Wednesday, 30 May 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House of the death on 17 May of Mr Edward Nigel Drury, CBE, a member of this House for the division of Ryan from 1949 to 1975. In informing the House I add a personal comment with regard to the late Nigel Drury . He was one of those members of the House who showed a great interest in the parliamentary institution itself. He was for many years a deputy chairman of committees of the House. I had the opportunity to see him in this office and to serve with him as one of the deputy chairmen. He gained the respect of all members for his knowledge of procedures and the way in which he handled the debates. His further interest in the parliamentary institution was shown by his chairmanship of the Privileges Committee and his active participation in other committees such as the Standing Orders Committee. He held the parliamentary institution in great respect. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I am extremely grateful on behalf of my Party for your very kind words, Mr Speaker. Mr Drury's successor in the seat of Ryan, Mr John Moore, will also speak on this matter. Nigel Drury was a gentle, decent and most honourable man. All those traits flowed through his work in this Parliament. I noted with particular interest, Mr Speaker, your reference to the respect he had in this Parliament. It is a matter of deep regret to me that I have learnt of his death and, on behalf of the Party, I pass my condolences to his family. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I also extend my deepest personal sympathy and that of the National Party of Australia to the family of the late Nigel Drury. He won the respect and admiration of all those who worked with him. I well recall the many occasions when as you intimated, Mr Speaker, he served as a deputy speaker in this place. He was always attentive in his duties and his electorate. On a number of occasions I was associated with him when, as Minister for Social Services, I became involved in the development of aged persons accommodation in his electorate. I know the extent to which he enjoyed the respect and admiration of all those who worked with him. To his family I extend my own deepest personal sympathy at the loss of a man who made such a contribution to this Parliament on behalf of his constituents. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —On behalf of the Government I also extend to the family of Nigel Drury our deepest regrets at his passing. I served with him as a deputy chairman of committees. He also served with me when I was Chairman of Committees and Speaker of this House. He was very dedicated to the parliamentary institution and during his career here he served it well. I believe that the memory of those members who served with him will be aware of his contribution to the Parliament. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —I wish briefly to join those honourable members who have expressed their condolences. Mr Drury, as other members have said, was a very gentlemanly person, a person who represented the electorate of Ryan from 1949 to 1975. In that time he made an enormous contribution not only to the processes of this House but also to those who worked with him in the Queensland electorate of Ryan. I express my condolences to Mrs Drury and to his two sons. Mr KEOGH(Bowman) —On behalf of the Queensland members of the Australian Labor Party who had the privilege of serving for some period during the service of the late Nigel Drury, I would like to add a few remarks in support of the expressions of condolence. When I first came here in 1969 as the newly elected Labor member for Bowman, Nigel Drury, of course, was a long-standing member of the House. The things that have been said about him this morning in regard to his great respect for the matters of parliament and the conduct of proceedings in this chamber were things that I very soon recognised. I recognised also the very helpful way in which he offered assistance to new members of the Parliament , certainly to Queensland members and certainly to me. For some period I had an office in the same building as did Nigel Drury. While he was not the type of member whom one might look at and say that he was an outstanding performer in any specific area, he was certainly a very solid worker in his electorate and a very highly respected member of this House. Perhaps Nigel Drury's service to his electorate in the Parliament could best be summed up by saying that he was a quiet achiever, but he was certainly an achiever and even though, as I indicated, he was not of the same party as I he was a man for whom one could very quickly find it necessary to have a great deal of respect. I am sure that in this Parliament he served his party and the electors of Ryan in the very best possible way. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —In supporting the expressions of condolence, I thank the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) for so aptly describing some of the attributes of the late Nigel Drury. Only one other Queensland Liberal member who is now in the Australian Parliament was here in the days of Nigel Drury. That underlines the fast turnover that this place has in these times compared with the turnover when Nigel Drury was elected in 1949. He held the seat of Ryan at 11 elections. That, for many members of this Parliament, would be an almost impossible dream, but he did it. His parliamentary career followed distinguished service with the 2nd Australian Imperial Force, during which he served in New Guinea and also at Morotai. He was probably the epitome of the gentle gentleman. Those who live on this earth could have met few people as gentle as Nigel Drury. He was decent, generous and kind. It was unknown to me that he had extended the hand of friendship to new members of the Australian Labor Party from Queensland, but that does not surprise me. I think it is a tribute to the honourable member for Bowman that he ensured that that fact was placed on the record. I always felt that Nigel Drury was a person who was prepared to assist any member of this Parliament as well as people outside the Parliament. His retirement, as many will know, was severely blighted in that he was the victim of a most paralysing stroke. In recent years he could not even speak and was in St Andrew's nursing home in Brisbane. His wife informs me-I have maintained contact with the family over the years-that right until the very end Nigel took a very keen interest in this place. I just say in adding these comments that I regard it as a privilege to have known a person as generous and as kind as Nigel Drury. In his own way he certainly made a contribution to this Parliament and in a most definite way he certainly set us and all those who knew him a standard by which to live. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher) —I wish briefly to add my personal condolences to those offered to the family of Nigel Drury. What has been said is true. It is something that we would all aspire to have said of us with the truth with which it can be said of this man. He was a thorough gentleman, completely honest and honourable. I for one was the recipient of much encouragement, help and courtesy from this fine gentleman, as I know were other members of the House. He was a very diligent member. In these days our parliamentary offices are perhaps not as well equipped as we would like, nevertheless they are better equipped than when Nigel Drury was a member. He had an electoral office every Saturday morning with his table and his sign in the shopping centres. He was a man who liked to keep in touch with the people. They trusted him and he liked to serve them. He was a very good friend and I add my sympathy and condolences to those that have been expressed in the House. Mr SPEAKER —As a mark of respect to the memory of Mr Drury, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places- Mr SPEAKER —I thank the House. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedom; 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 moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the 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 all 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 Blunt,Mr Carlton,Mr Ruddock and Mr Snow. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20 per cent is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards,Mr Hand,Mr Howe and Mr Milton. 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 Regulations and an Ordinance before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersedes the ACT Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law- The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Ms Fatin. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling and Mr Milton. 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 utilizing 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 Dr Everingham and Mr Maher. 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 shows: That, having received information from The Attorney-General's Department concerning the New Commonwealth Censorship Procedures for Publications, we are abhorred by the intent of the Government to change the already liberal Censorship Laws into such laws as will open the doors to nearly complete license where publications are concerned. We most strongly feel that in this way the Government would be intentionally instrumental in perverting the thoughts and actions of young and older Australians. We therefore request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizen of Australia respectfully shows that I request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Right 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: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray, that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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 Constitution, 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 pray 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 ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, and recognizes that the flag is a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporate the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if change is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: that ABC radio transmission from 4QA Mackay is antiquated and operates on transmitters installed in 1947-48 to service a region in which the area and population has doubled in the intervening 36 years. the signal from 4QA is below strength so that station 4QN at Townsville has a far better signal strength into the Mackay hinterland than 4QA, a distance of only 70km from Mackay and over 300km from Townsville. the 4QN news programmes are of no interest in the Mackay region and in emergency situations such as cyclones, the 4QA frequency has limited penetration within the region. that while FM programmes are available in Rockhampton and Townsville, Mackay, with a regional population of 100,000 people, has been by-passed when towns of smaller size have the advantages of FM radio. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government and the Department of Communications will move urgently to rectify both these anomalies. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 Carlton. 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 Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. 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 the Soviet Union continues to violate human rights in Latvia. This is clearly demonstrated by the recent case of Janis Rozkalns, a practising Baptist who, on January 6, 1983, had his house forcibly entered into by K.G.B. agents searching for various religious publications. The K.G.B. confiscated 40 Bibles. Mr Rozkalns was charged with 'anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda' and now faces a sentence of seven years deprivation of freedom plus five years internal exile. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled condemns the religious and human rights persecutions within the Soviet Union. 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 in Parliament: We the undersigned petitioners do humbly pray, that you know of our deep concern for the safety of airline passengers flying the Qantas direct S.P. flights between Sydney and Los Angeles. The imposition of a tour of duty of up to 20 hours for Flight Attendants operating this flight, appears not only unreasonable but possibly unsafe. Passengers need the critical measure of safety that alert Flight Attendants provide in emergencies. We need you to assure that Qantas will not take any action that will lessen the effectiveness of its Flight Attendants in an emergency. Thank you for ensuring that OUR airline maintains its Safety First approach. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: We protest the proposed relocation of the Artillery and Infantry Schools from North Head, Singleton and Holsworthy to the Central Tablelands of New South Wales, and the Cobar district. We humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will ensure that the current investigation being carried out in the Central Tablelands is ceased forthwith and that no Military Establishment be located in the Central Tablelands of New South Wales. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling and Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of North Queensland respectfully showeth: that the National Highway is the responsibility of the Federal Government, the Bruce Highway in North Queensland is of inferior standard for a National Highway, Queensland has suffered a 15 per cent disadvantage over other States during the past ten years in road funding, and the state of the Highway is deteriorating as maintenance expenditure is insufficient to maintain even the present standard. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will allocate sufficient expenditure, to raise the standard of the National Highway in North Queensland to Department of Transport standards, in conjunction with the Queensland Government, within ten years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act 1953. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister for again erroneously and wrongfully claiming that his Government had created 210,000 new jobs since coming to power, when the Prime Minister knows, or ought to know, that his statement is simply not true. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and my colleague the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) will second: That this House- (1) notes that the Minister for Social Security is providing $2.1m to the Youth Services Scheme to ensure its continuation until budget decisions on crisis accommodation for homeless youth are made and (2) commends the Minister and the Government for supporting these excellent support services for homeless youth. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes (a) with concern the violence against the Tamil ethnic minority in Sri Lanka, and (b) that Australian aid to Sri Lanka could be channelled by the Sri Lankan Government, away from the Tamil minority; (2) urges the Government to consider all possible avenues of influence to prevent the violence in Sri Lanka, including the review of the aid program; and (3) requests the Government to appoint a delegation of Federal Parliamentarians to visit Sri Lanka and report to this Parliament on the actual situation. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Queensland and Northern Territory Governments for their continuing failure to finalise and release their joint feasibility study on the Mount Isa to Darwin railway announced by them in July 1983. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores the failure of the Government to give a firm and unequivocal commitment in the Parliament on 29 May, 1984 that it will never again try to use public moneys to fund one side of a referendum question being put to the people of Australia. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Federal Opposition for its heartless promotion of confusion and fear amongst the aged, by instigating a deliberate campaign of fear, aimed at the many thousands of pensioners who will not be affected by any form of asset testing, and (2) calls on the Opposition to co-operate with the Government's attempt to raise the standards of the pensioners struggling in their old age instead of attempting political point-scoring in an effort to undermine the whole welfare system. Mr Peacock-Mr Speaker, we are prepared to take this motion now if the Leader of the House (Mr Young) would so move. I should like to discuss it. We shall, of course, have an amendment to the motion, but we are very pleased to discuss it and to nail the Government for what it is doing in regard to the elderly in this community and the distress that is occurring. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has made his request. Mr Young-I await with some anxiety to see the matter of public importance to be raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Braithwaite having given notice of a motion, it was later ruled out of order . Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —For the information of honourable members and to facilitate the business of the House, it is necessary for me to inform them now that it is likely that we shall break for dinner this evening at 6.30 and that the House will resume at 8 o'clock so that we can conclude the business on the blue sheet for today. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The Leader of the National Party is obviously rising to seek my indulgence to ask a question of the Leader of the House. I think his colleagues should allow him to do so. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I was going to ask the Leader of the House (Mr Young) whether he would give an indication of his program for next Wednesday night. Is it also his intention to sit those hours then? Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —That is an option that will be available to us if necessary, but I hope to avoid that situation. If honourable members opposite cease calling quorums and we can put all the time aside for the business of the House, we should be able to get through on time. If on occasions some of the time of the House is wasted, we cannot be sure, but I think that is an option we might have to take. [COGNATE BILLS AND PAPER: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STAFF) BILL 1984MERIT PROTECTION (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) BILL 1984'REFORMING THE AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVICE'] Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.23) —The debate on this matter commenced last evening. We heard a number of speeches. The first was from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), a gentleman who has taken a great deal of interest in reform of the Australian Public Service and whose contribution through the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament has enabled him to play a very constructive role in the development of the ideas which I think substantially gave rise to the development of this legislation. There is a substantial measure of agreement between the Opposition and the Government as to the nature of the reforms that should take place. In the time available it will not be possible for me to eulogise those areas upon which there is agreement; I will concentrate on those areas in which there are substantial differences in approach between the Government and the Opposition. But that is in no way meant to detract from the substantial nature of the reforms and the positive role that has been performed by members from both sides of the Parliament in helping to develop a substantially bipartisan approach in areas where reform is quite possible and desirable. An unusual step occurred yesterday. The Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Dawkins) tabled a financial impact statement in relation to this legislation. If the document that he tabled is to be a forerunner of other documents indicating the financial impact of legislation, I do not think we need to have any more of this nonsense. Quite frankly, he put before us a meaningless document. We are told that the first financial impact of this legislation will involve: . . . new programs for placement, development, mobility and appraisal of staff of the Senior Executive Service . . . A simple reading of the legislastion would have told any of us that. The second involves: . . . the requirements for departments to prepare and implement equal employment and industrial democracy plans . . . A simple reading of the legislation and the speech would have told us that. The third reads: The engagement of ministerial consultants may give rise to some net addition to costs. A simple reading of the legislation would have told us that. The fourth reads: . . . the Department of Finance will also require some extra staff for the responsibilities it is to have in relation to numbers of staff. A simple reading of the legislation and the material before us would have told us that. The fifth reads: . . . the creation of the Merit Protection and Review Agency will also involve additional staff and accommodation costs. Likewise, a simple reading of the legislation would have told any honourable member with any understanding of the matters that there are substantial additional costs involved in that proposal. The Minister then said: When more detailed and precise estimates of costs are calculated they will be made available to the Parliament in the usual way. That means that nobody has any idea of the additional costs involved in this legislation, and we really have a document that is a nonsense. It does not tell us anything of the nature of the financial impact of the legislation on management of the Public Service. I think it should be nailed for the nonsense it is. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), who preceded me in the debate on this legislation last night, made some critical comments about the way in which the Public Service Board performed its role in relation to the management of the Public Service under the former Government. I do not think she was addressing her comments critically in relation to the Public Service Board; I think she had in mind that the former Government was to blame and she suggested that its principal role was in the implementation of staff ceilings. I think it ought to be pointed out that because the Government's intention is to transfer the management of staff numbers from the Public Service Board to the Department of Finance we are seeing a somewhat different approach to the question of staff numbers in the Public Service. It ought to be noted that the previous Government did have a very strong view on the need to manage carefully the Public Service and to ensure that so far as possible people were not put on without there being in the clearest possible terms a need for them to carry out particular tasks and it was very careful in scrutinising the growth in the Public Service over time because costs are involved. We now have some other information from the Government for the first time. I acknowledge that the Government has given details of staff numbers in its forward Estimates. I have looked at those forward Estimates in relation to the areas in which I carry some responsibility in this Parliament and I must say that I was astounded at the prospect of significant numbers of additional personnel being employed in the Department of Territories and Local Government. I have asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) to explain what the tasks are that people will be expected to fulfil in that Department because it is very clear that the Government is, I think, riding on a considerable burgeoning of the Public Service. I do not mean to be unduly critical of that. I suspect that over time we will all examine rather critically what is happening in that area because of the very considerable cost impact that the Government's decisions will be having in relation to the Public Service generally. I think it is another one of those beds that the Government will have made for itself and that over time it will be left to lie on. I also want to comment in relation to the way in which this legislation affects a very important principle, that of having an apolitical public service, a public service that is able to offer advice impartially and objectively to the government of the day in such a way that the Public Service can adequately serve a government of any political persuasion. This principle of having an apolitical public service is very strongly held by the Opposition and anyone looking at this legislation could be forgiven for believing that there is the opportunity for substantial change in the nature of the Public Service particularly insofar as lateral appointments are concerned which over time could give rise to a very considerably different Public Service. The Opposition is not opposing the changes that the Government is proposing. It is simply highlighting the possibility of change and putting the Government on notice that the Opposition will be carefully monitoring the nature of the changes that occur. I believe that if the Government seeks to change fundamentally the nature of the Public Service from having a capacity to offer apolitical advice to governments of any political persuasion that matter will be drawn to public notice and it will be another matter upon which the Government's performance will be judged. Changes are being made in three areas. One is in the appointment of heads of government departments, secretaries of government departments as they will be called. Procedures were previously embodied in the Public Service (First Division Officers) Act. The legislation was placed on the statute book by the former Government to ensure that there was a system of peer review within the Public Service. There was concern that if it were left to the Government alone considerable change could take place which would change the character of the senior levels of the Public Service in a way which was undesirable. The Government intends to repeal those sections of the Public Service Act. That will remove the element of peer review embodied in the existing legislation. The Government is substituting a provision which says that the Chairman of the Public Service Board will produce a report but that the decision ultimately will be in the hands of the government of the day. That needs to be understood. The nature of the appointments that the Government makes will be carefully scrutinised. Again, in the area of the Senior Executive Service the Opposition believes that it is important that there be greater flexibility. Of course, with this flexibility there is the possibility of abuse. These provisions which establish a senior executive service provide for lateral appointments to be made within the Public Service of people who will hold, for all intents and purposes, permanent positions within the Public Service. If these people are to be removed certain quite difficult steps will need to be taken. That point needs to be understood. The possibility of people being appointed from outside the Public Service is clearly there. I note that the responsibility will lie primarily with the Public Service Board to make recommendations in relation to people appointed in that area. The Government acknowledges-it was acknowledged in the statement of the Minister-the need to have in place a number of people who can offer to the Government advice of what one might regard as a partisan and political nature. To the extent that the Government has identified the area in which it intends to make such appointments I think it is wise and proper. If the Government acts only in relation to that area and not in relation to other areas and the appointments are of a temporary nature the Opposition will not be heard to complain substantially about the nature of those appointments, except perhaps in relation to the numbers of such appointments. I will quote from the Minister's speech because I think it is important that honourable members understand the character of the changes the Government intends to make. The Minister said: The Government believes that Ministers should have assistance in key projects from able people who share the Government's values and objectives or who can bring to Government relevant specialised or technically advanced skills. I have no complaint about the last two matters. However, I point out particularly that part of the Minister's statement which reads 'who share the Government's values and objectives'. Clearly what is meant is that people whose political commitment is reliable as far as the Government is concerned should be involved in those matters. I think on this occasion it is important that I indicate that this legislation will be the first test of the Government's resolve either to emulate the Whitlam Government's politicisation, particularly in the area of First Division office appointments, or to establish a period of trust between the Government and the Public Service. In my view it ought not to be forgotten that in the period of the Whitlam Government a number of appointments were made about which complaints were made to the effect that the people appointed were seen to be political supporters of the government of the day. They included prominent people from Mr Whitlam's own staff. One of the gentlemen concerned is in the House at the moment in his new role as the Chairman of the Public Service Board. I mention Dr Wilenski. Also involved were Mr Jim Spigelman, also a staffer from Mr Whitlam's office, and Mr John Menadue, whose involvement as a political activist has been well recorded. Of course, the last mentioned proved to be a person prepared to work in an impartial way with the Fraser Government. About that I have no complaint. Whilst I was not privy to the situation concerning Dr Wilenski or Mr Spigelman, it is a matter of public record that both gentlemen did not continue in office after the change of government. Mr Barry Jones —Whose responsibility was that? Mr RUDDOCK —I am saying that both of them did not continue in office after the change of government. That is the point I am making in relation to that matter. I think that there was substantial complaint about their previous roles. If honourable members look at some of the statements on the public record, particularly from Dr Wilenski about the nature of the Public Service and the bias he has seen in the Public Service over time and recorded in his own writings about the Public Service, they can see that that was being viewed as a political judgment. At least that is my perspective. Because of the previous Government's commitment to a politically neutral Public Service and its view that public servants should serve all governments equally without regard to political composition, it sought to provide a mechanism for limited term political appointments to the Service. The mechanism to do that was , of course, the Public Service (First Division Officers) Act. It established a system of due process. These procedures put special weight on the integrity of the Service and particularly the well-established principle of merit on appointments. I think that needs to be emphasised and understood. These procedures that we put in place placed the competitive nomination procedure in the hands of the Chairman of the Public Service Board and a committee of two permanent heads. The procedures were laid down for consultation, advertising and preparation of lists of officers suitable for appointment to be brought to notice. Only persons chosen from the list prepared by the Chairman were to be considered for permanent appointment. Any others were to have a limited appointment. It is those procedures that are being changed in this legislation. I have put on notice to the Government the way in which we intend to monitor the appointments that are made. A number of articles have been written over time from people whom one would regard as being reasonably informed on these matters because of their former associations with the Government. I have in mind particularly Mr Richard Farmer and some of the articles he has written in the Bulletin. We have been put on notice as to the nature of some of the changes that the Government intends to make. Mr Farmer had some comments to make in relation to the movement of the former Chairman of the Public Service Board and the way in which he was moved into another position, and the appointment of Dr Wilenski as Chairman of the Public Service Board. I do not intend to canvass at any length some of the other matters that I would have liked to raise in a longer debate on the question of partisanship in the Public Service, save mentioning that there has been a good deal of writing on this question which honourable members ought to be aware of, writings by people such as John Warhurst in his article in the Australian Quarterly titled 'The Partisan Factor in Lateral Appointments to Public Services'. There were Dr Wilenski's own writings. There was a very perceptive article by Sir William Cole in the Australian Journal of Public Administration. I would like to mention also the comments of Sir Frederick Wheeler in the Australian Journal of Public Administration in June 1980 in an article titled 'The Professional Career Public Service: Some Reflections of a Practitioner'. I would like to mention some of the newspaper articles by Dr Wilenski in which he emphasised his desire to fill up to 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the senior positions in the Public Service with men and women of the Government's own choice who were competent-I add these words and emphasise them-and committed to the policies of the Government, as if the others would not be. I do not know why those words would have been mentioned in the context of appointment of up to 5 per cent to 10 per cent if he did not intend to cast doubt upon the credibility of the others. Mrs Kelly —What nonsense. Mr RUDDOCK —If the honourable member reads some of his other articles, such as the article in the Australian Quarterly of 1980 titled 'The Left and State Bureaucracy', she will see the reasoning behind some of the comments of Dr Wilenski. I suspect that, if I put those questions to him directly and he was in a position to answer them in the House, his answers would be somewhat different, having regard to his writings and his own credit, from the interjections by the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly). I intend also to speak at greater length at the Committee stage in relation to the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill and the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill 1984 because the Opposition is of the view that some amendments are necessary to improve the legislation in each of those areas. In the few moments available to me I want to concentrate on one matter of concern in the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill. This Bill does establish, on a formal basis, a merit protection and review agency to take over the adjudication role of the Public Service Board in relation to grievances arising from the Board's administration. It is intended to establish an independent statutory authority, responsible for the handling of those grievances which have previously been dealt with by the Board. This Bill will establish a large number of appeal and review committees, many of them replicating those which now exist in the Public Service structure itself. They are for promotion appeals, disciplinary appeals, redeployment and retirement appeals, reappointment and review committees and reintegration and assessment committees. The important fact in relation to this legislation is that provision is made for the extending of this legislation, of the various appeal and review grievance avenues, to areas of Commonwealth employment outside the Australian Public Service itself. In terms of statutory corporations which we expect to operate in a competitive environment, the way in which these provisions might be able to be extended without adequate review by the Parliament itself-that is having these matters directly drawn to our attention-is a matter of considerable concern. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.43) —I believe that the Public Service Reform Bill 1984 and the cognate Bills before the House are an important step by the Government to implement reform of the Australian Public Service. Indeed, as the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) has already said in this debate, they represent the most far-reaching review of the Public Service since the passage of the present Public Service Act 1922. The objectives of the Bills, as outlined by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), are: Firstly, to enable Ministers more effectively to supervise the management of their departments and for departments to be more responsive and accountable to their Ministers. In this regard it has long been my view that the concept of ministerial responsibility under the Westminster system has been accorded a fictitious, almost mythical status as government administration becomes increasingly complex and as Ministers, of necessity, have become more remote from the workings of their departments. Thus, increasingly, Australians are governed, in my view, not by elected parliamentarians but by an unelected Public Service. I hope that my comments indeed reach some chord on the other side of the House as well. I welcome the Government's objective to assert in practice to a greater degree the political sovereignty of this Parliament. The second objective of the Bills before the House is to make new arrangements for senior management in the Public Service and to ensure better relationships with the Government and the Public Service. The third objective of the Bills is to improve the process of resource allocation by more closely involving Ministers. The legislation aims to enable better co-ordination of financial and staff resource decisions coupled with better opportunities for review and administration of programs. Fourthly, the Bills have as their objective to give legislative support to more enlightened personnel policies and practices, especially equal employment opportunity and industrial democracy. The legislation also aims for more appropriate arrangements to be made for the independent handling of staff grievances and appeals. Regrettably, many of the reforms taken up in the Bills before the House are long overdue and afford further evidence of the failure by conservative governments over many years to bite the bullet over significant Public Service reform. The former Government had before it numerous proposals for reform but it left the reports concerned gathering dust on the shelves. In 1976, the report of the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration was delivered to the Fraser Government. In 1982, the report of the Reid Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration was produced, as was the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the Selection and Development of Senior Managers, chaired by the honourable member for Bradfield ( Mr Connolly). Being a party of doers rather than a party of talkers, this Government is now taking action on some of these long overdue and needed reforms . It is a matter of great regret that one of the many aspects of social progress which were halted by the constitutional coup of 1975 was the reform of the Australian Public Service. In debating these Bills today we would do well to remember the views Dr Coombs expressed almost eight years ago when he addressed the National Press Club and spoke of the wasted human resources within the Public Service under the existing system. I quote the doctor: It's time we concentrated on the defects of government administration and on measures to improve its performance. Furthermore, we have shown that in many respects it falls short of achieving the high standards we would set for it. Years of involvement in routine and ritualistic processes, an inability to see the outcome of work done, a sense of isolation from those with whose affairs government administration is concerned, and a prevailing flatness in quality of life, official and unofficial, generally has destroyed much of the vitality and concern which no doubt was so evident 20 years ago among them as it now is among their successors. There is, I believe, something seriously wrong with a system which so stultifies worthwhile human beings. I wish to emphasise that the Government does not set out to bash the Public Service as did the former Government, or to allocate blame to individual public servants. The fault is not with the public servants but with the system, and it is the system which we seek to change. The Government maintains a commitment to a modern and efficient public sector which plays a vital role in the development of our nation. We do not adopt the philosophies of British Prime Minister Thatcher or those expressed by the Liberal and National Parties in the Parliament, which seek to privatise the public sector and effectively to smash the Public Service. It is for this reason that we in the Australian Labor Party have a special obligation to reform the public sector and particularly the Australian Public Service. I now seek to highlight particular aspects of the Bills before the House which have already been explained in great detail by the Minister in his second reading speech. The Public Service Act is to be amended to make it clear that, except where specific powers are vested in a departmental Secretary by statute, the Secretary's responsibility for the general working of a department is subject, as it ought to be, to a Minister's power under the Constitution. As the Minister has stressed, pains have been taken in the legislation to ensure protection of the interests of Australian public servants by the direct participation of the Public Service Board in promotion decisions and the right of public servants to approach the new authority to be created by the legislation-namely, the Merit Protection and Review Agency-in cases where discrimination or other improper practice is alleged. I note that the Public Service Reform Bill contains provisions enabling the Secretaries of departments to create, abolish and classify positions and determine their duties. The new provisions are clearly intended to enable additional flexibility in departmental management and a closer integration of financial and staffing decisions. Anyone who knows the unnecessary and delaying bureaucratic wrangles which have developed in the past between the Public Service Board and individual departments in relation to such matters must welcome the reform. I move now to the provisions of the Bill which relate to personnel policies and practices. Firstly, the Bill will provide for a comprehensive, express statement of merit principles as a basis for developing and administering personnel practices. Secondly, and importantly, a positive obligation will be placed upon departments to develop and implement equal opportunity appointment programs for disadvantaged groups. Those provisions will be capable of being applied by regulation to authorities not staffed under the Public Service Act. The Public Service Board will promulgate guidelines for the development of Public Service programs for equal employment opportunity and will monitor them. These initiatives are, in my view, essential for a Labor government committed to ensuring a fair go for all Australians and to removing the legacy of disadvantaged groups in the community. I note with regret that the honourable member for Bradfield, in his contribution to the debate, while expressing in general terms support for the principle of equality of opportunity, was not prepared to support the intention of the Bill effectively to do something about discrimination in the community by supporting principles of affirmative action. Indeed, if ever we needed a lesson of what conservatives are all about in the Parliament, here we see it again- vague waffly statements with no substantive meaning and a continual failure to support legislative provisions that will effectively do something about the discrimination about which they purport to be so concerned. The Government is to set an example to the private sector by taking an initiative which will lead to greater employment of groups traditionally underrepresented in employment-women, Aborigines, migrants and the disabled. Unlike the conservative parties, we in the Australian Labor Party actively oppose racism and sexism and seek to implement tangible policies to give effect to our philosophy. A further point which should be highlighted is the provision in the legislation which will require departments to develop, maintain and implement industrial democracy action plans to be monitored by the Public Service Board. Effective industrial democracy, that is the right of workers to have a meaningful, democratic role in the work place, is increasingly recognised as an essential feature of a democratic society. Views range across the political spectrum as to what constitutes effective industrial democracy and I do not pretend that my own aspirations for democracy in the work place are fully satisfied by the terms of the Bills before the House . But the provision constitutes an important first step in this regard and will ensure a more participative approach to management. It will, I believe, improve the quality of decision-making by ensuring full opportunities for staff who will be affected by decisions to make their views known and to have them properly considered. This provision is in stark contrast to the operation of the bulk of the private sector and the views of the Liberal and National Parties in the Parliament which reject the view that workers should have any effective say over their work place and work environment. The responsibility, efficiency and accountability of Commonwealth administration has a major impact on the quality of Australian democracy. The Bills before the House are long overdue reforms of public administration and will, in my view, enhance the quality of our democracy . Mr WILSON(Sturt)(10.52) —I join in this debate for a brief time. I would have liked to speak at greater length to canvass a large number of the important topics that are covered by the Public Service Reform Bill and the Bills which are being debated cognately. But there is one aspect of the Public Service Reform Bill to which I draw particular attention. In the Bill there is a proposal designed to free up the labour market aspects of the Commonwealth Public Service to enable and facilitate the employment on a part time basis of a larger number of people. Until now the Public Service has not employed many people in a part time capacity. Yet it is quite clear from the history of the labour market over recent years that there has been a dramatic change. Out of the present labour force of 6.3 million or thereabouts, 5.2 million people are employed full time and 1.1 million or more are employed on a part time basis. It is easy in a political context of point scoring to quip that all those part time employees would like full time jobs and would prefer them if there were more work about. But I think we are moving into a far more sophisticated economy . People are choosing different lifestyles. Whilst a large number of people who are employed on a part time basis would like full time jobs, increasing numbers of people are employed in part time jobs because those are the sorts of jobs they want. This has come about for a number of reasons. Again, it is very easy to point score and say that it is because of weaknesses in the economy and that we have not been creating jobs at a sufficiently rapid rate. Yet we have been employing as many people as a percentage of the working age group, in general, as we ever have. What has happened is that a larger proportion of the working age group is seeking paid employment. This is not merely because they need the money to survive. In the changing social relationships in our society they need a degree of personal independence. Mr Barry Jones —It is psychic income as well as fiscal income. Mr WILSON —That is right; I agree with the Minister on that. People are not, therefore, looking for an income on which they can survive, provide a house and provide a motor car. They probably live in a household economy where someone else makes that sort of contribution. But they still need that degree of personal economic independence. This has been increasingly recognised. The Myers Committee of Inquiry into Technogical Change in Australia looked into the unemployment benefit and identified the impact of unemployment on women in particular. But increasingly in recent times the impact has been upon men as well. Perhaps that is a good thing because at long last an increasing number of men will recognise and appreciate the aspiration of women to have a degree of economic independence and yet still live in household circumstances that many would describe as the traditional family in which the adults have dignity and personal independence and yet can co-operate in living together and bringing up their families. One out of six people in the employed work force is employed in part time work. Which sector of the economy is making a contribution to those part time employees, many of whom are working for that degree of personal economic independence? It is not the public sector; it is the private sector. One out of six employees overall is in part time work but in the Commonwealth Public Service only one out of 54 employees is in part time work. Yet thousands of people around the country would like part time jobs. In the Public Service thousands of jobs could be done as effectively by part time employees. I hope that this legislation will lead the way to opening up the Public Service to more flexible job opportunities. I hope, in particular, that the Commonwealth Public Service unions will recognise that many unionists and wives and husbands of unionists would prefer part time employment opportunities. They will get those opportunities only if public sector employers are able, through the development of appropriate industrial relations, to offer part time employment. When I was a Minister my Department was given an allocation of additional staff at a time when its functions were difficult to carry out because of staff ceiling arrangements. I asked the Secretary to my Department: 'Is there anything to prevent us requiring that those staff positions be allocated on a part time basis in numbers equivalent to the full time jobs we have been allocated?' I was told that it was virtually impossible because of the rigidities in the arrangements between the Department and the Public Service Board and the inflexibility in the attitudes that had developed between the Public Service Board and the Public Service unions. I hope that in a rational way, as Australians concerned not only about the efficient administration of government but also about the efficient operation of our labour market, the Public Service Board, the Government and the Public Service unions will show a sensitivity to the aspirations of a large number of Australians to have that degree of economic independence that can be offered them through the creation of a larger number of part time jobs. This is not to downgrade the significance of full time jobs. Many people in full time jobs would opt, if the opportunities were available, for part time jobs. Mr Barry Jones —Particularly if they thought they could get back to full time work at some future time. Mr WILSON —That is right; particularly if they thought that their promotion rights would not be prejudiced. We need a freer, much more flexible system. We need to recognise that people in part time jobs can make a contribution and can be promoted. I have read the book written by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) who is at the table. I compliment him for many of the ideas that are contained in it. But the problem will be to put those ideas into practice so that men and women can be given that degree of economic independence that gives them dignity and a sense of purpose. As more people seek jobs, opportunities, whether full time or part time, and find that a sufficient number of jobs is not available they become or remain dependent upon the public sector for unemployment benefit or are dependent upon other individuals for income support, it would be a failure on the part of this Parliament not to recognise the importance to individuals of a degree of personal economic independence. I conclude by saying that this issue was also identified recently in a discussion paper entitled 'Income Support for Young People'. It is not only women who are at home who aspire to a degree of economic independence but also young people and men who are at home because they have been put off full time work and who would like to find part time working opportunities. The recent paper entitled 'Income Support for Young People' states: While recognising the prime responsibility of parents for the support of younger people- it does not say who are younger people; I would say younger people are people under 18 and that once persons reach 18 they should be treated as adults and as independent- the levels of income support and the method of payment should also recognise the growth in independence and self determination of young people as they move into adulthood and employment. Young people would greatly benefit also if they could move into adulthood and independence through a part time employment role until they had gained experience and felt that they could apply for and achieve employment in a full time role. Whilst there are many matters in this Bill on which I would have liked to touch, it is this one matter that I regard as very significant. I hope that the Government, in implementing this change to the legislation which will enable the employment of a greater number of part time employees in the Public Service, will use the capacity that this Parliament has given it to free up the system in an imaginative and positive way so that we improve the ratio of part time employees and so that we reach a stage where the Commonwealth Public Service is a pacesetter. The previous speaker in this debate, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), said that in some circumstances the public sector had been a pacesetter. It has failed dismally in setting the pace in recognising the need to create opportunities for part time employees. I hope that the passage of this Bill and this change in the legislation will achieve the sorts of results that I have outlined, so that more and more Australians are given opportunities of employment which gives them satisfaction and stimulation, a feeling of involvement with and of making a contribution to the society in which they live and, at the same time, in an independent way, helps them to earn an income that gives them a degree of personal independence. This will help young people and it will help women in particular to achieve the equal opportunities that they deserve in order to be independent Australians in a modern and developing society. Ms FATIN(Canning)(11.05) —I am pleased this morning to take part in the cognate debate on the Public Service Reform Bill, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill , the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill and a paper entitled 'Reforming the Australian Public Service'. I will address briefly the Public Service Reform Bill. First I compliment the previous speaker, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), on the sentiments that he expressed. One of the Australian Labor Party's election promises last year was to undertake a comprehensive reform of the Australian Public Service. Last December the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Dawkins) announced details of the proposed reforms. Since then there has been widespread consultation and discussion between the Minister and the professional associations and unions. The result is that all parties to the discussions have gained a greater insight, and some modifications to the Bill have been introduced. The Bill is aimed at creating a modern, efficient, responsive and accountable Public Service in Australia. It has been justly described as the most comprehensive and thorough legislative review of the Australian Public Service since the passage of the present Public Service Act in 1922. The Bill has four broad objectives: First, to establish closer liaison between Ministers and departments; second, to effect new and more productive arrangements for senior management; third, to bring about more efficient resource allocation coupled with a better system of reviewing programs and their administration; and fourth, to create more specific legislative support for equal employment opportunities and industrial democracy and to establish better grievance and appeals procedures. This Bill contains new provisions in a number of areas, areas affecting secretaries of departments, the Senior Executive Service, ministerial consultants, personal staff of Ministers and members of parliament, personal staff of the Governor-General, remuneration, resource allocation, personnel management and the Merit Protection and Review Agency. Today I wish to address in some detail, yet briefly, one of these areas-that is, personnel management. The Public Service Reform Bill introduces decisive measures in the area of personnel policies and practices. In many respects the Act as it stands is lagging far behind the actual practices of the Public Service Board and departments. There are six areas of reform. The first is that the Bill provides for an explicit and comprehensive statement of the three merit principles under which appointments, transfers and promotions will be made. These are: Firstly, persons who are eligible for appointment to the service are to be given, as far as practicable, reasonable opportunity to apply for appointment; secondly, appointment is to be on the basis of an assessment of the relative suitability of applicants, having regard to the nature of the duties to be performed and the abilities, qualifications, experience and other attributes of the applicants that are relevant to those duties; and, thirdly, appointments, transfers and promotions are to be made in a way that precludes patronage and favouritism or any unjustified discrimination, including on the grounds of political affiliation, race, colour, ethnic origin, social origin, religion, sex, sexual preference, marital status, pregnancy, age, or physical or mental disability. The second area of personnel management to be reformed is that joint selection committees will be formed for choosing people for promotion. These committees will include representatives from staff organisations. The new arrangement will speed up the filling of positions and provide staff with more opportunities to participate in a highly significant area. Appointments made under this arrangement will not be subject to appeal. The third part of the section of the Bill relating to personnel management contains important and innovative provisions for the introduction of permanent part time work with superannuation cover in the Public Service. Up to now, part time staff could be employed only on a temporary basis, and no superannuation cover was available for part time workers. The Government recognises and acknowledges the reservations felt by some Public Service unions and professional associations on the subject of part time work. The Minister is prepared to undertake lengthy consultations in order to work through some of the potential problem areas. In particular, the Minister has stressed that there will be no pressure on full time staff to change to part time work. Also, where other options exist, positions will not be converted from full time to part time . Part time staff will be accorded the same rights as full time staff in the areas of advertising, transfer, promotion and appointment. Pro rata rates of superannuation and pay will apply for part time work and conditions of service will be basically the same for full time and part time staff. The two fundamental criteria on which part time positions will be based will be either that the nature of the work or the unavailability of recruits makes the creation of part time positions desirable or that staff want to work part time for personal reasons. The Government sees this as one more area in which a more flexible arrangement will serve the interests of both employees and departments. The fourth reform in the area of personnel practices concerns the implementation of industrial democracy action plans. Departments will be asked to look at ways in which staff might be brought into the decision-making area and consulted on decisions in which they have professional and personal interests. The Government is strongly committed to the principle that the more employees are allowed to participate, the more the Public Service as a whole will benefit in terms of both the level of satisfaction of employees and a high standard of decision-making. The fifth area of reform affects personnel management in the Public Service and concerns the implementation of equal employment opportunities. It is my understanding that this is the first piece of significant legislation to introduce these changes, and the Government is to be congratulated for that. The Australian Public Service has a long history in the area of equal employment opportunities. Unfortunately, up to now programs have not always been as effective as they might have been. When permanent heads were invited to submit highlights of their equal employment opportunities programs for women in March 1983, it was discovered that only the Departments of Transport and Housing and Construction had well developed programs. It appeared that although the Public Service Board had quite successfully raised the consciousness of many public servants, voluntary programs were not meeting with a great deal of success. A month before the details of this Bill were announced, the Minister urged departments to take positive steps towards developing programs and several have now been finalised. Under the new arrangements, however, departments will be under a positive obligation to develop, review and report on equal employment opportunity programs for women and other designated groups. The Public Service Board will have responsibility for establishing guidelines on the content, development, implementation and review of equal employment opportunity programs. The Board will also be responsible for monitoring the programs and reporting to Parliament on the operation of this section of the Bill. Effectively, of course, what we are talking about here is an affirmative action program. It may be worth restating exactly what policies for affirmative action and equal opportunities entail. Often the difference in definition between affirmative action and positive discrimination is not understood. Because I think it is important to understand the difference, I wish to read a definition from the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau of the Public Service Board. It states: Affirmative action is a systematic approach to the identification and elimination of the institutional barriers that women and minority group members encounter in employment. An affirmative action program is a planned, results- oriented, management program designed to achieve equal employment opportunity. Equal employment opportunity (EEO) is not synonymous with affirmative action. It is rather the end result of a successful affirmative action program. Equal employment opportunity (EEO) rests on a commitment by an employer to ensure that all personnel activities are conducted in a manner which provides fair and equal treatment and equal opportunity for all people. Commitment to an EEO policy requires that all employment practices be based solely on the individual merit and fitness of applicants and employees for specific jobs, without regard to factors such as sex, marital status (or race, colour, religion, ethnic origin, physical disability or sexual preference). Departments will be required to examine their own employment practices so that areas of potential discrimination can be identified and eliminated. The equal employment opportunity programs which departments will be asked to design will clearly state both the objectives of the program and the methods for assessing how effectively these objectives are being achieved. Under the new legislation the Public Service Board can ask departments to report on the effectiveness of their equal employment opportunity programs, and the Board will be entitled to make recommendations for improvement. The legislation provides for equal employment opportunity programs to be implemented by regulation in areas of Commonwealth employment not covered by the Public Service Act, after due consultation with both employees and staff. The section of the Public Service Reform Bill relating to equal employment opportunities reflects the Government's belief that the intelligent application of equal employment opportunity can in fact strengthen the merit principle. Dr Peter Wilenski, the Chairman of the Public Service Board, illustrated the relationship between equal employment opportunities, affirmative action and merit when he said: In government services where the merit principle applies, affirmative action, as defined here, is consistent with that principle. Indeed, affirmative actions can be a means of making competition more open, that is, of implementing the merit principle. By introducing social equity (the element which should be fundamental to competition), affirmative action removes the effect that characteristics such as sex, race, national origin and physical handicap can have on the assessment of merit. Affirmative action can provide a much broader range of efficient applicants to be considered in selection. The final provision of the section of the Public Service Reform Bill dealing with personnel management concerns the monitoring powers of the Public Service Board. It is one of the most significant measures to be introduced in that it gives the Public Service Board specific powers to ensure that departments devise and regulate all the programs just mentioned in the most effective way. The Board will monitor the programs and will be entitled to ask for a report on any area of personnel management. The Board can then make recommendations for improvement and will generally be able to play a rather more active role in monitoring programs than has been the case up to now. In conclusion, I mention that a few days ago some rather tragic figures were released about the lack of job satisfaction and commitment amongst public servants. The neglect from which the Public Service is suffering as a result of previous administrations' attitudes is now beginning to take its toll in human terms. The Australian Labor Party, on the other hand, has a long-standing commitment to a Public Service which is dynamic and adaptive and which fully utilises the capacity of individuals serving in the public sector. This Bill takes a significant step towards implementing our promise to reform the Public Service so that conditions and terms of employment in the Public Service adequately reflect the expectations and requirements of the staff, the Government and the Australian community. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.19) —In speaking to the range of Bills before the House, I do not think that the Parliament should underestimate the importance of the Public Service throughout Australia, its size, efficiency and accountability , not only to the Federal Parliament but to the parliaments of all the States and to the parliaments of local government. The amount of employment within this sector is emphasised by a figure of 26.5 per cent of all employment throughout Australia. That proportion rests within the public sector, and that is over a quarter of the total work force. One must wonder about the relationship of a service which is designed to assist the private sector being in the ratio of 1 : 3. So it is important not only to this Parliament but also to the people of Australia, because that Public Service comes at a cost. It is a cost which is demonstrated in our annual Budgets and in the costs to State Budgets and to local government Budgets. But when one is talking about efficiency and accountability, it is also a cost in relation to the productivity of that sector of the work force in the work that it is doing. It will always be a matter of contention among the public as to how efficient, how productive and how accountable the Public Service is. It is very interesting to note the changes of the last 10 years in the Public Service throughout Australia. Figures made available to me from the 1983 Digest of Local Government Statistics go further, in table 6, to demonstrate the situation between the three spheres of government. For instance, from 1973 to 1983, the numbers employed in local government rose from 122,900 to 138,300. State governments of all political persuasions became major employers. There was an increase from 803,273 to 1,034,900 in 1983. The Commonwealth Public Service increased by 13.5 per cent in those 10 years, from 360,200 to 409,200. Mr Hunt —How much? Mr BRAITHWAITE —There was an increase of 13.5 per cent in that period of 10 years. The interesting situation, however, is that under the Fraser Government, when there was an attempt to introduce accountability in connection with this matter, a curb was placed on the figures, to the extent that, taking into account the additional employment of the Australian National Railways in South Australia and Tasmania, there was a very small increase of about one per cent in those seven years. But that was after a tremendous blow-out in the period 1972 to 1975. I believe that that is what the people of Australia and the private sector are looking at. After all, they are the people who are financing the Public Service. They are looking for a curb of this sort, but not a curb which would affect the efficiency of the Public Service in the services that it offers to the public. The frightening part of this matter is that whilst that curb was in place and was maintained for those seven years, in 1982-83, the first year under this new Government for which statistics are available, there has already been an increase of 2 per cent, between the years 1982 and 1983, in the Commonwealth Public Service, from 402,100 to 409,200. Mr Ruddock —How much was that? Mr BRAITHWAITE —It was an increase of 2 per cent within 12 months as compared with an increase of one per cent in the previous seven years. Mr Ruddock —That is extraordinary. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is an extraordinarily large increase, as the honourable member says. Mr Blunt —A Public Service-led recovery. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is a very interesting point. We talk about the recovery of the Australian economy. I do not believe that the most efficient way is to have a Public Service-led economy, as my colleague has just mentioned; but that appears to be the situation. While these increases are being effected, probably the main factor at which we must look is the Federal Public Service full time staff. From June 1983 to December 1983, it increased from 159,190 to 162,848-an increase of 3,658 in the full-time staff. If that percentage increase is to be maintained, one wonders what type of effect it will have on the Budget and its deficit coming up in August of this year. But I return to the point that the Australian public are entitled to view this as being, perhaps, an unnecessary increase causing an unnecessary payment. It is important, therefore, in any reform-these Bills must be viewed in that context-that this very necessary reform must take place now for the benefit of the Australian people and the private sector. Having dwelt on the increase, which I believe is not the way to overcome the problem of unemployment in Australia-by putting people into the Public Service and having them as a direct influence on the Budget in our taxes-there are other factors which must be mentioned in connection with this reform. I understand that many of the recommendations have come through the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Basically this legislation has that Committee's approval. I understand that the shadow Minister, who was also the Chairman of that Committee at the time, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and the shadow spokesman in this regard, will be entertaining some amendments to the Public Service Reform Bill just to put the final touches on what has been a good exercise in public accountability. The Public Accounts Committee is the venue for not only the Parliament but also the people of Australia in which to express opinions and come forward with these suggestions. Although mobility within the Public Service is mentioned, I often question why we do not have greater mobility between the public sector and the private sector , although I understand that it is already a part of what exists now. This mobility is important. To enable the Public Service to do its job properly, it would be a great thing if there were one-year or two-year transfer arrangements for members of the senior staff with the private sector, in order that they could better relate what they are doing within the jobs to the needs and aspirations of people outside. As I said, after all, every person in the Public Service affects three on the outside. In what better way can we bring them away from the isolation of Canberra, in some of their positions, than to put them in such positions and, perhaps, at the same time, take people out of the private sector on an exchange basis so that a better relationship is established in that regard. This is absolutely essential. I was sorry to learn what I understand to be a fact, that this system, while implemented a few years ago, has not had a great deal of work done concerning the interchange of ideas. Perhaps a way out of this difficulty is the consultants who are being recommended for appointment to ministerial staff, in the way of bringing people out of the private sector to advise for certain terms under a sunset contract arrangement. Again, it is absolutely essential for a government to have some access to people in the private sector in producing legislation and presenting Budgets to the people. In this regard, whilst it has been accepted in the past, it is now part of the Public Service Reform Bill. Again, it could go a little further. After all, it is not the Government but this Parliament which is held responsible to the people. Perhaps this arrangement might be made available to members of the Parliament to assist them in this regard. I know that they will say that it already exists in the staff arrangements that are assisting. Whilst not many of these are drawn from the Public Service-most of them come from the private side-it is this informed advice that we want, not just someone who relates to the private sector to assist us. This could also be of assistance. The Public Service Reform Bill sets out to provide an efficient and accountable Public Service. I use the word 'accountable' because that is precisely what people in the private sector expect of this Parliament. They expect it to be accountable in the form of its service. We must provide a climate that allows initiative and ambition in a service which, unfortunately, with the aspects of job security and very good retirement benefits, does not at present encourage initiative and provide incentive. This is the part of the Bill that has merit and should be commended. If we are to have an efficient Public Service, we must have within it people who are prepared to initiate and to be ambitious in order to reach the top positions. Every encouragement should be given in that matter. I repeat that it is very difficult, in a particular sector and particularly within the Commonwealth sector, where there is job security and established generous retirement benefits. There is that curb to incentive, but I believe that incentive is necessary in any public service. I am not saying that that is the way in which I view it, but that is the general conception among the public. We are still waiting for a Green Paper on affirmative action in connection with the Public Service, as mentioned by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin). While I find nothing incorrect in a government imposing on its own Public Service any legislation required for social change-we have seen this with the Sex Discrimination Act recently-it offends me when a government legislates to superimpose itself over local and State government and particularly when it wants to step on the rights of the private sector. If affirmative action is a goal of the present government, it should limit it to its own service and not try to spread it right across the board, as it did with the Sex Discrimination Act. When this matter was being discussed initially, my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) proposed Bills which would have limited Commonwealth intervention to the Commonwealth Public Service and the Australian Capital Territory. We have not had the benefit of a Green Paper in relation to affirmative action, and I hope that the Government is not persuaded by the argument that affirmative action should be superimposed on other services in Australia, including the private sector. Our Public Service has grown in the last 12 months at an extraordinary rate. I believe there should be a curb on that growth. I understand that the Opposition' s point of view is that the full time staff of the Federal Public Service should be restricted to 160,000, which would mean a decline of 2,848 at this stage. One has to be very careful about these recruitments. I understand that some of the increase in full time staff has taken place in the Department of Social Security where 1,500 to 2,000 people were enlisted to implement an assets test. This is on again and off again at the moment. One wonders about the efficiency of a government which has 1,500 people on standby for a program which may never enter this place. That is where the Government and this Parliament are accountable. Perhaps outside the framework of this reform Bill the Government could make sure that the job security of present enlistments is thought through a little more than it has been in the past. Those are the comments I wish to make. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(11.33) —I support the Public Service Reform Bill, the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill, and the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Bill. They represent a significant progressive advance in Public Service legislation in Australia, an advance which will be of benefit to public servants, the Public Service as a structure, and the nation as a whole. I join with the previous speakers on this side who paid tribute to the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Dawkins) on his introduction of this legislation. I would also like to pay tribute to the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) for their fine contributions to this debate. Mr Ruddock —What about the honourable member for Bradfield? Mr BLANCHARD —I will come to him in a moment. In particular I welcome the comments from the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) who spoke of the freeing of the system to allow for more part time employment within the Public Service. Unfortunately, I cannot extend those kind comments to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who seems to persist with the objection of the National Party of Australia to the Public Service as a public service and would like to get rid of it. He seems to have the antiquated idea that the Public Service is there for the private sector alone, and referred to the point that there was one public servant to three employees in industry. He fails to realise that the Public Service is there not only to serve private industry but also to serve the community as a whole. We have a mixed economy, but members of the National Party do not seem to want to accept that fact of life. The Public Service is often the butt of jokes and the subject of ridicule by cartoonists. Yet if we were honest, we would acknowledge that politicians are nothing without the active co-operation of the Public Service. We only have to look around at what goes on in this House to realise that. This House would not be able to function in any way without the support staff provided by the Public Service. This legislation will make the Australian Public Service more effective and more flexible and will improve the image of the Service. Let us examine some of the changes contained in the legislation. Secretaries to departments designated in the Public Service Act as permanent heads will be appointed, transferred or unattached by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister after the Prime Minister has received a report from the Chairman of the Public Service Board. I am sure that this change must strike horror in the breast of some honourable members opposite, yet this legislation will be similar in intent to the provisions that existed between 1922 and 1976 but will be stronger in that it will require rather than merely allow for a report from the Chairman. The Government will also implement a flexible system for the rotation of secretaries to departments. After a person has held a position of secretary for five years the Chairman of the Public Service Board will raise with the secretary and the Minister of that Department the possibility of another placement, and report to the Prime Minister on what action would be appropriate under the circumstances. Should the secretary change from one department to another position that may have a lower salary determined for it by the Remuneration Tribunal, that person will retain the status and salary of a secretary. This change in the Act will allow for greater flexibility, but will not necessarily mean that a secretary to a department will be changed at the end of the five-year term of duty. I might add that although I never reached the giddy heights of secretary to a department I always had itchy feet after being in one department for five years and started to look for new challenges in another department. The establishment of a senior executive service with powers to undertake higher level policy advising, managerial and professional work will replace the existing Second Division. Initially the SES will include all existing Second Division officers. All future SES vacancies will be advertised and will be open to people outside the Service. In appropriate cases special efforts will be made to attract outside applicants. I consider this to be a good move. It will open up the Public Service to people from outside with special expertise and special knowledge in specific areas. Additionally, provision will be made to appoint staff to the SES from outside the Service on a fixed term basis. This allows for flexibility within the Public Service. It is the intention of this Government that the SES will be developed and managed as a corporate entity, that important staff decisions will be taken in the context of the needs of the Public Service as a whole, not just the short term interests of particular departments. For this to come about the Public Service Board will take a prominent role in staff selection, development and placement. It will establish a special senior executive staffing unit-SSESU- whose main functions will be fourfold. Firstly, it will establish and maintain a central record of the qualifications, skills and experiences of all SES staff and staff in the immediate feeder groups. Secondly, it will advise the Board and departments on all SES staffing matters and assist in selections for appointments, transfers or promotions. Thirdly, it will implement programs for improving staff development, mobility and equal employment opportunity within the SES. Fourthly, it will provide advice and counselling to SES staff or as required through a position of senior executive adviser which will be a non- statutory appointment. Obviously management of the SES will require close consultation and co- operation between the Board and the secretaries of departments. The establishment of a secretaries' advisory committee on senior staffing matters will facilitate this aim. The Government wishes to encourage greater mobility among senior staff. Legislation will make it clear that being prepared to move jobs as required, subject to certain guidelines, will be part and parcel of making a career in the SES. Secretaries of departments will have power to transfer an officer from one job to another within a department. The Board will have power to transfer officers between departments after consulting with the person concerned and the secretaries of the two departments concerned. Under this legislation any decision to transfer an officer within a department or between departments will be made having regard to the following three points: Firstly, to the efficient operation of the service; secondly, to the career development of the officer; and, thirdly, to the views of that officer. The last requirement will give officers the right to have any relevant personal circumstances taken into account. I will refer briefly to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill. At present staff of Ministers, office holders and other members of Parliament are engaged under the temporary provisions of the Public Service Act and decisions about their engagement must be formally taken by the Department of the Special Minister of State. This Bill will enable Ministers, office holders and members of parliament to employ their own staff. Under the new arrangements the number and allocation of staff of Ministers and other members will continue to be determined by the Government on the recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal. The terms and conditions of employment will be based on those applying to the Public Service but the Prime Minister will have power to vary them to take into account the special circumstances of the group. Staff will have the same access to arbitration as other Commonwealth employees. These are worthwhile improvements but I am still concerned at the tenure of staff members which will still remain at the discretion of the relevant Minister or member although the legislation provides for an extension of employment for a certain period. I would have preferred to see in the Bill greater protection for the staff of members and Ministers because they are often available at the request of the Minister and member concerned. They often leave well paid jobs and security to come to these positions and, of course, as we all know, a politician's life is a precarious one in terms of his having to come before the electors to get re- elected. I feel that some consideration should have been given to these people who do sacrifice a great deal in order to serve a Minister or member. In my opinion it is a nonsense to say that their terms and conditions will be based on those applying to public servants and yet they have no security of tenure. However, despite this criticism I welcome the Bill. I think it is a desirable piece of legislation and one that is long overdue in this country. I strongly support it. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(11.46) —in reply-I will speak very briefly. I just want to thank those honourable members who have participated in this debate. I do not intend to respond in detail to the points that have been made during the debate. There are a number of specific issues which would be better taken up during the Committee stage but even then I hope that the debate will not be prolonged. I think this has been a good debate about a crucially important issue which goes to the heart of the way in which government and indeed democracy works in this country. I will refer to a couple of matters of possible confusion which appeared to have intruded into the debate. Some Opposition members referred to the fact that these amendments could lead to a politicisation of the Public Service by way of Ministers being able to appoint people who share their values. I make it perfectly clear that as far as appointments to the career Public Service are concerned-it is the career Public Service, the Australian Public Service which must remain untarnished in terms of the ability of Ministers to politically distort it-far from undermining the neutrality and independence of the Public Service, these Bills will reinforce the merit principle under which selections and promotions are made. There is no question that within these reforms Ministers can influence the selection of appointments or promotions within the Public Service. That ought to be made perfectly and absolutely clear. However a new mechanism is being proposed under the Members of Parliament ( Staff) Act which, quite unambiguously, provides Ministers with the ability either to make appointments to their staff or to have people assist in other projects. Those appointments will naturally take into account the consistency of views of those to be appointed and the Ministers themselves. At the moment that does happen. It has happened very much in the past and if the Opposition wants me to I can reel off the list of consultants who were engaged by the Liberal Party of Australia when in office. The problem was that it was a very unsatisfactory way of appointing these kinds of people and that deficiency has been recognised by this Government and indeed by the Liberal Party in its Valder report of the Liberal Party Committee of Review. There is a need for Ministers and governments to be able to make these kinds of appointments but they ought to be quite separate from any appointments to the Public Service. They should be quite visible and clearly linked with the needs of a particular Minister and their tenure should be specified to be limited. In this sense the tenure of these ministerial consultants will be restricted to the term of office of the Minister making the appointment and that ought to be made perfectly clear. Any question of transfer to the Public Service would be in respect of the normal principles applying to appointment to the Public Service. Appointment as a ministerial consultant does not give a person an entree into the career Public Service. If a person has been a member of the career Public Service and becomes a consultant, of course that person can return. That is only proper. That is the way in which the arrangements currently operate. However, people who have been selected in ways other than through merit selection will not be admitted into the Public Service unless at some stage they go through that merit selection. These are two separate issues. One issue is the possibility for lateral recruitment to the career Public Service, which will continue to be strenuously based on the merit principle which will be reinforced and so on, and the second is the new procedure for the appointment of consultants. The appointment of consultants is not new; the mechanism will be new and vastly improved. I raise just a couple of other matters. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) made some disparaging remarks about the financial impact statement. The financial impact statement is necessarily vague because the extent to which these reforms will impact on the Budget are yet to be determined. They will be determined in the forthcoming Budget and other Budgets. Until such time as the Government makes decisions about the rate at which the reforms will be implemented it is not possible, of course, to put any precise figures on the financial impact. However, I will undertake to give the House in the Budget context some indication of the impact of these reforms on the cost of running the Public Service. Despite the typically inane suggestion by the honourable member for Dundas that that is nonsense, until one decides how quickly one should move on these reforms and how large the senior executive staffing unit within the Public Service Board will be, it simply is not possible to put a figure against them. I am not saying that this is the best financial impact statement ever produced. We are trying to introduce and enforce a new procedure. There will be some occasions when some imprecision will be necessary. Of course, that is anticipated in the announcement that I made in respect of financial impact statements. I said quite clearly that in some areas it will not be possible, but that where it is possible the best attempt ought to be made. The honourable member for Dundas also made some rather churlish and silly remarks about the appointment of the Chairman of the Public Service Board to suggest that in some way that was an indication of the politicisation of the Service. I reject that absolutely and totally. Dr Wilenski is eminently qualified to hold this position. We need go no further than the Canberra Times, which described him as 'Australia's internationally known expert on public administration'. He has been retained by State governments in Australia and by a number of governments overseas, as well as by international agencies, because of his well recognised capacity to assist in areas of public administration and so on. In that way he is an eminently suitable appointment to the chairmanship of the Public Service Board. I reject absolutely any criticism of that appointment. The honourable member for Dundas went on to talk about staffing levels and to defend the crude device of staff ceilings employed by the former Fraser Government. I simply say that in our first year we were able to halve the growth rate of the Public Service for the last year of the Fraser Government. I remind the honourable member that the simplistic approach of applying staff ceilings may have left the former Government at an early stage with some apparently respectable statistics but by the end of its term it was left with some disastrous consequences, both in terms of administration and in terms of policy. In fact, the Government had to panic to ensure that the consequences of that foolish policy did not completely undermine the effective administration of the Government. The honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) made some reference to staff of members of Parliament. I assure him that I share absolutely his concern about the protection and security of people who come to work for members of parliament and Ministers. Their tenure is necessarily insecure. It is more insecure than the tenure of members of parliament themselves. This Bill when it becomes an Act is designed only to provide the framework to establish the kind of provisions that the honourable member would like to see. We will be able to have determinations issued by the arbitration process which will ensure proper retrenchment benefits and the like for people who, through no fault of their own , have their employment in the service of members or senators discontinued. I think that this should not be seen as the end of the story but rather as just the beginning. I thank honourable members for the contributions they have made to the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clause 1 (Short title). Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(11.57) —I make some very brief introductory remarks in relation to the amendments to the Public Service Reform Bill 1984 circulated by the Government. I emphasise that whilst ideally one would want to avoid bringing in amendments during the passage of legislation, the way in which this legislation has been put together has involved a very extensive range of consultations with interested parties, particularly the unions. Following the introduction of the Bill notwithstanding that the Bill had been drafted against the background of very extensive negotiations with the unions, I agreed that there could be further discussions with them in relation to the actual text of the Bill. As a result of that most of the amendments which I will move in the Committee stage relate to technical or minor changes to clarify provisions within the Bill. There is nothing of a substantial nature which changes the basic thrust of the legislation. For that reason it will not be my intention to speak at length to any of the amendments that will be introduced by the Government. The explanatory memorandum clearly sets out the basis of the change and amplifies its description. I understand the Opposition also intends to move a number of amendments to the Bill. The Government will accept a number of those amendments. When those amendments come before the House I will not speak at length on them. A couple of amendments to be moved by the Opposition the Government feels unable to accept. I will make my comments about those amendments at the appropriate time. Clause agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). Amendment (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 7, omit '', 7, 29'', insert ''and 7, sub-sections 29 (1) and (3), sections''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 and 4-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5 (Interpretation). Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.00) —I would like to comment briefly on the remarks by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in relation to the formal Government amendments that have been submitted. We received notice of these amendments only yesterday. I had a look at some of them, as did my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). While we have no objections to the amendments that are being proposed, we do intend to give further consideration to them. Obviously union representations have had a significant impact and that appears in the nature of the amendments that have been proposed. I can understand why, in many instances, they have had this impact. The amendment to clause 5 seeks to ensure that where responsibilities are referred to as being responsibilities of a similar level a wide range of matters will be taken into account, including similar salary, similar work value, range of salaries and other matters of those sorts. We recognise that that is the sort of proposal that would come from a union. I understand why unions would want that wider range of matters to be concerned. In that case we offer no objection. On a more detailed examination of other matters, we may well, when this matter is discussed in another place, have some other observations to make on them. I simply put that caveat because of the time frame which we have been given to examine these detailed amendments. Amendment (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: (2) Clause 5, page 2, lines 24 and 25, omit ''and that have responsibilities of a similar level'', insert '', that have responsibilities of a similar level, the performance of the duties of which requires work of similar value and the salary , or range of salaries, applicable to which are the same''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 10-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 11 (Equal employment opportunity programs). Amendments (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: (3) Clause 11, page 7, line 13, insert ''unjustified'' after ''eliminate''. (4) Clause 11, page 7, add at the end of proposed sub-section 22B (1) the following definition: '' 'unjustified discrimination' includes discrimination that is unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.''. (5) Clause 11, page 7, line 41, omit ''or ameliorate any practices or patterns' ', insert ''any practices, and eliminate or ameliorate any pattern,''. (6) Clause 11, page 8, line 1, insert '', and relevant staff organizations in relation to offices in the Department,'' after ''Department''. (7) Clause 11, page 8, line 13, insert ''after giving relevant staff organizations in relation to offices in the Department and such other persons as the Secretary considers appropriate an opportunity to put their views,'' before ''cause''. (8) Clause 11, page 8, line 19, insert ''from time to time, after giving relevant staff organizations in relation to offices in the Department and such other persons as the Secretary considers appropriate an opportunity to put their views,'' before ''cause''. (9) Clause 11, page 8, line 20, omit ''from time to time''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12 (Industrial Democracy Plans). Amendments (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: (10) Clause 12, page 10, line 27, omit ''with appropriate consultation'', insert ''in consultation with relevant staff organizations in relation to offices in the Department and with such other persons as the Secretary considers appropriate''. (11) Clause 12, page 10, line 33, insert ''in consultation with relevant staff organizations in relation to offices in the Department and with such other persons as the Secretary considers appropriate,'' before ''cause''. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.04) —I move: (1) Clause 12, page 12, after sub-clause (3) add the following sub-clause: ''(4) The Secretary of each Department shall include in the Annual report of the Department to be laid before each House of the Parliament information on the implementation and operation of industrial democracy plans in that Department under section 22C of the Public Service Act 1922.''. The proposals in this section of the Bill relating to industrial democracy are not well expressed, nor is the information supplied by the Government in the White Papers, which have been tabled, all that enlightening. It is quite clear that it is a matter of policy in relation to the Australian Labor Party that the concepts of industrial democracy should be introduced into Public Service legislation. At this stage it is our belief that because of the somewhat inconclusive nature of these proposed reforms and the Act as it currently stands that the departments should depend, to some degree, on the Public Service Board for the identification of the principles of industrial democracy which it is then to apply within departments. It is only appropriate that the Parliament should have the opportunity to examine in detail the proposals as ultimately formulated by individual departments. For that reason we have recommended the addition of a new sub-clause to provide that annual reports of departments laid before both Houses of Parliament should contain relevant information on implementation and operation of industrial democracy plans under section 22(c) of the Act. As I said in my opening remarks last night in the second reading debate, we are not against the concept of closer relationships within departments which would enable all personnel to be more involved in the activities of the departments so as to encourage each and every one of them to perform their activities as officers of the Public Service more efficiently. However, we are very concerned that any proposal-we suspect that there is a tendency in this direction-of letting managers manage will be effectively diluted by the proposal that everybody is allowed to get into the act. We are not in the business of running a Public Service on the principles of anarchy. If I may use the expression contained in the White Paper of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the proposals contained in this Act are sought to establish a sound basis for improving the effectiveness of the Public Service and its responsiveness to the needs of the Government and the community. I am sure the Minister would fully agree with me that effectiveness and responsiveness to a very large degree will depend on the character and the capacity of senior managers to manage. Much of the reforms contained in this Bill, which we totally support in the context of the creation of a Senior Executive Service and so forth, must ultimately devolve upon the ability of those officers to be able to manage effectively. Clearly that can be diluted to a significant degree if industrial democracy is to be interpreted in the way that Jack is as good as his master, if I may use that somewhat tortured expression in the context of efficiency and effectiveness within departments. For that reason, without making a judgment at this stage because it is early days in the context of industrial democracy, the Opposition wishes to see how it will be applied in effect. Let us make a determination through the Parliament in due course on the basis of the reports as they come before us. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 13 to 16-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 17 (Creation and abolition of offices). Amendment (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: (12) Clause 17, page 16, add at the end of proposed section 28 the following sub-section: '' '(5) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be taken as limiting in any way the provision that may be made by an industrial award to vary the salary applicable in relation to an office or an officer.''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 18 agreed to. Clause 19 (Classification of offices and officers). Amendments (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: (13) Clause 19, page 19, line 5, omit ''in writing to Secretaries of Departments'', insert ''published in the Gazette''. (14) Clause 19, page 21, lines 1 to 8, omit proposed section 29E. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 20 to 22-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 23 (Interpretation). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.08) —I move: (2) Clause 23, page 23, proposed section 33, line 15, after sub-paragraph (1)(b )(ii), add the following word and sub-paragraph: ''and (iii) any relevant security consideration involving the protection of the Commonwealth from acts of espionage, sabotage or subversion.''. We understand the Government will not be supporting the amendment to clause 23 introduced by the Opposition. We believe it is a matter of fundamental importance. A view has been put to us that the present provisions are adequate in terms of appointment to the Public Service in the context of security considerations and the requirement for relevant positions to be subject to a security classification. We accept that fact. However, we are concerned that under the determinations in clause 33, sub-clause (3)(a) it is noted that discrimination on the ground of political affiliation, et cetera, could be utilised by an officer who believed that he had missed out on promotion on the grounds of his affiliation with some organisation. In this context I do not necessarily mean that the political affiliation should be determined as simply meaning membership of a designated Australian political party in the context of the Electoral Act. I think the concept of political affiliation is in fact much wider than that. We are concerned that the democratic concepts, shall we say, in relation to discrimination, which we support, could be misused in a manner which could, under some circumstances, not be in the absolute interests of the Commonwealth. For that reason, we are very conscious of the fact that there are many positions in the Public Service, especially in organisations which are relevant to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, such as the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Joint Intelligence Organisation and the various other intelligence gathering machinery of government, in which it is quite clearly essential that officers appointed to those positions are able to have access to the very highest security classification. There is a risk as I noted earlier. Under present arrangements, as the Minister pointed out, while a person has been appointed as a ministerial adviser and, therefore, is publicly a political appointee, the point still needs to be emphasised that such a person can apply for entry into the Public Service and could, in due course, find himself promoted throughout the Service and have positions of considerable significance. We are also concerned about the reality of history. It is a fact that, under a previous Labor government, there were Ministers in this building who refused to permit their staff to be the subject of any form of security classification whatsoever. I am well aware of the fact that the point in relation to ministerial staff is not relevant to this Bill. Those officers are not part of the Public Service as defined in this new Bill. The point I am making is simply this: There is a correlation between the two. The principles which should be applied to this Bill should be the same as that applied to the legislation relating to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Bill. We are very conscious of the fact that security in relation to the handling of public information is important and it should, therefore, be a provision in the section under the application of merit principles to ensure that this is a specific factor taken into account. To take the view which I believe is the position adopted by the Government that these concepts are taken into account tends to ignore the fact that we are not looking at a Public Service Bill in its old form. We are looking at a significantly new piece of legislation in which the definitional approach has been, to a large degree, altered. The emphasis in that definition is, as honourable members have been told by many speakers on the Government side, that discrimination is to be outlawed. We accept that. We would not wish the provisions of anti- discrimination to be used in a situation which could be to the detriment of the Australian Government and the people whom we are here to serve. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment standing in my name. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(12.13) —The Government is unable to accept this amendment. I will briefly indicate the reasons why. But let me firstly address the kind of red herring that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has brought in concerning ministerial staff. There was a clear distinction between ministerial staff, and any security issues which relate to them, and security issues which relate to members of the Public Service. Ministers are not cleared for security purposes before they are entitled to see particular documents. Ministers are able to see these documents of any classification-the fact that Ministers are members of the Executive Council entitles them to do that-as long as they are presumably relevant to their office . But if a Minister who does have access on a regular basis to highly classified material is silly enough to allow that material to be used or seen by members of his staff then that is the risk that he takes. After all, the members of a Minister's staff are simply an extension of a Minister. Any security breach that occurs within a Minister's office is clearly that Minister's responsibility. He or she would have to take the consequences for any security breach which occurred in that way. I would have thought that sensible and prudent Ministers would not engage people who were a security risk. They may even go to the point of having them cleared in order to assure themselves of that. But that is on their heads; that is their business. The Minister's office is simply an extension of the Minister. Mr Connolly —It is a bit simplistic. Mr DAWKINS —No, it is a clear distinction between that and what we are talking about here. We are talking about appointments to the Public Service. What the Opposition is trying to do today is to say that in any appointment there would have to be regard for relevant security considerations. If we read the earlier part of the section which is being sought to be amended we find: (b) the appointment is made on the basis of an assessment of the relative suitability of the applicants for the appointment, having regard to- This question of relevant security considerations is then detailed in sub- paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii). That means that some people might think that, when considering the relative suitability of two applicants, they might be forced to take account of their relative suitability in relation to security considerations even in the vast majority of positions in which these kinds of security considerations are simply not relevant. Mr Ruddock —The word 'relevant' is used. Mr DAWKINS —I ask the honourable member not to interrupt for a minute. Mr Ruddock —It says 'relevant'. Mr DAWKINS —Yes, but this matter is already covered in sub-paragraphs (i) and ( ii). The first sub-paragraph states: (i) the nature of the duties to be performed by the person appointed; If the duties to be performed by the person to be appointed are of a highly sensitive nature in terms of security considerations then clearly security considerations would be one of the matters which would be taken into account when the selection process was being applied. The second sub-paragraph states: (ii) the abilities, qualifications, experience and other attributes of each applicant that are relevant to the performance of those duties. Clearly those matters are already dealt with where we are dealing with security sensitive appointments. To simply put this additional sub-paragraph into the Bill would overemphasise a matter which is already given considerable weight. I refer honourable members to page 19 of the 1982-83 annual report of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, which relates to security assessments. It states: Most staff work in security assessments is for the TOP SECRET category and the overall work load in the category continued to increase. The volume of assessment requests is still higher proportionally than in other Western countries and the conclusion is that departments and other authorities are still over-classifying positions or material. Considerable urgency was imposed during the year by the need for assessments of ministerial staff, flowing from the appointment of new Ministers in March 1983 and of Royal Commission staff. Some departments still do not seem to be aware of the need to establish the general suitability of a preferred candidate for a designated security related position before submitting the name to ASIO for a security assessment. On it goes. It is already the view of ASIO, which one would not think would be kind of squeamish about these matters, that we are overclassifying positions and material. In fact, ASIO is complaining that it is being called upon too frequently to exercise this kind of judgment. To put in the clause which is now being sought to be put in, notwithstanding the fact that it refers to relevant security considerations, means that, at some stage during the selection process, there has to be a consideration of how relevant the security considerations ought to be. That is simply going to mean that security considerations are given a very much greater importance than they are now given, bearing in mind that they are already receiving more attention than they receive in any other Western country. I think the Opposition is right to be concerned about security sensitive appointments. What I am saying is that what we have in this legislation in no way derogates from the current procedures which ASIO, I might say, is more than satisfied with. After all, that is the body that is likely to be touchy about this matter. The question has been raised that because we are now spelling out the basis on which discrimination may not be made in the exercise of the merit principle for selection and promotion, we are saying: 'Because we are now spelling out something which should have been implicit before in any event we are somehow having to give added weight to this question of security'. The question of security is something which comes into play after a candidate has been selected for a position. That selection should continue to proceed on the basis of no discrimination on any of the grounds that have proceeded here. At the point where the selection is made, when the selected candidate is identified , that is the point at which the security considerations are now given weight and a security clearance is sought in the context of a security sensitive position. That is the time at which the security issues ought to be taken into account. For the Opposition to argue that the reference to the absence of discrimination on grounds of political affiliation will undermine that matter is, I believe, a wrong view. In the consideration that the security assessors would take, they would have regard to all conditions and not just the possibility of political affiliation. A political affiliation is not, on the face of it, a ground for considering someone to be a security risk. Other matters in that list could also have an influence on a security matter, as is perfectly clear when one reads the list. But that is what the security agency does. When it is called upon to give a security clearance in relation to a selected candidate it has regard to all the circumstances which might contribute to that candidate's security classification or the lack of it. Therefore, I am not disagreeing with the importance the Opposition gives to the need for proper consideration in security sensitive areas. However, I am convinced that to put this sub-paragraph into the Bill would give it undue weight and would further add to the already burdensome task that the security agencies have. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.22) —I have no quarrel with what the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has said in terms of the priority that he attaches to security considerations. The problem is that we are dealing with what is to be an Act of Parliament. As you would know, madam, in relation to an Act of Parliament, unless there is some doubt or ambiguity, very little heed is taken of what we say in this place during debate about the way in which sections such as those proposed should be interpreted. Notwithstanding the goodwill that I might have towards the Minister and the Minister's statements in relation to this matter, I think one has to measure them against the words used in this proposed section. We are dealing with the stating, in statutory form, of the way in which the powers under the Public Service Act in relation to the appointment of public servants are to be exercised. This is the first codification of those principles . Proposed section 33 is the relevant section to which somebody seeking to understand matters that should be taken into account in relation to appointments will look for advice. From reading the headings of proposed section 33 we would say, of course, that we all agree that the appropriate principle for the appointment of public servants should be merit and that prohibition of patronage is something that we all applaud. But we then have to look at the proposed section we have before us, which states, as the Minister has recounted, that: (1) Powers under this Act in respect of appointment shall be exercised in accordance with procedures that ensure that, in each case where an appointment to the Service is made- (a) all persons who are eligible for appointment to the Service have, so far as is practicable, a reasonable opportunity to apply for the appointment. We have no quarrel with that. It goes on: (b) the appointment is made on the basis of an assessment of the relative suitability of the applicants for the appointment, having regard to-- a number of matters that are identified. The first is: (i) the nature of the duties to be performed by the person appointed; 'The nature of the duties' is a very general phrase. It means that somebody will look at the nature of the responsibilities and, presumably, at the matters mentioned in the next paragraph to see whether the applicant has the abilities, qualifications, experience and other attributes that are relevant to the performance of those duties. Nowhere in proposed section 33 is there any mention of security. If one were being appointed specifically within a security organisation, security would be taken into account. But, of course, there are other areas within the Public Service where security can be extraordinarily relevant. Security is a factor that clearly has to have very considerable weight placed upon it. What the Bill has gone on to do is to qualify proposed sub- section (3) very clearly. Sub-section (1) very clearly states: Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1) the powers under this Act in respect of appointments, transfers and promotions shall, subject to sub-section (4), be exercised in accordance with procedures that preclude- (a) discrimination on the ground of political affiliation, race, colour, ethnic origin, social origin, religion, sex, sexual preference, marital status, pregnancy, age or physical or mental disability . . . I am particularly concerned about the statement regarding discrimination on the ground of political affiliation. That has been the subject of consideration by the tribunal that considers appeals in relation to security assessments. A view has been formed that political affiliation on its own ought not to be a factor that is taken into account. The Opposition was critical of that decision when it was taken. We believe that political affiliation can be a very important factor that ought properly to be taken into account in these very sensitive areas. Yet we seek to add to this sub-section a clear qualification upon which, when the matter has been looked at by the Security Appeals Tribunal in the past, we have seen little weight placed. The Minister, in his own argument, admitted that this is an important question that ought to be considered. However, his argument was that it is already sufficiently taken into account in the way in which this clause is drafted. I say to the Minister that if he is of that view he should have no quarrel whatever with what I would call a more abundant precaution that this clause offers. We are seeking to add a new paragraph (iii) to proposed section 33 (1)(b) to require that, when appointments are being made, the suitability of the applicants be judged having regard to 'any relevant security consideration involving the protection of the Commonwealth from acts of espionage, sabotage or subversion'. Those words were picked up from the relevant Australian Security Intelligence Organisation legislation to ensure that when appointments are made in this area this matter will, in the relevant cases, be taken into account. We are arguing that this be done only in the case of relevant appointments. We are not arguing for it in regard to the appointment of people who might be carrying papers from one place to another, serving in cafeterias, driving for the Post Office or something of that nature. We are saying that there are relevant areas where security consideration is important and that it should be taken into account. Mrs Kelly —It is covered. Mr RUDDOCK —If it is covered the honourable member should have no complaint about the addition of the further words to the proposed sub-section. I think there is some doubt. That is the reason I raised the matter. I do not think it should be put to one side in the hope that at some later time we might look at it-after someone has complained about political affiliation having been taken into account when he has applied for a position in an extremely sensitive area. It would be too late at that point. If the honourable member is saying it is covered, she should have no quarrel whatsoever with adding the words the Opposition seeks to add for the purpose of more abundant precaution. If she accepts the validity of the argument that we are offering, she will accept the amendment and put it in place. Then we should know that she was as serious as the speeches that she has made indicate she is. If she is not, one could be forgiven for having doubts about her seriousness in relation to this matter. The only argument of any validity that I think the Minister put was when he said: 'You have to be careful. You don't want security being looked at in relation to a whole lot of appointments that are totally irrelevant to possible security considerations that you are inviting people to take into account in making appointments'. We accept that. That is why we were very cautious about the way in which we drafted the amendment. We saw it as being important to qualify our own amendment so that it was clear that security considerations had to be relevant. I am afraid that if the Minister does not adopt the approach I have taken in this matter-that is, that more abundant precaution dictates the amendment-again, it will be one of those matters that will be very much on his own head if and when mistakes are made. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.30) — Again, I will make a few observations on the comments made by the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Dawkins). Firstly, one of the weaknesses in the entire legislation in my view, and that of the Opposition, is that it does not contain what would normally be called a code of conduct. It emphasises the rights of public servants but there is very little mention in the Bill of their responsibilities. One of those responsibilities, quite clearly, must be the maintenance of the security of the Commonwealth, but it is a two-edged sword . A responsibility also rests on the government of the day. As my most learned colleague in these matters, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), has pointed out, if the Government is interested in and concerned about the security of the Commonwealth it should be prepared to accept this amendment in the spirit in which it has been placed before the House, namely as a specific and public endorsement of the belief of this Parliament and all the parties within it that in appointments to the Public Service relevant security considerations should be taken into account. Only a few weeks ago the Government was severely embarrassed by the leakage of the Australian strategic basis document. I am well aware that officers do that sort of thing. They not only breach the law but also they breach the confidence placed in them, and they should take the full pressure of the law. However, owing to the structure of the civil service, particularly in the context of interdepartmental committees, significant quantities of classified material of very great security classification are passed between and within departments. It is simply naive to suggest that we can draw a hermetically sealed line between officers who are entitled to have access to security material and officers who are not. The Minister claimed that the recent Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's report complained about the quantity of classifications. I support that argument. There is no doubt from my own experience that much of the material prepared is overclassified. I accept the implication that the provision of security for overclassified documents does not justify the cost. But I also put the other view. Perhaps as the Minister claimed, in comparison with other countries we are overconscious of the need for security classifications for public servants. But I believe this is the wrong attitude. In recent years too many very embarrassing situations have been created for allied governments in other countries, particularly the United Kingdom, because civil servants have breached the security requirements of those countries. I am unaware of a single case of a Commonwealth public servant who has been arraigned before the courts for espionage, sabotage or subversion. But one would be naive to suggest that it has not gone on; but offenders have not been caught. The implication behind what the Minister said is that ASIO thinks we are putting too much effort into this area and therefore we should not do so. The reality is that in due course there may be cases of subversion. Civil servants may be brought before the courts for sabotage, subversion or espionage activities. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister at the table will then be prepared to defend what he believes is the view of ASIO, namely that the standard of security classification currently being applied is too strict. I do not and the Opposition does not accept the argument that this is an area subject to negotiation. The defence of the Commonwealth, in terms of appointments to the Public Service, is absolute. Officers who are likely to be involved in activities of a security nature or the handling of material of a security nature in the context of their appointments, must be reviewed in terms of relevant security considerations being taken into account. We are not interested in the fact that some regulation may state that certain arrangements are to be made after an officer is appointed to a position. It has always been my view that security considerations should be taken into account before the officer is appointed. We believe there is a need for the Parliament to make a public commitment in this regard. The fact that it has been, to some degree, taken into account in a de facto sense is not sufficient. We are now looking at a significantly reformed piece of legislation. I put it to the Government that it is either interested in the security of the Commonwealth and the quality of persons who join the Public Service of the Commonwealth or it is not. It is responsible. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Connolly's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Adermann, A.E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ian MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Newman, K. E.Drummond, P. H. O'Keefe, F. L.Edwards, Harry Porter, J. R.Fife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Dobie, J. D. M. Hayden, W. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendments (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: (15) Clause 23, page 23, line 24, omit ''and''. (16) Clause 23, page 23, line 25, omit proposed paragraph 33 (3) (b), insert the following paragraphs: ''(b) discrimination that is unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984; and (c) any other unjustified discrimination.''. (17) Clause 23, page 23, line 30, insert '', in not unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984'' after ''relates''. (18) Clause 23, page 23, line 33, insert ''that is not unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and is'' after ''appointment''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 26-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 27. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.44) —I move: (3) Clause 27, page 27, after proposed sub-section 36 (3) insert the following sub-section: '' '(3A) The Chairman shall, before preparing a report for the purposes of sub- section (3) in relation to the filling of a vacancy or expected vacancy in an office of Secretary of a Department, consult with the Minister administering that Department in relation to that matter.''. This amendment is quite simple. The spirit of the provisions contained in the legislation is to ensure that Ministers are in charge of their departments and accountable to the Parliament. This amendment will build into the legislation the provision that the Chairman of the Public Service Board, prior to providing a report to the Prime Minister giving recommendations on the selection of an officer to be appointed as departmental head, must discuss the matter with the relevant Minister. Amendment agreed to. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 101A, I shall report progress. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.00 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —In light of the Prime Minister's inability to tell this House the truth, my question is directed to the Minister representing-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that a couple of weeks ago I spoke with regard to the term 'lie' and the methods that honourable members used to get around that expression. I think any reasonable person would believe that 'inability to tell the truth' is the same term. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw it and to rephrase his question. Mr PEACOCK —I will withdraw and rephrase. In light of the Prime Minister's ability consistently to mislead the House, my question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Will the Minister now tell the House what the Government's view on the assets test is? Is it in accord with the Prime Minister's solemn commitment on 16 February 1983 not to take ' money out of the pensioner's cheque' or is it in accord with one of the proposals by the Government which would reduce or deny pensions to 50,000 or more pensioners? Dr BLEWETT —The Government's present proposals in relation to the assets test are , of course, before the House in the form of a Bill. However, those proposals have been reviewed. When the Government has made a decision in relation to that review the House will be told immediately. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Will the Minister for Aviation inform the House of the outcome of the recent extraordinary assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation which convened a meeting to discuss possible amendments to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation in the aftermath of the recent Korean Airlines disaster? Mr BEAZLEY —Honourable members will recall that in answering questions on this matter late last year I informed the House that as soon as I had information to hand on the deliberations of the extraordinary assembly I would provide it to the House. Honourable members will remember that the extraordinary and ordinary meetings of the ICAO assembly last year referred the question of the tightening of procedures for intercepting and intercepted aircraft to its Air Navigation Commission, the deliberations of which were subject to subsequent consideration by an extraordinary assembly. That assembly started on 24 April this year and concluded on 11 May to examine the question of an amendment to the Chicago Convention involving an undertaking to abstain from the use of force against civil aircraft. The Australian delegation, in its opening statement to the assembly, strongly reiterated the position which this Government has consistently taken on the issue; that is, that the indiscriminate use of force against civilian aircraft cannot be justified in any circumstances and, in the event of its occurring, represents a clear and flagrant violation of international law. The Australian delegation contributed actively to the debate, both formal and informal, which took place on the issue in the period of the assembly. I think honourable members will be pleased to note that the 107 nations which were represented at the assembly adopted unanimously an amendment to the Convention which embodies these principles. For the interest of honourable members I shall table the text of the amendment to the Chicago Convention so that it can be read at their leisure. Australia will in due course need to consider ratifying the amendment and honourable members can be assured that I will be pressing strongly for this course of action. Mr STEELE HALL —In light of the Prime Minister's inability to answer questions properly in this House, will the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security tell the House whether the Government's view on the assets test is represented by the Prime Minister's statement to this House on 28 February 1984 that the Government 'is adhering to the clear principle that expenditure on pensions should be directed to those most in need' or to the view of the Assets Test Review Panel, stated on page 30 of its report, that it is unlikely that the Government's proposals would discriminate between the needy and the not so needy ? Dr BLEWETT —The Government has made it clear throughout this debate that it is committed to seeing that limited social welfare resources are directed mostly to those in need. Because doubts were raised about certain aspects of the assets test proposals before this House, we submitted them to the Gruen committee for a detailed examination and review in light of such criteria as to which is the most effective way of directing welfare resources to need. That review report is now being taken into consideration by the Government in its review of its assets test proposals. Mr TICKNER —I have a feeling of deja vu about my question. It is addressed to the Minister for Finance in his capacity as the Minister responsible for expenditure on the Australian Public Service. Can he inform the House of the growth in the staffing levels of the Australian Public Service since 1982-83? Mr DAWKINS —As I was saying 24 hours ago before I was spectacularly interrupted, there has been an attempt to distort gravely the statistics in relation to the growth in the size of the Public Service. Whilst I do not want to dance on the grave of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I say that he issued a Press statement which, regrettably, gravely misrepresented the position. What he attempted to compare was a period under a former government with the first year and the prospects for the second year under this Government. What he omitted to explain was that in fact he was comparing two unlike series in relation to the measures that are used for the size of the Public Service. If we are to use the measures which were used by our predecessors to compare the June on June change in the size of the Public Service we find that in the last year of the Fraser Administration the Public Service grew by five and a half per cent whereas in the first year of the Hawke Government the growth was 3 per cent. So honourable members can see that in our first year of office we were able to halve the blowout in the size of the Public Service which occurred under our predecessors. In looking at the prospects for 1984-85 I am very confident that we will contain the growth at no more than last year's level. Therefore, these claims of a 10 per cent increase under the Hawke Government are quite clearly fanciful and have to be rejected. If we make the comparison on the basis of average operative staffing levels, which is the measure which this Government uses, we find that half of the growth which occurred in our first year, 1983-84, was directly related to the full year effects of decisions taken by our predecessors. It is important to recognise that. It is very easy to talk of some superficially heroic statistics about the rate of growth in the Public Service, but we take the view that the Public Service is there to serve the Government and, more particularly, to provide programs to the people whom the Government seeks to serve. There is not much point in having unrealistic targets in terms of the people who are required to run those programs and deliver them adequately to people in need. When we talk about the unemployed, the aged and so on it is quite clear that there was a need in the Department of Social Security and the Commonwealth Employment Service during the period of the former Government for a more appropriate level of staffing in those areas. Mr Goodluck —Why are there strikes in Hobart at the moment with the CES? Mr DAWKINS —I point out to the interjector that the demands are less now because there are far fewer people needing the services of this Government in relation to unemployment beneficiaries. That is a point that we shall continue to make. But in our first year, when we recognised that there was great inadequacy in the provision of services to the unemployed, we increased staff numbers in the Department of Social Security. What we have done is to reject the crude device of staff ceilings and replace it by a system of human resources budgeting which allows the Government to make sensitive decisions about where people are required and about how the needs of the population generally can be met by the services of government. Mr PORTER —In the light of the Prime Minister's inability properly to answer questions in this House, I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. At the meeting between himself, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Australian Mining Industry Council on Monday, were certain compromise proposals made by the Government in regard to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill? Will the Minister outline any such proposals made? If not, when will the community hear about the proposals? Mr HOLDING —The meeting suggested by the honourable gentleman took place. It was part of the condition of that meeting that, given the nature of the representations that the mining industry wanted to make, the industry's representations to us would be treated as confidential, as would our responses to the industry. Having given that undertaking, I do not propose to break it. Mr BALDWIN —Will the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs indicate the Government 's attitude to the interim judgment by the International Court of Justice brought down on 10 May this year calling on the United States to cease its involvement in the mining of Nicaraguan ports? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This matter has been the subject of world-wide interest. Prior to the International Court of Justice interim judgment on 10 May the Australian Government, through our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, had already indicated to the United States the Government's concern at the mining of Nicaraguan ports, which was obviously a breach of international law. The interim decision of the Court confirms that view. The court made a decision that there should be a ceasing of any action restricting the access to or egress from Nicaraguan ports and called for its prohibition by the principles of international law. However, the United States has reacted by stating that there is nothing contained in that interim ruling which is inconsistent with United States policy, which, of course, must cause some concern not only to people in Australia but also to the other countries which protested at the time about the United States action. That includes the United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, Germany and a number of other countries. Also, in the United States, as the honourable gentleman will be aware, this matter has been the subject of pretty keen debate in the Congress as to the actions of the Administration there in breaching international law. I say that because the Court's order of 10 May is only an interim order. There has to be a full hearing of the case. Of course, the United States has objected to the jurisdiction on the basis that it, the United States, has made a declaration that the Court's jurisdiction should not apply to disputes in any Central American state for a period of two years. So if the declaration of the United States Administration were adopted, that would be tantamount to trying to remove the jurisdiction of this matter from the International Court of Justice. We think that is wrong, too. The Court itself, though, has to address its mind to the question of jurisdiction now. But I think that all people, in the free world anyway, would share the concern which has been expressed about the mining of Nicaraguan ports. From our point of view that concern has been made clear to the United States and will continue to be made clear to the United States. Mr LLOYD —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware that a minority recommendation of the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel is to allow an additional $100,000 exemption for farms because of the greater effect of the proposed test on farmers than on any other sector of Australian society? Is he aware that at least 30,000 farmers will be immediately affected and all 170,000 family farms will be threatened? Has the Minister been made aware that farm values vary around Australia, in the same way as housing values, and even the use of the proposed loan scheme would in effect be a pay as you die death duty aimed almost exclusively at the farming community? If the Minister is aware of that, does this mean that the Government is just continuing its policy of completely ignoring the rural sector? Dr BLEWETT —The Minister and the Government are aware of most of the facts that have been raised by the honourable member and they are part of the consideration that must be given to the revision of the Government's assets test proposals. It is quite clear, and throughout the discussion of the assets test there has been consideration of those particular problems. Of course, the Gruen report, as has been rightly pointed out, draws attention to those particular problems if one of a number of options which it suggests should be followed. We are certainly taking those facts into consideration. Mr BLANCHARD —Does the Prime Minister still adhere to his commitment of distributing resources to those most in need? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Moore for his very relevant question. The answer is, of course, yes. This Government has been totally consistent and will continue to be totally consistent in its approach to this important matter. We take comfort from the fact of our consistency, which stands in such stark contrast to the hypocritical inconsistency of those opposite. In that respect, let me quote from the Hansard report of the proceedings in this place on 9 September 1981, when the present Leader of the Opposition had certain things to say. I preface my reading of what he had to say then by pointing out that anyone listening to him today would believe that it would be the height of irresponsibility for a government to make any distinction in terms of its outlays in the social welfare field according to the capacity of those receiving the benefit. This is what the honourable member had to say then when he was unencumbered by the cares of leading the Opposition-a position that he will not be holding for very much longer. This is what he said then when he was able to speak the truth as he saw it. This is what the honourable member for Kooyong, when he was telling the truth as he saw it, had to say: So much of government spending goes to people who demonstrably do not need government assistance. He went on: Expenditure on social security and welfare will be a key area of Government spending for the future. He said: The value of all pensions has increased and more people are taking up the age pension. He went on: Since 1970 the number of income support recipients has risen from 15 per cent of the working age population to about 27 per cent. With an aging population this ratio will move even higher. Here we see the then courage of the now Leader of the Opposition. He said: I am not pretending that there are any easy solutions. Needed decisions will demand a good deal of courage from Government leaders. What is clear is that this Government has the courage. It is the Leader of the Opposition and those behind him who are singularly lacking in that commodity. He concluded that observation by saying: . . . I believe that it should not be beyond the wit of man to come up with schemes more equitable than those we have at present. That was the Leader of the Opposition when he was telling the truth as he saw it about the responsibility of government in these areas. But, of course, we also have his friend, the one he lauds to the skies, the best Liberal in the business -the honourable member for Bennelong. What did the honourable member for Bennelong have to say? The Leader of the Opposition speaks well of him now; not at the next ballot, I can assure the House. On 27 November 1983 the honourable member for Bennelong, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, had this to say: Well, I am personally in favour of a needs approach to the payment of welfare. I have been for some time and I don't walk away from that. That is another example of his not walking in step with his current leader. He then had this very interesting statement to make: I think the method of an assets test of the type now proposed-- he was talking about the type of assets test before the people in November last year-- Mr Steele Hall —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr HAWKE —You do not like it, do you? Mr Steele Hall —The pensioners of Australia want to know what the Prime Minister thinks. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Boothby will come to his point of order. Mr Steele Hall —They want him to fulfil his responsibilities and tell them and not-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —He said: I think the method of an assets test-- Honourable members interjecting-- Mr HAWKE —One can see why they are upset. He said: I think the method of an assets test of the type now proposed and originally in operation is not the best way of doing it. He went on to point out why he thought that that assets test was not the best way of doing it, but making it quite clear that he was completely in favour of the principle. Finally, so that we can see the view of the then Opposition spokesperson on this issue, I quote from Senator Chaney in May 1981: I think we cannot escape the fact that there are some genuinely needy pensioners in this country who do not receive enough help while some other people, by the advantageous arrangement of their assets, are able to draw on the system to a greater extent than their real degree of need would seem to justify. There we have it. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was telling the truth as he saw it, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition spokesperson in this area were saying that they believed in exactly the same principle to which this Government will give effect. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I take the point of order that three times now the Prime Minister has said: 'The Leader of the Opposition when he is telling the truth as he saw it'. Mr HAWKE —'When he was telling the truth'-past tense. Mr Hodgman —That is in breach of a direction you gave, Mr Speaker, and I ask you to rule him out of order. He is breaching your ruling. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison cannot have been listening. What was said was: 'When the Leader of the Opposition was telling the truth as he saw it'. Surely that is not offensive. Mr MacKELLAR —I draw the attention of the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs to the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, intimated in a letter of 15 March 1984 to the Baltic Council of Australia that the Australian foreign mission in Moscow would investigate certain human rights violations in the Baltic states. What is the progress with these investigations? Did the Minister for Foreign Affairs raise these matters during his talks in Moscow? If they were not raised, will the Acting Minister give an undertaking that the general issue and the specific cases referred to in communications that the Acting Minister has received from the Baltic Council will be raised with the Soviet authorities as a matter of urgency? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think the question is fair enough, but the honourable gentleman acknowledges that the matters were contained in a letter of 15 March last and I am not aware of the details. I will certainly give an undertaking to investigate whether they have been raised by our Foreign Minister who is now in the Soviet Union and has already had-- Mr Peacock —You would agree that they should have been raised? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not aware of the facts, so I do not want to make any agreement. Mr MacKellar —If they haven't, will you give an undertaking that they will? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will undertake to inform the Department this afternoon of the honourable member's question for this reason, that the Minister has not finished his discussions in the Soviet Union and-- Mr Peacock —Perhaps he could pick it up if he has not raised it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the Leader of the Opposition knows, he raised a number of matters of importance, not the least of which involved Dr Sakharov. Mr Peacock —With which we concur. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that that is something with which the Opposition concurs . The interesting thing now is to find out how much work was done over the 12 years that Dr Sakharov has been under persecution. We might look at that at some time so that we can judge the merits of both administrations. We might also make the point that the visit of our Foreign Minister is the first in the last 20 years. Mr MacKellar —Get back to this. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is getting back to the point because only through having dialogue and communication can we raise the matters that the honourable gentleman has legitimately raised. The Foreign Minister is still in the process of having further discussions with Mr Gromyko and others. There would be no doubt at all that any matter affecting human rights and any other matters raised in the letters of March would be raised by my Foreign Minister. If they have not been raised, I am sure they will be drawn to the attention of the Foreign Affairs Department. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. What humanitarian action is the Government taking to assist the people of Lebanon in view of the continuing civil distress in that sad nation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the honourable gentleman said, it is a very sad matter. Already a large number of refugees are coming from the Lebanon. People in Australia directly related to the problem in Lebanon naturally have expressed concern. I pay tribute to the former Government, which was very generous in giving aid to Lebanon for reconstruction. We are continuing the process of giving aid. I understand that a substantial sum of money has been made available to the International Red Cross. I am aware that it was suggested that money could have been made available to what could be called the national Red Cross, but it has always been the practice of the Australian Government to make it available to the International Red Cross for the assistance of refugees. The honourable gentleman will also be aware that generally Australian governments have always played a foremost role in assisting refugees. The honourable gentleman can rest assured that anything the Government can do to alleviate that problem will not be left undone. Direct aid is being given. The Lebanese community in Australia is being kept fully informed. Really the honourable gentleman would be anxious to see the achievement of peace and stability in the whole of the Middle East to guarantee the security of Lebanon and the removal of all foreign troops from that country. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs to the breakdown in relations with the Papua New Guinea Government wherein for the first time in our history an Australian government is unable to negotiate effectively with the Government of that country. I refer, of course, to the problems with the Papua New Guinea Government's treatment of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Is it not a fact that the Government was unable to approach the Papua New Guinea Government with clean hands because of this mendacious Prime Minister's endeavours to censor the ABC? Is this also- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the word mendacious is unparliamentary. I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Mr Hawke —He doesn't know the meaning of the word. Mr PEACOCK —I think your mendacity is exceeded only by your ego. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to observe the request of the Chair. Mr PEACOCK —I withdraw the word mendacious. Because of this Prime Minister's endeavours to censor the ABC he could not address the matter with clean hands at all. Is this also a primary reason for the Government's inability to solve the problem it was singularly unable to prevent? When does the Minister believe this Government will have the influence to repair the damage to our relations and restore the presence of the ABC? Will the Minister advise what would have moved a Papua New Guinea Government spokesman to say yesterday that the Australian Government had wiped its hands-a singularly accurate phrase to use-of the whole affair? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Firstly I make it clear that my Prime Minister has done nothing which would in any way inhibit good relations between Papua New Guinea and Australia and that is clear. It is also a matter of record-I think the honourable gentleman would agree-that the Government acknowledges that the ABC will have its free and unfettered right to report on news information in Papua New Guinea. The thrust of the question is why has the Government been unable to do anything. Of course the Government would not be expected to do anything until such time as action had been taken by Papua New Guinea and it took action following the screening of a Four Corners program on Saturday evening. I did not see the program but those who did see it regarded it as being somewhat innocuous . I understand from the Australian High Commissioner in Papua New Guinea that it was not the program itself that has caused the political debate there but the question of the location of the interview or the person who was interviewed in relation to what is called the laws of Papua New Guinea relating to immigration. I think the honourable gentleman would agree that the point of interest is that the Government of Papua New Guinea is entitled to administer the whole of Papua New Guinea. It is a democracy, and it is understandable that in its Parliament that matter has become a very strong political issue. Mr Peacock —But what are you doing? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I want to give the Leader of the Opposition the background because he seems to be quoting-- Mr Peacock —Why haven't you fixed it? We have never had a situation like this in the history of our nation. We have always been able to fix any problem with Papua New Guinea. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Let me make it very clear. The Government has no problems with Papua New Guinea and the Leader of the Opposition will also be aware that it was a Labor government that granted it independence. Mr Peacock —You followed the blueprint I put down and your previous Prime Minister is on the record as agreeing with me. I can give you chapter and verse of Whitlam saying so. But Whitlam could tell the truth, this man can't. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Unfortunately for the Leader of the Opposition I have to answer his question. If he wants to praise himself he should ask leave to make a statement later. But the Government gave Papua New Guinea independence; the Opposition did not. That is the point though I will give it praise for subsequently helping Papua New Guinea after the Government gave Papua New Guinea independence. Mr Peacock —Prior. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Maybe it was prior but the former Government certainly would not have done it unless a Labor government had been elected in 1972. Mr Peacock —Oh, my God. Even the honourable member for St George would disagree with that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He would not disagree because he knows the facts. I come to the point of what the Government is about. Mr Speaker, as you would understand, there have been direct negotiations with the Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea. There is a lot of ill-feeling on a political issue there at the moment. A subject of keen debate in the Papua New Guinea Parliament is on the issue of whether this matter relates to an abrogation of the freedom of the Press or to immigration. The honourable gentleman would agree that once it becomes a political matter in that area it is not easy to get a cooling off position whereby the Government can ask that the decision which has already been made can be revoked. However, I want to give some assurance to the honourable gentleman. The Government is very proud of its relationship with the Government of Papua New Guinea. It has a very close relationship. Perhaps a misunderstanding has developed over the issue of immigration, not censorship, let me make that very clear. I am very confident that I think that matter can be resolved without too much delay. Mr REEVES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Who was responsible for the confusion which arose yesterday when an American film crew attempted to film in restricted areas of the Kakadu National Park? Mr COHEN —An American film crew applied for approval to film at Ayers Rock but it did not make application for approval to film at Kakadu. After the unit arrived in the park it wanted to film in Deaf Adder Gorge, an area to which access is restricted at the request of the Aboriginals. The film crew claimed it had obtained the approval of one Aboriginal at Kooinda Inn to enter that area. At the time it was impossible to check whether this was correct. One of the Aboriginal traditional owners has now advised officers of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service that he did not give permission for the crew to go into the restricted area of Deaf Adder Gorge. Indeed it is apparent that the traditional owner concerned was coerced into giving permission after an afternoon at the Kooinda Hotel. Officers of the Northern Territory Government who were accompanying the film crew would have been made aware of the restrictions on entering certain parts of the park without the permission of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the traditional owners. Mr Everingham, as Chief Minister, would also be aware of the arrangements that have been working so well in allowing commercial film crews to enter these areas. Mr Shipton —A bureaucratic mess. Mr COHEN —This is the Kakadu National Park. Furthermore the office of the Northern Territory Tourist Commissioner and indeed the Chief Minister, would be aware of the indemnification process that is required before aircraft can fly over restricted areas. I am advised that senior officers of the Northern Territory Government were concerned in this instance that the proper procedure had not been adhered to and conveyed this concern to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister showed total disregard of this advice and has blatantly blown up the entire issue. The Government has it on good authority that his own officers told him that they had made a mistake and that he said not to take any notice of that; that this was a good political issue and he was going to run on it. Mr O'KEEFE —Will the Minister for Defence and his Department be investigating further sites for an army base in New South Wales other than the three areas at present under investigation by Dames and Moore, or will a selection of one of these sites be final for the establishment of an army base? Mr SCHOLES —In accordance with arrangements which have been made with the New South Wales Government, three areas are at present under study for the relocation of an artillery range and the establishment of the School of Artillery and the School of Infantry. I will have discussions with Ministers of the New South Wales Government later this week but at this stage I am not aware of any proposals for any alternative sites to the three which are already under study. Mr GAYLER —The Minister for Science and Technology will be aware of concern about the adequacy of meteorological services in Northern Australia. Is he aware that the Director of the Bureau of Meteorology was warned that the Bureau has been so run down financially that there is now a substantially increased danger to life and property from an aircraft accident or a cyclone where a sudden change of weather has not been forecast? Mr BARRY JONES —The situation is every bit as serious as stated. I particularly caution frequent plane travellers to listen to what I am saying. The situation is desperately serious. Because of the persistent running down of the Bureau of Meteorology over seven years by the Liberal Government, which refused to give the Weather Bureau the opportunity to increase its technological capacity, we now have a very serious situation which will threaten not only the security but also the lives of airplane travellers at some future date. In a memorandum to me Dr John Zillman, the Director of Meteorology, stated: . . . there is not one officer in the Bureau who will not continue to do his best to avoid the kind of breakdown of Bureau Service that could lead to major disaster. There is no doubt that the risks of this happening are steadily increasing. If this should occur-another Tracy-hit Darwin, this time without adequate warning; a fire disaster on the scale of Ash Wednesday when it might have been avoided completely through total fire bans based on accurate forecasts ; or a Jumbo jet crash in an unforecast line squall, the implications will be serious indeed. While retrospective judgements will inevitably be made on many aspects of how we have tried to cope with the problems of the past decade, I have little doubt that the major conclusion of any Royal Commission or Inquiry would be that it must ultimately be attributed to the rundown of the Bureau due to severe cuts in resources since the mid-1970s . . . I will illustrate the point. This is something on which we ought to have bipartisan agreement. I will explain by showing honourable members an old- fashioned value of a kind that ought to be in a museum. Mr Morrison —It is. Mr SPEAKER —I assume I have the role of curator. Mr BARRY JONES —Mr Speaker, this really is no laughing matter. I ask honourable members to listen. This valve is an illustration of 1940s technology. In fact, this model valve dates from 1942. Mr Ian Cameron —What about crystal sets? Mr BARRY JONES —That is an asinine comment, even from the honourable member. Because of the intense heat that the valve generates and also the radiation, which can be serious, when one of the valves breaks down-which is fairly frequent-the replacement valve has to be made by hand because there are no manufacturers in the world producing them on the production line. This valve is an absolute museum piece. When the Australian Science and Technology Council investigated the Bureau of Meteorology it brought out an American expert in the area who said that going into the Bureau of Meteorology in Melbourne was like walking back 25 years, into an earlier era of weather forecasting. The situation is extremely serious. I will quote one more remark of Dr Zillman, who makes the point-- Mr Moore —Are you telling us you couldn't get your Cabinet submission up? Mr BARRY JONES —The Opposition is responsible for this situation and it cannot be changed overnight. Dr Zillman said: Very serious reductions have been necessary over the last 5-10 years . . . We have been in government for only 14 months- Whereas once even a single missing upper air report would have been unusual, it is not uncommon nowadays for the coincidence of funds and observer shortages at different stations to result in days with almost a quarter of the vital upper wind data missing. That is a very serious implication for us and it is something that needs to be faced up to as a national responsibility. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer the Minister to his earlier answer, which appeared to me to mislead the House, concerning growth in the Public Service. Does the Minister recall in March this year issuing his Department's forward estimates of Budget outlays? Does this document indicate that for 1983-84 the Government has decided to manage Public Service numbers by means of what is referred to as the average operative staffing levels system? Do the forward estimates reveal that average operative staffing levels in the Commonwealth Public Service, excluding the assets test personnel, are estimated to increase by 4.4 per cent in 1983-84 and by 4.8 per cent in 1984-85, a compound increase of 9.4 per cent? When the assets test personnel are added, does this not indicate that the Government proposes to increase average operative staffing levels in the Commonwealth Public Service by almost 10 per cent in the first two years? Mr DAWKINS —The point is, as I tried to explain in my answer to the earlier question, that the Opposition is very good at comparing unlike series. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has attempted to do is to compare figures for the Opposition's period in government with figures for our period. What I have quite properly done is to use the same basis for comparison during the two periods. If members of the Opposition look at the figures for their last year in government and at the growth June on June 1982 and 1983 they will find that the increase was 5.5 per cent. If they look at the growth June on June 1983 and 1984 they will see the growth was 3 per cent. If we now move to a different series- that is, the series which we now employ to measure growth in terms of average operative staffing levels-it is true, as revealed by the forward estimates report and by earlier announcements by me, that the increase in the average operative staffing level during l983-84 will be 4.4 per cent. If honourable members opposite are going to look at that, they ought also to be reminded that nearly half of that is the full year effects of decisions which they made when in office. In terms of growth in average operative staffing levels, we inherited a huge increase from them. I do not demur at all from the answer that I have already given. The Leader of the Opposition has taken to throwing around in a very loose way accusations of misleading the House. The record holder in terms of not only misleading this House but also misleading the whole nation is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in remarks made in relation to the size of the prospective deficit for 1983-84. I ask the Opposition to be a little bit careful about the way in which it throws around accusations of misleading the House, especially when talking about me. The only other point I wish to make is that, in relation to the forward estimates, we are the first government to provide estimates for forthcoming years. It is true that we have included in the forward estimates for 1984-85 the draft departmental estimates of staffing requirements in 1984-85. I assure honourable members that those draft bids, much as they might be requested by departments, will not be met in full. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Water Resources Council report on activities for 1982-83, together with the minutes of the twenty-fifth meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council held in Canberra on 1 July 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 26 of the Coal Industry Act 1946, I present the Auditor-General's report for the Joint Coal Board's financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1983. I point out that the annual report for 1982-83 of the Joint Coal Board was tabled on 15 December 1983. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present documents relating to the provision of financial assistance to South Australia for the metropolitan Adelaide and northern towns water filtration programs in 1983-84. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-Today I would like to inform the House about the Government's immigration program for 1984-85, and, in so doing, place the Government's policies and the debate on immigration in a rational and informed context. This address would normally be devoted to a simple statement of the Government's decisions on the level of migrant intake for the next financial year. However, on this occasion, I should caution those who seek to exploit public emotions about the consequences of a divisive debate that could throw into doubt the basis of Australia's social cohesion and jeopardise our enviable reputation internationally as a country that places great value on its commitment to human rights and humanitarian concerns. Immigration has made a great contribution to our nation's development. The broad area of racial and social consensus stemming from this contribution, particularly in more recent years, has been a great achievement. All Australians can be justifiably proud of that record. This consensus, and its underlying values, are now challenged by vocal minorities. They seek to recreate in Australia a racially selective immigration policy that is anathema to this Government and, I believe, the wishes of the majority of people living in Australia. The Government does not, of course, wish to stifle debate on immigration policy . But debate on any issue should be rational, informed and based on facts, not submerged in empty and destructive rhetoric which has the potential to destroy the achievements of prudent policies formulated by Labor and coalition governments over the past 20 years or so. In setting the desired total level of immigration intake for the next financial year, the Government has reconciled the fulfilment of our compassionate and humanitarian responsibilities, the ability of the economy to absorb increases in the work force, shortages of special skills, the problems of settlement of migrants and the costs to the community in terms of both settlement and social welfare payments. Having done this, it is essential that criteria to determine entry should be applied on a global non-discriminatory basis, and not on a national or on a regional basis. It is inconceivable that a modern Australia could tolerate any other than a non- discriminatory policy. On 10 May the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: This Government does not consider that a balance or mix in our migration program determined on racial grounds can have any place in our society. It categorically rejects the discriminatory concept of quotas . . . It also categorically rejects any proposals to introduce covert discrimination through differential standards in selection criteria. Over the last two years, forward planning of migration intake has been based upon a predicted range which has not been achieved. For instance, the former Government estimated that 115,000 to 120,000 migrants would be visaed in 1982-83 . The actual figure achieved was 86,000 visas issued. For 1983-84, this Government originally assessed a range of between 80,000 and 90,000. We will issue no more than 64,000 visas. Our insistence upon a job offer for Category C migrants, that is, brothers, sisters, and non-dependent children, contributed to the shortfall. Also, as I told the House last March, the Government was not prepared further to reduce entry standards for unskilled and semi-skilled migrants who could not pass an assessment system which had already been modified by this Government. Further, only 35,586 applications for family reunion were received to 31 March 1984, as compared with 54,290 for 1982-83. These figures show declining interests in family migration from traditional source countries. The Government believes that in the 1984-85 intake there is scope for a moderate increase in family migration and, with the upturn in the economy, in the skilled labour and business migration category also. I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard figures which show the expected visa issue for this year and our estimates for 1984-85. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- 1983-84 AND 1984-85 MIGRATION PROGRAM VISAED MIGRANTS-BROAD ESTIMATES INCLUDING DEPENDANTS ('000) 1983-84 1983-84 revised expected 1984-85 estimate outcome program Family migration- Sub-categories A and B 24-27 23-24 28 Family migration- Sub-category C 14-16 13-14 14 Sub-total 38-43 36-38 42 Skilled labour and business migration- Skilled labour 5 4.5 7.5 Employer nominees 3 3 4 Business migrants 2 1.5 4 Independent migration * Special eligibility * 0.5 0.5 0.5 Sub-total 10.5 9.5 16 Refugees and special humanitarian programs 17.3 16.6 14 Contingency reserve 2 Total 65.8-70.8 62.1-64.1 74 Mr WEST —I thank the House. Honourable members will see that the expected total intake in 1984-85 is 72,000 migrants, plus a possible 2,000 contingency reserve refugees. I will now explain each component. Family Reunion Family reunion is expected to reach 42,000 in 1984-85, compared with a mid- range of 37,000 in 1983-84. The orderly departure program from Vietnam, which is family reunion, is expected to expand from 2,000 in 1983-84 to 5,000 in 1984-85. A further 2,000 places are allowed for expected expansion from sources other than Vietnam. Skilled Migration Under this category, in 1984-85 we propose a total of 7,500 involving 2,700 principal applicants, that is 3,000 above the 1983-84 figure, but still substantially below the 24,000 entrants for 1982-83. The former Government reduced the possibility of skilled labour migration in December 1982 when it reduced the number of occupations in demand on the schedule from 77 to 21. This substantially affected applications for the 1983-84 intake under a Labor government which subsequently revised downwards the expected numbers in this category. It was the former Government which drastically restricted the scope for the skilled labour category, which slashed the potential for independent entry of migrants from traditional sources. This decision was, in the economic circumstances prevailing, a correct one. For the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) now to assert that this Government was solely responsible for reducing the intake of skilled labour is misleading and hypocritical. This Government is introducing a new system, which I announced last March, which will assess the need for skilled migrants across a broad range of 60 occupational categories. The occupational share system links skilled labour intake to total labour force planning. For the first time, it will integrate demand for particular labour skills, training and re-training programs and immigration policies. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations provides a preliminary report on skilled market needs, from which ceilings of shares for migration purposes will be set for various occupational categories. These shares will be reassessed quarterly by the departments of Employment and Industrial Relations and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The system replaces the outmoded occupational demand schedule which, because of changing economic circumstances, tended to allow entry of migrants for whom employment opportunities had vanished . Employer nomination is a small sub-category which allows employers to nominate migrants for highly skilled positions which cannot be filled locally. Prospective employers must demonstrate that they have attempted to train local workers, and that they have thoroughly tested the Australian labour market before entry is granted. Four thousand places, representing 1,400 principal applicants, are envisaged in this category. Business Migration Business migration is expected to increase from 1,500 to 4,000 in 1984-85, representing 1,400 principal applicants. This is a scheme thoroughly endorsed by all State governments and the former Federal Government. The Government also regards expansion of business migration as important, as it has the capacity to provide stimulus and employment far beyond the actual numbers involved in this program. This financial year it is expected to result in a capital investment in Australia of more than $100m. The scheme is aimed at attracting to Australia people who have achieved success in business overseas who wish to live permanently in Australia, and who can contribute their expertise and capital in business ventures to Australia. The businesses involved should lead to: The creation of jobs; introduction of new or improved technology; and expansion of business activity. The Government is examining administrative procedures for approval and supervision of business migration, to ensure that the program realises its maximum potential is not abused, and that State governments and relevant Federal departments have the opportunity to advise on the merits of applicants' proposals. Thus, skilled labour, business migration, employer nomination and special eligibility-500 entrants-in all these sub-categories will increase from 9,500 to 16,000. The increase arises from the introduction of the occupational shares system and increased business migration. I foreshadowed these changes in my speech to Parliament one year ago, and again in March this year, as necessary measures, having regard to the Government's expectation that the economic recovery which has occurred under our Administration will continue. The increase in these categories does not represent a response to any perceived need for ' balance' in the intake on racial grounds. The Government believes it is imperative that shortages of skilled workers in key occupational areas should not threaten our economic recovery. At the same time, we shall continue to exercise prudence, and will not bring in large numbers of workers to join unemployment queues. Refugees and Special Humanitarian Program I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard figures which indicate results of the refugee program predicted for 1983-84 and expected for 1984-85. Leave granted. The table read as follows- REFUGEE AND HUMANITARIAN INTAKE: GLOBAL ALLOCATION 1984-85 Program (1983-84 Refugees SHP Total Projected) Indochinese 8,000 200 8,200 (10,100) East European 1,000 200 1,200 (1,950) Latin American 750 750 1,500 (1,000) Middle Eastern 750 750 1,500 (1,000) African 350 100 450 (150) Others 150 1,000 1,150 (900) *11,000 *3,000 14,000 (15,100) Contingency Reserve (1,500 2,000 *Lebanese) *16,000 (16,600) * All 11,000 funded. * Only 1,000 funded. * The proposed 1984-85 program capacity will accommodate any necessary responses to humanitarian emergencies. Mr WEST —I thank the House. Honourable members will see that there are 14,000 places in the program, plus 2,000 in contingency reserve. The program has two elements: Firstly, refugees. I emphasise that this Government, like its predecessor, accepts the United Nation's definition of refugee, and always has despite what some people may say in making public statements. That definition is : . . . owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. Secondly, there is the special humanitarian program which allows for migrant entry to Australia of those who, while not technically refugees, can clearly show evidence of denial of human rights in their own country. An important departure from policies of the former Government is that this Government has diversified its sources of refugees. Australia cannot hope to offer sanctuary to all the increasingly large numbers of refugees in the world's troubled areas, or to any large percentage of those who flee from discrimination. But we can do two things: Firstly, we can show that Australia is willing to accept its share of what is an international responsibility. We have done this, as did the former Government. Secondly, we can offer the possibility of refuge to close relatives of those already in Australia, who may be at risk inside or outside their own country. Many in countries such as Chile, Sri Lanka and the Lebanon have close family ties in Australia, and might not otherwise be accepted if it were not for our special humanitarian program. With regard to Indo-Chinese refugees, let me set the record straight. The former coalition took Australia into Vietnam. It was wrong. The former Government instigated the Indo-Chinese refugee program. On this they were right. Australia's refugee program has been proclaimed both internationally and nationally as a humane and compassionate response to the aftermath of the tragic Indo-Chinese conflict. Large cross-sections of the community, and the media generally, have applauded the program. The community, in particular, has been magnificent in its acceptance of refugees. Indeed, the Age newspaper, in an editorial of March 21 this year, said: In its wisdom, the Hawke Government has decided that, while reducing its total intake of migrants for the present financial year, it should give a high priority to migrants admitted under both the family reunion and refugee and humanitarian programs. It would be a sorry commentary on Australia and its values, if, for all our affluence, we could not continue to find a place for people forced for political reasons to quit their homelands. A proportion of the exodus of boat people who left Vietnam after 1975 landed on Australian shores. Boats were being turned away from the Association of South East Asian Nations' shores. In July 1979, a United Nations conference in Geneva established an international resettlement program based on camps in countries of first refuge. Major resettlement countries were the United States of America, France, Canada, Australia, West Germany and the United Kingdom. Under the former Government we became the largest recipient of Indo-Chinese refugees in per capita terms. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard relevant figures on international resettlement of Indo-Chinese refugees to March 1984. Leave granted. The table read as follows- INTERNATIONAL RESETTLEMENT OF INDOCHINESE REFUGEES 1975-31 March 1984 Principal Resettlement Countries Australia(a) 86,656 Canada 90,860 France 94,785 Germany 22,423 Japan 3,017 United Kingdom 16,426 U.S.A.(b) 534,747 Others(c) 59,714 Total 908,628 (a) DIEA preliminary figure for the resettlement of Indo-chinese refugees for period April 1975 to 31 March 1984 is 85,810. The UNHCR figure of 86,656 includes persons who departed for Australia under arrangements other than refugee entry but in the event have been statistically included as refugee entry by UNHCR. (b) Does not include some 130,000 persons who arrived in the United States in 1975. (c) Does not include some 260,000 Vietnamese who arrived in China in the period from 1978. Source: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Mr WEST —I thank the House. Since assuming office, this Government has pursued options other than resettlement. Overseas I have raised the issue of voluntary repatriation with the United States Ambassador for Refugees, and the Foreign Ministers of Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. In Australia, I have had discussions on this issue with Foreign Ministers of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Thailand. This year I have also discussed the resettlement programs and the voluntary repatriation option with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr Poul Hartling. The Vietnamese Government has indicated that it is prepared to consider voluntary repatriation on a case by case basis. But obviously, not many will wish to return to Vietnam. The Government has requested the Vietnamese Foreign Minister to support the orderly departure program, which is family migration, as an alternative to the disorderly departure of boat people. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the figures for the Indo-Chinese refugee intake since 1975 and the orderly departure program since 1982. Leave granted. The document read as follows- INDOCHINESE REFUGEE AND O.D.P. SETTLER ARRIVALS Source: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Family migration Indo- (ODP) Program chinese from year refugees Vietnam Total 1974/75 691 . . 691 1975/76 1,049 . . 1,049 1976/77 1,135 . . 1,135 1977/78 7 ,077 . . 7,077 1978/79 11,872 . . 11,872 1979/80 14,952 . . 14,952 1980/81 15, 004 . . 15,004 1981/82 13,805 . . 13,805 1982/83 12,435 573 13,008 Total 30 June 1983 78,020 573 78,593 1983/84 (est.) 10,100 2,000 12,100 Total 30 June 1984 88,120 2,573 90,693 1984/85 (proposed) 8,200 5,000 13,200 (i) The memorandum of understanding between Australia and Socialist Republic of Vietnam in relation to ODP was signed on 8 March 1982. The first ODP arrivals came to Australia in November 1982. (ii) Between 1974/75 and November 1982 it is estimated that some 500 persons arrived in Australia from Vietnam under ad hoc family reunion arrangements. ( This figure also includes some Kampucheans from Vietnam). MR WEST —I thank the House. Honourable members will see that the Indo-Chinese refugee intake will have declined to 8,000 for 1984-85 from a peak of 15,000 in 1980-81. Our strategy is to place increasing emphasis on family reunion, as we seek political and alternative solutions to the refugee exodus. We have increased family reunion from Vietnam through the orderly departure program. In 1983-84, the figures from Indo-China will be 10,100 refugees plus 2,000 ODP; that is 12,100. In 1984-85, there will be 8,000 refugees, plus 5,000 ODP; that is 13,000. Although this Government recognises the need to seek alternative solutions to resettlement of refugees, we will not reduce our refugee intake on racial grounds. We will honour our international obligations and continue to offer family reunion to those already in Australia within the limitations of our total program. The total program of 72,000 persons expected next financial year represents a mild increase over the expected 1983-84 result, but a substantial decrease from the 93,000 settler arrivals admitted by the former Government in its last program. It is, I believe, an acceptable program which accepts humanitarian and international responsibilities and is tailored to our improving economic circumstances. Those who are calling for major reductions in migration intake will be able to see from settler arrivals figures that numbers have been reduced form 118,000 to 93,000 in 1982-83, and further reduced to 64,000 visas issued in 1983-84, or 70,000 expected settler arrivals. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard settler arrival figures from 1974-75 to 1983-84. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SETTLER ARRIVALS 1974-75-1982-83 AND 1983-84 (ESTIMATED) Year Actual Arrivals(a) 1974-75 89,147 1975-76 52,748 1976-77 70,916(b) 1977-78 73,171 1978-79 68,749(c) 1979-80 81,271 1980-81 111,190 1981-82 118,700 1982-83 93,177(d) 1983-84 (70,000 preliminary estimate based on half-yearly arrivals of 35,488) (a) ABS statistics to 1977-78. DIEA arrival statistics from 1978-79 to 1982-83. (b) Until 1976-77 a settler program figure was announced for coming year. Thereafter estimated intakes were announced. (c) In 1978-79 a triennial figure of 70,000 per year was announced. The figure of 70,000 was increased to 95,000 in 1980-81. (d) 1982 was the first year in which the program was based on visaed migrants rather than expected arrivals. Mr WEST —I thank the House. Honourable members should note that there are two distinct bases for assessing migration-visas issued and settler arrivals. Our 1983-84 intake affirmed the rights of migrant communities to an expanded family reunion program and, in a time of high unemployment, recognised that high program levels in the labour shortage category were economically and socially unacceptable. There can be no doubt that the Government's decision on the 1983- 84 and 1984-85 intakes is responsible. To have continued the high levels of migrant intake provided for by the Opposition when in power would have perpetuated the tragedy of migrants arriving to join the unemployed in Australia . Our policy priorities received overwhelming support from Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for immigration and ethnic affairs. At their meeting with me on 13 April last Ministers agreed that the emphasis on family reunion should continue in 1984-85. They also agreed that the diversification of refugee sources should continue, in keeping with the Government's philosophy that the immigration program should reflect humanitarian concerns. The Federal- State conference supported the skilled labour and business migration programs and agreed that, under more favourable economic circumstances, those programs could be moderately increased. Similar support for the Government's program was expressed by a wide range of government officials, business and community groups during an extensive Australia-wide round of consultations conducted earlier this year by officials of my Department. I have also consulted extensively with leaders of ethnic groups in all States and with the umbrella organisation for ethnic groups, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council, on a wide range of immigration and ethnic affairs policies. Today, as in the past, I have clearly stated the Government's immigration intake policies and underlying philosophies. I would now like to know where the Opposition stands. Since January this year, the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesperson on immigration and ethnic affairs, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), have been promising to release the Opposition's immigration policy. In January, they said they would release it in March; in March, they promised their definitive statement by April; in April, they said it would be forthcoming in May. It is now nearly June. The only noises about immigration policy we have heard from the other side of the House have been misstatements about our program, attacks on the Government based on incorrect figures and a deliberate and dangerous campaign aimed at the manipulation of public opinion by scare tactics. Over this whole period the Opposition has not placed before the Australian people any clear, rational immigration policy. The Opposition has put forward allegations about and attacked this Government, its policies and my administration. (Quorum formed) At the outset it said our policies were anti-British, and then anti-European. Following this, it accused us of being pro-Asian. When it realised the implications of that argument, it retreated to a position of accepting that there were not too many Asians and invented the dubious notion of 'balance'. I would now like, having given our proposed 1984-85 program, to address each of these critisms. In order to put this into context, I seek permission to incorporate in Hansard comprehensive figures on settler arrivals, which show the break up of the migration program over the last five years and figures showing migration applications and visas issued. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- SETTLER ARRIVAL DATA (Country of last residence) 1978-79 % 1979-80 % 1980-81 % 1981-82 % 1982-83 % 1983-84 % TOTAL SETTLERSUK & Ireland 13,107 19.0 16,397 20.2 31,590 28.4 38,863 32.7 27, 249 29.2 8,477 23.9 Europe 9,538 13.9 13,918 17.1 20,424 18.4 24,981 21.0 19, 731 21.2 5,964 16.8 Asia 20,214 29.4 23,183 28.5 24,914 22.4 26,528 22.4 24, 486 26.3 11,773 33.2 Other 25,890 37.7 27,773 34.2 34,262 30.8 28,328 23.9 21, 711 23.3 9,274 26.1 Total 68,749 100 81,271 100 111,190 100 118,700 100 93,177 100 35,488 100 FAMILY MIGRATION UK & Ireland 4,442 25.8 4,999 27.2 5,657 28.9 6,126 28.2 9,411 34.9 5,176 31.2 Europe 3,884 22.5 4,162 22.7 4,130 21.1 3,883 17.8 4,951 18.4 2,967 17.9 Asia 4 ,171 24.2 4,451 24.2 5,276 27.0 6,752 31.0 6,928 25.7 4,587 27.6 Other 4,728 27 .5 4,747 25.9 4,507 23.0 5,008 23.0 5,662 21.0 3,879 23.3 Total 17,225 100 18,359 100 19,570 100 21,769 100 26,952 100 16,609 100 REFUGEES 6 0.0 7 0.0 195 0.9 56 0.3 17 0.1 3 0.0 Europe 1,302 9.7 4,605 23.1 5,774 26.4 7,176 32.7 4,155 24.4 1,142 16.9 Asia 12,064 89.7 15,254 76.5 15,767 72.2 14, 557 66.4 12,758 74.8 5,452 80.6 Other 78 0.6 88 0.4 111 0.5 128 0.6 124 0.7 170 2.5 Total 13,450 100 19,954 100 21,847 100 21,917 100 17,054 100 6,767 100 OTHER (Including Labour Shortage, Business and other Categories applicable at that time) UK & Ireland 8,659 22.7 11,391 26.5 25,738 36.9 32,681 43.6 17,821 36.2 3,298 27.2 Europe 4,352 11.4 5,151 12.0 10,520 15.1 13,922 18.6 10,625 21.6 1,855 15. 3 Asia 3,979 10.5 3,478 8.1 3,871 5.5 5,219 6.9 4,800 9.8 1,734 14.3 Other 21, 084 55.4 22,938 53.4 29,644 42.5 23,192 30.9 15,925 32.4 5,225 43.1 Total 38,074 100 42,958 100 69,773 100 75,014 100 49,171 100 12,112 100 Source: DIEA Incoming Passenger Card Statistics (1983/84 data is for July 1983 to December 1983) ALL MIGRATION APPLICATIONS(a) AND PERSONS VISAED BY REGION (EXCLUDING REFUGEES) 1983-84 to Region 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 31.3.84 (b) No. % No. % No. % No. % U.K. and Ireland Applications 137 112 (39.6) 105,011 (31.6) 53,057 (18.1) 13,202 (10.7) Visas 35,602 (43.6) 39,711 (41.9) 25,822 (38.1) 8,794 (25.6) Europe Applications 93 500 (27.0) 104,597 (31.5) 77,087 (26.3) 35,631 (28.8) Visas 21,826 (26.7) 26,584 (28.1) 15,763 (23.2) 6,728 (19.6) Asia Applications 54,242 (15.7) 47,963 (14.4) 67,827 (23.1) 35,301 (28.5) Visas 10 ,970 (13.4) 13,155 (13.9) 12,882 (19.0) 10,970 (32.0) Other Applications 61,124 (17.7) 74,524 (22.4) 95,580 (32.6) 39,711 (32.1) Visas 13 ,225 (16.2) 15,319 (16.2) 13,366 (19.7) 7,807 (22.8) Total Applications 345,978 (100.0) 332,095 (100.0) 293,551 (100.0) 123,845 (100.0) Visas 81,623 (100.0) 94,769 (100.0) 67,833 (100.0) 34,299 (100.0) Notes: (a) Applications-numbers shown are for persons covered by applications but do not necessarily represent formal applications. In order to avoid use of departmental resources on applications which have no chance of succeeding, and to give people an early answer as to whether they are likely to satisfy migration policy requirements, enquirers are asked to complete a simple enquiry form. This form is generally made available to the enquirer in order to make a preliminary assessment of eligibility. At present, however, there is no requirement for posts to use this form in a uniform manner. The Department is endeavouring to achieve a standard practice at all posts with regard to this procedure. On the basis of information from the preliminary enquiry form, people are then advised whether formal application is warranted. The figures reported by some posts include preliminary enquiry forms as well as formal applications relating to the same applicants. These figures are collected as a means of providing general information on the workload of individual posts: they have not been collected or used as an objective measure of interest in migration. (b) The figures shown for the first 9 months of the 1983-84 year are preliminary and subject to revision; based on data available at 15.5.84. Because of varying and sometimes considerable time delays between the different processing stages, it is not possible to calculate valid success or failure rates by comparing application and visa rates within any given period. FAMILY MIGRATION(a)-APPLICATIONS PRESELECTED IN(b) AND VISAS ISSUED BY REGION ( PERSONS) Region 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84(c) No. % No. % No. % No. % U.K. & Ireland Applications n.a n.a. 13,534 24.9 6,591 18.5 Visaed 6,046 30.7 6,917 30.6 6,178 34.1 5,971 25.2 Europe Applications n.a. n.a. 8,627 15.9 5,440 15.3 Visaed 4,115 20.9 3,817 16.9 2,628 14.5 4,129 17.5 Asia Applications n.a. n.a. 17,220 31.7 14,533 40.8 Visaed 5,071 25.7 6,425 28. 5 5,039 27.8 7,607 32.1 Other Applications n.a. n.a. 14,909 27.5 9,022 25.4 Visaed 4,480 22.7 5,411 24.0 4,276 23.6 5,955 25.2 Total Applications n.a. n.a. 54,290 100.00 35,586 100.0 Visaed 19,712 100.0 22, 570 100.0 18,121 100.00 23,662 100.0 (a) The definition of Family Migration changed during the period 1980-81 to 1983-84. (b) Preselected in=formal applications accepted from those prima facie eligible to apply within existing policy categories. (c) 1 July 1983 to 31 March 1984. n.a. not available. Source: DIEA manual statistics for 1980-81 and 1981-82 amd MPMS data from 1982- 83 onwards. MPMS data are preliminary and subject to revision. Mr WEST —The percentage of settler arrivals from the United Kingdom and Ireland as a percentage of total settler intake was 19.0 per cent in 1978-79, 29.2 per cent in 1982-83 and 23.9 per cent for the first half of 1983-84. For Europe the corresponding figures are 13.9 per cent in 1978-79, 21.2 per cent in 1982-83 and 16.8 per cent for the first half of 1983-84. For Asia the corresponding figures are 29.4 per cent in 1978-79, 26.3 per cent in 1982-83 and 33.2 per cent for the first half of 1983-84. Honourable members will see that there has been a moderate increase in Asian intake since 1978-79, and a moderate decrease in British and European intake over the last year, but these figures are generally comparable with those of 1978-79. However, total applications have fallen significantly from the United Kingdom, Ireland and Europe as the tables show and applications are rising from Asia. In the first nine months of 1983-84, total applications from the United Kingdom and Ireland, excluding refugees, were 10.7 per cent of the total, but visas issued were 25.6 per cent of the total. Europe accounted for 28.8 per cent of total applications and 19.6 per cent of visas, whilst Asia represented 28.5 per cent of applications and 32 per cent of visas issued. It can be seen that of these three regions, the British ratio of successful visas to applications for the first nine months of this financial year was by far the most favourable. The British have the same rights to family reunion as anyone else. They have the same rights to come as skilled migrants, but that opportunity was, as I said before, drastically cut by the previous Government in December 1982. The British do not qualify, of course under the United Nations refugee definition. Indeed, the numbers from other traditional migrant source countries in Europe have fallen as much or more than from Britain. Where is the discrimination? We have carried on the non-discriminatory policies within the program set up by the previous Government. I now table-I do not seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard because they are quite voluminous-the basic guidelines of the various policies. I challenge the Opposition to tell the House in what way these guidelines can be described as anti-British or anti-anyone. On 8 May the Leader of the Opposition said: What he-- the Minister- has to do is not reduce the Asian element that is there- it is not very good English but that is what he said, according to Hansard- but redress the imbalance by increasing the European element that has been allowed to slip as has been evinced by the figures. That is what the Minister has to do. The Opposition does not admit, in making this point, that it is arguing against Asian migration, or that it would want to renege on policies developed by it when in power. How then does it intend to redress the so-called imbalance? Presumably, this can be done only by a significant increase in the total program involving the introduction of a new program under which only Britons and Europeans would qualify. If we are to accept 'balance' as a basis for calculating the program, we must do some wondrous arithmetic. Let us assume that the present intake of Asians was maintained at approximately 23,000. The Opposition has not specified the acceptable proportion of Asians in its ' balance', but assuming that the proportion achieved by it in 1980-81 and 1981-82 applied, that is, 23 per cent, this would now require a total program of more than 100,000 to achieve this mythical 'balance'. I have made this calculation to exemplify the absurdity of the Opposition's concept of 'balance'. 'Balance' in its view, is justification for resumption of large scale migration. Does the Opposition really believe it has a mandate to increase the present program level to over 100,000 and, as a consequence, place tens of thousands of new settlers on unemployment queues? Other critics who have sought to involve themselves in this debate have advocated either the elimination of the immigration intake altogether, or at least some significant reduction. None of these options makes much sense. To a large degree, they would involve Australia turning its back on its history as a migrant nation; and, perhaps more importantly, abandoning its humanitarian obligations internationally in respect of refugees and domestically in respect of family migration. One of the critics has proposed to cut the program intake by 50 per cent. To translate this into meaningful terms based on the expected intake level of approximately 70,000 settler arrivals, the Government would be obliged to decide whether and to what extent it was prepared to starve the Australian economy of needed skilled workers; deny Australian residents the important right to reunion with close family; and condemn thousands of refugees to languish without hope in camps in countries of first refuge. None of these options is acceptable to the Government nor, I believe, to the Australian people . Despite what the Opposition might assert, I have been assiduous in placing facts and figures before the Parliament about our programs. Our total program maintains the Labor Government's commitment to an even-handed approach to the rights of Australians to family reunion; it maintains its strong commitment to offering sanctuary to refugees and others suffering human rights deprivation; and it provides for some expansion of the skilled and business migration categories identified by the new occupational shares system mechanism. This Government will not respond to the Opposition's narrow-minded posturing. Neither will we guarantee to prevent moderate increases in the number of Asians settling in Australia. The intake is dependent upon numbers achieved within programs applied globally, upon the number of family reunion sponsorships, upon changing refugee situations and upon the domestic economic position. Above all, I question the Opposition's basic argument that our program requires some mythical 'balance' based upon race. That is an abhorrent philosophy with which this Government will not be aligned. I trust the Opposition will not pursue this argument. It has tried to discredit Government policies and my own administration. It has failed. It has played the man and not the ball and as generally occurs, those tactics have been seen as the tactics of an inferior team. This program is worthy of total support from the Australian community and the Opposition. The Opposition Leader has destroyed bipartisanship. He should attempt to redress the damage he has caused, both in national and international terms. Frantic attempts by the Leader of the Opposition to shore up his own fragile position within his Party are no excuse to depart from many years of honourable allegiance to consensus and rational debate on Australia's immigration policy. Australia's remarkable social cohesion has been achieved over the years with a minimum of social strife and tension, and migrants have greatly enriched our culture and diversified our economic base. This Government will consolidate this trend, pay heed to the humanitarian needs of families in Australia and those displaced by international conflict, and provide measures to accelerate Australia's economic recovery. Injudicious alignment with minority extremist positions and fanning of irrational fears which the majority of Australians thought were buried with the white Australia policy, have no place in this Parliament or in our community. I invite the Opposition to return to bi- partisanship by supporting the policies I have outlined today. I present the following paper: Immigration Policy-Ministerial Statement, 30 May 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Denison speaking for a period not exceeding 40 minutes. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(3.31) —The Opposition welcomes the opportunity to debate the statement of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), but expresses its profound regret that once again an important debate on an issue of national and international importance is taking place in this House on a day when the proceedings of the House of Representatives are not being broadcast. It would be far better if the people of Australia could hear what the Opposition says in this debate than it is, with respect, for them to read what other people have said that we have said. Regrettably, again, we find that whilst there are some welcome indications in the Minister's statement, towards the end he resorted to using the self-serving misrepresentations about which we have complained, and about which we will continue to complain. We will not be silenced. The Minister's statement is an almost total admission of the correctness of the Opposition's arguments in the immigration debate over recent weeks. The plain fact, as all reasonable, rational people will recognise, is that over the past three weeks, as a result of the debate both inside and outside this Parliament, the Hawke socialist Government has done a double-flip, a 180 degree turn. Now at last it is moving back to adopting a bipartisan approach in immigration policy. I place on the record, so that nobody is in any doubt, that we have never moved one inch from our policies since they were laid down in this Parliament on 7 June 1978 by the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). The nine basic principles set down at pages 3153 to 3160 of Hansard remain the nine basic principles of the coalition parties today. We have not moved one inch. It is the Hawke socialist Government and this Minister who, quite deliberately, have moved away from the bipartisan approach which existed until the change of government in March last year. The Opposition welcomes the Government's turnabout. But the Opposition again points out that it was this Government and this Minister who deliberately moved away from the previously bipartisan approach which had served Australia so well for so many years. The Minister has now started to move back and whilst that is welcomed, we suggest-indeed, we put it to him-that he should never have moved away in the first place. I ask the Minister to recall the first speech I made in this House following my appointment as shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I noted the Minister's political background. I mentioned, quite calmly and certainly not in any emotional way, the fact that the Minister was the leading member of the socialist Left-and an admitted republican-in the Hawke Cabinet. I appealed to him not to play around with and not to indulge his own philosophies in the sensitive area of immigration. I asked the Minister to ensure that under his ministry we would not see a radical and dangerous turn to the Left. I asked the Minister to keep to the bipartisan policy. Within days of his appointment the Minister quite deliberately went about his work in a manner which, if not intended, certainly had the effect of causing great unhappiness and great division within both the old and the new sections of the Australian community. Within 19 days of being appointed he completely cut off the Big Brother Movement Ltd.; not with any prior consultation, not with any discussion with it. He told it: 'That is the decision and there is no point in seeing me because it won't be changed'. Within days of his appointment this Minister, without any mandate, set in train legislative proposals with respect to the oath of allegiance. It was a blatant attack on the Queen, an attack on an oath of allegiance which is supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians-in fact, 67 per cent, on the last poll-a significant number of whom are Australians who have come to this country since World War II. Within six weeks of becoming the Minister, as the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee)-the distinguished former Minister-pointed out in this House in the debate on 8 May, he moved in four deliberate areas to change the balance of Australia's migration intake. I nail the Minister here and now for yet another inexcusable misrepresentation. He accused the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and me of advocating balance of race. We have never done so. What we have said is that we advocate, as we advocated in our years in government, balance of categories. I challenge the Minister to produce any statement in this Parliament, any Press statement that I have issued, any statement the Leader of the Opposition has issued, which talks in terms of balance and race. What we have talked about, what we will continue to talk about and what he has now conceded, as the figures so demonstrably indicate, is balance of categories. It is again a classic example of the misrepresentation which the Opposition has had to put up with. Dr Klugman —You're a real hypocrite. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Prospect says that I am a real hypocrite. I remind the honourable member that it was his former leader, the honourable member for Oxley and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who said in this Parliament in the debate on 8 May that there were no racists on either side of the House. The former Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Oxley, singled me out in 1977 and praised my stand in relation to East Timor. That is interesting, is it not? It is very hard to line up the stand which I have taken for eight years in respect of East Timor with the claim that the honourable member for Prospect made. The plain fact is that what has occurred in the last couple of minutes proves par excellence the point I was about to make. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might recall that the first words in what the media now calls the immigration debate in this Parliament were uttered on 7 May this year when the Leader of the Opposition asked a perfectly sensible, and perfectly reasonable question about this year's immigration intake. Within seconds members of the Opposition were called racists. We were called hooligans. The Minister dignified the debate by calling the Leader of the Opposition an orang-utan. That was in response to a question asked by the alternative Prime Minister of Australia. Let us keep this matter in some balance. The plain fact that it was following that incident that the incident involving the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) occurred. Immediately the suggestion was made that we in some way had stirred up some debate involving racism. That night I debated this matter with the Minister on the television program Nationwide. In that debate I was asked by Mr Richard Carleton: Did the Opposition recommended a reduction in the Asian intake. I prefaced my answer and Mr Carleton said: 'Just a minute. Would you please answer the question'. I said 'I will. I just want to say something beforehand', which I did. Then I said: 'No, the Opposition does not recommend a reduction in the Asian intake'. What further did I say? I said that there was still bipartisanship in relation to refugees and family reunion. As I will indicate in a moment, that has been the position right through in relation to the refugee program, with one exception. The Minister has again indulged in the pursuit of his own philosophies. He has not been concerned about public acceptance and support but has had what I used to call a detour on the side-a frolic of his own but a frolic of a very dangerous nature. Let us come back to the guts of what the Minister's statement admits. On almost every point the Minister has conceded the arguments of the Opposition. I suggest the figures speak for themselves. Business migration for 1984-85 will go up from 1,500 people to 4,000 people, an increase of l66 per cent. On 8 May this year in this Parliament the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition speakers criticised the Minister for what he had done in relation to business migration and called on him to increase it. Mr West —What had I done? Mr HODGMAN —I will say something to the Minister across party lines. He will not listen to me but I am sure he has read the damning indictment of what he did without any consultation, which appears in the record of the speech of the honourable member for Balaclava on 8 May in this House. I will be amazed if the Minister has not read it. The fact is that he has read it. What is most interesting is that in his statement today he has not answered one of the points made by the honourable member for Balaclava-not one. Four times the honourable member for Balaclava pointed to where the Minister had walked away from the bipartisan policy, without consultation and knowing that it would have a dramatic impact on the overall migration picture as it unfolded towards the end of 1983 into 1984 and 1985. It must be said that immigration policies today are not just for one year, two years or even for decades. They will last and endure for generations. They will shape the face of Australia into the twenty-first century. Let us look at what the Minister did in skilled migration in relation to which again we have been complaining about his moving away from bipartisanship. The Minister now recommends that skilled migration be increased from 4,500 persons to 7,500 persons, an increase of 66 per cent. Dr Harry Edwards —The Government has listened to the Opposition. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member as usual is spot on. The Minister has brought about an increase of 166 per cent in one category and 66 per cent in another. What fascinates me is that it took him two Cabinet submissions and the contradiction of one set of figures published in the Melbourne Age, to get the increases through. But he has at least conceded what was put calmly, rationally and persuasively in this Parliament and he has moved accordingly. In relation to family reunion, upon which there is bipartisanship, his recommendation is for an increase of 150 per cent. The Opposition does not cavil at that. It has never, as the Minister well knows from the Nationwide debate, diverged one iota on the question of family reunion. The Minister, to his credit, has never said it, but outside the Parliament others have claimed it. This gives me the opportunity to come back to my first point. I wish these proceedings were being broadcast. Much of the mischief has been done by a misrepresentation of what we said by putting up straw men to knock down. I place on record my gratitude to the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review which at least were prepared to publish replies to their editorials. But I have to say, with respect, that the treatment of this issue by some other newspapers has not been as good as it should have been. There we are. I wonder how the story will be printed up tomorrow. The Minister moves in two areas, attaining an increase of 166 per cent in one and 66 per cent in the other. I think we have touched a raw nerve of the Government. Let me say something to the Minister. This is one area in which he should have played it right down the line on a bipartisan basis. He had no mandate to indulge his own philosophies. Unfortunately for him, the warnings which we issued went unheeded. The Opposition did not start this debate. The Australian public has been engaged in this debate for months. It has seen what the Government has done. It is fair enough for the Minister to say that he will not listen to the member for Denison but he should have listened to the people of Australia. I put it to him that there is no area of government policy which depends more essentially on public acceptance and support for its successful implementation than immigration . We had public support in the coalition years, interrupted from 1972 to 1975, when a predecessor of the Minister started to go off on a tangent, but regained in 1975. The honourable member for Balaclava and the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) went around the country in support of this matter. The unions supported our policy. We had consultation. All of that went, sadly, because the Minister unfortunately decided that he would do his own thing, that he would listen to the wrong people. I repeat: On those issues of bipartisanship I have no quarrel at all with anything the Minister has said in his statement. The same applies on the question of family reunions and the question of refugees, bar one point: The Minister is not, with respect, and never will be, better placed on the question of refugees than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That body is the world recognised body to advise. Its advice was taken, accepted and implemented by us in government and was even implemented for a short time by the Whitlam Government without any interference. I have to say to the Minister on behalf of the Opposition and many other people in Australia: Where that fragile element of support is so critical on the question of refugees, do not damage it or endanger it by tinkering with the UNHCR recommendations and adding countries of his personal choice as he has done. He has selected El Salvador and Chile. If ever anyone wants to pour petrol on a fire to exacerbate a situation that is the way to do it. The Minister did not get that recommendation from the UNHCR. He did it and then he sought the Commissioner's support when he met with a certain director in Sydney a few months later. Let us get it right on the line. He did it, then he went around to get support. He had no mandate to do it. I suggest frankly that he is exacerbating the situation. On behalf of the Opposition I categorically reject the Minister's attacks on the Leader of the Opposition, on me and on my colleagues, one of whom, unfortunately, is still out of the chamber. I refer to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) who is a fine member. Like the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister continues even today to misrepresent the stand of the Opposition. His histrionics, like those of the Prime Minister, will not fool the Australian people. Both the Minister and the Prime Minister, to their discredit, have accused the Opposition of saying things which we have never said. Both of them have adopted the tactic of putting up straw men to knock down. I have to say that the Minister's lack of integrity in this debate is obvious to the overwhelming majority of Australians, both old and new, and I deeply regret it. I deeply regret that when in this Parliament we raise matters of national importance we are branded as racist, that anybody who disagrees with the Minister is branded as racist. The Minister got upset, and rightly so, when somebody said that he had said something about an Asianisation which he had never said. I agreed with the Minister. I understood why he was upset. I get upset and this Opposition gets upset when we ask questions which it is our fundamental duty to ask and when in the interests of democracy we criticise which it is our fundamental duty to do and we get branded as racists. What we are seeing in this Parliament-and not only on this issue it is sad to say-is a George Orwell Nineteen Eighty-Four approach. I denounce it as the new authoritarianism which renders liable to defamation, misrepresentation and abuse any person, inside or outside this Parliament, who dares to question, let alone to criticise, this Big Brother Government. Ironically, it was the Hawke Socialist Government's treatment of that magnificent Australian charity, the Big Brother Movement Ltd, which triggered this whole debate. How singularly appropriate was that coincidence of names in view of the performance that we have seen since from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. They have now essentially conceded the validity of most of our arguments. But on behalf of the people of Australia, I must ask: Can they be trusted not to veer again in such a dangerous and radical manner away from the previously bipartisan and overwhelmingly publicly approved approach to immigration. Whilst they have moved back, there is still a considerable distance to go. Whilst they plead for bipartisanship, they make it very hard for any opposition to extend the olive branch when they slap us around the face and, as the Minister has this afternoon, hit us below the belt. When they have conceded so much of what we have said but still continue to smear and misrepresent us, I find that unforgivable. The Prime Minister's sensitivity is exposed for all to see. One needs only to look at his speech to the Australian Institute of Political Affairs in Melbourne last Saturday, in which he said how sad it was that since the immigration debate had taken place, there were suggestions about second-class Australian citizens. Mr Goodluck —We never said that. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed, as I shall point out shortly. The Prime Minister said how sad it was that there were to be different family reunion criteria depending on where a person came from. He said how sad it was that there was to be a concerted campaign to reduce the refugee intake. He never had the guts or the integrity to say who it was who was saying these things. He never was prepared to say: 'It is Peacock and Hodgman'. I have had reports from eye-witnesses who were present. Having made these smears, this man displayed enormous courage when he said: 'It is not for me today to apportion blame'. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, would not indulge in such a dishonourable tactic as that-the smear tactic, the Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell approach, the Big Brother tactic; smear, smear, and hope that it sticks. Yet the Prime Minister and the Minister say that they want bipartisanship. Of course, the Prime Minister's sensitivity is demonstrable. Since the debate on Nationwide, I have not been able to get a debate with this Minister anywhere in Australia. Since that debate on Nationwide, the Prime Minister said: 'Don't you debate with Hodgman again'. We know what has happened. In the last three national debates I have not been able to debate with the Minister. I have been confronted with Mr Al Grassby, a voice from the past. He finished his ministry in 1974; it is now 1984. I do not know whether the new Labor Party strategy in immigration is to push Stewi out and to recycle Al. But it is not much fun for me when I want to debate with the Minister that I cop Mr Grassby. The Minister can talk to Kel Richards of 2GB or to Mike Schildberger of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. As a tactic, I thought that it was rather extraordinary. But it is part of what has happened. The Prime Minister showed gross disloyalty to the Minister when he took the debate out of his hands on 10 May. As another indication of the way in which the Opposition has been shamefully treated, I refer to the debate on 10 May. The Prime Minister was citing a number of statistics. He made one point deliberately against the honourable member for Mitchell, who is an honourable man and whose word is his bond. Mr Goodluck —He is in the House. Mr HODGMAN —I am glad that he is back, because he is an ornament to the Parliament. The honourable member for Mitchell had committed a terrible crime! He asked the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for the official up to date figures on migrant intake. It is a serious crime for a member of the Parliament to ask for such information! But the honourable member asked for the figures and he got them. He made a speech in the Parliament based on them. Mr Goodluck —A good speech. Mr HODGMAN —It was an excellent speech. It was on 7 May. Two days later the Prime Minister, this man of great courage and integrity-the people of Australia are fast seeing through this Prime Minister-- Mr Steedman —Ha, ha. Mr HODGMAN —Do not worry; the honeymoon is over. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Casey will cease interjecting. He has been continually interjecting throughout the period during which the honourable member for Denison has been speaking. Mr Steedman —I have to contribute something to the fan club. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member that interjections are out of order. The Minister was heard in relative silence, and I would expect that the honourable member for Denison would also be extended the same courtesy. I also remind the honourable member for Denison that the subject of this debate is the ministerial statement on Australia's 1984-85 immigration program. I suggest that in his remarks he tries to touch a little more on the future program. Mr HODGMAN —I am most happy to do that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall shortly be going through parts of the speech. The Prime Minister, dealing with the question of the figures given to the honourable member for Mitchell, as reported at page 2227 of Hansard, quoted from Mr McKinnon's letter, as follows: A number of qualifications need to be made: 1. The figures are wrong. I then interjected; as Hansard records: They are your figures. The Prime Minister then said: The honourable member will have every opportunity to try to get his way out of this one and he has no chance. What happened? As soon as the Prime Minister had resumed his seat and the Leader of the Opposition had spoken, the debate was gagged. Where was my chance in the Parliament to defend the honourable member for Mitchell, to defend the Opposition? I will quote the Minister's statement back to him. The Minister says : 'Despite what the Opposition says, we have been very helpful in trying to provide figures and giving the Opposition all assistance'. On page 21 of the statement, the Minister says: Mr Speaker, despite what the Opposition might assert, I have been assiduous in placing facts and figures before the Parliament about our programs. The plain fact is that no one got any figures until this whole matter blew up. Senator Shirley Walters asked for the figures in the Estimates Committee. They did not come. Then we got a plethora of figures. A national columnist, a man who appears on television and writes in the major Press, wrote a major article castigating the Opposition for its stand, and he wrote that article on figures written in technicolour and given to him the previous night by an officer of the Prime Minister's staff. Where are these printed figures? Even today the Minister is debating on figures-I refer him to his own statement-- Mr Donald Cameron —Your office would not supply them for three weeks. They lied and lied. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I remind the honourable member for Moreton that the honourable member for Denison does not need the honourable gentleman's assistance to make his speech. The honourable gentleman will remain silent. Mr HODGMAN —On page 17 of the Minister's speech, where do the figures end? They end at the first half of 1983-84. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton used the term 'liar' . Mr Donald Cameron —His office promised me figures on the latest immigration for three weeks-two weeks, sorry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw that remark. Mr Donald Cameron —'Deceitful' then; I withdraw 'lie'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton will unreservedly withdraw the term 'lie'. Mr Donald Cameron —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. Deceitful. Mr HODGMAN —On page 17 of the Minister's speech, the figures upon which he relies are figures which ended in December last year. He knows the trend that is going through. He knows the figure of 42 per cent, which was subject to Australian Bureau of Statistics publication just a week ago. He cannot turn his back on it. The plain fact is that even on his updated figures to the end of March, he claims that he is not anti-British. He is both anti-British and anti- European and is seen to be such, because, as the honourable member for Balaclava explained to him very carefully, when he did this he must have known that it would impact dramatically on the number of British and European migrants. Of course, he did it; he did it quite openly and knew exactly what he was doing. Let us have a look at the Minister's own figures. In 1982-83 United Kingdom and Ireland applications comprised 24.9 per cent of the total. What do they comprise at the end of nine months of the present financial year under this Minister? They comprise 18.5 per cent, a drop of 7 per cent. It is a cut of nearly one- third. And the Minister has the gall to say that those figures do not support the Opposition's statement! The Minister erroneously stated-whoever wrote this statement for him should be hanged-that we had said that the Government was pro- Asian. We never said that. That is the twisted logic of those-and more frankly of sections of the media-who say that if one asks a question about British or European migration one is being racist. The same twisted logic and double standards say that it is all right for a distinguished academic to say out loud what the people of Australia are thinking but no member of the Parliament, particularly from the Opposition, is allowed to do it. Then when one tries to reply to a columnist who is a former academic and who made that point, the newspaper involved, which perhaps should be renamed the 'Spencer Street Pravda', does not print the reply. Mr West —You do not like their cartoons, do you? Mr HODGMAN —Mr Horner is slowly getting better with me. I think he does the Leader of the Opposition very well, but Mr Horner needs a little more practice. The Government now finds itself in a terrible dilemma. For the last 12 months it has been saying: 'We have not shifted. We have not moved'. The Minister has been assuring the House and trying to assure the people-- Mr Peacock —He said there would be no shift in emphasis. Mr HODGMAN —No shift. I go to bed thinking of the Minister saying: 'No shift'. I cannot believe it. He says it over and over again. Mr Young —That is not what I heard about you. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister can carry on as much as he likes. He should ask his colleague about his comments on radio this morning about a monastic existence. The Minister and the Prime Minister all along have said: 'No shift'. Mr Hunt —He ought to shift the Minister. Mr HODGMAN —Quite right. I am prepared to let the people of Australia, the great jury of Australia, be my judge. I know what the verdict will be in the Minister' s case, except it is over because he has pleaded guilty. After 12 months of saying that there was no shift and no danger of a radical turn to the left, last week at taxpayers' expense a quarter of a million copies of this book were published. Dr Harry Edwards —What is the picture on the front? Mr HODGMAN —It is extraordinary. It is a picture of the National Economic Summit in this chamber; not the Parliament but the Summit. It says that it is a record of government. On the front page-by comparison with what is in the Minister's statement-the Prime Minister tells us that these are the achievements of his Government over the last six months. Mr MacKellar —Undated, of course. Mr HODGMAN —It is undated; the honourable member is quite right. When we turn to page 32, what do we see? We see a photograph of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and not a bad one at that. This is important, because it came out last week. We read: Australia's immigration program is being maintained at a credible level, with a target of 80,000 to 90,000 . . . I would not want to be the auditor for the Minister. The figure is 64,000 and the Government's projection is 72,000. But I will not argue. The Minister says it is 80,000 to 90,000. Then we read these words: However, there has been a shift-- Mr Peacock —Can you read that again? Mr HODGMAN —I repeat: There has been a shift of emphasis in recognition- listen to this- of national and international realities. This has been reflected in a diversification of the refugee program- that concerns El Salvador and Chile- and a stronger emphasis on family reunion criteria rather than labour market concerns in the selection of immigrants. What was the Opposition saying to the Government in the Parliament not just two weeks ago but over months? The Government has upset the balance of the categories-nothing to do with races. We have complained to the Minister-and he knows this-that he has shut the door on people who want to come to this country and who could have come in under the honourable member for Warringah, under the honourable member for Balaclava and under former Minister Hodges, and who would not have cost this country a cent. In fact they would have created jobs. Let me tell the Minister about one person I know of, an Asian migrant to this country who came here eight years ago and who now employs in his business 223 Australians. But the Minister was the person who decided to tinker and to change the balance. He knows in his heart of hearts that it is a balance of categories argument, not a balance of races. He knew very well when he set off down this track that two things would happen. Firstly, there would be a shift, which he denied for 12 months. But 250,000 copies of that book put the end to that proposition. Secondly, the Minister made the fatal blue, the fatal blunder, of any Minister responsible for immigration. I have said in the Parliament and I will say again that I have nothing personal against the Minister. In many ways he is a likeable person. But he is too dangerous to be left in that position because he tinkers and must add his own little bits. I am told by all previous Ministers responsible for immigration to whom I have spoken, including Mr Grassby, that public acceptance and support are fundamental and absolutely critical. I have made the comment before that I do not agree with everything that Professor Blainey said, but the man articulated what most Australians are thinking. He certainly did not deserve the rebuke he got from the Minister in his first response to his remarks. Blainey said that one cannot get too far ahead of public opinion. It is one area where the public have to be on side because, if they are not, there will be a backlash which will hurt not only the new arrivals but also the older ethnic communities. The Minister should not believe that the older ethnic communities are not worried about this. Certainly he should not believe that they are blaming the Opposition , or me, or the Leader of the Opposition. They are concerned because they saw these things coming months ago. They saw the changes. They sniffed the wind. They recognised the public reaction that was building up. In short, the Minister has conceded the three major points of our case. He is left scrambling now, asking what is the Opposition's policy. In good time he will see it. But let me tell him something which will perhaps defuse a lot of his anxiety about when it will come along. I have given the Minister the page reference of when the honourable member for Warringah, when he was Minister, put down the nine principles, on 7 June 1978. In 1981 the then Minister, the honourable member for Balaclava, reaffirmed those principles on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia. In 1982 he again reaffirmed them. Surprise, surprise , in 1984 this shadow Minister in a few weeks time will be reaffirming them verbatim, with not one word altered. As the Minister asks what our policy is, I suggest he look at what was said in 1978, in 1981 and in 1982. He will see in print what will be said in a few short weeks. We are not the ones-- Mr West —One hundred and eighteen thousand a year. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister is caught. He talks about scare tactics. He has engaged in a scare tactic which most people in the media can now see through for what it is. On radio he said: 'The Opposition is recommending a policy of 100,000'. What absolute rubbish! What arrant nonsense! The Minister will see our figure very shortly and then will be able to say what he likes about it. We see his figure now. Everybody in Australia sees his figure. I will tell him one thing: If he is prepared to pay me a dollar for every one, every hundred or even every thousand that our figure is below 100,000, I will be very happy to take him on. The point is that he accused us of using scare tactics. He has now set up a scare tactic in respect of which an Italian gentleman wrote to me today. He asked: 'Why is the Minister raising the scare tactic of 100,000 migrants coming in under your policies when you have never said anything along those lines?'. The Opposition welcomes the Government's concession of the major arguments which we raised in this Parliament, as was our duty, on behalf of the people of Australia. The Minister might think that he is fooling some people in here- certainly not on this side of the House but perhaps on his own back bench. The Minister should talk to the people of Australia and ask them what they think about the way he has handled his portfolio and the way he has deliberately moved away from the bipartisanship which was the strength of the immigration policy for so many years. The Minister may have very fine ministerial qualities but they should be put to use in another portfolio. Now is the time for the Prime Minister of Australia to stand up and show courage in relation to doing his duty which he has failed to show on so many occasions in the past. The plain fact is that for the good of this country, for the good of our immigration policies and for all the great things that can be this nation's, can be our destiny and our right, the Minister should be moved swiftly and irrevocably to another portfolio . Debate (on motion by Mr Hand) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That Standing Order 48A, as amended by the sessional order on 29 February 1984, relating to the adjournment of the House, and Standing Order 103, 11 o'clock rule, be suspended for this sitting. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —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 continuing uncertainty and alarm felt by Australia's elderly because of the Government's reactions to the latest proposals for an assets test. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More that the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.13) —It is a sick irony that after 15 months of government the Australian Labor Party's prime achievement has been to menace the elderly like some clumsy standover merchant. In February the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) rushed in to put out the assets test fire. The inference then was, of course, that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, and the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, had got it wrong but the Prime Minister had not and would not get it wrong. He appointed the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel to review the best way of imposing Labor's assets test, procrastinating in the hope that the problem would go away. This time the whole thing has backfired in the Prime Minister's face as it should. Instead of putting out the fire he has only fuelled the flames. I make it quite clear that the Review Panel is not responsible for this outcome . Much as we all disagree with what it recommended, it has done its job within the terms of reference it was given and within the short time that it was allowed. It has produced what it terms an interim solution, a stop gap measure, which satisfies few. I point out that the overwhelming message coming out of this report is: Firstly, that Labor's assets test will be inequitable in its operation-something which the Opposition told the Government nine months ago-and secondly, that there is a need for an overall review of retirement programs and security for the elderly-something which the Opposition has consistently advocated since the Hawke Government began its piecemeal ad hoc attack on the elderly. Let me look for a moment at the inequities highlighted by the report of the Panel. First and foremost the Panel's report removes any doubt that anyone might have held about the disastrous nature of the Government's original assets test, that is the one which first saw light in last year's Budget and then, under pressure, was highly modified through the addition of the so-called leisure package. As the report states, Labor's original assets test creates several anomalies and disadvantages. The Opposition pointed this out time and time again . If a person owns his own home, his own farm or his own business he could lose his pension, but if like the Treasurer (Mr Keating) he invests his money in antiques, yachts or jewellery then, like him and many others, he would keep the pension. This was the collective genius of a government which mouths the language of egalitarianism and fairness. As the report says of that half-baked leisure package, 'in a community built on tolerance and individual freedom this is widely regarded as unfair'. In a similar fashion the report points out that the exemptions tacked on to the Hawke Government's assets test were selective in that they favoured some groups of pensioners over others. So much for equity! Finally, the report points out that there has been strong criticism of Labor's assets test for adding to the trauma of transition from home to a retirement or nursing home 'because the transition would be likely to result in the home or the proceeds from its sale becoming a non-exempt asset'. Paragraph by paragraph, line by line, the report of the Panel which was set up by the Prime Minister condemns the assets test which he and his colleagues concocted, and the message is clear: The Hawke Government is incompetent, it is harsh, it is unfair, it is insensitive and it is unquestionably discriminatory. Mr Hunt —And it breaks promises. Mr PEACOCK —It absolutely breaks promises. It said that not one cent would be taken from the pensioners' cheques; yet down comes the incomes test, down comes the slug of 30 per cent on superannuation and down comes the assets test, the details of which people are still anguishing over in their uncertainty. Despite all this, the Government remains committed to a totally piecemeal approach to the elderly. It insists on imposing an assets test despite its inherent inequities. In this respect the options which the Panel has come up with have a range of problems all their own. Day after day the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who represents the Minister for Social Security, and indeed the Prime Minister two or three weeks ago conceded all the concerns that the Opposition has put forward. For three weeks pensioners have had to tolerate reading about what has been put forward by this Panel and for three weeks the Government could not make up its mind as faction after faction put up a differing view. The cruelty, the harshness and the lack of compassion will haunt the Government for what it has done not only in the last few weeks but also from the time it mouthed what it would do in the Budget last year. We are coming on to June 1984 and it still cannot tell people how they can plan their lives with certainty. It has no claim whatsoever to any form of humanitarianism in this area. If the Government could place itself in the position of these poor people who are not able to know just what they have to do for the future and who are unable to live with certainty, it would not be going ahead with the nonsense, the harshness, the unfairness and the insensitive and discriminatory treatment that it is still embarking upon with its assets test. This has been reflected, of course, in the deep divisions in its Party. At least some members of the Labor Party have consciences but it seems that the overwhelming majority will still advocate imposing an assets test. Ministers have publicly disagreed, the Prime Minister has desperately tried to put the muzzle on the matter and we have seen renewed pressure from the New South Wales Right, the alleged tail which wags the Caucus dog. There has been mounting concern amongst pensioners and their representatives, but the leaked report served to revive, not settle, the assets test controversy. The concern of the elderly over the new assets test recommendations is fully justified. I will look at some of the problems of what these recommendations entail. First , the Panel's report admits that its preferred option, with no exemption for family homes, could be regarded as creating inequities between areas where house prices differ. In a nation where owning one's own home is the greatest goal, the so-called great Australian dream, encouraged by successive governments, particularly coalition governments, which have helped hundreds of thousands of families achieve that goal, in a nation where we can proudly say we have the highest level of home ownership in the world, no one should be penalised for having worked and saved to own his own home. Unlike the Labor Government, the Opposition would never penalise Australians for owning their own home. We happen to aspire to the view that all Australians ought to be able to own their own home. In addition to that, we believe that when they retire they should not be penalised for having purchased that home. The fact is that those pensioners living in capital cities will be disadvantaged because of higher real estate values. The figure will be much more than the 28, 000 suggested. I ask honourable members to consider for a moment what will happen to family farms. Families who over a lifetime have made an enormous sacrifice to make a go of it on the land will be penalised for their hard work. Of course, farm families will also be hit with Labor's death duties which are coming down the line. This Government is hell bent on breaking up the family farm. Mr Hunt —They promised they would not do it. Mr PEACOCK —And there the Government is, engaging in capital gains, death duties , pay as you die schemes and assets testing-all affecting such people. On the other hand, as the report points out, if homes are exempted from such an assets test those people who rent will be disadvantaged. Some 795,000 pensioners could then be affected. The point is that if the report's recommendations are accepted Labor's assets test, regardless of the way it goes, will disadvantage large sections of the retired community. In other words, we have returned to the position of fundamental inequity which was pointed out by the Opposition and pensioner organisations last year. Another serious problem is the effects of assets testing on individual privacy. Matters of great concern amongst the elderly are the kind of form they will have to fill out, who will value their assets, whether officers will come to inspect their homes and financial records and how often this will happen. These intrusions are legitimate and understandable concerns for people living in a democracy. Yet I note that the report observes that the recommended option is potentially the most intrusive of the three considered. Why should the elderly, the people least able to rearrange their affairs and take on new financial duties, be subject to an intrusive and, let me remind the House, retrospective assets test? The fact that the Hawke Government's assets test will be retrospective to August 1983 has itself caused enormous confusion and uncertainty. Is that any wonder when the Government itself cannot make up its mind on what form of assets test it will impose? By insisting on a retrospective assets test is the Government going to force pensioners to pay back the pension, or part of it? Will the Hawke Government be pursuing those pensioners through the courts? It is an absurd proposition, yet the harsh reality of it all causes the questions to be posed. Week by week and month by month those questions are not being answered. The report also points out that, in common with the original assets scheme, the recommended option could cause problems for the elderly in the ethnic community. The report quite sensibly suggests that work should be done to address such special problems. Surely this should happen before Labor's assets test is imposed. Why cause more concern and more anxiety? The report acknowledges that a spouse could face hardships under an assets test in the event of the death of a partner. It is recommended that the survivor be given at least a year-I ask honourable members to listen to this: At least a year-to reorganise his or her affairs. The bottom line is that in many cases the survivor has 12 months to sell his or her own home or to go into hock under the proposed pay as you die scheme. Surely this Government is not going to subject elderly widows or widowers to this added unwelcome pleasure when they have lost their lifetime partner. Surely someone just bereaved, who may very well be frail or in ill health, should not be forced to worry about rearranging his or her affairs to suit arbitrary guidelines set down by this Government? That has no place in a compassionate society. In the minds of most Australians it ought to have no place in Australia. Finally, of course there is the question of the financial justification for the assets test. The first figures-they were quoted by the Minister for Health, representing the Minister for Social Security, in this Parliament last year- indicated that the Government would save $310m in the first year of assets testing. The first figures leaked last week indicated that the Government would save $100m in the first year of assets testing. That figure has now been revised downward to a maximum of $70m to $80m. When it is recalled that Senator Grimes took on 1,262 new staff and transferred 256 others to police the assets test, and they are sitting waiting to do this, the savings figure will certainly be revised further downward. The Government could very well end up paying to enforce the assets test. From the proper perspective of the overall social security budget of some $16.8 billion, what is the Hawke Government on about? Regardless of which assets test the Government seizes upon in its casting about for a way out of its unsavoury mess, there will be inequity, unfairness and suffering. Of that there is no doubt. We on this side of the House call on the Government to put itself out of this self-inflicted misery by abandoning its piecemeal approach to the elderly. We call upon the Prime Minister to scrap his assets test and to approach the problem of an aging population from the standpoint of developing an overall policy of security through consultation and searching examination. We have been constantly saying to the Government: 'Come together with us in the Senate committee. Let us work out together for the nation the effective way of determining welfare'. But in the Government's blind haste and stupidity it goes on and on, for whatever reason, with seeking to impose an assets test-the nature of which people still are uncertain about. The Government's test, to put it mildly, is cruel, confusing, discriminatory and singularly unAustralian. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(4.27) —This is not an argument about the credibility of the Government, it is an argument about the credibility of the Opposition. I think that the whole attitude of the Opposition was reflected in the way in which the report of the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel was treated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Anyone who has honestly read that report will recognise that it is-- Mr Lloyd —How can we? It is not available. Dr BLEWETT —In fact it was made available yesterday. Anyone who has read the report will realise that it is an intellectual effort to wrestle with what is a really difficult problem, to present to the Australian public and to the Government and weigh the pros and cons of each particular option. There was no effort by the Leader of the Opposition to recognise that. What he did was to select from the report quotations which would serve to scare and worry people. The best example of that was the way he treated the very genuine effort of Gruen and his colleagues to deal with the case of a widow, or a husband whose wife had died, and the problems in relation to their assets. Practically every quotation taken from the report was used simply to pursue the tactic that has characterised the Opposition throughout this debate. I think that what the Leader of the Opposition has just said will in time reflect the utter intellectual incompetence of the Opposition, the refusal to recognise the kind of tough work that has been done here, the presentation in a very fair way of the pros and cons of this very difficult issue. I say it is an issue really of the credibility of members of the Opposition because when these people were in government the very best of them-I include the present Leader of the Opposition amongst that group-recognised the very real problem we face in this area. They were prepared to say that we had to amend our welfare system in order to direct scarce resources to those most in need. Firstly, these remarks that I am now going to refer to and will refer to later were all made after honourable members opposite, when they were in government, recognised the error they had made in scrapping the assets test. Secondly, they recognised by the early 1980s the total inequity of an incomes test without an assets test. Thirdly, they recognised that income test avoidance was a problem. All of those issues were recognised by honourable members opposite when they were in government in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Indeed, if one were to address those issues which they recognised, one element in that response would have to be an assets test. Indeed, the more heroic figures did advocate within the Party that it was necessary to have an assets test, but ultimately the previous Government lacked the intestinal fortitude to tackle the issue; it lacked the guts to tackle an issue which it had recognised. We had the same display this afternoon. We had these marvellous, vague generalisations about how we have to deal with some of these problems in the welfare system. Let us have some broad consideration of all the issues; that is, the refusal to tackle the tough, hard issues. Unlike the Opposition, this Government has had the guts to take up this issue. No one on this side pretends that it is easy. The Government has sought the fullest discussion, the fullest consultation to allay the worries of pensioners. We have had to do that without one jot of co-operation from the Opposition, the better members of whom recognised, when in government, the very necessity of the sorts of actions the Government is now trying to take. Let me just outline what this Government has done in trying to deal with this issue. We introduced the proposal for an assets test in the Budget Speech of August 1983. We followed that with extensive consultations between Senator Grimes and Senator Gietzelt and nearly all the pensioner organisations. Out of that there arose a so-called leisure style package which was accepted in November. A Bill was introduced in December. Again, in January and February the Government financed a further round of consultations organised by the Australian Council of Social Service, including nearly every pensioner group in this country. In February we set up the Assets Test Review Panel and it was given a particular task because the Government recognised there were problems with its assets test proposals. The Panel was asked to identify significant omissions, advantages and disadvantages, anomalies or situations of potential hardship in our proposals and to recommend appropriate changes which take account of these problems, bearing in mind the relevant financial implications and the need to minimise the administrative cost and effort to the Government and pensioners. That report was received by the Government last week, on 21 May. If anyone examines that report-I ask the pensioner organisations to look at the efforts taken by the Government-he will see it is a record of creative effort by this Government. Of course, there have been differences of opinion. If we have a government which is prepared to tackle these tough issues, both within the community and within the Government there will be differences of opinion. Of course there have been divisions as to which is the best form of assets test. If the Opposition again had any intellectual honesty whatsoever, it would have recognised the problems in relation to an assets test and that the issue has to be faced. Let me just compare that record of a government genuinely wrestling in an open and democratic manner with an extraordinarily intractable problem-that wrestling will be capped by a decision to implement an assets test-with the credibility of the Opposition. We have simply had from most members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, a facetious, cynical and totally opportunist reaction to this very difficult question. We have not had a single, constructive thought from them in relation to this position. They talk about ' the continuing uncertainty and alarm felt by Australia's elderly'. This is a quote from their matter of public importance for today. Members of the Opposition, today in this House and for the past six months, have cynically sought to manipulate those kinds of anxieties and fears. They have flitted around the countryside spreading fear and uncertainty. Their interest has never been in constructive debate; they have simply seized every opportunity to whip up alarm and anguish. They have sought simply, in crude terms, to terrorise pensioners. Of course, the opportunism is not finished there . While they belabour the Government for not having reached a decision, they have sought every institutional power they possess to delay any decision. Why this campaign of exaggeration? Why this campaign of simply whipping up fear rather than engaging in a real, constructive and useful debate about this issue? I think the Sydney Morning Herald in February summed it up very clearly and very obviously. I quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of that date: The proposal by the Opposition spokesman on social security, Senator Messner-- that is, to delay the assets test- is aimed at maximising the political backlash against the assets test in any early Federal elections. Liberal Party tacticians believe community opposition to the test could quickly dissipate once it was introduced because it is not as draconian as many people believe. I think that is a very accurate account of the whole shabby opportunism of members of the Opposition in this debate. Therefore, this debate is very much about their credibility and not the Government's. Let me say that the Government is determined that welfare resources should be directed to those in greatest need. Again we have our friend, the Leader of the Opposition, with his selective quoting saying: 'Oh, the Gruen report clearly indicated that that is what you were not doing in the proposals at present before Parliament'. But he admitted the very first statement made by Gruen that generally the proposals of the Government direct assistance to those most in need. The Leader of the Opposition then went on to admit that there were certain anomalies and certain problems. That is the very task we required out of that report; that is, to identify and try to find answers to those problems. Quite clearly, Gruen believes that the basic thrust of the Government's legislation does generally direct assistance to those most in need. In order to deal with this question of ensuring that welfare resources are directed to those in greatest need, the assets test is a necessary element in any such strategy. We have sought to secure that element by the fullest public discussion, by endeavouring to meet all reasonable objections and by a preparedness to review thoroughly our proposals and accept criticisms of those proposals to ensure that they meet the following criteria: That assistance will be directed to those most in need; that it will be fair between people with similar needs but different lifestyles; and that there should be ease of administration, that is, that it should be as simple as we can make it; that it should be understandable to people; that it should try to reduce the level of intrusiveness and the administrative effort. I think, with all the difficulties, that it is a far better record than all the shabby and quite cynical opportunism of the Opposition. No one can deny the challenge of the problems we face in this area. It is no good falling back on the kinds of vacuities we heard from the Leader of the Opposition today. There is a real problem in this society which a real party would face with intellectual honesty. As an example, let me take the Economist of 19 May this year which examined this whole problem of aged care in Western industrialised societies. After looking at nearly all the Western industrialised societies the Economist concluded: . . . a common theme is clear: on present arrangements spending will eventually become insupportable. That is an application that is applicable to this society as it is to most Western industrialised societies. From that conclusion flows the fact that, unless we act now, we will bequeath our children a quite insupportable burden in this area. Let me return to the point that I made earlier about the position of members of the Opposition on these matters when they were exercising responsibility. Let me first of all take the Leader of the Opposition himself. I think this was in one of the periods when he was actually out of ministerial office and posing, at that stage, as a kind of reformist intellectual Liberal. He said: On reflection we must surely question the extent to which this rising expenditure is economically and socially productive, and whether it meets genuine social need. So much of government spending goes to people who demonstrably do not need government assistance. I stress the words: 'So much of government spending goes to people who demonstrably do not need government assistance'. He continued: By 'socially productive' I mean a Budget which caters for carefully identified areas of genuine human need and avoids a situation in which those who do not need government assistance are given help at the expense of those who do. If those kinds of fine words are to be made practicable one has to tackle this problem of resources from the welfare area going to those who do not need them. That is the whole purpose of the assets test. We cannot make these terms realistic without tackling that problem. Of course, Senator Chaney was even more specific. He has always had the quality that the present Leader of the Opposition lacks. He is prepared to be much more tough thinking and much more specific about these matters. Senator Chaney said: . . . a needs-based approach to welfare was fundamentally sound, but that this presented its own challenges. Perhaps the most testing of these . . . is to ensure that only the genuinely needy are helped. If we are to ensure, in the aged persons area, that only the genuinely needy are helped, then we need forms of tests to ensure that those who are not needy do not get these resources. Senator Chaney went on to specifically indicate what he thought in this area. He said: The Government is concerned that . . . income rigging practices are circumventing the intent of the laws and throwing undue burdens on taxpayers generally. In turn such practices make it more difficult to help genuinely needy people. The Leader of the Opposition has been quoting Gruen all afternoon. What Gruen says in relation to what Senator Chaney says is that the only way we can prevent this kind of abuse is to have an assets test as well as a means test. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(4.44) —The honourable member for Bonython and Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has used the term that it is the credibility of the Opposition that is supposedly at stake rather than the credibility of the Government on this issue. Could I say, just twisting the word 'credible' a little bit, that that is an incredible statement. If honourable members have listened to his speech or read his speech they will see that the whole speech has been an apology for the mess that the Government has made, for the hell that the Government has created for the pensioners of this country. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has so devastatingly argued in presenting this matter of public importance, far from creating equity and certainty for Australia's elderly, the daily lurching in likely assets test application by this Government is only creating even greater alarm and uncertainty. That lurching is showing up so markedly in the reactions of some of the Government back benchers. The Gruen Assets Test Review Panel, which was established to save the Government from the wrath of the retired, is obviously having the opposite effect. What must seem a lifetime away now to the pensioners of Australia who have had to go through this hell since the Budget is the beginning of the furore that has been escalated by the Government. The Government evidently thought at Budget time that it was so easy to introduce more equitable criteria than the income test. It said that there were too many anomalies, that the wealthy were receiving pensions and, if we did something to change the criteria to bring in an assets test, the little people would receive more. The Government gave no recognition or thought to the fact that the previous Government had canvassed all these matters, that an income test was retained by the previous Government because it recognised the far greater anomalies created by a return to an assets test which this Government is now so painfully finding out for itself by refusing to listen. This Government was soon made to realise that an assets test was more sectional, that any net to catch capital caught almost everyone, not just those supposedly wealthy people who supported the conservative side of politics. In an attempt to prevent those people who the Government believes are the little people from being caught in this net the leisure package was introduced. What did this Government find? It found that that created more inequities and more uncertainty. But once again, against the good advice of the Opposition-we were certainly being constructive and helpful in saying 'Drop your assets test'-the Government did not listen and blundered on to the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel. This was going to be the great Hawke consensus solution to the assets test problem that the Government had created for itself. Mr Hunt —What a sham. Mr LLOYD —What a sham it is. What a result it has brought. What consensus it has brought. What hell it has brought for the pensioners of this country. I give credit also to the Gruen Review Panel. With a loaded reference, with a loaded time scale, that Panel, in its report, has drawn attention to all the uncertainties, all the unresearched areas and all those issues that should have been publicly canvassed and researched before a decision was made by the Government. Today we heard the honourable member for Bonython, who has just spoken, say: 'We have made the report public'. If one were to listen to the rumours around this place the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on Friday morning will be announcing the final Government decision on the assets test. Mr McGauran —Not the final? Mr LLOYD —We are told that it is the final decision. So much for all the time, the public consensus, the public debate and public discussion on this Gruen report, with all the uncertainties that have been drawn out by that Panel as to the points that have been made, upon which this Government evidently is going to make this decision. So much for consensus. So much for open government. But whatever decision the Government makes, short of dropping the assets test, certain things are obvious: Firstly, greater inequity, uncertainty and cost for the pensioners of this country. Secondly, a discriminatory capital gains tax or, through the loan repayment or 'pay as you die' arrangement form of death duty tax, a sectional tax will be imposed generally against the elderly of this country and not against other age groups. In particular, it will discriminate against those where housing values are higher, if the preferred option of the Panel is accepted by the Government. It will discriminate against the small business people, including farmers, who require capital for their enterprises. That capital is their own that they have painfully accumulated over the years; it is not shareholders' capital subscribed by others. Government members are reported as being unhappy with the $150,000 single or $ 200,000 pensioner couple, house included option, because inflation and geography have made their constituents theoretically assets rich. However, as the Panel points out, if home owners are excluded, this will be most unfair on renters in particular, single parents and widowed people, where the great majority of the renters are women. This is more sectional discrimination against particular groups. But that is only part of the debate. The forgotten group in all this concern by the Government for equity and certainty is the self-employed of this country, the small business people, the major providers of employment, savings and investment capital, individual enterprise, innovation and export earnings- the backbone of this country. So much for Australian Labor Party concern for regional Australia where there is a far higher percentage of such people. There are approximately 170,000 commercial farmers in Australia. The average value per farm, after allowing for their debts, is over $300,000. Perhaps, coincidentally, that is the same level at which the assets test will exclude a pension for any of them. Thus, this Government, particularly if it excludes the family home from the test, will be targeting that test even more sectionally, almost exclusively, at regional Australia-the self-employed, the small business, the partnership, the family farm. One hundred and seventy thousand farmers and their spouses will be enraged and threatened by this proposal. It also makes a mockery of the calculation that 28,000 or even 50,000 people are being affected because 30,000 farms will be immediately put at risk by this assets test. That is no exaggerated claim because a minority recommendation of the Gruen Panel acknowledges that the farmers are the most disadvantaged group and that there should be an additional $100,000 exemption. Honourable members opposite can say: 'Okay, the Gruen Panel also recommended that such people can be offered a loan scheme whereby the pension plus interest is repaid from the estate after death'. What a proposal-a sectional death duty hitting only those who have used their own capital to be the most productive sector of our economy! The repayment, the pay as you die death duty, will require the sale of the property or business. This proposal will do more to destroy the family farm than any other government policy could. I repeat: It will do more to destroy the family farm than any other policy could. What a dilemma the Government faces. If the Government continues with any of the options it will be cruelly taxing, either by capital gain or death duty, one section of our community. If the home is excluded, it may save a few marginal seats in Sydney but because of the obvious persecution of rural, regional and small business Australia, Labor will lose every seat in regional Australia. I repeat: Because of the way this assets test will be applied so unfairly against rural and regional Australia, Labor will lose every rural and regional seat. And for what saving? As the Leader of the Opposition said, basically nothing. If the Government is to regain any credibility with the elderly, if it is to restore certainty and equity to the pension system, it must drop its assets test. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(4.54) —I hope honourable members opposite will take this matter of public importance very seriously. It is a debate about the future of the aging population of Australia. I oppose the suggestion in the matter of public importance proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) because it is misleading and contributes to-if I can quote the matter itself-'the continuing uncertainty and alarm felt by Australia's elderly'. It is not the Government but the Opposition which stands condemned by the people of Australia for its tactics in creating uncertainty and alarm among the elderly. This Government has been consistent in its attitude to the assets test in respect of pensioners. It has been consistent because it has said since the Budget debate of last year that it would consult with the various pensioner bodies to get their reactions before any firm proposals were introduced. Is the Opposition saying that consultation is wrong, that the views of pensioners should be ignored? Yet that must be the interpretation placed on comments made by speakers opposite. We as a government believe in going to pensioner groups and organisations such as the Australian Council of Social Service and saying: 'These are our suggested proposals. What do you think of them? How can they be improved? What will be the impact on pensioners?'. But we go further than that. We point out the reasons for the assets test and why this Government has been prepared to face up to the problems posed by an aging population. I will return later in my speech to the problems caused by the aging population. I ask the Leader of the Opposition what he would do. We have heard from honourable members on this side of the House what the present Leader of the Opposition said when he was a member of the former Government about the assets test and about his belief that some form of assets test should be introduced into this country. We want to hear from honourable members opposite-and particularly from the Leader of the Opposition-just what they will do. If they live up to their reputation as conservative members in the political spectrum, they will do precisely nothing. The Opposition is drifting around the countryside whipping up groundless fears amongst pensioners for no reason other than to further its own political ends. The Opposition and the general public know that no government will introduce legislation to affect adversely the majority of pensioners. This was true of the early legislation proposed by the present Government; it is likely to be even more so with the latest proposals. I will intrude my own experiences, both last year and this year, in talking to age pensioner groups. The assets test proposals were first introduced at the time of a by-election in the State seat of Mundaring in Western Australia. The seat had been won by the Australian Labor Party at the State election with a margin of a few votes-a handful of votes. This was overturned by a court of disputed returns and a by-election resulted. During that campaign I spoke to a number of pensioner groups and in only one group was there a person who claimed that he would lose his pension as a result of those measures. Admittedly, some said that they would be marginally affected and some were apprehensive, understandably, about the impact on fringe benefits. But the overwhelming majority of those I spoke to accepted the reasons I gave. Incidentally, for those who would like to know the impact of the assets test on the electors of Mundaring-and I am sure honourable members on this side of the House would like to know-Labor won the seat and increased its vote by 2.2 per cent. On Thursday of last week I spoke to a pensioner group in a locality called Lockridge in my electorate. I asked: 'How many single persons here have assets of $150,000?'. The response was nil. I then asked the married couples present whether they had $250,000 in assets. Again, the response was nil. Although anecdotal, those personal experiences give the lie to the claim by the Opposition that in some way the Government is creating uncertainty and alarm amongst the aged. The Opposition stands condemned by the general public for its attempts to create fear and confusion amongst the aged. Following discussions with pensioner groups in January and February of this year, it became clear to the Government that there was some doubt as to whether the form of the proposed assets test gave effect to the principle of directing assistance to the needy in the fairest and most equitable way. As a result of those discussions, the Government decided to establish a broadly based panel of community representatives to re-examine how the Government's principles in this area can best be achieved. The Panel, under Professor Gruen, comprised persons from academia and the business community and a number of persons who directly represented pensioner organisations as well as being pensioners themselves. It had a fairly wide brief to examine all types of alternatives, subject to the general principle that the Government has long enunciated that pensions should not be dissipated on those who do not require or need pension assistance. The Gruen Committee canvassed a number of issues, including universal age pensions versus needs based welfare. On this issue it reached agreement that universal age pensions were not an available option in the short term. I realise that I do not have much time left in which to speak so I will quote from, of all journals, the House Magazine dated Tuesday, 29 May 1984. In it is a contribution by the Business Council of Australia. It is headed 'Why there should be an assets test'. I will read it: Assets testing of pensions raises all sorts of opposition from those who are or who are likely to be affected. There are, however, good reasons in principle and in practice why a reasonable form of assets testing, like other forms of means testing should be supported. The Business Council of Australia finishes the article by saying: The Government deserves the support of the whole community in this task of reform, support that should take a long term view rather than one based on vested interest or immediate political advantage. That article clearly demonstrates that those who think about these issues know full well that the Government's policy is the right one. It is equitable and it takes note of the interests of the pensioner group. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate has concluded. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(5.3) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill is to give effect to the Government's decision that the protective service component of the AFP should be abolished and that the bulk of the functions formerly undertaken by that component should be transferred to a separate protective service organisation which is to be established within the Department of Administrative Services. It is expected that the transfer will take place in October 1984. The Government has taken this decision on the basis that the quality of service able to be offered by an organisation dedicated to a single task is significantly better than that offered by an organisation responsible for two or more dissimilar functions. There is a clear distinction between the requirements and characteristics of an organisation which is intended to perform the range of duties required of a modern police force and those of an organisation dedicated to performing the more specialised functions of access control and the security of premises. The decision is strongly supported by the AFP and user departments, is consistent with the views of the previous Government announced in December 1982 and with the proposal made last year by Royal Commissioner Mr Justice Stewart. The necessary consultative processes to implement the decision haves already begun, and will involve the Australian Federal Police Association and representatives of the protective service component. Training courses are under way for those members of the component who wish to qualify to transfer to general policing duties and thus, if suitable, to remain with the AFP. Those persons who are eligible and suitable will be able to transfer on satisfactory completion of such courses. Members of the protective service component who do not wish to qualify, or do not qualify, to remain with the AFP will transfer to the new service on terms, conditions and salaries comparable to those they presently enjoy and with preservation of leave and other credits. Details of these matters remain under active consideration. The precise duties of personnel employed by the new service are matters for consultation with user departments. The Department of Foreign Affairs is to establish its own guarding arrangements. The question of guarding at detention centres administered by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is also the subject of further consideration. Members of the AFP will continue to perform their present policing functions at certain locations-official residences, Parliament House, airports, embassies, consulates and at such other places as may be determined. This part of the Bill does not in any way alter the functions, powers, administration, methods of appointment to or the terms and conditions of service of the AFP. Its sole purpose is to remove from the AFP Act all references to the protective service component and to the AFP as comprising two components. Nor does the Bill contain any machinery provisions under which former protective service component members will be transferred into the Public Service. The necessary machinery for the transfer already exists in division 9F of the Public Service Act 1922. The ongoing cost of the new service will be offset by reductions in AFP votes. There will, however, be some establishment costs in 1984-85 associated with the transfer of function. These will cover such items as uniforms and the purchase of equipment which cannot be transferred from the AFP. It is envisaged that these costs will be of the order of $1.5m, and they will be the subject of further, detailed consideration in the context of the 1984-85 Budget. The Bill also includes two minor amendments to the AFP Act-to sections 15 and 36-which, had the Bill not been introduced, would have been incorporated in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The purpose of the amendment proposed to section 15 is to ensure flexibility in day to day administration of the AFP by providing that delegations may follow functional lines, acknowledging that administration functions of the force are carried out jointly by police officers and public servants. The purpose of the amendment to section 36 of the Act is to permit implementation of the recommendations of a recently completed joint management review of the AFP, the first since the force was established in 1979. The review report has proposed significant improvements in AFP manpower control procedures, training and promotion systems. The amendment preserves the efficiency criteria, which is an essential element of the present provision and directs consideration of certain relevant matters in evaluating the relative efficiency of members competing for promotion. I have arranged for an explanatory memorandum to be distributed to all honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, in moving the second reading of the Bill, speaking without limitation of time. Of course, the same privilege will be offered next week to the Opposition spokesman. Question resolved in the affirmative. Second Reading Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill is to introduce new taxation arrangements for retirement and kindred payments, effective for payments made on or after 1 July 1983. The measures were first announced in the Government's economic statement of 19 May 1983. Details were subsequently clarified in Press statements on 30 May and 7 August 1983. While those important measures take up much of the Bill, a wide range of other matters are dealt with in it. Another major proposal to be given effect is the introduction of amendments to strengthen section 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which imposes tax on profits made on the sale of property acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit. Details of these measures were given in an announcement made on Budget night last year. Also included are measures to give effect to the taxation concession for investors of share capital to licensed venture capital companies under the incentive scheme announced by the Government on 14 September 1983. To be given effect, too, is the Government's decision, which was announced in the 19 May 1983 economic statement, to tax the income of friendly societies from the investment of their funds from life, disability and accident insurance business, on a basis broadly comparable with that for life assurance companies. Other measures will clarify the operation of the income tax law with respect to deductions for repairs to property that is used only partly for the purposes of producing assessable income. As announced on 18 April 1984, this action is necessary following a decision handed down by a taxation board of review. Other areas of the law which could be affected by the principles emerging from the Board's decision are also being amended. Included in the Bill, too, are measures to give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 3 May 1984, to reduce the paperwork burden of the prescribed payments system by removing the requirement for deduction forms to be lodged with income tax returns. A further measure will give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 9 March 1984, to authorise deductions for capital contributions to the cost of railway rolling-stock owned by a government or tax exempt government authority that is used for the transport of petroleum or minerals. Additionally, the Bill will authorise income tax reductions for gifts of $2 or more made to the African famine appeal conducted by the International Disaster Emergencies Committee. Finally, the Bill contains measures to exempt from tax rent subsidy payments made to persons to assist with their rent costs under the Commonwealth-State mortgage and rent relief scheme. Before turning to details of these various measures, I first wish to make some remarks about aspects of the Government's retirement income policies and then about the rationale for the new taxation arrangements. In the decades ahead a smaller proportion of employed people will have to support relatively larger numbers of aged people. Accordingly, this Government places a high priority on developing a national retirement incomes package. There are three major elements in this package-improvements to occupational superannuation, improvements to the age pension, and consideration of a national superannuation scheme. There are widely acknowledged deficiencies in existing arrangements for occupational superannuation. These include the extent of coverage-thus the access to taxation benefits for retirement saving-the portability of superannuation benefits and the conditions relating to the vesting of employer contributions. The Government has a good deal of work in hand relating to these issues. The area is complex and there are no easy answers. The Government is proceeding with an assessment of the report of the Commonwealth Task Force on Occupational Superannuation in the light of views received from the States, the superannuation and insurance industries and other interested parties. With regard to pensions, the Government has a commitment to raising the standard pension to 25 per cent of average male earnings. We hope to be able to move further towards this target in the coming Budget. We also expect, in the near future, to receive a paper prepared by an interdepartmental committee canvassing options in relation to improvements in the provision of retirement incomes, including possible national superannuation alternatives. The Government will also give careful consideration to the views of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare when it reports on its inquiry into retirement income systems. The Government recognises the particular importance of portability and vesting arrangements in the occupational superannuation area. This Bill provides for the setting up of approved deposit funds, which will represent a major institutional innovation as a mechanism for portability of benefits. Employees who change jobs may, without paying any tax, deposit any superannuation lump sum received on termination into an approved deposit fund. Investment income earned on lump sums deposited in these funds will be tax exempt, in the same way as if the sum had remained in an employer-sponsored superannuation fund or had been accepted by a new employer's fund. This innovation is not, of course, a complete answer to the very difficult question of portability but is a major step in the right direction. The Government aims to have discussions with interested parties on further ways of extending and improving arrangements for occupational superannuation. It also expects that its consideration of the IDC report on national superannuation will involve discussions with interested groups. The changes to the taxation treatment of lump sum superannuation and kindred benefits contained in this Bill themselves represent a major reform of retirement income arrangements and will facilitate further reforms to the retirement incomes system. The major reason for the changes is taxation equity. There has been a glaring inequity between those people who receive remuneration in the form of an income stream and those receiving it in a lump sum. The differential income tax treatment is particularly apparent in the retirement benefit area. Pensions are fully assessable but, prior to the new measures, a mere 5 per cent of lump sum benefits was assessable. This meant that at maximum-where the recipient faced the top marginal rate of 60 per cent-any lump sum would be taxed only at a rate of 3 per cent. Needless to say, this near absence of tax has been a major avenue for tax minimisation. Employers have faced a strong incentive to provide remuneration to their employees-especially those for whom wage and salary income would be taxed at high marginal rates-in the form of contributions to superannuation funds receivable as lump sums at the termination of employment. Moreover, a practice, essentially for tax avoidance purposes, has developed in some industries of paying deferred remuneration as severance pay on termination of employment. The taxation treatment of lump sums has been recognised as anomalous by a succession of committees of inquiry-the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry and the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. I think it is fair to say that the line of thought common to all of these inquiries is that, while taxpayers should retain the option of taking a lump sum on retirement, the taxation system should not provide an incentive for taking retirement benefits in that form rather than as a pension. The tax treatment of pensions is, of course, consistent with the treatment of other forms of income under the tax system. It is the treatment of lump sums that has, in the past, been out of step. Superannuation benefits received by employers are a form of remuneration which is available only to some of the work force. The Government intends that remuneration in that form should be taxed on a basis reasonably consistent with other forms of remuneration. When, as to the present time, this is not the case tax rates generally have to be set higher than would otherwise be needed to raise a given amount of revenue. That means that those without access to superannuation have been bearing significantly higher tax rates on their total remuneration than those with access to this savings medium. That is unfair and needs to be corrected. I must emphasise that the measures contained in this Bill involve no element of retrospectivity. There is no diminution of any benefit relating to employment before 1 July 1983. Lump sums paid after 30 June 1983 will continue to attract the previous tax rules to the extent that they relate to service before the change-over date. Of course, no-one is happy to pay more tax. The expected effect on revenue of the tax changes demonstrates the moderation and absence of retrospectivity, of the Government's proposals. The additional revenue collected from the taxation of lump sums is estimated to be $70m in 1984-85. This represents some $20m collected on assessment in respect of lump sums received in 1983-84 and collection of some $50m on a pay as you earn basis in respect of lump sums received in 1984-85. The revenue gain will rise steadily over the years ahead as the proportion of future lump sum payments in respect of service after the transition date rises. The cost to the public purse of taxation concessions for superannuation is now of the order of $2.5 billion. This Bill contains some measures directed towards ensuring that tax concessions for occupational superannuation foster their purpose of encouraging genuine provision for retirement incomes. After all, if the tax concessions do not achieve genuine provision for retirement what are they for? The first such measure is that no tax is to be payable immediately on termination payments that are rolled over into annuities, into another superannuation fund or into an approved deposit fund. That is, no taxation is payable where the amount is being preserved for retirement income purposes or converted into an income stream that can be used for retirement. Secondly, approved deposit funds will provide a mechanism for portability that promotes the use of termination payments for retirement income purposes. Thirdly, a reduced tax rate of 15 per cent is to apply to the first $50,000 of lump sums received after the age of 55 years. Consultation has been a feature of the development of the present proposals. The Government recognised that, for such a very complex change to the income tax law, consultation was essential. Accordingly, we announced the broad principles and structure of the new arrangements in May last year, but also indicated that we would sit down with interested parties and be receptive to views that were consistent with the broad thrust of the new arrangements. We have had extensive consultations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry. We have also consulted with and received submissions from very many other groups, including the superannuation industry. As a result of these consultations we have made a number of modifications to the original proposals to meet reasonable concerns. We have significantly reduced the tax rates to apply. In particular, the first $50,000 of a lump sum paid after age 55 years is to attract a 15 per cent rate. As announced in the Press statement of 7 August 1983, we have made changes that recognise the concerns registered in respect of lump sum death benefits and disability payments. We have also made special provision for the treatment of lump sum payments received under the auspices of approved early retirement schemes. The guidelines and mechanism for approval of such schemes are included in this Bill. The Government has not, of course, been able to accommodate all proposals for change to the new arrangements. Some groups have suggested changes that would strike at the basic rationale of the new arrangements or changes that reflect little more than an aversion to paying more tax. Because the new taxation arrangements are to apply from 1 July 1983, there are major administrative reasons for the Government wishing to secure passage of this legislation during the current sittings and in advance of the distribution of income tax return forms for the 1983-84 income year. I turn now to the main features of the Bill. The taxation arrangements proposed for termination payments depend upon four attributes: Whether the payment is one judged to be a payment that is subject to the new taxation treatment, whether transitional rules apply to the payment, whether the payment falls into a category which attracts concessional taxation treatment and the extent to which the taxpayer has appropriately rolled over the termination payment so as to defer the tax payable on it. To elaborate on the first of these attributes, the new taxation treatment proposed by the Bill is to apply to three classes of payment made on or after 1 July 1983. These payments are described in the Bill as eligible termination payments. The first class is those retirement and kindred payments that are generally assessable under the existing law as to 5 per cent of the amount paid. This category includes payments from superannuation funds upon retirement through age or invalidity or upon other cessation of employment. Golden handshakes and other severance payments, contractual termination payments, payments in lieu of unused sick leave and payments in compensation for loss of office or employment. The second class of payment consists of those amounts that have their origin in untaxed income and are not taxed at all under the existing law. This category includes payments in full or partial commutation of pensions and most classes of annuity, payments of residual capital values of pensions and such annuities, distributions made from superannuation funds in accordance with fund rules during an employee's service and termination payments made otherwise than as a lump sum. The third class is payments from approved deposit funds. The changes will not apply to capital sums paid under covenants in restraint of trade or as compensation for loss of income through personal injury and amounts received on retirement or termination of employment in lieu of annual leave or long service leave. Payments of these kinds will remain subject to the existing law. The Press statement of 7 August 1983 indicates that in certain circumstances amounts by way of death benefits would be exempt from the new taxation arrangements. I now clarify the scope of the exemption for death benefits. The death benefits exemption will apply to the following cases of termination payments to the estate, widow, widower or dependants of a deceased person: Payments from a superannuation fund, gratuities in the form of golden handshakes and withdrawals from approved deposit funds. The exemption will not extend to commutation of superannuation pensions and annuities. To do so would tend to encourage, through the tax system, the conversion of retirement income streams into capital amounts. Because the rationale for the death benefit exemption is our concern to alleviate any possible financial hardship for those dependent on the deceased person, the exemption will be restricted to situations where, and to the extent to which, an amount paid to an estate is for the benefit of the spouse or dependants of the deceased person. Death benefit payments within the scope of the exemption will be free of tax in the recipient's hands. As already mentioned, the Bill has no element of retrospectivity in the application of the new taxation arrangements. Where a payment is subject to the new rules only so much of the payment as is referable to periods of service or fund membership after 30 June 1983 will be subject to the new tax treatment. Any part of the payment that is referable to service or membership up to 30 June 1983 will continue to be taxed on the basis of the existing law. The standard rule for apportioning a lump sum into its 'before' and 'after' components is to be that the 'pre 30 June 1983 component' is the proportion of the basic payment that the period of the taxpayer's service or fund membership up to 30 June 1983 bears to the total period of service or fund membership. The total period may include periods of employment prior to attaining fund membership. Where there has been a full transfer of benefits between funds or between a fund and the issuer of an annuity, total period of service will also include periods of membership of the earlier fund or funds. Periods during which moneys are held in an approved deposit fund are also to be included. Any period of entitlement to a pension or annuity is to be included in the case of payments that result from a commutation, or consist of the residual capital value, of that pension or annuity. As the Press statement of 7 August 1983 indicated, where a lump sum is only partially preserved by transfer to another fund, there will be an adjustment, related to the unpreserved amount, to the operation of the before-after formula. The Bill provides that a proportion of the period of service up to 30 June 1983 will be used in the application of the before-after formula to a termination payment from the later fund. The proportion will be determined by reference to how much of the pre 30 June 1983 component of the first lump sum is preserved. From the viewpoint of the tax rate to apply, payments subject to the new arrangements may consist of four different classes of component. First, there is the pre 30 June 1983 component that is referable to service or fund membership up to 30 June 1983. This is to be taxed on the basis of the existing law. Accordingly, 5 per cent of the amount will generally be included in assessable income, but in certain circumstances, such as where the amount is tax free under existing law, a lesser amount or no amount may be assessable. The second class is the component of an eligible termination payment that represents contributions by the employee or fund member after 30 June 1983 that have not attracted an income tax deduction. These are to be exempt from tax. Thirdly, there will be the part of the eligible termination payment which relates to service or fund membership after 30 June 1983, net of any employee contributions which have not attracted a tax deduction. This component is to be included in full in assessable income. A tax rebate, however, will apply to ensure that the after 30 June 1983 component of a lump sum received before the taxpayer reaches age 55 years is taxed at a flat rate of 30 per cent. The first $50,000 of a lump sum received after a taxpayer reaches age 55 years is to be taxed at 15 per cent. Finally, an eligible termination payment may include various concessional components which will be assessable as to 5 per cent. These components are such parts of an eligible termination payment as consist of a bona fide redundancy payment, a payment under an approved early retirement scheme or an invalidity payment. The concession for redundancy and early retirement payments will apply to the extent that the eligible termination payment exceeds the amount that would have been received had the employee resigned on the date of the retrenchment or early retirement. In the case of a person who retires prematurely due to invalidity the application of the before-after transition formula will be varied so that, in determining the before 30 June 1983 component, the individual's notional period of service from the date of invalidity until normal retirement will be treated as 'before' service. The benefit of this concession will increase with the length of the period from the individual's invalidity retirement to his or her normal retirement age. The tax treatment of an eligible termination payment will depend upon the extent, if any, to which the payment is rolled over by way into any of the following forms of investment: A superannuation fund for the provision of superannuation benefits for the taxpayer or in the event of the taxpayer's death, his or her dependants; an approved deposit fund; or the purchase of an annuity for the benefit of the taxpayer. Any part of an eligible termination payment may be rolled over in this manner. To the extent to which a component of an eligible termination payment is rolled over, it will be exempt from tax unless and until returned to the taxpayer in a taxable form. A person will generally have a period of up to 90 days after receiving an eligible termination payment in which to roll over the payment in order to secure immediate exemption from tax. As a transitional measure, the initial roll over period will be from 30 June 1983 to the date 90 days after royal assent to this legislation. Having regard to the role of annuities as one of the designated roll over mediums for exempting a termination payment from tax, the Government has proposed the removal of major impediments to the development of the annuities market. These steps are directed to making annuities a viable alternative form of retirement income provision for retired persons. In particular, this Bill removes the effective double taxation of income that applied to most annuities, where those annuities are used for retirement income purposes. The Government has previously announced its intention to make the writing of annuity business more attractive to life offices by changing the minimum valuations basis prescribed under the Life Insurance Act. This Bill also sees to it that if a purchased annuity or pension is derived successfully by two or more persons, the exclusion from assessable income of the capital component of the annuity or pension-commonly called the 'undeducted purchase price'-will not be lost on the death of the person who made the contributions or paid the purchase price. Further, superannuation contributions and other payments towards a purchase annuity or pension that are concessionally rebatable under the income tax law are to be treated as part of the undeducted purchase price even though some tax concession by way of rebate at the standard rate may have been allowable. These measures will to an extent operate to reduce the tax payable on income in the form of an annuity or pension. We have also proposed a more generous and fairer treatment of the return-of- capital component of annuity income in the assets test for the determination of eligibility for the age pension than currently applies in relation to the income test. The Government has announced its intention to issue indexed bonds, which will facilitate the supply by financial institutions of indexed annuities and pensions. As a further step, the Government is proposing to conduct a review, to be completed by 30 September 1984, of the scope for wider participation in the issue of annuities. I emphasise that these changes are designed to make annuities more attractive by putting the tax treatment on a par with that of other retirement incomes and to remove other disadvantages associated with annuities. The Government's measures have not been designed to force people to take retirement income as an annuity, rather than in a single payment, but rather to restore taxation even handedness between these alternatives. A feature of the Bill is its framework for the establishment of approved deposit funds. An approved deposit fund will be one established to receive on deposit amounts of eligible termination payments, to deal with those amounts in accordance with specified rules and to repay those amounts with accumulated earnings at the request of the depositor. The Bill allows for wide participation in the conduct of approved deposit funds. Categories of institutions specifically eligible to establish approved deposit funds include banks, life insurance companies, State government insurance offices, trade unions, employee associations, building societies, finance companies, money market corporations, credit unions, friendly or benefit societies and trustee corporations. As well, other institutions or classes of institutions may be added by regulation. The Bill does not impose any prudential requirements in respect of approved deposit funds, except for certain rules designed for revenue protection purposes . Depositors will need to make their own decisions in selecting between approved deposit fund institutions and in considering the terms and conditions on which deposit facilities are offered. As long as such a fund is maintained at all times by an approved trustee as an indefinitely continuing fund for approved purposes and with approved rules, the investment income of the fund will be exempt from tax. If, by virtue of non-compliance with the rules for the operation of approved deposit funds, the income of an approved deposit fund is not exempt from tax but the fund is maintained by an approved trustee on the last day of the year of income, the income will be subject to tax at the rate of 46 per cent. If the fund is not maintained by an approved trustee, the income will fall to be taxed under the general trust provisions of the income tax law. The Government has also reviewed the taxation status of superannuation funds for which investment income is already taxed, against concerns that-with increased taxation of the end benefit in the hands of the recipient-the total tax burden borne by a member of a taxed fund may be unduly high. Investment income derived by most classes of superannuation fund-generally section 23F and paragraph 23(ja) and 23(jaa) funds-is currently exempt from taxation in most situations. There are some exceptions in the form of section 79 funds and section 121DA funds. We have decided to reduce certain taxation rates which apply to taxed funds; that applies with effect for the 1984-85 income year. In particular, the penalty tax rate on non approved-section 121DA-funds will generally fall from 60 per cent to 46 per cent. The penalty rate for non- compliance with the 30-20 investment rules by section 23F funds, that is, employer sponsored employee funds, and paragraph 23 (ja) funds, that is, approved funds for 20 or more self-employed persons, is to fall from 46 per cent to 30 per cent. As a measure to guard against exploitation of these reduced tax rates for tax avoidance purposes, funds which do not provide genuine superannuation benefits on retirement will continue to be taxed at the rate of 60 per cent. Payments from such funds will not be subject to the new tax treatment. Nor will employer contributions to these funds any longer be tax deductible. The final tax rate change concerns section 79-non-supported employees and self- employed persons-funds whose investment income has been subject to tax at the specified rate of 50 per cent. Relief in the form of a special deduction equal to 5 per cent of the cost of certain prescribed assets has enabled such funds to reduce substantially the effective tax rate payable. It is proposed that the investment income of these funds will in future be exempt from income tax and the 5 per cent cost of assets deduction will therefore be abolished. A benefit of this will be the removal of incentives that led section 79 funds to distort severely their choice of investments. Section 79 requires that benefits generally not be paid before the fund member's sixtieth birthday. The same requirement is usually adopted by the Commissioner of Taxation in administrative rulings in relation to benefits paid by paragraph 23(ja) funds. Under the Bill there will be a reduction in the earliest age at which benefits may be paid from age 60 to age 55. This is consistent with contemporary community standards as to earlier retirement which are also reflected in the Government's decision that the earliest qualifying age for the concessional 15 per cent tax rate under the new lump sum measures is to be 55 years. Pay as you earn tax instalment deductions are to apply when an eligible termination payment is made to a person. Such deductions will be required whether the eligible termination payment is made by the employer of the person or, for example, by the trustee of a superannuation fund or from an approved deposit fund on withdrawal of a deposit. The PAYE arrangements are to apply from 1 August 1984. I turn now to other features of the Bill. Speculative Transactions Under section 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, the assessable income of a taxpayer includes any profit made on the sale of property acquired for the purpose of profit making by sale, or from the carrying on or carrying out of any profit making undertaking or scheme. On Budget night last year, we announced the Government's decision to amend that provision to overcome some clear technical deficiencies it contained. To give effect to this decision the existing provision is to be repealed and a new section introduced covering both the present operation of section 26 (a) and the remedial measures. The first measure will cover those situations where an entity, typically a private company, acquires property with the intention of profit-making by sale and, when the property has appreciated in value, the proprietors of the company effectively dispose of the property and realise the profit by selling some or all of the shares in the company. The relevant provisions will extend to the disposal of an interest in a private trust estate or a partnership which is used as the vehicle to hold the underlying property, or where an interest in such property is effectively held through a chain of companies or through any combination of interposed companies, partnerships or trusts. These provisions will ensure that such part of the proceeds of a sale of such shares or interests occurring after 23 August 1983 as represents a profit on the effective disposal of the direct or indirect interest in the underlying property will be included in the assessable income of the vendors. The second measure will authorise the inclusion in assessable income of profits made on the sale of bonus shares or rights arising from ownership of shares in situations where, had a profit been made on disposal of the original shares, that profit would be assessable. This provision will apply to bonus shares or rights acquired after 23 August 1983. A further measure will cover the situation where a person disposes of property acquired, after 23 August 1983, in a non-arm's length manner from the original owner in circumstances where, if the original owner had sold the property, there would have been a liability to tax on the profit arising from the sale. In these circumstances, the donee or transferee will be treated as having acquired the relevant property for the same purpose as it was acquired by the original owner and thus attract appropriate tax consequences. However, where the transferee has incurred expenditure in making improvements to the transferred property before it is sold-other than expenditure on the property which was also incurred for profit making purposes-that part of the profit on sale which is attributable to those improvements will not be treated as taxable. Allowance will also be made for the amount of any profit that has been included in the assessable income of the transferor in a case where the transfer was made for inadequate consideration. The provision will also have application to a distribution in specie to a shareholder or beneficiary from a company or trust, but will not apply to any property acquired by a beneficiary in a distribution from a deceased estate. In addition, the Bill contains provisions which make it clear that strict legal identity between the property purchased and the property sold is not necessary where the general requirements for application of the section are met. Under these provisions a taxpayer will be taken to have acquired property for the purpose of profit making by sale where the property sold is an interest in property which was acquired for speculative purposes or where it is property in which has been merged an interest in property acquired for speculative purposes. In such circumstances, the amount to be included in the assessable income will be ascertained with regard to the property or interest which was originally acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit. The measures I have just outlined will remove certain technical deficiencies which, over the years, have resulted in the intended application of the law relating to the taxation of speculative profits being avoided. Reflecting the nature of these changes, the Bill also contains a number of consequential and complementary technical amendments to the provisions of the income tax law which prescribe the circumstances in which a loss on the disposal of property may be allowed as a deduction. Subscriptions to Licensed Management and Investment Companies This legislation also implements the taxation aspects of the incentive scheme announced on 14 September 1983 to encourage the development of a substantial venture capital market in Australia. Under the proposals, initial subscribers of share capital in companies licensed under the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 will be entitled to an income tax deduction equal to the capital subscribed on their shares, including any share premiums. This concession will have an annual revenue cost of about $20m and the amounts of share capital authorised to be raised by licensed companies will be monitored so that it reflects the level of support intended by the Government. The deduction will be allowable, in the year in which the subscription is made, in respect of amounts paid after 14 September 1983 to a licensed management and investment company-MIC-on application for or allotment of shares, and on subsequent calls. Consistent with the aim of the scheme to encourage patient capital into high risk investment areas, deductions so allowed will be subject to withdrawal or partial disallowance if a shareholder disposes of his or her shares within a four-year period. Relevant periods will be measured from the time when the shares are fully paid-up or, in the case of partially paid-up shares, from the date on which the last amount of share moneys was paid. Under these arrangements , the deduction will be wholly withdrawn if the disposal takes place within two years, while 50 per cent or 25 