Wednesday, 5 September 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: To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid for private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Ronald Edwards,Mr Hollis,Mr Humphreys,Mrs Kelly,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Klugman,Mr Lusher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The larger star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Chynoweth. 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 the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr Gear. 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 assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Jacobi. 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. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. The Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. Scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. Either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. Following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non- discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth. That Regulations and an Ordinance before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersedes the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law- The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Drummond. To the Right Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled; should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that: The Attorney-General enforce the laws to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X-rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy be prevented; Imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board; Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes; Further measures be taken in association with 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. 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 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 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 must humbly pray that the Government takes no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly and Mr Macphee. 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 development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament assembled should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe and Mr Tickner. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on the azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, Recognizes that the flag as a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if change is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the unsersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That we unreservedly oppose the Federal Government's proposals in relation to the censorship laws designed for the Australian Capital Territory; and further we oppose any such proposal on censorship laws becoming law in any State in Australia. 2. That we consider it right and proper that the citizens of this nation be consulted, and their views and desires respected in the formulation of law in censorship in similar areas. 3. That it is with alarm the proposed censorship laws are regarded by citizens living in a society based on christian ethics. In essence Australia is a Christian nation and our nation's laws must reflect and uphold our established values. Legislation which sanctions behaviour repugnant to Christians, is legislation not appropriate to Australia. Moreover, it is legislation which condones the destruction of the very fabric of our society. Legislation which promotes the degradation, abasement and exploitation of people, both young and old, and of our nation, is unacceptable. 4. That we the undersigned request the Government to heed the points in this petition, and 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 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 shows that we, as Members of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, request the Government to abandon its 1983 Decision to alter the A.C .T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith, because we believe it to be contrary to God's revealed Will and detrimental to Family Life and the emotional security of Australian children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keogh. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that we the undersigned wish to express our deep concern at the Government's proposals in relation to censorship laws, and request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keogh. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows - That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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-west region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. Note that such a proposal will result in the destruction of the historic village of Pitt Town, Longneck Wildlife Reserve, significant Aboriginal relics and the historic Scheyville camp and will irreversibly alter the character of the five Macquarie towns. 3. Consider the resulting intolerable pollution of the Hawkesbury River. 4. Note that approximately 2,000 properties will be resumed, displacing over 5, 000 residents. 5. Consider the detrimental effects of noise, air and vehicular pollution on many thousands of residents in the surrounding districts of Hawkesbury, Baulkham Hills and Hornsby shires and Blacktown and Penrith cities. 6. Give immediate consideration to finding a more suitable alternative site. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House or Representatives in Parliament assembled the undersigned citizens of Australia repectfully 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 redeveloped Brisbane Airport becomes operative, make sure that a curfew is retained on both runways when the new airport is Commissioned in 1984. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows That we sincerely believe that the new Commowealth censorship procedures for publications and the A.C.T. Classification Ordinance 1983 Standards for Classification of Printed Materials, No. 1-February 1984 passed by the Senate last Wednesday, removing from existing Commonwealth law:- (a) The power to prevent the importation and sale of hardcore pornography (e.g. X-rated videos). (b) The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; (c) The power to require videos for non-commerical use to be registered by the films censorship board before release from customs was a step in the wrong direction. It is the view of the religious community on the north side of Brisbane, of which we are a part, that the new laws should be amended immediately to give protection to all Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation . It is believed that those materials that come under category 2 classification should not be allowed to be made available to all, and the knowledge that this kind of material described under classification 2 is now lawful under the the new regulations is nauseating. We believe it is the duty of the Government to protect society from those who would incite paedophilia, child pornography, terrorism and extreme cruelty. We believe this protection should be extended to cover items such as are currently list under category 2. We respectfully request that amending legislation be drafted accordingly. 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 the undersigned respectfully showeth: We have become the innocent victims of your Government's Medicare scheme. We are forced to pay 1% of our wages only to receive less per capita benefits than the people of other states. without canvassing the rights or wrongs of the dispute between the Federal Government and State of Queensland the fact is that because of it over one million Queenslanders, who contribute to health funds, are being blatantly discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80.00 per day in the other states. This is grossly unfair. As it was the Federal Government which decided to introduce Medicare, we believe it is their responsibility to take action allowing health funds' rates in Queensland to be kept at reasonable levels. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled, should use its influence with government so as to avoid the discrimination (of $ 40 per day) against insured Queenslanders. 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 assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we believe that tertiary students and their welfare are critical to the economic and cultural future of Australia and that students are currently condemned to living at little more than half the poverty line. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That Members acknowledge that an increase in higher education participation and in the quality of the learning process will not be achieved without an overhaul of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. 2. That, as a consequence of item 1, a substantial rise in the level of T.E.A.S ., at least to the level of the single adult unemployment rate, be a primary priority in the 1984 Federal Budget. 3. That instead the principle of student dependancy on parents to the age of 25 currently at the foundation of T.E.A.S., students be recognised as independent of parents from age 18. 4. That the regulations surrounding T.E.A.S. which make the allowance amongst the most difficult of all Government payments to obtain, be overhauled significantly as soon as possible in consultation with student groups. 5. That tribunals, consisting of student and community representatives be empowered to grant T.E.A.S. in cases of particular hardship which may fall outside the T.E.A.S. regulations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. 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. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm its obligation to fully fund tertiary education and to implement all 1983 election promises to academic staff and students. 2. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to accept and implement the recommendations of the Advanced Education Council in regard to the funding of the advanced education sector over the 1985-87 Triennium. 3. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to affirm that increases in Commonwealth Grants to tertiary education should be financed from general revenue and not from the deferral of increases in the level of academic salaries or of tertiary student allowances. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gear. 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% is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your Petitioners are concerned that the world is closer to nuclear war than at any time since World War II. That in a nuclear war all life on this planet is in danger of extinction. That there are foreign bases on Australian Territory that, far from adding to our security, make us a nuclear target. That Australia can influence the superpowers by refusing to harbour or help deliver their weapons. That Australia can influence the superpowers by actively working to improve the understanding and relationships between their peoples. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House in Parliament assembled should : 1. End all port-of-call landing rights for foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry. 2. Remove all military installations on Australian Territory that contribute to the ability to conduct nuclear attacks. 3. Legislate to bring any purely surveillance bases on Australian Territory under the control of the Australian Government or the United Nations. 4. Allocate at least five per cent of the Defence budget to peace education activities, including social defence (non-violent) training for Australian citizens, and programmes designed to improve understanding and acceptance between the peoples of the US and the USSR 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, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We, your Petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land, is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape. We find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialisation of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the Attorney-General with the agreement of Federal Executive Council amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations under the Customs Act 1901, to permit the importation of obscene and indecent pornography into Australia without reference to the Australian people or the Australian Parliament. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will establish a Parliamentary Committee to take evidence from the people of Australia, such as the judiciary, the police, welfare workers and youth workers, the video industry , the media, those engaged in public health, private citizens, civic organisations, churches and other community groups, and report to Parliament on the effects of all pornography. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout the ACT respectfully showeth that: 1. We are concerned at the continued existence of oversized classes in ACT government schools and the effects on our children's learning. 2. We state our strong support for the recommendations of the Review of Primary Education in the ACT to reduce class sizes. 3. We call upon the Federal Government to develop a time-tabled programme to reduce class sizes in ACT government schools. As a first step we ask that funds be provided to ensure that (i) no kindergarten class has more than 20 pupils. (ii) no Year 1 or 2 class has more than 25 pupils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mrs Kelly. 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: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore the decision of the Government, to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many people in Australia are currently being denied appropriate psychological help because they cannot afford private health insurance. Rebates for psychological services within the Medicare system would enable all persons, regardless of financial and social status, to receive appropriate psychological assistance. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will give consideration to the inclusion of psychological services within the Medicare Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of Medicare has not resulted in a cheaper, fairer system of health care as promised by the Federal Government. Rather, it is an expensive, bureaucratic scheme, depersonalising medical services and conducive to medical mediocrity. While recognising the responsibility which exists to assist those in need, we humbly request the Government to review this system which moves towards the nationalisation of Australian medicine. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The undersigned strongly protest at any proposal to use Darkes Forest as the site for the second Sydney Airport on the following grounds: 1. The effect of noise on the residents of and visitors to the northern suburbs of Wollongong. 2. The effect on the environment of the Darkes Forest area and catchment areas generally. 3. The airport would mean the prohibition of hang gliding, the area's unique tourist and recreational attraction. The petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament assembled reaffirm that there be no airport in the Darkes Forest area. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We the undersigned petitioners do humbly pray, that you know of our deep concern for the safety of airline passengers flying the Qantas direct S.P. flights between Sydney and Los Angeles. The imposition of a tour of duty of up to 20 hours for Flight Attendants operating this flight, appears not only unreasonable but possibly unsafe. Passengers need the critical measure of safety that alert Flight Attendants provide in emergencies. We need you to assure that Qantas will not take any action that will lessen the effectiveness of its Flight Attendants in an emergency. Thank you for ensuring that our airline maintains its Safety First approach. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully request that the Australian Government negotiate with the Australian Council of Trade Unions significant taxation relief for lower and middle income earners together with improvements in the social wage with particular emphasis on improving the position of those reliant on social security payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. 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. We the undersigned citizens of this district of Pioneer Valley, near Mackay, Queensland, view with great concern the matter recently before the House, wherein your Government passed legislation which will facilitate the procuring of pornographic material of various kinds, including videos and literature. Most people seem to be convinced that pornography and bad videos are doing a great harm to our young people, and we feel that we would be remiss in our duty to them if we did not voice our protest. Parents have already enough difficulty in protecting their children. Your new law will make their task impossible. We hope and pray that your Government will see fit to reverse its decision in this matter. 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 certain elected representatives and officers of Local Authorities in Australia shows considerable concern that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program Levy, at 2 cents per litre of petrol and diesel, was indexed in the 1984 budget, but that funds raised from indexation of the levy will go into consolidated revenue, and not specifically into expenditure on road funds. It has been estimated that indexation of the levy will raise $491 million over the next six years to 1988/89, of which Local Government could have expected to receive $58 million. This is a further denial of funds to Local Government, following $13 million lost this year from Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will amend the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, such that funds raised through indexation of the levy will be placed in the Trust Fund, and used for much needed road construction work. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern for the welfare and safety of West Papuan refugee William Mathew Mayer, and (2) calls upon the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs not to deport Mr Mayer pending a full and detailed review of all the circumstances of the case, including undertakings as to Mr Mayer's protection from punishment and death in the event of forced departure from Australia. Mr Blunt proceeding to give notice of a motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have made the point a number of times that a notice of motion relates to a substantive question before the House and should contain only so much information as is necessary to make that motion understood by members of the House. The honourable member, by using the term 'note', is actually giving the arguments he would normally use in the debate. I rule the notice of motion out of order. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) rejects the appropriateness of Mr Temby re-examining the evidence given to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge; (2) calls on the Government to adopt the proposal of the majority of senators to establish a Parliamentary Commission; (3) reminds the Government that Parliament alone is the final arbiter in these matters, and (4) condemns the Government for allowing serious questions of propriety to drag on to the extent that the trustworthiness of the Government and the Parliament come under serious question. