Friday, 1 June 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Sales Tax: Confectionery To the Honourable the 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 Mrs Child,Mr Steele Hall,Ms McHugh,Mr Rocher,Mr Scholes,Mr Shipton,Dr Theophanous and Mr Wilson. 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 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 nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Hawker,Mr Hunt,Mr MacKellar and Mr Ruddock. 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 condusive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities, for example, boys cricket team, boys football team, et cetera. 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 and Mr Cowan. 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: Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the Australian Capital Territory 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, for example, 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 imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film Censorship Board. 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 censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Newman. 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 chiropratic 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 Mr Cadman and Mr Rocher. 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 Publication, 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. 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 citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That barriers to the importation of hard core pornography should not be lifted in our opinion. We regard pornography as a bad thing as it is a direct attack on the dignity of women. We believe that the law should prohibit the importation, production, possession or distribution of any book, magazine, film, video tape or the like that depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug abuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person. We the undersigned 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 Lindsay. 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows-that at present, certain infertility treatments including; Hormonal Drugs, Procedures and Laboratory Services, are not covered by any Health Insurance due to Non- Itemisation on the Commonwealth Rebate List. The psychological and emotional stress of infertility is therefore increased by the added financial stress. Your Petitioners therefore pray, that the Parliament will view our plight to create life with sympathy, by recognising our needs and taking action to include the abovementioned items on the Commonwealth Rebate List. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. 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: 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 the 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 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 70 km from Mackay and over 300 km 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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 US 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 US bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members of the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show: That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people), will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redevelopment of the Brisbane Airport becomes operative, ensure that: (i) no jet aircraft use the 32'14' crosswind runway; (ii) the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we, the undersigned are former residents (or the descendants of former residents) of Mona Mona in North Queensland. 2. That the Community of residents of Mona Mona was dispersed in 1962 when the State of Queensland announced plans to construct a water reservoir which would flood the site. 3. That the reservoir was never built. 4. That the former residents now wish to utilise the land and re-establish homes at Mona Mona. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will ensure that Mona Mona be once again recognised as a Community and that the Community have the same title to their land as is proposed for other Aboriginal and Islander Communities under National Land Rights legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gayler. 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 KGB agents searching for various religious publications. The KGB 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 Steele Hall. To the Honourable the 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 draft 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 Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We as members of a School Parents Club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of the Bank Debit Tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government school. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that exemption from the payment of Bank Debit Tax will be granted to School Parents' Clubs in government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. 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 Mrs Darling and Mr Moore. 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 petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to prevent hard core pornographic video-tapes being permitted for home viewing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: 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. Petitions received. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the activities of commercial organisations offering cheap health care insurance on the basis of being selective and excluding the aged and sick from membership; (b) that the viability of voluntary health funds, providing cover over and above that offered by Medicare, has been weakened by Medicare, and (c) that the Government's ''do nothing'' policy on these commercial organisations is endangering the very existence of the voluntary health funds and the aged and the sick, and (2) calls on the Government to inform this House whether it intends that these voluntary health funds collapse or whether it will take action to force these commercial organisations to either abandon the field or accept the community rating concept. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the opposition of the residents of western New South Wales to the Australian Army's acquisition of rural land in the region for training purposes, and (2) requests the Australian Army to investigate acquiring land in the NT for training purposes. Mr Peacock-We are prepared to have that motion brought on for debate if the Leader of the House so desires. There is a strong view on this side of the House that the Government must take action in this area. Why do we not debate the matter now? Mr Young-We have the very important lands Bill before the House and it has to be finished. Mr Goodluck proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I rule that notice out of order. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the recent declaration by the Australian Heritage Commission of an area known as Star Swamp Bushland in North Beach, in the Electoral Division of Stirling; (2) congratulates the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for his support for this valuable environmental area, and (3) calls upon the Western Australian Government to develop an appropriate plan for coastal management in metropolitan Perth. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Leader of the House, the honourable Michael Jerome Young, as being the worst manager of government business that this House has seen for at least the last 10 years. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) calls upon Members of the Opposition to dissociate themselves from the derogatory remarks made about the staff of the Commonwealth Employment Service by the honourable Member for Hume during the edition of City Extra on 28 May 1984; (2) is of the opinion that the CES has earnestly and loyally served the Government, employers and unemployed people of Australia since its inception in 1945, and (3) notes that the Leader of the National Party of Australia has dissociated himself from the honourable Member for Hume by sending a telex to CES managers in his own electorate praising the work of the CES. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that under the changed tax averaging provisions introduced by the Government, primary producers are being assessed provisional tax for the year 1983-84 on incomes less than $4,595; (2) condemns the Government in this discriminatory practice of taxing primary producers on incomes under the tax zero ceiling, as being additional to other discriminatory attacks on this most important sector of Australian industry following the neutralisation of income equalisation deposits, reduction of taxation deductions for depreciation and withdrawal of deductions for expenditure on clearing and drainage, and (3) calls on the Government to immediately rectify this iniquitable treatment whereby primary producers are the only adult and resident taxpayers paying tax on incomes less than the zero tax ceiling of $4,595. Mr Tickner proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's notice of motion is out of order. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the national press for making claims that the Prime Minister has saved the day and the homes of pensioners, when, in fact, it was the same Prime Minister who masterminded the assets test. Mr Shipton proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that I have repeatedly asked honourable members not to put argument in a substantive motion that can be decided by the House. His notice of motion is out of order. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) judges the Government to be insensitive in deciding on an assets test which has- (a) for almost 12 months created worry and illness among pensioners; (b) proscribed Government-approved forms of investment permitting large and expensive houses but not rural blocks, farms, modest holiday homes or their equivalent in investments, and (c) acknowledged none of the savings of Government funds which was to allow an increase in pensions to 25% of average weekly earnings, and Mr SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Mitchell that he is now getting into the area of putting his argument, rather than the motion for decision by the House. Mr CADMAN —I shall conclude, Mr Speaker, with the final paragraph of the motion, which states: (2) condemns the Government for creating inspectors who will check on the statements of assets from pensioners. Consideration resumed from 31 May. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.14) —The Opposition has already indicated that it will oppose this legislation; in addition, a number of the clauses are of such significance that we shall also be opposing them and dividing the Committee on them. I have a question for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in relation to the short title of the Bill. It is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill. A problem with the legislation that the Opposition has already raised is the fact that it is so wide. Its application to all land in Australia makes it, as the Leader of the House (Mr Young) said today, an Aboriginal land rights Act. Our concern is that not only are the implications of the Bill very wide, but also is the Minister's discretion extraordinarily wide. The basis of that concern is that it is legislation not to protect sacred sites but to protect Aboriginal areas. I shall go on to the definitions when we come to the definitions clause. But, undoubtedly, the legislation is very wide. The title of the Bill refers to heritage. I ask the Minister why the Government used that title. It seems to me that it is entirely misleading. The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, which was passed by the Parliament last year, refers to the definition in the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. That makes it quite clear what is being protected . Article 1 of the Convention specifies what are considered to be part of the cultural heritage, for example, monuments. It details what are considered to be monuments, for example, architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science. The other classifications or categories which are covered in cultural heritage are groups of buildings and sites. Under Article 2 of the Convention the definition of 'natural heritage' includes natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view. The definition of 'heritage' is well known and quite precise. Our concern is that this legislation is not precise. The Minister sought during the debate last night to limit the operation of this Bill. He said that he will not use the Bill as widely as it might be interpreted but when we have asked him to restrict the legislation to the actual areas in which he wishes it to operate he has not been willing to do so. I suggest to the Minister that the title is misleading. People referring to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill might think that it is aimed at protecting sacred sites or areas of significance to the Aboriginal people which they may think are sacred sites and, perhaps, limited areas around them. As the Minister has made clear, that is not the intention of the legislation. It is to protect Aboriginal areas and it is extraordinarily wide. That is fundamental to our concern. Therefore, it is our view that the title of the Bill is misleading. I ask the Minister why he chose that title and why he is not willing to limit this legislation to the purposes which he has stated rather than the broad purposes about which we have expressed concern. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.20) —We are dealing with clauses 1 and 2, one of which deals with the short title. This is an opportunity to express a few views in relation to the short title of the Bill. I raise the issue of the use and abuse of legislation. Clearly the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in his own mind has brought this legislation before the chamber because of the excellent opportunity for its use by certain people. There is nothing wrong with that. That should be the intention of all legislation. But the responsibility of the Parliament and in particular the Opposition is to see whether legislation can be abused by certain people. We have to have regard to other examples of legislation which has not always done what it was expected to do and has not always achieved what the responsible Minister told the Parliament it would achieve. A former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, advised the House that his land rights legislation for the Northern Territory would affect only about 20 per cent of the Northern Territory . That statement was made in all honesty, but we know today that over 40 per cent of the Territory has already been affected by the legislation. I do not want to argue whether that was right or wrong. What I am saying is the Minister told the Parliament what he believed would be the effects of the legislation. The Opposition cannot accept that the belief of a Minister can always be expected to occur. Let me give the Committee another example. I will merely touch on it, realising its sensitivity. I refer to the New South Wales early release scheme for prisoners. No doubt-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member must realise that the Committee is dealing specifically with clauses 1 and 2, the short title and commencement. We will then proceed to the other clauses of the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I wish to touch on the short title of the Bill, which is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill. I am drawing to the attention of the Parliament the fact that we must look at both the use and abuse of this legislation. I have given a couple of examples. Last night in my speech in the second reading debate I drew attention to the powers that this Bill gives a Minister. At this stage if you, Madam Chair, felt that I could better address these matters later I would happily resume my seat. The CHAIRMAN —On later clauses. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(10.23) —The problem raised by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) can be easily dealt with. The term 'heritage' was not chosen by me, or by the draftsman. It was chosen by Aboriginal people, who do not have the same kind of pedantic, legalistic approach as the honourable member for Barker. Had members of the Opposition conferred effectively with the National Aboriginal Conference and the relevant land councils, they would have realised that the term was the chosen preference of Aboriginal people. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.24) —That raises a fairly important matter. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) alleges that the Opposition is not aware of the views and the concerns of the Aboriginal people in relation to this Bill and this term. There is enormous concern amongst the Aboriginal community in relation to this legislation and its impact. I have received a number of telexes , telephone calls and letters from all sorts of people around Australia in relation to this legislation. Mr Holding —Why do you not name them? Mr PORTER —The Minister does not believe that in some ways there has been the consultation that should have occurred in relation to this legislation concerning Aboriginal people, and I am quite happy to name them. Last night he could not believe it. He thought that I was reading from a telex from one of my branches of the Liberal Party when I said it was five Aboriginal communities-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! We are getting away from clauses 1 and 2. The Minister has answered the honourable member's question, and the honourable member now wishes to reply to him. Mr PORTER —With all due respect, the Minister said that he thought the title was chosen by the Aboriginal people. I am saying that there is a substantial element in the Aboriginal community who have not been consulted. Let me read a telex I received from some members of the Aboriginal community. I am more than willing to have this telex incorporated in Hansard. It reads: The elders responsible for the people of the undermentioned tribal groups wish to express the concern over the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Interim Heritage Protection Bill 1984. l. The Bill was drawn up in secret and Aboriginal people have had no opportunity to discuss it. 2. There appears to be no procedures or standards by which claims are to be judged especially when they are potentially conflicting Aboriginal interests. 3. The Minister seems to have absolute power over Aboriginal matters and can delegate the powers at his discretion. We are very concerned that there are people to whom these powers may be given that will abuse these powers. Mr Holding has promised that no national land rights legislation will be produced until there has been full consultations with the Aboriginal people and that the proposed legislation has been approved by the full session of the National Aboriginal Conference. We would ask why this proposed Bill is being treated differently. That is just one of the telexes. I trust the Aboriginal groups concerned will excuse my pronunciation, but it came from the Adjakuyani group, the Adjamuthna group, the Arabana group, the Antikarinja group and the Yundkandjara peoples. I seek leave to have that telex incorporated in Hansard. The CHAIRMAN —I regret that, under Mr Speaker's ruling, the honourable member cannot incorporate it. He may table it. Mr PORTER —Thank you. This morning a telex arrived from another group of certainly Christian Aboriginal people which read: Heritage Act disruptive and discriminatory. G. Grant, pastor, Aboriginal Church , Albury. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable gentleman is not speaking to clauses 1 and 2 . He is giving another second reading stage speech. Mr PORTER —I am certainly not, Madam Chair. Had you been here last night you would have heard that it was quite different. The CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member to come to his point. Mr PORTER —Certainly. My concern is that the Minister misrepresents the situation. This legislation has not been drawn up with the consent or agreement of the Aboriginal people. There has been a failure to adequately consult and the fact that this legislation is being rushed through this chamber highlights that concern. I know that a number of groups in the Aboriginal community support it, especially those who have legal advisers who have been involved in drafting the legislation. For example, the Central Land Council is in support. I would be surprised if it was not, seeing that Mr Phillip Toyne was involved in drafting the legislation. But the Opposition does not accept the Minister's explanation as to the reasons for the naming of this legislation. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.29) —I wish to refer briefly to the clauses we are discussing at the moment, dealing with the naming of the Bill, because statements were made last night, in the early hours of this morning and by the shadow Minister at the table a moment ago to the effect that there is disquiet amongst the Aboriginal population, even though he admits that some members of the population support the Bill. It seems to me that, were he more diligent in speaking to Aboriginal groups and individuals, he would find that there is a large measure of consensus in favour of this Bill. In the Speaker's Gallery in the chamber last night there was a good friend of mine, Mr Ken Colbung. He is one of the leading Aborigines in Western Australia and is respected by both the white and the Aboriginal communities. After the speeches at the second reading stage I asked Mr Colbung: 'What about this claim of the Opposition that there is no wide support for the Bill?' Mr Colbung was quite deliberate in what he said. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I remind the honourable member that we are discussing clauses 1 and 2, which refer to the short title and when the Act will come into operation. Mr BLANCHARD —Thank you, Mrs Child. I am getting to my point. The point is that he said that the Aboriginal community in the West gives overwhelming support to the Bill, and that includes the title of the Bill. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.31) —Thank you very much, Mrs Child, for giving me the opportunity to speak on these two clauses. The clauses deal with the short title of the legislation and the commencement date for it. Last evening when I addressed this matter I suggested that in my judgment the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) should have spent a little more time preparing the ground. I suggested that the ways and means by which that could be done would be in encouraging wider and more informed discussion and, I hope, discussion in a less confrontationist atmosphere than is perhaps taking place at the moment. I have no doubt that many Aboriginals support this legislation, just as I have no doubt that many Aboriginals, having regard to the speed at which this legislation is proceeding, are not adequately informed and perhaps have a very considerable doubt. This is evidenced by the telex that the shadow Minister has. I agree very much with the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), who has just spoken, about the wide respect that Mr Ken Colbung has, not only on that side of the House but also on this side of the House. He has recently been elected Chairman of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. He is a man I have known over many years and highly regard. I have no doubt that he and people like him have an intense interest in this matter. That is not my concern in this discussion. My concern is that there are other people who, for the reasons I outlined last night, have a concern. Irrespective of whether it is based on misapprehension or otherwise, I do not think honourable members can doubt that there is very considerable concern and a great deal of debate in the community about this matter at this time. My judgment was that the more appropriate way to deal with this was, as I think I said last night, to till the soil a little to get to a situation where members of the Parliament, from both sides, are able to sit down, perhaps in the structure of the parliamentary committee system or perhaps by the sort of inquiry that we saw Mr Justice Woodward conduct in relation to land rights in the Northern Territory-- The CHAIRMAN —I remind the honourable member that we are on clauses 1 and 2. Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, we are talking about clauses 1 and 2 and my comments are directly related to clause 2, which deals with the commencement of the legislation. I think that what we have here is the opportunity to give people a chance to consider it. If the date upon which this Bill receives royal assent is put off for a sufficiently long period, perhaps in a less confrontationist atmosphere these sorts of matters can be dealt with. I think it is important that we look at the context in which land rights for the Northern Territory was considered. The sorts of discussions that could take place between now and the commencement of this legislation took place before the legislation was ultimately passed in the Parliament. But the consultation on that occasion was such as to enable a government of my political persuasion to introduce legislation for land rights in the Northern Territory. That was the result of the work that was undertaken by Mr Justice Woodward and his inquiry into land rights. The people who had doubts were given the opportunity to voice those doubts in the context of that legislation. For that reason, I think that we should give serious consideration to the date upon which this Bill is likely to receive royal assent. I suspect the Minister will tell me that it will probably receive royal assent shortly after it is passed. I would like to have some advice from him as to the date upon which he anticipates that royal assent might be given. I suggest that this clause does give the Minister an opportunity for reconsideration in the way in which I have suggested. Secondly, in relation to the title, last night I drew attention to the fact that this legislation is entitled 'interim' legislation. I also indicated that it is unusual in that it has a sunset clause in it. I suppose the sunset clause is designed to connote that, in some way, the legislation is in fact interim. Mr Holding —Come on! Let's get through the legislation. Mr RUDDOCK —I am talking about the title. The name of the Bill contains the words 'Interim Protection'. The fact of the matter is that we have a Bill with a large number of clauses which provide penalties. I suspect that it is not-by the nature of the scheme and the legislation-legislation that one can genuinely characterise as 'interim'. If it were only clause 9, which provides for short term protection, I think that the Minister's argument may have greater validity. Declarations could be made, presumably, for the duration of the Act. I notice the Minister queried the argument of my colleague the shadow Minister that declarations could be made for two years. It seems to me that if the legislation is of an interim nature, with a sunset clause, the longest period for which one could expect the declaration to be made from the date of royal assent is two years. Declarations could, of course, be made for a lesser period, but I suspect that they could be made for up to two years. I do not see that as being interim legislation, in the sense that we are going to see something else of a more thoughtful character perhaps limiting the breadth of the nature of this legislation. In fact, the Minister by way of an interjection last night indicated that he saw it in a quite different way from me. He saw it as being interim and that was meant to connote that this legislation was one step and the further steps that will be taken will extend the legislation substantially. If he intends to suggest that 'interim' in that context means that it is in some way limited but the legislation is to be extended, I think the import of that needs to be noted and understood. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(10.37) —I will briefly refer to the suggestion that Aboriginal people have not been consulted. If the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) had looked at the discussion papers circulated by the National Aboriginal Conference he would realise that the question of heritage has been the subject of wide ranging discussion amongst representatives of the NAC, nationally and in land councils for a period of well over 12 months. I indicated in my second reading speech and by way of interjection that Aboriginal people did not think that this legislation went far enough, but they were prepared to accept it as an interim measure to protect their heritage. The terminology used was their choice. Given the fact that Aboriginal communities are dispersed widely throughout Australia, it seems to me the consultative mechanism used by the Government is appropriate. The body that accepted responsibility on behalf of Aboriginal people for supporting this legislation involved representatives of the NAC, their Federal Executive-every State had a representative-representatives of land councils and the Federation of Land Councils. They accepted the responsibility for approving this legislation and the responsibility for communicating with Aboriginal communities. A large number of Aboriginal people are concerned about the campaign that is being waged by way of advertisement in the media. They have responded to those advertisements to allay some of the fears within the community. I understand it is a matter of practice that royal assent has to be given as soon as practicable after the Bill is passed. I think that is the precedent that has been established and will be followed in this case. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 3 to 8-by leave-taken together. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.40) —The first point I wish to raise relates to the definition of 'Aboriginal' in this legislation. The definition states: ''Aboriginal'' means a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia, and includes a descendant of the indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands. That is a wider definition than that which has been used in other legislation although it is the same definition as is used in the Northern Territory land rights legislation. Given that a number of the clauses in this legislation depend on an Aboriginal or an Aboriginal group making a request to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, it would seem that if we could more easily identify those people who are the subject of this legislation that might well be helpful. A number of States have taken the view that their definition of 'Aboriginal' is one which has been used in other areas by the Commonwealth, and that is: . . . an Aboriginal is a person who:- (1) identifies as a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia, (2) identifies as an Aboriginal, and (3) is accepted by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal. Given that very substantial rights accrue to Aboriginal people under this legislation-in fact, rights covering all the land in Australia-and that all land is under threat-- Mr Holding —It does not. Why don't you get it right? Mr PORTER —The Minister keeps saying: 'Why don't you get it right'? I will come to the definition of what is a threat in just a moment. It is quite clear that the legislation gives the Minister the discretion to declare almost any land in Australia. Why on earth does he think people are concerned? Why on earth does he think top QCs, who have been advising all the organisations around Australia, are so concerned? Does the Minister think they are all misled? I suggest to him that he is the one who is wrong. All the States are concerned. All the States have expressed their concern, yet the Minister is the only one who is saying that everyone is misleading the population of Australia. He is the only one in Australia out of step on this issue. I suggest that he have another look at his legislation. The first point I wish to raise is this: Why has the Minister chosen this definition and not one which would be more helpful in clearly identifying those to whom rights are to be given under this legislation? The second point to be raised relates to the definition of 'area'. Area includes a site. It is quite clear that this legislation is aimed at the protection of not merely sacred sites, but all sites, all areas of significance to the Aboriginal people. There is no mention in the definitions or in the legislation of sacred site. Rather this legislation is aimed at the protection of areas and areas include a site. The area has to be a significant Aboriginal area. That is defined in the legislation as: being an area of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition; What then is Aboriginal tradition? That is defined as: . . . the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships; I ask the Government: Quite frankly, what is not included in that legislation? Everything of possible significance to the Aboriginal people is included in the definition of Aboriginal tradition. It does not relate to sacred sites, as I have said. It does not specify whether we are talking about significant areas for the Aboriginal people according to some mythological, historical or recreational base or even archaeological significance. We have no idea what is the intention of the Government in relation to this legislation, other than broadly to allow claims to be made for areas of land in Australia, any land in Australia, where the area is an area significant to the Aboriginal people and in accordance with Aboriginal tradition is under threat. I come now to the point which the Minister raises often. If this Act is to be enforced there has to be a threat of injury to or desecration of areas of land. That is defined in clause 3(2) of the legislation which states: For the purposes of this Act, an area or object shall be taken to be injured or desecrated if- (a) in the case of an area- (i) it is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition; I put it to the Minister that that again is an extraordinarily wide definition which the courts will have enormous difficulty in defining. I put to the Minister a very simple case. He has said that the whole of Australia cannot be claimed, under this legislation, to be under threat. According to Aboriginal tradition, the land was lived on by the Aboriginal people and almost none of the modern customs, for example, tilling the soil or allowing grazing on the soil, was in existence according to Aboriginal tradition. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that an Aboriginal person could come to the Minister and say, as indeed has been intimated in Victoria where a claim has been made for some 64,000 acres of soldier-settler farm blocks, that that land is significant to the Aboriginal people, that it is being used and that there continues to be a threat that the land is being used inconsistently with Aboriginal tradition. How can the Minister deny the fact that it is being tilled and the fact that it is being allowed to be grazed? The request to the Minister could be in the form that, if this use continues, there is likely to be, for example, substantial irrigation in the area and some trees which are of significance will be removed. Therefore, a declaration is sought in relation to that area. Clearly there is a further threat to the land involved. Clearly the use of the land is inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition. The Minister has tried to say to this chamber that we are misrepresenting this legislation as being legislation that will allow the declaration of large areas; indeed, the whole of Australia. I suggest to the Minister that he is the one who has it wrong. That is why there is so much concern. If the Minister had endeavoured to relate this Bill to areas of significant sacred sites we could look at the definitions and we would understand what the Minister was trying to do. That is exactly what the Northern Territory legislation did. The Northern Territory legislation defines 'sacred sites'. It means: a site that is sacred to Aboriginals or is otherwise of significance according to Aboriginal tradition, and includes any land that, under a law of the Northern Territory is declared to be sacred to Aboriginals or of significance according to Aboriginal tradition. I suggest to the Minister that that is a definition which can be tested. People know what we are talking about. It is not just an enormous land grab, which this legislation is. The Minister would be well advised to reconsider these definitions and the object of the legislation. I have said and it has been said during the second reading debate by many honourable members on this side of the chamber that we respect the need to ensure that there is provision at the State or Federal level for the protection of significant sacred sites. But I repeat: That is not what this legislation-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(10.50) —It is my view that the definition of 'Aboriginal' is far too loose. Clause 3 (1) defines 'Aboriginal' as: . . . a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia, and includes a descendant of the indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands . . . That definition of Aboriginal people in Australia is far too loose and does not do anything to identify the problems of the Aboriginal people as they face those problems. As I pointed out last night in my speech in the second reading debate, there are great differences in the problems faced by the Aboriginal people because they are not all full-blood Aboriginals. Some, of course, are full-blood Aboriginals but others are part-blood Aboriginals; some live in urban centres and some in their tribal land areas. However, to simply accept a definition of an Aboriginal as being one who identifies himself as being an Aboriginal does not give this Parliament or any of the State parliaments the opportunity to be able to bring in programs that can be specifically designed for the problems faced by those different categories of Aboriginals. I think it is quite wrong and we are deceiving ourselves and the Aboriginal people if we say that the problems being faced by part-blood Aboriginals are the same as those being faced by full-blood tribal Aboriginals. I believe that while it may well be to the advantage of those people, who for reasons of course that were beyond their control, not to be full-blood Aboriginals or not to be full- blood Europeans it is certainly no criticism of those people. Their skin colour is different and therefore they identify differently from full-blooded Aboriginals and Europeans. They have a different set of problems and if we are to face those problems we have to face the fact that they are different. Just as those people have difficulty in integrating into a European community, and we have to acknowledge that, we also have to acknowledge that they have the same difficulty in being accepted and integrated into full-blood tribal Aboriginal people. To simply accept this sort of loose definition does not give this Parliament, or any future parliament, the opportunity of framing programs that can be designed to help those people in the problems that they face. I seriously say to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), his Department and any future Ministers who may occupy that portfolio that instead of pushing this matter under the carpet, and therefore denying the opportunity of bringing in programs to help Aboriginal people regardless of their situation or the degree of Aboriginal blood that they may have in their veins, we should bite that bullet, face up to that situation and be far more definitive in our definition of who is an Aboriginal so that we can bring in programs that will give them the help that they deserve. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.54) —I briefly refer to the issue raised by the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), concerning the word 'area'. The word 'area' is used in this Bill to avoid narrowing the interpretation of the word 'site'. If we were to use the word ' site' it would restrict the actual meaning. Suppose that one has a particular rock which has some significance to Aboriginals. It may well be that the area surrounding that rock also has significance but not the immediate significance that the rock itself has. So using the word 'area' does widen the definition. I point out to honourable members opposite that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, in his second reading speech, stated: I must make it quite clear from the outset that this is not interim land rights legislation nor is it intended to be an alternative to land claim procedures. I will not be making declarations with respect to vast areas of land in de facto recognition of a claim which Aboriginals may wish to make later under another law. This statement is a clear indication of how the provision will be administered. I draw the attention of honourable members opposite to recent amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act which will allow this statement to be taken into account if the meaning of the provision is unclear. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.56) —I have considerable concerns in this area. Firstly, I want to raise the issue of the definition of the word 'Aboriginal'. I ask the Minister to reconsider in total, and not only in the context of this Bill, who an Aboriginal is in the eyes of the Australian community because it is a significant matter. It is only recently in the Kimberleys that David Mowajarai objected to these people whom he considered were not full law. Maybe he was prepared to take a position from one extreme. I am pointing out to the Minister that even the Aboriginal people themselves are now concerned as to who is an Aboriginal and, of course, more particularly who are the people standing up and claiming to be able to identify sites and be spokesmen as to the history and tradition of Aboriginal people. Therefore I must refer to the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition' and support the previous speakers. This is the type of thing that one might write into the beginning of the objects of a company when one does not know what business one will do at that stage but one makes sure one covers it. Of course, the Minister is well aware of those types of documents. Just about every form is covered in this legislation. I wonder whether the Australians listening to the broadcast at the moment would be able to tell us exactly what this means. Clause 3 states: ''Aboriginal tradition'' means the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships . . . I put it to honourable members that no other sector of the Australian community could claim special rights under all of those particular descriptions. We must also remember that we are talking about a tradition that was never recorded as we understand it. There are no writings and, of course, we are relying on the recollection generally of some elderly people and that need not be accurate. That is all right though; the Minister or some other honourable member will jump to his feet in a minute to tell us all about the wonderful recollection of these people. I suggest from my own experience living in a community with a population more than one-third Aboriginal, and dealing with Aborigines daily, that many have very limited recollections-particularly the old people. These things worry me considerably. Of course, the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia (Inc) was prepared to be highly critical of this definition, not destructive. I will get on to its comments on Aboriginal traditions in a minute. The whole legislation revolves around these definitions. 'Significant Aboriginal area' is defined to mean: (a) an area of land in Australia or, in or beneath Australian waters; (b) an area of water in Australia; or (c) an area of Australian waters, being an area of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal traditions; That could be any area in Australia. It is a very vague definition of what might be a significant and traditional Aboriginal area. One of course is tied to the other. It is just impossible to suggest that we can operate under these definitions. These definitions take us to the next stage of what happens when things are desecrated. The Bill defines that as: (a) in the case of an area- (i) it is used or treated in a manner inconsistent with Aboriginal tradition; Here we have to go back to the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition'. People will be punished without really knowing what 'Aboriginal tradition' is. I put it to the Minister that there are few courts in the land that could confidently convict or fine people on the draconian measures in the Bill if they have to use the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition' as it is found in this legislation. Of course, the Western Australian Act says a lot more. That Act refers to an area too. I believe that the Minister should be prepared to upgrade the definition of 'Aboriginal tradition'. I take honourable members back to my comments about the use and abuse of legislation. This Parliament cannot accept that this legislation will only ever be used by people of good will. There will be people with other reasons, whether pure obstructiveness or that old problem of greed. There is no way in the world that this Parliament can assume that someone, some day will not choose to use the legislation in a fashion which the Minister probably now does not envisage, but the possibility of which is very real. It is historically true within the human race that someone will see a perk and will do so. If we do not put the legislation together properly, if we leave holes large enough to drive a truck through, people will be hurt. It is the innocent who get hurt. If the Minister thinks he can bring in legislation such as this and use definitions of this nature, he leaves an opportunity open, as I will refer to later, for people eventually to profit and to be totally obstructive. Of course, the definitions are the main area. Application of other laws is also covered. Last night the Minister was at pains to tell us that when a State government wanted to do something it could rely on him not to interfere. What does the legislation tell us? Sub-clause 7(i) of the Bill states: This Act is not intended to exclude or limit the operation of a law of a State or Territory that is capable of operating concurrently with this Act. In other words, if the State law cannot operate concurrently with this legislation we can forget what clause 7 says. That is a joke. We all know that in all cases the law of the Commonwealth will override the law of a State. My comment when I read that clause was: 'So what?'. The last point I want to raise in this area concerns the application of the Bill. Clause 8 states: (1) Subject to sub-section (2), this Act applies, according to its tenor, to all persons, including foreigners, and to all vessels, including foreign vessels , whether or not they are within Australia or Australian waters. (2) This Act has effect subject to the obligations of Australia under international law, including obligations under any agreement between Australia and another country, or countries. I hope the Minister might respond as to whether that is not an inclusion of the foreign affairs power to give further bite to this legislation when in fact the people of Australia, under the Constitution, gave what I believe were somewhat limited powers to the Commonwealth in 1967. I say that because only a Yes case was put at that time. I will read to the House what the Australian people were told at that time and what they voted on. It was stated: 'The Commonwealth's object will be to co-operate with the States to ensure that together we act in the best interests of Aboriginal people of Australia'. That is not the way the Minister reads the powers or the way other speakers today read the powers given to the Parliament under the Constitution. In fact, I suggest that the Government go back to the people with the Bill to see what results. That would be the test of the situation. Progress reported. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Panel of Review of the Proposed Income and Assets Test , May 1984. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr HAWKE —I would like to inform the House of the Government's policy on the asset testing of pensions in the light of its consideration of the report of the Panel of Review of the Proposed Income and Assets Test. The Government is firmly committed to the principle that pensions be directed to those reliant upon such expenditure and not dissipated upon those who, by any reasonable standard, do not require such assistance. In current circumstances, where many Australians with little or no income or assets are in need of additional assistance, and where there are severe limits on the resources available to meet those needs, there is no escaping the necessity to apply means tests to social security type pensions. A means test has always been applied to pensions in Australia. In a world of unlimited resources, a Government might prefer to avoid such tests. But we do not live in such a world, and do not expect to do for the foreseeable future. These realities were faced squarely by Australians in this chamber a little over one year ago, at the National Economic Summit Conference. Then, in the depths of Australia's greatest economic crisis for half a century, Australians recognised that the restoration of the greatness of our country would require each of us to moderate our pursuit of narrow individual self-interest. The Summit communique acknowledged the overwhelming desire of the nation to ensure that those in genuine need were adequately supported, whether they were the rich , the aged, the disabled, the unemployed or the impoverished. The spirit of the Summit has served Australia well over the past year, in ways that are reflected more widely in greater social cohesion and more effective economic performance. We must continue in that spirit, because a great deal remains to be done. Within this spirit, there must be effective means testing of welfare payments to ensure that we are able to provide effectively for Australians in genuine need. The challenge for the Government is to restructure such tests to ensure that they produce genuinely equitable results. Until eight years ago the Australian means test was based on both incomes and assets. Since 1976, there has been widespread concern about wealthy people receiving a pension because their wealth has been in assets which have been structured to avoid earning current income. This basic inequity has worried many Australians, including many on both sides of this Parliament and will do so for as long as our means test fails to bring assets as well as income to account. Inevitably, the absence of an assets test has invited the emergence of income test avoidance schemes. Standard avoidance packages are now readily available and widely used and are proliferating. So in last year's Budget we moved to reintroduce assessment of assets as well as income in the means test, along the lines of the arrangements which had been in force prior to 1976. We made it clear then that there would be widespread consultation with the community before the final form of the test was settled. These consultations led to a number of modifications being incorporated into the draft Bill which was introduced into the Parliament late last year. That draft legislation sought to reduce important inequities in the means test, to address the increasingly important problem of test avoidance, and to strengthen our capacity to provide adequately for Australians in need through the long period ahead when the ratio of aged to working Australians was going to be rising. But it became clear early this year that there was continuing uncertainty about whether the Government had found the fairest and most equitable way to implement an assets test. We became concerned that many ordinary pensioners had been caused unnecessary worry by those who, for short-sighted political purposes, encouraged groundless fears about our intentions. But, as a Government which acknowledged that it is not the repository of all wisdom, we also recognised that there was justifiable concern that we might not have found the best way to test assets. Accordingly, on 23 February, the Government reaffirmed its commitment to the principle of an assets test, and moved to establish a broadly-based panel of relevant community representatives to advise on how this principle