000 Justices of the peace. Bank Managers were deleted at the request of the travel industry, which complained that their inclusion would give a commercial advantage to banks having their own travel agencies. (b) This is not really for me to comment on. (2) The training of justices of the peace is a matter of State jurisdiction and accordingly I am unable to comment on the training they receive in the witnessing of documents. I would draw to the honourable member's attention, however, that the eligiable persons are not asked to witness the passport application; they are asked to certify that they have known the applicant personally for a period of not less than one year. Question No. 253 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) What expenditure has been, or will be, required by Australia Post for the proposed postal courier service. (2) Will completely separate accounts be maintained for the courier service and will they be published. (3) What accounting procedures will be required of, or adopted by, Australia Post to ensure that there is no cross subsidy in favour of the courier service, which would provide unfair competition for private services. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) Australia Post regards details of proposed expenditure on the express courier service as commercial- in-confidence. (2) Australia Post will maintain appropriate accounting records of all revenue and expenditure of the proposed express courier service. As indicated in (1) and as in other comparable busines enterprises, such information is regarded as commercial-in-confidence and would not be published. (3) See (2). The trading situation of the service will be monitored continuously. It is Australia Post's intention to re-establish the service fully as quickly as possible so as to ensure there is no cross-subsidy which would provide unfair competition for private services. Question No. 289 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Will he provide details of contracts let by his Department in each State for 1982-83. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Defence Support is the contracting agency for the Department of Defence. The answer given in response to Parliamentary Question on Notice No. 288 includes contracts let on behalf of Defence. Question No. 300 Mr Jacobi asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Will he, as a matter of urgency, discuss with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General, what steps he will take to ensure that persons named in the Costigan Report, the McCabe-Lafranchi Report and any subsequent report, who have been involved in tax avoidance and evasion, and in other alleged illegal activities, and against whom there appears to be substantial evidence, are not allowed to leave Australia in order to escape possible criminal proceedings. (2) Is it a fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has a discretion in this matter as conferred upon him in sections 7 to 9 of the Passports Act 1938, and in particular, sub-section 8 (1) of that Act. (3) In view of the enormity of the tax loss as revealed in the Costigan Report and the McCabe-Lafranchi Report, will he take immediate steps to revert to the policy which applied prior to the statement of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 7 March 1979 (Hansard, page 709), that the Minister for Foreign Affairs could withhold, or have withdrawn, passports if State Corporate Affairs Commissions or company officers reported that an investigation was in progress; if not, why not. (4) Will he take further action to ensure, through the Minister for Finance or the Treasurer, that these persons do not attempt to transfer assets out of Australia pending such proceedings. (5) Is it a fact that failure to take this action will result in taxpayers incurring enormous costs of extradition proceedings. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government is fully aware of the need to ensure that, as far as possible, persons involved in alleged illegal activities are not allowed to leave Australia and thereby escape possible criminal proceedings or cause heavy extradition costs to be incurred. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has discretion to withhold the issue of a passport to any Australian citizen but this power would be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. The return to the practice of withholding the passports of persons merely suspected of offences would be incompatible with the Government's commitment to individual rights and civil liberties. Where charges for breaches of Commonwealth law have been laid against persons named or referred to in either the Costigan Report or the McCabe-Lafranchi Report, bail conditions have included provisions designed to prevent those charged from leaving Australia. Clause 20 of the National Crime Authority Bill when enacted would allow the Authority to apply to a judge of the Federal Court for an order for delivery of a person's passport to the Authority where the judge is satisfied that the person had been summoned as a witness before the Authority and his evidence could be of particular significance, and there were reasonable grounds for believing that the person intended to leave Australia. The person concerned would have a right to show cause why the order should not be made and to apply to the Federal Court while the order was in force to have it revoked. The Government is also aware of the potential for a loss to the revenue by persons attempting to transfer assets out of Australia for other than legitimate purposes. Where it is shown to be necessary, the Government would take whatever supportive action may be appropriate to halt any loss to the revenue by such practices. Question No. 348 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Transport January 1978-May 1982: Included in response by Minister for Aviation to Question No. 350 (Hansard, 8 November 1983, pages 2443-4) Department of Transport and Construction May 1982-March 1983: Included in response by Minister for Housing and Construction to Question No. 351 (Hansard, 11 October 1983, pages 1608-9) Department of Transport March 1983-October 1983: No claims Question No. 358 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Defence Support, 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 Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Between 7 May 1982, when my Department was created, and 7 October 1983 there have been 119 compensation claims for repetitive strain injuries lodged by employees of the Department of Defence Support. Analysis of the claims reveals that: (a) 108 claims have been determined (b) 106 claims have resulted in liability being admitted (c) 2 claims have been disallowed (d) 11 claims remain outstanding (e) 59 claims were from men and 60 were from women (f) 9 claims were from keyboard staff (g) 10 claims were from process workers (h) 4 claims were from cleaning staff (i) 6 claims were from clerical staff (j) 17 claims were from garment making staff (k) 15 claims were from labouring staff (l) 3 claims were from storehouse staff (m) 55 claims were from trades staff.