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges the Government- (1) to offer tax deductability to encourage Australians to invest in companies established to purchase or lease areas of environmental significance, and (2) to encourage the Australian Conservation Foundation, National Trusts and other organisations with similar objectives to establish and manage such companies to protect the Australian environment. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-I would like to take this opportunity to comment upon the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on regional conflict and super-power rivalry in the Horn of Africa, which was tabled in this House on 29 May 1984. The Government is indebted to the Joint Committee for the concise way in which it has canvassed the many complicated problems which beset the countries of the Horn. This report will serve as an extremely valuable reference work for members of the Parliament , researchers and political analysts. It reflects a further result of the Committee's visit to and deliberations upon this important area of the world. Situated on the Indian Ocean and, more importantly, at the entrance to the Red Sea the countries of the Horn-Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti-command some of the world's busiest sea lanes. This strategic significance ensures that the major world powers take a close interest in the region, and in recent years the Horn has become yet another arena of East-West confrontation. Australia, as a nation dependent on international trade, shares a Western interest in the fate of this region, a fact which has perhaps been overlooked in previous years. The attention of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has done much to redress that situation. There is a high level of Australian community interest in Ethiopia. This owes much to the suffering caused both by the recurrent drought which has beset that country in recent years, and by the conflict in Eritrea. The Eritrea conflict, to which the Committee has devoted a full chapter of its report, is one of the longest standing on the African continent. It has significantly destabilised Ethiopia, and indirectly other parts of the Horn. The Eritrean conflict has contributed in a major way to the intervention of the major powers in the region . The root of the Eritrean situation lies in the claim of the Eritrean people to exercise their right to self-determination, including the possibility of forming an independent state. The Committee, in my view correctly, has refrained from drawing any firm conclusions as to the validity of the claims of the contending parties. This approach also conforms to that which Australian governments have taken to the Eritrean issue. At various times calls have been made for Australia to raise the Eritrean issue in the United Nations and to do so in other international forums. Such calls have been resisted mainly because the nations of Africa, which are better placed to respond to this African problem, have not publicly recognised Eritrea's claims to self-determination. Until such time as the issue is recognised by the Organisation of African Unity as an international matter, and not an internal Ethiopian problem, Australia should not, I believe, take a stand in relation to the dispute. In the area of human rights, however, Australia and other like-minded countries have a legitimate interest in the Eritrean situation. The Joint Committee, in paragraph 4.99 of its report, concluded that there was sufficient evidence of violations of human rights in Eritrea for Australia to seek explanations from the Ethiopian Government. The allegations made about such violations consisted mainly of claims that the Ethiopian armed forces have used chemical weapons, including nerve and poison gas, as well as napalm and inhumane weapons, indiscrimately in Eritrea, and that substantial elements of the civilian population have been affected. The Government is concerned at any report of the use of chemical weapons and has strongly supported measures to strengthen the capacity of the United Nations to investigate allegations of their use. The Government also attaches a high priority to the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention to ban the production, stockpiling and use of all chemical weapons. We are working actively for this objective in the Conference on Disarmament. The Government has therefore investigated carefully the allegations contained in the Committee's report. Inquiries have been made of other Western governments , and with the Eritrean Relief Committee and the advice of the Australian High Commission in Nairobi has been sought. These inquiries have, however, failed to produce any independent corroboration of the reports. Allegations of the use of chemical and inhumane weapons in Eritrea are not new, and most of those in the Joint Committee report appear to relate to incidents which are at least two years old. Information available to the Government indicates that while there is some evidence that weapons such as fragmentation bombs have been used in Eritrea , over the last few years there has been an overall improvement in the human rights situation in Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the Government has seen fit to express to the Ethiopian Government, through our Ambassador, the Australian Government's concern over reports of human rights violations in Ethiopia, with specific reference to the allegations contained in the Joint Committee's report. Our Ambassador also reiterated the Government's strong support for the early conclusion of a comprehensive chemical weapons convention. The response of the Ethiopian Government was to deny the allegations made in the report and to affirm Ethiopia's support for a comprehensive convention to outlaw chemical weapons. The Ethiopians also claim that they have never used napalm in Eritrea. The Joint Committee report also considered Somalia's claims to parts of Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti, another issue causing confrontation and tension in the Horn. The report points out that Somali claims and their consequent invasion of the Ogaden region of Ethiopia in 1977 led directly to the large scale intervention of the Soviet Union and Cuba, and to Ethiopia's hardening against the West, especially against the United States. It also led Somalia to break off relations with the Soviets, depriving the latter of naval facilities, which were then made available to the United States. The Joint Committee's report goes into this problem in some detail. While again reaching no firm conclusion as to the merits of the competing claims, the report nonetheless underlines the implications that disputes such as these have for the international balance of power. It also demonstrates clearly the fragility of the power balances in the Horn of Africa. As with Ethopia, Australia enjoys cordial relations with Somalia. The Australian High Commission in Nairobi has reporting responsibilities for Somalia and sends officers to visit Mogadishu, the Somali capital, and other parts of the country on a regular basis. Honourable members may be aware that the Somali Foreign Minister, Dr Abdirahman Jama Barre, has just visited Australia as a guest of the Government. The visit provided an opportunity to focus on developments in this important region. The Australian Government was also able to take the opportunity to make clear to the Somali Government that Australia sincerely hopes that the problems of the region will be solved by peaceful means , and preferably in the context of an agreement among the countries concerned. The Joint Committee's report on Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa of December 1983, recommended that Australia open a resident mission in Addis Ababa. The Government has carefully considered this recommendation. It has been decided that it would be in keeping with Australia's interests in this region, and with our intention to focus Australia's foreign policy more towards the Indian Ocean and East Africa, to establish a small resident mission in Addis Ababa. An embassy in Ethiopia will provide Australia with a direct channel of communication with the Ethiopian Government and our first resident diplomatic presence in this part of the world. The Embassy will further serve as a point of contact with the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, both of which have their headquarters in Addis Ababa. As is the case in many areas of government, work loads and priorities vary over a period of time. It is a normal function of the management of a foreign service to review the activities of overseas missions in terms of relative priorities and performance, with a view to ensuring that maximum benefit is derived from the financial and personnel resources that are available. I have to say that the opening of a mission in Addis Ababa can only be achieved through the redeployment of existing resources within Australia's diplomatic network. In conclusion I would like once again to express my own congratulations as well as the appreciation of the Government to the Joint Committe for its significant contribution to a clearer understanding of the problems besetting the Horn of Africa. Although the overall impact of the report on the Horn is not optimistic of quick solutions, it is important to Australia to have a better understanding of this significant region of Africa. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-Like the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the Opposition welcomes the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Regional Conflict and Superpower Rivalry in the Horn of Africa, because it is quite clear from a reading of the report that the Horn of Africa is a disaster area of mind-boggling proportions. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence reports on the role of Soviet power in this region of the world and it is this influence which has been responsible for the disaster. One should point out that the Cuban presence has also been substantial . A report of the United States Congress cited by the Joint Committee says: By 1982 the assessment is that the USSR had given approximately $2 billion to $ 3 billion worth of weapons to Ethiopia and air lifted some 10,000 to 12,000 Cuban troops between November 1977 and January 1978. There are some 2,000 Soviet advisers and 500 Bulgarian advisers as well as some Libyans and southern Yemenis present to bolster the Ethiopian forces. In addition, the Soviets provided arms and training for construction services. The two Cuban brigades have continued to help protect the Ethiopian frontiers in the Ogaden and they probably provide logistical and other support for the Ethiopian campaigns in Eritrea. In 1979 the estimate of Cuban military personnel was 16,500. Few regional problem situations demonstrate better the disaster that follows the success of the Soviet Union's policy of land grab than the Horn of Africa. The Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan is perhaps more familiar because it has been better reported. The utter disregard by the Soviet Union for the human consequences of its military adventures has been well publicised. It has created three million refugees, and the sustained cruelties of the daily murderous attacks on villagers, women and children alike, has innured many to the repugnant features of a military campaign which treats women and children the same as guerrilla soldiers. This campaign is an exhibition of the direct use of Soviet armed forces in a campaign of military action. Generally, rather than direct intervention, the Soviet uses surrogate military power as it did in Korea and Vietnam and as it is doing in the Horn of Africa. The Soviet's naked purpose in the Horn of Africa is a land grab for a strategic region on which to base a political strategy to carve out control of a very significant region contiguous to the Middle East. The previous Labor Government, the Whitlam Government, was very reluctant to recognise the significance of the weakening of Western power east of Suez following the withdrawal of British power from the Indian Ocean. The British departure left to the United States the major task of defending Western interests in the Indian Ocean and the south western approaches to the Middle East. The Whitlam Government quarrelled with the United States in a public and dramatic way over the United States-British decision to develop military transit facilities at Diego Garcia to support the westabout entry to the Middle East of American influence by the United States Pacific Fleet. The removal or dismissal of the Whitlam Government brought Australia the strategic benefit of the insights of the coalition Government which cut with the strategy of trying to contain the movement of United States power, whilst painting a rosy picture about the intentions of the Soviet Union. There were certain academics who considered that the movement of Soviet naval power into the Indian Ocean following the withdrawal of British influence had no significance. The Fraser Government's concern was they said, mistaken and, we were exaggerating Soviet intentions and the potential for developments adverse to Western interests. So what is new? This Government, ever wise after the event, is presently busy clouding the issues in the Pacific. The heat of the left wing of the Labor Party is turned on the United States. United States power is the undesirable feature of the Pacific. The Government has attempted to temporise and introduce a nuclear-free zone, but all it has done is to provide better argument for an attack to be launched against ANZUS. The Papua New Guinea Prime Minister has obviously come to a revised view of the role of United States power. Yesterday, he issued a statement making it clear that United States naval movement was vital to the defence of Australia and Australia was vital to the defence of Papua New Guinea. It is to be hoped that the New Zealanders will recover their wits and follow the leadership now being given by Papua New Guinea. We have to take lessons from these disastrous events in the Horn of Africa, so well set out in the Joint Committee's report. We need to think through our own situation in their light. We have presently a situation in Australia where public opinion is confused abut the value and role of United States power. Far too many people underestimate the need for this power to counteract the destructive power of the Soviet in our region, power which is leaving such a mark on the Horn of Africa. So in 1974 we had a situation where the Whitlam Government was saying that the only power to be worried about in the Indian Ocean was the United States. Now we know differently; it is that knowledge which is before us today. We invite the left wing members of the Labor Caucus who love to focus hostility on the United States, who ignore the horrors of Afghanistan, Vietnam's occupation of Kampuchea , the torture of the Sakharov family and the shooting down of civilian airliners , to look closely at and to take heed of their defence of Soviet interests. Let those who believe that unilateral disarmament is the right answer to the buildup of Soviet power also take heed. United States Secretary of State Shultz on 15 June 1983, in his approach to arms control, said that peace is based on the twin pillars of defence and dialogue. Arms control, he argues, strengthens these pillars by seeking to stabilise the military balance at the lowest possible levels whilst expanding the area of mutual confidence and understanding between the potential adversaries. Through this process conflict between the US and the Soviet Union has been avoided, resort to nuclear weapons avoided, and the aspirations of millions for greater opportunity for peace and essential prosperity strengthened . The United States has committed itself to an in-depth dialogue with the Soviets on strategic and intermediate-range nuclear weapons, conventional arms reductions in Europe, ban on the use of chemical weapons and the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons technology. In addition, these negotiations to end nuclear testing aid measures to build confidence in the international system to reduce the risk of military confrontation, for example by notifying troop movements for manoeuvres. The United States launched its major policies for arms control in 1982. The range and complexity of the proposals demand sustained diplomatic attention. The Government has responded to recommendations it requested from the Department of Foreign Affairs to organise Australia's monitoring and, where available, participation in the unfolding dialogue. The Opposition and the Government are agreed on the central point that nuclear disarmament and the avoidance of nuclear war is rightly a fundamental pre-occupation of the world community today . The Government and the Opposition also agree that disarmament principles should recognise the need for security of all states at the lowest possible levels of armament, that the nuclear balance must be kept stable and arms control requires adequate verification arrangements. The disastrous militarisation of the Horn of Africa demonstrates the vital significance of the dialogue on disarmament and arms control. The fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we as a nation are obliged in our own interest to make a judgment and a choice between the United States power on the one hand and Soviet power on the other. I have argued that the efforts of Soviet propaganda assert that that choice risks nuclear conflict, if we favour alignment with the United States. The alternative is to see the Soviet Union pursue its international power objectives unchecked. The consequence of such a situation is starkly revealed in the Horn of Africa. I have endeavoured to argue that the extreme arguments used by the Soviet Union to frighten us into submission into its policies have had the effect of frightening the Soviet allies who do not behave in a way which suggests that they believe that the United States power threatens world peace. I take the view, along with most Australians, that United States power sustains stability, because it deters the irresponsible march of Soviet power and policies. Under the protection of that power, the Pacific region, despite Vietnam's sustained policy of warfare, has become the fastest growing region in the world. What a contrast to the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. In the Middle East there is great natural regional wealth. The governments that have that wealth are defending themselves not only from pressures, but from the divisive and destructive instruments of conflicts formed and sustained by Soviet policies. Unlike the Horn of Africa, in the Pacific, where the United States and not the Soviet is dominant, and strengthened by the security system provided by the system of security of which ANZUS is a vital part, nations can plan and develop strategies to alleviate the miseries of poverty, malnutrition, and deficient government. They can also develop strategies of economic growth and social progress which will better redistribute the benefits of peace and stability throughout the region. Let us hang on to that. We must recognise that our economic progress owes its strength and its future to our capacity to maintain a system of security which undergirds and protects that progress. But let us do what we can to assist the recovery of those regions from disaster even where Soviet power has been at work . Australia can best do this by recognising the necessity for United States influence. We in this Parliament have a special responsibility to heighten public perceptions of the issues at stake. This statement by the Minister today makes no effort to deplore the activities of the Soviet Union which has promoted violent solutions to the problem of Eritrea. The Soviet and Cuba have conducted a bloody conflict against Somalia. There is no word in this statement rejecting the policies of violence, militarisation and warfare. This raises a concern on this side of the House about the way the Government is approaching the crisis of violence in Africa. Only recently we saw reports of 100,000 killed in Uganda since that butcher Idi Amin was driven out of the country. Yesterday, the Foreign Minister tried a repeat performance of his discreditable actions of last week when he attempted, by reference to the immigration debate, to accuse the Opposition of being racist. It is a cheap form of politics and unbecoming of a Foreign Minister. He seemed to find something exciting about the riots in South Africa, and in the process, attacked the Opposition. He might ask himself what good it does Australia for him, as Foreign Minister, to misrepresent the policies of the parliamentary Opposition on such vital matters as immigration and Southern Africa. In doing this he is building up a credibility problem, already noted in the Age last week as something brought into government by the system of institutionalised factions of which he is a principal creator. Our policy rejects apartheid and that policy dates back to 1961. We have never deviated from it. We want to see change in Southern Africa, not on the basis of the senseless violence we have seen on the television screen, but on the basis of negotiation and reform. That is our policy; it should not be misrepresented. Are we to assume from today's statement and yesterday's that the Government's policy in Africa is to condone violence? Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.31) —The Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984 includes two sets of measures. The first relates to genuine major budgetary measures of the 1984-85 Budget. These measures incorporate amendments to the Social Security Act 1947, the Repatriation Act 1920 and the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. In effect, they constitute parts of the Bill in relation to which we will be moving one amendment to the second reading motion, but we will be supporting most of the measures. I will indicate the Opposition's view on those in a moment. Also tacked on to this Bill is a Part III, relating to the assets test. This has been tacked on to the Bill to make it appear to be part of the 1984-85 Budget. In last year's Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) mentioned an assets test. However, the Opposition wants to make it perfectly clear to everybody that the measure attached to this Bill does not relate to what the Treasurer described last year; it is a separate, tacked on and new piece of legislation and the Opposition will oppose it, as it has opposed the Australian Labor Party's assets test on pensioners from the very beginning. I will return to that later on and look now at the straightforward measures that were introduced as part of this year's Budget. The first point we note is that pensions and benefits have gone up in an ad hoc way this year, by $2.50 for a single pensioner and $4.20 for a married pensioner couple. We must be cautious about these figures because, if we take into account the medifiddle, the real increase for pensioners is only 35c a week for a single pensioner and 62c a week for a married pensioner couple. I should explain to the House exactly why this is so. After Medicare was introduced, pensioners got exactly the same treatment as they had received before Medicare. Pensioners with pensioner health benefit cards got free hospital and medical services under the old scheme, when the Fraser Government was in power, and continued to have the same free services under Medicare. However, as a result of the Medicare scheme the consumer price index was artifically reduced because health care costs, which had been paid for by private insurance and which came out of the consumer' s pocket in the purchase of insurance, were taken out of the consumer price index and paid for by way of tax. So the consumer price index was artifically reduced by over 2 per cent. That meant that if no adjustment had been made in this Budget pensioners would have been robbed of a legitimate increase in pension that they were entitled to expect because all the costs affecting pensioners continued to rise by more than the official consumer price index figures, by over 2 per cent. All this Government has done in this Budget is to compensate pensioners for what they were about to lose as a result of the medifiddle of the CPI. The medifiddle would have cost single pensioners $2.15 and married pensioners $3.58. By increasing pensions for single pensioners by $2.50 and for married pensioners by $4.20 in this Budget, in effect the Government is giving an ad hoc increase of only 35c for single pensioners and 62c for married pensioners. In the last election campaign the Government promised to push pensions up to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The single pension would have had to go up by $4.20 a week to achieve 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Of that promised $4.20 a week for a single pensioner the Government has in this, its second Budget, and its only Budget before it goes to an election where it has to account for its previous promises, delivered only a 35c increase. When we go to an election on 1 December, as we are reliably informed by all sorts of sources from within the Labor Party, we will go to the people and say: 'The Government promised pensioners 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. A single pensioner would have had his or her pension go up by $4.20 under the Hawke Government's promise but instead of $4.20 he or she is getting a total of 35c'. We will make that perfectly clear to the elderly of this country. There are aspects in the Budget concerning social security which the Opposition welcomes. There is an increase of $5 a week in the maximum rate of rent assistance payable to pensioners or long term sickness beneficiaries, and an identical increase in the amount of incentive allowance payable to an invalid pensioner or person in receipt of a sheltered employment allowance. There is also an increase of $2 a week in the additional pension or benefit applicable to a pensioner or beneficiary in relation to each dependent child. Because of the link between this additional benefit and the family income supplement, the maximum payment of FIS will similarly increase by $2 a week. There will also be an increase of $2 a week in the mother's and guardian's allowance applicable to a single pensioner or beneficiary in relation to a dependent child or children. All these measures are welcomed by the Opposition. We are talking here about people in considerable need. If one is directing assistance through taxpayers' money to those most in need, these are the people who certainly need it. My colleague Senator Messner, who handles social security matters on behalf of the Opposition in the Senate, has made public statements calling for these changes, and in line with that we certainly welcome them on behalf of the Opposition. We have also noted that the Government has announced a new home and community care program for the disabled and the aged, not directly related to this Bill, but worthy of mention in passing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope, within Standing Orders because it relates to a similar matter. I point out to the House that, of the $300m promised by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the Budget for the new home and community program, on a close examination of the Budget Papers only $10m is new spending spread over two departments in this financial year. So I think the $300m has to be treated as an election promise on behalf of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and not as a firm commitment. I think it can be put in the same category as the promise to increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, in the same category as the promised major tax cuts which were going to occur immediately after the last election and the whole bag of promises which were declared inoperative immediately the Government came to office. I would like to comment on two other general areas of social security, the first being benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds. We would like some further explanation from the Government about this. We are not opposing these measures, but we would like some additional explanation in the course of debate. A two- step benefit of $45 or $50 for young people on unemployment and sickness benefits is to be introduced. When they have been in continuous receipt of income security payments for six months, they go on to the higher level. No clear reasons have been given for the change, and it raises some questions. Is the Government implying that young people unemployed for less than six months have other forms of support to draw on, for example, savings, which are not available to the longer term unemployed? Will this additional benefit not further increase the differential between the services available to the longer term unemployed and those available to the short term unemployed who may not be eligible for the training and other programs for which long periods of unemployment determine eligibility? We do not oppose these changes. They are estimated to affect on average about 13,600 people at a cost of $3.5m in a full year. But I think that the Government ought to be prepared to justify in greater detail its reasons for this change. Another point relating to 16 and 17-year-old beneficiaries is that, when they have dependants, they are allowed to claim the adult rate of benefits. This means that their income support rises from either $45 or $50 to $91.90, and a dependant for the purpose of this benefit can include a brother or a sister. Although this change will affect an estimated 300 people only at a cost of $700, 000 in a full year, it might be argued by some that it could result in providing incentives for young people to change their arrangements to qualify for this increased benefit. A close study of the trends resulting from this change, we believe, should be made to make sure that we have not opened up another area where it is possible to cheat on social security. This is quite a touchy area, and all members of the Opposition fully appreciate the plight of those in these difficult positions. They are coming into our electorate offices all the time and, of course, we see them in the field and in various institutions where they go for support. There is no doubt that because of the very heavy unemployment in Australia at the moment this is a major social problem. A very careful line has to be drawn between making proper provision from taxpayers' funds at certainly very considerable expense to the Budget and making sure that that money is properly spent. If there is a looseness about the legislation or the administration of that legislation by departmental officers or others entrusted with that work, it has a very bad effect on the general state of what might be called the morality of the community. There is in the community a great deal of concern about morality in relation to taxation-about whether or not people pay their taxes. That is justified. But there is also genuine concern in the community, amongst people who are not critical of those receiving unemployment benefits, that there is not created a whole industry, as it were, of people rearranging their affairs to appear to qualify for benefits for which they are not really qualified. It is in this sense that we raise this question. Another matter causes us more concern. In the Schedule of so-called minor and consequential amendments, there is a definition of 'widows' which includes deserted or divorced wives, and it is widows classified under that heading that I am speaking about. It appears that there is to be removal of the requirement for widows defined as deserted or divorced wives, not widows in normal sense, to satisfy the Department that reasonable action has been taken to obtain maintenance before payment of a widow's pension. If that has been removed, and we understand that it has, it will result in an inconsistency in the Act. People applying for the widow's pension will not have to meet the requirement to say that they have taken satisfactory steps to obtain maintenance from whoever has left them but people applying for the supporting parent's benefit will still have to meet this requirement. We oppose this change on the basis of this inconsistency. Also, we have made clear before in the House and in the Senate that we believe individuals should take responsibility for their actions in life and that governments should take up the responsibility only where it is found that individuals cannot look after these things themselves. So if there is a requirement-certainly a moral and legal requirement -on the part of a spouse who has left a widow, as defined, in a difficult position, there should be an attempt by the person who is left to gain proper maintenance before this benefit is payable in the same way as it applies to supporting parents. In order to indicate our concern over that I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House- (1) expresses its concern about the removal of the requirement that widows- being deserted or divorced wives not remarried-must take reasonable steps to pursue maintenance actions before being eligible to receive widows' pensions; (2) notes that the removal of this provision from that section of the Act relating to widows' pensions, and its retention in that section relating to supporting parents' benefits, makes the Act inconsistent and discriminatory, and (3) expresses its belief that individuals should take responsibility for their own actions and that wherever possible families should be supported by private rather than public means'. That amendment will be seconded by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman). That brings me to the end of my remarks about the genuine Budget measures in this Bill. I would now like to refer to Part III of the legislation relating to the assets test. The Prime Minister took the opportunity during Question Time yesterday to deliver a lecture on the subject of the assets test. The people of Australia and the Opposition were sternly lectured that if this assets test was not introduced other pensioners who are more deserving would be seriously disadvantaged, that money that was being given to the people who did not deserve it could be spent in increasing the pensions of those who genuinely deserve pensions. It should be mentioned to the House, of course, that an income test still exists and therefore we are talking about only a few people who are in this category of so-called wealthy pensioners. But, in fact, an enormously large number of people will be affected by this measure in some way or another by way of search or the necessity to declare their assets. What exactly is this extraordinary saving that will be brought about by the assets test? What is the basis of the Prime Minister's remark that if this measure is not brought in vast sums of money will not be available to increase the pensions of possibly everybody to the percentage of average weekly earnings as promised by the Government? I refer to a report in the Age newspaper of 31 August this year which points out on the basis of Budget figures-and these check out, as far as I can see, with the Budget estimates-that the Government will have spent almost $55m setting up its pensioner assets test before it sees any return. When the Prime Minister announced a revised version of the test in June he admitted that the Government had erred initially but he did not say how much the error had cost. It was revealed in the Budget that the assets test cost the Government $24.7m in 1983-84, with most of the money being spent on staff and office space which was leased before Mr Hawke reviewed the original plan. This financial year the Government expects to spend about $30m establishing the test, boosting the bill to a total of almost $55m in two years. What will be given out in additional pensions as a result of this test in the first two years will be a negative $55m . If the Government had not proceeded with this absurd proposal, it would have had at least another $55m to hand out to the average pensioners in order to go part of the way towards meeting its election promise to increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The $55m would not have gone far but at least it would have gone as far as the miserable additional sums that the Government is giving pensioners this year as a result of the medifiddle of 35c a week for single pensioners and 62c a week for married pensioners. The $55m that we are talking about is probably roughly of that order but in the first two years of this test we are not gaining money, we are actually spending an extra $ 55m. How is the $55m being spent? It is being spent on bringing in valuers and inspectors. At least 1,500 extra public servants were employed originally to administer this test. This is an extraordinary proposal from a Government which says that it is bringing in a measure of the utmost importance in order to save money to give to other pensioners when the first step that it takes is to employ an additional 1,500 public servants to implement the test. Over the first two years it will spend $55m of taxpayers' money to set up the whole apparatus of inspection, evaluation, sending out forms to the elderly, frightening the elderly and measuring the so-called curtilage around farms to see whether it exceeds five acres. Mr McVeigh —That is a useless arrangement. Mr CARLTON —It is absolutely incredible, as my colleague the honourable member for Darling Downs quite rightly points out. The spending of $55m and employment of 1,500 additional public servants is supposed somehow to assist the poor elderly people. That is absolute nonsense. Once the scheme is under way and once this vast army of inspectors is prowling all over the country inspecting people' s cars and furniture, and what they have under their beds and in their bank accounts and whatever, what does it produce by way of net revenue? We now have the estimates for this. In the Budget Papers it is estimated that we will get $ 45m a year extra in later years. The saving in later years as a result of the efforts of these 1,500 public servants will be about $45m a year. Is anybody seriously suggesting that this whole dreadnought, this great battleship, has to be constructed in order to save a miserable $45m a year? When the $45m a year is taken from these allegedly wealthy pensioners and redistributed to the other pensioners, how much money will be given out? It will probably be about 30c or 40c a week-enough for half a Kit Kat as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) pointed out in a previous speech. I ask whether it is worth all that effort. What it does, quite apart from the absurdity of