could best be reflected in legislation. We were fortunate to secure the services of high calibre representatives of a wide range of interested community groups. The panel has worked hard and well and consulted widely since early March. It has produced a report of high quality in a short space of time. The report contributes significantly to our understanding of the issues. On behalf of the Government, I would like to thank Professor Gruen and the members of the Panel for their thorough, analytical work. The weight of the report in increased by the panel having adopted a unanimous approach on most matters. The report makes a large number of specific recommendations, all of which have been carefully considered by the Government. The report as a whole has influenced the Government to change its approach to the assets test. But, as the Government, we must be the final arbiter of the national interest, and on one central matter we have chosen a different course from that preferred by the panel. The panel responsibly acknowledges the fiscal realities within which any Australian government must operate. It recognises that it is simply not feasible in the foreseeable future to move towards a system of universal pensions, while maintaining and increasing the provision for Australians in need. Thus, recognising that a needs-based system must be retained at least for some time, the panel concludes that a test must take account of both income and assets if it is to be both a fair measure of need and equitable to all. That is a strong conclusion from a group that includes a range of pensioner and service organisations. It is a conclusion that is in line with responsible economic opinion in Australia. It is a view which we are accustomed to hear from businessmen, bureaucrats, economists and the financial press. For example, a recent statement from the Business Council of Australia had this to say: Over recent years business leaders have urged that welfare payments be means tested and we have said that the Government deserves support for attempting to tackle this politically difficult problem now . . . Honourable members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —The Business Council of Australia-and I am pleased to hear the honourable member for Franklin's abuse of it-went on to say: It is important that issues of longer term income security and retirement-- Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the remark in which he referred to me as abusing the business people. Not one word was said about that. Mr SPEAKER —It is not an offensive remark; it is a description. Mr HAWKE —The Business Council of Australia went on to say: It is important that issues of longer term income security and retirement are addressed, and in the context of the taxation system, as a major priority for public policy development in the coming years. However, without commenting on the specific recommendations of the Gruen Committee, it is important that the Government gets community support for tackling the hard and thankless task of expenditure restraint through means testing welfare. Finally, I ask honourable members opposite to note in particular the following comment of the Business Council of Australia: It would be disappointing if any sector of the community, through vested interest or for short-term political advantage, were to make the task of reform more difficult. But the panel's statement on means testing has special significance as a statement from a group that, collectively, can claim close association with and understanding of the particular groups which would be affected by an assets test . This alone makes the report an important development in Australian discussion of social security matters. I hope that the members of this Parliament can at least find common ground here on the need for assets as well as income to be considered in any test of need. My Government is firmly of this view. I think that honest members of the Opposition acknowledge that they share this view. I remind the House again in that context that in October 1981, the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, was reported as admitting that there was a belief in the Liberal Party that an assets-based test was the only way to stop the artificial lowering of incomes in order to get the pension. The same Liberal Minister for Social Security said in May of that year: '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' . The Government and the panel can agree wholeheartedly with Senator Chaney's statement. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) also seems to favour an assets test, although he expressed doubts about the particular shape of the income and assets test proposed in the last Budget. On 27 November 1983, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: I'm personally in favour of a needs approach to the payment of welfare . . . I think the method of the asset test now proposed and originally in operation is not the best way of doing it, because, for example, why is it that you can have an unlimited amount of antiques or jewellery but you can only have a very small amount in the bank or in a building society deposit. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is clearly suggesting that he would support reintroduction of an assets test if anomalies of the type he outlined were removed. It is time for us all to recognise that the real issue is not whether we should have an assets test but what is the fairest and best form of assets test. On this, the Government recognises quite straightforwardly that honest and reasonable people can hold different views. Following its consideration of the Panel's report, the Government has adopted a policy which differs from that which is incorporated in the draft legislation that is currently before the House. The Panel concludes that, while the then proposed income and assets test generally directs assistance to those most in need, it creates several anomalies and disadvantages in doing so. The extensive exemptions create inequities. The test favours those who are able to invest their assets at a rate greater than 10 per cent. In these and other ways the Panel is of the view that it is inferior to two other possible forms of assets test which it describes as the 'tall poppies test' and the 'modified tall poppies test'. The Government acknowledges the force of the Panel's argument, and has decided to put aside the previously proposed test. While the Panel is clearly of the view that the previously proposed legislation is the least satisfactory of the three possibilities that it considered, it is less clear-cut in its judgment between the other two. The Panel's 'tall poppies test' provides for the gradual phasing out of the pension when the total value of assets, without any exemption, exceeds a high figure for a single pensioner and a separate, higher sum for a couple. The Panel's 'modified tall poppies test ' exempts the house of residence up to a value of $150,000 and provides for the gradual phasing out of the pension when the total value of other assets exceeds thresholds that are lower than those applied in the 'tall poppies test'. In the final conclusions and recommendations the report prefers the 'tall poppies test'. However, in comparing the options in detail, it sees relative strengths and weaknesses in each of the two options. The report states that there would be no general community view on whether the 'tall poppies test' was fairer than the 'modified tall poppies test'. It is clear from the argument in the body of the report that the 'tall poppies test', without any exemption, is preferred mainly because the exemption of the home is inequitable between people who reside in their own homes and other pensioners. If it were possible to correct the imbalance between these two groups in other ways the report's strongest arguments for avoiding the exemption of the home would be met. The Panel notes two reasons why some Australians would think it fairer to exempt the house: The strong Australian belief that there is a special attachment to home ownership and the difference between levels of other assets that could be held by people occupying similar housing in different locations and with different values if the home were not exempt. Moreover, the Panel notes several advantages of the 'modified tall poppies test' over its preferred option . These include reduced opportunities for artificial avoidance schemes to operate-given that many other assets are easier to manipulate for these purposes than a residence-and somewhat easier administration. Like the Panel, the Government believes that fairness is of fundamental importance to the operation of a means test and that fairness, like beauty, is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. The Government believes that in Australia it is fairer to allow exemption of the home, as long as the inequity that this introduces in relation to people who do not own their own homes is addressed in other ways. We will implement the Panel's modified tall poppies test, with some variations. The key features of the new assets test are as follows: The principal residence is completely excluded from the test. We believe that needless anxiety would be created amongst pensioners who would never actually be affected by the test if the exemption were allowed only up to a specified limit. For pensioners on farms , the exemption relates to the home and curtilage. Pensioner couples resident in their own homes receive the full pension unless the market value of their other assets exceeds $100,000. If this threshold is exceeded the pension is reduced by $20 per week for each $10,000 of other assets above $100,000. Eligibility for the pension is not eliminated, at the current rate of pension, until other assets exceed about $175,000. A home-owning pensioner couple with other assets of about $137,000 receives a half-pension. Single pensioners who are resident in their own homes receive the full pension unless the market value of their other assets exceeds $70,000. If this threshold is exceeded the pension is similarly reduced. Eligibility for the pension is not eliminated until other assets exceed about $115,000. A home-owning single pensioner with other assets of about $92,000 receives a half-pension. The exemption levels are $50,000 higher for all pensioners who are not resident in their own homes, such as renters, people living with relatives and people living permanently in nursing homes. Thus a single pensioner who is not resident in his or her own home can hold $165,000 in other assets before losing all entitlement to the pension, while a pensioner couple in the same circumstances can hold $225,000. The assets test applies only if the resulting pension entitlement is lower than that produced by the current income text alone. The two tests apply separately so that one or the other, but not both, operate. In practice, this means that the assets test affects only those with substantial assets and little income. These are a small proportion of pensioners with large assets. The system of administration depends heavily on self-declaration, especially in relation to normal personal effects. This makes the administration less costly and less intrusive than would otherwise be the case. To minimise intrusion into the personal affairs of pensioners, a net market value of $10,000 is set on normal household contents and personal effects, with a provision for people to claim a lower amount if they consider $10,000 to be in excess of the actual value of the relevant assets. There is also a requirement that people declare the value of household contents and personal effects if that value exceeds $10, 000. The thresholds of $70,000 for single pensioners and $100,000 for couples, as well as the addition of $50,000 for people who do not own their own homes, are to be indexed yearly in accordance with movements in the consumer price index. Several other details of the arrangements follow directly the Panel's recommendations. From today any gifts or other forms of divestment without adequate financial consideration in excess of $2,000 a year for a single pensioner and $4,000 a year for a pensioner couple are to be considered as assets of the pensioner for purposes of the test. Special aids for disabled people are exempted from the assets test. Legislation will be drafted for introduction on Budget night with a view to its early passage. The assets test applies to all social security and repatriation service pensions that are currently subject to the incomes test. Thus it does not apply to blind pensions, to unemployment and sickness benefits, or to war widow pensions and repatriation disability pensions. There are special provisions to ease problems that arise in conditions of hardship. These will be along the lines of provisions in the previous Bill, although one additional facility is available to alleviate hardship should the pensioner wish to use it. People may have assets large enough to diminish eligibility for the pension, but hold these in a form which is difficult to convert into cash to cover the ordinary expenses of living. Alternatively, they may prefer not to sell particular assets for these purposes. In these circumstances, people who hold three-quarters of their assets in these liquid forms have the right, on their own choosing, to be paid an income equivalent to the pension as a loan to be recovered from their estate. Interest would accumulate on the loans at a market related rate. I stress that no one is obliged to use this facility. It is available to eligible Australians affected by the assets test who choose to use it. The lien on the estate is similar to facilities made available by many local authorities in Australia, which allow pensioners to postpone payments of rates. Since last August's Budget Speech, we have seen a continuing attempt by honourable members opposite, with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to the fore, to distort, to exaggerate and to misrepresent matters related to the assets test, for their own short-sighted political purposes. The Opposition has deliberately played on the anxieties of elderly Australians. Mr Donald Cameron —That is a lie and you know it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw. Mr Donald Cameron —He is dishonest. I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr HAWKE —The Opposition has attempted to create fears amongst pensioners in genuine need who would never have been affected by any assets test. Mr Connolly —Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister is deliberately trying to provoke the Opposition in apology for his Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr Peacock —The Prime Minister thinks it is a joke. Mr HAWKE —I certainly think the Leader of the Opposition is a joke. In the whole sorry history of discussion of these matters over the past nine months, there is no more sorry episode than the misrepresentation of the Panel's recommendation on the provision of loans to people affected by the assets test, at their own election, in the case of hardship. The Opposition has sought to misrepresent a humane suggestion as a penalty. In response, I can only ask a simple question: Is an eligible person who chooses to use this facility better or worse off than if access to the facility had never been available? The Opposition's distortion will be recognised for the dishonest, self-seeking, opportunistic fearmongering that it is. The Government believes that the new assets test is fair and generous by the values of most Australians. Honourable members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is the intention of the Chair to see that the Prime Minister is heard, as it will be the intention of the Chair to see that the Leader of the Opposition is heard. I suggest that honourable members restrain themselves. Mr HAWKE —It removes the inequity that has existed in the pension system since 1976, that assets-rich people are able to maintain pension eligibility when less wealthy people who, on any reasonable criteria, are in greater need, lose entitlement under the income test. But eligibility for the pension is not in any way affected by the value of the family home. The new assets test makes special provision for people who do not own their own homes. It greatly diminishes opportunities for using artificial schemes to avoid the income test. It does not affect most pensioners at all. It is as unintrusive as possible into the personal affairs of pensioners who are affected by it. When it is in full effect in 1985-86, it is expected to save about $45m after allowing for the costs of administration. Net savings rise steadily in subsequent years with the number of pensioners, and increasing wealth of potential pensioners. The pensioner population can be expected to continue to grow much more rapidly than the remainder of the population. The savings in later years will be greater to the extent that Australians in future take more assets to retirement, through the growth of entitlement to superannuation lump sums, and through the coming to retirement of a generation whose lifetime accumulation of assets, unlike that of their parents, has not been affected by depression and the Second World War. The savings in later years will be greater to the extent that artificial schemes to avoid the income test would have proliferated in the absence of an assets test. Establishment costs are higher than ongoing administrative costs. This, together with the commencement of the operation of the test in March 1985, means that there will be a net cost of about $30m in the coming financial year. Opposition members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask members of the Opposition please to restrain their mirth. Mr Tuckey —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. With all that noise I was unable to hear what the Prime Minister just said. I wonder whether he would read it again. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —The report argues that any savings from the assets test should be applied to improve conditions of pensioners in greatest need. The report emphasises the special plight of pensioners who do not own their own homes. The Government is committed in the coming Budget to some general increase in the pension rate above the amounts that follow from the automatic adjustments for increases in the consumer price index. The Government will make additional assistance available to pensioner renters through an increase in the rate of supplementary assistance. Final decisions on these matters will be taken in the Budget context. Our fiscal circumstances will not allow us to do all that we would like to improve the lot of Australians in need, but we will do what we can within the limits of fiscal responsibility. Today's announcement should also be seen in the context of an ongoing discussion of wider questions of retirement incomes. The reintroduction of an assets test is one of several measures that we have taken to increase our capacity to assist Australians in need within severe fiscal constraints. We are continuing to examine the implications of various alternative forms of national superannuation schemes, as well as of alternative approaches to the extension of occupational superannuation. It would be possible, and in current circumstances even attractive from a narrow political point of view, to follow the course that the Leader of the Opposition sometimes seems to be suggesting, and to put off all hard decisions until there is widespread community support for some utopian final solution to Australia's retirement incomes problems. But a government that cares about the long term future of Australia must act with greater courage. There is no avoiding the reality that the long term evolution of the Australian retirement incomes system must, as a matter of social, demographic and economic necessity, be based on allocation of public assistance on the basis of need. The assets test, together with our initiatives on the taxation of lump sum superannuation, and on income testing the over-70 pension, represent a necessary focus on needs. I would hope that those opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, would remember what he and they once understood, because it is a fact that the Leader of the Opposition did once understand these things. On 9 September 1981, then, as a Government back bencher here, the now Leader of the Opposition told this House: The Government needs to reassess its approach to spending, concentrating on the areas of genuine need, cutting out expenditure to those who do not need assistance. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —There is no doubt that honourable members opposite would like to drown out those words. They would like to throttle the Leader of the Opposition for ever having uttered them. In the same speech he acknowledged-this is very interesting, coming from this man, conspicuous for his lack of both principle and courage-that: Needed decisions will demand a good deal of courage from Government leaders. For once the now Leader of the Opposition was right. Mr Goodluck —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr HAWKE —We have the Tasmanian genius rising again. Mr Goodluck —Did I hear aright, Madam Deputy Speaker? Are inspectors allowed to go into the homes of pensioners? If they go into my mother-in-law's home, there will be trouble. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will cease raising frivolous points of order. Mr HAWKE —Not only was the now Leader of the Opposition right when he said that governments would need courage to make the needed decisions, but I suggest to this House that, as well, the needed decisions demand some courage and commitment to principle from Opposition leaders. This has been a difficult issue for the Government and for the Australian people. It raises such fundamental questions of equity that it is bound to be difficult, as well as controversial. I regret the confusion and anxiety that many pensioners have experienced through the uncertainty of recent months. I have previously acknowledged our part in the responsibility for part of that uncertainty, in the shortcomings contained in last August's income and assets test. Mr Cadman —The Prime Minister is a disgrace. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister is entitled to be heard in the House. I ask the honourable gentlemen on my left to ensure that he is heard. It is their responsibility as well as mine. Mr HAWKE —I readily and quite unqualifiedly make that acknowledgment again. But the Australian people are better for our having started again, and got it right, than they would have been if we had remained rigid and wrong. I greatly regret the exaggeration, distortion and misrepresentation that has characterised the Opposition's contribution to the debate on this complex issue. Today I have defined a simple and fair system of assets testing. We will move promptly to implement this approach. The majority of pensioners-those who genuinely need the pension-will be better off as a result of the series of decisions on pensions that we will announce this year. This Government will never undervalue the contribution of older Australians-the Australians who during their working lives contributed to building Australia into the great country it is today, and who laid the foundations for the greater country it will be tomorrow. Australians in need can rest assured that their interests are enhanced and in no way threatened by the decisions the Government has taken following its consideration of the Report of the Panel of Review of the Proposed Income and Assets Test. I present the following paper: Income and Assets Test-Ministerial Statement, 1 June 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 Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 40 minutes. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(11.46) —Of all the times that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has come into this Parliament allegedly taking the high road and invoking the language of consensus, this statement that we have had inflicted upon us today has to be the most hypocritical to date. For all the high sounding phrases, the soporific sentiments simply fog the facts. If ever there was an example of Hawkespeak it was today. Beneath all the talk of the national interest, of fairness, and of generosity, behind the cynical performance, the flat delivery and the caring tones lies the next step in the cold-blooded inequitable attack on the elderly, those least able to rearrange their affairs and cope with the intrusive assets test which this Government has now embraced. It has taken the Government nine months to get up its alleged courage, nine months of mounting confusion and of rising anxiety-not caused by the Opposition, as this cynical statement would suggest, but caused by the man who presently occupies the prime ministership, the architect of this attack on the pensioners. The decision which this confused and, as now revealed, incompetent Government has come to is filled with tortuous logic. It is yet another example of the inability of the Hawke Government to come to grips with the overriding need for an overall approach to security for the elderly. What the Government has done throughout is to cling to its piecemeal approach and what is, in effect, a piecemeal attack on the elderly. So long as it does that, it will not solve the problems of security and of a balanced welfare program. The chance has been there all along for the Government to participate fully in the work of the Senate Committee which is examining retirement benefits, but it has preferred to continually upset the elderly by pursuing a stop-gap assets test. It is clearly going to be a stop-gap government. I want to look briefly at the latest version of Labor's assets test as outlined in the statement we have just heard. First of all, let me make it quite clear that Labor's latest assets test, like those before it, penalises those Australians who have worked and saved over a lifetime to put aside a nest-egg for a comfortable retirement. That has been fundamental to the Australian way of life-to work hard, to transfer one's income into some assets, enjoy them in retirement, and not to go to the Government as the first step. Labor's assets test is an attack on this deeply embedded feature of our national character. Mr Ruddock —An attack on thrift. Mr PEACOCK —It is an absolute attack on thrift. That is behind what the Government is doing with its slug on superannuation and what it is doing on the assets test. This Government is saying that the sum product of a person's working life which has already been taxed once during that working life will now be taxed again. Labor's assets test is double taxation. A person taxed on his income through his working life, on retirement, will be taxed on his capital. That is fundamentally wrong. The second major problem with what is now proposed is its absolutely intrusive nature. There has to be invasion of privacy to enforce Labor's assets test. As the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel report pointed out, Labor's original proposal was the least intrusive option. Of all the obnoxious proposals that were put down the Gruen report at least said that the original proposal was the least intrusive because it exempted not only the principal home but also personal contents. We now have a highly intrusive form of assets testing. Valuations of personal contents will have to be made for most pensioners. That means forms, inspections and bickering about those assets, for example, how much the family fridge is worth. That means that the 1,500 public servants whom Senator Grimes and the Prime Minister employed six months ago finally will have a job to do. That job will be done in the pensioners' homes. There is no way to avoid it. Dr Theophanous —I take a point of order. This is complete misrepresentation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr PEACOCK —There is absolutely no point of order but there is point in the point I am making. The assets test inevitably involves forms, inspections and bickering with bureaucrats. That is what the Government has imposed on every Australian pensioner, forcing him or her into this situation. It is a major reason why Labor's assets test will not be a revenue earner; it will cost so much to invade the privacy of the pensioner. Again, the Labor Government has created enormous potential problems for the elderly. Labor's latest assets test, like its predecessors, is decidedly inequitable. It is inequitable for those 479,000 pensioners who live in rented accommodation. Under Labor's test people with the same dollar value of assets can be treated quite differently depending on whether they are renters. The Gruen Panel argued strongly for the inclusion of the home in the assets test. We strongly disagreed but the Gruen committee did so because it alleged that someone who owned a home could continue to channel his money into improving that home-something with which I and the Opposition agree. The Gruen committee said that people will channel their money into improving their homes and therefore they will not be affected by the assets test if the home is excluded, but people in rented accommodation will have an additional personal assets test charged against them. So the situation is inequitable for those pensioners in rented accommodation. I pointed out in this House on Wednesday, as did the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), that Labor's assets test singled out rural families for particularly unfair treatment. What will happen to the family farm? The Prime Minister's statement today vindicates the Opposition's statement that Labor will break up family farms. It is inescapable, from the reading of this statement. The provisions announced by this Government will make the lot of those on family farms extraordinarily difficult and they are totally unfair. The Prime Minister has danced around the bottom line for farmers by talking in the obscurantist language of the Bar-the jurisdictional bar, that is, the one to which he was never admitted, in contrast to the others. He has not enlightened the public by his use of language. For pensioners on farms the exemption relates to the home and curtilage. How enlightening is the use of the medieval term 'curtilage' for the average Australian? It is hardly a word on the lips of all Australians. They do not speak of anything else, it is alleged in certain areas! What the Prime Minister is saying about family farms is that the house and the curtilage will be exempt. Mr Goodluck —What does it mean? Mr PEACOCK —I will enlighten the honourable member. The Oxford Dictionary says this of 'curtilage': . . . a small courtyard, garth or piece of ground attached to a dwelling house and forming one enclosure with it. The area attached to and containing a dwelling house and its outbuildings. So the outhouse is included. What that means for farm families is that their house and the land immediately around it, the land on which the house is built, are exempt. But what about the land from which the farmers, their sons and their daughters have earned and are earning a living? It is included; it is to be hit. That is totally unfair. It means that every animal, every piece of farm equipment, every area of land, other than the land on which the house is built, is to be included. Mr Howard —The koalas? Mr PEACOCK —That was an amusing interjection by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition but he recognises the stark ramifications of this test today for people in rural areas. It is the end of the family farm. It is the imposition of death duties if the farmers pick pay as you die schemes. It is the imposition of a capital gains tax and it will wreck so many farms. It is a further kick in the teeth of the rural sector which is clearly part of a plan to squeeze out farmers . That has been the pattern of behaviour of Labor governments since the day they were formed. As I said, farmers will also have to contend with Labor's death duties which are coming down the line. What the Prime Minister has said today is : 'Congratulations. People on farms can keep their houses and the land around them but they will have to get rid of the means of making a living'. Labor's assets test is both inequitable and sectional. Of course, the Prime Minister says: 'We offer a choice'. That is like grabbing someone by the throat and offering him the choice of being squeezed further or being allowed to live. The Prime Minister holds out the option for farmers and others of participating in what is now infamously referred to as the pay as you die plan. Let us look at the ramifications for pensioners of the pay as you die plan. Let me spell out what this could mean to a man or woman opting for this plan at age 65. I take age 65 although we should bear in mind that a woman pensioner can opt at age 60 and someone with a disability pension can opt even earlier so the cost to the estate would be even greater. Let us pick fairly. A man or woman may opt for this plan, this great choice the Prime Minister now offers him or her having imposed this odious test. Assuming that the current long term bond rate of 14 per cent would apply, after just five years the pensioner would owe the Government $35,000; and at age 75 that figure would jump to more than $102,000. Mr Donald Cameron —Was that $102,000? Mr PEACOCK —The sum of $102,000 would be owed to the Government were this so- called choice exercised. Should the pensioner reach the age of 80, which is quite common, he or she, having opted for this alleged choice under the Hawke scheme, would owe over $232,000. Mr Fife —What a shocker! Mr PEACOCK —It is shocking. Imagine what will happen when they hit the century. Tradition seems to change. Instead of getting a congratulatory message from the Queen, they will get a bill from the Prime Minister. This absurd proposition could even end up with the elderly becoming negative millionaires. The fact is that pay as you die is another term for a Labor death duty. In this statement the Prime Minister poured scorn on what he called the pursuit of narrow individual self-interest. All right, let us lay it right on the line: What our parties are about is that individuals can pursue their own interest. What made this country great? It was not politicians and bureaucrats putting down schemes supposedly to plan people's lives but individuals going out and improving their lot. Those opposite call it narrow self-interest. We call it the right of people to improve their own lives and those of their families. They will not persuade the majority of Australians to walk down their socialist road-the pursuit of narrow individual self-interest. Frankly, it is Hawkespeak for working hard and saving to get ahead. This Government has no time for or understanding of that value which has made and makes Australia a great country and makes a distinct difference between those on this side of the Parliament and those on the other side. Let me look at another especially cruel unfairness and inequity from this abject statement that has been made today. I refer to the Prime Minister's announced restrictions on what pensioners can do with their own assets. From today this man has imposed restrictions on what they can do with their own possessions. We thought until today that what we owned was ours and we were free to do with it what we wished. From today those who are frail or whose eyesight is failing and who, say, want to give a car to a daughter because they can no longer use it, cannot give the car to the daughter but have to make her pay for it. That is wrong; it is the reintroduction of death duties. We have to declare our possessions and we are unable to part with them-that was contained in the statement today-unless we sell them for the market value. One of the Prime Minister's major reasons, he alleges, for the imposition of an assets test is his claim that there is a flourishing avoidance industry. Last year in the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said the same thing, so I assume that the Prime Minister has borrowed this reference to a flourishing avoidance industry from the Treasurer's Budget Speech. Yesterday in this House the Treasurer was asked to substantiate the claim that there was widespread avoidance. He did not do that. The Gruen Panel looked at this very matter and its conclusions discredit the claim of both the Prime Minsiter and the Treasurer that there is a flourishing avoidance industry. The Gruen report said: In the course of its deliberations the Panel has not uncovered hard evidence of the extent or magnitude of avoidance . . . Yet the Prime Minister is imposing an assets test without proof of some sinister avoidance program. Labor's assets test will do the very thing it says is occurring today. Once this form of assets test is brought down, that is what happens. It will encourage the development of an avoidance industry. It will encourage the old age pensioner who wants to transfer his car to his daughter to avoid the penalty by keeping it in his name. Who can blame him? He should never have had such a constraint imposed upon him in the first place. Another particularly odious feature of Labor's piecemeal approach to the elderly is that of double dipping on superannuitants. The Government will take 30 per cent of one's lump sum superannuation payout and then apply an assets test to the remainder. Not only will there be an increased slug from 5 per cent to 30 per cent on one's superannuation, but after that is done an assets test will also be applied to the remainder. For all this talk of double dipping which the Government alleges goes on in the community, the Government has replaced this alleged double dipping by the individual which it so loudly deplores with double dipping by the Hawke Government. At the same time this Prime Minister specifically stated in his speech that he is relying on the larger payouts of superannuation in the years immediately ahead to lift the savings on the assets test. It is inequitable and it is, frankly put, obnoxious. There is no shortage of flaws and inequities in what this Prime Minister has imposed on Australians today. It is a confused job. It is a shoddy job and, for all of the nine month gestation, it is a rush job. It is such a rush job that the statement itself contains elements of the farce in the midst of the tragedy that is being imposed. For example, on page 2, paragraph 3, he harks back to the National Economic Summit. He says: The Summit communique acknowledged the overwhelming desire of the nation to ensure that those in genuine need were adequately supported, whether they were the rich, the aged, the disabled, the unemployed or the impoverished. It is not only rich; it is ridiculous. Let me be more serious about a deadly serious matter. This assets test is based on gross assets, and the Prime Minister admitted that in his statement. As is immediately apparent to the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the inequity potential is enormous. What about those thousands of pensioners who, for example, having retired at last have the time and the opportunity to see Australia? They buy a car and a caravan on hire purchase. I could use any other example. They and the bank own them, right? Yet, after this announcement by the Prime Minister, before they drive their car and caravan in their driveway they could lose their pension because this rushed and jerry-built assets test relies on market value, taking no account of the liabilities of pensioners in respect of their assets. Mr Newman —That could not be so. Mr PEACOCK —That is in the statement. I tell the honourable member for Bass that it is in the statement. It relies on the market value. There is no offsetting for the liabilities that are entered into. The inequity potential is enormous. Let me pull all this arrant nonsense together. This is what it comes down to: On the one hand, a tragedy and, on the other, arrant nonsense. We saw in this House today the Prime Minister giving yet another of his smug performances. They are as hollow as Labor's promises. He has come in here beating his little tin drum, evoking some phoney national spirit that he now talks of, and has said that in the depths of Australia's greatest economic crisis, according to him, Australians have to 'moderate our pursuit of narrow individual self-interest'. The phrases roll on: The spirit of the National Economic Summit Conference, the challenge for the Government, the overwhelming desire of the nation-all of this crisis rhetoric. In the midst of this alleged great crisis-according to the Prime Minister-the Hawke Government has taken nine months to get to the odious position it has reached today, nine tortuous months which have kept Australia's elderly in a constant state of anxiety, concern and confusion. Arising out of all this sense of urgency and crisis, out of these pathetic theatrics, out of this challenge for the Government, what has the Government produced? Let us look at what it has produced and at what will be the revenue effects. The Prime Minister said-I think honourable members will have heard this clearly-that in the first year of operation, having imposed all this on the elderly in our community, there will be a net cost of $30m. This is over and above all the freedoms that will be constrained by this test, the inequities within them and the sacrifices we are all supposed to make. To have more moneys flowing into the Treasury coffers there will be a net cost of $30m. That means, as we said on Wednesday in this House-we have been proved yet again to be absolutely right-Australian taxpayers will end up paying to enforce this extraordinarily odious assets test that Labor has brought down. We are told that if we look at the years ahead we are taking the high ground and we are going to achieve extraordinary savings for this nation. Mr Howard —No wonder the Treasurer wasn't interested in the statement. Mr PEACOCK —The Treasurer would not come within a bull's roar of that statement. How could any Treasurer stand by something that is supposed to be a means test of pensions but is in fact going to cost an additional $30m? The next time someone says to me 'How are you going to cut government expenditure?', it is fairly obvious what I will point to for the first $30m to come off. We are told that the scheme will be in full effect in 1985-86. By then, after all the forms, inspections and constraints on freedom by the Government, out of the billions of dollars in the welfare budget we are allegedly going to save about $45m, after allowing for the costs of administration. That is the money the Prime Minister says is going to increase the lot of the pensioners in great need-about $45m. Let us work that out quickly as I stand here. If we take this money and transfer it back to the pensioners, do honourable members know what they will get in 1986 after all this? Mr Donald Cameron —Thirty-five cents a week. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member is only one cent out. It is 36c a week, half the value of a Kit-Kat, I am told-I am not in the habit of buying them. We have listened to the tin drum being belted, the rhetoric being poured out, the emotional tones of calling Australians to follow the Prime Minister. My God, do they know which way they are following him? Mr Donald Cameron —Down the line of Bourke's stores. Mr PEACOCK —As the honourable member for Moreton says, down the line of Bourke's stores. It is going to cost us $30m, but in due course we will all benefit because we are going to get half a Kit-Kat in 1986. There will be some rejoicing in the community-the pay as you die, the constraints on freedom, all ending up with that! So Australian pensioners have at last learned that there is cause for rejoicing-in just one year's time Labor's assets test will put an extra 36c in their pockets! I suppose not everybody has a Kit-Kat, but probably most of them have a cup of tea. On my recollection of the cost of that, and looking ahead to 1986, we will probably get for the full year from the Prime Minister today half a cup of tea. So much for the egalitarian Prime Minister. So much for the man who is imposing all this to redress the dreadful trend and anomalies in our welfare system and direct all these savings to those in need. They can now have a choice. In 1986 they can have half a cup of tea or half a Kit-Kat from the savings. This is the so-called redistribution to those in need. The harsh reality of this is that it produces a new type of redistribution. There is no redistribution to those in need-forget about that. This is redistribution to the bureaucracy and nothing more. It will fund another l,500 public servants. Just for this scheme 1,262 were brought in from outside the Public Service and the other 200-odd to make up the 1,500 were transferred from elsewhere. They have been sitting there for months waiting for something to do, waiting to get their forms out, waiting to knock on the pensioner's home and inspect the fridge, the carpet, the paintings and the pictures. All of that lies ahead. So the reality is that there is a real cost in bureaucratic intrusion. The whole scheme is predicated on the fact that every pensioner who has more than $10,000 worth of personal assets will have to declare their value. These days $10,000 will not buy a decent car. Old people need a reliable vehicle. Pensioners with $10,000 worth of personal assets have to declare the value of their possessions. What right has any government to intrude into the lives of Australians in this way? It is contrary to every element of our Australian society to have bureaucrats invading a person's home and checking on possessions . Mr Goodluck —Especially the elderly. Mr PEACOCK —It is particularly bad when it affects the elderly, who are the least able to re-arrange their affairs and are more worried, naturally enough, by intrusion. As I say, the real cost is that bureaucratic intrusion but, on top of that, the real cost to Australia is the breach of those freedoms that we value. No one on this side of the House would allow this degree of invasion of privacy. It is abhorrent to any decent thinking Australian. As I said, the whole scheme is predicated on the fact that anyone who has more than $10,000 worth of personal assets has to declare their value. So in this egalitarian society that we hear the socialists speak about, after a lifetime of hard work, of sacrifice and of thrift, most Australians, the vast majority of senior citizens, certainly have more than $10,000 worth of household contents and personal effects. Just add up the television, the fridge, the furniture, the car, a small amount of jewellery, some rings and the Treasurer's antiques. Under this miserable and mean-minded Prime Minister 1984 has well and truly arrived. Every pensioner will have to fill in a form. Every pensioner will have to account to this Hawke Government for his personal possessions. Every one of them, if the bureaucrats so demand, will have to open his doors to inspectors armed with pens, clipboards and further forms. Make no mistake about it, Labor's assets test legislation will give inspectors right of entry and power to cross- check what the pensioners have. The honourable member for Franklin was quite right in pointing it out; it is inescapable. There has to be right of entry to check the valuations put down by the pensioner on the possessions in his home; otherwise the scheme would be totally unenforceable. Mr Goodluck —He could not answer it. Mr PEACOCK —The Prime Minister would not answer it because he knew it was an essential ingredient within the scheme. It is outrageous. Throughout the twists and the turns of what is a discredited scheme and thereby a discredited government-this Government is discredited on assets testing alone-this Opposition has remained consistently opposed to Labor's assets test. If we read the statement today by this sanctimonious man we can only interpret it as the start if Labor is allowed to continue. It can only be the start. From the leaks to members of the media that was even put to them. This is the beginning. If perchance this Government is able to win at the unnecessary early election that is to be called people know what is ahead of them beyond the scheme that is being imposed today. This Government will expand the scheme, it will change the rules and I suppose the exemptions will even disappear after an election if this Government is to have its way. I think it can be fairly said that Australians are fast coming to realise that the only way they can protect their future, their privacy and their retirement security-let us put it frankly and bluntly on the line after this abject day today-is to toss out this Government, led by a fraudulent, sanctimonious, misleading Prime Minister, who has brought in an outrageously expensive scheme both in terms of money and in terms of cost to the freedoms of Australians. The Prime Minister, throughout his statement, attacked the Opposition for allegedly creating fear and uncertainty in the minds of pensioners. We have simply highlighted the frightening facts and the harsh realities of Labor's 1984 socialist Utopia. That is what flows from the Prime Minister's statement. That is what flows from the imposition of this sort of test. It is another example of the Prime Minister's treatment of legitimate criticisms and concerns of pensioners as reflected by the Opposition. It is the hallmark of this man's obsession with his view. We will not resile from our responsibility to focus on this Government and its actions, to highlight the injustices that it is perpetrating and to condemn it roundly for its actions. We put this Prime Minister on notice. Whether it be his assets test, his death duties, his capital gains tax or the restrictions on freedom that flow from this announcement today, we will not stop until he is driven from office. No amount of hectoring and sanctimonious sentiments seeking to fog the facts will move us from saying to Australians time and again: This is the greatest brake on your chances to improve your livelihood and that of your family, to live in peace without invasion by bureaucracy. We will take on this Government on this issue in the name of growth, development, freedom and planned retirement for the elderly so that they can live with certainty, and this Government will be defeated. It cannot come into this Parliament and allege all this and impose all these constraints at a cost of $30m if the net gain in years to come is half a Kit-Kat or half a cup of tea. That is about all that this Government deserves to be paid for the miserable scheme it has brought in today. Debate (on motion by Mr Charles) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Kerin)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 447, General Business, being called on forthwith. Motion for Disallowance Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(12.27) —I move: That the Medical Services (Fees) Ordinance 1984 (No. 7 of 1984), made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. This motion relates to an action by this Government which is as futile and as extraordinary in its way, although only in a minor way in the Australian Capital Territory, as the assets test which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced for the elderly this morning. Just as the announced assets test is to take on 1,500 Public Service inspectors, intrude into every pensioner's household in the whole of Australia and cost $30m in its first year and bring in only a miserable $45m in subsequent years, we have from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) an ordinance to control fees of doctors in the Australian Capital Territory; fees which are already within the bounds set by this Government and this Minister. The ordinance and statutory rules that were introduced by the Government seek to fix medical fees that may be charged to private patients in public hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory for certain medical diagnostic services. These services are prescribed under section 17(1)(a) of the Health Insurance Act. So far the prescribed services which are identified in the health insurance regulations amendment are restricted to diagnostic pathology services and radiology although the Minister has made it clear that he sees these being extended to other services at a later date. The background to this matter is the dispute with the doctors earlier this year . The Minister has said over a period of months, certainly since the introduction of the Medicare Levy Bill last year, that the costs of the services of diagnostic specialists, mainly pathologists and radiologists but a few other services, were excessive; that these people were charging in excess of schedule fees, that they were not paying satisfactory dues to the public hospital facilities which they used for their practices and that, therefore, the Government had to come in and control their contracts with the public hospitals and take urgent steps to reduce these costs. That was the