per cent respectively of the deduction will be withdrawn if there is a disposal in the third or fourth year. There will be comparable withdrawal or partial withdrawal of deductions if an MIC has its licence revoked or not renewed by the MIC Licensing Board or if shares in the company are redeemed, cancelled or forfeited, or their capital value is reduced, within the four-year period. The deduction for subscriptions paid on shares held in a licensed MIC will generally be limited to amounts paid by the initial subscriber but where the shares devolve on account of the death of the original subscriber the new owner will be entitled to deductions in respect of any calls that he or she pays. Subscriptions will generally attract deductions only if made at a time when the MIC is licensed or, if made before the grant of a licence, where the MIC Licensing Board determines that they were made in anticipation of the licence being granted or to ensure that the company satisfies statutory minimum paid-up capital requirements as a prerequisite to the grant of a licence. Safeguarding provisions in the Bill are designed to prevent the four year holding rules being circumvented by arrangements under which persons could dispose of an interest in MIC shares held indirectly through their ownership of company shares or through partnership or trust interests. Appropriate assessing adjustments will be authorised to reflect the underlying disposal of interests in the MIC shares by the persons who have effectively enjoyed the benefit of the deductions. Repairs and Other Expenditure Not Wholly to Produce Assessable Income The Bill will clarify, in relation to property that is used only partly for the purpose of producing assessable income, the operation of the provision of the income tax law which allows a deduction for expenditure on repairs. The Government's decision to amend the income tax law in this way was announced on 18 April 1984, following a decision handed down by a taxation board of review which held that a deduction was allowable for the whole of the cost of repairs to a car in a year of income, although the car was used only partly for business purposes. The amendment will restore the previously understood principle of long standing that expenditure should be deductible only to the extent that it is incurred for the purpose of producing assessable income. In addition, we announced at the same time that the Government had decided to propose amendments to three other provisions of the law which might be affected by the views emerging from the board's decision. These authorise deductions for expenses of borrowing, expenses relating to lease documents and expenses relating to the grant of patents or the registration of designs or copyrights. The proposed amendments will apply to expenditure in these categories incurred on or after 19 April 1984. Rent Subsidy Payments Under the mortgage and rent relief scheme, the Commonwealth and the States and Northern Territory share on a fifty-fifty basis the cost of providing short term financial assistance to tenants and mortgagors who are experiencing genuine financial difficulty in meeting their rent or mortgage commitments. Payments under the scheme may take the form of rent subsidies, help with bond payments and relocation expenses and assistance with mortgage repayments. With the single exception of those rent subsidies that are paid direct to a tenant, payments under these assistance arrangements have no income tax consequences for the tenants and mortgagors being assisted. The Bill will amend the income tax law so that rent subsidy payments made direct to persons being assisted are exempt from tax and so maintain comparable net levels of assistance to all those qualifying for relief. To ensure that all such payments made from the commencement of the mortgage and rent relief scheme are exempt, the amendment will apply to payments made after 17 August 1982. Prescribed Payments System The prescribed payments system was introduced by the Government in September 1983 to deal with a significant tax evasion problem involving the non reporting of income in certain industries. There is already ample evidence that it has been a success in this regard. While the Government has been pleased wilth the early results of the system, it has always appreciated that some adjustments could be required in the light of experience. It was for this reason that the Government acted swiftly to place on the statute book the changes to the system recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations late last year. Since then, the Government has continued to monitor the system's operation and, as announced on 3 May 1984, we have decided to introduce a further change to reduce the paperwork associated with the system in connection with the preparation and lodgment of income tax returns. This will remove with immediate effect the statutory requirements for copies of deduction forms received by payees to be furnished with their annual income tax returns. At the same time, the Commissioner of Taxation has indicated his intention that the schedule of deduction forms which it was envisaged would also have to accompany a payee's return will now have to be completed only in respect of forms relating to prescribed payments from which tax deductions have been made. Where tax is not required to be withheld from prescribed payments, only the total income recorded on relevant deduction forms will need to be shown on the return form. A review of the first six months operation of the prescribed payments system is currently proceeding and the Government will consider other aspects of the system's operation following completion of that review. Life Insurance Business of Friendly Societies Because friendly societies are specifically exempt from tax they are, in relation to the investment income they receive from their life, disability and accident insurance business, placed at an advantage over life insurance companies. In the May 1983 economic statement we announced that the Government had decided that the tax exemption of friendly society income from such business would be terminated in respect of the 1983-84 and later income years. This Bill will give effect to that decision. Reflecting this Government's approach in dealing with the introduction of measures such as these, I note that the details of the new arrangements as announced on 17 April 1984 were settled in the light of extensive discussion and correspondence with representatives of the friendly societies and other interested parties. The Bill will make friendly societies subject to tax in the 1983-84 year and later income years on earnings from investment of funds from their life, disability and accident insurance business. Earnings from traditional activities of friendly societies in providing sickness and funeral benefits will continue to be exempt from tax. In addition, the assessable income of friendly societies will not include earnings related to superannuation business and annuities of a kind which, as I mentioned earlier, are to be exempt when issued by a life office. In determining their taxable incomes, friendly societies are to be allowed deductions for expenditures related wholly to the earning of the income that is to be assessable. Other expenditures incurred in earning income but not directly related to a specific income source, such as general overheads, will be pro- rated between exempt and assessable income, and will be deductible in part on that basis. Within the aim of achieving a tax treatment broadly comparable on average to that applicable to the non superannuation business of life offices, the Government has devised a less complex legislative basis of taxing friendly societies than applies to life offices. Thus the 30-20 investment rules will not apply to friendly societies. Certain concessional provisions applied in the assessment of life offices will not enter into the calculation of friendly societies' taxable income either. The effect of those concessions generally results in life offices bearing, on average, effective rates of tax on their investment income that are well below the nominal tax rate of 46 per cent applied to the taxable incomes of life offices. For these and other reasons, including the statutory constraints which typically apply to the investment avenues of friendly societies, the Government has decided that the rate of tax to be applied to the taxable investment income of friendly societies should be 20 per cent. The present Bill also proposes to allow a 30 per cent rebate to holders of policies issued by friendly societies who are taxed in 1983-84 or later years on proceeds of certain short term policies. This will ensure treatment consistent with that accorded to policy holders of life offices under recent amendments to the income tax law. Capital Contributions to Government-owned Railway Rolling Stock The Bill will also authorise deductions-under special provisions in Division 10AAA of the income tax law which permit the write-off of expenditure on mineral transport facilities-for capital contributions to the cost of railway rolling- stock owned by a government or government authority and used for the transport of minerals, including petroleum. Capital contributions of this kind where incurred after 9 March 1984, the date on which this change was foreshadowed, will be deductible over 10 years or, at the option of the taxpayer, over 20 years. Expenditure on railway rolling stock is currently excluded from the scope of Division 10AAA but if the rolling stock is owned by a taxable entity its cost is eligible for deduction under the general depreciation provisions of the income tax law. The practice has recently developed for mineral producers to be required by State authorities to contribute to the cost of railway rolling stock used for the carriage of their mineral output but which continues to be owned by a government or tax-exempt government authority. Without the proposed amendment no deduction would be allowable in these cases either under Division 10AAA, because of the specific exclusion, or by way of depreciation, because the rolling stock is not owned by the mining company. Gifts Under the gift provisions of the income tax law, deductions are allowed for gifts of the value of $2 or more to specified funds, authorities and institutions. These provisions are to be amended to authorise deductions for gifts made between 27 June and 30 November 1983 to the African Famine Appeal conducted by the International Disaster Emergencies Committee. By virtue of the gazettal, on 1 December 1983, of the IDEC Overseas Disaster Aid Fund as an eligible fund for the purposes of the income tax gift provisions, any donation made to the appeal on or after that date is already tax deductible. A detailed technical explanation of the Bill is contained in an explanatory memorandum that will be made available to honourable members shortly. I commend the major legislation in this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to proposals contained in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 which I have just introduced. It will amend the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Act 1983 which imposes income tax on income derived by companies, corporate unit trusts and superannuation funds and establishes rates of tax for that purpose. The purpose of the amendments made by this Bill is to declare and impose the rate of tax payable on the taxable income of certain approved deposit funds-whose establishment is provided for under the previous Bill-in cases where such a fund fails to meet the statutory requirements for tax exemption set by that Bill. The rate of tax so imposed on the income of a non-complying approved deposit fund by this Bill is to be 46 per cent and will apply for the 1983-84 financial year and, until the Parliament otherwise provides, for the 1984-85 financial year. In accordance with established practice, rates of tax applying to the 1983 -84 year of income for companies-which will, at the rate of 20 per cent, also apply to the insurance business of friendly societies and other registered organisations-will be declared by a Bill to be introduced in the Budget sittings . Similarly, rates of tax for 1984-85 in respect of superannuation funds will be dealt with then. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Notice No. 10, General Business, given for Wednesday, 30 May 1984, being called on forthwith. Motion Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(5.56) —I move: That this House- (1) notes that on 30 May 1984 the International Coalition of Scientists for the Sakharovs, will deliver letters to Soviet Embassies throughout the world, including Canberra, expressing its concern at the continued persecution by Soviet authorities of Dr Andrei Sakharov and his wife, Dr Bonner, and (2) calls on the Government to follow the lead of the Coalition of Scientists for the Sakharovs and mobilise Australian public opinion against the Soviet Union's inhuman treatment of one of the world's most distinguished scientists and his wife. At noon today-at least that is my understanding-a letter signed by some hundreds of Australian scientists was taken to the Soviet Embassy in Canberra by Professor Moran, Fellow of the Royal Society and Dr Crompton of the Australian Academy of Science. The letter was in these terms: We are here to express our concern for the well being of our physicist colleague Andrei Sakharov and his wife Elena Bonner. We ask the Soviet authorities for a rapid resolution of the present crisis that will provide Dr Sakharov and Dr Bonner with the medical care they have requested. We believe that continuation of their present circumstances will result in further deterioration of our relations with the Soviet scientific community. Such an outcome would ruin the prospects for scientific exchange and cooperation for years to come. The letter is signed 'International Coalition of Scientists for Sakharov'. The present crisis referred to in the letter is the hunger strike which Dr Sakharov began on 2 May 1984 to protest against the refusal by the Soviet authorities to allow his wife to go abroad for the treatment of her eye disease and heart condition. She too joined the hunger strike on 12 May. The position now is that Sakharov's life is in danger-he is a sick man with a heart condition and high blood pressure-and his wife faces the possibility of some years in the Soviet gulag or even the death sentence for treason. As honourable members will be aware, Dr Sakharov is both a very great scientist and a very great humanitarian and human rights activist, perhaps the greatest of the Soviet dissidents. As a scientist in the 1950s he was called 'Oppenheimer, Teller and Hans Bethe rolled into one' and his contributions to theoretical and nuclear physics have been considered extraordinary. Of course, he was awarded the Nobel Prize. He has also used his great influence to help the Soviet scientific community to gain a degree of freedom from political control and to break the grip of Lysenkoism over Soviet science. His 1968 10,000-word manifesto published in the Soviet underground was his most famous plea for intellectual freedom. His influence spread further. In 1970 he formed the Moscow Human Rights Committee and in the following years worked for the release of political prisoners, for the right of Soviet citizens to emigrate, for the abolition of capital punishment, for the democratisation of Soviet society and for the freedom of Eastern Europe and of non-Russian republics. He attacked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he supported the West's boycott of the Moscow Olympics and he warned the West against unilateral disarmament. Inevitably he has attracted the peculiar attention of the KGB. He has been drugged and robbed while sitting in his car, his papers and passport have been confiscated, he has been stripped of all honours, he and his wife were sent to internal exile in the closed city of Gorki and denied the medical attention they need. When in November 1981 the Soviet authorities refused to allow his daughter -in-law to join his wife in the United States of America he went on a hunger strike until later that month. After a good deal of international pressure his daughter-in-law was permitted to emigrate. The whole world is following this drama in the USSR. Both Houses of the United States Congress, universities, newspapers and political parties around the world have protested-the French Social Party very strongly. Now members of the international Coalition of Scientists for the Sakharovs have acted throughout the world today and it is gratifying that hundreds of Australian scientists are participating, especially so, after the regrettable silence of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference and its failure to take a stand on the matter, or even to mention it. In this international context it is desirable that this House adopt a resolution on this matter. It is also gratifying that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) raised the case with Mr Gromyko. I think all would agree that Mr Gromyko cannot be taken seriously when he is reported to have said that the Soviets will not yield to international pressure. From Pasternak to Solzhenitzyn to the Sakharovs, from the question of Jewish emigration to that of ethnic German emigration, it is only international pressure that gets results in the Soviet Union, as was stated in the well-respected Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence report on human rights in the Soviet Union, prepared under the chairmanship of then Senator John Wheeldon and, indeed, as was stated in the editorial in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. There is much that could be said on this matter, but we have agreed to be brief . I conclude by saying that I appreciate the Government's agreeing to bring on this motion today. This motion is the third on the Sakharov case standing in my name. The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Lionel Bowen) has indicated to me his intention to move an amendment. This amendment will add some paragraphs to which I have no objection. However, paragraph (4) goes beyond that with which I can agree. It commends the Minister for Foreign Affairs for raising the Sakharov case with the Soviet authorities. As I have already said, I agree with that. But the paragraph says that he raised the matter 'forthrightly and directly'. Frankly, I do not know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs did do that forthrightly and directly. I also think that those words rather politicise the motion. Further, the amendment deletes the paragraph in my motion calling on the Government to mobilise public opinion. Apparently the Government does not want to do this, although the socialist Government of France is doing that in France. Apparently this Government thinks it has done enough. I do not. Apart from these reservations, I have no serious objections to the proposed amendment, although of course I prefer my own motion. The important thing is that either the motion or the amendment is passed by this House without division. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Connolly —I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs)(6.03) —As the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) said, the Government supports paragraph (1) of his motion, which is very direct and states the facts. However, for reasons which I will outline, the Government finds it difficult to support paragraph (2) of his motion, which calls on the Government to follow somebody else. I appreciate what the honourable member has said. We too want to make the debate bipartisan. I think I can convince the House that what I am about now is accurate. On behalf of the Government, I move: Omit paragraph (2), substitute: (2) recalls Australia's commitment to the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; (3) notes further our commitment to constructive international action to promote the realization of Human Rights and to combat gross violations of Human Rights wherever they might occur; (4) commends the Minister for Foreign Affairs for forthrightly and directly raising with the Soviet Government the concerns of the Australian Parliament, Government and people at the inhumane treatment of one of the world's most distinguished scientists and his wife, and (5) calls upon the Soviet authorities to release Academician Sakharov from internal exile and to permit Dr Bonner to leave for medical treatment abroad. I think that what has been said today certainly encourages the adoption of a bipartisan approach to the matter. I am reminded by my notes that Senator Button raised this matter in a general statement in the Senate last December. The difficulties that Dr Sakharov has been facing go back to the period 1958-1961 when, while in the Soviet Union, he first wrote letters of protest against nuclear tests. As has been said, Dr Sakharov is a most distinguished person. He is one of the most eminent of Soviet scientists. He became a leading spokesman for human rights for the Soviet Union some years ago. Regrettably, both he and his family have been subjected to persecution, restriction of movement and restriction of human rights because of his attitude in respect of those matters. The interesting point is that Dr Sakharov has been repeatedly refused permission to leave the Soviet Union on the grounds that he possesses State secrets. In 1975 he was awarded the Nobel Prize but was not allowed to go to Stockholm to receive it. His wife, Dr Bonner, went in his place. Of course, Dr Bonner is a distinguished doctor and has been decorated for her war service. In 1980 Dr Sakharov again was in trouble with the authorities because he objected to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He called on the Soviet Union and the United Nations to ensure that there was a withdrawal of Soviet forces there. He was then denounced for conducting subversive activities against the state and was accused of leaking state secrets. In 1981 both Dr Sakharov and his wife went on a hunger strike to protest against the Soviet refusal to allow their daughter-in-law to emigrate. The Federation of American Scientists supported him in that and she was subsequently allowed to leave. Dr Sakharov began his present hunger strike on 2 May. He has made an appeal to his colleagues, to public figures and to statesmen world wide in order that his wife might be allowed to travel abroad for the purpose of receiving medical treatment and to visit her mother, children and grandchildren. Dr Sakharov is reported to be detained in hospital and his wife is no longer allowed to visit Moscow, thereby cutting all contacts they have with the West. Many governments, including the 10 members of the European Economic Community, His Holiness the Pope and private organisations of scientists and others around the world have appealed to the Soviet Union on behalf of the Sakharovs. All in Australia, particularly members of this Parliament, would see Dr Sakharov's struggle as having a particular symbolic importance because of the eminence and outstanding record of the individual concerned and a whole range of human rights issues, particularly as they relate to the Soviet Union. In our view the Soviet Union has a deplorable record for transgressing human rights in a wide range of areas. We do not accept that such transgressions of human rights are simply internal matters for the Soviet Union. Human rights are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which all member governments subscribe. The observance of human rights therefore becomes an obligation for all member governments, including the Soviet Union. The Australian view is that any person in any country, irrespective of social position, race, religion, sex or language, should be entitled to enjoy the same basic civil and political rights. We accept that we will be judged internationally by these standards ourselves. This Government and previous Australian governments, along with other governments, over the years have continued to express sustained concern to the Soviet Government over questions of violations of human rights in the Soviet Union. It is important to stress that we are not just applying discriminatory standards to the Soviet Union. We have a non-discriminatory approach to the promotion of human rights throughout the world. We are actively promoting a broad geographical and political approach. In this we focus largely on our own region, both on countries with which we have close bilateral relations and those not so close. I make the point that our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is in the Soviet Union. As was said in Question Time today, it is the first visit to the Soviet Union by an Australian Foreign Minister for nearly 20 years. It is therefore long overdue. It signifies a desire by the Australian people to express concern directly to the Soviet Union about matters of interest to the Australian people, particularly in relation to violations of human rights. This matter was raised in Question Time today by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). The Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated before he went to Moscow that he would raise the matter of family reunions, human rights and particularly to the Sakharov issue. I inform the House that the Foreign Minister met with the Soviet Foreign Minister yesterday, that is, 29 May, and raised specifically the matter of Sakharov and the Sakharov family. Regrettably, Mr Gromyko firmly rejected our Foreign Minister's suggestion that there had been interference with the Sakharovs' human rights and that they should be entitled to leave the Soviet Union. He expressed the Australian people's strong concern at the Soviet action. I place on record that that was rejected on the basis, which we do not accept, that the issue was certainly not one of international law or one for representations from third parties. We make the point that it is. There is an international covenant on human rights and the Soviets are bound by it the same as any other country. We can only hope that the Soviet Government will heed the strong and growing ground swell of world opinion in support of the Sakharovs. This Government will continue to pursue its objectives in ensuring that the question of human rights is not forgotten, overlooked or avoided. Our election last week to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for a three-year term , that is, from l985 to l987, will give us a further opportunity to press the human rights cause generally and, in particular, the Sakharovs' cause in the international arena. I will conclude by quoting some of the words that were used at the time of the presentation to Sakharov of the Nobel prize in l975: Sakharov's love of truth and strong belief in the inviolability of the human being, his fight against violence and brutality, his courageous defence of the freedom of the spirit, his unselfishness and strong humanitarian convictions, have turned him into the spokesman for the conscience of mankind which the world so sorely needs today. Amendment agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Mr Scholes —Could I ask that the vote be recorded as being without a dissenting voice? We cannot record the names. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —It is so ordered. Consideration resumed. Clause 27 (Interpretation). Amendments (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to : (19) Clause 27, page 28, after proposed sub-section 37(6) insert the following sub-section: '' '(6A) The Governor-General shall not direct under sub-section (6) that the appointment of a person to the Service be terminated by reason only of the fact that the person has done, or omitted to do, an act or thing in respect of which a charge could be laid against the person under Division 6, or on the ground that a court has convicted the person of a criminal offence within the meaning of that Division or found, without recording a conviction, that he has committed such an offence.''. (20) Clause 27, page 32, line 39, and page 33, lines 1 and 2, omit ''is not qualified, by reason of his not satisfying a requirement for appointment specified in a notification under section 33A, to be appointed to that office'', insert ''does not have the academic or other qualifications required for appointment to the office by virtue of a notification under sub-section 33A(1)'' . Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 28 (Fixed-term appointments to Senior Executive Service) Amendment (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: (21) Clause 28, page 33, after proposed sub-section 44 (3) insert the following sub-section: ''(3A) The Board shall not direct under sub-section (3) that the appointment of a person to the Service be terminated by reason only of the fact that the person has done, or omitted to do, an act or thing in respect of which a charge could be laid against the person under Division 6, or on the ground that a court has convicted the person of a criminal offence within the meaning of that Division or found, without recording a conviction, that the person has committed such an offence.''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 29 to 30-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3l (Interpretation). Amendments (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: (22) Clause 31, page 39, lines 19 to 26, omit proposed sub-section 49C (1), insert the following sub-section: '' '(1) In the selection of an officer for promotion to a vacant Senior Executive Service office consideration shall be given only to the relative efficiency of the officers available for promotion.''. (23) Clause 31, page 39, line 34, insert ''and the need to ensure that the experience, training, qualifications and relevant personal qualities of Senior Executive Service officers in the Department in which the vacancy exists are such as to enable the Department, in both the short term and the long term, efficiently and economically to perform its functions'' after ''established''. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.16) —I move: (4) Clause 31, page 40, omit proposed section 49E, substitute the following section: Division 5 not to apply '' '49E. (1) The provisions of Division 5 (other than sections 51AA, 51A and 52 ) do not apply in relation to a promotion or transfer to a Senior Executive Service office. '(2) Sub-section (1) has effect only in relation to promotions or transfers occurring after the expiration of the period of 2 years commencing on the day on which section 31 of the Public Service Reform Act 1984 comes in operation.'.''. The Opposition has moved this amendment in order to omit proposed section 49E and to substitute in its place an additional section. The situation is this: Under the proposals contained in the Act, as it currently stands, members of the Senior Executive Service will be precluded from being able to appeal against failure to gain promotion. The provisions for promotion in terms of the appeal mechanisms are still retained in the Act for all members of the Public Service except members of the Senior Executive Service. As the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Dawkins) is well aware, staff organisations have made representations both to the Government and to the Opposition and have expressed a number of misgivings about this proposal. We have some sympathy with them about that matter. I will take this opportunity to give some background to the House on this matter. The appeals system is one of the few disciplines in what was regarded by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts Committee in its 202nd report as a generally unsatisfactory selection system. Its cost in relation to the Second Division appeals is minimal. In l980-8l Second Division appeals comprised only l .8 per cent of all appeals. However, the system, in our view, does contain the major benefit; that is, it has a safety valve effect permitting all officers the right to press their own cause. It therefore also reduces the temptation to engage in favouritism within departments. It is for that reason that the Public Accounts Committee in its recommendations on this matter suggested the establishment of a single committee to hear and determine all appeals against Senior Executive Service promotions. It also suggested that the chairman be appointed for no more than three years and it be appropriate for a senior retired officer to be considered for that role. It suggested that each departmental representative on the committee for each separate appeal should be a Second Division Officer and that each staff representative should be chosen from a panel of Second Division officers. The Government has decided that this should not apply and it believes that the mechanisms it has established under the amended legislation adequately cover the problems which members of the Senior Executive Service may face in this regard. The Opposition does not accept this view for two principal reasons: Firstly, one of the major reforms which will be introduced into the Service will be the concept of annual assessments. The staff appraisal system which is being proposed has a long way to go. As I understand it from members of the Board, it is still in the very early days of being developed. It has to be discussed in great detail with the peak staff organisations. It will then have to be discussed with a committee of departmental heads and, no doubt, with many other people, hopefully in the private as well as the public sectors. The reason we are suggesting an amendment to the effect that members of the SES will still be able to have access to the existing system of appeal machinery for a period of two years commencing on the date on which section 31 of the Public Service Reform Act comes into operation, is to ensure that officers who are in the Senior Executive Service or who are appointed to it over the next two years will, in no sense, be limited in their capacity to assert their rights if they believe that their interests have been, in any sense, endangered by the implementation of a totally new system which, as I said earlier, will take all of two years to be effectively introduced. The legislation which we will be debating later tonight relating to the establishment of the Merit Protection and Review Agency, apparently in the view of the Minister, gives officers in the SES adequate protection. However, the simple reality is that the conditions in relation to appeals in the traditional sense will be abolished and the new agency, while it can hear the complaints of officers on a very narrow range of areas, will not in fact be able to play any real role in overcoming or overturning a decision which may have been taken by senior departmental management with the support of the Board in relation to the question of promotion. In other words, it will operate without having the power to adjudicate or to be able in any sense to ameliorate the problems which an individual officer may face. The other element of the problem which the Opposition is concerned about-as I have stated in the second reading debate-is that there is some fear in the Public Service that in the proposals before us there is the implied possibility of a greater degree of political involvement in appointments than has previously been the case. Despite the fact that the Minister made a categorical statement as I understood it this morning that in his opinion the Act would not be used for that objective, I suggest that there is still in the minds of many members of the Public Service the fear that this could take place. If, to use the expression of the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) consensus is to prevail, I suggest that it is in the interests of the Government that this legislation should be passed into effect with as wide a range of support within the Public Service as can be achieved. Of course, I also state that there should be as wide a range of support as possible within this Parliament. As I stated earlier we are in broad agreement with the objectives; we are in broad agreement with the need to change the appeal mechanism. But we are concerned that that change should not take place until the new system is in place and all public servants, especially members of the Senior Executive Service who will be subject to the new and reformed system will be fully involved in its implementation. Clearly, that is not the situation. Until the Government can give a firm commitment to the Public Service and to this Parliament it is better that the present system be continued until it is possible to introduce the new changes which will probably take all of two years. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.22) —In support of the comments that we have had from the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) the scheme of the proposal that we have advanced relates to those sections of the Public Service Reform Bill which deal with the transfers and promotions of officers other than senior executive officers. Proposed new section 49E states: The provisions of Division 5 . . . do not apply in relation to a promotion or transfer to a Senior Executive Service office. Clearly, the intention is to limit the right of appeal that might otherwise exist for officers in the Third Division moving into the Senior Executive Service. These proposals are coming forward at a very difficult time for officers. It is the view of the Opposition that, for the time being, very much as an experiment, recognising that over a longer haul these provisions may not be necessary, but while these fundamental changes are taking place, there ought to be provision for appeal. The clause that we have given as an amendment has in it a notional form of sunset clause. We have put a specific time on the operation of this section. Clearly, after the expiration of two years, commencing on the day on which this legislation comes into operation, an appeal right would exist. As I have said, it is because of the nature of the time when we are dealing with so many members of the Senior Executive Service who feel very much at risk and feel threatened with the prospect of other people, lateral appointments, coming into the Service, that this provision is being put at this time. I would certainly encourage the Government to adopt this amendment. If the Government believes its own propaganda, if one can put it in this way on this matter, that there will not be many appeals-experience suggests that there have only been few appeals in the past and, therefore, there should not be very much to be concerned about-and if it believes in relation to these matters that that experience can be taken as a guide, then it should have no problem about constituting appeals in this number of cases which the Government seems to expect would be so limited in number. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(6.25) —I do not want to take much time as I think it is important that we decide this matter before the supension of the sitting for dinner. I must say that this is an extraordinary attitude that the Opposition is taking on this matter. Before lunch we heard a lot about letting the managers manage. Honourable members opposite did not want any interruption to management prerogatives and so on and so forth. Now we are being told: 'Hang on a minute, we have to observe these rights and not take away anything that people already have'. Late last year the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) asked me why I did not get on with these Public Service reforms instead of dithering around. Now of course he says: 'That is okay but you have to leave this change for another two years'. The whole thing is preposterous. In the first place members of the Opposition overlook the very real difference which already exists between the promotions appeals system in the Third Division and Second Division. They are not similar appeal processes and the honourable member for Bradfield knows very well that they are not. At the moment the Board determines appeals for the Second Division, whereas in the Third Division appeals are determined by a promotions appeal committee. Under this revised promotion process-this is what I do not understand and the Opposition does not seem to appreciate that we have a different promotion process here-we do not have a system whereby a head of a department makes a provisional appointment. Any unsuccessful candidate appeals to a promotions appeal committee which makes a recommendation, and only a recommendation, to the Board and the Board can then determine the matter. That is how it works in the Second Division. What we are saying is that the head of a department, having received a report from a selection committee, can make a recommendation to the Board about a proposed candidate and the Board determines that matter according to the same kinds of principles that it does at the moment. What the Board can do about that is send the matter back to the head of the department for a wider canvas or it can transfer someone into that position at the same level. It cannot replace with someone else-other than someone who has transferred in-another person for that promotion. As far as that is concerned the change is not nearly as great as honourable members opposite think it is. It does, however, exclude all the frivolous appeals. It does reinforce the view that we ought to be considering promotions on a Service-wide basis rather than department by department; that is, we are marginally strengthening the power of the Board in relation to heads of departments and the selection of people for promotion to get away from what the honourable member for Bradfield complained about this morning-cloning within particular departments. This is a move in that direction. The other point about it is that if there have been any charges of discrimination or improper practices, those charges are capable of being taken up with the Merit Protection and Review Agency if there is a problem about the process. Under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act people will be able to get reasons for decisions that the Board might make in relation to this matter. In all those circumstances the amendment that is proposed is quite simply unnecessarily and immensely complicated. The other thing I ask is: Where is the evidence for this widespread concern within the Second Division? I have talked and talked to unions. I have corresponded with every member of the Second Division, sent them copies of the White Paper and sought their comments. Overwhelmingly this issue has simply not been addressed. The Second Division officers have not pursued it as an area of complaint. Likewise, if we were talking about the Third Division, the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association would be concerned about it but , as far as the Second Division is concerned, it is not concerned about it and has not pressed its claims in relation to the retention of appeals in this area. Rather than the honourable member for Bradfield standing up in this chamber claiming that the Second Division is outraged about this matter it would be a bit more useful if he provided us with some evidence. I hope he is not talking about Ned McGrath's most recent fulminations because even he, when we set him down at the table, did not persist with this matter. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.28) —Due to the lateness of the hour and as everyone has to have dinner I assure the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) that we will not proceed to a vote on this matter. But I want to make it quite clear that we are still concerned about this matter because there are people in the Second Division Officers Association and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association have expressed the views to the Minister in the past. The Minister should admit that, because of the fact that we are dealing with civil servants, many of them are reticent about coming before members of parliament or Ministers and complaining about the proposals which the Government wishes to introduce. But in private conversation they are quite specific and they have certainly been so to me. The emphasis which we are putting on this matter is simply this: We are not suggesting that an appeal mechanism should include appeals against lateral recruitments from outside. We are not suggesting that the Minister should continue a system of frivolous appeals-these are the words he used and I accept that point-but there is a case for an appeal mechanism, especially at the point of entry into the new Senior Executive Service and, for a relatively short period for appeals within the SES, when there could be conflicts between officers who have been automatically transferred into the SES because they are members of the Second Division and newer arrivals. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 32 to 34-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 35. (Subdivision not to apply). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.01) —I do not require to make any further comment on what I have already said because this amendment is consequential upon my earlier amendment. I move: (5) Clause 35, page 41, line 5, after 'omitting' insert 'from sub-section (1)'. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Amendments (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: (24) Clause 44, page 44, lines 18 to 29, omit proposed sub-section 50DA (3), insert the following sub-sections: '' '(3) Where a Secretary proposes that a vacancy be filled by a transfer or promotion under this section, the Secretary shall- (a) give notice in writing of the proposal to the organization that is, in accordance with the regulations, the principal relevant staff organization in relation to the office; and (b) if there is another relevant staff organization or there are other relevant staff organizations-give notice in writing of the proposal to the other relevant staff organization or organizations, such notice to include a statement to the effect that a relevant staff organization may, by notice in writing to the Secretary before the expiration of the period prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, object to the proposal. '' '(3A) Where the principal relevant staff organization consents to the proposal and- (a) there is no other relevant staff organization; or (b) in a case to which paragraph (a) does not apply-no other relevant staff organization objects to the proposal before the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (3) (b). the Secretary shall- (c) cause notification of the vacancy, being a notification indicating that the Secretary proposes that the vacancy be filled by a transfer or promotion under this section, to be given in the Gazette; and (d) arrange for the establishment of a Joint Selection Committee for the purposes of giving advice to the Secretary with respect to the filling of the vacancy.''. (25) Clause 84, page 64, lines 31 to 41, and page 65, lines 1 to 12, omit proposed sub-section 76L (1), insert the following sub-section: '' '(1) Where, in relation to a Senior Executive Service officer of a particular classification- (a) the Board, after having taken reasonable steps to identify Senior Executive Service offices- (i) that are of the same or equal classification; (ii) to which the officer could be transferred or the duties of which the officer could be directed to perform; and (iii) the duties of which the officer, in the opinion of the Board, can or could, within a reasonable time, perform efficiently, is satisfied that the services of the officer cannot reasonably be, and will not within a reasonable time be able reasonably to be, used in the Service in the performance of the duties of, or duties appropriate to, a Senior Executive Service office of the same or equal classification; and (b) in a case where the officer is a declared officer- (i) the officer has waived his right to appeal against the declaration made in relation to him under sub-section 76K (1) or the time within which the officer may appeal against the declaration has expired and no such appeal has been instituted; or (ii) if such an appeal has been instituted- (A) the appeal has been determined and the declaration has been confirmed; or (B) the appeal has been withdrawn, the Board may give notice in relation to the officer under sub-section (3).''. (26) Clause 84, page 65, lines 29 to 38, omit proposed sub-section 76L (3), insert the following sub-clause: '' '(3) Where sub-section (1) applies in relation to an officer, the Board may give notice in writing to the officer that- (a) the officer is to be transferred to a specified office of lower classification; or (b) the officer is to be retired from the Service.''. (27) Clause 84, page 66, line 40, insert ''deemed to be'' after ''be''. (28) Clause 84, page 67, lines 28 and 29, omit ''paragraphs (1) (b) and'', insert ''paragraph''. (29) Clause 84, page 67, add at the end of proposed sub-section 76L (10) ''and as if ', in consequence of physical or mental incapacity of the officer,' were inserted in paragraph (1) (a) after 'is satisfied that'.''. (30) Clause 90, page 71, lines 31 to 41, and page 72, lines 1 to 13, omit the clause, insert the following clause: Temporary employment ''90. Section 82 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-section (1) 'necessary' and subsituting 'required'; and (b) by omitting from sub-section (2) 'If the Board is satisfied that such assistance is required' and substituting 'Where the Board is satisfied that the assistance required by a Department is of a temporary nature'.''. (31) Clause 99, page 76, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clause: ''(4) Section 87M of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (1 ) (b) 'in the Division in which he was included immediately before he ceased, or last ceased, to be an officer, being an office'.''. (32) Clause 141, page 88, after proposed section 18 insert the following section : Annual Report '' '18A. (1) The Official Secretary shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to the Minister a report on the performance of the functions and duties of the Official Secretary during that year. '' '(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of a report furnished to him under sub- section (1) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he receives the report.'.''. Amendments- (33) Page 91, after clause 153, insert the following clause: ''153A. After section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 the following section is inserted: Official Secretary to the Governor-General '' '6A. (1) This Act does not apply to any request for access to a document of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General unless the document relates to matters of an administrative nature. '' '(2) For the purposes of this Act, a document in the possession of a person employed under section 13 of the Governor-General Act 1974 that is in his possession by reason of his employment under that section shall be taken to be in possession of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General.'.''. New Clause- (34) Page 95, Schedule 2, add at the end of the Schedule the following item:'' Section 56A (definition of 'Minister') Omit 'section 33D', substitute 'sub-section 33C (2)'.''. (35) Page 95, Schedule 3, omit the item relating to section 56A of the Public Service Act 1922. (36) Page 96, Schedule 4, after the item relating to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974 insert the following item:''Freedom of Information Act 1982 Sub-section 4 (1) (definition of 'principal officer')''. (37) Page 100, Schedule 4, proposed definition of ''Secretary'' to be inserted in sub-section 4 (1) of the National Health Act 1953, omit ''to the Department of Health'', insert ''of the Department''. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; reported-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.04) —The Opposition has an amendment to clause 3 which has been accepted by the Government, the substance of which is to protect the interests of the leaders of minority parties in the Parliament in- sofar as they are entitled to staff. I move: (1) Clause 3, page 2, at the end of the definition of ''relevant office'' add the following word and paragraph: ''or (f) an office of leader or deputy leader, in a House of the Parliament, of a recognized political party (other than an office that is held by a person who also holds an office referred to in any of the preceding paragraphs of this definition);''. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: Clause 3, page 2, lines 31 and 32, omit ''the Secretary under whose supervision the consultant is to perform tasks'', insert ''whichever Secretary the Minister considers appropriate''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 4 to 30-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 30A. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.07) —I move: (2) Page 15, before clause 31, insert the following new clause in Part V1: Annual report ''30A. As soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, the Prime Minister shall cause to be prepared a report- (a) setting out, in respect of each Minister who held office at any time during the year ending on that 30 June, the name of each consultant engaged by the Minister under section 4 during that year and the name of each consultant engaged by the Minister under section 4 before the commencement of that year who performed tasks during that year pursuant to the engagement; and (b) specifying, in respect of each consultant named pursuant to paragraph (a)- (i) the period of engagement of the consultant; (ii) which of the provisions referred to in sub-section 4 (2) is or are included in the agreement under which the consultant was engaged; (iii) where the agreement under which the consultant was engaged contained a provision of the kind referred to in paragraph 4 (2) (a) or (c)- the tasks specified in the agreement for the purposes of that provision; (iv) where the agreement under which the consultant was engaged contained a provision of the kind referred to in paragraph 4 (2) (b) or (d)-the general nature of the tasks that the consultant was engaged to perform; and (v) the terms and conditions of employment under which the consultant is employed of the kind referred to in section (5), and shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament''. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the terms and conditions of employment for ministerial consultants are made available to the Parliament for scrutiny. I take this opportunity to make some general comments in relation to the proposal to appoint ministerial consultants to Ministers. As I stated in my speech during the second reading debate, the Opposition does not oppose this concept in principle. However, I think it would be dilatory of me if I did not point out to the chamber that there has been a significant degree of concern in Public Service circles as well as elsewhere as to the way the Government would utilise this proposal to influence the line management arrangements within departments. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has stated in the White Paper and elsewhere that the Government does not see this as a means for diluting the career service of the Public Service. For want of any better information or intelligence, one has to accept the Government at its word. As in all matters such as this, the ultimate test will be the manner in which the Government, in fact, appoints and uses these ministerial consultants. The proposal that ministerial consultants should be placed within the staff of a Minister is, we believe, quite right and proper, but I doubt the veracity or wisdom of appointing ministerial consultants within departments, which in fact is the Government's proposal. Our concern in that regard is specifically based on the belief that line management requires a clearly defined discipline and control from senior management downwards. There is a risk-and this depends to a large degree on the personalities of the people appointed, and I have to emphaise that point-that people could be placed physically within departments of state and who tended to get their priorities somewhere out of line in regard to their relationship with the Minister, on the one hand, and the departmental head on the other. This could occur particularly when, as was proposed by the Minister in his earlier address, ministerial consultants were involved with public servants in preparing policy options and so forth for the consideration of Ministers. It has also been stated in the White Paper that the personnel who are to be appointed to these positions will, obviously, be members of the Australian Labor Party or fellow travellers certainly persons whose attitudes towards various aspects of policy are very similar to those of the Labor Party. The question, therefore, which arises is simply this: To what extent can relatively junior or middle ranking officers work in a close relationship with ministerial consultants appointed within departments without, at the same time, running the very real risk of losing their balance in the sense of being career public servants whose responsibility is ultimately to the departmental head? In a situation such as that many may believe that their careers can be favoured by virtue of their relationships with ministerial consultants and their relationships with the Minister's officers. I say that with the full knowledge of having seen the situation occur in the past. I see no reason why it will not continue to occur, nor do I see any protective device put forward by the Government to control the relationship between a ministerial consultant and officers of the Department. We are concerned about this relationship. We will be watching it closely because we believe that it is ultimately of great importance to the Parliament and to all parties within it that the Public Service remain, so far as possible, apolitical and able to service governments of all complexions without fear or favour. Mr Young —Have you read Clyde Cameron's book? Mr CONNOLLY —I am well aware of Clyde Cameron's views on the subject. That does not in any sense alter the reality that this is a matter of concern which requires particular attention. The purpose of this amendment is to require that details of ministerial consultants should be made available to the Parliament. One of the difficulties with the legislation as it currently stands is that while it is stated that ministerial consultants will be appointed for three years there does not appear to be any mechanism to prevent a ministerial consultant being appointed within three months or even less of the intention of a government to call an election. Mrs Kelly —No government is going to do that. Mr CONNOLLY —One cannot be sure. The only law of the land which holds is what is in this legislation. No second reading speech from a Minister or a speech by any member in the Parliament is worth anything. Only the legislation counts, and that is what we are directing our attention to. Nothing in the legislation protects the interests of the Public Service, on the one hand, and the Commonwealth on the other. In certain circumstances a government could enter into financial commitments with consultants for them to receive payments in the event of a Minister dying, ceasing to be a Minister, an election being called or something else taking place before the end of the three year period for which the consultant was employed. It is for that reason that we have suggested that it is important for the Parliament to know what these details are. Therefore, we have made a number of proposals. It is my understanding that the Government has accepted four out of five amendments we have put forward but that it does not wish to accept the fifth. That is the most important of all. It relates to the terms and conditions of employment under which a consultant is employed of the kind referred to in Clause (5). I put it to the Minister that any member of this Parliament can put on notice a range of parliamentary questions asking for exactly this information . We are simply suggesting that, rather than going through that somewhat tortuous route in which there may be a considerable delay in getting an answer if the record of this Government means anything, the Government reconsider its position in relation to paragraph (v) of the amendment and allow it to go through. It simply completes the total package by which the Parliament will be advised on an annual basis of the terms and conditions of employment of consultants, where they are, what they are doing and the terms of the contracts. That is the essence of the proposal in this amendment. I urge the Government to give it sympathetic consideration. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(8.14) —I move: That paragraph (b) (v) of the proposed amendment be deleted. The Government has been immensely tolerant with the Opposition in relation to amendments to this Bill as it has been with any organisation which has had a legitimate point to put to us in relation to it. But the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) asked too much on this occasion. We are happy to provide the information that he seeks in most of his amendment. There is just one section of it which we are unable to accept. The honourable member for Bradfield seeks in his amendment to provide, in relation to the appointment of consultants to Ministers, that information be furnished by way of annual report which would indicate the name of any consultant appointed through this bill, the period of the engagement, the provisions referred to in any agreement under which the consultant is engaged and further details concerning any matters going to the nature of the work the consultant might be engaged in particularly that which might have the consultant working within a department. Finally, the honourable member for Bradfield seeks to include in that annual report the terms and conditions of employment of those consultants. The appointment of these consultants is not a new matter. Our predecessor, the Fraser Government, a government which the member for Bradfield at least acquiesced with if not enthusiastically supported, engaged in the process of appointment of consultants on a scale unprecedented in Australia's history. If the honourable member for Bradfield wants me to delay the House and labour the point I can go through chapter and verse the number of consultants which Liberal Ministers appointed. If the honourable member really wants to press the point we can reveal the terms and conditions of those appointments. They were made in an entirely unregulated way by reference to nothing except the ministerial brutality of the Prime Minister or whichever Minister sought to get the services of a particular consultant. Mr Young —What did Owen Harries get? Mr DAWKINS —I do not know what Owen Harries got. I do not even know what Professor Hewson got. I am sure that not only the Parliament but also the taxpayers of Australia would be very interested to know how much Professor Harries and Professor Hewson were paid. Mr Young —Gough says he is not even a professor. Mr DAWKINS —He is not even an Australian, apparently. He was a favoured confidant of the former Prime Minister, at least until such time as he was far enough away in Paris to be totally ignored and where he could divert himself by distorting the performance of a very great international organisation, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Once he ceased to be the Australian Ambassador to UNESCO he was to campaign in America for its disintegration and abolition. These are the kinds of people whom the former Government chose to appoint. We knew nothing about the terms of their appointments. We did not even know their names or the circumstances in which they were appointed. We are offering to provide the Opposition, the Parliament and the people of Australia on a regular annual basis with all the details, save those relating to the terms and conditions of employment. If the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) or anyone else for that matter, is interested in the terms and conditions of employment of any particular consultant he has the normal mechanism to pursue that information. He has the Estimates committees. Whilst the Opposition is not a very good opposition, presumably by now it has woken up to the fact that by the judicious use of the Estimates committees it can find information about these matters. Mr Young —The honourable member for North Sydney is 1,500 bucks a day. Mr DAWKINS —Is that right? How much does he get in here? Mr Young —That is on top. Mr DAWKINS —What is he doing here? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will continue his address. Mr DAWKINS —There are these sources not to mention the freedom of information arrangements. Clearly, if this information is sought it can be sought in that way. Whether it is responded to will depend on the circumstances at the time. Mr Connolly —Have you got something to hide? Mr DAWKINS —No. There are very clear reasons why we would not want a statutory requirement. The first reason is that questions of commercial confidentiality are involved. We are suggesting that a government may not only appoint a consultant, but it may engage a firm that might provide it with a consultant. That firm may not want to have the terms and conditions of the agreement between it and the government revealed in this way. Similarly, there are questions of privacy relating to the appointment of particular individuals under particular circumstances which it may not want to reveal. If, in particular instances, it was thought proper to provide this information, in response to an FOI request, a parliamentary question or a question asked during an Estimates committee hearing , presumably it would be provided. But where there were special circumstances, such as reasons of commercial confidentiality or reasons of privacy, where it was not appropriate to so disclose, of course the Government would not disclose the information. One of the points which the Opposition blithely overlooks is that, when the Government reveals the terms and conditions under which people are engaged under the circumstances that immediately sets a floor in relation to the appointment of all other consultants. It seems to me that the Public Service Board, which has, after all, the role of negotiating these terms and conditions, should have as free a role as possible to engage those people under terms and conditions most favourable to the Government, and not under terms and conditions most favourable to the consultant, which would be the obvious unavoidable result of the amendment which the Opposition has moved. So if members of the Opposition are interested in this kind of profligate approach of wasting public resources in this way, that is up to them. But the Government certainly will have no truck with it. The Opposition has also overlooked the fact that under this legislation the Public Service Board must approve the terms and conditions concerning the appointment of the consultants. It seems to me, at least, that that is an adequate test of whether the terms and conditions are appropriate. Presumably, members of the Opposition are not financial voyeurs who are simply interested in what people are earning; rather, they are interested in insuring-- Mr Connolly —We are interested in what we may inherit. That is what this is all about. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Bradfield should read the rest of the Bill . The rest of the Bill makes it perfectly clear-and I refer him to clause 9 of the Bill-that the consultant appointed under this Part would cease to be engaged if the Minister who appointed him died, ceased to hold office as a Minister, or ceased to administer the department administered by the Minister at the time when the consultant was engaged. Mr Connolly —Does that mean there will be no buy out provisions? Mr DAWKINS —If anyone under any circumstances is appointed for a fixed term and that term is truncated for any reason, presumably there would be some compensation for those people so involved. Mr Connolly —That is what we want to know. Mr DAWKINS —It is perfectly obvious that that is the kind of thing which is involved. What do members of the Opposition think we are? Do they think we will appoint people for 40 years in the clear expectation that they may be required for only two or three years? The Opposition fails to recognise that clause 9 is a total guarantee about the way in which these kinds of appointments can go on and on into the future. We have been perfectly frank, perfectly open and perfectly precise about that matter. We want to ensure that Ministers have the capacity-in the same way as the cherished Valder report of the Liberal Party Committee of Review suggests that Ministers in a Liberal government would have- to employ politically relevant advice. We do not think that the Public Service Act should be perverted to the extent that we must resort to this practice for this purpose in the way that is now the only avenue available for the appointment of these people. We think it ought to be done quite specifically under a separate head of power and in a way which, consequent upon the success of most of the Opposition's amendment in this respect, will mean that it will be done in an entirely public way and in a way which reveals all the circumstances except that relating to the terms and conditions. There are very clear and powerful reasons why a government would not on every occasion want to reveal the terms and conditions of the appointment of a particular consultant under these circumstances. I would have thought that the Opposition would have recognised the importance of having some provisions for privacy in relation to these individuals or the commercial confidentiality which may be associated with the appointment of these consultants. For that reason the Government has proposed the amendment to delete that obnoxious section of the Opposition's amendment. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.25) —I object strongly to some of the suggestions made by the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Dawkins) to the effect that the Fraser Government made appointments which he believed in any sense improper. I make one important distinction between what was done by previous governments and what is proposed by this Government. All consultants, to the best of my knowledge, were appointed by Prime Ministers or Ministers to work directly as an extension of their office . The proposal before us is something quite different from that. It seeks to place consultants within departments; in other words, for the very first time since Federation the stage is now set for an infusion of political appointments into departments as a direct objective of government policy. Many public servants have expressed to me concern about this fundamental change in their status as they see themselves as a group of professional people who are employed by the Commonwealth of Australia to serve the government of the day. They see the proposal to place within departments so-called ministerial consultants as being a departure from a traditional position and one about which they frankly-and I believe with some justification-have very real reservations. I emphasised earlier that we do not object to the proposal for the Government to have the right to appoint consultants. It has been a standard practice of many governments to make appointments to the two categories of consultants. One classification is that of technical consultants to a department. They perform functions, usually for a limited period, because the department does not have specialised or expert personnel and has to look elsewhere. The second classification is one which is usually utilised by Prime Ministers; that is, to appoint to their personal staff, as the Minister mentioned, people such as Professor Owen Harries or Professor John Hewson-people who are noted in the community, generally, in academia-because of their expertise in fields such as economics, international law and so forth. These people are appointed because of their capacity to give the Government an alternative level of advice to that which it may receive from its normal departmental management. The people who will be placed in departments, as I emphasised earlier, will all be members of the Australian Labor Party or persons who are in communion with the Labor Party. The question therefore is this: To what extent will they have the capacity to dilute what until today has been a link between the departmental head and the Minister for the transfer of policy advice? It is proposed in this amendment to introduce, in effect, a circuit breaker. Theoretically, the departmental head will still be able to give advice directly to the Minister. But, depending on how the Minister wants to run his department, obviously some ministerial advisers will be placed between the departmental advice stream and the receipt of that advice by the Minister. In other words, we are seeing a fundamental departure from previous practice. It is for that reason that we are sympathetic to the concern that has been expressed, namely, that it is important for this Parliament to know as much as is possible about the details surrounding these appointments, especially those made within departments. If Ministers want to make appointments in relation to their own personal staffs, they can do so. They have our blessing and let the devil take the hindmost. But if they want to put advisers within departments it is a matter of major national concern. We should know where they are, what they are being paid and what they are doing. The Minister's comments did not in any sense dilute my concern on this question-the people of Australia have a right to know through this Parliament whether any commitments have been entered into which could go beyond the commitment stated in the Act, namely, if the Minister dies, ceases to hold office as a Minister or ceases to administer the department , the adviser's employment ends. Nothing the Minister said in any sense can dilute the risk that a contract could be negotiated by which an incoming government finds itself saddled with financial commitments entered into by the previous government and has to buy out these people. Mr Dawkins —The appointed Minister ceases to hold office; so does the consultant . Mr CONNOLLY —But that does not take into account the conditions of employment. When the consultant took the job he could say: 'Yes, I know that my job will end the day the Minister ceases to be Minister. I accept that, I know exactly what you mean, but I do not regard those terms as satisfactory or attractive. You are asking me to take on a job for three years which may only last for 12 months. My commitments elsewhere are such that I am not available on those terms. If you want me to work for you, you will have to insert in my contract provisions to the effect that, in the event of my Minister ceasing to be the Minister for any reason, I will continue to receive compensation for some specified length of time'. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the Government from doing that . That is precisely why the Opposition has moved this amendment to clause 5. We want to make it clear. The Parliament and the Australian people should know the basis on which these commitments are entered into. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(8.32) —I want to make a brief point on the issue to which the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has referred; that is, the appointment of consultants within departments. This is an issue in which I have taken an interest for a very long time. First of all, I want to refresh the honourable member's memory in relation to previous practices. There have been precedents in which the government of the day has appointed consultants within departments. Owen Harries is a very good example of that. He was a policy planning adviser in the Department of Foreign Affairs; he was actually within the department. This legislation proposes to give Ministers greater flexibility so that they can either have these consultants within their department or within their own staff. As the honourable member for Bradfield has always advocated flexibility in ministerial appointments I should think he would support that arrangement. But his objection is that these people are within departments. That is the concern with which he has been obsessed. But there are certain qualifications for such appointments. First of all, before these people are appointed to departments there is an agreement that the Prime Minister must approve the appointment. Secondly, the appointments are accompanied by a merit panel report. These people will work on nominated projects or reviews directly for a Minister or-and this is fundamental -on duties agreed to by the Minister and the secretary to the department. They will not just be imposed on the department. First of all there will be a review, a merit panel comment on these appointments and, secondly, it will be done in consultation with the secretary to the department. I think this is an essential part of the legislation to establish consultants. It is essential that the Ministers have flexibility and it is important for the morale of the Public Service that Ministers do not build up in their own offices an alternative Public Service. We have all seen previous governments do that. That is where communications between the Public Service and the Minister and his staff have broken down. The aim of this measure is to ensure that this does not happen, that the Minister has a good working relationship with his department and does not have to build up his own alternative Public Service in his own office. This legislation provides certain protection for the Government, as it ensures that the people who are appointed as consultants meet all the necessary criteria set by a merit panel to provide alternative advice to the Ministers without alienating the Public Service. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.36) —The comments that have just been made by the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) in relation to the amendment are significant in that we are told that a merit panel report will exist. It will apparently be administered by the Public Service Board and presumably, according to the White Paper, there will be consultation with the secretary to the department concerned. In view of the fact that departmental secretaries can count on continuity of appointment for only five years, I think a secretary would be a very brave man or woman, as the case may be, to stand up against a Minister in relation to the type of people he or she wants to have on the staff of the Department. Mrs Kelly —You don't think much of the Public Service. Mr CONNOLLY —I think a lot of the Public Service but I know one thing about it. Members of the Public Service do not go out of their way to fight with Ministers . They usually come off second best if the Minister has any gumption. The problem we are facing is simply this: The evidence we have to go on as to the Government's record in terms of ministerial advisers to date is that of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). He has made three publicly known appointments, all of them from his own electorate. I simply put to the honourable member what I said in the second reading debate last night. It is not our role to protect members of the Government from themselves. If Ministers make peculiar appointments, let it be on their heads. The evidence will come forward, questions will be asked in this House, the people of Australia will be informed and not only will the Ministers have to take the consequences but also, if I may use the words of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) who is at the table, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will be ultimately responsible for all these appointments. He has to be responsible for the persons who are appointed. As I said in the second reading debate, I am charitable enough to the Prime Minister to suggest that the appointments made to date would not have been done with his support, because Deputy Prime Ministers tend to go their own way. Ministers from all parties and of all political persuasions have tended to go their own way and many Prime Ministers are not prepared to stand up in that situation. This Prime Minister has not done so either and this is the first time there has been a new departure from previous government policy. The Government's policy which it took to the Australian people put a limit on the number of ministerial consultants that it would appoint. As I recall, it was 5 per cent of the total size of the Senior Executive Service. That was a reasonable enough basis to work from. But the Minister told this House the other day that that commitment has been changed. He was able to say only that there would be a minimum number or a small number, or words to that effect. He was not prepared to actually say: 'We will make only X number of ministerial appointments in accordance with the policy on which we went to the Australian people at the last election'. As with so many other areas of the Government's policy, it is prepared to change policy as it suits the time of day. Nevertheless, we have accepted that because, as the honourable member for Canberra so rightly said, we like flexibility in public administration as much as the Government does. We accept the need for flexibility but we must also have clearly understood guidelines as to how the Government of the day intends to manage its affairs. Here we are being told of the Government's intention to introduce this totally new concept of a ministerial consultant within departments. I emphasise again that the Fraser Government made ministerial consultant appointments only within its ministerial offices. The Fraser Government also made, perhaps, appointments of departmental advisers. That has been a standard practice for many years. They are two quite separate appointments-the departmental adviser, and the ministerial adviser. We should not confuse the two . Their roles, in terms of involvement in this exercise, are different. The fact is that present system will be fundamentally changed. We have a proposal in the White Paper about a merit panel report. We have to assume that the Public Service Board is somehow involved in that. We have to assume that the level of consultation with the secretaries to departments will be on a fair basis-that is , fair to the secretaries-and that they will not have a gun held at their head by Ministers: 'You will take this person, because he happens to live in my electorate. I want him to be on the staff of your department. I do not care what you do with him. Just give him a job and we will pay him a senior assistant secretary's salary', et cetera. Mrs Kelly —Oh. Mr CONNOLLY —Unfortunately, these things happen. It occurred with a Minister of the honourable member's Party, a certain gentleman who was Treasurer, called Dr Cairns. It happened under the Whitlam Administration. We had a number of examples of it. There is no reason why we should look back in history and assume that the honourable member's Administration will necessarily be any better than the previous Labor Administration which sat on that side of the House for far too long. Nevertheless, these are the realities of the situation. It is incumbent upon the Government, if it is to go down this route, to be at least prepared to come out with the facts and be honest with the people and let this Parliament know the full details. If the Government is not prepared to accept this amendment before the matter gets to the Senate, where undoubtedly the Government will have the same problems again, I seriously suggest that it consider some amendment to the legislation that will meet our concerns. The alternative for the Government is to place its own amendment into the legislation before it reaches the other place, making it quite clear that no financial commitments will be entered into by this Government with ministerial consultants in the event of a change of government. Question put: That the paragraph proposed to be omitted stand part of proposed new clause 30A . The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Adermann, A. E. Fisher, P. S.Aldred, K. J. Hall, SteeleBlunt, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Braithwaite, R. A. Katter, R. C.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Spender, J. M.Edwards, Harry Tuckey, C. W.Fife, W. C. White, P. N. D. Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. Wells, D. McM.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Dobie, J. D. M. Hayden, W. G.Hunt, R. J. D. Hurford, C. J.Howard, J. W. Kerin, J. C.Moore, J. C. Lindsay, E. J.Porter, J. R. Chynoweth, R. L.Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, RonaldWilson, I. B. C. Mountford, J. G. Question so resolved in the negative. New clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4 (Object). Amendment (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: Clause 4, page 3, line 21, insert 'are fair and equitable and' after 'employee' . Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 10-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 11 (Conduct of hearings). Amendment (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: Clause 11, page 5, lines 20 to 22, omit the clause, insert the following clause : Parties to appeal proceedings ''11. For the purposes of this Subdivision, the parties to particular appeal proceedings are the officer promoted or selected and the appellant or appellants .''. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 12 to 14-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 15. (Enactment may provide for promotion appeals to be heard by Promotion Appeal Committees). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.55) —Clause 15 is a very significant clause because it affects virtually the entire corpus of public servants outside the current confines of the Public Service Act. The clause states in part: An enactment may provide that appeals of a specified kind in relation to promotions of Commonwealth employees, not being appeals to which section 9 applies, may be made to a Promotion Appeal Committee established in accordance with this Subdivision and where an enactment so provides- In other words, the objective of the proposal is that, with the agreement of a statutory authority, the provisions of the merit protection legislation can be applied to the personnel employed within it. On a first reading of that arrangement one would perhaps be somewhat deluded into believing that it was of no great consequence. However, major problems have to be faced by the Government in this regard because there are quite a number of specifications of statutory authorities. There are those which are incorporated, others which are staffed under the Public Service Act and, furthermore, others which are staffed partly under the Public Service Act. In addition to that, there are business authorities and various other categories of statutory authority. What concerns us principally is whether the application of these provisions, which were essentially written for departmental officers of the Public Service, could under present arrangements be applied to a range of statutory authorities which are in the market place and which are of a business nature. We are very concerned that this would effectively mean that day to day management could be affected in a negative sense by the introduction of the range of provisions contained in this legislation unless it was quite clearly laid down that management believed that its fundamental responsibility, which is to run its operations at a profit for the Commonwealth, would not in any sense be damaged by the application of what are essentially provisions for public servants in departments. I recommend that the Minister read the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on statutory authorities of the Commonwealth. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard pages 13 to 19 of that report. The CHAIRMAN —I draw to the attention of the honourable member Mr Speaker's ruling that only tables and other such matters as cannot be actually read may be incorporated. Mr Connolly —It is a table. The CHAIRMAN —The rest of it is not. The honourable member may table it, but he cannot have it incorporated. Mr CONNOLLY —Since I am not allowed to put it in Hansard, I have to bore the Committee by advising honourable members of some of its contents. Statutory authorities fall into three groups: Incorporated bodies, those staffed under the Public Service Act and those partly staffed under the Public Service Act. In those areas where there is a mixture of staff there would be a very major problem if this legislation were applied, because it could be said that it was establishing a criterion which applied to some staff and not to others while all those persons were employed by the same body. The suggestion of the Opposition is quite simply that there should be an amendment to the legislation to provide that, where clause 15 speaks of an enactment, an amendment of Parliament will be required to insert into all statutory legislation an appropriate provision where it is agreed by management of statutory authorities to implement these proposals . On that basis the Opposition would be happy to see the proposal go forward but it opposes the provisions as they currently stand because it regards them as being far too open. They do not necessarily protect the interests of some personnel of statutory authorities nor does the Opposition believe they necessarily protect the Commonwealth's interest insofar as we have, through this Parliament on many occasions, had to subsidise and finance to a substantial degree the activities of many statutory authorities. As I have said I should like to table the part of this report which is relevant to the subject in order to emphasise to the House that it is indeed a very complex area and one to which I recommend the Government give further consideration. I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Minister for Public Service Matters)(9.01) —In the fond hope that this will be the one and only debate on this issue I join with the honourable member for Bradfield ( Mr Connolly). The Opposition is concerned that the powers of the Merit Protection and Review Agency should not be extended to statutory authorities whose employees are not already covered by the Public Service Act without some clear public announcement of that intention. I do not think that is an unreasonable approach. If the statutory authorities' employees are already covered by the Act of course those employees already have access to the Merit Protection and Review Agency. Therefore what the Government is concerned about is a very diverse range of statutory authorities whose employees are not covered by the Public Service Act. The reason why this and other provisions are in the Act is to provide for a situation in which the employees of a statutory authority not covered by the Public Service Act can have recourse to the provisions of the Merit Protection ( Australian Government Employees) Bill soon to be an Act and to the agency proposed to be established. We have to remember that this agency is not just concerned with such matters as promotions appeals. It is also concerned about such matters as appeals against discriminatory practices or any matters relating to equal employment opportunities. Therefore the Government believes that this agency provides unique and new opportunity for public sector employees to have recourse by way of appeal to an agency to enforce their rights in relation to discrimination or equal employment opportunities. The Government does not believe that it should be an immensely laborious process to extend the operations of the agency to those statutory authorities whose employees are not now covered by the Public Service Act. The Opposition's concern seems to be that the Government might slip in by stealth some extension of the provisions of this agency, or access to this agency, in a way which would avoid any public scrutiny. That is not the intention of the Government. To the extent that the Opposition is concerned that commercial enterprises, which may be statutory authorities, should not be further burdened with bureaucratic and other kinds of restrictions which inhibit their ability to operate in the market. The Opposition finds a very great deal of sympathy with me. The Government will not be extending the provisions of this Bill to those commercial statutory authorities without a very great deal of thought and consideration. But at the same time it seems not unreasonable that in relation to such matters as equal employment opportunity and other kinds of discriminatory practices in employment and personnel practices that the public sector does have an obligation to set a standard. Therefore the employees in statutory authorities ought to have recourse to some mechanism to ensure that their rights can be enforced in relation to these matters. Therefore the Government wants to extend, when appropriate, to statutory authorities the provisions of this Bill to ensure that those public sector organisations are not involved in discriminatory practices or are avoiding their equal employment opportunity obligations. The Government wants to have a relatively flexible arrangement for including the access to this agency under certain circumstances. The Opposition is not proposing an amendment but is simply opposing the extension of this bill to any statutory authority not covered by the Public Service Act. Rather, it is saying that the Government should come back with an amendment which truncates or restricts the application of this Bill to those statutory authorities. This simply would make the process far too inflexible. The Government would like to see its principles in relation to equal employment opportunity and anti- discrimination practices, as far as personal practices are concerned, extended to those statutory authorities as soon as possible. It does not want to have to resort to Acts of Parliament on every separate occasion when it wants to move in that direction. The other point, of course, is that if the Government were to accede to the Opposition's request it would inevitably complicate immensely the provisions which are already provided for under the Public Service Act in relation to access to this agency because many of the provisions under this Act are provided for by regulation rather than the Act. The Government is unable to accept this set of amendments that the Opposition has proposed. I hope that on reflection the Opposition will recognise that it has embarked an unnecessary course. This Government has no intention of cluttering up commercial enterprises, which happened to be statutory authorities, with the burden of bureaucratic procedures which restrict their ability to operate in a way comparable with other private sector organisations. Indeed all of the actions that the Government has taken as a government, whether it be in relation to Trans Australia Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation or whatever, have indicated that it has moved towards freeing up those organisations in a way in which the Liberal Government was not even able to contemplate in its seven years of government. I think that the Labor Government's record speaks for itself and our intentions will be made even more clear in a matter of weeks when its policy paper on this matter is revealed. Now that we have a Sex Discrimination Act as well as a Racial Discrimination Act it seems to the Government that it ought to be able to move promptly and flexibly to extend the operations of those principles to those organisations which are under the control of the Government. As members of the Opposition will be aware, when we are talking about private sector operations it is much more difficult to legislate for anti-discrimination practices, whether they be in relation to race, sex or anything else. But in relation to public sector organisations the Government does have an obligation to set a standard and to do so as promptly as possible. One can have it absolutely. The Government has undertaken an approach which will involve it in substantial consultation before the operations of this agency are extended to any statutory authority not already covered by it. That will involve consultations with the unions, with the management of the authorities and, in most cases, will involve some legislative arrangement, whether it be an Act, a regulation or an ordinance. In any case, where it is one of those three the Act obviously comes before the Parliament and the subordinate legislation obviously is put before Parliament for disallowance. In most cases there will be the opportunity for scrutiny by the Parliament of any extension of the Bill. There will be a limited number of cases where perhaps there will be a provision in some other way which will not automatically come before the Parliament for disallowance or enactment. I am perfectly happy to say that in those instances Ministers responsible for those statutory authorities which are proposed to be included under the operation of this agency will make public statements in relation to those matters. I think that is the best way for this matter to proceed. The choice we have really is to have a relatively flexible approach, which in most cases involves the lack of avoidance of Parliamentary scrutiny, or to have a system, which the Opposition would prefer, requiring Acts of Parliament to extend the operation of the Merit Protection and Review Agency, which would in fact strangle the extension of the Agency in such important matters as equal employment opportunities and anti-discrimination personnel practices. I think the Opposition will accept that point. I suspect that where we will differ is where there is a suspicion that an organisation such as Qantas would have its promotion practices subjected to the appeal provisions in this Bill. It is not the intention of the Government to move in that direction. In fact, as I have said before, all our actions to this point have been in exactly the opposite direction. They have been to provide statutory authorities such as Qantas with a greater degree of freedom to get on with the job of running a commercial operation in a way which suits not only its clients but also its shareholders-in this case, the taxpayers of Australia via the Australian Government. I think that the concerns of the Opposition would be to some extent legitimate if the worst kind of scenario were ever to be contemplated. We are embarking here on new territory to establish an agency quite independent of the Public Service Board which will reinforce the merit principle within the Australian Public Service. That is its main purpose. We have provided the Agency with powers also to apply principles or enforce rights in relation to anti- discrimination and equal employment opportunity practices which we think are appropriate. We think that, in certain circumstances, they ought to be extended to statutory authorities. I think that is a reasonable approach bearing in mind that the Human Rights Commission will always stand there as a final avenue when this Agency does not provide an appropriate remedy. I think that the concerns of the Opposition in this regard are, whilst in one sense legitimate, somewhat exaggerated. Therefore the Government is unable to accept the amendments that the Opposition has proposed in this regard. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(9.13) —I make a few brief comments in regard to the remarks of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). I understand the Minister's concern for and a commitment to the comments made in regard to the Committee's proposed amendment. I note that the Minister is sincere when he says that it is not his intention or the Government's intention to bring the statutory authorities which are outside the powers of the Public Service Board under the Merit Protection ( Australian Government Employees) Bill. The Opposition is particularly concerned about the interpretation of the word 'enactment' occurring in clause 15, which states: An enactment may provide that appeals of a specified kind in relation to promotions of Commonwealth employees . . . The clause goes on to explain how that enactment process may apply to statutory authorities. An enactment in this sense, as the Minister has so rightly said, is not necessarily an Act of Parliament or a regulation; it can be by directive or ministerial decision or by a decision of the board or the corporation itself which is in charge of the affairs of that undertaking. The Opposition is concerned there should not be an extension of this merit protection process into commercial organisation when it will not be known by members of the public or the Opposition that such an extension is taking place. The Minister has agreed that there are situations in which this can occur without proper knowledge. He has given a commitment, which I accept and which I believe will stand the test of time. The Opposition is not concerned about this Minister's commitment but rather that of furture Ministers and the commitment of other individuals. I can well foresee circumstances in which, in a very heated dispute-say with Qantas Airways Ltd when the airline is shut down for an extended period-one of the claims by employees in dispute is that the provisions of the merit protection Bill should apply to them, and the Minister, in the heat of industrial negotiation, yields on that provision as part of the settlement but does not yield other provisions which the employees might want. I use that as an example only. It is the fear of the Opposition that commercial organisations will gradually take up this merit protection process. We are concerned that commercial organisations may take up such a process because one of the fears of the Opposition is that within the Public Service at large a gradual process of appeal has been built into the system which really does not allow effective and good quality managers to put their stamp on the Public Service. What they are tending to do is to take easy options in appointments and promotions. They will appoint people who in their view will not be challenged by any process of appeal. They tend to appoint people whose appointment will not create problems with staff. Therefore, they are tending to select people who are not challenged by their job, by the Public Service or by the new promotion. I regret that within the Public Service in Australia we are not seeing coming forward great figures such as the figures we saw 20 years ago who led the Public Service very effectively. They were strong individuals and they had a strong system of promotion with, in many instances, people involved in promotions being directly answerable to them. If the Government wishes to have the merit appeals process that is being debated tonight, that is the Government's prerogative. The Opposition will not oppose that wish of the Government. However, the Opposition objects to seeing it extended to fully commercial organisations, perhaps not by this Minister or indeed this Government, but by future governments. The introduction of such a process would severely hamper the effective operations of those commercial organisations. I was somewhat surprised to hear the Minister bring up the discrimination and equal employment opportunities factors, for which he said the merit protection Bill will provide. I do not see any reference to those measures within the Bill. I do not see that specified in the interpretation section under the objects of the organisation or within the functions of the organisation. I am somewhat surprised that the mechanisms already established by the Government and by previous governments in regard to discrimination and equal employment opportunities are not, in the view of the Government, the ones that will apply and that, rather, the merit protection Bill and the Merit Protection and Review Agency to be established will be one of the mechanisms used to prevent discriminatory practices and to apply equal employment opportunities. That surprises me. No doubt that will appear in the regulations. It is not indicated in the Bill because the object of the Agency is to deal with the efficiencies of relevant authorities and the need to ensure good relations between the relevant authority and its employees. Those are the main objects of the Agency. It can be argued that discrimination and equal opportunity are important functions of efficiency, and well they may be, but they may be only peripheral matters to the real efficiency issue that the Agency was supposed to examine. I reassert my concern that the Minister has not seen fit to go one step further than the commitment he has given and say that he is prepared to notify the House if there is to be an enactment. It applies only to a narrow field. The Minister has admitted that, in most instances, it will be by process of regulation or Act and by that process he will be able to make the Parliament and the people of the nation aware that the Merit Protection and Review Agency will be going into agencies outside the Commonwealth Public Service. I think it is a simple matter for those few commercial organisations that indeed must be protected from this hampering process within the Public Service. It is a restrictive process and one that I would like to see changed. I do not want to see that go further. The Minister could easily say: 'I am prepared to notify the Parliament if the circumstances should occur that the Government wishes to extend the activities of the Merit Protection and Review Agency'. I think that is the request of the Opposition. As the Minister acknowledges, it is a fair request. I think it is a simple step for him to go that little bit further. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(9.22) —I have listened with very close attention to the comments made by the Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Dawkins) in respect of the proposal to extend the power of the Merit Protection and Review Agency to cover statutory authorities. I have also noted his undertaking for extensive consultation with those authorities individually before this power would in fact be extended to their personnel. This is a matter of concern to the Opposition as my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has so rightly pointed out. I will quote some statistics from the same report I referred to earlier, namely that of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Honourable members should note that it was presented in 1979, so it is somewhat out of date. In the previous year the number of full time employees with statutory authorities was 265,924 and there were a further 9,991 part time employees. If we add those totals to the existing Public Service which includes personnel of authorities which are under the Public Service Act, the reality is we are considering in excess of 300,000 personnel. As I said in an aside to the Minister, I am concerned. In fact, my mind boggles at the implications of the ability of a small Merit Protection and Review Agency being able to look after what could be literally thousands upon thousands of individual promotions each year as well as taking into account the difficulties which may be faced by women , Aborigines, migrants or any other groups which are part of the Public Service in terms of other conditions of employment. While the Minister may, as he pointed out, say he has no interest in cluttering up commercial authorities with bureaucratic procedures-if I may quote his words-one has to voice the genuine concern that a Merit Protection and Review Agency of the type proposed by the Government will, in fact, be unable to extend its operations to cover such a vast number of people without having to meet the very real problems of significantly greater costs and complex bureaucratic systems. Having said that, however, I am prepared, on behalf of the Opposition, to withdraw our opposition to the four clauses I have mentioned if the Government is prepared to give consideration to this matter between now and the time it goes to the other place. For example, may I suggest that provision could be made so that the Merit Protection and Review Agency will report annually to the Parliament. In that report it should be required to state the negotiated arrangements with specific statutory authorities outside the existing Public Service Act. That would at least go some way towards giving the Parliament the opportunity to see what in fact is going on. I must emphasise that the sheer size of the problem causes us real concern. We do not in any sense resile from the Government's concern or its general philosophy in terms of personnel management and we support the view that those principles should be applied throughout the public employment arena, but whether it is correct to place that vast responsibility upon this new Merit Protection and Review Agency-something which even the Public Service Board in its greatest days of grandeur never tried to take on; namely, controling in such a specific way the entire area of public employment-I believe, this should be a matter of genuine concern. As the Minister so rightly pointed out, he is interested in not cluttering up administration, be it in banks, the financial system or elsewhere, and I am sure that he is equally concerned not to clutter up Commonwealth statutory authorities. A balance has to be struck and we are firmly of the view that it should be in favour of creating yet another bureaucratic monster which is going to set itself up virtually as a rival to the influence of the Public Service Board, in terms of Public Service employment. It must not be in a conflict situation with statutory authorities whose responsibility under existing legislation is to enter the market palce and make a profit. The view of the Opposition is that many of these bodies should cease to exist in that context. They should be sold off at least in part to their employees or to Australian citizens and be allowed to operate free from all these bureaucratic constraints and so forth. That is certainly the object of our policy but since we do not have the influence that we would exert if we were in government and have to speak from the Opposition benches, we urge the Government to be very careful about its progress in this direction. We look forward to reading the Government's soon to be unveiled White Paper on its policy towards statutory authorities. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(9.27) —I appreciate the offer that the Opposition has made in relation to this matter. I think we are basically on the same track. I have made it perfectly clear that in most cases the enactments referred to in this section and in other sections will in most instances, I am advised, be enactments which require the consent of Parliament or provide for disallowance by Parliament. In those circumstances where they do not-that is, where they relate to, say, terms and conditions of a statutory authority-they would only apply with the consent of the statutory authority itself. So they are not of a kind that could be imposed on the statutory authority by the Government . I have already indicated that it is our view that Ministers should make statements and table amendments to any of those kinds of provisions which are being changed at the time when the operations of a statutory authority are being put under the ambit of this Merit Protection and Review Agency. I make it perfectly clear that any enactments not subject to parliamentary approval or parliamentary disallowance would be tabled in one or both Houses of Parliament. Let me go on to say that I am not particularly opposed to making the tabling of those changes a statutory requirement. If that will satisfy the Opposition I will be perfectly happy to take that proposal on board. I cannot undertake to have an amendment introduced to that effect in the Senate but I would certainly undertake to have that matter reviewed when this legislation is reviewed or when a statute law revision Bill is being introduced which might provide an opportunity for that kind of inclusion. This is a new agency. We recognise that we are embarking in a new area. We are not seeing this as the creation of a new bureaucratic albatross but we do think it has some very important functions to perform. We do want to see it up and running independent of the Public Service Board to preserve and protect the rights of public servants and the employees of particular statutory authorities. I think it is important, therefore, that this Bill be agreed to by both Houses of Parliament. But I do give the undertaking that, in the relatively near future , I would certainly be happy to bring forward in some form amendments which would give effect to the desire to see any enactments which are not subject to parliamentary approval or parliamentaty disallowance tabled in this parliament in a way which would allow for complete disclosure of the changes which were being made which might extend the operations of this Agency. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Amendments (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: (3) Clause 31, page 12, line 3, omit ''Part'', insert ''Subdivision''. (4) Clause 37, page 13, before paragraph (1) (a) insert the following paragraph : ''(aa) the Committee shall make full inquiries into the matter before the Committee;''. (5) Clause 40, page 15, lines 8 to 12, omit the clause, insert the following clause: Persons who may apply to Agency ''40. Where an enactment provides that an application may be made to the Agency for a review of a decision, the application may be made by- (a) the Commonwealth employee in relation to whose employment the decision was made; (b) an organization that is registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and has been requested by the employee to make the application on behalf of the employeee; or (c) in a case where the employee has died-the legal personal representative of the employeee.''. (6) Clause 48, page 19, lines 36 to 40, omit the clause, insert the following clause: Persons who may apply to Agency ''48. Where an enactment provides that an application may be made to the Agency for investigation of an action, the application may be made by- (a) the Commonwealth employee in relation to whose employment the action was taken; (b) an organization that is registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and has been requested by the employee to make the application on behalf of the employee; or (c) in a case where the employee has died-the legal personal representative of the employee.''. (7) Clause 84, page 37, add at the end of the clause the following sub-clauses: ''(6) Subject to sub-sections (7) and (8), nothing in this Act shall be taken to preclude the Director from disclosing information, or making a statement, to any person or to the public or a section of the public with respect to the performance of a function of the Agency under this Act if, in the opinion of the Director, it is in the interests of any Department, Commonwealth authority or person, or is otherwise in the public interest, so to disclose that information or to make that statement. ''(7) The Director shall not disclose information or make a statement under sub -section (6) with respect to a particular review, investigation or inquiry where the disclosure of that information, or the making of that statement, is likely to interfere with the carrying out of that review, investigation or inquiry or of any other review, investigation or inquiry. ''(8) The Director shall not, in disclosing information or making a statement under sub-section (6) with respect to a particular review or investigation, disclose the name of an applicant or any other matter that would enable an applicant to be identified unless it is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.''. Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 February, on the following paper presented by Mr Dawkins: Reforming the Australian Public Service. and on motion by Mr Young: That the House take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.34) —I suppose one could say that the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1984 is a machinery Bill in the sense that it takes on the findings of the national wage case into the matter of parliamentary salaries and simply increases parliamentary salaries by the figure which has been awarded generally in the Australian community. It does a number of other things. One could dismiss this Bill then as something which we could go through quickly and without controversy. I imagine that it will pass without controversy because, as I have said, it does pass on that which is generally available to the Australian community, which has already been awarded to the community through the machinery of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It does, however, highlight again the method of wage fixation which has been formulated by this Government. It highlights the fact that the Government has returned to full indexation of wages. This system is not supported by the Opposition. I must say on behalf of the Opposition that when it returns to government it will not use this form of wage fixation and, of course, this sort of Bill to increase parliamentary salaries by a form of indexation applied in this manner will not be put before the Parliament. However, the system is national. It has been adopted by the Government and therefore there is no way that in attending to this Bill one can move against the provisions which have pervaded the community with respect to industrial relations and wage fixation because of government policy. The Opposition does not approve of this product of the accord which is an agreement between the Government and the unions and has produced, in effect, an indexation of costs. It is one of the greatest burdens that the Australian community has to bear. When one hears of the new plan for the motor industry which was announced in recent hours one knows that the root of the trouble of that industry is not the conditions which the Government talks about. It is not the arrangements of production and importation so much as the cost of production in Australia. That is the basic problem facing this country in its industrial and commercial life. This Bill simply highlights the fact that the Government has done a deal with the unions and has said to them: 'We as the parliamentary Labor Party are a product of you. That is why we are here. We are the parliamentary part of industrial labour'. It is natural that the Government, as the parliamentary arm of industrial labour, would do as is required of it by the unions. It has in this way agreed to what is called an accord which, in the English language, is making respectable a deal between the Government and the unions to institutionalise in the wage fixation system the indexation of costs. Mr White —Locking it in forever. Mr STEELE HALL —That locks costs into the wage system. Therefore, we will have an ever widening difference between productivity and the wage structure, a difference which industry and commerce must meet. This small Bill dealing with parliamentary salaries brought to mind these matters. The Bill contains a number of other items which are important in their smaller ambit. It regularises the fixation of the salaries of the Inter-State Commissioners by bringing them within the operation of the Remuneration Tribunal . It removes the judges of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory at the wish of the Northern Territory Government which now has its own tribunal to effect the salaries of Northern Territory judges. It deals also with parliamentary allowances. The Government has not approved the determination of the Tribunal to increase the allowances by 15 per cent. It has said that it will not agree to this increase because the 18 per cent increase in the consumer price index since the allowances were last adjusted to a large degree occurred during the effect of the wage pause. The Government has said that it will not allow an increase to cover the wage pause which, during that time, affected also other wages in the community. All that decision does is highlight the fact that the wage pause should have gone on for a greater period. If it had, Australian industry would be in a much greater competitive position now than it is in because of this Government's indexation of costs. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. It makes the point-I hope I have made to this House-that the system is wrong. However, it is a system encompassing Australia. The Opposition simply makes the point that when elected to office it will adopt a much different system. We will not consider this sort of Bill which quite recklessly indexes costs without any regard to the ability of industry to pay or of the community to meet its responsibilities through taxation. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(9.42) —in reply-I thank honourable members who have taken part in this debate. It is not true, of course , as the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) wants to make out, that the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1984 is an irresponsible way of dealing with office holders, members of parliament and so forth. In fact, it is the most rational method one has seen over many years. As the honourable member would know, nothing could be more controversial in Australia or attracts headlines more than the talk of the granting of and the acceptance of increases in parliamentary salaries. Of course, the fact that parliaments have dithered with a whole multitude of systems means that we have played into the hands of people, some of whom believe that members of parliament should be like people of the last century; that is, not paid at all. Mr White —You are locking the nation into automatic indexation. Mr YOUNG —We are locking the nation into a very rational set of guidelines for proper industrial relations, which the Opposition was not able to achieve when it was in government. If the Opposition looks at the explosion of wages prior to the wage freeze-the 18 per cent increase in 1982-it will see the madness that existed in industrial relations as a result of the lack of any wages policy by the Fraser Government during its term of office. There has been no such explosion under this Government. But there has been an agreement. That agreement is that people are entitled to maintain their living standards. We say that that agreement should embrace everybody, including members of parliament. Mr White —Without regard to productivity. Mr YOUNG —We do not subject ourselves to productivity cases. The productivity case, in fact, probably will be set down for 1985, in terms of the additional determinations that have to be made by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We are saying in this Bill that in future we do not wish to deal with parliamentarians, office holders, people of the judiciary or other people affected by this Bill any differently from the way in which we deal with other members of the community. If the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission says, under the guidelines that have now been adopted, that it will grant a 4.1 per cent or a 4.5 per cent wage increase, that should be applicable in this chamber at the same time and at the same level as it applies everywhere else in Australia. There has been less controversy in the last six or eight months since we adopted this system than in any previous time I can recall. It is not so very long ago that the Fraser Government found to its embarrassment and to the embarrassment of all members of parliament that it had been so long since a decision had been taken to bring parliamentary salaries into line with what ought to have been their position in relation to the Public Service that it had to accept a 20 per cent wage increase for parliamentarians. That was three or four years ago. No one in Australia could talk about anything else for about three months until the Government was forced to reverse the decision. That is not the sort of environment in which parliamentarians can operate. One cannot operate in one's electorate; one cannot operate in one's profession; one cannot operate in the Parliament under that type of system. All we have done in this Bill is to bring ourselves into line with the rules that operate for everybody else in Australia who has a job, irrespective of what that job or profession may be. That is all we are doing. In some cases, of course, that will not suffice. Other factors have been operating under the new national wage case guidelines which mean that many senior people in this country-I am not talking about parliamentarians now-others in statutory authorities and some of the people at the top end of the Public Service believe, on paper quite validly, that they are ones who have fallen behind over the last couple of years. That is a matter that has to go before the Remuneration Tribunal. In fact, it has gone before the Tribunal and it will be dealt with in its next report. That will be a quite different matter for us to deal with. Members of this Government are not going to make big people of themselves by refusing a 4.5 per cent or 4.1 per cent increase and let the increases back up and back up and then in 1985 or 1986 try to convince the community that in some way parliamentarians are justified in receiving some enormous 15 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent wage increase. It seems to me that the system we have now adopted is acceptable to the public and does justice to the parliamentarians and other office holders affected by the Tribunal and incorporated in this Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(9.46) —I move: Clause 18, page 9, lines 8 to 9, omit proposed paragraph (2) (b), substitute the following paragraph: ''(b) decisions given from time to time by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in National Wage Cases.''. The purpose of the amendment is merely to correct the English in the clause. Clause 18 states: (b) National Wage Cases handed down from time to time by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The correct terminology, as contained in the amendment, should be: (b) decisions given from time to time by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in National Wage Cases. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.47) —The amendment moved by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) seems, as he stated, to make eminently good sense. It simply puts into clearer terms the intention of sub-clause (b) of clause 18. However, I would like the Minister to state how he sees this new addition to the Bill working. I had intended, in my short speech at the second reading stage, to mention the operation of this clause and to ask the Minister to reply in his summing up, but I did not do so. I take this opportunity of so doing. Obviously the Remumeration Tribunal, in bringing down the 4.1 per cent pay increase determination, followed exactly-in relation to salaries at least; not the allowances, but there were reasons for that-the desire of the Government, as I understand it, in its general approach to wage fixation. Clause 18 states: In the performance of its functions, the Tribunal shall have regard to- it does not say 'shall find exactly as' or such other words as we might direct- (a) the Principles of Wage Determination established from time to time by the Australian Concilation and Arbitration Commission . . . The second sub-clause, which the Minister has moved to amend, concerns the determination of national wage case matters. What strength does the Minister put on the words 'shall have regard to'? This time the Government got exactly what it wanted from the Tribunal. That may be a happy coincidence. It may be, from the Government's point of view, the only sensible decision. But it seems that in future there may not be the necessity for the Tribunal to do exactly that. I would like to know from the Minister how he sees this clause in operation and how strong he believes the connnection will be between the national wage case and the direction 'to have regard to' in this provision. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(9.50) —The terminology 'shall have regard to' of course is new. We put it there for the purpose of the Tribunal having its attention drawn to the fact that the Government regards the operations of the guidelines and the decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the principles of the national wage determination and in national wage cases as being paramount to the decision which the Government will make, irrespective of the findings of the Tribunal. In this case, the Tribunal did not find as the Government concluded. It is true to say that the Government got everything it may have wanted. The Tribunal was operating on the basis of the allowances for which it gave a 15 per cent increase- Mr Steele Hall —I did not exempt the allowance from my remarks. Mr YOUNG —It could have done otherwise too. It is true to say that if one looks at the classic interpretation of the national wage case guidelines it would have been possible, and it may be possible in future, for the Tribunal to say that if we apply the metal trades example of what has occurred in the catchup between 1982 and 1984 in the national wage guidelines, parliamentarians may be entitled to a wage increase of between 11 per cent and 13 per cent as a catchup. That is very much part of the principles laid down by the Commission. We are saying that the Tribunal can have regard to the principles but we are not saying that they are sacrosanct in relation to the Government's determination. Ultimately, as we all know in this chamber only too well from our own personal experiences, tribunals, authorities, committees, experts and everybody can tell us from outside what we should do but the responsibility will be honed back to the parliamentarians and especially to the Executive of the Parliament. It will have to answer for any decision that is made. We are saying to the Tribunal as we should say, quite properly, that it has to have regard to the principles which are laid down as principles for everybody. I think they have been explained only too well in the last few days in the Press by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in relation to the furnishing trade union in Victoria. In the national wage cases we believe it is proper for the Tribunal, having regard to that, to move, as it has in the last two cases, quickly so it looks as though the rise is almost flowing on automatically. The Government has no argument with that. What it did have an argument with was the case of the allowance. We refuted the argument for reasons which we thought were certainly more presentable to the public. We did not have any argument with the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal but we had arguments with the Tribunal's saying that perhaps parliamentarians, in the case of their allowances, had the opportunity of catching up what they may have lost during the wage freeze period . Many people have not caught up with what they have missed in that period and we did not want to put parliamentarians, in the forefront of making that leap. The term 'shall have regard to' that has been included in the Bill is an extremely important guideline for the Tribunal to follow but it is not an all- inclusive one. Ultimately, the Government has to face up to those responsibilities. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(9.54) —I thank the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) for explaining the Government's attitude to this matter. One could have believed from reading the Bill that it would leave that automatically to the Tribunal. It is a measure which does not really meet with widespread approval in the Opposition in the sense that it ties the Tribunal to future events outside its control and seemingly takes away its independence to consider parliamentary salaries and allowances. It would appear to be not as firm as a first reading indicates and the Minister has reserved for the Government the right to determine finally through some amending legislation, as this does as he pointed out in relation to the allowances, at an Executive and governmental level what the salaries and allowances will be. I still express concern that this provision is in the Bill. It seems to be taking away the job given to the Remunerations Tribunal. For that reason, it is not an altogether desirable clause. But given that the Minister has said here that he and the Government are not bound by it, at least there is that flexibility to meet the circumstances at the time the determinations are made. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Young)-by leave-read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 STATES GRANTS (EDUCATION ASSISTANCE-PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 COMMONWEALTH SCHOOLS COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1984, the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1984 and the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill 1984, as 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(Mr Keogh) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the six measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(9.58) —The six Bills which constitute this cognate debate are: The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill, together with the Australian National University Amendment Bill, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill and the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill. The first three Bills adjust the 1984 grants to government and non-government schools, and universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions in the States and the Northern Territory. Grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the participation and equity program are also being adjusted by this legislation. The adjustments in the Bills cover cost increases brought about by inflation, and they are retrospective. A further appropriation of $9.7m is to be provided for schools, as will $62.2m for tertiary institutions and $1.074m for the participation and equity program. The total appropriation for cost supplementation under these Bills is approximately $73m. Of course, this expenditure is not opposed by the Opposition. In relation to the participation and equity program, I draw honourable members attention to the fact that this is in reality the Fraser Government's transition program with some additional elements and extension. I also draw attention to the fact that when this transition program was commenced the then Opposition, now the Government, was highly critical of it. It is pleasing to note that in government it has quickly embraced the old transition program and expanded its activities, based on experience gained. It is an excellent program, and I commend the Government for accepting what was already in place and, on the basis of the experience gained when the transition program was first introduced, for having revamped it and expanded it in the way that I have just indicated. Another Bill which is being dealt with in this package of legislation is the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill 1984. This Bill repeals the Curriculum Centre Act 1975 and establishes a new Curriculum Development Council which will report direct to the Minister and work in close consultation with the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The assets and liabilities of the existing Centre are to be vested in the Commonwealth and will be administered by the Commission. The Chairman of the Commission will have permanent head powers in relation to staff appointed under the Public Service Act to assist both the Commission and the new Curriculum Development Council. In addition to the primary purpose of the Bill, opportunity has been taken by the Government to upgrade the general provisions of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973 to take account of current legislative practices. Authority is also being given to the Commission to inquire into and to furnish information and advice to the Minister on matters affecting the education of handicapped children who have not attained school age. Early in 1981, during the period in which I was Minister for Education, the Fraser Government effectively transferred Commonwealth curriculum responsibility to the Department of Education. We would have liked to have moved it closer to the Commonwealth Schools Commission but that, of course, required legislation which at the time was unlikely to have been passed by the Senate. The Opposition is therefore pleased that the Government in this legislation plans to move its curriculum responsibilities and activities closer to the Commonwealth Schools Commission. State governments, of course, have the constitutional responsibilities for education and all State education departments have extensive curriculum development operations to meet their requirements. It was for this reason that the Fraser Government in 1981-in the true spirit of federalism, might I add- offered to retain the Curriculum Development Centre, as it was then constituted, provided that State governments agreed jointly to meet 50 per cent of the Centre 's operating costs. The Government at the time pointed out that the Commonwealth would continue to undertake curriculum development and meet the full cost when projects were considered to be of national significance. At the time we gave as examples Aboriginal education and programs concerned with Australia's multicultural character. Other projects, such as computer education, would no doubt have been added as we progressed in this important field. Unfortunately, the States refused to participate in the proposed co-operative arrangements. The Government, as I have already said, then effectively transferred Commonwealth responsibility for curriculum development to the Department of Education. In time, as I said a moment ago, had we remained in office, we would have moved the function closer to the Commonwealth Schools Commission. We therefore welcome the present Government's move as outlined in the Bill before the House. However, I indicate that in the Committee of the Whole I will move amendments designed to ensure that the new Curriculum Development Council will always have at least one member to represent the interests of non-government schools and one member to represent the interests of government schools. I foreshadow the following amendment to the Bill: 1 member to represent the interests of non-government schools, selected and nominated by the Minister from nominations by bodies and authorities representing non-government schools, and I member to represent the interests of government schools, selected and nominated by the Minister from nominations by bodies and authorities representing government schools;''. I point out to the House that representatives of both government and non- government schools have in the past been appointed to membership of the Council, but the Opposition believes that the Parliament, in this legislation, should require that such representation be mandatory. I hasten to add, and to emphasise , that the proposed amendment seeks to ensure that at least one member is appointed to represent those two sectors. We in no way suggest that the membership necessarily be limited to one from each of those sectors. The other two Bills that are being dealt with in this cognate debate are the Australian National University Amendment Bill and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill. These Bills amend the Australian National University Act 1946 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967. There are some minor amendments included in both Bills, most of which have been requested by the two institutions, and these have the support of the Opposition. However, the main purpose of the Australian National University Amendment Bill is to remove provisions inserted in the Act in 1979 and 1981, and in the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act in 1979, to give effect to the policy of the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia, which provides that membership of student organisations should be voluntary. Our policy in this regard is unaltered. The Opposition will oppose the Government's move to reintroduce what is in effect compulsory unionism for students of the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. In the Committee stage we will seek to insert amendments to ensure that payment of fees shall be voluntary, and we will vote against clause 23 of the Australian National University Amendment Bill and clause 16 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill, which are designed to remove the provisions in both Acts inserted by the previous Government to guarantee that membership of student organisations should not be compulsory. The sections also provide that there should not be discrimination against a student in respect of admission to the particular institution, academic progress, the conferring of awards, or the enjoyment of benefits and privileges of the institution on the grounds of a student's refusal or failure to become a member of a student organisation. I believe that it is incomprehensible that any government would legislate to remove such safeguards. I repeat, for the benefit of the House, that the safeguards that are being removed are those that apply to voluntary membership and also to the question of discrimination. When, as Minister for Education, on 28 May 1981 I introduced amending legislation to the Australian National University Act to clarify the intention of the Fraser Government's 1979 amendments, I said in part: The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian National University Act 1946 to clarify the intention of certain provisions in the Act relating to the funding of student organisations at the University. This Act was amended in 1979 to introduce into the Act provisons to implement the Government's policy on the membership and funding of student organisations in universities and colleges. This policy includes the principles that membership of student organisations is to be voluntary, that there is to be no discrimination against students who elect not to join such organisations and that compulsory fees charged by institutions can be used only for the provision of amenities and services. Such fees are not to be used to support socio-political activities. The 1979 amendments place on the Council of the University the obligation to ensure that these fees are used only in accordance with the requirements of the Act. A number of questions of interpretation have arisen in connection with the implementation of these amendments, and the Government has consequently decided that there is a need to amend the Act to clarify the intention of the amendments and to ensure, in particular, that compulsory student fees cannot be used, directly or indirectly, for the purposes other than for the provision of amenities and services. I have quoted that part of my second reading speech to re-emphasise what I have said about the voluntary nature of student union fees, to which I have just referred, and the need to ensure in legislation that there is no way in which a student can be discriminated against because he or she fails to join a student organisation. I said earlier that the Liberal and National parties' policy in relation to compulsory membership of student organisations is unchanged. We are opposed to compulsory membership of student organisations, just as we are opposed to compulsory unionism in trade unions. The present provisions of the Australian National University Act restrict the use of general services fees to categories of amenities and services specified in the statute made by the University within the terms of the Act. They restrict these funds being used for socio-political purposes, including affiliation with a national association of students. The Canberra College of Advanced Education Act contains similar provisions. The removal of these restrictions in the Act will mean a return to the situation that existed before the 1979 amendments, where it will again be the responsibility of the councils of the university and the college to supervise the use of these funds as an aspect of their responsibility for the management of the institutions. As I have already indicated, this is unacceptable to the Opposition, and we shall vote against the Government's proposals. Mr FREE(Macquarie)(10.13) —I support the six Bills before the House and the excellent measures that they contain, which will further education in this country. In particular, I want to indicate my very strong support for the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government's pre-election promise to reconstitute the Curriculum Development Centre within the framework of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. In so doing, it will restore to the Commonwealth the capacity to provide schools , both government and non-government, with curriculum material. This capacity it lost in 1981. In addition, it will enable this work to be carried out in harmony with national objectives and priorities by strengthening the relationship between the CDC and the Commission. To achieve this, the legislation repeals the Curriculum Development Centre Act and abolishes the centre as a statutory body, incorporating it, instead, within the Commission. The legislation establishes a new Curriculum Development Council which will work in consultation with the Commission and report to the Minister. The Centre had its beginnings in June 1973 when the then Minister, the Hon. Kim Beazley, announced the decision of Cabinet to establish it. At the time Cabinet approved six tasks for the Centre. These included curriculum development work including the production of teaching and learning materials for use in schools, the commissioning and support of curriculum materials development at regional and local levels, arrangements for printing and marketing materials, publication of assessments and information about equipment and materials from other sources, display of equipment and materials, and the provision of advisory services relating to curriculum and materials development. Additionally the CDC was to provide for teacher education and other activities to support the products of the Australian science education project when that project terminated in March 1974. Pending the introduction of legislation, the Minister appointed a 12-member interim council in August 1973. A range of bodies was consulted in its formation , including the Schools Commission, the State Directors-General, the National Council of State School Organisations, the Australian Teachers Federation, Catholic and independent school systems and institutions involved in teacher education. Following proclamation of the Act in July 1975, a permanent Council was appointed. In October of that year, four committees of the Council were established-the Executive Committee, the Policy and Finance Committee, the Projects Committee and the Publications and Information Committee. Very early in its operations the Centre proceeded with its work on a variety of fronts. It responded to a number of references to curriculum needs in reports of the Parliament, government departments, commissions and statements of government policy. This led to work in Aboriginal education, the appointment of a co- ordinator of Aboriginal education projects and the production of material covering six projects in this area. Three projects were undertaken in conjunction with the Pacific Circle Consortium. Other work of the Centre included the Japanese language project, four activities in the field of multicultural education, four projects in the area of social and cultural education, a program to promote English language skills in senior primary and junior secondary students, three projects in mathematics, three projects in science, one activity in arts education covering the major art forms, and four projects in primary and special education. The Centre made a number of remarkable contributions in a very short time. The decision on 30 April 1981 of the Review of Commonwealth Functions-the so- called razor gang-came as a great shock to those involved in the work of the Centre and those across Australia who had benefited from its work. The decision provided for the abolition of the Centre if the States were not prepared to meet 50 per cent of its operating costs. I note in addition that the decision apparently came as a great shock to the then Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife). The honourable member in his remarks this evening tried to rewrite history. Nevertheless, it is a fact that only six weeks before the razor gang announcement the then Minister, the honourable member for Farrer, spoke very much in praise of the Centre when he opened its new buildings. Let me remind the honourable member of the remarks he made at that opening. He said: In the five years since its establishment the Curriculum Development Centre has undertaken a formidable array of projects which have resulted in an enrichment of the fabric of Australian education . . . Through its work the Centre has demonstrated to Australian educators, and others involved in education, the importance of ongoing curriculum development, as well as the value of having identifiable areas of specific curriculum focus, as our education system strives to keep pace with rapid social change. The then Minister went on to say: I congratulate the Centre, its staff, the Director and the Governing Council for the work which it has performed and is continuing to perform . . . Six weeks later that same Minister had to endorse the decision to abolish the Centre. There was nothing in the speech he made at that time about the closer relationship with the Schools Commission about which he spoke tonight. Mr Gear —They didn't ask him. Mr FREE —That is right, they did not ask him. It was a decision that caused great dismay and resentment throughout the educational community and great dismay within the Centre. It was a decision which did enormous damage to the Centre. As expected, as could have been predicted at the time, the States decided not to contribute 50 per cent of its cost, and the decision was taken in November 1981 to wind the Centre Down and to transfer its functions to the Education Department. Reporting on this winding down process in its 1982 report, the CDC noted the heavy exodus of professional staff as a number of programs were wound down, including programs in arts education, in core curriculum, in teachers as evaluators, in cultural, social and personal education, in environmental education, in primary curriculum studies, in special education and in science education. No funds were provided for the Centre in the 1982-83 Budget, although $300,000 was provided for the curriculum unit within the Department. As the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) observed earlier, the Act was never repealed for the very good reason that any Bill seeking to do so would almost certainly not have passed through the Senate. Following the election of the Hawke Government in 1983, an announcement was made in August of that year that the Centre would be reactivated within the Commission, and that decision was welcomed by the entire education community. This new arrangement providing for a close relationship between the Centre and the Commission will provide a new and much more effective vehicle for the implementation of national priorities in education. I applaud the appointments to the Board made in March. I noted with satisfaction the programs which will be supported, including Aboriginal studies, education and the arts, education and girls, and computing and education. I look forward to the work which will be carried out in canvassing curriculum-related ideas and alternative organisational patterns at the upper secondary level in accord with the aims of the Government's participation and equity program. I commend the foreshadowed emphasis on technical skills and technological literacy. The Curriculum Development Centre had an enthusiastic beginning under the Whitlam Government. It had a troubled infancy under the Fraser Government. It now enjoys an enthusiastic re-birth and a secure future under the Hawke Government. I wish the Centre well in the challenging tasks that it faces. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(10.23) —In view of the need to be as brief as possible at this stage in speaking on these Bills and in supporting the amendments to be moved by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), I too will concentrate on the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill. The Bill is largely a machinery measure designed to reactivate the Curriculum Development Centre within the Commonwealth Schools Commission while linking it closely with the Minister. But as with many machinery measures, there may be a hidden agenda which is not always clear on reading the terms of the machinery proposed to be put in place. Of course, that is all the more the case these days when so much educational thought is expressed with the blandness of contemporary educational jargon, making understanding so much harder, at least at first reading. In particular, I support the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Farrer to make it mandatory that there be a representative of the independent schools on the proposed Curriculum Development Council as well as representative of government schools. It is true that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has already appointed a representative of independent schools to the Council. That is good and to be welcomed, but the fact remains that the Bill before us does not require the Minister to do this and it should do so. That would certainly be the case with the present Minister who has a disturbing record in her dealings with the independent school sector. This is the Minister who has cut funding to some independent schools, who has appointed people to the Commonwealth Schools Commission who are best known for their opposition to State aid for independent schools, and who left the Commonwealth Schools Commission without a representative of independent schools. This is no doubt a matter of her conviction. She is, of course, entitled to her convictions . What would one expect from a former employee of the Australian Council of State School Organisations? But we as a Parliament are not so much concerned with the Minister's convictions as we are with the public good, and this Bill should be amended in the way in which the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) has outlined. Although, as I say, this is largely a machinery Bill, the problem with machinery Bills is to get a clear picture of the purposes of the machinery. One could say and agree that machinery appears to be efficient, as indeed is the case with the machinery set up in this Bill, with the exception to which reference has been made. But the real question, or at least an equally important question as the efficiency of the machinery, is the purpose of the machinery. It is difficult to get a clear idea of the purpose from the language used in general discussion. One has to translate that language into clearer English. That applied to the old Curriculum Development Centre. The honourable member for Macquarie referred, quite rightly, to some of the achievements of the old Curriculum Development Centre. In particular, he gave illustrations about mathematics and Japanese and other significant areas of the curriculum. But, of course, the Curriculum Development Centre was attacked seriously from at least two quarters. I mention these not to agree with them but to indicate the doubts that can spring up when one is dealing with centres whose activities are described in the rather bland language of contemporary educational jargon. One of the lines of criticism of the old Curriculum Development Centre was that it was intended to reduce the freedom of teachers; that it was a step back to the old horror of having inspection of teachers' work. That, of course, was considered to be unthinkable. Its purpose was to impose a small 'l' liberal world outlook as opposed to a radical world view. That was one, as it were, radical line of criticism of the CDC. Another more conservative line of criticism was that it was advancing a trendy, smorgasbord curriculum and developing doubtful political and moral values. I am referring to controversies about the social education materials project and the environmental curricula that were presented, and the controversies about the core curriculum. So, without wanting at this stage above all to pass judgment on those lines of criticism, I mention them because they were there; they were part of the controversies. No doubt similar controversies will arise in relation to the Curriculum Development Council. The real test of this Bill will come when the new Curriculum Development Council gets to work. I suggest that we have reason to be cautious, certainly in the light of the push from the top-from the Minister on the Council. The Minister does appear to be against many of the things that many concerned parents want to see in the curriculum. Last year at the annual conference of the Queensland Teachers Union the Minister got stuck into what she called 'the self- appointed guardians of educational standards'. She said that those people, those golden age theorists, as she called them, are only interested in the three Rs; that they are the sort of people who live in the 1920s. Of course we know-though I have no doubt that all the school teachers on the Government side of the chamber will not agree-that that is what the vast majority of parents look to the schools to do, that is, to develop the three Rs in their children, and they do not live in the 1920s. Mr Milton —There is more to education than the three Rs. Mr COLEMAN —Perhaps not as much as the honourable member implies. If the ladies and gentlemen on the Government side want to play down the three Rs, I hope they will go on the record. It would be useful information to have. Mr Milton —I said that there is a lot more to education than that. Mr COLEMAN —I am saying there may not be as much as the honourable member may think. The Minister referred to these people as those who were living in the 1920s. I do not know about education in the 1920s but it could not be worse than education in the 1980s; it was probably better. But the point is that the Minister does not like the ideals of excellence, of emphasis on basic intellectual disciplines, on clear standards of accomplishment and measurement of a student's progress. So she has turned on one particular green light to the Curriculum Development Council. It is not a green light that will be welcomed by any means by the majority of parents. The Minister wants the Curriculum Development Council to continue with the sort of progressive education that we have now had for many years and which is working so badly. To give extra point to this motivation the Minister in her speech in Queensland also got stuck into what she called 'the institutions of capitalism'. The other day on one of the parliamentary committees we were advised that one of the tasks of the Curriculum Development Council will be to monitor the progress of peace studies in the schools, which I must say is a bad omen as far as I am concerned. I think that if the schools can achieve higher standards in the three R's, without wasting time with waffle about peace studies to satisfy the peace movement-it is certainly not to satisfy the parents-it will be doing something. Among the most significant developments in recent years-this is something that I hope the Council will concern itself with-have been the increase in State school truancy and the expansion of independent schools. Both parents and teachers increasingly express their concern about what is happening in some of the schools. They are not simply people of conservative disposition. For example , a couple of years ago Beatrice Faust, who I do not believe could be categorised as being of a conservative disposition, was reported in the Age as making these interesting remarks: After spending two-and-a-half years in Europe, I was saddened to find that, back home, most of my friends in teaching are disenchanted and abandoning their vocation. Exhausted by permissiveness, open-plan classrooms, unstreamed groups, discovery techniques, non-competitive goals, and continuous assessment, they are either looking for new jobs or retreating to old methods. Many, having sent their children to Government schools on principle, are now moving them to private ones for their own peace of mind. They have tried pedagogy for the oppressed and failed . . . The failure of radical education methods reflects the larger failure of the New Left . . . Of course we see that pretty regularly in this Parliament. That is an interesting view expressing the sort of concern that one hopes the Curriculum Development Council will give some attention to rather than to the trendy issues that one fears may be favoured by some people in the Government. The matters that Beatrice Faust has raised have, of course, also been raised by people associated with the old Curriculum Development Centre. There was a particularly interesting study by Malcolm Skilbeck called 'Curriculum Issues in Australia, 1970-1990: contents, policies and practices' in the magazine Compare. When referring to school curricula, he states: Without question, school curricula require critical appraisal, reconstruction and renewal. Continuing weaknesses are apparent in the mediocre performance of students, poor motivation towards employment or further study amongst significant sectors of youth, a low school retention rate, criticism of the relevance of schooling from students as well as employers, the relative inability of schools to meet the needs of various special groups, mounting discontent with the products of schooling by the tertiary sector and so on. If the sorts of matters to which Mr Skilbeck and Beatrice Faust have drawn attention receive the attention of the Curriculum Development Council, this measure establishing this Council within the Australian Schools Commission as an adviser to the Minister will be well worth implementing. To that extent I am still prepared to retain hope that that will happen, while expressing the reservations I have put forward. I certainly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Farrer. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(10.36) —One of the fascinating things about the sort of contribution that we have just heard from the honourable member for Wentworth ( Mr Coleman) was the somewhat illiterate reference all the time to the 3Rs. I take it that honourable members opposite mean basic skills because they certainly need them. It is a very long time since 'writing' was spelt with an 'r '. It just happens that that is probably the most significant part of the contributions made by honourable members opposite. Quite apart from the expected diatribe about our excellent Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), the first Minister for Education in seven years who actually knows something about education and has taken an interest in it, we had this other piece of nonsense that the only thing that one needs to learn in 12 years of school is reading, writing and arithmetic, which I take it is the third 'R'. I say again that this is a fairly illiterate way of talking about education. What is more, it is boring. It is interesting to note in respect of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill 1984, which seeks to reinstate the Curriculum Development Centre, that content of curriculum is the subject of the most important and long running debate in the field of education. I do not count the previous contribution as anything to do with debate. While passions can certainly be aroused on funding issues, particularly if we politicise it enough, what is taught to our children an young people is central to the progress of education. It is an absolute irony , in my opinion, that just two weeks before the Curriculum Development Centre was closed down by the Fraser Government I was present at a very serious and important conference on core curriculum run by the Centre. A great many other initiatives would have sprung from that conference had the Centre been allowed to continue. The debate on curriculum content ranges from the simplistic statements about learning multiplication tables that we have just heard and perhaps adverbial clauses-all 10 of them-to the greater issues of preparing children for the world that they will live in as adults, and that is a serious issue. The educational curriculum cannot simply be reactive to change because it reacts too slowly, as do the education systems. It must be able to some extent to anticipate change and to predict the needs of individuals in the community in the future. That has been a serious failing in the whole of our education system in the past. The answer to the curriculum content debate will not be found in retreat but in looking forward to a world based on different circumstances to those we experienced when we were children. All of us as adults experience a different world from that that we experienced when were children and the educational content of our childhood will not be sufficient for the educational content of our children. Curriculum planning has gone through many changes. It has become more flexible as it has been recognised that children differed in their individual needs, in their social needs and in the demands that they were going to have to meet. Some of that flexibility was without sufficient support. Views developed on appropriate curriculums were too narrow, based on too little understanding of the changes taking place in the wider world, and without sufficient resources to implement the introduction of a new course. Often large changes in curriculum content were imposed by fiat without sufficient knowledge being made available to teachers so that confusion rather than clarity was the result. More and ever more factual content was demanded of students in every academic subject. I remember one year in which the Higher School Certificate content of five different subjects was changed and in fact doubled. As a result students the following year were confronted with something that no other student had been asked to do before. That led to a situation that we all know about and should have some sympathy for-that of the Year 12 students who no longer have time to reflect and absorb into a whole view the material with which they are presented, let alone develop socially and personally. That is part of the problem that students encounter in their first year at a tertiary institution. This Bill provides for the reactivation of the Curriculum Development Centre, in my opinion one of the most important steps in the progress of education that this Government has taken. We have said often that the right to an adequate education is not being fulfilled for Aboriginals and for girls and in the area of technology. The secondary education curriculum needs to be looked at afresh; it is in need of renewed direction. There is a great deal of work to be done on providing schools with a new sense of direction and purpose and in drawing together those factors which are a matter of concern and continuing debate. The secondary retention rate in this country is not only a pointer to the need for curriculum renewal but also a matter of young people voting with their feet about their judgment of the real value of secondary education to them. The legislation replaces the previous statutory authority with a Curriculum Development Council working in close consultation with the Commonwealth Schools Commission and reporting to the Minister. The functions of the Council, as described in the legislation, will provide a curriculum resource on a national basis. They require the Council to consult and co-operate with States and Territory education authorities, non-government school bodies and the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The Council can provide for the schools a national view of curriculum content which is absolutely necessary if education systems are to respond to national needs and national progress. However, there is a need that has not been recognised by honourable members on the other side of the House. I refer to the need of parents to be able to understand and share their children's learning. When new programs and resources are developed they should include parents by making provisions for their needs. The parent who runs out of ability to understand and assist a child with that child's work is often joked about, but the reality is very different. The sharing of the joy of learning, particularly something fresh and new, is a vitally important part of the educational process. I hope that the Curriculum Development Centre will address that in its planning. It is also something of a disappointment that this legislation makes no provision for parent representation on the Council as I have found through my work in education that the contribution of parents and parent representatives has been extremely valuable. In the light of the importance of curriculum planning and design it is instructive to note that the Opposition's education policy statement while being full of the rhetoric of excellence and its pursuit- rather like the fox hunt, with the unspeakable pursuing the inedible-makes no mention of curriculum apart from a vague mention of a basic competencies program . This is nothing more than yet another cheap appeal to the simplistic quality control notions of education. For the Opposition, with its appalling record of continual cutbacks in the government school area when in government, the area which deals with the majority of Australian children, to be now suddenly concerned about basic competencies is something of a joke. For the record I will tell honourable members what the previous Government did. I have some figures which may be of interest to a great many people. Based at constant prices the percentage changes in funding are as follows: In 1977 government schools got an increase of 2.3 per cent; non-government schools an increase of 4.4 per cent. In 1978 government schools suffered a cut of 2.9 per cent; non-government schools an increase of 8.4 per cent. In 1979 government schools got a further percentage cut of 2.1 per cent; non-government schools an increase of 7 per cent. In 1980 we have a very good example; government school funding was cut by 10.6 per cent and non-government school funding increased by 6.3 per cent. In 1981 there was an increase in spending of 1.9 per cent for government schools and an increase of 15 per cent for non-government schools. In 1982 we get a percentage cut of 1.2 per cent for government schools and a 16 per cent increase for non-government schools. So the figures continue. The teritary picture is even worse. Mr McGauran —What is your source for those figures? Whose figures are they? Ms MAYER —The source is impeccable. That is an illustration of the sort of record which the previous Government had and its real interest in and concern for basic literacy and numeracy. In fact, the issue of basic literacy and numeracy was first raised by parents and teachers in their attempts to get Liberal State and Federal governments to recognise the needs of schools. Those years of neglect still affect the perceptions of government schools as being schools inefficient in operation and poor in educational outcomes. That is not true and never was. Parents and teachers together highlighted the problems of schools in order to compel governments to accept their responsibilities. The previous Labor Government accepted its responsibility to the education of Australians and provided programs which helped to overcome, to some extent, the huge problems of government schools caused by years of neglect. The Whitlam initiatives in the funding of non-government schools were virtually the only initiatives of that Government that were accepted wholeheartedly by the Fraser Government. This Government now has to face the problem of providing for the necessary improvements in education in Australia at all levels. The restoration of the National Curriculum Development Centre is of fundamental importance to this process and this Government sees the development of curriculum as central to the progress of education and the ability of education systems to meet the difficult challenges of the future. I commend the Bill. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.47) —In view of the lateness of the hour and the program before the House tonight, I will not delay the House unduly. I intend to direct most of my remarks to the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill. However, before addressing that Bill I will comment briefly on the tertiary education Bills that are before the House. I recognise that these Bills provide additional finance for tertiary education. However, I still have grave doubts about this Government's genuine commitment to education in the tertiary field. There seems to be a lot of rhetoric and a lot of promises . But the actual delivery in terms of performance for tertiary education leaves a lot to be desired. There has been no significant increase in the number of tertiary education places available. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) spoke about the availability of 27,000 additional places. But mot of those places are to be taken by students who enrolled in 1982 and 1983 and who are referred to by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission as the pipeline effect. In fact, the Minister has gone on record in the Sydney Morning Herald earlier this week as saying that the Government is unlikely to accept the recommendations of the Tertiary Education Commission which are for a modest increase in the number of tertiary places. There is a college of advanced education in my electorate. The Minister has, in the past, suggested that it should provide educational opportunities for the women in the community. I regard that as rather cynical because not only are there not places available for women to undertake part time coures, but also there is not sufficient room in that educational institution for the number of full time young students who want to further their education as part of their training for their careers. I am concerned that there seems to be no action to expand the size of that CAE. There has been no commitment by this Government to expand it. I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect young children in their formative years to leave the environments in which they grew up or to leave the support of their families to complete their education. I believe that tertiary education is perhaps one of the most difficult phases of a young person's life. It is inappropriate to increase the burden and hardship on them by requiring them to leave their natural environment to go to either Sydney or Brisbane. I am also concerned about the amount of rhetoric and lip-service coming from this government about the tertiary education assistance scheme and the Government's commitment to ensure that allowances are lifted to the level of the unemployment benefit. The last increase was 5 per cent which gave a student living at home the massive additional income of $1.81 and a student living away from home an additional $2.80. I think it is basically dishonest to say that we are committed to an increase and then to hand out a pittance such as that. Having made those remarks I now address the Bill relating to the participation in equity program. I believe that program is misguided. It has a generalist approach to a problem which is rather significant in our society. In my opinion PEP has turned schools into holding vats for the young unemployed. I think it is appropriate to look at PEP and to examine it in detail. Its aim is laudable. To increase access to schools is a very worthwhile objective. It is in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development strategy. What is the practice of PEP? If we are going to encourage people to remain at secondary schools, is it not also logical to increase the number of places at tertiary institutions so that there is somewhere for them to go after they have finished their secondary education? As I have said previously, there has been no significant increase in the number of tertiary places available. Mr Cunningham —Three thousand. Mr BLUNT —Three thousand? The honourable member has got to be joking. That applies particularly to technical and further education, which has become the poor relation of tertiary education. Last year TAFE turned away some 40,000 students, young Australians looking for a better future, for an education which will enable them to cope with our rapidly changing world. One of the great problems we have is that the Minister has no real commitment to tertiary education and to technical and further education. She seems to be preoccupied with more esoteric things, such as affirmative action. Mr Lusher —An intellectual snob. Mr BLUNT —I guess the honourable member has summed it up very accurately. She is an intellectual snob. Let us look at the impact of PEP. I think an examination of PEP provides the opportunity to examine this Government's motives in the lead -up to a premature and unnecessary election. The Government is preocuupied with imagery and is preoccupied with the impact on statistical releases. I believe that PEP is, at worst, a cynical exercise to keep young children off the unemployment statistics. At best, it is a generalist approach to a problem which really requires targeted solutions. Increased access to schools is good, but not if those schools are merely used to entertain students. Those students who go back to secondary schools under PEP go back with expectations. They are there in the hope of improving their future and they find that the alternative curriculum available to them is not sufficient and offers them no real opportunities for the future. This provides a really difficult choice for the schools. They must choose whether they are going to teach subjects such as science and mathematics and the subjects of the future, or whether they are going to run the Mickey Mouse courses which are involved in the alternative curriculum. It also provides the State departments of education with an opportunity to downgrade certain aspects of education to accommodate their failure to plan adequately or to devote adequate resources to those particular areas. In New South Wales there is an admitted shortage of science and mathematics teachers. So what is a viable option for the New South Wales Department of Education? It is to encourage PEP courses. We do not need maths teachers and science teachers to run a PEP curriculum. I believe that PEP is totally inadequate in its attempt to replace the trans-education scheme. Trans-education was targeted on specific groups which had genuine problems. There was specific targeting for girls and Aboriginals. The groups dealing with those people were providing a valid contribution to our education system, particularly in New South Wales. As has been said in another place, PEP is like throwing some $20m worth of burley on to the water in the hope of catching something. The other aspect of PEP that I am concerned about is its implications for central schools. Many honourable members on the other side of the House perhaps do not know what a central school is. A central school exists in many country areas and provides education for infants, right through to Year 12. But quite a number of central schools do not go to Year 12, they stop at Year 10. As far as I am able to ascertain, central schools that do not provide classes right through to Year 12 will not be catered for under PEP. So they will be disadvantaged. Mr McGauran —Discriminated against, you mean. Mr BLUNT —I think it is a case of discrimination. It is not something I am positive about because I have had great difficulty in obtaining detailed guidelines for PEP from the Minister. Once again this is a classic example of a further downgrading of country education. From my remarks the House can see that PEP is inadequate in dealing with a genuine problem which exists in education in Australia. It is a cynical exercise in manipulating unemployment statistics. It is wasteful, disruptive to education curricula and ineffective. We have to forget about Mickey Mouse courses and concentrate on education for the future, education that provides the skills for our young people which will enable them to cope with the future. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(10.56) —It was refreshing to hear a member of the Opposition talking about higher education because I wish to concentrate my remarks there. In particular, later in the debate I will refer to the summary of the triennial report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission released in April 1984. If the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) stays around he might find out just what his Government did in higher education. He mentioned the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance and what he referred to as the pittance we give to students. I ask him to look at what his Government did with TEAS when it had the chance. He directed many of his remarks to the participation and equity program. If he had been here earlier, he would have heard the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) say that it was nothing more than a continuation of the previous Government's transition program. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Either we are both wrong or we are both right. We believe that PEP will make a very significant contribution in allowing those people who traditionally have been disadvantaged in education to have a second chance. The Bills before us, dealing as they do with higher education, represent a problem of alarming proportions in Australia. I will refer to the tertiary education document later to illustrate some of the points I wish to make. It is important when speaking of higher education to look at how Australia measures up , in terms of developing its human resources, compared with countries with which we trade. I do not think anybody in this House would deny that the countries which have done well in recent times have developed their human resources rather than their physical resources. Australia is a country rich in natural resources. It seems to me that after 30 years of conservative rule all we are doing is sending overseas our rocks, wool and wheat. We were doing that 30 years ago and we are still doing it, but we are not doing much in the field of education. I will cite some figures to illustrate that point. If we look at enrolment figures for those aged 16 to 18 in full time education as a proportion of the population of that age group, in 1976-the figures have not changed much since then-Australia had at school 40.2 per cent of its population within the 16 to 18 age group. The figure for Denmark was 55.6 per cent. By comparison, the figure for Japan was 74.8 per cent and that for the United States of America was 75.7 per cent. If we look at it in a different way, Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand have about 60 per cent of their 15 to 19-year-olds either in the labour force or actively seeking work. If we compare that figure with those for other countries, Japan is 24 per cent, America only 28 per cent and Sweden 34 per cent. Again, if we look at 17-year-olds at school full time, the figure for Australia is 31.7 per cent. In Japan, by comparison, the figure is 88.1 per cent . Taking a comparative example over time, in Australia in 1950 3.5 per cent of labour force entrants had tertiary qualifications. At that same time the figure for Japan was less than one per cent. Thirty years later, in 1980, our figure had doubled to 7 per cent while the figure for Japan had increased by 4,000 per cent to 39 per cent. By any measure, Australia has performed and is performing miserably compared with other countries. I turn now to the Tertiary Education Commission summary to see how Australia has fared under Liberal-National Party governments since 1975. I remind the House that these are the only figures available because the Tertiary Education Commission grew out of the Whitlam Government. The report shows clearly what happened under the last seven years of Liberal government. Page 4 of the report has this to say: However, since the late 1970s, while higher education enrolments have increased steadily, funds have been held constant, or in some cases, reduced. Moreover, widespread rationalisation and redistribution of resources have occurred in higher education, with the result that there are now few opportunities for savings which can be applied to support growth. That area has been bared to the bone. The honourable member for Richmond might be interested in what the report says on page 6. It deals with participation and equity, and says: A further $12m is required to rectify the worst deficiencies which have resulted from inadequate funding in recent years and which threaten the success of plans to give greater effective access to the less advantaged. So just to look after the worst cases will take a further $12m. It will take that much to overcome the backlog we have inherited. On page 7 it refers to the growth in technical and further education. Again the honourable member for Richmond referred to that, and I compliment him for doing so. The report says: To bring about a balanced provision of educational opportunity, a program of continued growth for TAFE is essential. Such a program requires continuation of a major capital program to make up for past deficiencies. Page 11 contains a graph showing retention rates. It looks like Andrew Peacock's popularity rating. It starts off pretty low and drops even lower. In 1975 we had a total participation rate for 17 to 19-year olds in higher education of 11 per cent. It then rose marginally but fell in 1981 to something less than 10 per cent. That was in the Fraser years of higher education, when retention rates in our tertiary education institutions fell. Mr McGauran —There are other reasons for that; mention them. Mr GEAR —Of course there are. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Gippsland that while he is out of order interjecting, he is doubly out of order because he is out of his own seat. Mr GEAR —I now turn to page 12 and to what the Tertiary Education Commission said about the Fraser years. Paragraph 28 states: The Commission could well be asked why it has not proposed a more ambitious target for higher education growth during the 1985-87 triennium. The answer lies in the deterioration in the position of higher education over the last two triennia. Higher education has borne the brunt of Government restraint on spending on education. The seriousness of the position is revealed in Commonwealth budgetary figures, which are presented in chart form below. If honourable members really want to know what has happened in higher education in Australia they should grab hold of this report. If they do not have it, they can see me afterwards and I will give them a copy. In the fiscal year 1976-77, under Mr Fraser, expenditure on education as a proportion of total Commonwealth expenditure was 9 per cent. Over time that dropped to 7.4 per cent in the years 1983-84. Mr McGauran —They are your years, remember? Mr GEAR —That is right, but the figure is starting to go up again, and the graph shows that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have suggested to the honourable member for Gippsland that if he wants to interject he must return to his own seat, otherwise I will have to deal with him. Mr GEAR —Having seen this miserable performance from members of the Opposition when they were in government, we should investigate where we will be in five years time if the CTEC recommendations are accepted. Page 10 of the report says: Our proposals are designed to achieve early in the 1988-90 triennium the participation levels which were reached in the mid-1970s; we regard such levels as still well below those required in a society facing rapid change. So if we accept these recommendations from CTEC, all we will do after 15 years is get back to where we were in 1975. What a great advancement that is. I suppose what we should do is have a look at the national technology strategy to see where we would like to be. Page 8 of the discussion document put out by the Department of Science and Technology indicates that we are aiming for an overall participation rate of 15 per cent in 1990. CTEC points out that we are going to get to 11 per cent if we accept its recommendations. Honourable members can see that there is still a long way to go. The CTEC report on higher education therefore is a minimum. What we should be doing I suppose is having a look at whether the Government can meet the costs. Certainly I read in recent reports that, if the Government cannot meet the costs then what we should be investigating is where the money is going to come from. Now that in Australia we have had free education in the tertiary sector for round about 10 years it might be a good idea to have a study to see whether that money is helping the people it was designed to help, that is , those people from disadvantaged backgrounds. It seems that all we are really doing in giving free education in the tertiary institutions is allowing those people who would normally go there and who can afford to pay for their education a free education at the expense, in many cases, of those people whom this Party certainly represents-the disadvantaged, the migrant groups, the Aboriginals and certainly a lot of the ethnic communities. In closing, as I know the hour is late, I say that I believe that the Government should, as a minimum, accept the recommendations of CTEC. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.07) —The Opposition believes that there should be a balanced approach to education. It does not believe that the Government has offered the people of Australia a balanced approach to the education of their children. This imbalance has been created by an ideologically committed Minister , the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who has not been able to be controlled by Cabinet, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), or her colleagues. She has presented programs to the Australian community for the education of children and young adults which have been rejected almost universally by the Australian people. One has only to examine the details of her program and then assess the concern expressed even by her own Department at the way in which she approaches her job. I refer the House to a minute on official Department of Education and Youth Affairs letterhead which was circulated in this chamber, which indicates the Department's concern at the way in which the Minister has handled her job. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by constant criticism or criticism alone but it is reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday, 2 May, that the Prime Minister himself has taken a particular interest in the Minister's activities and will endorse the departmental minute by taking the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs under his wing. In fact the Prime Minister was reported as telling the Caucus meeting on 1 May that 'he and the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, would meet a wide cross-section of education groups, before the Government's guidelines were decided'. The article goes on to indicate that the reason for this was public dissatisfaction with the Minister's own role in education. I wish to draw to the attention of the House, of those members of the community who are listening to this debate and of members in the packed press gallery the policies of the Liberal Party of Australia because, within the last few weeks, the shadow Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Peter Baume, has released for the first time the policies of the Liberal Party on which we will go to an election. I believe that these policies do offer a balanced and a proper approach to education which does not seek to identify minority groups and falsely encourage their participation; nor does it seek to kowtow to the Australian Teachers Federation so that the experts become the foundation of policy as is the case at the moment. I do not think anything is more disastrous for the Australian community than to refer to doctors only to establish a health scheme or to refer exclusively, as has the current Minister for Education, to the Australian Teachers Federation for the basis of her policies. That is tragic and it is not the desire of parents in Australia. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, will be promoting in government a program of excellence in education where the goal to achieve is fostered and encouraged, not as we have at the moment. Mr Gear —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. My point is that the honourable gentleman is not speaking to the Bill. He is clearly giving Liberal Party policy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member that we are debating six Bills and they cover a very wide range. Mr CADMAN —I was about to make the point that the encouragement of excellence does not encompass such things as having the Australian Council of Trade Unions promote its activities and the value of unionism in schools. I believe that school children have so much thrust into their curricula by trends and attitudes of the community that to have the Federal Minister for Education and Youth Affairs sponsoring programs and kits from the ACTU is completely irrelevant and not necessary to the education of young people in Australia. It would be necessary and an important part of the subsequent tertiary education course. I would be the first to admit that. I think it is an essential part of tertiary education. It would be essential in an economics course, an industrial relations course, or even a humanities course. Thus I reject the concept of the ACTU getting into schools as reported in the headline in the Australian Financial Review of 24 May. The balanced approach offered by the Liberal Party will pursue equality of educational opportunity, not equality of outcome. The Minister's hit list of the 41 schools was the first step in a process that was designed to go much further and in fact to go deeper into the category 1 and category 2 schools so that a reclassification downwards would take place. It is not factual that the non- government schools in Australia are the wealthy schools. Some schools are well off, but if their circumstances were examined in detail it would be found that, in general, education in Australia is of a high quality and there are schools that do need additional support. The Minister has chosen a beating down process to distribute resources rather than a pursuit of equal opportunity for students in all our schools. That is a basic and fundamental difference in outlook between the people on the Opposition benches and those on the Government benches . It is a sad situation that Government members seek by control and manipulation to lower the prospects and the goals, the pursuit of excellence, of Australian students. The promotion of high standards of teacher education is a prime and crucial part of any educational process. It is an objective and a goal set by the Liberal Party and will be pursued by it in office. According to many reports produced in this House, initial teacher training has proved to be the prime and essential part of an education system. The initial training of teachers, their selection and their continuing education to improve their professional skills during the course of their career are of importance. The Liberal Party has dedicated itself to ensuring that there is proper support for professional development programs. A Liberal-National Party government would also encourage the concept of a need to foster basic competencies. I have heard speakers in this House decry the need for basic competencies. One has only to go through a list of students registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service and assess their basic competencies to realise how the lack of literacy and numeracy skills limits job opportunities. There is laughter on the other side of the House. I find it regrettable and deplorable that those in the other side would be prepared to reject the concept that people must be encouraged to reach their potential. The key to future learning and opportunity is so often linked to the grasp of literacy and numeracy skills. The fostering of these skills is a goal of the Opposition parties. We give a firm commitment that it will form a basic part of govenment policies when we are elected. We make the commitment to establish a basic competencies program which, in co-operation with the States, would establish the dimensions of literacy and numeracy in Australian schools. It would ensure that remedial action is directed towards those students who have not achieved a basic level of competence. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Would the honourable member like to return to the six Bills. Mr CADMAN —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will gladly follow your ruling if you can indicate to me where there is not reference to basic education in these Bills. I am at the moment talking about the need for basic competency in literacy and numeracy. In fact, throughout the Commonwealth Schools Commission reports, the needs of poorer schools are linked to the resources that they need to establish remedial programs for basic competencies. In fact, the reports identify the needs of poorer schools, particularly those schools with a high level of ethnic children enrolled who need to be able to gain a clear and precise understanding of English and to retain at the same time competence in and understanding of the language of their parents, the language of their country of origin. Under a Liberal-National Party administration government schools would be encouraged. They would be revitalised by the administration that would shine from Canberra like a beacon of great hope for students in Australian schools and tertiary institutions. We would support the de-zoning of government schools. We would support flexibility in the provision of resources. We would see that school-based decision making with parential involvement became a criterion for education in government schools. In the non-government schools area, a Liberal- National Party government would seek to ensure that the existing dual school system of education was continued so that parents and their children could be given a choice. The approach of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs does not recognise the value of choice. For instance, in regard to the establishment of new schools in the western area of Sydney there is a great demand for non-government schools and non-government school education. In the Catholic education system there is a current demand for the immediate use of $18m just to meet the needs of existing schools. That excludes the huge number of children on waiting lists seeking entry to the non-government sector. Upon achieving government we will ensure that there is continuity of choice. The Minister has said that the Government would crowd a public school choc-a- block full before it would consider building or funding a new school in the non- government sector. That is not equitable. It is not fair. It does not give the community the choice that it needs. Parents have said to me so many times that they would like to select a school that offers a system of values, equality of education and discipline, something that they feel they do not get in the public sector. Whether they are right or wrong, they are voting with their feet as to the sort of education they want for their children. The Opposition parties reaffirm their support for a basic grant to all non-government schools and the re-establishment of the percentage link between government schools' standard costs and grants to non-government schools students. That is a crucial element of our policy. It has been destroyed by the Labor Party which links government schools to one system of costs and non-government schools to another. The disparity between the non-government and the government sectors will grow greater. The Government is destroying the wish of a large section of the Australian community. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not have time to go through the whole brilliant list of policies and ideas which the Opposition parties propose in regard to eduction . I can see that you are smiling encouragement to me, Madam Deputy Speaker. You indeed understand the need of parents to fulfil their objectives. They want to select the type of education their children will get whether it be in government or non-government schools. They want to be fairly and equitably dealt with by a government in Canberra. That will come about only after a change of government. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(11.19) —I must say that I have been somewhat disappointed that Opposition members have used much of the valuable time for speaking on education and policies for education in Australia in making personal-- Mr McGauran —Is that a waste of time? Mrs DARLING —No, I have not finished. As I was saying, they have wasted valuable time in making personal attacks on the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). I can only assume that because they cannot match her great understanding of education they have to resort to such tactics. But most certainly it is a waste of time. We in the Government have something to speak about proudly because we hold education as a top priority, which it should be here in Australia. I was not interested in the comments about the deterioration of the education system and a downturn in numeracy and literacy skills. Mr Cadman —I did not say that. Mrs DARLING —Different Opposition members have done so. This downturn has been blamed on the Left and also on our Hawke Labor Government. I believe Opposition members do not understand the basis of education in Australia. They do not know what has caused this downturn. What actually happened under the Fraser Government was that class sizes burgeoned. The Catholic schools, the non- government schools to which the Opposition pays lip service, were allowed to become so large in terms of class sizes because of funding which was not based on needs. The result was a final drop-out of kids at high school age. The Australian Labor Party has brought forward different legislation. I wish to congratulate the Hawke Labor Government on its foresight in reactivating the Curriculum Development Centre within the administrative structure of the Commonwealth Schools Commission as the new Curriculum Development Council. When the Fraser Government's razor gang decided, in its great wisdom, to abolish the CDC in 1981 it was acting in its normal, short-sighted manner making a minimal saving of under $2.5m with no thought whatsoever for the great loss that this closure caused to the education system and to Australian children. The decision to abolish the Centre took no account of contributions from the state and non-government systems which totalled about $1m for 1980-81. This was just another example of the Fraser Government's false economy. At that time the CDC contributed significantly to improving standards of schooling through its proposals for a national core curriculum in Australian schools and its support for school-based curriculum development. It also allowed research into new approaches to education. Of course, some of this research was directed towards the question of access to education. As we all know, the results were of great embarrassment to the Fraser Government with the showing up of elitism in tertiary education. It is all very well to talk about capital expenditure in new schools at election time, as still happens in Queensland, but the reality of the matter is that the quality of education has been left far behind with this conservative attitude. On the other hand, Labor has a proud record in education. Labor is attempting to end the years of neglect and attrition which the Fraser Government inflicted on our education system. The objective of the Labor Government is to provide equal educational opportunities for all Australian children. Surely if all Australian children are to enjoy equal education opportunities, the funding of schools must be based on need-the needs of pupils and parents of pupils at both non-government and government schools. It was in this area that the Opposition, when in government, missed out and let down badly the children of Australia. There is also a growing awareness that the present system has not been and is not working to the best advantage of all students. There is a need to create a pattern of schooling which is suited to the needs of the diverse Australian population. Only 45 per cent of people in the 15 to 19 age group are in full time employment. Within this age group there are even more problems for those of lower socio-economic status, rural youth, some migrant groups, Aboriginal youth and girls. Australia must upgrade its standards of education and training. Although it is recognised that the States have responsibility for the operation of school programs and curriculums, there is a very obvious need for a national overview of educational standards, curriculum development and educational opportunities. That will be taking place under this Government. One of the main aims of our Government is to raise the retention rates in secondary schools to allow children to achieve their full potential. The participation and equity program is a means of eliminating educational and social disadvantage at the secondary level but to do this requires a very thorough scrutiny of the present academic curriculum. There is a need to raise the quality, relevance and attractiveness of secondary education for those whose formal education will not include tertiary studies. The Australian Schools Statistics for January 1984 shows that 44.6 per cent of children who provided reasons for not continuing to year 12 in 1982 considered some subjects to be useless while 45.2 per cent also were fed up with school. Surely this is an indication that some of the more academic subjects provided in the present curriculum are not what these teenagers are looking for. A body such as the Curriculum Development Council will be able to provide an insight into the development of curriculum policies which will encourage students to stay at school to complete years 11 and 12 while, at the same time, offering courses which will be of value on the job market when they leave school . It will be able to provide information and advice on what is needed in schools from a national perspective. There have been great improvements over the past few years in the area of school resources, buildings and sporting facilities and in some States there has been a reduction in class sizes and an increase in the employment of teachers, but a great deal has to be done to provide job skills and training for our youth. The CDC will be able, in consultation with the States, to create a more attractive and broadly based curriculum to encourage increased enrolments in grades 11 and 12 to equip young people with the skills which employers find necessary in this rapidly changing economic and social environment. This financial year $1.4m has been allocated to the CDC to allow the co- ordination and dissemination of material to government and non-government schools. This amount may not seem very large when we consider the $74m we have allocated to the participation and equity program, but I believe that without the CDC the other major projects would not function as effectively or efficiently as the dissemination of information would not flow through on a national basis. I would like to pass on some comments from the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools. The Queensland Teachers Union is very pleased that the CDC has been reactivated. It sees its involvement with curriculum development on a national basis as being of great importance. It would like to see the services of the CDC more readily available directly to schools as well as being a systems support scheme. The Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools certainly supports the reactivation of the CDC. Both government and non-government schools were extremely disappointed when the Fraser Government dismantled the Curriculum Development Centre. There was a real blind spot in the then Government's thinking when looking at education. It is not only a matter of money being spent; it is also a matter of where that money is spent. The former Government appeared to be unable to see that money put into a centre such as the Curriculum Development Centre to disseminate information and to co-ordinate and liaise with schools to get the information right from the teachers and parents as to what was needed was a step forward in giving quality education to our children. There is a need to ensure that the CDC is allowed to have direct involvement with schools. However, the State Government will be urged to allow the CDC access to State schools. The decisions made about the curriculum are very important to the entire school community. The CDC will be able to provide schools and the school system with information and material to allow reform and innovation in the curriculum. As part of the Schools Commission, the Council will be recommending several practical curriculum development activities, including a national workshop on a secondary curriculum, production of a range of papers to assist the classroom teacher, video tapes and workshop kits for professional development. These Bills really mean that Australian schools, teachers, parents and children now have a Federal government which is willing to put education in the position of top priority, and that will be to the benefit of Australian children in the future. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(11.31) —I rise to speak now on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and cognate Bills, because the Opposition has apparently run out of speakers. It is so interested in education that the next speaker on its speakers list does not seem to have been able to make the grade. On our side of the House we have 20 people waiting to speak. Unfortunately, that list will be cut short. I just wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Opposition's manifest interest in this subject is so great that it could not even deliver the goods on this occasion. Its greatest ideas on education concern the three Rs, which we presume refer to reading, writing and arithmetic. It is understandable that honourable members opposite should have a sentimental attachment to the subjects that they failed when they were in kindergarten but for them to come into this place and suggest that the three Rs are the ultimate in education is going a bit far. On this side of the House we think reading, writing and arithmetic are very important things as well and we wish that honourable members opposite were capable of those skills. However, we are interested in going a little further than that. The school children of today need to be able not only to read, write and count but also to know the skills that are necessary to survive in a technological world. They need to be able to use a computer. They need to understand elementary economics. They need to know the location of planets. They need to be able to understand how to live in the world of the 1980s and 1990s. Today, I wish to refer basically to the Curriculum Development Centre. The decision of the Fraser Government's razor gang to close down the Curriculum Development Centre was a tribute to that government's short-sightedness. That it failed actually to succeed in closing it down is a tribute to that Government's administrative incompetence. For years the Curriculum Development Centre was hampered and harassed by continued and disruptive threats of closure, and by administrative fiddling, involving shifting of staff from one part of Canberra to another and back again. During those years, however, the Curriculum Development Centre continued to be productive. The list of its achievements is extremely impressive. Let us have a look first at some of its publications. In the area of Aboriginal studies the Centre has produced a large range of materials, both audiovisual and textual, targeted specifically at the education of young Aboriginal Australians. The need for a contribution in this area from an organisation such as the Curriculum Development Centre is clear. Young Aboriginal Australians do not come into the education system with the same background as other Australians. Their education needs to be specifically targeted to them. Of course, their teachers make sure that this happens. But those teachers need also to be armed with materials which are specifically tailored to provide a bridge between the cultural background of young Aboriginal Australians and the skills and information which all young Australians need to master in order to become part of the twenty-first century. The Curriculum Development Centre's contribution to this process has not been a small one. Next, in the area of arts education, the CDC has produced a series on the musical cultures of Asia, which is the only material of its kind and which fills a gap in Asian studies and in music courses. Much can be learnt about a culture from understanding the music that is enjoyed in that culture. Many young Australians have reached that understanding through materials developed through the Curriculum Development Centre. In the area of communication and languages, one major contribution has been made by the Alfonso Japanese project materials. This project, named after one of its three authors, involves text books, videos and visual and audio cassettes. These materials are the Curriculum Development Centre's best sellers and are used by almost all schools teaching Japanese in Australia and New Zealand. They are widely sought overseas. For example, Stanford University buys several hundred copies each year for intensive training courses for American Field Service students who are going to Japan. Other publications in this area of communication and languages-by publications I mean textual, audiovisual and audio tapes-cover such topics as language and educational development, the contribution to language development of various groups within Australian society and aids to the development of expressive ability among children. They also cover communication through photography, pictures and drawings. In the area of cultural and civic studies, the Curriculum Development Centre has produced materials relating to consumer education and government. Another project which Opposition members will be interested in and which the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) ranted about briefly was the social education materials project, or SEMP as it is known for short. It became extremely famous a few years ago when the Premier of Queensland ordered that it should be banned from Queensland state schools. This drew the attention of the teaching profession to the educational value of the materials and they were widely used in church and independent schools in Queensland and in schools of all kinds throughout the rest of Australia. The materials cover such areas, for example, as community growth-material aimed at teaching children how a small community, such as a country town, grows; community noise-the problem of noise pollution; the computer in society-an investigation of the social impact of the computer and a kit called 'Finding Out' designed to teach children social survey techniques and research skills to enable students to examine and make positive recommendations about social issues in their immediate community. It does not take much imagination to guess why the National Party in Queensland wanted this course banned; nor does it take much to see the extent to which these materials develop that most important end product of an education-an inquiring mind. Another area of publications is environmental education, which analyses human settlements of the past and human settlements for the future, looking at the relationship between humanity and its environment. Other areas covered include health, home economics, mathematics, science and technology. The Australian science education project materials are very extensive, very innovative and, like the other CDC materials that I have mentioned, assist teachers around Australia to fill a gap created by a shortage of materials in a particular area of the education of young Australians. The works which I have listed are just some of the completed projects of the Curriculum Development Centre. The ongoing projects concentrate on some similar areas, but extend as well to some areas which all educationists would regard as necessary areas for innovation in education. There is emphasis on the teaching of Aboriginal children, a project called 'Leaps and Bounds' which is English language teaching materials for Aboriginal children. Another project is concerned with assisting Aboriginal children to remain aware of their cultural heritage at the same time as developing the skills necessary in contemporary society. Some of these materials are urban and contemporary Aboriginal culture materials and Aboriginal oral histories. Publications arising from the Japanese language project continues, with the publication of another edition of the best selling Alfonso Japanese. There is also the Pacific circle project, which is designed to generate an awareness of the commonality of interests among the countries in the Pacific circle. It is designed to provide access by young children in those areas to materials which will provide an awareness of cultures and environments around the Pacific Basin and the influence of those environments on their cultures. Then there is the Italian community language project- Mr Ian Cameron —You have already mentioned that. Mr WELLS —And, importantly, word processing materials, the basic learning computer resource file and the computer assisted remedial education project. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) would not have the faintest idea what I have already mentioned. If he had heard it, he would not have understood it. Another project which takes a lead from an emphasis placed by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) on this area is the girls in sport project, a video designed to encourage more participation by girls in the upper primary and lower secondary age levels in physical fitness activities and to dispel some of the myths surrounding the participation of girls in vigorous physical activity. Mr Ian Cameron —Tell us about the girls. Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Maranoa would not know how to educate a sheep. Wide ranging plans for projects in the areas of education of girls and computer education are in the preparation stage. All the work I have mentioned is directed towards providing aids for the teaching of skills and the provision of information in Australian schools in a form that could not readily be produced by individual teachers, laden as they are with the need to respond to the day to day classroom situation. This Bill places the Curriculum Development Centre within the Schools Commission, a body which has a number of research roles, but whose main emphasis is on the disbursement of funding. It is incumbent upon the Schools Commission to realise the potential of the unit which it is inheriting and to make sure that it adopts measures to allow those skills possessed by the people in the Curriculum Development Centre to flourish in a way that will benefit Australian school children. This will require flexibility and imagination on behalf of the Schools Commission. I am sure that these will be forthcoming. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.41) —I rise to participate in this debate on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984 and cognate Bills following the inane avalanche of cliches that have been heard from Government members. It is always interesting to observe just who gives members of the Australian Labor Party their riding instructions in important debates such as this. Certainly the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) swept away any doubt that, to a large extent, the Australian Teachers Federation is dictating government policy in this crucial area of education. It goes without saying that if one is really concerned about the future of this country one is concerned about the standard of education and the amount of expenditure given to it. On both limbs this Government fails to satisfy the Opposition that it has a deep and lasting commitment to education. It has been catalogued beyond doubt, and no member of the Government would dare to disagree or dispute, that the Australian Teachers Federation contributed, to our knowledge, three-quarters of a million dollars to the last Australian Labor Party federal election campaign; that is, its campaign for the election on 5 March 1983. We see the payback for that contribution in a number of areas. In Victoria, Mr Cain has increased teachers' wages by some 35 per cent to 40 per cent in the two years that he has been in office-an extraordinary amount, far out of kilter with wage rises for any other sector of the community. In particular I have concerns about just how this Government intends to assist those young people who are being encouraged to remain at secondary school if it will not increase funding for tertiary education. The participation and equity program will remain a fraud on the unemployed of this country unless the Government is prepared to allow them to participate in tertiary institutions. It has been revealed in the last few days that Cabinet has rejected the proposal of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) for increased tertiary education funding. Mr McVeigh —She should resign if she can't get that through. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Darling Downs says, if the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs is not able to get through this basic tenet of education she is not fulfilling her duties and her competency must be called into question. Resignation at least ought to be considered by her. Mr Holding —Come on. Mr McGAURAN —Of course the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is at the table, laughts. A call for his resignation will resound through this chamber in days to come as he insists on this lunacy of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill. It would do the Minister well to consider his competency and ability to introduce legislation which has some relevance to his portfolio. I do not intend to be sidetracked by the mocking tone of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I wish to return to the central issue, which no member of the Government has addressed, that is: What do we do with the 17-and 18-year olds who have been encouraged to return to secondary education-and I may say rightly encouraged-if there are no places for them at the tertiary education level? In my electorate of Gippsland the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education has advised me that it will have to turn away a great many applicants next academic year because its resources are abolutely stretched. There is no increased funding and for that reason it does not have the appropriate level of teaching academic staff, or sufficient room. If this Government is serious about encouraging young people to seek and to obtain higher education, which will put them in a better position to obtain worthwhile employment, it will simply have to increase funding for tertiary education. I ask one speaker from the Government side of the House-if not the Minister, in closing the debate-to address this matter and to advise the House and the people of Australia, and to advise more particularly and most importantly the young people who are still at secondary school, what future there is for young people in the colleges of advanced education or the universities if the Government will not increase funding and if it is not serious enough about regarding tertiary education as a priority. Unless the Government sets out its commitment to tertiary education, I must echo the words of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) in this chamber earlier this evening that the unemployed are being put into participation and equity programs simply to get them out of the unemployment figures. The community employment program is another attempt by this Government to fiddle the unemployment figures to keep the truth from the people, the truth being that the Government's economic policy of simply stimulating the public sector will not create growth in the private sector and will not lead to worthwhile employment for our young people. Mr Milton —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Gippsland is not addressing himself to the Bill. He has talked about all sorts of other matters and about nothing to do with the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —There is no point of order. Mr McGAURAN —This Government has a sensitivity about matters of unemployment. The relationship between my raising this issue this evening and the Bills before the House is that I simply want to ask: What will the Government do for the young people once their secondary education is finished? Mr McVeigh —That is what I want to know. What is the Government doing for the young people? Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) wants to know that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warned the honourable member for Darling Downs to cease interjecting earlier. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I find the contribution of the honourable member for Darling Downs most helpful; but, of course, it is a matter for you whether he is in breach of the Standing Orders. Given the amount of time we have to debate these important Bills tonight, I do not wish to take up more time of the House. I have put a very serious matter before the Government for its reply. If the cynicism which is rapidly growing in academic education circles is to be dispelled, this Government will have to display a far greater commitment to something other than juggling and falsely minimising the unemployment figures for young people. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(11.48) —As a number of honourable members on this side of the House have emphasised, one of the most appalling and retrograde measures undertaken by the Fraser Liberal-National Party Federal Government was the abolition at the end of 1981 of the Curriculum Development Centre. It gives me great pleasure, therefore, strongly to support the Commonwelath Schools Commission Amendment Bill 1984, which has the primary aim of reactivating the Centre within the administrative structure of the Commonwealth Schools Commission as the new Curriculum Development Council. It is essential that the Commonwealth Schools Commission provide school systems with expert and objective information on all matters relating to the development of curricula, as there are a good many misconceptions in the community about the role of education as we near the challenges and the immense changes to lifestyles which the twenty- first century will present. As a practical indication of the problems that parents, teachers and pupils are facing, I want to refer to one of the schools in my electorate of La Trobe, namely Ferntree Gully High School. It is a good school. For several years, some parents of students and of potential pupils at the school have been protesting that the school's curriculum does not cover the needs and aspirations of their children. As a result of this discontent, the Ferntree Gully High School is operating well below its capacity, with total student enrolments down by 200, to about 410 students. It is particularly unfortunate that many parents who appeal against sending year 7 students to Ferntree Gully High School have their appeals upheld by the Maroondah regional office of the Department of Education, despite the fact that those same parents know little about the educational standards of the school. The school, since its inception in the late 1960s, has prided itself on the alternative STC education which is provided in contrast to the traditional higher school certificate courses offered by the other schools in the area. The school's year 12 and tertiary entrance certificate, or STC for short, comes under the umbrella of group 2 higher school certificate subjects approved by the Victorian Institute of Secondary Education. The STC course is designed specifically to cope with the diversity and complexity of modern society. The course fosters confidence, adaptability and initiative, and it imparts decision- making skills to the students. As the school's transition officer has indicated, central to the philosophy of the school is the concept that the pupils have to learn to be responsible for their own actions and decisions. It is interesting to note that the criticisms that the school's curriculum does not produce well-educated young adults does not appear to be borne out by the retention rates of the students at the school. The retention rate between years 9 and 10 is about equal to the 90 per cent achieved by the neighbouring high schools in the area and the retention rate between years 10 and 11 is 85 per cent of all students, compared with an average retention rate of 75 per cent in the other schools. However, it is the retention rate between years 11 and 12 which is the most marked, with Ferntree Gully High retaining 84 per cent of its pupils, compared with an average retention rate of only 48 per cent for the other high schools. For those honourable members who lack faith in figures, I should point out that the retention rate is defined as the ratio between total student enrolments in two successive years. The significance of these figures is that Ferntree Gully High School has a higher number of students enrolled in year 12 than at the year 7 level, which is the inverse situation to that of the other high schools in the area. Of course, it has to be admitted that some parents want their children to attend a school which offers the orthodox HSC group 1 courses, and perhaps this is one aspect of the education structure offered at Ferntree Gully High that could be reviewed. It should be possible for the school to offer a mixture of HSC group 1 subjects and group 2 subjects. This would be more feasible if neighbouring high schools would agree to offer a mixture of group 1 and group 2 subjects. It is interesting to note that 1984 is the first year in which more than 50 per cent of students throughout the whole of Victoria have continued to year 12 level. In my view, this is a reflection of the valuable contribution made by the introduction of the STC course to the seconadary school system. In addition, during my 18 years as an administrator at the University of Melbourne, I found that many students who had completed HSC group 1 subjects were totally unprepared to undertake a higher education course, despite the fact , I might add, that the majority of them were the products of private schools. They were good at regurgitating what they had learned during their courses but apparently they had not been trained to think for themselves. One of the most important aspects of the STC course is that the students are encouraged to undertake their learning by organising their own projects and excursions. In reporting on the STC course at Ferntree Gully High, a local newspaper wrote: A group of Year 12 students at the school were quick to defend their school's reputation. Indignant and hurt by some of the criticisms levelled at the school, they staunchly refuted attacks by people from outside. 'The teachers here, teach you about what is outside these walls,' said Sue. ' Our school is based on a lot of trust between teachers and kids, and people shouldn't criticise it when they don't know what it's like. We are treated like adults here.' This method of teaching certainly pays off because, for example, in 1982, of the 46 students who completed STC at Ferntree Gully High, 14 were admitted to tertiary education courses and 24 attained a wide range of jobs. Of the remainder, two could not be traced and the other six were unemployed. This record is quite contrary to the impression of the school that some ill-informed parents whose views have appeared in the local newspapers are attempting to convey to the community. It is very clear that the critics of the STC course offered at Ferntree Gully High have not kept up to date with modern teaching methods. The method of teaching which prevailed some 15 years ago when they were at primary and secondary schools is outdated and no longer relevant to the challenges presented by the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Their children will be required to change their major occupations at least three times in their lifetimes. School curricula must be provided which can enable a student to adapt to rapidly changing life- styles. It is not just a question of teaching the three Rs. The Curriculum Development Council will be giving advice to schools such as Ferntree Gully High School on the curriculum-related ideas which affect school progress, ideas in relation to the differing methods of presenting learning opportunities, the place of examinations, attitudes towards credentialling and how schools can be organised and grouped together to improve the total learning process so that there can be a reduction in the present inequities and inequalities. Young people need to engage in a whole range of intellectual and practical activities involving an understanding of the nature of work and how work is divided in our society and the increasing importance of meaningful leisure activities. The critics of STC will have to come to terms with the fact that increasingly there will be more of such courses in the future, not fewer. The whole secondary curriculum needs realigning in a way which does not exclude the need for technological literacy but which places an emphasis on the differing life styles which the students must face when they leave the secondary school system. I welcome the birth of the Curriculum Development Council and express my wholehearted support for the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Bill. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.56) —I was prepared to have a relaxing evening tonight, but then the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) told the House that the Opposition was not interested in this issue whereas of course the Opposition was trying to co-operate with the Government to help it get through a program which it has had three or four months to get through, in which time all it could give us was chicken meat legislation. Of course, now that the Government finds that it has only a fortnight of the Parliament left it is trying to keep this House up all night. There is plenty to talk about on the issue of education. I thought that the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) could give me some thoughts as to where the Government is leading us. Of course, she chose to speak about the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). I trust that any reference to the Minister in relation to these Bills is relevant because clearly the Minister is what these Bills are all about. Quite clearly, anything I have to say about the Minister relates to these Bills. I do not really want to tell the House much of what I think about the Minister. I have some views, but I will tell the House what some other people think about the Minister in this area of education. I refer the House to a minute of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, Ms Williams, Secretary. Mr Milton —Why don't you talk about education? Mr TUCKEY —The letterhead states: 'Department of Education and Youth Affairs'. If that is not about education, I will go he. The minute is headed 'Planning for Release of CSC Recommendations and Government's Guidelines to the Commissions'. The CSC is, of course, the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Copies of the minute are to Dr Taloni and Mr Wilson. What does Ms Williams say? She says: Indications from press comments and other sources are that the Government has had, an can expect to have, serious difficulty in communicating its policies on the funding of schools. What does that mean? It is pretty easy to get the message over when the people are prepared to accept it. It is saying that the message of the Government is not very acceptable; that is the opinion of its departmental heads. They are telling the Government things like this: At this stage, we face a number of basic problems in planning a communications program to overcome, or at least minimise, the existing problems: (1) We do not know what the Schools Commission will recommend; Of course, we know now that the Schools Commission has come out wholeheartedly in support of the previous Government's policy which was very similar to that which the Opposition has laid down as its policy-an even-handed approach to public and private schools. The minute goes on: (3) Indications are that the Minister is identified as one source of public concern . . . This is the Minister who, the honourable member for Lilley tells us, is the great white hope in the field of education. The public, as an honourable member said earlier today, vote with their feet. The public know what it is all about. The departmental officer advised the Minister that she is a matter of public concern. So she should be. She is the person who told the Senate that to have care for excellence or ambition for excellence is elitist. Yet the Minister for Science and Technology uses up Question Time day after day giving us lectures on how we should pursue excellence. It is about time the Government got its act together and decided which Minister is right. Mr Milton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 81 requires that honourable members should keep to the matter of the Bill. The honourable member has digressed continuously and is contravening the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —The honourable member for O'Connor is getting a little wide of the subject matter of the legislation. I appreciate that the debate is broad ranging, but I should also appreciate it if the honourable member would endeavour to get back to the subject matter of one of the Bills. Mr TUCKEY —We are discussing cognate Bills under Orders of the Day Nos 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. They all relate to education in various ways. The Minister for Education is not very much part of every action that is taken in this regard. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to dispute your ruling. My comments about the Minister for Science and Technology were in the context that he too is the person-- Mr Wells —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that the honourable member table the document from which he has been quoting. Mr TUCKEY —I would appreciate its incorporation in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr TUCKEY —I am most happy to table the document. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand the honourable member for O'Connor is quoting from speech notes. Mr Holding —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. No, the honourable gentleman was quoting from a document. All he has to do under the Standing Orders is table it. Mr TUCKEY —I repeat, I am happy to have it incorporated in Hansard. Mr Holding —All the standing order requires is that it be tabled. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister should appreciate that the standing order applies only to Ministers. The honourable member for O'Connor is quoting from speech notes. If those notes have a heading, well and good. Mr Holding —I may have misheard the honourable member for O'Connor, but I understood him to say that he was quoting from a memorandum or minute. Having quoted from the document, and in view of the fact that the honourable member for Petrie has asked that it be tabled, under Standing Orders the honourable member for O'Connor is required to table it. Does the honourable member want to table it or not? Mr TUCKEY —I am quite happy to have it incorporated. Mr Holding —No, you will not have it incorporated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has taken a point of order. For the information of the House I shall read standing order 321. It states: A document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister or an Assistant Minister, unless stated to be of a confidential nature or such as should more properly be obtained by address, shall, if required by any Member, be laid on the Table. There is no point of order. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, the comments of the Minister who prepared the Bills we are dealing with tonight must be of interest to the public. The comments reflect upon the person who prepared the Bills and would give the Government some clear indication of what the Department of Education and Youth Affairs truly thinks about its own legislation. The Minister has identified one source of public concern about the Government's perceived approach to the funding of schools. There is good reason for that. She has attacked the private school sector time and time again. In fact, as the document I have states: Government school parents- this might be just a little electoral lesson to members on the Government side- are generally not hostile towards non-government schools (even those with high resource levels) and indeed identify them with educational excellence. But we know what the Minister thinks about educational excellence. She tells us that is elitist. The document continues. They do not see funding of non-government schools as an important issue. They have qualititative concerns. In other words they want the government school system to lift its game. Government members, in a lot of the comments which they have made tonight, are falling for the old politician's failure. They have been measuring excellence by expenditure. As long as they think they spend enough money they reckon they get a result. Quite clearly, that is not what happens. These Bills are about spending money and all the Government is saying is: 'Spend more money and, hey presto, we have better education'. The fact is that we have spent more and more money and we have halved the number of kids in schools. As an employer I can tell honourable members that kids do not have the level of basic education they had years ago. Mr Milton —That is not true. Mr TUCKEY —Let us go back to the Government's document, the document written by employees of the present Government. It states: While non-government school parents generally are more aware of the funding issue, many are misinformed and hostile towards the Government . . . Why would that be? It is only because they know they are getting a raw deal. The Government document continues: hence resistant to positive information about the Government's policies. Non-government school parents are resistant all right. They do not want to be taken for another ride by the Government. They remember what happened last time. The document goes on to state: Non-Catholic non-government school parents are very hostile towards the Government . . . This is the message that the Government got privately and it still will not cop it. The Government tells us all the good things it has done. How silly can it be ? Mr O'Neil —That is not true. Mr TUCKEY —I am sorry but these are not my opinions I am quoting. I am giving the Government a chance to get out of the trouble it is getting itself into and it is too foolish to listen. That happens every time. It does not want the help of the Opposition. Government members just close their minds. They have had a vote in Caucus and once that has happened everything goes on from there. What sort of suggestions does the Government get from its department? Things are so bad, in its opinion, that it suggests the Government gets some toll free telephone lines booked in each capital city so that interested parents and teachers are able to listen to a recorded statement. I understand that we have a 10-minute limit on our speeches in this debate. I am very happy to comply. I have used a minute or so more but that was only to accommodate the--- Mr Rocher —The Deputy Whip says that there is no limit. Mr TUCKEY —I see. The Government now requires us to say a bit more. I can see that the honourable member for Petrie is anxious to have that happen so I will carry on. I think there are a few other matters in this document that the Government should have read to it so that it can clearly understand what its department has been trying to tell it. These are some of the Commonwealth Schools Commission's recommendations. This is the way that this person thinks the Government can get out of the tragedy that is its Minister-anything to get her out of the front of the scene. She is perceived by the Department as lead in the saddlebag. The Government will never get up its policies with her. This is what the Government is advised to do: An 'academic'- in other words it would not be academic; it would be a fiddle- article to be writen for the Minister, clearly establishing (a) her neutrality towards the funding of non-government schools . . . I do not have to fake the laugh of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on that issue. That has to be the funniest thing that has been read in this Parliament for years. It is so incongrous that some 'academic' will write an article for the Minister clearly establishing her neutrality towards the funding of non- government schools. It is further recommended: (b) The historical- That is a good word for the Minister- and administrative complexity of the issues, (c) her interest in achieving, as far as possible, a consensus on appropriate funding arrangements for the medium- term future at least, and (d) that she accepts that society has a responsibility to educate all its children. Suddenly the Government believes that the Minister did not realise that situation or that the Australian public is not of the opinion that she knows or understands that society has a responsibility to educate all of its children. Do honourable members know what that message means? The Minister has to go to the Australian public and say: 'It is fair enough' as the Opposition has laid down in its policy 'that these Bills should be making provision for equal and reasonable funding for all sectors of the community irrespective of whom they choose to ask to educate their children'. That is what is needed. I received a letter from a young man the other day who clearly had been brainwashed on- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for O'Connor try to get back at least to some of the subject matter of one of the Bills that are being debated cognately at the moment. The honourable member has strayed far too wide far too often. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your advice and assistance. It is necessary, of course, in these circumstances to make some comments about the Minister's administration and stewardship of her portfolio and that is, of course, what I have been trying to do. Wealth is referred to significantly in many of these matters. In closing, I think it would be worthwhile my drawing attention to a circumstance that came to my notice recently in regard to a 'wealthy' school. I use inverted commas around that word because I find that in fact the Department of Education and Youth Affairs was prepared to use an 'academic'. It was going to have a Clayton's-type academic-the academic one has when one is not having an academic. However, I want to draw to the attention of the House that recently I talked to a head- mistress-- Mr Wells —Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 85 which refers to any member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments of others. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have already indicated to the honourable member for O'Connor that he is getting far too wide from the subject matter of the various Bills under discussion. I have not noticed in his last few remarks that he is attempting really to get back to the subject matter of any of the Bills. I will not tell the honourable member again to get back to the subject matter. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker. Order of the Day No. 6, States Grants ( Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the honourable member questioning the ruling of the Chair? Mr TUCKEY —I am not. I am now resuming my remarks on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1984. I was about to refer to an example of the way in which funding works in these areas. The Bill is about States grants funding. I would like to take the last couple of minutes of the time available to me to give the House an example of how certain schools might get wealthy. Of course, this is very relevant to the type of grants that they have been getting under the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill. The example I want to give concerns a headmistress who recently retired after leading a private school for 26 years. The school was attended by 700 students, half of whom were boarders. I have been fortunate in that my second daughter is at present one of the pupils at this school, which is highly regarded in Western Australia. That lady taught for half a school week every week for the 26 years she was headmistress. She argued that there were two good reasons for doing this. The first was the wonderful contact she was able to get with the students of that school, and she was magnificent in that regard. The second reason was that she was able to save money so that the school could have some of the things that were so obvious when one walked about it. She was prepared to make that contribution. Yet I know of many government schools which have less than 100 pupils at which the principal does no teaching whatsoever. These comparisons have to be made when the Government sets about, as it has with the legislation we are debating tonight, to make grants to schools. It is wrong to label such schools as wealthy because they are careful. That is the point I am making in regard to that. There is plenty of information about on such matters. I am pleased to have been given the opportunity by the honourable member for Petrie to bring to the Government's attention some of the correspondence which its Ministers have been receiving from their departments and which I am sure a number of them have not had the opportunity to be acquainted with before. Wednesday, 30 May 1984 Mrs CHILD(Henty)(12.16 a.m.) —I had no intention of taking part in this education debate but the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) made a remark that I felt someone on this side of the House should answer. I will be very brief, as I promised the Whip I would be. I cannot remember the honourable member's exact words but he intimated in his address to the House that peace studies in schools were a pack of nonsense. We on this side of the House find peace studies of great interest. We believe that the world has learned a lot from the conflicts through which we have fought, especially the last two World Wars, and from the threat of nuclear war. I may be roaming far from the terms of the legislation but I am claiming your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, because previous speakers have done the same thing. Nothing is more important for our children than that they learn the history and horror of war and that they learn what peace is all about and how to live in peace each with the other. If they do not, our children will not survive , and neither will theirs. The peace studies being introduced into quite a number of schools, both government and non-government, are being given great attention by very dedicated teachers. I did not take very kindly to the actions of the honourable member for Wentworth in virtually treating them with contempt. I have no objection to the 3Rs. I have no objection to any type of education within the schools that teaches people how to live, but I want them to live in peace. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(12.17 a.m.) —I thank the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) for overruling the wish of his Whip, who requested honourable members on this side of the House to restrict their comments in this debate. I am pleased that this debate has gone on. This debate has simply reinforced the community attitude that the Australian Labor Party Government has a dismal record of broken promises and a record in education which is a national disgrace. There have been 15 promises broken. Mr Gayler —Tell that to the people. Mr FISHER —I am telling the people now. Some 15 promises made in the election campaign have not been met in subsequent legislation. I instance the decision to abolish the inflation index between schools and the lack of support for tertiary students and those seeking tertiary education. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and cognate Bills which we are debating tonight, while they are important to our education institutions, are uncomplicated. They are simple pieces of legislation. Simply stated they give more money, which indicates the incapacity of this Government to control inflation and halt cost increases in our community. We see this in five of the Bills, three of which are simply supplementation grants. The States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill provides for a grant of some $62m to universities and colleges of advanced education. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill provides a grant of $9.7m to government and non- government schools. The States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill provides a little over $1m to the participation and equity program. As has already been said, we support the re-establishment of the curriculum development program closer to the Schools Commission. It will be good if the Curriculum Development Council brings about some sort of curriculum development in the arts, and in assistance to Aboriginals. I certainly hope that this time around something will be done in the area of music, trying to convince our State authorities that this should be an important part of our curriculum program. If the Council follows the advice given to us tonight by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) that it should involve itself in peace studies and in teaching people about the wealth distribution in this country, all I can say to the honourable member for La Trobe is that the University of Melbourne has certainly improved since he resigned from there as an administrator and came to this place. Instead of a lot of diatribe against the Ferntree Gully school, the honourable member should go back there to try to improve its situation. He should do that instead of blasting it in this place. I believe that the Australian National University Amendment Bill is counter to the concept of free education. Although the education of the individual is paid for, these students will now be forced to fund extra educational organisations via the general services fee, especially the overtly political students association and the Australian Union of Students. I find this intolerable. Compulsory membership is alien to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Particularly in regard to the payments to the AUS. I ask: Is it simply any business of the university to collect fees for a body that is completely separate from the university? I also say to members of the Government that surely students who are acting voluntarily are in the best position to determine whether or not students should wish to fund such bodies. What has happened to the concept of freedom of association? I refer briefly to the implications that have developed in education as the last Budget is beginning to sink in. As the news trickles out of reductions in resources and support services, teachers, unions, parents and regional administrators are becoming alarmed at how seriously education programs are being affected. Student transport, regional administration and support services have each had a cut in real terms in their allocation. In Victoria, where I come from, expenditure in school operations which will cost over $1 billion in 1984 has been reduced by about 5 per cent in real terms. A $10m slice cut off the $50m expected to be spent on emergency teachers will only mean sharp restrictions on their employment. As a result, schools in my electorate will have to limit camps and excursions for children and reduce the opportunities for teachers to take in- service courses. Cuts of almost 50 per cent in the numbers of regional consultants will seriously affect the curriculum support for country teachers. Cuts in regional travel budgets will also have an impact on the movement of teachers in country areas and further reduce in-service programs. Elsewhere, of course, technical and further education seems to be approaching crisis point. Worried college administrators have been talking about laying off staff and being forced to restrict access next year to thousands of would-be students. With the State and Federal governments' rhetoric about the significance and importance of TAFE, many college heads are puzzled about where that support has gone. This Government came to office with grand promises and plans for education. The expectations in the community raised by these promises have now had to be markedly lowered. That ultimately will lead, I hope, to political disaffection, and disaffection in politics has a way of translating itself into voting patterns at elections. In conclusion, I mention the disadvantage that country students are now facing in relation to the closure of a number of student hostels which have, in the past, housed tertiary students. As Government members know, particularly the Victorian members, the Victorian Minister has wiped his hands of responsibility for this action and is reported as saying that the Federal Government is responsible. Unfortunately, the Federal Government, through the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), has taken the decision that will reduce the small amount of assistance that residential colleges and halls receive at present. As we know, the Budget reduced by 25 per cent the $9 that was received per student a week which increases, of course, the cost of these colleges and halls. I again call on the Federal Minister to clarify the situation of student hostels and explain to the country people why the Government is attacking students who are already disadvantaged in obtaining tertiary education. The decline in real terms in the real value of tertiary education assistance schemes following the Government's Budget in August and the decision to scrap the former Government's student loans scheme has only compounded these difficulties. These cuts affect not just those eligible under TEAS, but also a large number of students who receive neither a TEAS allowance nor parental support and who, with some difficulty, must rely on parting with some of their time in employment to complete their tertiary studies. It is indeed ironic that governments which engage in a rhetoric that indicates a concern for educational disadvantage are reducing support in so many areas. One only has-- Mr Lloyd —Ironic, indeed. Mr FISHER —That is quite right. The honourable member for Murray will be well aware of this because one only has to see the implications of the Federal Budget and the Victorian Budget to realise the breaking of promises and the injustice being wrought on students and parents in their freedom of choice and their right of access to tertiary education. Mr Gayler —Shame! Mr FISHER —I agree entirely with the honourable member who is interjecting from the Government side. It is a shame. I therefore ask these two Ministers for Education to stop passing the buck, to tell us who is responsible for this action in relation to the student hostels and to tell us why support for country students has been reduced. Let us hope that in the name of social equity this is not just another method of changing funding direction that will result in mediocrity in education. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation . Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MILTON —I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MILTON —The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) in the speech that he has just made, apart from making gratuitous remarks about my service with the University of Melbourne, referred to a comment he said I made in my speech. He said that I spoke against the Ferntree Gully High School. That was totally incorrect. I was in fact praising the Ferntree Gully High School, as he will find out when he reads my speech tomorrow in Hansard. I have it on good authority that in fact he was asleep in his office and that is why he does not know what I was saying. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(12.27 a.m.) —The package of legislation that the House is considering at present is probably the most important that we have considered in relation to education. I am most concerned about the attitude which has been adopted by the Opposition in connection with a number of these matters. It is quite clear that a number of speakers from the Opposition not only have no understanding, knowledge or concern about what this legislation deals with, but also they have been quite prepared to waste the time of the Parliament for purposes which are best known to themselves. Before I deal with some particular aspects of the legislation, I would like to deal with matters which were raised by members of the Opposition. The first one is that the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) repeated a claim which was made some time back in this chamber by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) concerning a supposed donation. (Quorum formed). He suggested that an amount of three-quarters of a million dollars had been donated by the Australian Teachers Federation to the Australian Labor Party. I do not propose to go into the details of that again except to indicate that, subsequent to that claim having been made, I took the opportunity to investigate whether it was correct. The claim was incorrect. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knew that it was incorrect when he made it and those people who have subsequently repeated it also know that it was incorrect. In fact, I have seen the audited financial statements of the Australian Teachers Federation. Nowhere in those audited statements is there any item which refers to any type of donation having been made by the Australian Teachers Federation to the ALP. There has been only one occasion when the Teachers Federation or any of the State branches of it have made donations to the ALP. I think that occurred on one occasion in Victoria. Members of the Opposition are most concerned that teachers in Australia who are members of the Australian Teachers Federation or its affiliates within the States organisation would apply money from their own pockets in order to protect public education in Australia. They have a perfect right to do that. If, in the process of doing that, the policies which they adopt during election periods indicate that some type of expenditure on their part is necessary in order to promote those policies, they have a perfect right to do that. That is the first point. I also want to draw attention to a matter you raised, Madam Deputy Speaker, about peace studies. There is no cause for embarrassment or concern on the part of any member of the Government about our support for the proposition that peace studies should be an integral part of the total school curriculum. What we are concerned about is ensuring that the system of education in Australia is one which provides the sorts of opportunities that the Australian community expects from its schools. Mr Fisher —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear the honourable member for Hunter because of the noise from Government members. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I uphold the point of order and ask members on my right to lower their level of conversation. I cannot hear, either. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The chief provisions in these Bills quite clearly have largely been made necessary as a result of the appalling record of the Fraser Government during the seven years that it was in office. Never before in the history of the Commonwealth has there been seven years when the total education system in Australia, from pre-school level right through to post graduate level within the universities, has been so run down. Quite obviously it has been necessary for the Hawke Labor Government to correct the deficiencies which have occurred. It has become increasingly apparent that the Opposition has been concerned only with the place of private schools within the total education system. Its preoccupation with the provision of special facilities and conditions for the elite of Australian society is reflected in its whole approach to education and to education funding. The provision of schools has been the main means by which social mobility has been introduced into the Australian community. Labor governments, whether at the Federal or State level, have probably the most outstanding record as far as educational development and educational innovation are concerned. There is a need for educational facilities at all levels in Australia to be significantly upgraded. The list of Bills being considered by the Parliament indicates the genuineness with which the Government is approaching questions of education. There is no question about the priorities the Government is determined to apply to education. The basis of the Government's approach has been an attempt to ensure that educational funding would be available to the various institutions and the various services within those institutions on a needs basis. There is no reason in the world why a Labor government should ever apologise for such a policy or resile from it. I do not believe that this Government will. There are out in the community tens of thousands of young Australians who, as a result of the lethargy and incompetence and elitism of the previous Government, are being denied one of the most fundamental rights that should be extended to children, that is, the right to the fullest education possible, an education which is designed to ensure that those children are capable of developing their innate talents and abilities to the maximum. They in turn, will be able to make the type of contribution to the development of Australian society that we would expect from all people who care about Australia's wellbeing. One of the Bills deals with the Canberra College of Advanced Education. Honourable members will be familiar with the great reputation of that college as a centre of learning, a centre of excellence. It has been fortunate in being able to attract to its various disciplines some of the most competent people in colleges of advanced education in Australia. Those colleges became part of the total education system put into place by the Whitlam Government. While there has been some more recent rationalisation within that total system, there is no question that colleges of advanced education, as a result of that significant initiative of the Whitlam Government, have made and will continue to make very substantial contributions to the development of education policy and to the education of the Australian people. I believe that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Susan Ryan , should be congratulated on this important series of legislation. I commend the Minister for Aboriginal affairs (Mr Holding), who has had responsibility for the passage of the legislation through this chamber. I also want to pay a special tribute to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) because of the continuing concern he has shown, not only within his own electorate but also within New South Wales and across the whole of Australia, for matters of educational significance. I commend the Government for these items of legislation. I would like to think that they will be passed unanimously. I have some reservations about how the Opposition will respond to them, but I know that they have 100 per cent support from this side of the chamber. 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 Holding) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 22-by leave-taken together. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(12.45 a.m.) —To save the time of the Committee I will merely remind honourable members that I indicated in my speech during the second reading debate that the Opposition would seek to insert amendments to the Bill during the Committee stage to ensure that payment of fees shall be voluntary. I also indicated that we would vote against clause 23 of this Bill which is designed to remove the provisions in the Act inserted by the Fraser Government to guarantee that membership of student organisations should not be compulsory. I seek leave to move together the three amendments standing in my name. Leave granted. Amendment (by Mr Fife)-by leave-negatived: (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 12, omit ''Sections 18 and 23'', substitute '' Section 18''. (2) Clause 16, page 4, after paragraph (b) insert the following paragraph: '' '(ba) by inserting after 'fees' in sub-paragraph (1) (o) (ii) 'the payment of which shall be voluntary and which are' ''. (3) Clause 16, page 4, paragraph (c), line 36, proposed sub-paragraph (1) (o) ( iii), after ''fees'' insert ''the payment of which shall be voluntary and which are''. Clauses agreed to. Clause 23 (Repeal of section 32A). Mr FIFE(Farrer)(12.46 a.m.) —As I indicated earlier, the Opposition opposes clause 23 and will vote against it. Question put: That clause 23 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr L. J. Keogh) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.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. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. Lusher, S. A.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 15-by leave-taken together. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(12.58 a.m.) —I move: (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 11, omit 'Sections 16 and 18', substitute 'Section 18'. The amendment is designed to ensure that the payment of fees shall be voluntary. I indicate also at this stage that the Opposition will be voting against clause 16 of the Bill which is designed to amend the provisions in the Act inserted by the Fraser Government to guarantee that membership of student organisations should not be compulsory. Amendment negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clause 16 (Repeal of section 23A). Mr FIFE(Farrer)(1.0 a.m.) —For the reasons I have already given the Opposition opposes clause 16. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr L. J. Keogh) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.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. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. Lusher, S. A.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Amendments (by Mr Fife)-by leave-negatived: (3) Clause 17, page 6, line 5, after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: ''(aa) by inserting after 'fees' in paragraph 2 (b) ', the payment of which shall be voluntary,' ''. (4) Clause 17, page 6, line 7, proposed paragraph (ba), after ''fees'' insert ' ', the payment of which shall be voluntary,''. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 2 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(1.04 a.m.) —The amendments circulated in my name are designed to ensure that the new Curriculum Development Council always has as a member at least one person representing the interests of non-government schools and one person representing the interests of government schools. As I indicated during the second reading debate, representatives of both the government and non- government schools have in the past been appointed to membership of the Curriculum Development Centre. But the Opposition believes that in regard to this legislation the Parliament should require that at least one person should represent each section and that that should be mandatory. I seek leave to move the amendments standing in my name. Leave granted. Mr FIFE —I move: (1) Clause 23, page 7, line 28, omit ''5'', substitute ''3''. (2) Clause 23, page 7, after proposed paragraph 14B(2)(c) insert the following paragraph: ''(ca) 1 member to represent the interests of non-government schools, selected and nominated by the Minister from nominations by bodies and authorities representing non-government schools, and 1 member to represent the interests of government schools, selected and nominated by the Minister from nominations by bodies and authorities representing government schools;''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(1.10 a.m.) —In order that the Opposition is not able to perpetuate the view that there is no interest or support by the Government for the view that there should be representatives of the private schools on the Curriculum Development Council, I inform the Committee that the Council is being established more as an expert body than as a representative body. I ask members of the Oppositon to note that point. There is provision for the Minister to nominate five persons other than those formally nominated by the Australian Education Council or to select them from among the members of the Schools Commission. It would be expected that among the five persons nominated by the Minister there would be people with experience in non-government and government schools. Currently on the interim council there are two people with strong connections with the non-government sector, namely, Mr Vin Falconer, the Senior Planning Officer of the Catholic Education Office in Melbourne and Mr Peter Gebhardt, Headmaster of Geelong College. I place that on the record in order that the Committee will be clear about the private sector representation that is currently in place. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(1.12 a.m.) —The explanation given by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is unsatisfactory to the Opposition. I have indicated that in the past representatives of both the government and non- government school sectors have been represented on this Council. The policies that are being pursued by this Government give no assurance and no confidence that that will continue in the future. In the circumstances we intend to pursue our amendments and we will divide the Committee on them. Question put: That the the amendments (Mr Fife's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr L. J. Keogh) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. Lusher, S.A.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.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. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(1.22 a.m.) —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. House adjourned at 1.23 a.m. (Thursday) The following notices were given: Mr Adermann to move- That this House- (1) notes- (a) the great benefits which the typewriter telephone can provide for profoundly deaf people, and (b) the considerable cost of such receivers; (2) requests the Government- (a) to negotiate with Telecom for the provision of such receivers to profoundly deaf people without cost, and (b) to accelerate the installation of such telephones in all government departments, police stations, ambulance and fire stations and similar essential services to provide the facilities for deaf people to seek aid, and (3) to publicise the advantages which would accrue to commercial and business firms if they installed such telephones in their enterprises. Mr Adermann to move- That this House- (1) notes that captioning of television and news programs on television to assist the deaf is still non-existent or inadequate; (2) further notes the development and use of captioning and inserted sign language in many television programs particularly on the West Coast of USA, and (3) requests the Government to pursue with television interests in Australia the provision of extensive captioning and/or sign language with greater urgency to assist the deaf. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 391) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) How many suspensions and restorations of the domiciliary nursing care benefit in the event of a short term admission to a hospital or nursing home were there for the period 1 May to 30 July 1983. (2) What was the average (a) amount of payment suspended, and (b) days of admission. (3) What was the total amount saved by the Government by non-payment of the benefit. (4) What is the (a) actual, or (b) estimated administrative cost of suspending and restoring benefit payments. (5) What is the average length of time that elapses between notification that the patient has returned home and restoration of the benefit. Dr Blewett —The statistical information necessary to enable an adequate answer to the honourable member's question is not collected, as a matter of routine, by regional offices of my Department. Processing of the domiciliary nursing care benefit is based on a manual filing system and the resources involved in extracting definitive information of the nature required would be so substantial as to seriously disrupt administration and payment of the benefit. Nevertheless, it is possible from limited information to provide an estimate. With that reservation, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is estimated that there were some 120 short term suspensions and restorations, by reason of admissions to hospitals and nursing homes during the period 1 May to 30 July 1983. This figure represents only those cases which were suspended and subsequently restored to benefit wholly within the three months period and for which an actual loss of benefit resulted. (2) (a) Estimated at $85 per patient (b) Estimated at 30 (3) Estimated at $10,000 for suspension of benefit. (4) Estimated at $1,500. (5) In most cases the benefit appears to be restored within the same fortnightly pay period in which advice of the patient's return home is received. I have written to the honourable member taking up the substance of his question and offering all possible assistance with any further clarification that he may require. (Question No. 1126) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or Minister's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant or, if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is contained in the following schedules: TREASURER-CONSULTANTS ENGAGED SINCE APRIL 1983 (2) What is the name (5) What special (1) What consultants of each consultant, background and have been engaged to or if a company or experience does each work for the Minister partnership, the name consultant possess to (6) Was the merit or the Minister's of the name of the (3) For how long (4) What fee is to enable the consultant principle applied in Department since corporation or was each consultant be or has been paid to undertake the each case; if so, in April 1983 partnership engaged to each consultant engagement what manner Economist Dr B. Hughes From 11 May 1983 on a half time basis $28,770 pa payable to Flinders Uni. of SA Reader in Economics Flinders University of SA * *6. In relation to Ministerial Consultants these appointments require the approval of the Prime Minister generally on the recommendation of the Special Minister of State. It is the responsibility of individual Ministers to determine how potential appointees are selected. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY-CONSULTANTS ENGAGED SINCE APRIL 1983 Training Northern Computing Services 4 days $1870.60 Sole supplier of software in use on Treasury computer system *PSB Approved ADP Information Analysis Koranya Data Base Intelligence 80 days $32,000 Extensive experience in data base analysis and design PSB Approved *The engagement of consultants by the Department of the Treasury is undertaken in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Public Service Board, which provide for strict tests of essentiality and merit to be met before proposed engagements are approved. ROYAL AUSTRALIAN MINT-CONSULTANTS ENGAGED SINCE APRIL 1983 Automatic Data Processing Consultant Logica Pty Ltd 12 weeks $22,000 ADP Systems Design PSB Approved COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION-CONSULTANTS ENGAGED SINCE APRIL 1983 Occupational physiotherapist K. Tasker 6 mths from 2/4/84 on a part time basis $50 per hour *Occupational physiotherapist **PSB Approved Occupational physiotherapist P. Kemp 6 mths from 26/3/84 (part time) $50 per hour '' '' Occupational physiotherapist P. Levick 6 mths from 12/4/84 (part time) $50 per hour '' '' Occupational physiotherapist M. Goode 6 mths from 9/4/84 (part time) $50 per hour '' '' Occupational physiotherapist M. Grover 6 mths from 26/3/84 (part time) $50 per hour '' '' Occupational physiotherapist E. Pragier 6 mths from 30/3/84 (part time) $50 per hour '' '' Occupational physiotherapist D. Mavor 6 mths from 26/3/84 (part time) $50 per hour '' '' Occupational physiotherapist R. Wilson 6 mths from 30/3/84 (part time) $50 per hour '' '' *All eight consultant physiotherapists are appropriately academically qualified and have considerable experience in the field of repetitive injury. **The above eight consultants have been engaged for a 6 month trial period to assist with the training and diagnosis of keyboard staff with a view to the minimisation of repetitive injuries within keyboard areas. Former Senior Taxation Officer M. J. Peacock 6/6/83-30/9/83-to oversight the preparation of urgently needed legislation $10,256.00 Former senior taxation officer who performed similar duties prior to retirement PSB Approved Former Senior Police Officer R. A. Wilson 21/11/83-21/5/84-to advise on and provide training in aspects of criminal investigation procedures $12,809.00 Former senior police officer '' Academic D. Yerbury 5 days, to conduct seminars on Management matters and on Industrial Relations $2,500.00 Distinguished academic '' Lecturer S. Mugford 1 day-conduct training courses $300.00 Senior Lecturer in Sociology '' Lecturer N. Norman 1 day-conduct training courses $500.00 Senior Lecturer in Economics '' Computer Expert R. Sims 7 days-conduct training courses $5,300.00 Employee of Control Data Pty Ltd, sole suppliers of the computer-based education systems in use '' Expert on ADP Theory T. De Marco 4 days, providing specialist advice on ADP problems $6,900.00 World-wide acknowledged expert on ADP Theory PSB Approved Medical Practitioner R. Gibbs 2 days, for seminars on lifestyle and health $1,100.00 Qualified medical practitioner '' Expert in Livestock J. Inglis Livestock valuation for taxation purposes $300.00 Expert in bloodstock valuation '' Accountant D. Nettleship 3 days, for management training courses $2,250.00 Accountant and consultant on public relations and training '' Consultant W. Hamill 3 days, for management training courses $2,750.00 Consultant on training and development services '' Tutor P. Battersby 5 days, for management training courses $5,200.00 Tertiary tutor '' Senior Lecturer J. Poots 2 days, for management training courses $780.00 Senior Lecturer '' Qualified psychologist P. Walker 3 days, for management training courses $2,000.00 Qualified psychologist '' Management Consultant B. Sealey 1 day-to conduct session during Industrial Relations Seminar $400.00 Private management consultant PSB Approved Lecturer Ind Relations V. Taylor 1 day-to conduct session during Industrial Relations Seminar $400.00 Lecturer in industrial relations, Australian Graduate School of Management '' Design Consultant J. Brown 'Design Resources' Pty Ltd Design of document holders for data processing operators (October 1983-January 1984) $4,000.00 Professional design consultant '' Senior Tutor R. Caccioppe Management consultant: 7 hrs total $87.50 Senior tutor in Management Studies '' Management Consultant R. Prince 6 days for management training $3,390.00 Management consultant '' Lecturers in Law G.J.B. Management Service Pty Ltd-J. Hanley, G. Bitomsky and P. Little 6 days for seminars on trusts $3,000.00 Lecturers in Law '' Human Relations Expert P. Maranta 5 day residential management and human relations workshop $1,950.00 Qualified in human relations and transactional analysis '' AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS-CONSULTANTS ENGAGED SINCE APRIL 1983 Training Integrated System Technology 12 days $10,750 Academic data processing personnel PSB approved Training D. P. Education 12 days $18,000 Professional data processing training organisation ,, Risk Analysis Study of ABS Computer Environment Touche Ross 6 months $80,000 Firm of chartered accountants/auditors ,, Training Aspect Computing Pty Ltd 7 days $4,750 Professional data processing training organisation ,, Contract programmer R. A. Hodkinson 12 months (9 months effective) $50 Hourly rate (Maximum $63,000) Extensive experience in design and implementation of generalised applications software systems ,, Historian Dr C. Forster 12 months (2 1/2 months effective) $11,250 PhD (ANU). Reader in Economic History, Research School of Social Sciences, ANU. Author of articles analysing interpretation of Australian statistics ,, Historian Dr C. Hazlehurst 12 months (2 1/2 months effective) $7,250 D. Phil (Oxon.). Fellow in History at Research School of Social Sciences, ANU ,, Training (Senior Management Workshop) Centre for Applied Behavioural Science 8 days $3,440 Management training and development organisation PSB approved Training (Seminars with ABS specialists) Prof. G. Kalton, University of Michigan 3 days $420 Pre-eminent expert 'Applied survey statistician and research scientist' Engaged in accordance with guidelines Training (Stress Management Course) Dr I. Lynagh 1 day $279 Expert in the field ,, Training (Counselling Course) P. Collins 2 days $605 Expert in the field ,, Training D. Paris 1 1/2 days $525 Broad experience both academic and within industry in fields of organisation, management development, etc. Recommended by another Govt. Dept. When a major need for management training is identified the best available person is approached if the skills do not exist within the office. '' Dr R. Wilkins 1 day $725 Extensive counselling experience. '' '' Steiner Wilson and Associates 1 1/2 days plus course design $1,965 Agents for the specific concept of situational leadership. Well regarded professionally. '' '' Australian Institute of Management 1 day $600 Extensive experience both within private and academic field. '' '' Warwick Hamill and Associates 2 days $1,150 Specialist in situational leadership and communication. '' '' Executec 1 day $450 Specialist in time management. '' Public Relations Consultant/Journalist (PRC/J) J. Cannon 2 days $150 Usually engaged as result of advertisement-persons completing work satisfactorily are re-engaged as required. See question 5 PCR/J Jean Pascal Communications 101 days $11,959 '' '' PRC/J Kinetic Productions 13 1/2 days $1,554 '' '' PRC/J P. Von Wolfe 1 day $115 '' '' PRC/J R. L. S. Starling Pty Ltd 6 1/2 days $750 '' '' PRC/J E. Spratt 2 days $231 '' '' PRC/J J. Grigsby 22 1/2 days $2,668 '' '' PRC/J W. Munday 12 days $1,424 '' '' PRC/J Keenan Communications 7 days $837 '' '' PRC/J D. Baker 2 days $231 '' '' PRC/J Neville Sloss Public Relations 7 days $808 '' '' Academic/Journalist Robyn Penman CCAE 3 days $1,305 '' '' PRC/J T. Hardy 2 days $241 '' '' PRC/J Robin Owen Associates 6 days $722 '' '' PRC/J Richard Croll & Co. 8 days $3,160 '' '' (Question No. 1331) Mr Peacock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has supplied the following information to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) The Department is committed to a policy of non-discrimination and equal opportunity for all persons employed or seeking employment with the Department. Since the 1983 general election I have required my Department to give increased attention to the need to provide employment opportunities for disadvantaged persons. (b) (c) Assessment of progress is achieved through the establishment of a network of designated officers responsible for the application and monitoring of equal employment opportunities (EEO) principles within the Department's central office and each State branch office. A new position of EEO officer in the Department's central office has been created and action to select an officer is proceeding. This position will have the responsibility for the co-ordination, development and monitoring of EEO programs throughout the Department. Targets have been set for the employment of Aboriginals and at the end of March 1984 there were 69 Aboriginal staff as compared with only 28 in October 1982. (d) Staff association involvement is achieved through a framework of regional consultative arrangements with meetings on a regular basis. These will be supplemented shortly through national consultative committees which my Department is seeking to establish. (e) The Public Service Board's Equal Opportunities Bureau is consulted as necessary in relation to implementation of EEO objectives. (f) The Department has allocated a high priority to its equal employment opportunity program. (2) The only identifiable cost is the salary to be paid to the central office EEO officer. The salary is in the range $31,531-32,671. (Question No. 625) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 October 1983 : What are the arrangements of Australia Post for the (a) collection, (b) carriage, (c) sorting and (d) despatch to the post office of final destination on (i) Fridays, (ii) Saturdays and (iii) Sundays from the (A) Shepparton, (B) Cobram, (C) Echuca, (D) Kerang, (E) Boort, (F) Rochester, (G) Cohuna, (H) Pyramid Hill, (I) Tongala, (J) Nathalia and (K) Rushworth post offices in the electoral division of Murray. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission is as follows: Australia Post has provided me with details of arrangements for the sorting, despatch, collection and carriage of mail from the nominated post offices on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Your question has been taken to refer to mail posted at those post offices for delivery to local, interstate and international destinations. The sequence adopted in answering your question is: Sorting of mail at the post office, depatch by and collection from the post centre and subsequent processing. Priority paid and express mail is dealt with separately. SortingMail sorted at official post offices includes mail from lodgment points within that office's network, for example, the post office, non-official post offices, postmen, post office and street posting boxes and rural mail routes. Standard mail receives an initial sort by post office staff to the post office' s local delivery area, and, indicatively, to 8, 19 or 33 other destinations, depending on the size of the post office. An indicative chart of sorting destinations is shown at attachment 1. Except for articles for local delivery, parcels and non-standard articles are not sorted at the post office. Each post office despatches mail once sorted initially at the post office to one mail centre only, its parent mail centre. A map showing rural mail centre areas in Victoria is at attachment 2, and the distribution of post offices listed in your question between those centres is shown at that attachment also. At parent mail centres, all articles for delivery within the mail centre area are sorted to the post office of delivery. All categories of mail for delivery elsewhere are sorted to 31 Victorian and interstate destinations and one international destination. Despatch On each weekday, one despatch is prepared by each post office for the parent mail centre. On Fridays only, a second despatch is prepared, at 5 p.m., at post offices where the normal Monday to Friday despatch closes before 5 p.m. This second despatch is collected by a contractor on Saturday. On Saturdays, mail is collected from one specified posting box in each of the listed cities or towns, by the contractor collecting the second Friday despatch. This mail is, necessarily, unsorted. There are no mail despatches or collections on Sundays. Mail posted after the clearance of the Saturday clearance posting box, and mail posted in other posting boxes in the local post office network after the final clearance time on Friday, is despatched to the parent mail centre on Monday. After receipt of post office despatches, the parent mail centre prepares despatches to post offices within its local region, all other Victorian mail centres, and overseas. Thus, on arrival of post office despatches at the Seymour and Bendigo mail centres, mail is futher sorted and is despatched to adjoining mail centres by interchange runs (except Seymour/Morwell), and to the State Mail Centre. From the State Mail Centre, despatches are forwarded to other Victorian mail centres, interstate destinations and the International mail centre in South Melbourne. A chart setting out the time frame from advertised posting time (that is, the time by which postings must be made for mail to meet the advertised delivery day ) to collection of the despatches from that parent mail centre, is at attachment 3. CollectionThe times of collection of despatches from the towns and cities listed in your question are shown at attachment 3. CarriageA mail contractor operating from the appropriate parent mail centre collects despatches from the post office and Saturday posting points in the towns or cities. (Mail from Cobram, Rushworth and Tongala Post Offices is carried by private contractor to Numurkah, Shepparton and Kyabram Post Offices respectively, from where the despatches are collected by the mail centre contractor). Australia Post vehicles convey mail between mail centres, except for Seymour/Albury where a private contractor is used. Interstate carriage of mail is by private contractor, by air, road or rail depending on the service and the route. International mail is carried by air or sea. DeliveryAttachment 4 provides details of mail delivery standards for mail collected on Fridays and Saturdays from the specified towns/cities for metropolitan and a selection of rural destinations in Victoria and interstate. The processes culminating in delivery of intrastate mail are largely dealt with above. Once at the mail centre of delivery, mail is sorted to the post office of delivery. Regarding mail for interstate delivery, mail from all mail centres is aggregated, by state, at the State mail centre. Further sorting takes place in the major processing facility of the state of delivery and, where appropriate, at the parent mail centre of the post office of delivery before final sorting by delivery officers at that post office. At the International Mail Centre, all categories of mail are sorted to country (to major centres in some countries) and by nature of service, that is, air, surface, surface air lifted (SAL), before despatch by Australia Post vehicle to the appropriate transport terminal. Priority Paid/ExpressPriority paid and express mail undergo separate sorting from other mail at both post office of posting and the parent mail centre. Priority paid mail for delivery within Victoria is despatched by special transport each weekday evening to the Footscray West Mail Centre, where mail for Victorian destinations is interchanged between mail centre vehicles. This interchange provides next working day delivery between country towns within Victoria. Priority paid mail for interstate and overseas destinations is despatched in special bags via the normal interchange transport to the State Mail Centre. Interstate priority paid mail is sent to the Melbourne Mail Centre and overseas priority paid mail to the International Mail Centre. SORTING OF MAIL AT POST OFFICES(excluding local delivery area) Grade of No. of Post Offices Destination Sorts Grades 4 and 5 and Higher Graded. (Shepparton, Echuca) Victorian Mail Centres N.S.W.-City, Suburbs, Country, Canberra, Albury Distributing Post Office. 16 5 Other Interstate Destinations 11 Overseas 1 Total 33 Grade 3 Victorian Mail Centres 16 (Cobram, Kerang, Rochester, Cohuna) Albury Distributing Post Office 1 Interstate 1 Overseas 1 Total 19 Grades 1 and 2 Melbourne City 1 (Nathalia, Rushworth, Melbourne Suburbs 4 Tongala, Boort, Victorian Country 1 Pyramid Hill) Other 1 Total 8 Attachment 2 unable to be reproduced. ATTACHMENT 3 DESIGNATED POST OFFICES: FRIDAY AND WEEKEND MAIL DESPATCH AND SUBSEQUENT CIRCULATION ARRANGEMENTS Seymour Mail Centre Friday Advertised Collection of Arrives mail Post office posting time despatch from PO centre Cobram 3.15 p.m. 3.40 p.m. 6.40 p.m. Nathalia 3.30 p.m. 4.00 p.m. 6.40 p.m. Rushworth 4.00 p.m. 4.05 p.m. 6.40 p.m. Tongala 2.55 p.m. 3.00 p.m. 6.40 p.m. Shepparton 5.00 p.m. 5.20 p.m. 6.40 p.m. Departs from Seymour Mail Centre to: PO's in adjoining* mail centre mail centres State mail area (interchange) centre Midnight Sunday to 7 a.m. on Monday Bendigo: 9.10 p.m. (Fri) Albury: 10.40 p.m. (Fri) 9.30 p.m. (Fri) The time of despatch from the State Mail Centre to mail centres and other processing points varies by destination. Delivery standards of service objectives for Victorian and Indicative Interstate destinations are at Attachment 4. Saturday Advertised posting and Arrives mail Post office clearance time centre Cobram* 1.00 p.m. 5.40 p.m. Nathalia* 1.30 p.m. 5.40 p.m. Rushworth* 3.00 p.m . 5.40 p.m. Tongala* 2.30 p.m. 5.40 p.m. Shepparton 4.00 p.m. 5.40 p.m. * Includes postings to 5 p.m. Friday. Departs from Seymour Mail Centre to: PO's in adjoining* mail centre mail centres State mail area (interchange) centre Midnight Sunday to 7 a.m. on Monday Bendigo: 9.10 p.m. (Sun) Albury: 10.40 p.m. (Sun) 1.50 p.m. (Sun) The time of despatch from the State Mail Centre to mail centres and other processing points varies by destination. Delivery standards of service objectives for Victorian and Indicative Interstate destinations are at Attachment 4. * Except Seymour/Morwell, for which there is no direct interchange. Includes Albury interchange, which occurs at Seymour Mail Centre. DESIGNATED POST OFFICES: FRIDAY AND WEEKEND MAIL DESPATCH AND SUBSEQUENT CIRCULATION ARRANGEMENTS Bendigo Mail Centre Friday Advertised Collection of Arrives mail Post office posting time despatch from PO centre Echuca 5.00 p.m. 5.45 p.m. 7.15 p.m. Kerang 4.30 p.m. 4.30 p.m. 6.45 p.m. Boort 5.00 p.m. 5.10 p.m. 6.45 p.m. Rochester 5.00 p.m. 6.15 p.m. 7.15 p.m. Cohuna 4.00 p.m. 3.55 p.m. 7.15 p.m. Pyramid Hill 2.15 p.m. 2.25 p.m. 7.15 p.m . Departs from Bendigo Mail Centre to: PO's in adjoining mail centre mail centres State mail area (interchange) centre Midnight Sunday to 7 a.m. on Monday Ballarat: 9.00 p.m. (Fri) Seymour: 9.20 p.m. (Fri) Friday 9.00 p.m. The time of despatch from the State Mail Centre to mail centres and other processing points varies by destination. Delivery standards of service objectives for Victorian and Indicative Interstate destinations are at Attachment 4. Saturday Advertised posting and Arrives mail Post office clearance time centre Echuca 12.30 p.m. 7.10 p.m. Kerang* 2.30 p.m. 7.10 p.m. Boort 4.00 p.m. 7.10 p.m. Rochester 12 noon 7.10 p.m. Cohuna* 1.00 p.m. 7.10 p.m. Pyramid Hill* 3. 30 p.m. 7.10 p.m. * Includes postings to 5 p.m. Friday. Departs from Bendigo Mail Centre to: PO's in adjoining mail centre mail centres State mail area (interchange) centre Midnight Sunday to 7 a.m. on Monday Ballarat: 9.00 p.m. (Sun) Seymour: 9.20 p.m. (Sun) Sunday 1.00 p.m. The time of despatch from the State Mail Centre to mail centres and other processing points varies by destination. Delivery standards of service objectives for Victorian and Indicative Interstate destinations are at Attachment 4. ATTACHMENT 4 DELIVERY STANDARDS OF SERVICE: MAIL POSTED AT DESIGNATED POST OFFICES Legend: (1) Standard Articles, Airmail Articles (2) Non-Standard Enveloped Articles (3) Non-Standard Articles (4) Surface Parcels Delivery day for Friday Despatch and DESTINATION Saturday Collection Urban (City and Suburbs) Melbourne (1) (2) (3) (4) Monday Sydney, Adelaide, Hobart (1) (2) Monday (3) (4) Tuesday Brisbane (1) (2) Monday (3) (4) Wednesday Perth (1) (2) Monday (3) (4) Thursday Rural (Indicative examples) Victoria Country (1) (2) (3) (4) Monday NSW: Albury (1) (2) (3) (4) Monday NSW: Tamworth (1) (2) (3) (4) Tuesday QLD: Mackay (1) (2) Tuesday (3) (4) Thursday Western Australia (South West) (1) (2) Tuesday (3) (4) Thursday South Australia (Near Country) (1) (2) Monday (3) (4) Tuesday Tasmania (1) (2) Monday (3) (4) Tuesday (Question No. 712) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 November 1983 : What arrangements have been made to ensure that the outback areas of Australia, served only by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, will receive direct telecasts of the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Following detailed discussions between Telecom Australia, Channel 10 (the holders of the television rights), the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and my Department, arrangements have been made which will ensure that all Australians, in outback areas served only by the ABC, will receive direct television coverage of the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, with the exception of the residents of King Island. Despite the best efforts of all the parties listed above, I am informed that it will not be possible for the ABC to provide a direct coverage of the Olympics to King Island. King Island has no commercial television services and receives its ABC programming from Hobart via Launceston. Hobart and Launceston residents will receive a commercial coverage of the Olympic Games. The ABC therefore will not be telecasting the Olympics in these cities and consequently King Island will not receive any telecast. The ABC advises me that every possible means of serving King Island has been investigated, including the possibility of installing an earth station on the island and providing a direct feed from Moree, using Intelsat. Unfortunately, King Island is too far away for a signal of even adequate strength to be received. I should add that investigations have shown that about 50 per cent of the Island's resident can receive an adequate coverage from Channel ATV10 in Melbourne. Thus there are very few people who will be unable to watch the Olympic Games in their own homes. (Question No. 1035) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to claims that (a) in the early 1970s profits flowing from the Third World, excluding undeclared transfer pricing, were greater than all aid given-J. Tinbergen, Reshaping the International Order, 1976 , page 36, (b) the value of the 'brain drain' from the Third World also exceeded all aid given, ibid, (c) Western bloc banks take twice as much each year in interest from, as they lend to, the Third World-World Bank, World Development Report 1981, South, October 1983, page 7, (d) Australians use 15 times the energy per capita used by the poorest half of the world's people, Americans twice as much as Australians and 617 times the Ethiopian rate, ibid, pages 146-7 , (e) tariffs prevent the Third World developing processing industries thereby diverting perhaps $30 billion per year in business from them- ABC The Political Economy of Development, (f) foreign investors raise 80 per cent of their funds in the Third World, (g) foreign owned factories produce mainly consumer goods for sale to indigenous elites and more affluent countries, (h) dirty drinking water probably kills 10 million people a year-SIPRI Yearbook, World Armaments and Disarmament, 1978, page 313, (i) about a third of world grain production and half of the world fish catch is fed to animals in affluent countries-K. Abercrombie 'Intensive feedlot livestock, feeding', Ceres, January-February 1982 , pages 38-40, (j) about 10 million people die of starvation yearly-Editorial, Science, 27 June 1980, page 208, (k) nuclear weapons were used 13 times to preserve one superpower's regions of influence exploiting the Third World in the above ways to sustain standards of living in the First World without sacrificing its lucrative arms trade-D. Ellsberg 'Call to Mutiny', Monthly Review, September 1981, pages 1-26, (l) it is useless to pursue disarmament without drastic redistribution of resources to eliminate want and increase self-reliance and buying power of the Third World, (m) there is no point in being for disarmament without also being for re-development, zero economic growth and alternative lifestyles-F. E. Trainer, 'Where disarmers miss the point', Science and Public Policy, August 1983, pages 177-83 and (n) if all people consumed realistically recoverable energy resources at the rate of Australian use those resources would be exhausted within 20 years-F. E. Trainer, 'Resources and Living Standards', Resources Policy, March 1983, pages 43-45). (2) Will he consult with colleagues to advance alternative values with a view to making disarmament a realistic alternative to deterrence by terror and the existing plunder of have-nots by haves. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am not familiar with the specific references quoted by Dr Everingham. I am aware, however, that the allocation of resources away from development and the promotion of decent standards of living towards the arms trade is a problem of monumental proportions and that urgent action is necessary to change this situation. Australia is increasingly active in the search for ways to reduce the flow of arms. (2) Until better systems of restraint aimed at nuclear arms control and disarmament are in place I accept that deterrence is the only effective option available to avoid nuclear conflict. So we support deterrence, but concurrently work through international fora for arms control and disarmament, nuclear and conventional. (Question No. 1057) Mr Simmons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 1 March 1984: (1) Are competition or road motor-cycles allowed to be brought into Australia by Australian tourists free of duty or sales tax. (2) Is it a fact that (a) some overseas competitors and Australian riders returning from overseas import bicycles, engines and other parts and dispose of them within a period of six months, thus avoiding duty since they are designated tools of trade. (3) Is the Minister able to say whether in New Zealand such abuses of sales tax and import duty are avoided, by requiring motor-cycles, engines and other parts to be recorded on entry, and accompanied by a bond redeemable if all components taken into New Zealand are taken out on departure. (4) Will the Minister investigate these complaints and, if warranted, take the appropriate legislative or regulatory action to remedy the problem. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. Provided they are not being imported in commercial quantities, competition or road motor-cycles that are the property of and included in the personal effects of an arriving person may be imported free of duty and sales tax under the Customs by-law relating to goods owned by arriving persons and complementary sales tax laws. It is not necessary for the cycles to be designated as 'tools of trade' to obtain the benefit of this concession. (2) No; please refer to (1) above. (3) No. (4) No. Under the current provisions of the customs tariff, motor-cycles which are imported commercially are no longer dutiable. Such goods are liable to sales tax at the rate of 20 per cent. In relation to taxable goods, including motor-cycles, which are imported for the personal use of the importer, that is otherwise than described in (1) above, or for sale by him by retail he is required to pay tax to the Australian Customs Service at the time of importation. In the case of goods, including motor-cycles, which are imported by a person for later sale by wholesale the taxing point arises at the time of such sale. The importer gains freedom from tax at the point of importation by quotation of his certificate of registration to Customs in the manner prescribed by law. Also where goods are for use and not for sale by an organisation entitled to exemption, for example, a government department, the importer is entitled to gain exemption by presenting to customs a certificate in the form approved by the Commissioner of Taxation. (Question No. 1218) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: Is he able to say what share of the increased interest charges to Telecom Australia of $100m will be borne by farmers. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. (Question No. 905) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 6 December 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Age of 1 December 1983, page 8, which outlined the testimonial of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's toxic substances sub-committee, that millions of litres of petrol leaking into the ground each year from tanks at service stations and other storage areas, pose a potentially serious threat to the underground water supplies of the United States. (2) Have any studies been conducted by his Department or other government authorities of petrol tanks at service stations in Australia and other petrol storage areas, to ascertain whether any leakage of petrol has taken place in the past or is presently taking place; if so, (a) what is the estimated quantity of leakage that has taken place and (b) at what rate. (3) If not, will he request his Department to carry out the necessary tests and ensure that they are carried out on a routine basis and the findings made public . (4) As petrol contains the hazardous substances of benzene and ethyl dibromide, both known to cause cancer, will he request the various State and Territory Government bodies involved, to co-operate on this matter and treat it as a top priority. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) A study was undertaken by the Bureau of Mineral Resources of an incident in 1977 which involved leakage of approximately 32,000 litres of petrol into the watertable beneath the Civic area of Canberra. During the last 5 years, about 40 per cent of this leakage has been recovered and the movement of petrol underground has been arrested. Remedial measures are continuing but recovery rates are low. In 1979, in a separate incident, the Bureau of Mineral Resources investigated ground water in Braddon after petrol leaked into a building basement. An underground petrol storage tank was subsequently exhumed. It was estimated at the time that approximately 2,000 litres of petrol was floating on the groundwater. In May 1983 the Department of Territories and Local Government requested the National Capital Development Commission to arrange for additional boreholes to be drilled in the Civic and Braddon area to investigate further the extent of petrol pollution of groundwater. This work has not yet been carried out. (3) and (4) Responsiblity for the approval and monitoring of underground petrol storage tanks in Australia rests with State, Territory and local government authorities. I am advised that there are established procedures for the monitoring of these installations. (Question No. 1238) Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: (1) Has an application been made by the New Zealand Dairy Board (NZDB) for the purchase of Riviana (Australia) Pty Ltd; if so, what is the state of the application. (2) Will the purchase of this company together with the recent NZDB purchase of the Lavery company create a virtual monopoly for the NZDB of the importation of New Zealand cheese. (3) Is there a danger to the interest of the Australian dairy industry when a foreign government statutory corporation not only will dominate the importation of cheese from the country where it is also the monopoly exporter, but also is an importer of European cheese into Australia and is the major international competitor for Australian cheese exports. (4) Is he able to say whether the New Zealand Government allowed the Australian Wheat Board to be the sole importer of Australian wheat, or the CSR company of Australian sugar, or the Australian Canned Fruit Corporation of Australian deciduous canned fruit, or the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation of Australian wine. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, On 27 March 1984, the Government raised no objections under its foreign investment policy to NZDB acquiring 50 per cent of the issued capital of Riviana (Australia) Pty Ltd and to entering into a put option agreement to acquire the remainder, if necessary (subject to Government approval at that time ). (2) Yes. The New Zealand Dairy Board is in any case the sole seller of such products from New Zealand. Of course, such a monopoly on importation of New Zealand cheese in no way constitutes a monopoly of total cheese supply to the domestic market, nor of total supply of cheese products to the domestic market through imports. (3) The Department of Primary Industry and the Australian Dairy Corporation were consulted in the examination of the proposal by NZDB to acquire a 50 per cent interest in Riviana (Australia) Pty Ltd and both bodies advised that implementation of the proposal would be unlikely to result in any detrimental impact on the Australian dairy industry. Trade in dairy products between Australia and New Zealand is governed by a memorandum of understanding signed in 1982 by the governments of the two countries in the context of the Australian and New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Treaty. Under the agreement, cheese imports are regulated and New Zealand's share of the Australian market is held to a level calculated to avoid disruption to the local dairy industry. (4) CSR Limited is the sole Australian exporter of sugar to New Zealand, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of CSR Limited is the sole marketer of Australian sugar in New Zealand. None of the other marketing authorities mentioned by the honourable member currently operates its own marketing outlets in New Zealand. (Question No. 1314) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1984 : (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) to (f) My Department has taken practical steps to give effect to equal employment opportunity principles in its personnel policy and practices. The Department is seeking to establish an EEO unit during the 1984-85 financial year . The principal responsibility of this unit will be the establishment and implementation of an EEO program, to which the Department attaches priority. The development and implementation of the EEO program will involve continual consultation with staff associations and with the Public Service Board Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau. (2) Modification of the Department's personnel policy and procedures has not been costed to date but such costing will be one of the responsibilities of the EEO unit to be created. (Question No. 1330) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In accordance with the Government's policy of equality of employment opportunity in the Australian Public Service the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has accorded a high priority to the implementation of programs to increase recruitment from those groups which are under-represented in the Australian Public Service and to remove barriers which may disadvantage members of those groups once they have joined the Service. Because of the special nature of the Department's responsibilities there has always been a high degree of awareness of the need for equality of employment opportunity and changes since March 1983 have consisted largely of refinements to and increased emphasis on some aspects of previous arrangements. The Department is developing an equal opportunity management program and a number of related initiatives have been taken. These include: identification of all departmental positions as requiring an ability to communicate effectively with Aboriginals and a knowledge and understanding of their culture; establishment of special registers of Aboriginal applicants for departmental positions; greatly increased allocations of financial and staff resources to the staff development function, with particular emphasis on the development of staff members from disadvantaged groups; special programs to identify and recruit Aboriginal undergraduates; closer monitoring of selection processes to ensure that equal opportunity principles are adhered to at all times. (2) Costs of the Department's equal opportunities programs are not separately identified. (Question No. 1333) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 5 April 1984 : (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) My Department has issued a policy statement to all staff which highlights the importance placed on achieving the aims of its equal employment opportunity (EEO) program. (b) and (c) An EEO policy committee has been established to advise on matters of EEO policy and arrangements including assessment procedures, within my Department. As part of its charter the Policy Committee is also tasked with monitoring departmental EEO programs. (d) My Department is seeking discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Council of Professional Association on whether they wish to be represented on the EEO Policy Committee. (e) My Department is making increasing use of advice from the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau on the establishment of its EEO program. (f) The EEO program has taken a high priority in my Department. (2) EEO programs are an integral part of personnel management in my Department and it is therefore not practicable to separately identify the cost of programs. (Question No. 1335) Mr Peacock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: What conferences of Commonwealth and State officials have taken place since March 1983. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Information in respect of meetings between Commonwealth and State officials- which occur frequently and on both a formal and informal basis-is not centrally recorded. It has not been the practice of successive governments to authorise the expenditure of money and effort involved in assembling such information on a continuing basis. Collecting the information would require approaches to every Department and authority, and the information so collected would be quickly dated. I would prefer to follow the usual practice and suggest that the honourable member indicate the particular area of his interest. I would be happy then to see what can be provided. (Question No. 1336) Mr Peacock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) How many existing boards and committees have been established (i) under parliamentary authority and (ii) by the Government. (2) What are the (i) names, (ii) salaries, (iii) terms of office of the members of each board and committee. (3) On what date was each board and committee established. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Information in respect of all the matters referred to in the honourable member' s question is not readily available and it would be a major task to collect and assemble it. The practice of successive Governments has been not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in assembling such information on a general basis. I intend to follow the established practice which is that, if the honourable member wishes to know the details of any particular board or committee, I shall examine the matter to see if he can be provided with that information. The honourable member may, however, find it useful to refer to answers provided in recent months to Senator Archer in response to questions relating to authorities, committees, bureaus and other such groups established since March 1983, and to Senator Chipp in relation to details of statutory appointees.