the financial equation, is to introduce a totally new measure of interference into elderly people's lives. Pensioners who have any sort of assets over and above their family home will have to declare them to these 1,500 inspectors. Although reassuring noises will be made about no necessity to go into people's homes for inspections, inspections there simply must be of a certain number of these people if the whole measure is to have any teeth, is to work at all, and if the miserable $45m in savings is not to be further depreciated. Of course, this is totally inequitable to those whom the Australian Labor Party always says it supports; that is, pensioners who live in rented accommodation. It is absolutely inequitable to them. Under Labor's test people with the same dollar value of assets can be treated quite differently depending on whether they are renters or not. Professor Gruen's Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test, set up by this Government, argued strongly for the inclusion of the home in the assets test. We strongly disagreed but the Gruen Panel argued for it because it alleged that someone who owned a home could continue to channel his money into improving that home, something with which the Opposition agrees. The Gruen Panel said that people would channel their money into improving their homes and would therefore not be affected by the assets test if the home was 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. The Government knew this on the basis of the Gruen report. It knew that if the home were excluded the whole central core of the proposal would be dead. The Prime Minister came into the House in the last session and had to admit that, in order to get $45m net, he would have to spend about $30m in the first year, plus the $24.7m already spent. He had to admit to the House that the Government had gone cold on the basic requirement that would make the Gruen recommendations at least logical-although we did not agree with the overall proposal it would at least have made it logical-and if it did not accept that, then the whole thing was an absolute sham. What sense of perspective has a government got when it is prepared to subject hundreds of thousands of elderly people to a grossly intrusive procedure in order to maintain a principle that has no validity? The principle might have had validity if the home were included. The Government had to exclude the home because Australians would not wear it being included in an assets test. If the home were included, it would be wide open for people to put all their assets into extending their home and thereby avoid the whole purpose of the legislation . We would have a whole new generation of people fiddling the test and we would need more than 1,500 inspectors to go in and try to stop them from doing it. What sort of a treadmill would we be on then? It would be a treadmill on to which we would put the elderly of Australia, with 1,500 public servants chasing them round and round. This Government is a government of illusion. It is a government which has all sorts of facades erected around it. It is carefully fostered by media manipulation and by extensive publicity at taxpayers' expense. But when we look behind each of these glittering facades we find a shell. There is no greater shell than this total nonsense of Labor's assets test. We in the Opposition will remove it when we are back in office. I wish to say something about farms. My friend the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) raised this matter earlier; it is of very great concern. Labor's assets test will have its greatest effect in breaking up family farms. It is absolutely inescapable, from reading the statement by the Prime Minister earlier, that the provisions announced by the Government will make the lot of those on family farms extraordinarily difficult. The provisions are totally unfair. What is the farmer allowed to keep as part of the family home? It is stated that the curtilage will be exempt. The Oxford Dictionary describes 'curtilage' as a small court, yard, 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. We asked whether the outhouse was included. We wanted to know just what was included in the term 'curtilage'. We have been given further information and I am happy to announce that the Government has said that 'curtilage' will be defined as up to two hectares, or about five acres, although the details as to how that can be worked out around the farms have yet to be determined. I can see a whole series of curtilage consultants setting up and writing to farmers saying: 'Let us design your curtilage for the maximum assets test avoidance advantage'. We will have curtilages designed like the Danzig corridor, to include the most expensive pieces of farm equipment. Curtilages of different shapes and sizes will be available off the shelf. This whole measure is an absolute nonsense. It does nothing that it claims to do. It interferes with old people's lives. Initially it spends $55m worth of taxpayers' money that has gone down the tube for absolutely no purpose. We are told that in succeeding years it will return a miserable $45m if people have not fiddled it, and of course they will. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Coleman —I second the amendment. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(11.02) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), moved an amendment with respect to the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill which contrasts very strangely in sentiment with the Opposition's protestations of concern for a few of those people who are quite able to look after themselves. It really is classic conservative thinking. The people who are in a distressed position are supposed to live in poverty, quite obviously, until they can demonstrate that they have made all sorts of efforts to look after themselves; whereas those people who are able to look after themselves quite adequately have been the object of major concern over the last 12 months. In rising to speak in support of the Bill I want to say that it seeks to implement many of the Government's very important welfare initiatives that were announced in the 1984-85 Budget Speech. It also gives effect to the assets test on pensions, which is the aspect of the Bill about which I want to talk today. It goes without saying that the Government's decision to reintroduce an assets test has been the subject of considerable debate in the community since it was first proposed over 12 months ago. It is a great shame that this debate has been characterised by exaggeration, misrepresentation and deliberate distortion, largely at the hands of the Opposition. I can only conclude from the behaviour of members of the Opposition that it is an indication of the sterility of the Opposition's imagination that it should fall back upon the use of fearmongering among one of the most vulnerable sections of the Australian community, the aged pensioners, in order to gain votes. I suppose the use of dishonesty to gain votes is not new to the Liberal and National parties while in government or in opposition. This is a well known aspect of Australia's political history. But repeated use of such devious and shameful vote catching tactics is hardly a justification of them. Immanuel Kant gave us the ethical precept requiring us to treat people as ends and not as means. I am afraid that this is a moral injunction that does not seem to have had much effect upon the Opposition. For over a year the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), has been strutting the Australian political stage claiming that the assets test is an attack upon pensioners. That is absurd. In what way this is so he has never been able to say. He has been very short on facts and very long on rhetoric. But that comes as no surprise. History will record that he has led a campaign of deception. Along with some of his less reputable friends, both inside and outside the Parliament, he has set a course that involves the misuse of people-the elderly citizens who have served this country well and who deserve much better. The Hawke Labor Government is strongly committed to the principle that scarce resources should be directed to those most in need and be seen to be so directed . That is why we are reintroducing an assets test on pensions. It is not a decision that was taken lightly. It would certainly have been politically much easier for the Government to leave the situation as it found it; in other words, to continue assisting people who do not need assistance. It is a matter of equity. This Government recognises the finite nature of our financial resources. It realises that it would be irresponsible were it not to act now to curb the unjustified use of scarce welfare funds. It is now demonstrating that it possesses the courage to make the hard decisions and redirect funds where they are most needed. Before forsaking principle for opportunism, the Leader of the Opposition understood only too well the problem that the Government faces. I remind honourable members of what the honourable member for Kooyong, who is now Leader of the Opposition, said almost three years ago to the day. This was mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) yesterday. In a speech that will haunt the honourable member for the rest of his days in this place he said: So much of government spending goes to people who demonstrably do not need government assistance . . . He went on to say: Needed decisions will demand a good deal of courage from Government leaders. There is not much evidence of that from the other side, the would-be government. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech on the Budget on 9 September 1981. If we contrast that with his recent inflammatory and irresponsible outpourings on the assets test, honourable members will have to agree that something very tragic has happened to the honourable member for Kooyong since he became the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly, he has abandoned any claim to be taken seriously ever again. He has completely sacrificed the principles of which he spoke so eloquently on 9 September 1981 for short term political expediency. I ask: Where is the courage and the principle in that? It is a sad commentary on Australian politics that oppositions so often appear to choose opportunism over principle. Where difficult decisions have to be taken -the assets test is one of them-they just do not bother. Despite the posturing of the Opposition on this issue, I venture to say that most of its members recognise, as their current leader did in 1981, and as I suggest the current Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) does today, that governments just cannot dispense scarce resources to all and sundry regardless of need. In fact, I am quite sure that in most other circumstances the Opposition would be particularly vigilant lest the Government wasted or appeared to waste taxpayers' money. It is the role of oppositions to keep governments responsible and accountable. This being so, it is somewhat surprising that the Opposition has chosen to advocate a misallocation of scarce resources where pensions are concerned. I am appalled. Considering that the Opposition has so often taken the Government to task for its huge welfare bill, it is odd to find it wanting the bill to grow as a result of the wasteful use of funds. Perhaps it does not want a larger payment but rather a lower payment spread over a larger population. Its history, where pensions are concerned, would certainly lead one to believe that it wants pensioners to receive less than they do under the Labor Government. Members of the Opposition seem to want, on the one hand, less in the pensioners' pockets and a smaller total bill; yet, on the other hand, they want pensions to be given to people whose resources are such-I say good luck to them-that they can quite adequately provide for themselves. As I have indicated, the Opposition has adopted this course of action for purely opportunistic reasons, and it knows it. It does not really care about pensioners or pensions, except limiting them. The amendment which has been put up today is a fair indication of that. What members of the Opposition really care about is votes. They believe that the more affluent elderly or retired persons will vote for the Liberal and National parties. It is this consideration, and this consideration alone, that provides the motivation for the Opposition's stand on the assets test. The great majority of pensioners are being seriously disadvantaged under the present income test arrangements. The report of the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test indicated: There is no question that a pensioner with substantial assets is in a better position to provide for him or herself than a pensioner with few or no assets, even though both pensioners may be on the same weekly income. The panel regarded this inequity as beyond doubt and a major cause for concern. There are approximately two and a half million pensioners in Australia who will be involved in the incomes test. That does not mean that they will all be affected. Of that figure, 25,000 social security pensioners and about 15,000 veterans' affairs beneficiaries would be affected. This represents approximately 1.5 per cent of pensioners. Yet this disreputable Opposition has masqueraded as having concern for these people and has been traipsing around the country for the last 12 months, talking about its great concern for pensioners who will be affected. The pensioners who are really in need will not be affected. We are looking after those people. It is a disgrace that the Opposition should be playing on the fears of these people. It ought to know better. It must be understood that 70 per cent of age pensioners as at June 1983 had no income other than the pension or had such small amounts of income that they were able to receive the full pension rate. They would have needed a large amount of assets for their pensions to be affected. Once again, members of the Opposition know that that is the case. Eighty-nine per cent of supporting parents, some of whom, of course, will be subjected to the tender ministrations of the Opposition 's concern, as represented by the amendment that it has moved today, either had no income other than the pension or had incomes below the threshold. The Opposition has not shown great compassion. It is the usual deception by the Opposition to say that we would be endangering the livelihood of those people. On the contrary, because of indexation, they will be better off. I will make a few comments, too, about the hardship clause. The assets test provided by the Bill before us will be fair and simple. It recognises that a minority of pensioners, such as farmers and other self-employed persons, may face some degree of financial hardship as a result of the test. To meet this situation, proposed section 6AD of the legislation provides for hardship provisions to apply on a case by case basis. Of course, the honourable member for Mackellar would not know that. He would not have many farmers, except Collins Street farmers or farmers of that type, in his electorate. But many concerned people have come to me, I have been able to explain this to them and they understand that they are being looked after. Furthermore, proposed section 6AB provides for a loans scheme for pensioners who are entitled to little or no pension because of the value of their assets and who do not wish to sell or rearrange those assets. That was not mentioned by the honourable member; not at all. Such loans will be paid on a similar basis to the pensions. This arrangement, to be known as the pension loans scheme, will be completely voluntary. Individuals will decide for themselves whether they wish to apply for payments under the scheme. The fearmongering tactics of members of the Opposition on this issue have caused unnecessary anguish for many pensioners. It is an appalling indictment on them, as is the recent report in one Melbourne newspaper which suggested that the Government was about to send Department of Social Security officers into pensioners' homes to inspect and value their personal effects and household contents. The Opposition knows that that is not true. Nothing could be further from the truth. The assets test has been deliberately designed to avoid the need for inspection. It is based on the Government's belief that the vast majority of pensioners are honest, which is more than the Opposition believes. Unfortunately , that is more than we can say about members of the Opposition. Their pathetic attempts to conceal their lack of policies and ideas will convince no one. They have now quite unashamedly adopted the only tactic left to them-if they cannot convince the people, they drive fear into them and confuse them. But that will not work either. I have great faith in the intelligence of the Australian people , particularly our pensioners, who will surely see through the Opposition's extremely sleazy and shabby misuse of them and attempts to mislead them. I commend the Bill to the House and ask the House to throw out this appalling amendment. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(11.15) —I support the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) to the motion for the second reading of the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test ) Bill, an amendment which will remove from this legislation those provisions that will bring into operation an assets test. I feel very strongly about this matter. Throughout my political career I have been totally opposed to the imposition of both assets and incomes tests of any kind on the pensions of Australia's retired population. It is very easy for us to say that we want to direct resources to those in need . Very often, though, we do not analyse who we mean by people in need. One could approach it in this way: We have a population of just over 15 million people. Six and a half million of those people are in the work force or receive income from their entrepreneurial efforts. The remaining nine million of our population are not receiving wages, salaries or profits from businesses in which they are currently working. They are dependent upon either government or some individual. We need to ask ourselves whether those who are dependent upon other individuals are putting a strain on the resources of the individuals upon whom they are dependent in a manner brought about by the failure of government to recognise what people do in supporting others who are dependent upon them. Our tax system is based upon the income of an individual. It pays lip service to the capacity to pay principle. If it pays any attention to that principle, it relates capacity to pay to the capacity of the individual in relation to the individual's income. It does not relate that capacity to the burden of those who are dependent upon the taxpayers, except in the smallest way through the spouse rebate and through the provision of family allowances. Family allowance provisions should have been contained in this legislation. The present family allowances are very meagre. When people have no other income and are dependent upon the social security system, we have to supplement the amount of provision we make for their children because the family allowance is totally inadequate. Some say that people who have incomes out of which they can pay tax should pay for their children. They are saying that in those circumstances parents who choose to have children must be prepared to pay out of their after-tax income the amount needed to provide for their children, except to the extent that they are subsidised by a small measure through the family allowance. Yet if those same parents become dependent upon the social security system, we say that they must be provided with a great income through the provision of an amount in addition to the family allowances. As a society, we need to ask ourselves whether we are treating children as individuals or as consumer goods. I believe that we should treat them as individuals. I believe that it should not be concerned only as to whether the public sector or the private sector provides for children. If it is the private sector, the amount that is needed to sustain and maintain them should be deducted from the tax liability of those supporting them. Alternatively, an amount equal to the minimum costs of maintaining a child should be paid by way of family allowance to their parents. If their parents have very high incomes when assessed on an individual basis, let us have a tax system which is fair and equitable in relation to that taxpayer's high income after proper allowance has been made through either the direct payment of adequate family allowance or tax rebates which make adequate allowance for the maintenance of those children. Today we have the absurd situation in which lower income families, very often with a single income earner, run into family difficulties and it becomes a financial advantage for them to separate. Under the present provisions under which assistance is provided to supporting parents, the parent who has the support of the children and has no income of his or her own receives more by way of allowances through the social security system than that united family would have received by way of allowances through social security or tax rebates. There is no doubt that all the evidence points to the fact that people in their behaviour patterns do take account of the structure of the tax and social security system. Because our tax and social security system has grown like Topsy and because each system has grown separately from the other, there are so many anomalies that one would need many pages to list them all. What is urgent today for Australia is that the totality of the tax and social security system should be examined to ensure that through the income maintenance system now delivered through social security and the tax system we get a rational and integrated system so that families and individuals are fairly and equitably treated. So I am disappointed that in this legislation there is no recognition of the needs of families. Since the Hawke Government came to office family allowances have not been adjusted at all, yet the cost of educating and maintaining children has risen and there has been no allowance through the tax system for families in respect of the cost of maintaining children. I believe that this legislation is very deficient in that way. I turn to the point I raised when I got to my feet with regard to provisions for the aged and my support of the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar. I do not believe in the case of retirement incomes that there should be any income or assets test at all. I think that we should, as a nation, pay pensions on a universal basis to those who have retired . The Department of Social Security's Social Welfare Policy Secretariat had some work done on this matter and sought some actuarial calculations. It found that under the present system, with retirement ages of 65 for men and 60 for women and with an anticipated 85 per cent take-up rate of pensions out of the total population in that age group, the cost of funding those pensions was 5.49 per cent of the expected total of employed persons' earnings. To make those pensions universally available at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings to men aged 65 and women aged 60, with a 100 per cent take-up, would involve a transfer of 6.46 per cent of total employed persons' earnings. Those percentages would rise slowly over time-I emphasise the word 'slowly'-because of the demographic change in our population due to the increasing proportion of the aged within that total population. The point I want to emphasise is this: It is not good enough just to look at 85 per cent of the aged population or, as Labor would seek to do, to drive it down to 80 per cent, 75 per cent or 70 per cent, which takes up public sector pensions. It is not sufficient just to attempt to drive that percentage down. What we as policy makers must be concerned about in developing public policy is how all of those who are aged 60 and 65 will cope with their years in retirement . All of that age group are dependent, and it is not sufficient for governments simply to say: 'Our concern is for 70 per cent or 80 per cent of them'. Government concern should be for the totality of the dependent population and of the dependent aged. Therefore, in looking at how we should go about providing people with that income, we have to ask ourselves whether it would not be more efficient, more equitable and more rational to provide everyone aged 60 and 65 with a basic pension at the current rates of 23 per cent or 24 per cent or, if it is thought appropriate, 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We could then say to the population: 'We give you certainty. We will provide a basic pension to everyone on reaching retirement. That basic pension will be at a set rate of 24 per cent, 25 per cent or whatever rate is selected, of average weekly earnings and will be adjusted with the consumer price index through indexation. Then if you wish you may during your working years provide extra for your retirement or if you wish you may spend your money as you earn it and be satisfied in retirement to live on the basic pension provided by the community as a whole'. There is no doubt that the great majority of people receiving today's pensions could have provided pensions for themselves if past governments of all political persuasions had set an environment in which every individual could have made that private provision. Because of the needs-based approach and the heavy taxation imposed upon people during their working lives, people have adjusted their affairs to take account of the fact that when they do leave the work force they have a need for income. They have therefore altered their spending patterns and adjusted their earning programs in order that on reaching retirement they will become entitled to the so-called needs-based pension. As a result a large amount of the resources going through the public sector through the Department of Social Security has come from people who during their working lives were taxpayers. So all the Government has been doing over time is recycling the taxpayers' money, taking it from them during their working lives and paying it back in retirement. In many countries, including Australia, the approach is adopted that today's taxpayers pay for today's retirees in a form of social contract which has a third element, that element being that today's taxpayers have an expectation that tomorrow's taxpayers will pay for their retirement. So I am highly critical of the moves made by the Labor Government, firstly, in creating uncertainty for the aged by removing the means test-free pension or income test-free pension for those over 70; secondly, by imposing a superannuation tax at 31 per cent; and, thirdly, by introducing an assets test which will do nothing to provide for people who are in very great need. It will do nothing because, as my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar has pointed out, the cost of running this assets test in the first year will far exceed the amount that the Government believes it will save in pensions that it would otherwise pay out. I find that increasing numbers of people are coming to me and saying: 'Malcolm Fraser was right when he said that people should put their money under the bed'. Pensioners are now concerned about 1,500 inspectors who will now go around and ask them to list all their personal assets: Their furniture, their paintings and their family heirlooms. Many people have valuable assets of this type, not appreciating the value because they have always regarded them as family heirlooms. Yet Labor's inspectors will now knock on the door and ask for people to account for their assets in a way which is unfair and intrusive. The assets test sets up a totally different tax regime for those who reach retirement. While we are under the age of 60 or 65 we pay income tax according to a specified definition of income. It is a definition which has changed over time and I have no doubt it will change in the future. But when we reach pension age not only are we liable for income tax on the definition of income in the tax legislation but also we are taxed by the income test. The combined effect of income tax and the income test is to impose on pensioners a total tax liability of 65c to 66c in the dollar, a higher marginal rate of tax than the tax rate paid by the highest income earners in the land. Now, on top of that tax effect, the Labor Government seeks to impose an assets test which is, in effect, a wealth tax on pensioners, a wealth tax on the aged that does not apply to the rest of the community. It is a wealth tax imposed in breach of promises made by the Government when it came to office that it would not take a cent away from any pensioner and that it would introduce a national superannuation scheme. The Government has destroyed the foundation on which it could have constructed a sensible and rational national superannuation scheme by the payment of age pensions on a universal basis. On the attainment of the age of 60 or 65, it could have paid a basic pension to everyone so that those who work for employers could negotiate from their employers superannuation benefits which could be used to build upon the basic pension that they receive from the Government. Likewise others would be enabled throughout their working lives to make savings and provisions in a manner which they choose. There is one other aspect that I want to touch upon. It is related to the approach to assets testing and income testing and the provision of pensions. I refer to fringe benefits. Recently, we have all had the advantage of reading a very large tome on the value of fringe benefits to pensioners. I express a concern about the soup kitchen mentality that has developed as a consequence of the granting of fringe benefits. Australians, I believe, want to be independent; they want to be self-reliant and to have the freedom to choose the way in which they will live. We should move away from the concept of providing so-called fringe benefits or benefits in kind and enable people to have the resources to make the choice as to whether they want a telephone that is cheap or whether they want to pay for it because they have the money, whether they want to go on subsidised transport on a cheap pass or buy a bicycle and use their resources in some other way. I know that many people see the fringe benefit package as of some value to them , but I think as time goes on we need to ask ourselves whether we should convert the fringe benefits into a cash package and whether the Government should structure insurance pooling arrangements so that those who wish to pool their risks in relation to transport or health or other costs can do so through the insurance mechanism. Those who do not choose to insure because they do not want, for example, to travel on a bus should have the opportunity to have the money or the resources available to them for other uses. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(11.35) —It is a great day here in the Parliament of Australia today because, after waiting for two years, we finally have the Opposition's comprehensive retirement package. It is here in the amendment the Opposition has proposed to the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill. It really says nothing more than what has been practice for the last 30 years. The Opposition is talking about so-called freedom of choice. We heard about it just a few moments ago. Let us consider freedom of choice and what happens in the Australian pension system. About 40 per cent of the wage earners in the work force are covered by an employer sponsored scheme. Governments, State and Federal, and the larger companies have their own schemes whereby they provide a mechanism for employees to contribute to them. Fifty-six per cent of the remaining 60 per cent who do not have access to those schemes receive the full pension. When talking about freedom of choice, we are saying that 60 per cent of people do not have access to superannuation schemes and that 56 per cent of those people do not take out any superannuation cover with the private companies. It is plain for everybody to see that the present system is a failure. I also point out that until quite recently an assets test was a part of that package. It was not until Mr Menzies left this Parliament that the tinkering with the assets test started by conservative governments that followed him. All they were really doing was playing with the assets test in an attempt to gain votes at election time. This is a brief history of the demise of the assets test. In September 1969, a tapered means test was introduced. It was just the first chink in the armour of the assets test. It affected 207,000 people and added to the amount that the Government had to pay to those people. In September 1972 we saw an increase in the free area that added 50,000 people to the numbers of those eligible for pensions. It looked at that time as though there would be a close election, so the then Government also gave away some superannuation and annuity concessions which affected another 50,000 people. I could go on, but it is sufficient to say that in November 1976 the assets test itself was scrapped altogether. This distorted the system. There were full page advertisements such as the one published in the Australian Pensioner of 2 February 1982, which read: . . . I had to read it twice too!' . . . 'Supersaver' single premium life insurance savings plan offers the ideal tax-free investment. Under existing legislation- that is, without the assets test- it is also excluded from income tests applied to aged, invalid, war service or widow's pensions. Full page advertisements in pensioner magazines invited people to arrange their finances in such a way that they did not produce an income. As we all know, there are two ways to measure wealth. We can consider income which is a very narrow test or we can consider the assets a person has. It is significant that those people in society who can arrange their affairs in such a way that they do not produce an income are usually those people at the top end of the social structure. They are the very people who are advantaged by the so-called freedom of choice argument put up by the Opposition and reinforced by it today with this meaningless amendment proposed by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). We should also consider some of the claims made by the Opposition. Once again, it is running true to form. The old fear tactics come out; the closer to an election, the bigger the lies it puts out. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and the honourable member for Mackellar have talked of 1,500 people going into pensioners' homes. The honourable members either are ignorant or have not read the legislation, because those 1,500 people will be public servants who will be in offices looking after the machinery of the assets test and not valuers going into pensioners' homes. In fact, by November it will be obvious to everybody that only 15 per cent of pensioners have to fill out a form at all. It is a self-assessment. Seventy per cent of pensioners will not have to worry about filling out any form at all. The 1,500 people to be employed will not be knocking on people's doors to value assets such as heirlooms or, as was suggested in one particular article in the Press, people's clothing. People who promote this sort of thing are really doing pensioners a disservice. All they are doing is raising their fears in the expectation that they might gain a few cheap votes; and cheap votes they would be. We also saw the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), televised from this chamber the week before last, referring to just that. All we can say about the Leader of the Opposition, as he slips into oblivion, is that if he is peddling this sort of stuff he knows that he is peddling a lie. Although I am not an adviser to the Leader of the Opposition, I think that he would gain much more respect if he started telling the truth for a change and started agreeing with the Government that by bringing in an assets test we are reinforcing the sorts of statements he was making a few years ago when he had the guts to get up and say what he really believed. Let us have a look at some of the people who now agree with what the Government is doing in relation to the assets test. Here is a quote from Geoff Allan, the Executive Director of the Business Council of Australia: The Government deserves support for attempting to tackle this politically difficult problem now. It is important that the Government gets community support for tackling the hard and thankless task of expenditure restraint through means testing welfare. That is from the Business Council of Australia. Let us now have a look at the words of Alexander Downer, Director of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. He said: The Government is absolutely right in introducing an assets test. Let us go a little closer to home for the Liberal Party. John Elliott, the Managing Director of Elders IXL Ltd and Treasurer of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party-some have suggested that he may come in here and take over from this Leader of the Opposition when he makes his exit in a few months time-made this statement: I have always argued that the social security system should be based on need. Therefore I do support the assets test. What we have now is an assets test that will cut pensions off for people who are affluent and wealthy. I think it's a good start. That came from one of the leading Liberals. I notice from the speakers list today that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) is not speaking. No wonder he is not speaking. He also believes in what we are doing. Even among the Opposition, members are not united in their opposition to the assets test. There are a few of them who at least have a social conscience and recognise that we are taking difficult decisions which, in the short term, may cost us votes. I do not think that they will. Like the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), I believe that the Australian people, when it comes time to pass their judgment, will see through the scare and fear tactics of the Opposition. Let us have a look at a few of the provisions of the Bill. As I have mentioned before, the 15 per cent of pensioners who have to fill out a form will be self- assessed. They will not have people knocking on their doors asking to value their assets. Another provision of the Bill is that the assets test limits will be indexed to the consumer price index; so, as the cost of living goes up, so will the exemptions, and they are very generous exemptions. I would say that not many people in my