background to this measure. In the Medicare Levy Bill of September last year the Minister introduced the notorious section 17 of the Health Insurance Act and under this he sought to take total control, without any right of appeal, over the contracts between private doctors and public hospitals where the doctors were treating their own patients in those hospitals. The rational for taking this extraordinary step, which was a way around the amendment to section 51 of the Constitution which prohibits civil conscription of doctors, was based on the claim that pathologists and radiologists were charging excessive fees beyond the schedule fee. Section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, as the Opposition warned the Minister in September last year during the Medicare debate, would be resented by independent private medical specialists, not just the pathologists and radiologists but all the other specialists-the orthopaedic surgeons, the general surgeons, the anaesthetists, the whole lot of them-because they knew, or at least they subsequently found out, that the Minister had under section 17 of the Health Insurance Act the powers to control all doctors contracts, not just those of diagnostic specialists. Indeed they also found out that the Minister had said in a speech to the Doctors Reform Society last year that he had the intention of extending these controls to all other specialities in due course. Understandably the private independent specialists, who provide the essential services in our public and private hospitals and on whom the lives of Australians depend, were astonished that the Minister should try these draconian controls when they already had contracts with their hospitals and these contracts provided for payments to the hospitals for use of facilities. They saw in this an attempt by this Minister to get around that historic provision in the Constitution which prevents a Federal government from nationalising private independent medical practice. It was also clear, because of the general attitude of hostility of the Australian Labor Party towards the medical profession and from various things this Minister and other Ministers and members opposite have said over a period, that doctors simply do not trust in the hands of a Federal Minister of this persuasion the powers that were under section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. A very difficult situation was developing. Last year the Opposition warned the Government that if it proceeded with section 17 of the Health Insurance Act there would be trouble. The doctors had tried to co-operate with the Government in the implementation of Medicare. The Australian Medical Association took a very cautious line at the beginning but it became clear eventually that the Government had other intentions. We all know the unhappy history this year that this Minister and this Government provoked the first strike of doctors in Australian medical history. A doctors strike is a first for the Hawke Government. What did the Government do? Instead of taking conciliatory action, instead of trying to find out what it was all about, the Minister and the Prime Minister compared the doctors with the Builders Labourers Federation of Australia. That is an incredible insult. Every single doctor in the country was slighted by the comments made by this Minister and the Prime Minister and they refused to withdraw those remarks. Those remarks are still on the record and they are still indicative of the contempt with which the medical profession is held by this Minister and this Government. We had the very unfortunate confirmation of the kind of attitude that obviously exists within the Minister's office. Last night in the Senate my colleague Senator Walters incorporated in Hansard a very objectionable ditty given out to State health Ministers by the Minister's office which is derogatory of the profession in a most scandalous way. It is also derogatory of the officers of the Australian Medical Association who are extremely honourable men and have done their best throughout this dispute to try to come to a satisfactory conclusion. The doctors refuse to sign one-sided contracts, quite correctly in my view, and this threw the Federal Government into a frenzy. The Federal Minister spoke to his State Labor colleagues. He said: 'If they will not sign these contracts we will use State price control measures to bring them into line'. Every Labor State was asked to introduce price control regulations on the doctors. He said: 'We will tell them'. It emerged, when the Opposition looked at each of the States and each of the situations in each of the States, that these diagnostic specialists and radiologists were all, in every case, charging no more than the schedule fee and in every single case were paying facility charges to the hospitals whose equipment they were using for their practice. The State Minister in South Australia, for example, said that he did not know what the fuss was all about because in his State all the doctors were doing what the Federal Minister said they ought to be doing. But he said in a most extraordinary interview on Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio One one morning: 'The doctors cannot defy our Federal Minister'. Dr Cornwall said: 'My Government in South Australia is going to bring in price control regulations and we will force these doctors by law to do what they are already doing'. That is what happened and the same thing happened after the State election in New South Wales-not before; the New South Wales Government did not have the guts before. In Victoria Mr Roper, the running dog of the Federal Minister, introduced this legislation in Victoria and here, miserably, this Minister has introduced this wretched little ordinance in the Australian Capital Territory where again in the same way as in the States every single diagnostic specialist is charging the schedule fee or less and paying facilities charges to our public hospitals. What on earth is all this about? The purpose of my motion today is to wipe this objectionable, wretched measure off the statute book in the Australian Capital Territory. It is totally and absolutely unnecessary. Heaven forbid. This morning 1,500 public servants are knocking on pensioners' doors, rummaging through their assets to see whether they should have their pension taken away for a total annual saving in three years' time of $45m-half a Kit-Kat, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said, per week to pensioners. Half a Kit-Kat would be the savings yet we have this Minister using the whole panoply of the law to enforce something that is already being observed. However at the same time he is challenging the right of doctors, specialist doctors, people with the highest skill on whom our lives depend, to private independent practice. This is the thin edge of the wedge. The Government has said that it intends to extend this to other specialities. The surgeons spend apart from their six years at university about seven years in training beyond that. They have to become highly skilled. They have to be talented. They have to be careful in their personal habits. They have to remain fit. Their eyes have to be good. Their hands must not shake. They cannot drink or lead bad lives in any way. They must learn again and again new techniques. They will be told by this Minister that the Federal Government will control the fees that they can charge their private patients. What this means along the line, and it is why the surgeons are objecting and indeed why the surgeons in New South Wales are resigning from the public hospitals, is that under this Government-the dreary, mediocre, socialism of this Government-a surgeon at the height of his powers, a surgeon who has been practising for 15 or 20 years, who has perfected life saving techniques which others perhaps cannot equal, is not allowed, under the kinds of schemes of this Government, to charge any fee different from that fee charged by a surgeon who has just emerged from training. What is the rationale behind this? The rationale comes back to the accord. The hand that is writing this legislation is the hand of the Australian Council of Trade Unions that dictates to this Government what legislation it shall bring in. Non-wage incomes must be controlled, says the accord. The ACTU says that people earning non-wage incomes must receive consistent treatment with other workers. That is what the accord says. The Minister, in support of what he is trying to do, says what sauce is good for the goose is good for the gander. If all the workers in Australia had their salaries and wages arbitrated why should not the professions? My reaction to that is to ask why on earth this should happen to the rest of the community? Why should a plumber who does a bad job get the same wage as a plumber who does the best job? Why should somebody who gets up early and works harder be on exactly the same arbitrated level as somebody who does not give a damn? Is that the sort of society we want in Australia? That is the sort of society that the Australian Council of Trade Unions, through the accord, is imposing on this Government because its is the hand that writes the legislation. That was agreed to before the election by the Government and imposed on the community. That was agreed as a result of the National Economic Summit Conference and imposed by this Minister on the medical profession. This brings us to question what the basic values of our society are. Do we want a society in which everybody is levelled, everybody's slot is pre-ordained and some commission or some set of judges, people remote from the actual work face, determine the slot that a person is to occupy? Mr White —That is what they want. Mr CARLTON —Indeed. Are we to return to a mediaeval order of society in which every person has his or her slot? Are we to return to a society in which nobody can do better by being better, by getting up earlier, by studying harder, by remaining sober? Is that the sort of society we want? That is the kind of society represented by this document and by this Government. We had an example of it this morning when the Prime Minister told us about the wretched, miserable assets test on the elderly. The elderly will now have their possessions rummaged through. These are people who, through their working lives, have tried hard to save and in the process have made this country what it is. Their savings have built the country just as the skills of the surgeons and the doctors, the radiologists and the other diagnostic specialists keep the citizens of Australia alive. Now the Minister for Health is rummaging through the doctors' possessions and saying they have to fill in forms to be in a slot, do no better than anybody else, and so on. What is the future of health care and excellence in medicine with this sort of regime? What will be the long term outcome of Medicare? The whole of Medicare is of the ilk that nobody shall do better than anyone else; nobody shall be allowed to spend private money to get additional treatment. The people who choose to insure privately or to ask for a private doctor, who do not spend their money at the TAB or pub and who do not go on overseas holidays, who are thrifty and who wish, by their own free choice, to spend more of their disposable income on health, because they wish to have a private professional relationship with their doctor, are the sorts of people that this Government hates. This Government hates anybody who is trying to do better than anybody else, who is trying to achieve more than anybody else, who is saving more, who is thrifty and who perhaps enjoys the fruits of his work. That is the sort of person this Government hates and cannot abide. Today in this House we had two examples of that. One of these was of monumental proportions with the Prime Minister himself coming into the House and describing the miserable philosophy of this Government. Now in the Australian Capital Territory when the doctors are already minding their own business, charging the schedule fees, paying facility charges to the public hospitals whose equipment they use, operating professionally, honourably, satisfactorily and within the cost constraints declared by the Minister, the Minister comes into this House with a price control ordinance and regulation which will fix the fees the doctors are already charging. We can only suspect, as will the doctors-as will the orthopaedic surgeons resigning from public hospitals this very day in New South Wales-that this is the thin end of the wedge. We have the Minister's own words to back that up. I have quoted the Minister's words on many previous occasions and will continue to do so. I ask the House to reject this ordinance, to knock it out-as we in this House can and have the power to do in this House alone-and at the same time strike a blow against the accord and against the deadening, mediocre philosophy of socialism. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is the motion seconded? Mr White —I second the motion with great pleasure and reserve my right to speak later in the debate. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware of an apparent claim made today by the Minister for Social Security that the checks to be carried out to confirm the assets test declarations will be handled by the Australian Taxation Office? Will the Minister assure the House that information will not be fed from the Taxation Office to the Department of Social Security in an attempt to check on pensioners' assets? Dr BLEWETT —My understanding of the checking of the assets test is that it will be carried out as unobtrusively as possible. Mr Peacock —What does that mean? Dr BLEWETT —Let me explain. Most of the information will be self-assessed. As the threshold levels are extremely high, there will be only a limited amount of checking. Let me point out that, on our statistics, something like 40,000 pensioners out of about three million will be affected by this test. Therefore, there will be minimal checking to be done. Mr HUMPHREYS —Has the attention of the Special Minister of State been drawn to a recent article which suggests that the Sunshine Coast of Queensland is the centre of a drug running operation? Is the Minister in a position to comment on that article? Can he also comment on statements suggesting that the Federal Government is neglecting the fight against drug trafficking in Australia? Mr YOUNG —I will read some lines from a document. If members of the Opposition want me to table it, I will be quite happy to do so. My attention has been drawn not only to the Age article involved in the question asked by the honourable member for Boothby yesterday but also to other articles that have appeared in the Press in various parts of Australia. I have sought and received information on these matters from the Australian Federal Police. Indeed, as is the practice of the relationship between the AFP and the Minister, I have been kept informed of police operations which could be connected with the broad ambit of the matters canvassed by the Melbourne Age and other newspapers. It is not my intention, nor has it been the intention of any previous Minister for the AFP, to lay out before the House details of any current police investigations which may have some connection with the matters alluded to. It has never been the practice of governments to publicise details of sensitive and ongoing operations, something that I am sure the honourable member for Bass could confirm. However, I make the observation that it appears that the Melbourne Age has run a thread through snippets taken from a range of current police operations and tied that thread to various aspects of work which has been done by various royal commissions and other criminal intelligence agencies. While that represents a very plausible story, some of the conclusions being made in the Press seem to be running well ahead of current police intelligence on these matters. Beyond that, I do not intend to comment on the specifics of the articles. I am sure that honourable members would recognise it as being irresponsible if I did. I now turn to the suggestion that perhaps this Government is not in some way fair dinkum about combating drug trafficking and organised crime in this country . Let me refute that by saying several things. The previous Government addressed the question by the establishment of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. We have continued the support for that organisation and have consolidated it by the unanimous support given to it by all the State governments. We are committed to the establishment of a National Crime Authority which will be set up, take over from and continue the work of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking as soon as the legislation has passed both Houses. When looking at the Costigan Royal Commission, it is interesting to note that in the first year of our office we increased its staff from 69 to 120. We increased the expenditure for the Costigan Royal Commission from $2.96m to $6. 38m in one year so that the resources required by Commissioner Costigan in his fight and investigation into these matters was as he requested. That, of course, was a direct response to many of the things that had been exposed in his earlier reports. In the latest announcement by the Government on the administrative changes to coastal surveillance, it will again be noted that coastal surveillance has now been put under the charter of the Australian Federal Police. The three units that will be set up on the ground in North Queensland, north western Australia, after consultations with both State governments, and Darwin are primarily aimed at drug trafficking in those areas. I also take the opportunity of outlining some of the more significant successes of the Australian Federal Police in the past few months working with the assistance of the Australian Customs Service and, on many occasions, with other intelligence agencies and the State police forces. In June of last year, approximately 35 kilos of heroin was seized; in August, 27 kilos of heroin and in December, 70 kilos of cannabis resin. Over the New Year period, 23 kilos of heroin were seized and in January, 264 kilos of cannabis resin. In February- March, a seizure was made of 2.2 tonnes of cannabis resin. In March of this year , two seizures were made of 89 kilos of hashish oil and 260 kilos of cannabis resin. In April, 28 kilos of heroin were seized and, just last month, two tonnes of cannabis resin were picked up. It must be noted, of course, that some of those seizures were initiated by the Customs Service or by the State police. I think the evidence, on the information I have given to the House today, tends to justify and substantiate the Government's claim that we have done a great deal and are continuing to do a great deal in the fight against drug trafficking in this country. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security and relates to the question I asked him earlier concerning the apparent claim by the Minister for Social Security that the Australian Taxation Office would be used to check assets test declarations. The Minister said in his answer that 40,000 pensioners may lose part or all of their pensions . But the fact is that most pensioners have personal assets worth over $10,000. Therefore, they will all have to lodge forms. I ask him again whether he will ensure that the Taxation Office will not feed information to the Department of Social Security to check on Australian pensioners. Dr BLEWETT —It is my understanding that the valuation area of the Taxation Office is quite separate from the general administration of the taxation system and that that office will be used to check problems with self-assessed claims. Mr SCOTT —Is the Minister for Aviation aware of the crash last night of a Piper Comanche at Adelaide Airport? Can the Minister advise the extent of injuries to passengers and crew and to any members of the local community? Will the Minister seek a full inquiry into the crash? 'curtilage': Mr PEACOCK —I will enlighten the honourable member. The Oxford Dictionary says this of 'curtilage': TO BILLY TRACTOR PLEASE Mr BEAZLEY —The facts, as indicated by the first part of the honourable gentleman's question, are correct. I am aware that a Piper Comanche aircraft on a private flight from Essendon to Strathalbyn in South Australia, upon being instructed to divert to Adelaide and subsequently reporting and experiencing a rough running engine and then, eventually, a cut-out, crashed in the environment of Adelaide Airport last night. I am advised that no major injuries were sustained by any of the occupants-they received minor injuries-and no injuries were sustained by any person on the ground. A full investigation of the accident -as in every case where there is an accident or an incident-is being undertaken by the Adelaide field office of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. I stress that this investigation was initiated immediately after the crash and was not instigated, as has been suggested in an Adelaide newspaper, in response to a request from any of the local politicians. When an aircraft crashes such an investigation automatically takes place. Questions were also asked in that paper as to why a disabled plane was brought in over a residential area. The aircraft was 4,000 feet above sea level when it crossed built up areas. I am advised that the pilot reported that he was able to maintain cruise and altitude. It was only when making preparations for landing that the pilot reported total engine failure. As I indicated earlier, there will be a complete investigation. We did not need to be urged to undertake that. Any suggestion that there has been some relationship between occasional phone calls from local politicians and that investigation is, of course, false. The question has also been raised-and the honourable gentleman has raised it with me privately-as to the future of Adelaide Airport. He has expressed considerable concern about the proximity of built up areas to Adelaide Airport. I can report that the Government has agreed that work should proceed on the identification of a future major airport site in the Two Wells area north of Adelaide. It is expected that some of the necessary tasks will require the assistance of State government departments. The matter is under consideration at this time by the South Australian airports committee. Mr SINCLAIR —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security explain why the Government accepted the pleas of the right wing of the Australian Labor Party, represented in this place by the Treasurer, on changes to the Hawke assets test, but rejected the minority recommendation of the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test for a special $100,000 exemption for farmers which was equally cogently argued? Dr BLEWETT —The decision that the Government has announced today reflects a change in the assets test proposals, which in every way move towards the criteria set down by Gruen. Although we did not accept the full Gruen scheme, the changes we made and announced today, on all of the criteria laid down by Gruen, move in the Gruen direction. In relation to the particular point raised by the Leader of the National Party of Australia, I point out that if he had read the Gruen report thoroughly he would have seen that the majority of members of that Panel argued very cogently for the treatment of an assets test for farmers in the way that we have treated it. Mr HOLLIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. What assistance has the Government provided to the Australian shipping industry to place it on a more commercial footing with our overseas shipping competitors? Has there been any reaction so far by the industry to any measures the Government has taken? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for Macarthur for his question on this very important issue and at the same time commend him for the very active role he plays in the support of the development of Australian shipping. Let me say at the outset that, unlike the Opposition, this Government is committed to the development of a reasonably competitive Australian shipping industry, because that will improve our position with respect to invisibles, our balance of trade, and it will improve the opportunity for Australians to gain jobs. It will create jobs for Australians who are presently unemployed as a result of the policies of the previous Government over the past seven years. Despite the fact that we are a major trading nation in the world we are an almost insignificant maritime nation. We propose to change that situation. The House will be aware that we have in recent legislation provided responsible commercial assistance to the Australian shipping industry. On 12 April the new income tax measures for Australian shipping came into force. They provide for an investment allowance to be available, for the first time, for Australian ships that are trading overseas. They also provide for five year depreciation allowances to be available-- Mr Sinclair —He is not reading! Mr PETER MORRIS —No, I am not reading; I am like the right honourable member. It will be available to Australian shipping with a provision for a one-year allowance in respect of pre-delivery. That puts Australian ship owners on a comparative basis with overseas ship owners. The entitlement to those allowances is conditional upon the manning levels of those new vessels being approved by the Secretary of the Department of Transport. The reaction of industry to the legislation-the question that the honourable member raised-has been most favourable. It has been positive and it has been rather rapid. Yesterday the Secretary of the Department of Transport approved manning levels for two new vessels for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I think it is a great step forward for the Australian shipping industry. I am pleased to say that BHP is to purchase two new large bulk carriers for the Japanese coal trade. The ships will be engaged in the transport of coal to Japan and in the transport of iron ore around Australia-the triangular trade of coal to Japan, ballast back to Port Hedland and iron ore across to the east coast of Australia. The BHP deal is a package that comprises the building of the vessels in Japan and the transport of the Australian product to Japan. It is an initiative that BHP has developed. It shows what an Australian company can do when government, the trade union movement and Australian industry work together as a direct result of the policy of consultation and consensus that has been practised by this Government. The question of manning levels has been raised by the former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir. I am pleased to say to him that the agreed crewing level is 26, the number sought by BHP. That level was achieved with the full co-operation of the seagoing unions and it puts new Australian vessels into the coal export trade. Let me say to the honourable member that BHP's success means the beginning of a new era in the Australian shipping industry. It means we can look forward to an increased share of our trade being carried in Australian ships, owned by Australians and manned by Australians. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Will the Minister table the papers from which he was reading? Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thought it was evident to the honourable member who raised the point, Mr Speaker, that I could not have been reading as I was looking at him as I answered the question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have asked the Minister a specific question. Mr PETER MORRIS —No. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It has become an idiotic practice of the Opposition to seek under this standing order information-- Mr Sinclair —Where is your point of order? Mr Keating —I will get to it, George; just hang on. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! He does not have a chance to raise the point of order when the Speaker cannot hear him because of the interjections. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, if the point of access by the Parliament to a public document is whether the contents of that public document are relevant to an answer, that is fine. But it is not the purpose of the standing order for Opposition members to try under this procedure to take Ministers' notes. That is why this idiotic practice should stop. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. It is an explanation of the standing order. Mr STEELE HALL —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I refer to last night's Nationwide program which concluded with the following statement on crime and drugs: . . . it's believed the right wing of the New South Wales Labor Party is putting considerable pressure on the Federal Government to make sure the Costigan Commission does in fact wind up on the 30th of next month. In view of that statement, I ask: Who were the individuals in that right wing who put pressure on the Government and what did they ask for? Mr HAWKE —I am not in the habit of watching Nationwide but whether or not I am is not really important. I can assure the House that this Government is certainly not in the practice of having its decisions determined by what may be said on that or any other Australian Broadcasting Corporation program. As the Special Minister of State has indicated, we already have a much prouder record than that of honourable members opposite in anything they did in their seven miserable years of office in effectively using the available instruments to deal with the great and pressing problem of organised crime in this country. The people of this country will reject with the contempt it deserves any suggestion that this Government would be influenced by any group within the Australian Labor Party or outside it in a manner which would in any way diminish the attack by this Government on organised crime. The very fact that the honourable member would ask such a question is a measure of the miserable depth to which he has descended. Ms McHUGH —Has the attention of the Minister for Communications been drawn to criticisms of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation by Senator Peter Rae arising out of recent appearances by the ABC before a Senate Estimates committee ? Will the Minister provide the House with the background to these criticisms? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for her question. I think it is necessary to clarify the criticisms made before Estimates Committee A, particularly by Senator Rae. The ABC appeared before that Committee on 30 May as a result of dissatisfaction expressed by the Committee with certain aspects of the previous appearance by the ABC before the Committee. Senator Rae on behalf of the Committee questioned Mr Whitehead, the Managing Director of the ABC, about the circumstances which led to the ABC holding a Press conference on 4 May to announce a major restructuring of the Corporation at about the same time as the Estimates Committee wanted to hear evidence from it. Senator Rae indicated that the holding of the Press conference at that time was a snub by the ABC of the Estimates Committee. He indicated further that since 1971 the Estimates Committee had been critical of information or, more particularly, lack of it, provided by the ABC. He also indicated that ABC representatives at the meeting on 4 May were not informed on the question of the ABC restructure and that despite a number of questions about structural changes no mention was made of the restructure or of the Press conference in Sydney. In answer to those questions Mr Whitehead stated that he did not expect questions about the restructuring because that was not part of the 1983-84 estimates which were being discussed by the Committee. However, he apologised to the Committee and stated that in hindsight the timing of the news conference was an oversight. It is worth noting that Senator Button indicated that the date of that meeting had been determined on 2 May and had been rescheduled on two occasions and that that was a contributing factor to the clash. One of the disturbing matters, however, was that the next day Senator Rae, on the program AM, said, in response to a question by the interviewer, that Mr Whitehead's inexperience in the job may have been a major cause of the problem. Senator Rae stated that if Mr Whitehead had not learnt that the ABC's first responsibility was its duty to public accountability, 'then I begin to wonder about his competence in the job'. Mr Hawke —He was attacking the ABC. Mr DUFFY —Exactly. It is an extraordinary situation when the Managing Director of the ABC is criticised in that way before a committee of the Senate in relation to information that in no way could he be expected to have anticipated would be a matter about which he would be asked by that Committee. In relation to competence it is well worth remembering, and Senator Rae ought to be reminded, that in the seven years in which Mr Whitehead was the Managing Director of the Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand, that organisation went from a situation of a $l.8m loss to a $4.8m profit. Therefore the competence of Mr Whitehead is, I think, beyond question. I think that in the next couple of years it will be clearly indicated that Mr Whitehead's contribution to the public life of this country will be far in excess of that provided by Senator Rae. Mr EWEN CAMERON —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Is it a fact that the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union recently intended to sit for two weeks in Queensland but because of Mr Costigan's illness was unable to do so? Is it now the case that the Costigan Commission will not be able to complete its investigations into crime and drugs in Queensland before the expiry date forced on it by the Government? Will the Government therefore extend the life of the Costigan Commission to ensure that police on the job have the backing of the centralised resources necessary to match organised crime? Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the Costigan Royal Commission will not be disbanded while it has further tasks to perform in relation to criminal drug activity in Queensland? Mr YOUNG —There has never been one shred of evidence of any hurdle at all being put in the way of the Costigan Commission inquiries-not in any part of Australia or under any circumstance. It is true that Commissioner Costigan has been ill for some time. It is also true that the timetable that was sought for the termination of the Costigan Commission and its handing over to the National Crime Authority was set after discussions between me as the Minister responsible for the Commission and Commissioner Costigan himself some months ago. I visited Commission Costigan in hospital last week. There was no request from him to change that timetable. The only thing that is holding up that timetable is the other place. The amendments to the National Crime Authority Bill, which have resulted from the Senate inquiry, together with consultations that this Government has held with every State government that requires amendments to the Bill, are now being held up because the Senate has not debated them. The honourable member knows because I have told him time and again in this House that this House will not rise until such time as the National Crimes Authority Bill has been passed. Mr Cadman —Why are we staying here until 2 o'clock in the morning then? Mr YOUNG —Because I like the look of the honourable member. I was very sorry when he was kicked out and was missing. Let me conclude by saying this to the honourable member for Indi: There has never been nor will there be any hindrance placed in the path of Commissioner Costigan. He has done an outstanding job for this country. He has done a job which was not envisaged by the Fraser Government when that Government set up the Royal Commission. In spite of all the allegations made by the honourable member for Boothby in his question earlier today and by other people, it was not people in the Labor Party who got found out by Commissioner Costigan; it was people in the Liberal Party. Mr REEVES —Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has claimed that he attempted to see the Minister earlier this week to sort out the problems experienced by an American film crew at Kakadu National Park? Has the Chief Minister had any contact with the Minister or his office in the past week? If not, has the Chief Minister told a deliberate lie? Mr COHEN —I have been informed that on Australian Broadcasting Corporation news and other items in the Northern Territory the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory has been stating that early this week he tried to contact my office; that he came to my office and asked to see me; that I was on the phone and too busy to see him. I have spoken with all of my staff-I have questioned them twice now-and all of them state that they have not seen Mr Everingham physically, nor have they had any contact with him, nor have they had any requests from or any contact whatsoever with Mr Everingham's office. Frankly, I am absolutely mystified as to what he is talking about. Over the past 15 months, whenever any Minister of any Government, State or Federal, has sought to see me, if I could possibly see him, I would see him immediately or speak to him immediately. When Mr Everingham has contacted my office, I have answered the phone and spoken to him or returned his call. Unfortunately, with this particular Minister there has been an experience over the last 12 months, not only in respect of this incident but also in respect of incidents with my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, that not only are things distorted but also they are totally invented. It is an incredible thing for a man to have structured a whole mythical meeting or some events that never occurred. I can only describe Mr Everingham-I use the word advisedly-as an unmitigated liar. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister knows that I have tried to keep that sort of expression out of the proceedings of the House. I would ask him to withdraw. Mr COHEN —I withdraw it. Mr SPEAKER —I thank the Minister. Mr McVEIGH —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware that a significant number of Australian farmers, including the elderly people, have quite high mortgages on their properties? Will the proposed assets test apply to the estimated sale value of the property or the farmer's equity in the property? If it is to apply to the estimated sales value, will the Government consider removing this gross anomaly and injustice to our great farming community? Dr BLEWETT —The assets test, as designed, applies to the market value of those properties. The situation is very much the same as that in relation to most other small businesses. As Gruen pointed out, to make an exception in this case would be to open a whole opportunity for assets test evasion. This was one of his major arguments for-- Mr McVeigh —Oh! This is a rotten decision, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You should get out of the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr McVeigh —I will not sit down and take this sort of tripe on behalf of Australian farmers. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member. Mr McVeigh —You will destroy them. You are being unjust. It is totally intolerable. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Darling Downs that the next plane is not until 5 p.m. Dr BLEWETT —I am sorry; I made an error. We begin with the market value of the property but then take off liabilities against it. Mr MAHER —Will the Minister for Communications kindly inform the House of progress towards the settlement of the dispute at Australia Post's Leightfield Mail Exchange, which dispute, since February, has caused much delay to the delivery of mail within my electorate and other parts of Sydney? Mr DUFFY —The industrial dispute referred to by the honourable member has caused considerable difficulties and delays to mail over the past six to seven weeks and has been a matter of grave concern to Australia Post and myself. As I indicated to the honourable member privately a couple of days ago, a considerable amount of correspondence has been received from the area, particularly from business people who have been extremely worried about this matter. Also, it has caused some difficulty to the honourable member, because he has been receiving invitations to attend functions some days after the functions have been held. But it has not affected the flow of mail from the honourable member to Ministers. However, on the serious aspect of the matter, I am very pleased to be able to advise the House that within the last week agreement has been reached whereby Australia Post has put on about 30 extra staff at the affected Post Office, and all mail up to about 26 May which had been delayed has now been cleared.It is hoped that the proper procedure for the settlement of disputes is now in place. Mr HOWARD —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I preface it by saying that I think there is genuine confusion in the minds of many people as to whether in relation to that component of the assets test announced this morning which does not include the house, the Government is talking about net value after subtracting liabilities of a secured or unsecured kind, or whether the Government is talking about gross value. I suggest that if those fairly simple words had been used, we may all have been spared that confusion. Will the honourable gentleman please now make the position perfectly clear? In the interests of allaying concern genuinely felt by many people who may be affected, will he issue a carefully worded, simple clarifying statement? Dr BLEWETT —I make it quite clear that the reference is to net value, not gross value. Full details of that will be spelt out in a statement by my colleague the Minister for Social Security. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Is it a fact that in the last Budget the Federal Government made a grant of $1m available to the Queensland Government under section 96 of the Constitution to subsidise the diesel fuel costs of electricity generation on Great Barrier Reef island tourist resorts? What arrangements have so far been made to ensure that the grant has been properly disbursed to eligible tourist operators? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for that question absolutely without notice, which seems to be his wont. I can inform the House on what has happened to that $1m. Honourable members and particularly the absent members from north Queensland might remember with some sadness that the previous Government took away from the tourist industry its exemption from diesel fuel excise which meant that the off-shore islands, particularly off Queensland, which in some ways were an iron lung for all the towns on the coast, were suddenly faced with an imposition of 7 cents on every litre of diesel fuel they used to generate electricity, among other things. This Government, realising the importance of tourism, not just to Queensland but to Australia generally, sought to alleviate that situation. The only way we could do it was to make $1m available to the Queensland Government under a section 96 grant to subsidise the cost of generating electricity on the islands. I am pleased to inform the honourable member that at long last the Queensland Government has got around to doing something about it. The amount of $1m was made available to the Queensland Government to disburse to these islands under a set of arrangements which has taken it six months to develop. I am pleased to note that in the last month we have been able to pay some money to the Queensland Government to disburse to these islands. The fact that the present honourable member for Herbert and the present honourable member for Leichhardt are members of this House is due not only to their exceptional brilliance as members but also to the stupidity of the previous Government that made those seats available to us by cutting off the lifeline to those towns by imposing all sorts of penalties on the tourist industry. In conclusion, something is happening at long last. The Queensland Government has its act together and some money is being paid to try to alleviate the costs of electricity generation. Mr KATTER —Will the Minister for Territories and Local Government advise the House of details of the recently formed committee of inquiry into the financing of local authorities? Will he provide the following information: Who are the chairman and members of the committee? Are there any active and elected members of local government on the committee? What consultation took place with local authorities, particularly the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, prior to the decision to make this move and to appoint the committee members? Will the activities, inquiries and itineraries of the committee assure- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I know that this is the first question the honourable member has asked this session but he is straining the Chair a bit with the length of the question. I hope he can round it off so that the Minister can answer. Mr KATTER —Will the activities, inquiries and itineraries of this committee assure that evidence is taken revealing the difficulties and problems of local authorities and the funding of their ever-increasing responsibilities? Finally, will the Minister ensure that meaningful hearings are held in areas beyond the metropolitan and larger provincial city areas? Mr UREN —As honourable members are aware, the Whitlam Labor Government in 1973 for the first time made money available directly to local government. The grant was $59m. This year that amount has risen to $459m. Legislation was introduced in the Parliament in 1976 by the Fraser Government. That legislation is now under review. There has been no investigation into the moneys directed from the Commonwealth Government to local government with no ties. Honourable members travel around the States. They are aware that every State in Australia has been critical of its State government, irrespective of politics. On the one hand, the Australian Government has been making money available to local government and, on the other hand, State governments have siphoned money away from local governments. Therefore, the Federal Government felt that it was time to examine all aspects of local government finances. The Government made the decision last August to proceed in this regard. During the period since then we have been having discussions with the States through the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and we have been having patient private discussions as well to try to get agreement on the terms of reference and also on the group to be involved. We have also had discussions with local government authorities and the States have now agreed to be involved. Regrettably, Queensland will not be a part of the inquiry although it has the support of local government in Queensland. The terms of reference and membership of the committee have been announced. The committee is to review the local government tax sharing arrangements and report on any changes required to improve the operation of the Local Government ( Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 with reference to the respective roles of the Commonwealth and the States in regard to local government; the purpose and functions of local government revenue sharing; the level and form of funding for local government available from Commonwealth, State and local government sources ; and the principles which should determine the level and allocation of the local government revenue sharing funds between and within States. The chairman of the inquiry will be Professor Peter Self, Professor of Public Administration at the London School of Economics from 1963 to 1982. He is now a visiting fellow at the urban research unit of the Australian National University . Also on the inquiry will be Michael Eyers, an urban economist, Dr Judith Yates , a senior lecturer in economics at Sydney University, Mr Anthony Philbrick, Town Clerk and City Administrator of Brisbane City Council, Mr Noel Dawkins, Chief Executive Officer of the City of Canning in Western Australia-he is no relation to the Minister for Finance-Mr Peter Emery, the Deputy Under Treasurer in South Australia, and Dr Ian Manning, a Research Fellow at the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at Melbourne University. I think honourable members will agree that that is a wide cross-section of capable people. I believe they will do a fine job of looking into local government finances which I hope will be in the interests of not only this Parliament but also the States and local government and that they will work together to solve our problems. Dr BLEWETT —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to correct an answer. In reply to two earlier questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition I did not think it was necessary to make the point that tax information would be supplied to the valuation area of the Australian Taxation Office. However, it is probably important for me to say, given the type of campaign that has been waged by the Opposition against the assets test, that, of course, no tax information will be used by that valuation area. That is clear under the provisions of section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. We will make use of the expertise of the valuation area but all the information will be provided through the Department of Social Security. Mr PORTER(Barker) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr PORTER —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr PORTER —I refer again to the misrepresentation by the Minister for Health of my statement yesterday in relation to the reduction in government funding to the trachoma program. Unfortunately, that misrepresentation was repeated- Mr Peacock —What was in the boot? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I say to the Leader of the Opposition that one of his colleagues is right alongside him making a personal explanation and he is interrupting. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition just made a remark for which I am taking a damages action against the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales. If he wants to join the queue, he only has to say it outside. Mr Peacock —What are you complaining about? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the two honourable members to resume their seats. I gave them the call on the assumption that it had something to do with the proceedings of the House, not an across the chamber exchange. Mr Peacock —On the point of order; I have been invited to make a statement and I am very happy to make a statement dealing with Mr Keating's associations with people in New South Wales. If he will specify the areas I am happy to do that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will get to his point of order. Mr Peacock —Because I know some of the contacts he has-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —As do others. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, on a point of order-- Mr SPEAKER —I trust that the Treasurer is dealing with the proceedings of the House and not continuing just a personal conversation across the table. Mr Keating —It is not a personal conversation when I am maligned viciously by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the Treasurer that that was not part of the proceedings of the House. The honourable member for Barker was addressing the House when that occurred, and I suggest-- Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, you have just permitted the Leader of the Opposition to make a remark to which I want to respond. Mr SPEAKER —I asked the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat and stopped him speaking in order to call the other-- Mr Keating —Yes, but, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made remarks about associations I have-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the Treasurer found those remarks offensive he should ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr Keating —I do wish them to be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer having found those remarks offensive, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw them. Mr Peacock —Well, he finds it offensive that I should refer-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There are only two words needed-'I withdraw'. Mr Peacock —I want to be clear. I was referring to the company he keeps and, if he finds that offensive, that is his own subjective judgment. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, what I object to is that the Leader of the Opposition made an inane reference earlier to the picture-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Will the Treasurer indicate what he found offensive? Mr Keating —Yes, I will indicate, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition said earlier that I mixed with a crook and I simply made the point that his deputy in New South Wales, and I am suing for it-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer has indicated that the Leader of the Opposition made a remark that he associated with a crook. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. Mr Peacock —I do not know what he is talking about. I am not going to withdraw anything I said-- Mr Keating —I want you to withdraw the remark you made earlier. Mr Peacock —I am not going to withdraw anything I said-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows-- Mr Keating —What I am requiring is that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw the remark he made earlier which he made-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —I have not said anything offensive at all to this Parliament, nothing at all. Mr SPEAKER —Order! As the Treasurer claimed that those remarks were offensive to him, I am required to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. I ask you to withdraw. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I recognise that you are required to ask me to withdraw, but I also recognise that you have a profound duty not to simply accept that a person finds it offensive that I should refer to the company he keeps. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is going beyond what the procedures of the House allow him. Mr Peacock —And I am not going to withdraw that. I have for years-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the Leader of the Opposition will not withdraw, I have no alternative but to take action against him. Mrs Kelly —Say it outside. Mr Peacock —I will say it outside. I will be very happy to say it and to talk about the company he keeps. Mr Keating —The first remark. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I propose to proceed by calling the honourable member for Barker. Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the Treasurer has assisted the conduct of the House. I call the honourable member for Barker. Mr PORTER —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, if this gutless spiv, and I refer to him as a gutless spiv-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr Keating —Will not make a withdrawal-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. Mr Keating —That is a contempt of your authority. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. You are being just as contemptuous. I call the honourable member for Barker. Mr PORTER —As I was saying, if I can recall, yesterday the Minister for Health misrepresented a statement that I had made over the weekend. By way of personal explanation, I explained the position after Question Time yesterday. Unfortunately the Canberra Times in its report of the incident in this morning's paper-obviously the journalist had left just after Question Time and before the personal explanation was made-failed to take into consideration in her article the fact that I had corrected the Minister for Health, and in fact the article repeats the misrepresentation. I read two sentences from a statement I put out yesterday: The plain facts are that $1.08m was allocated by the Federal Government in August 1982 but only $531,200 was spent up to July 1983. In the 1983-84 Budget $ 1m was allocated. That is by this Government. To continue: This was subsequently reduced to $700,000, of which only $353,000 had been allocated to the State trachoma committees as at 30 April. That clearly indicates the fall in government funding to trachoma programs and the error in the statement made by the Minister for Health yesterday. I thank the House. Mr Keating —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing order 75 says: No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof, against any member of the Judiciary, or against any statute unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no need for the Treasurer to read it. I know it. Mr Keating —Standing order 76 says: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. Mr Speaker, the point is that you required of the Leader of the Opposition that, upon my request, he withdraw an offensive remark. You never persisted with requiring that and in contempt of your request he walked from the chamber. I respectfully request that when he returns to the chamber you get the appropriate withdrawal. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Treasurer is not really being co-operative in the matter and that in fact the origins of the incident were an across the table exchange which is not part of the proceedings of the House. The honourable member for Barker had the call and was addressing the House. The Treasurer is not assisting in this matter by persisting with something which was a private exchange. Mr Keating —On the same point of order, there was a remark made compounded very much on the record after you invited-- Mr Sinclair —Stop arguing when the Speaker has given a ruling. Mr Keating —Just be quiet, George. The remark was compounded on the record after you invited him to speak. If you had accepted that there was no remark to withdraw, you would not have invited the remark to have been withdrawn. You having invited it to be withdrawn by the Leader of the Opposition, he left the chamber and he has treated you with contempt. Mr Sinclair —Are you going to move dissent? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I do not need this sort of assistance from either side. We have a ridiculous situation over a private exchange. I will undertake to examine the record in Hansard and see what is recorded there, so I can see what the appropriate action is. Mr Sinclair —So he doesn't withdraw. Mr SPEAKER —For goodness sake! I remind the House that across the chamber exchanges are not part of the proceedings of the House. Mr Howard —On that point of order, could I ask you, Mr Speaker, when you are examining the record regarding the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer, that you also examine the record to see whether there is in that record the withdrawal of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment of the quite unjustified slur that he cast upon the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I can respond to the point of order. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment did indeed withdraw. He stood and withdrew. So have no doubt about that. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Leader of the National Party seek to make a personal explanation? Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party) —I also seek to make a personal explanation. During Question Time the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), in the incident to which my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has just referred, alleged that it was totally wrong that the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Mr Paul Everingham, attempted to contact the Minister by telephone this week. That telephone contact was within my parliamentary office and was heard by Mr Liam Bathgate, my principal private secretary. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr BLEWETT —Yes. I can very simply explain the point. The whole of the statement of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) issued at the weekend was in fact an effort to misrepresent by using Liberal estimates and comparing them with actual Labor spending. As I said yesterday, the actual spending to date this year is $539,000, already in front of what the Liberals spent. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Minister for Trade to take a leadership role during recent critical trade negotiations. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —Mr Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald 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. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Katter, R. C.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.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. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith-- Mr Young —Mr Speaker, I move that the honourable member for Bennelong be not further heard. Mr SPEAKER —I cannot put that question. The honourable member for Bennelong has the call. Mr HOWARD —He cannot do that; I have the call. I remind the Leader of the House that this is not Goulburn Street. I will start again, Mr Speaker, because I do not think the Leader of the House heard. I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith a motion censuring the Treasurer for his deplorable conduct towards the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for Bennelong be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald 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. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McMHollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (TellerAldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Katter, R. C.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.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. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.15) —Mr Speaker, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) lost control-- Mr SPEAKER —Is the right honourable gentleman seconding the motion? Mr SINCLAIR —The motion has not been seconded, Mr Speaker. I have not yet seconded the motion because of the noise in the House. I have not had a chance. In rising to speak to this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders-- Mr SPEAKER —Is the right honourable gentleman seconding the motion? Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, I second the motion. I point out that the Treasurer lost control of himself-- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the right honourable member for New England be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald 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. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Katter, R. C.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.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. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —The question is-- Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, the Treasurer's association with-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison did not have the call. I was just stating the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald 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. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Katter, R. C.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.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. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Katter, R. C.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.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. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald 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. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Dobie, J. D. M. Hayden, W. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Declaration of Urgency Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I declare that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 is an urgent Bill . Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 79 states: The House will interfere to prevent the prosecution of any quarrel between Members arising out of debates or proceedings of the House or of any committee thereof. About 15 minutes ago I was sitting on the front bench together with my colleagues the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Opposition when the Treasurer rose in his place, came across to the Opposition benches, sat alongside the Leader of the Opposition and abused him in a way which is totally unparliamentary and in a manner which showed that the Treasurer cannot control himself. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The shadow leader of the House should come to his point of order. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, my point of order is that the Treasurer was seeking to intimidate the Leader of the Opposition in a physical way which, frankly, is totally contrary to the purport and meaning of the Standing Orders of this place . Just because the Treasurer loses his cool and finds-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party of Australia will resume his seat. I appreciate the standing order he refers to but it is obvious that the quarrel has not continued. I think the business of the House should proceed. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker I am interested in your response and I respect it. I ask you to note that you used the term ' quarrel'. A quarrel requires two people. There was only one person who had lost control of himself, that was the Treasurer. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Treasurer on the point of order. Mr Keating —Mr Speaker, on the point of order and for the record I say that I am entitled not to be misrepresented. I went over quietly to the Leader of the Opposition, told him that I held him in low regard and invited him to repeat his remarks outside the Parliament. That is all. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have ruled on the point of order. I think the debate on the circumstances adds nothing to the conduct of the House. Question put: That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris AllanCohen, B Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald 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. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Burr, M. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Cadman, A. G. Katter, R. C.Cameron, Donald Lloyd, B.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Lusher, S. A.Carlton, J. J. McArthur, F. S.Coleman, W. P. MacKellar, M. J. R.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.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. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.41) —I move: That the time allotted in connection with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 be as follows: For the remaining stages, until 4 p.m. this day. Every person on both sides of the House who has been listed to speak on this Bill has spoken. We have dealt with the Committee stage. There has been over four hours of debate. This afternoon we are seeing an example of a classic tactic of the Opposition to try to waste the time of members on their side of the House who want to speak to this Bill by moving stupid censure motions, calling divisions and wasting the time of their shadow Minister who wanted to use the Parliament this afternoon to debate this Bill. If the Opposition will not use the time of this House to treat this Bill seriously, this is the sort of treatment it is going to get. Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.42) —In order to bring a bit of rationality back into the discussion of this legislation, I say that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has never explained why the legislation is urgent. Therefore, we are left guessing as to why the Special Minister of State wants to guillotine the legislation. We have never been told why the Bill is urgent. We are left with only one assumption, that is, that the Government is trying to avoid debate on this extremely important legislation which gives the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) the widest discretion to act in relation to private land that has ever been given in this country. The Commonwealth Government, through this Minister, has absolute discretion to do what it likes with private land as soon as there is a change in the nature of the use of that land. No wonder the Opposition is concerned and no wonder we want to debate in Committee a number of sections of this legislation. But the Government, in moving the guillotine motion on this legislation, is showing that it is running scared. It does not want to debate the legislation which could affect every person in this country. All land in Australia, private land and Crown land, is affected by this legislation and can be dealt with by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs under it. The legislation provides for the Minister to make a declaration in relation to private land where there has been an application by an Aboriginal person or community stating that they consider the use of the land, which is significant land, not to be in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. Mr Holding —And it is under threat, you great dill. Mr PORTER —I suggest to the Minister that whenever there is a change in the existing use of land, the provisions of this legislation could come into play, because that change could amount to a threat-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that the motion concerns the time allotted to the Bill. Mr PORTER —Mr Speaker, the clauses of this legislation are so important and provide such discretionary powers to the Minister that the Opposition is of the view that we ought to be allowed to consider the legislation in detail. We have a number of speakers who want to speak on this Bill to express the concerns of Aboriginal communities and organisations around Australia. They have expressed their concerns publicly. We want to take those concerns up in this House. This is extremely serious legislation that has widespread ramifications for the Australian public and we ought to be allowed time to debate the Bill. I say again: The Government has given no reason why it considers this legislation to be urgent other than it is running scared and avoiding debate on it. The Minister has given no examples of where there is a need to make urgent declarations regarding this legislation. I suggest that, unless he can do so, there is no reason why this legislation cannot be debated, even during the Budget session. I suggest to the Government that it would be wise to reconsider this move to gag such sensitive legislation as this. It is totally unhelpful to the Aboriginal people and will put even more serious doubts into the minds of the Australian people as to why the Minister wants this legislation. When we raise concerns, he keeps saying that that is not how the legislation will be used. But he does not suggest that he will amend the legislation in accordance with the undertakings he has given. It is wide legislation which clearly he will use, otherwise he would allow amendments to be made to it. The Minister has misled the Parliament. He has been deceptive as to the terms of the legislation. I believe that his hypocritical and provocative approach is clearly seen by the gagging of this debate. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(3.47) —Last night every Opposition speaker who was listed by appropriate arrangements which I suggested was heard in the second reading debate. Amendments which the Government was proposing were circulated so that they would be before honourable members. This morning considerable time was spent on debating the title of the Bill and the most simple aspects of it. Mr Porter —Why do you want it rushed through? Mr HOLDING —I personally do not want it rushed through, but on the other hand, if the honourable gentleman had any sense of priority he would realise that we have wasted time in this House on schoolboy antics. I suggest that we get on with the debate as soon as possible. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(3.48) —Mr Speaker, in relation to the question of the timing of this debate and the time that has been left for the debate I must say that I regret that it is necessary to speak on what has now become the more important question, that is, the way in which the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill 1984 is to be processed. This Bill is significant. It is important. It has a large number of clauses which have not been addressed during the Committee stage. I would have liked to offer a large number of comments in the time in which we were to discuss this matter in relation to the question of definitions, the way in which sites ought to be protected, the circumstances in which a Minister might make a declaration, the circumstances in which his decisions, in accordance with the declarations that this Bill says that he will be entitled to make, might be the subject of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. I also would have liked particularly, to consider the definitions in the context of the way in which the courts will be called upon to look at the discretion that the Minister might have under this legislation. I wanted to look in some detail at the evidentiary matters mentioned by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), on which he intends to move certain amendments, and to look at the way in which the Act creates penalties and offences in relation to this legislation. Quite large penalties are involved in this legislation and it is unlikely that we will have any opportunity to discuss these matters before this House agrees to the legislation this afternoon , if the Government uses its numbers to have it passed. A penalty of $10,000 is involved for a natural person who is found guilty of contravening the provisions in relation to declarations. If a body corporate is involved there are fines of $50,000. I do not think these are matters that can be treated lightly. I do not believe they are matters that can be dismissed. I believe it is important for members of parliament to have an opportunity to discuss each and every one of those clauses. I certainly hope that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) will recognise the importance of this legislation, the matters that are to be dealt with and the way in which they ought to be covered. They are not matters that can be addressed in a second reading debate. Questions of detail in legislation are addressed at the Committee stage, when we look at each clause. We do not argue questions of semantics about the way in which particular definitions are interpreted. They are the sorts of matters that must properly be addressed at the committee stage. We will be given 15 minutes to consider matters at the committee stage. Nobody can adequately address the totality of the matters that need to be addressed properly in this legislation in that amount of time. I think what is proposed is grossly irresponsible. I cannot recall in the time that I have been in the Parliament a guillotine being used in relation to legislation of this sort which has such enormous consequences for people throughout Australia. As one who has some regard for the sensitivity of Aboriginal people, I think that they would want legislation of this sort to be properly discussed. It is not the sort of issue upon which people ought to see conflict and disagreement over such fundamental matters. It only undermines the respect that the rest of the community ought to have for important questions affecting Aboriginal people. I believe that when there is conflict and misunderstanding, ultimately it makes life very much more difficult for the Aboriginal people if those fundamental questions are not addressed and discussed in the Parliament in a proper way. It is a matter which is of sufficient importance that it should have been put aside-I have argued this throughout the debate-and looked at over time, considered in a much more quiet and dispassionate way than the way in which we have been asked to consider it. I do not believe that this legislation is so urgent that we have to deal with it this afternoon in 15 minutes. I strongly resist the time tabling that the Minister has suggested for the consideration of this Bill. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(3.53) —The bogus concern of members of the Opposition at the guillotining of this legislation is exceeded only by the unction with which they express that concern. They hold the all-time record for guillotining Bills in the Senate, in a previous Parliament, when 14 Bills were guillotined in half an hour. Opposition members interjecting- Mr BEAZLEY —I notice that I am being heckled by probably the worst-- Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. I can save you some time, Mr Speaker. I am prepared to debate this matter with him at the Ascot Inn in his electorate any time he likes. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —I challenge him. Will he do it? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr BEAZLEY —If the honourable member for O'Connor wants a tip on how to earn a few thousand bucks, I suggest that he should go around haunting houses. Thousands would pay him for it. The 14 Bills that were guillotined at that time were at least as significant as any other Bills that have been considered in this place. We have permitted four hours of debate on this issue to this point. We would have permitted a further hour of debate to this point if Opposition members had not wasted the last hour of this sitting by calling division after division on trivia. If we want an example of a trivial performance, it is typified by the Opposition's performance over the last hour. (Quorum formed). So dinkum were members of the Opposition in their deep concern about this matter that they did not even call a division on the second reading of the Bill; but they have been calling division after division today on trivia. It is not surprising that they have called division after division on trivia, because trivia is all that is in them and a trivial position is the only position that they are capable of adopting on anything. We allowed four hours of debate on this Bill. I listened very intently to what the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), had to say. I recollect the debate that occurred last night. He did not make one point, in the areas of concern that the indentified in the Bill, that was not adequately dealt with by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in his summing up and by spokespeople on our side of the House when they debated the Bill. The Opposition has spent this week wasting time. The shoddy performance of Opposition members, as they have been suspended from the House one after another , has on each occasion wasted the time of this House. They have probably managed to waste at least two hours in the course of this week. They have been responsible for the fact that we are now obliged to make this an urgent Bill. So if they have any problems with this proposal they have been of their creation. All I can say is that I wish that I had had four hours in which to debate all the Bills that they gagged when they were in government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(3.58) —We are seeing today a most disgraceful cover-up and absolute contempt of Parliament by Government members. There are very definite and urgent matters contained in the clauses of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill that need to be considered. But Government members will not allow them to be considered because they will not give us time to give them adequate consideration. They are trying to cover up the fact that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), under clause 9, will be able to respond to an oral or written application by one Aboriginal or by a group of Aboriginals that will then give him the right to override any State legislation. It will give him the right to override any land tenure that he thinks fit. Yet they want to cover up that power that they are giving this Minister under this legislation. They are making an absolute mockery of this Bill. I invite honourable members' attention to clause 21, which deals with the disposal of Aboriginal remains. We know what is happening in regard to the Crowther collection in Hobart. The Government is trying to cover what is happening in that regard. It is trying to turn that matter over to Pierre Slicer, the Secretary of the Communist Party in Tasmania, because that is where that business is coming from. It is not responding to what the Aboriginals want. It is trying by this tactic to cover up completely its actions and the powers that it will give itself under this legislation. This is the most disgraceful abuse of Parliament that I have witnessed in nine years. This is not menial legislation; it is widesweeping legislation that gives draconian powers to a Minister, and the Government will not even let us debate the matter fully in this Parliament. The people opposite should be condemned. There are many other clauses that we on this side of the House want to debate. We have our points of view to put and I believe that, as members of parliament representing our constituents, we should demand the time to debate these matters . We are prepared to come back for another week, another fortnight or another month if the Minister wants to do that. But he will not give us the opportunity to represent our constituents, to debate these matters of urgent interest properly in this Parliament. The Leader of the House (Mr Young) should be condemned for adopting this tactic that he learned from Fred Daly. That is where he got the tactic from and he is perpetuating it here today. He should be condemned for doing that because he is covering up what his colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is trying to do. Let us look a little more closely at clause 9. In the short time available to me I want to expose what this business is all about. Under clause 9 where the Minister receives an application made orally or in writing on behalf of one single Aboriginal or a group of Aboriginals seeking the presentation of land or relics he, the Minister, can make a declaration that will completely override any of the State Government's legislation. It can override land tenure and all of the titles that are contained within land agreements at the moment. This legislation is absolutely draconian, yet this Minister and the Government will not even allow us to debate these matters fully and to try to explain to the people of Australia what this Government is doing in this Bill. I defy the Minister to say under this legislation the application of one single Aboriginal- - Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time for the debate on the motion has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald 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. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Burr, M. A. Hunt, R. J. D.Cameron, Donald Lloyd, B.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Lusher, S. A.Carlton, J. J. McArthur, F. S.Coleman, W. P. MacKellar, M. J. R.Connolly, D. M. McVeigh, D. T.Drummond, P. H. Macphee, I. M.Edwards, Harry O'Keefe, F. L.Fife, W. C. Porter, J. R.Fisher, P. S. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. Clauses 3 to 8-by leave-taken together. The CHAIRMAN —The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired . Question put: That clauses 3 to 8 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John 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, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock. P. M.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Government's circulated amendments- (1) Clause 10, page 5, line 29, after ''proprietary'', insert ''or pecuniary''. (2) Clause 12, page 6, line 15, after ''proprietary'', insert ''or pecuniary''. (3) Clause 22, page 10, lines 12-14, omit ''knows, or ought reasonably to know, of the existence of a declaration made under Part II in relation to a significant Aboriginal area and contravenes a provision of that declaration'', substitute ''contravenes a provision of a declaration made under Part II in relation to a significant Aboriginal area''. (4) Clause 22, page 10, lines 19-21, omit ''knows, or ought reasonably to know, of the existence of a declaration made under Part II in relation to a significant Aboriginal object or significant Aboriginal objects and contravenes a provision of that declaration'', substitute ''contravenes a provision of a declaration made under Part II in relation to a significant Aboriginal object or significant Aboriginal objects''. (5) Clause 24, page 11, omit sub-clause (3), substitute the following sub- clause: ''(3) In proceedings for an offence referred to in sub-section 23 (1), where there is evidence that, at the relevant time, the defendant neither knew, nor had reasonable grounds for knowing, of the existence of the declaration alleged to have been contravened, the defendant shall not be committed for trial or convicted unless the prosecution proves that, at that time, the defendant knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the existence of the declaration.''. (6) Clause 30, page 13, line 29, after ''proprietary'', insert ''or pecuniary'' . (7) After clause 30, page 14, insert the following new clause in Part IV: Delegation ''30A. (1) The Minister may, either generally or as otherwise provided in the instrument of delegation, by writing signed by him, delegate to a person all or any of his powers and functions under this Act (other than sections 9, 10 and 12, sub-section 13 (2) and section 26), the regulations, or a declaration, other than this power of delegation. ''(2) A power or function delegated under this section, when exercised or performed by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of this Act, the regulations or the declaration, as the case may be, be deemed to have been exercised or performed by the Minister. ''(3) A delegation under this section does not prevent the exercise of a power or performance of a function by the Minister. ''(4) In this section, 'declaration' means a declaration made under Part II.''. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that the remainder of the Bill and the circulated amendments of the Government be agreed to, and that the Bill be reported with amendments. Mr Sinclair-I raise a point of order, Madam Chairman. How can the amendments be taken by this Committee if they have not been moved by the Government? They have been circulated, but until they are actually before the Committee, it is not appropriate for the Committee to consider them. The fact that they might be lying on the table does not of itself constitute a presentation to this Parliament. I suggest to you, Madam Chairman, that it is essential that they be moved for them to be considered by this Committee. The CHAIRMAN —Perhaps the right honourable gentleman will give me a moment. I shall have to consider that matter. Mr Holding-On that point of order, Madam Chairman, quoting from my own-- The CHAIRMAN —Perhaps the Minister will resume his seat. Standing order 92 states: . . . any other question requisite to dispose of the business before the House or committee, including, when considering any bill in committee or any Senate amendments or Senate requests for amendments to a bill, any amendments, new clauses and schedule, and modifications, copies of which have been circulated by the Government among Members 2 hours- Mr Sinclair-How can they possibly be considered if they have not been moved, even if they are circulated. Mr Holding-They were there. Mr Sinclair-They have not been before the Committee. We have just moved into Committee. The CHAIRMAN —Under standing order 92 (e). The question now is that the motion be agreed to. Mr Porter-I raise a point of order, Madam Chairman. Yesterday afternoon, before this debate was cut off, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) said: I have circulated the amendments that I will move. The amendments have not been moved. The CHAIRMAN —Under standing order 92 (e), on an urgency motion, it is perfectly competent for the question to be put. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.15) —I move: That the Chairman's ruling be dissented from. The CHAIRMAN —I am not giving a ruling. Mr Sinclair —You are, Madam Chairman. You are interpreting the Standing Orders. It is a ruling, I am afraid. It has to be a ruling. The CHAIRMAN —I was quoting from standing order 92 (e). Mr SINCLAIR —Madam Chairman, standing order 92 (e) cannot in any way allow the proceedings of this Parliament to proceed without motions in fact being placed before it. Standing order 92 (e) refers only to the fact that matters are before us. We have only just gone into Committee. At the Committee stage it is essential that there be a proper consideration by honourable members of this place of matters that are properly before it. I submit that the bits of papers that are left at the end of the table are not matters that are properly before this Committee. We have only just moved into the Committee stage. It is for that reason that I move dissent from your ruling. We are not in a position in which it is possible for us to accept that because a bit of paper is left at the end of the table we are able to know whether they are the precise amendments that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is moving. He has been weaving and ducking and shoving and telling us that he will change this and he might change that. We have had some excellent speeches about the genuine concern on our side of the Parliament with Aboriginal policy. The CHAIRMAN —Will the honourable gentleman submit his dissent in writing, under standing order 281. It will be moved without debate. Question put: That the Chairman's ruling be dissented from. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Katter, R. C.Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B.Cameron, Donald Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Carlton, J. J. MacKellar, M. J. R.Coleman, W. P. McVeigh, D. T.Connolly, D. M. Macphee, I. M.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. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald 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. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McMHollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Dobie, J. D. M. Hayden, W. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the remainder of the Bill and the circulated amendments of the Government be agreed to and the Bill be reported with amendments. A division having been called for and the bells being rung- Mr Porter —Madam Chair, I take a point of order. There has been placed at the end of the table with the amendments the amendment moved by the Opposition, that being that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted. Could you please identify which of the amendments circulated to the Committee we are considering? The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. The motion clearly says 'the circulated amendments of the Government'. The bells having been rung- Mr Sinclair —Madam Chair, could you identify the amendments for the benefit of the Committee? The CHAIRMAN —They are the Government's amendments and they have been circulated . They could not be on the end of the table if they had not been circulated to honourable members. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald 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. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported with amendments. Mr SPEAKER —The question now is: That the report be adopted and the Bill be now read a third time. A division having been called for and the bells being rung- Mr Spender —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence. We have in Committee been told that it is not necessary for a Minister to move an amendment once he has circulated a document in this House. The question is: What are we adopting? Are we adopting the Bill as it originally was or are we adopting an amendment which has never been moved? How can an amendment be an amendment without being moved in this House? Mr SPEAKER —The report from the Committee was that the Bill had been amended. That report is now before the House for decision. The report is the decision of the Committee and does not concern the Chair at this stage. The report has been received from the Committee. The Chair cannot canvass the rulings in Committee. Mr Spender —How do we establish what it is that has been moved and amended if it does not appear in the records of the House? Mr SPEAKER —It does appear. Under these circumstances, the amendments will appear in the Votes and Proceedings of the House. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 32 —— 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. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald 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. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fisher, P. S. Tuckey, C. W.Groom, R. J. White, P. N. D. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. In division- Mr Cadman-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. There is some confusion. I have found on this desk passed to me by the honourable member for Braddon a piece of paper which says: 'Government amendment, all words after the title to be deleted '. Is that to be included as part of this process? Mr SPEAKER-That matter has already been decided in Committee. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. The Clerk proceeding to read notices- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have just realised that the Clerk is in another stage of this afternoon's proceedings. Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you should look at the Standing Orders because quite obviously a number of matters have been canvassed today which- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Clerk was reading Notices before the House. The Clerk must continue to read the Notices. Mr Sinclair —I submit that I can raise a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will accept your point of order. Mr Sinclair —My point of order is that we have just been through proceedings in this House that have left every member of the Government absolutely confused and most Opposition members quite uncertain as to what amendments were being considered- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will move to his point of order. Mr Sinclair —Standing Order 174 requires that an amendment moved but not seconded should not be entertained by the House or entered into the Votes and Proceedings. The amendments the House was considering a moment ago had not been moved. Though Standing Order 92 provides a procedure for the consideration of amendments, the amendments we had been considering had not been moved by the Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the Leader of the National Party that the procedure to which he is referring took place in Committee. That is the proper place for consideration of that matter, not in the House. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.38) —Mr Speaker, I think this afternoon's proceedings have been a very good example of how the Government is starting to fray at the edges. There is no doubt that- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 41 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Milton, P.Child, J. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.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. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Andrew, J. N. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Burr, M. A. Howard, J. W.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Carlton, J. J. Lloyd, B.Coleman, W. P. Lusher, S. A.Connolly, D. M. MacKellar, M. J. R.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M. Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.49 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House- (1) notes with concern the violence against the Tamil ethnic minority in Sri Lanka, and (2) requests the Government to appoint a delegation of federal parliamentarians to visit Sri Lanka and report to this Parliament on the actual situation. Mr Hurford to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of 7th Camp Hospital, Kapooka, N.S.W. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1054) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice , on 1 March 1984: Is he able to say whether the report by Professor Eileen Byrne on 'Girls and Women in CYSS' recommends that CYSS projects in rural areas have special rural outreach funding and additional officers to run an outreach program; if so, in view of the report and the Minister's statement on 10 February 1984, will he now reconsider the application by the New Norfolk Community Youth Support Scheme, Tasmania, for special outreach funding. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As the honourable member may be aware, this recommendation, and the large number of other recommendations made by Professor Byrne in relation to the involvement of girls and young women in CYSS and fundamental structural issues pertaining to the program, are currently the subject of extensive consultations with CYSS organisations and project officers, and major youth and women's groups . I have also asked the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs to consider Professor Byrne's recommendations and the views expressed by those consulted on her report in the context of that Committee's current examination of CYSS and other labour market programs. While there is no capacity for provision of additional grants for the operation of outreach activities during the current grant period ending 31 October 1984, the New Norfolk request for special outreach funding will be given further consideration in the context of the assessment of all CYSS project funding submissions for 1984-85. (Question No. 1106) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What positions in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Divisions of the Minister's Department have been filled with officers recruited from outside the career Public Service since 1 April 1983. (2) What are the names of all officers so appointed, their experience and background and the salary paid to them, if other than the normal salary paid for a similarly designated position. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2)- Position Name of appointed officer Experience and background Clerk, Class 5 Alan J. Day 3 years in Custom Credit Corporation. Journalist, Grade A Clifford R. Young 12 years' experience as a journalist, including 3 years with Department of Fisheries and Wildlife in W.A. Journalist, Grade A Jan W. Smith 30 years' experience as a journalist, including 13 years with the Commonwealth Department of Health. Science 3 John R. Branford 2 years in Royal Navy, 8 years as a Manager of OCM Ltd, Le Labour, Monte Carlo, 3 years as a Marine Scientist with the Overseas Development Administration, possesses PhD in Marine Biology. Clerk, Class 5 Nicola J. Fowler 2 1/2 years with NRMA, 1 year with Health Commission of NSW as Administrative Policy Trainee, 18 months with State Fisheries of NSW. Possesses Bachelor of Natural Resources, (Hon.) Clerk, Class 7 Alfred B. Turner 7 years with this Department as Clerk, 1 year as newsagent, possesses Bachelor of Economics. Clerk, Class 2/3 (Field Officer) Jeanette Reid 4 months as Assistant Agronomist with Shell Chemicals, possesses Bachelor of Agricultural Science. Research Officer, Grade 2 Gary Stoneham 3 years with this Department as Research Officer, 2 years as Regional Economist with Queensland Department of Primary Industry. Has B.Ec. (Hons). Clerk, Class 2/3 (Field Officer) Andrew Moore Practical farming experience on family property, Soil Conservation Tech. Assistant at Resource Centre, Wagga Wagga, has B. Rural Science. Clerk, Class 2/3 (Field Officer) Ian Atkinson Research Assistant for 12 months with Waite Agricultural Research Institute and Loxton Research Centre, 6 months as motorcycle mechanic. Has B. Ag.Sc. Clerk, Class 4 (Field Officer) Ronald White 4 years as Field Officer with Edgells and Riverland Fruit Products. Considerable part-time farming experience. Has Grad. Dip.Ag. Clerk, Class 6 (Field Officer) Jacky Abbott 8 years publishing/editorial experience, 4 years freelance publishing work. Has B.A. (Hons). Research Officer, Grade 2 Ross Dunstan 3 years as Mathematics Tutor at Murdoch University, 1 year as maths teacher in Tanzania with Australian Volunteers Abroad. B. Maths (Hons). Senior Research Officer, Grade 1 Mary Lack 18 months as Research Assistant, University of New England, 3 years as Tutor at University of New England. B.Ec. and Dip. Ag. Economics. Research Officer, Grade 2 Shashi Sharma 3 years at University of New England , 5 years in India, as Tutor, Senior Research Assistant and Graduate. Has B.Sc. (Hons). M.Sc.Ag.Ec., M.Ag.Dev.Ec. and PhD. Clerk, Class 10 (Regional Director, W.A.) Peter Illidge 3 years in clerical position with Barrow Linton Pty Ltd, General Merchants. 4 years with United Packages Pty Ltd, 3 years as Financial Accountant, Goldsworthy Mining Ltd, 5 years as Company Secretary, Smyth and Hickman Pty Ltd, 4 years as State Manager with Markwell Ross Fisheries Pty Ltd, W.A. Clerk, Class 5 (W.A.) Gordon S. Dunbar Accountant for 2 years with Lamjen International. Note: All appointees were appointed at salary levels within those prescribed for that position. (Question No. 1159) Dr Everingham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: Is he able to say (a) what measures are taken by (i) the Commonwealth and (ii) each State to monitor and collect data regarding the salt content of drinking water supplies in Australian cities and rural centres, (b) what are the mean levels of (i) total dissolved solids and (ii) sodium in the drinking water supplies of (A) Sydney, (B) Melbourne, (C) Brisbane, (D) Adelaide, (E) Perth, (F ) Hobart, (G) Darwin and (H) Canberra, (c) what standards for (i) total dissolved salts and (ii) sodium in drinking water supplies are accepted by (A) the Commonwealth and (B) each State and (d) what criteria are used to determine the standards. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) (i) Monitoring of the quality of the water supply for Canberra is carried out by the Department of Housing and Construction. (ii) In each State and the Northern Territory the authority responsible for the provision of water supplies monitors and collects data on drinking water quality in the areas for which it is responsible. (b) The following information has been provided by the appropriate water supply authorities: Total dissolved solids- Sodium- milligrams milligrams per litre per litre Adelaide 387 84 Brisbane 186 26 Canberra 78 6 Darwin (less than) 50 4 Hobart 56 4 Melbourne 53 7 Perth 287 68 Sydney 81 14 (c) (A) The standards for (i) total dissolved solids in drinking water supplies used by the Commonwealth are those recommended in the Commonwealth Department of Health publication 'Desirable Quality for Drinking Water in Australia'-National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Water Resources Council. Suggested guidelines for total dissolved solids are 1500 milligrams per litre for desirable current criteria' and 500 milligrams per litre for 'long term objectives.' (ii) standards for sodium levels have not been recommended due to insufficient data. (B) Advice received indicates that the States utilise these guidelines or the 1971 World Health Organisation standards. Victoria proposes to establish a State standard based on the 1982 World Health Organisation standards . (d) The criteria on which the National Health and Medical Research Council- Australian Water Resources Council guidelines are based, include published criteria and standards recommended by overseas and international agencies, especially those issued in 1971 by the World Health Organisation. The World Health Organisation standards were drawn up in collaboration with member Governments and with the assistance of experts. (Question No. 1235) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: Which Federal electoral divisions do not have a Commonwealth Employment Service office located within their boundaries. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Mackellar, Bradfield, St George, Moore and Wilmot. (Question No. 1325) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Administrative Services, 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 John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department issued an official equal employment opportunity policy in December 1982 and this policy is regarded as an integral part of personnel management in the Department. No specific changes have been made in respect of the areas referred to by the honourable member. However, the policy and associated programs are currently being reviewed including the resources required to implement and monitor programs. The EEO Bureau of the Public Service Board has been and will be frequently consulted on these and other EEO matters. (2) To date, the Department's EEO policies have involved no additional measureable costs. However the proposed creation of EEO officer positions within the Department and the flow on recommendations from the current review may be expected to require the allocation of additional funds. (Question No. 1377) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: Does the Attorney-General have any plans for the introduction of an identity card for every Australian; if so, what are the details. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No.