electorate of Tangney, apart from a few along the river shore at Applecross, will even be affected. In fact, I would venture to say that 99.5 per cent in Tangney will not even have to fill out a form. Yet, a candidate who once served that area is going around now putting out Press releases which, in part, support the rubbish that has been put up from the Opposition here today. I am encouraged also by the statement of Senator Chipp during the passage of similar legislation through the Senate. He said: We support in principle asset testing, because we have had a gutful of people double dipping . . . Mr Fraser and the Liberals had seven years to bite that difficult bullet and they did not do it. Well, they are not doing it again now. When it comes time to make the hard decisions they buckle under and go for the cheap vote. As I have said, the Australian people will rightly make their judgment in a few months time as to whether the Liberal Party is dinkum about this. Another measure that the Government is taking in respect of retirement incomes is the taxing of lump sum provisions. We brought that in two months after we came into office. Once again the Opposition has said that it will repeal that when it gets back into office. That, taken in combination with the assets test, is really only trying to shore up the inefficient system that has been with us for 30 years. As a back bencher I am sick and tired of defending tired old Liberal policies which do not even fit the bill. Like the honourable member for Sturt, I honestly believe that what we need today is a superannuation scheme which allows people to contribute during their working lives and to have that money invested in such a way that it produces an adequate income where assets tests are not needed. Certainly, that is what the Labor Party stands for. I know that we have a Cabinet committee now looking at ways in which we can bring that in. Before I close I wish to mention the unfairness of the present system. The most common complaint that I hear is that people who have the option of investing in private schemes do not do so because they feel that by doing that they are preventing themselves from getting a pension. They are right. A person who invests in a private superannuation scheme and then, upon retirement, receives the benefits of that scheme in a fortnightly or weekly fashion as it was meant to be, is then excluded from getting the pension. That person rightly believes that having paid taxes all his working life he should be entitled to a pension. Yet he finds when he retires that, because he had the foresight to provide for his own retirement, he is disadvantaged because the person who did not do that receives the full pension from the Government and the fringe benefits. Mr Wilson —The only way to overcome that is to have universal pensions. Mr GEAR —Well, that is one way but I do not believe it is the only way. In Britain everyone gets that universal pension, but there are a large number of supplementary schemes, each of which is means tested. So I do not think that is the answer. I think the national superannuation scheme, which allows people through their working lives, whether they change jobs or not, to provide for their own retirement is the answer. That is what we on this side of the House would support. In conclusion, I believe that the Government is biting the bullet, to use the words of Senator Chipp, and making the tough decisions. I am sure that, when the time comes for the Australian people to pass judgment, they will see through the scare tactics of the Opposition and return the Government with an even bigger majority. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(11.47) —I rise to speak against the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill because of my concern about the aged people of Australia and the inequities which will arise as the years go on. I represent a farming and retirement community and almost daily we have at least half a dozen people, pensioners particularly, who come in and ask for details of the Government's policies in relation to the assets test. The whole thing has been a complete saga over quite a long period. I do not think it hurts to run over the history of this matter since the 1983 Budget when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced the fact that the Government would impose an assets test on pensions. On 7 December the Minister brought the legislation into this chamber and I suppose at the time there was very strong pressure from the constituents, and particularly from those members who represented their areas, because they could see the anomalies existing under an assets test scheme. At the time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was away but when he came home he suddenly announced that the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test would be set up to look into the matter. Later the Panel came out with its report and its recommendations varied a great deal from those originally planned for the assets test. The point is that one cannot draw a line when it comes to looking at the assets or income of people and say that one person can have it and another cannot. That is the important point. When we were in government before, we found this out. It was not fair to somebody who had worked hard for a lifetime and had saved and tried to put some money aside that, after all his efforts and caring for his family, a government of some kind should turn around and tell him he was not entitled to security under a pension scheme. So we abolished it because we thought it was unfair. It is realistic that we should now stand by what we discovered in those days. There are aspects of this assets test that concern a wide group within the community. I have 17,000 pensioners in my electorate of Lyne and I would assess that approximately one-third of them will be disadvantaged by the assets test scheme. Those who will be particularly concerned and affected are the people on the land-a mass of small farmers on their 200-acre dairy farms or 500 acres or less of grazing property. Over the years they were able to make a living because costs were rather low, but in the modern economy it is impossible for these people to save money of their own for their old age. They know they have the security of their properties; they know they can raise a few head of cattle on that property so that if they receive pensions they will have enough on which to live. A farmer may keep the farm for his family, perhaps for his own son, but with incomes today on dairy or grazing farms, or mixed farms of any kind, it is not likely that that son will be able to recompense his parents at all from his income. What will occur when officers of the Department of Social Security go around saying that they will excise up to five acres of land, of which the residence will be a part? I know that speakers before me have raised this matter but I want to raise it again because the detrimental effect that this will have on the families I am talking about cannot be overemphasised. Hundreds of these folk come to my mind as I speak here today-people who have worked hard for their lifetimes, who are still living out on the farms 20 miles from town. They are living on country that could be subdivided. The value of the residue of a property depends a great deal on whether the ordinance of the local council says that the property must be sold as a whole or whether it can be subdivided. If it can be subdivided the residue of the property after the house and five acres have been excised could be worth anything up to a quarter of a million dollars. But a family might not want to leave the farm; they might want to live there because they love the land and the lifestyle. People in this situation do not want to be a burden upon the community but the Government is putting everybody in a strait-jacket. I am sorry for this. People will have to meet the regulations we are speaking of in the House today. They will have to attend a Department of Social Security office. These people worry. I have been concerned about this over the last year and that is why I mentioned a while ago the history of this measure. It has worried people and affected their health. Aged people are just sick and tired-and have become sick-of this matter. They want to know whether they will be entitled to receive a pension. Look at what the Government has done. It has turned around and put in the line that says some people are eligible but others are not. That is what I detest. What about the special circumstances of a person who is said to be ineligible? Let us look at the practicalities of this measure. I know it is said that the Australian Taxation Office will do the valuations but somebody has to come out and say what the residue of the land is valued at. There might be a second home upon it. Many farms have second homes. There might be out-buildings that service the farm, or tennis courts, or something that is away from the house. These have to be excised from the house and become part of the residue of the property. In many of the places about which I am speaking there is unproductive land on the property. A farm might have 200 acres of land that will run only 20 or 30 head of cattle. Certainly it might be possible to subdivide, as I said earlier, but the farmers do not want to do that as they just want to have those cattle there for themselves, and to live their old age in peace on the property. So this assets test legislation-maybe this is the will of the Government-is to restrict people and put everybody in a position whereby they will not plan or save for their retirement. It is a very sad situation in a democracy when we as a parliament cannot with policies induce people to save over the years for their retirement. It is sad indeed when we come to think of it, but that is the fact. The other day I was approached by a couple whose aged mother lived 12 miles away, in a seaside resort. The couple and the mother were on pensions. The mother had few assets of any kind, although she could care for herself. She was 82 or 83 years old. They had purchased a home for her where she could be nearby and they would be able to look after her. They owned a little block of land in one of the western towns of the State which they had saved up to buy for another member of the family. When that small home and little block of land are valued at current prices-this is a problem particularly in New South Wales-these people will not be able to avoid the assets test. So they asked me what they were going to do; what did I suggest? I am asked that half a dozen times a day in my electorate office. People say: 'What do you suggest that we do, Bruce?'. I have said: 'I am sorry, this saga has gone on for a year and nobody yet knows what is going on'. At least now the Bill is before us and we can see some of the measures within it. These are the fundamental things that affect those people who are loyal Australians, who are out there in the bush. Why not wipe the assets test and tax people? Is that not fair? If someone's income is above a certain level, why should he not be taxed? I believe that that is the way the Government has to look at this matter. I know that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will say that people do not have to sell their properties because the Government will give them a loan at bank interest rates. I think 13.75 per cent has been mentioned. However, savings would gradually be eaten away by the repayments and then the assets would be sold up, so the people would have nothing in the finish . The Government would sell them up, Mr Chairman. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Lyne that the correct term is 'Mr Deputy Speaker'. He might bear that in mind when making future references to persons occupying the chair. Mr COWAN —I humbly apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are the last person I would like to offend, as one Public Works Committee man to another. A single person can have $70,000 worth of assets and a married couple assets worth $100, 000. That is not much money in today's society; in fact, they are pretty low figures. The Government might say that the assets test will save $60m, but it will cost over $10m a year to administer. It will require an expansion in the Public Service. As the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) said, sure there will be more superannuation. There will be a rise in the number of people with superannuation because we will be fuelling the Public Service. We need to induce people to save, to induce them to join superannuation funds if they can. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and I ask the Government, for the sake of the people who have been worrying over the last year, to be fair to them and wipe away this impediment that it is about to introduce. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.59) —The Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill does two things-it puts into effect the Budget social security and repatriation measures announced on Budget night and of course it also proposes the Federal Government's assets test legislation. I intend to deal briefly with some of the specific Budget measures and then touch on some of the arguments concerning the assets test. The initiatives contained in the 1984-85 Federal Budget will significantly assist the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our community and I certainly welcome the priority given in this Budget to helping families in most need, particularly sole parent families and families on very low incomes and living in privately rented accommodation. All pensioners and adult beneficiaries, including the unemployed, will benefit from a base rate increase of $2.50 a week for single adults and $4.20 a week for married couples from 1 November. In keeping with Government policy, this is an increase in real terms which further lifts the payment for all pensioners and beneficiaries towards the Federal Government's goal of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. In allocating those additional funds for the social welfare programs contained in this Bill the Government has paid particular attention to people who are in greatest need. In general, pensioners and beneficiaries bringing up children are worse off than those without children. The most disadvantaged of all are families with children who are forced to rent privately and, in particular, sole parents who rent privately. Another group which is disadvantaged in relation to other pensioners and beneficiaries is the single unemployed adults without dependants, who presently receive $10.80 a week less than single pensioners or adult sickness beneficiaries. That is as a direct result of the Fraser Government's decision in 1978 to exclude the single adult unemployment benefit from automatic indexation applying to the adult rates of payments. To ensure that the assistance does go to those in greatest need the Government has taken a number of steps in this year's Budget, as outlined in the legislation. Firstly, we have increased the additional payment for children of pensioners and beneficiaries from $12 to $14 a week. I emphasise that in terms of this Party's commitment to those in greatest need, that represents a 40 per cent increase in total since the Labor Party won office in March 1983. Secondly, the mothers' and guardians' allowance, which is an additional payment made to sole parent pensioners or beneficiaries, will increase from $8 to $10 a week from 1 November. The Labor Government again has significantly increased assistance in this area since it won office. We have both extended the rate of allowance from $6 to $10 and extended it to the unemployed and sickness beneficiaries who were previously excluded. Thirdly, the family income supplement, which is paid to low income families not receiving a pension or benefit, is to be increased and the income limits governing eligibility for this payment have also been eased. Fourthly, we have increased the maximum rate of supplementary assistance, which is paid to pensioners and sickness beneficiaries who rent privately, by 50 per cent from $ 10 to $15 a week from 1 November. Fifthly, the unemployment benefit for single adults without dependants has been increased by an additional $2 a week from 1 May 1985 over and above the general $2.50 a week increase which applies from 1 November 1984 as well as any other automatic indexation increase in May of next year. That will further narrow the gap between the rate of benefit and the standard rate of pension and is in line with the Government's commitment progressively to eliminate this gap. I should say that as of November 1984 the unemployment benefit for single adults without dependants will have risen from $ 68.65 to $81.10 in just 12 months, that is, an increase of $12.45 or almost 20 per cent. There has also been an increase in the junior rate of unemployment benefit which represents an increase of more than 25 per cent since our Party won office. Finally, the maximum rate of benefit for single people under 18 years of age and with dependants, which includes brothers or sisters, will be increased from $45 a week to the standard pension of $91.90 a week. In addition, those people will also receive the additional allowance of $14 a week per child and $10 a week in mothers' and guardians' allowances. It should be said of course-as I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker- that, in addition to these general social security measures as outlined in the Bill, the Federal Government in its Budget has provided for a significant boost in spending on child care services. We have provided a significant increase in funding for home and community based services for the aged and disabled-a long overdue initiative. We have increased funding for emergency accommodation for the chronically homeless and we have also provided additional funding for victims of domestic violence. In overall terms the Budget and the Bill before the House allocate $15.34 billion for social welfare services and programs in 1984-85, and that is an increase of $1.23 billion over last year's allocation. In percentage terms it is an increase of some 9 per cent. I, and I know all other Government members, welcome this very strong commitment to helping the disadvantaged in our society and particularly our determination to ensure that funding is directed to those who are most in need. That brings me to the issue of the assets test. I should say by way of background that the whole question of the assets test has been canvassed exceptionally well in the Gruen report, the report of the Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test. The report notes: Since pensions were first introduced federally in Australia in 1908 the proportion of the aged who receive this pension has increased markedly. Indeed dramatically. The report continues: In the pre-World War II census . . . less than a third of those of pensionable age received the old age pension. In the post-war years this percentage increased from around 40 per cent in 1950 to around 60 per cent in 1970. Since then there has been a further substantial increase. The Gruen report notes, according to the last available statistics for June 1983 : . . . some 73.7 per cent of the eligible population receive age pensions. If one includes service and invalid pensions, the proportion of the aged receiving welfare benefits has risen steadily from 62.9 per cent for males in 1971 and 63.8 per cent for females to almost 90 per cent for males and 85 per cent for females in 1982. Given that background, I think governments of all political persuasions have then to make decisions about whether pensions will be paid on a universal basis, in other words to everyone irrespective of income or assets, or on some type of needs basis. I think that is a fair question and it is one that affects all governments. If we look at the question of universal pensions we see from the Gruen report that, if we did abolish the existing means test for all age pensioners, the cost to the Government of that decision would be in excess of $1 billion. The figure the report uses is, I think, $1.1 billion in net cost. That would be because the abolition would mean that 280,000 people who currently do not receive any age or service pension would be entitled to receive the full amount and an additional 380,000 who receive a part pension would gain the full pension. I quote from page 7 of the Gruen report, which states: Given limited resources a trade-off exists between providing pensions for all and improving the adequacy of existing pensions and benefits. There are too many needs not being met. If we agree-I am sure that most honourable members would-that it is simply impossible, and not realistic or feasible, to pay a universal pension to all pensioners in Australia, governments must decide to pay a pension on the basis of need. Traditionally in Australia that measure of need has been a means test which has taken account of income, and also some account of assets. Again, as Gruen noted in his report: As long as we have a needs-based system it will be necessary to have some measure of need, involving a test of some kind. Whatever test is used it should be the most reliable and consistent indicator of economic need. It should then, in some broad fashion, take account fully of a person's financial position. So we obviously come to the question of measuring need. I do not think there is any doubt that over recent years it has become increasingly clear that there are serious problems in terms of using the existing income test. There are valid arguments regarding the inequity of that test and considerable evidence suggests that that test is being avoided. Again the Gruen Panel firmly concludes that the income test is broadly inequitable between those with assets and those without. There is no question that a pensioner with substantial assets is in a better position to provide for himself or herself than a pensioner with few or no assets, even though both pensioners may have the same weekly income. We come to the question of the assets test, and I will keep my remarks very brief. We have support for that assets test from a wide range of organisations and political parties. The Business Council of Australia, in a three-paragraph statement, in relation to pensions concluded by saying: 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. In October 1981 we had a statement from the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, who said: 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 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. We had a statement from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on 27 November 1983 and, of course, we had a statement from Mr John Elliott of Liberal Party fame and from Elders-IXL, who has made his support for the assets test quite unequivocal. To conclude briefly, in the debate today I have heard some disgraceful comments from members of the Opposition. We heard the normal rubbish that has been brought up publicly by the Opposition. We heard that 1,500 Labor inspectors will be knocking on doors and barging into pensioners' homes. We heard the Opposition suggest that pensioners should and will hide money under their beds. We heard the assets test described as a single measure solely aimed to destroy the family farm. They are the types of pathetic claims made by the Opposition. The Opposition has embarked on a deliberate and premeditated campaign of fearmongering amongst our elderly population and to some degree has succeeded with those in our population who are dependent upon and very much reliant upon the information which comes through the media and through this Parliament. Many of them have been duped by the Opposition. The Opposition has made a farrago of total distortion out of this assets test. I am amazed by the statement that 1,500 Labor inspectors will be beating on pensioners' doors to count their precious heirlooms. That is a most disgusting and disgraceful statement for someone in this House to make. In respect of that campaign by the Opposition, Professor Gruen recently stated his views about opposition to the assets test. His statement was that it represents: . . . an unholy alliance of greedy, unrepresentative spokespersons for some pensioner organisations and of the Federal Opposition to frighten those Australians receiving pensions. I think that adequately sums it up. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(12.14) —It is something of an understatement to point out that Australia's elderly have never before experienced government-inspired confusion and uncertainty of the dimensions and to the extremes that they have under this socialist Government. It is difficult to imagine a set of circumstances which, even if deliberately planned, could have had a greater unsettling effect than the Hawke socialist Government's on-again off-again on- again assets test. The nation's elderly have had to suffer the uncertainty perpetrated by this uncaring and insensitive Government for more than an agonising year now. It was in August 1983, last year, that the country was first advised that an assets test was to be inflicted on our elderly. It was another casualty of the expedience of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It was another broken election promise. It is reassuring to note that since that first announcement the Opposition parties have stood alongside pensioner groups to make this uncaring Government understand the unfairness of what it was doing. What happened in the months that followed that first announcement? The Government ducked and dived, changing the conditions, adding leisure packages, and taking them away again. No one amongst our retired and elderly could be sure of where they stood. They could not make important financial decisions because they were not being told where they stood because of the then off-again on-again farce. One day the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, would say something and the next day the Prime Minister would say another thing quite contrary to what the Minister had said. Eventually the Prime Minister called off the assets test even though it had the full support of his Minister, Senator Grimes. The Prime Minister abandoned that little fiddle without even consulting or telling his responsible Minister. Mind you, the Government did not then abandon the 1,400 social security police specifically recruited for that aborted venture. They remained. They cannot do what they were employed to do, but they remain employed at taxpayers' expense, to do we know not what. Those 1,400 public servants are at best able to do inessential tasks, at least until this legislation is passed some eight, nine or 10 months later. Never mind the debacle that was this incompetent Government's first miserable effort; the Prime Minister then had an assets test review panel set up to save his political hide. The end result of that was that the panel's recommendations were largely ignored. After at least three false starts we have this Bill to put into effect Labor's mark IV assets test. It suffers from the same fundamental flaws as its previous lamentable efforts. It remains discriminatory and intrusive. It means that sooner or later nearly all pensioners will have to fill out forms detailing the value of their personal possessions. No one will accept assurances from this Government that there will not be massive intrusion. No one will accept the assurances of a Prime Minister who promised during the last election campaign to 'not take money out of pensioners' cheques'. The truth is that Labor's social security police will have right of entry into pensioners' homes to check valuations. They will have the right to consult the neighbours of those pensioners, as has already happened in policing the means test. As has already been pointed out, there are 1,400 or so waiting in the wings to justify their existence, probably twiddling their thumbs and champing at the bit, waiting to get at those pensioners targeted for special treatment by this uncaring and insensitive socialist Government. Why should our elderly have to fill out intimidating forms? Let the House be reminded that the previous Liberal-led Government scrapped Whitlam's assets test way back in 1976 mainly because assets tests are extremely complex and costly to operate as well as being counter to policies which encourage thrift and self- sufficiency amongst those who plan their retirement incomes. Labor's latest contrivance has all the old failings. It is, above all, discriminatory. Although homes are exempt, family farms are not. Under these socialists one cannot keep the pension as well as the family farm. That is plainly unfair. A pensioner can live in a $1m house in any select suburb or any urban street and not lose the pension entitlement. If the pensioner lives on a family farm, he or she, or even both, cannot keep the entitlement, even though the value of the asset may be identical to that of their urban counterparts. Such penalties and blatant inequities should not be inflicted on the people least able to rearrange their affairs. They go against the grain of values long held by fair thinking Australians. Those of us who are of an age which would allow us sufficient time-anyone with a minimum of perhaps a decade-could easily plan our way around this apology for an assets test, if we were of a mind to and if we were determined to collect an age pension. The same opportunity, however, does not exist under this test for those already of pensionable age. It discriminates against those already of pensionable age or approaching pensionable age. Those people who have worked over a lifetime to provide for their secure and financially independent retirement should not wake up tomorrow morning to find the rules have been drastically changed. The coalition parties believe that people should be rewarded-not penalised as under this uncaring Government-for planning ahead, working hard and saving. The point is bound to be made time and again by those opposite that the socialist assets test will save money and allow a larger pension payment to unaffected pensioners. That is plainly a myth. So is it a myth that this assets test will stop millionaires from getting a pension. The truth is that millionaires-and lesser but still wealthy individuals-are precluded from receiving a pension by virtue of the income tests on pensions. Ignoring, if we must, the $24m already outlayed by the Government for the purpose of imposing an assets test on pensions, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has acknowledged that this year the cost-not a saving-will be something of the order of $30m. Taxpayers will contribute a total of about $54m before a net gain to revenue can be expected. What will the eventual gains be? Next financial year and in ensuing years it will be a miserable $45m. That, measured against a vote of $18 billion for this year's welfare program, is a mere drop in the ocean. It is the equivalent of 35c a week for each pensioner. It cannot even be said to be peanuts because it would not purchase even a handful of peanuts. Who can honestly say that an eventual saving of 35c per pensioner per week is worth the candle? Perhaps it will be only the 1,400 public servants recruited and waiting, but who else? It is absurd. The test is not about encouraging self-sufficiency and saving and it is not about better government; it is about confusion and harassment of our aged. The price is too high. Australia's elderly deserve a much better deal. What about the optional elective scheme whereby pensioners are given a chance to convert some of the capital value of their assets into income? That can be described only as a red herring, a mere diversionary ploy to distract the unwary from the real import and impact of this assets test legislation. The concept of reverse annuity mortgages and 'vente en viage' is well known in Canada and France respectively. Those countries and others like them have something in common-they have death duties and wealth taxes. Another thing they have in common is that reverse annuity mortgages or the equivalents are available from the private sector. Such financing is not the province of any democratic government anywhere else in the world. Why would this socialist Government want to break new ground? The answer may be found in the proposition that it is a socialist government bound to forage into a market which is easily serviceable by the private sector, even a market artificially created by a government bent on deception and hypocrisy. However, it is more likely that the answer has more to do with the doctrinaire commitment of the Australian Labor Party to wealth, gift, death and capital gains taxes, and let that fact be lost on no one. Given all the available international precedents, the only logical reason for the time being for the option of a government-administered reverse annuity scheme is that it anticipates the introduction of a United Kingdom-type capital transfer tax-that is, a combined death, gift and capital gains tax. There is something sinister about the reverse annuity mortgage proposal and anyone tempted to take up the proposal would be well advised to think very carefully and get comprehensive advice beforehand. To help get matters into some perspective, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table published in a May edition of the Australian which is an extract from a letter written by one Russell Schneider to that newspaper. Leave granted. The table read as follows- WELFARE RECIPIENTS Est. 30.6.1979 30.6.1984 Increase Percent Age pensioners 1,323,000 1,417,000 7 Invalid 276,000 285,000 3.2 Widow 161,000 165,000 2.4 Supporting parents 62.500 153.900 146 Unemployment benefits 325,000 680,000 109 Sickness benefits 46,000 65,000 41 Family allowances 4,231,000 4,340,000 2.5 COST OF WELFARE 1978-79 1983-84 $m $m Aged pensioners 3,229 5,325 64 Invalid 690 1,215 76 Widows 499 845 69 Supporting parents 226 893 295 Unemployment benefits 910 3,261 258 Sickness 150 342 128 Family allowances 997 1,514 52 General administration 220 556 152 Total welfare bill 8,143 16,843 106 Mr ROCHER —I thank the House. As the table indicates, age pensions account for only 31 per cent of our total welfare bill. That fact alone emphasises that claims that this assets test will enable other pensioners to receive significantly bigger shares out of any savings should be rejected out of hand. Amongst other things, Russell Schneider in his May letter had this to say: To attempt to impose an assets test or other restriction, no matter how economically sound, on people who have retired or are reaching retirement age today is, in fact, a retrospective tax. It is made even worse by the fact that over the past several decades politicians from both sides have encouraged these people to believe, rightly or wrongly, that they had an entitlement to a pension in their old age. For those reasons I support the amendment and oppose the Bill. I would like to turn now to that part of this Bill which sets out to amend veterans' entitlements under repatriation legislation. It is necessary to point out also that there is some disquiet about the relevant provisions in this respect. That disquiet has arisen despite an assertion by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) that 'there is considerable support in the veteran community for changes to the determining system'. That claim by the Minister is far from accurate. Certainly, communications that I have received from both the Western Australian Ex-Service Organisations War Pensions Committee and the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council indicate that they are far from convinced as to the Government's good intentions in this connection. Amending legislation brought forward earlier this year significantly changed the 'onus of proof' provisions. These changes are reinforced and perpetuated in those parts of this Bill which seek to amend sections 97 and 98 of the principal Act. These amendments supplement earlier measures designed to undermine the principle established by the High Court of Australia in the Nancy Law case. In the eyes of the veterans' organisations I have named, these and earlier amendments do not match the Minister for Veterans' Affairs' soothing words which , until fairly recently, were mistakenly taken to be reassuring. I repeat that I support the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar and I am opposed to the Bill for the reasons given. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(12.29) —The Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill brings together a number of objectives of the Government in the area of social security, with rises in pensions and the introduction of the new assets test. I will deal with it in two parts. Firstly, I will summarise the benefits that will accrue to several million people after the passage of this legislation. Expenditure on social services will be nearly $ 15.5 billion in 1984-85, which is an increase of about 9 per cent on last year's expenditure. All pensioners and adult beneficiaries, including the unemployed, will benefit from the base rate increase of $2.50 a week for single adults and $ 4.20 a week for married couples from 1 November this year. In addition, the unemployment benefit for single adults without dependants will increase by $2 a week from 1 May 1985 over and above any automatic increases. These general increases will bring payments to pensioners and beneficiaries towards the Government's goal of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. In fact , they raise the level to 23.8 per cent, which is a far cry from the years of the Fraser Government when we saw the pension as a percentage of average weekly earnings decrease from approximately 24.5 per cent to around 22 per cent. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) conveniently forgot to mention that during his address. Fringe benefit levels have also been increased, as all honourable members will realise, to $60 for singles and $98 for married couples. That is in line with the Government's promise to continue indexation of fringe benefit levels which was of major concern during the Fraser years. In allocating additional funds for social welfare programs, the Government has paid particular attention to people in greatest need and has accordingly made specific provisions for young unemployed people, low income families and aged people. The single junior rate of unemployment or sickness benefit will be increased from $45 to $50 a week from 1 November for people who have been receiving payments continually for six months or more. This represents a 25 per cent increase in the junior rate of benefit since this Government took office. Further, the maximum rate of unemployment or sickness benefit for single people under the age of 18 and with dependants, including brothers and sisters, will be increased to the standard pension rate of $91.90, thus more than doubling the earlier rate. A major objective of this Government is to increase assistance to the needy and disadvantaged families, particularly those living in privately rented accommodation. The Budget increases the maximum rate for additional pensions or benefits for children, the family income supplement scheme and the allowance for private rent or lodgings. I mention a few examples. The tax free additional pension or payment or benefit paid for children will increase by $2 to $14 a week per child from 1 November. The mother's and guardian's allowance will be increased by $2 to $10 a week from 1 November. This allowance is paid to a single parent caring for a child or children, and is tax free. The family income supplement, which is paid to low income families not in receipt of any other pension or benefit, will increase from $12 to $14 a week per child from 1 November. Families will be eligible for the family income supplement if their incomes do not exceed $219 a week. A family with two children can earn nearly $ 280 a week before paying any Medicare levy-a fact that seems to have escaped some members of this House. Another aspect is the maximum rate of supplementary assistance for private rental cost. This will increase by 50 per cent from $10 to $15 a week. It is interesting to note that a sole parent with one child and who is renting privately will receive up to $11.50 a week more after this legislation is passed through the Parliament. As the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) has mentioned, it is also interesting to note that the additional pension or benefit paid for each child of a pensioner or beneficiary or family income supplement will be increased from $12 to $14 per child per week. This means that this Government has increased those benefits by 40 per cent since its election in March of last year. Now that I have shown that the Government has introduced what I call a typical Labor Budget-a Budget that would never have been contemplated by the Opposition- in which great assistance will go to many people in need, I will just touch on one more thing before I move to the assets test. I mention the home and community care program. This new program is planned as the basis of a package to co-ordinate current schemes and develop a number of new initiatives for aged and disabled people and families in need of home care services. The home and community care program will be directed towards covering home help, delivered meals, home maintenance, home nursing and paramedical services. Total government spending on home care services in 1984-85 under this function is estimated to be $66.4m, an increase of 72.3 per cent on last year, with a total of $300m committed over the next three years. The scheme is a sound example of the Government's commitment to care for aged and disabled people. It will provide realistic alternatives to institutional care and will allow aged people and their relatives to choose the most appropriate care for their needs. I congratulate the Government on an excellent package of proposals in the many areas of the social welfare and health systems that are incorporated into this legislation. I now turn to the introduction of the assets test, which is also part of this legislation. This was first announced by the Government some 12 months ago. The Prime Minister has announced in this House, and also at a meeting with Chelsea pensioners in my electorate not long ago, that, while he realised there were a few mistakes in the original proposal, the Government has rectified them. Thus we now have the introduction of a new test incorporated in this legislation. We will see from what I will say in a minute that not all honourable members on the other side disagree with the Government. It is interesting to note that the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) talked about how the test will not bring in any money. That is not correct. It will in fact save the Government several hundred million dollars over the coming years, although not initially, as more and more people are restricted in their pension entitlement because of their vast assets. The Opposition continually prattles on about bulging social welfare expenditure: yet, when this Government brings in a perfectly equitable system in an assets test that will restrict only a very small percentage of the population which we feel can afford to have reduced pensions and which measure will save the Government a vast amount of money in ensuing years, the Opposition, or at least the honourable member for Mackellar, does not agree with it. Practically every word that the honourable member for Sturt said today referred to handouts for the rich, including the absolutely nonsensical suggestion that if people did not want fringe benefits they could drive up in their Mercedes and say that they did not want public transport fringe benefits but would prefer a handout instead. What nonsense! Whom would that benefit? It would benefit only those who already have money. Yet he wants to give a pension to everyone, including millionaires. He wants to do away with fringe benefits to some people but wants to give handouts to others who do not need them. He says that pensioners with a Mercedes or a Rolls Royce who do not want public transport could go along and cash in their benefits. That is what he said this morning. It is nonsensical rubbish. The honourable member for Mackellar talked about trying to prune social welfare spending. He, the honourable member for Sturt and everyone else on the Opposition side seem to have forgotten that if the welfare system in this country is in a mess-we say that it is not the best, but we are rectifying the little hiccups very quickly and we will see a much better system in the years to come as this Government spends more time in government-they should look at themselves for the cause of any problems. They seem to have forgotten that, before this Government was elected, for 31 of the previous 34 years they were in government. Most of the restrictions were brought in during the Fraser Government years and they were members of that Government. They were the ones who failed to index fringe benefits. They were part of the Fraser Government which allowed pensions to drop as a percentage of average weekly earnings. The honourable member for Mackellar was a member of the Ministry that allowed that to occur. Let me turn to the assets test and see what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has said. I mentioned this on 1 March this year and the Prime Minister reiterated it yesterday. I am about to mention it again. Honourable members will hear more about it in the months ahead. Before I turn to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say a few years ago and how he has changed his tune in the last 12 months, I refer to a front page article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 February this year under the byline of John Short. The article referred to the original assets test which was supposedly tougher than the one in this legislation. It stated: Plans to hold up the Government's controversial assets test legislation in the Senate for six more months will be presented to the Opposition's shadow ministry next week. The move would see the scheduled introduction of the assets test pushed back from November to May next year. The article continued: The proposal, by the Opposition spokesman on social security, Senator Messner, is aimed at maximising the political backlash against the assets test in an early federal election. The last part was the most interesting. It read: Liberal Party tacticians believe community opposition to the test could quickly dissipate once it was introduced because it is not as draconian as many people believe. That is what John Short said in an article which appeared on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald in February of this year. He was talking about the original assets test, which was a little tougher than the one we see in the legislation which is before us today. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was a back bencher. On 11 September 1981-pretty well three years ago to the day-the honourable member for Kooyong, Andrew Peacock, said: By socially productive I mean a Budget-- he was talking about the Budget which had been released a few weeks earlier-- which caters for carefully identified areas of genuine human need and avoids the situation where those who don't need government assistance are given help at the expense of those who do. Just to make sure that we knew what he was talking about, five days later, at a National Press Club luncheon, Mr Peacock said: The way to cut it-- he was talking about the social welfare section of the Budget-- is to ensure that it goes to those who are in genuine human need, and not to those who I've described as demonstrably not needing it. Now that means perhaps some form of income or means testing. Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock. He continued: But with the ageing of the Australian population, the percentage we spend on social welfare now is going to increase and we have to face up to this harsh reality. I am not in a position to implement the changes but if I ever become in a position to implement change I will certainly be seeking to see that the sort of things I am giving voice to, not only today but over the period of the months ahead, will become a reality. I am not engaging in rhetoric for its own sake. Those were Mr Peacock's words three years ago when he anointed and approved of income and means testing. Now he has turned it on its head and has decided that for cheap political points he will run around Australia with the honourable member for Mackellar and others and attempt to frighten pensioners into believing that they will lose money. Why were some people scared? They were frightened because the Opposition attempted to beat up the assets test legislation. It has not worked. In fact, since the introduction of the assets test proposal which was announced by the Prime Minister in his speech to the Parliament on 1 June, I have not had one call personally regarding the new assets test proposal. It is quite scandalous that the Opposition, which has no plan and no policies, should come into this Parliament and oppose it. I commend the Government for its proposal for an assets test and all its budgetary proposals on social welfare. I commend the Bill to the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) leaves Australia today to attend the United Nations General Assembly in New York and to visit Central America and Portugal. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to an answer that the Attorney-General gave to a question in the Senate yesterday, when the Attorney admitted that Mr Costigan had told the Government that the transition between the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the National Crime Authority would fail. Why is the Government prepared to tolerate this failure? Will the Government ensure that Commissioner Costigan's concerns at the inadequacies of the briefings are dealt with and not allow this critical transition to be a failure, which can only give organised crime a reprieve? To ensure public confidence that Commissioner Costigan's concerns will be dealt with, will the Prime Minister now table the Government's correspondence with Commissioner Costigan? If not, why not? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Let me say that I think it is appropriate that the correspondence to which the Leader of the Opposition referred should be tabled. I think he will agree that it is appropriate that we contact the parties principal, and we are in the process of doing so. On the basis that we receive their agreement, we will table the correspondence. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Treasurer advise the House whether the significant tax cuts provided in the recent Budget will be maintained into the future? Mr KEATING —They certainly will, which is in sharp contrast with the record of our predecessors in the area of tax relief. I apprise the House that yesterday, during the discussion on the matter of public importance, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a very revealing interjection when I referred to the 1978 surcharge on income tax which he introduced and which wiped out the 1977 tax cut . He said: 'I didn't give it, though'. That is, he did not give the tax cut. Even though he campaigned upon it as Treasurer in the 1977 election, the morality of the Opposition is that he was able to take it away five months later by imposing a surcharge on income tax because he did not give it; it had been given in the last Budget of Sir Phillip Lynch in 1977. Despite the fact that the honourable gentleman stumped the country, and we had television advertisements about ringing up and finding out how much your tax cut is and the fistful of dollars election campaign, the justification or reason now for taking the tax cut away five months later was that he did not give it. In other words, the Deputy Leader was saying by that very revealing remark that he did not consider that he was bound by any commitment of any other member of the Liberal Party. Of course, there was no more cynical tax grab than that which was mounted by that surcharge in wiping out the 1977 tax cut. I remind the House of what Sir Phillip Lynch said in his Budget Speech: . . . we now intend to give effect to our tax philosophy and, once and for all, to repudiate the high tax policies pursued by our political opponents. Yet five months later all of that rhetoric, high purpose and motive were swept aside because the honourable member for Bennelong did not give the tax cut in the first place. That is not the only indication of the shameful record of the Opposition parties in respect of tax relief. I add that in the same year, 1978, the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Treasury spokesman reneged on personal tax indexation. The commitment which the Fraser Government gave and which he gave in the election campaign to tax indexation was wiped out. You might recall, Mr Speaker-- Mr Lusher —Boring! Mr KEATING —The honourable member will hear a lot more about it. Honourable members will recall, when it was announced that tax indexation would go, the famous front page headline of the Illawara Daily Mercury: 'Lies, lies, lies'. But if that was not enough, not only did we see the tax surcharge in 1978 and the broken promise on tax indexation which followed, but also in the 1982 Budget , where we saw another tax cut, there was another trick. There was a $1.4 billion surcharge on indirect tax, an increase in indirect tax, which reduced the effective tax cut to next to nothing. Of course, in regard to this Budget the Opposition says that there ought to be more tax relief, but the Deputy Leader says that, faced with a choice between reducing the deficit or having a tax cut, he believes the longer term economic interest is to reduce the deficit and not to give a tax cut. So let it be put firmly on the record in respect of 1977 and the very dubious morality of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he said that he could take back a tax cut because he did not give it, that the Australian public can expect no income tax justice from a coalition government. Indeed, on its record, all we can expect is more broken promises as we saw in the past. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Special Minister of State. I refer to Mr Justice Stewart's current triple roles in pursuing investigations into the Nugan Hand Bank and the Age tapes and at the same time taking over as head of the National Crime Authority. Will the Minister ensure that there will be no delay in the investigation of the Nugan Hand Bank or any related matters? Will he ensure that there will be no delay in the investigation of the Age tapes? If he will do that, will he assure the House that as a result of the priority given to those two inquiries there will be no further delay in the transition into the early stage of the NCA, or is he really not concerned about this hiatus in the fight against organised crime? Mr YOUNG —This Government is concerned and, to the extent that I have power over those matters, I give the assurance. Mr BEDDALL —Is the Minister for Health aware of claims by the Queensland Minister for Health of a worsening crisis in facilities for aged care in Queensland? Can he give the House an outline of the Government's attitude towards aged care in Queensland? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of allegations made by the Minister for Health in Queensland in relation to a worsening situation in aged care facilities. Of course, as usual with every statement made by Mr Austin, the facts contradict him. Let us simply look at the facts. In the last 18 months 540 new nursing home beds came into place in Queensland, which roughly maintains the pattern of previous years. There are a further 600 beds approved and they will come on stream and we will pay the subsidies as soon as they are built. Again, if we look at the financial figures, for last year for Queensland we paid $114m in nursing home benefits for 12,000 people in 205 nursing homes. That is approximately $500,000 for every 50 nursing home beds in Queensland. In this financial year-and it is this supposedly increasing crisis-the total bill for nursing home and domiciliary care services and benefits for Australia will be over $1,132m. In Queensland we will put $136m this year into subsidies to Queensland nursing home patients, an increase of $22m over the figure for the last financial year, which is well in advance of inflation. So we are certainly making our contribution to institutional care in Queensland, despite the remarks of Mr Austin. I will be perfectly frank with the House and say that when we came to power we decided that this very large bill for nursing home benefits needed to be justified by very careful planning. So there was until May of this year a moratorium on approval for new nursing home beds. But any thinking member of the House will realise that that in no way affects the nursing home beds coming on stream in the last 18 months, nor will it affect them coming on stream in the next 12 months. To ensure that in the future there is no hiatus in those beds coming on stream, the actions we are now taking will ensure that that flow continues. Of course, we are not just concentrating on institutional care. In this Budget we committed ourselves to a home and community care program for the aged, a rolling program of additional expenditure. I will not talk about the money already expended, but the additional expenditure will be $10m in this financial year, $20m in the following year and $30m in the third year of new and additional programs. Again, these relate to providing better domiciliary care services, better transport services for elderly people and better community care facilities. These programs will be designed in combination with the States, and Queensland will play a role in their development. It is certainly true that in later years we will expect the States to make a contribution to that rolling program, but in the first year the $10m allocated is completely untied to any State contribution. If honourable members and the Queensland people are prepared to look, they will see, firstly, that nursing home beds have been coming on stream in much the same pattern as in recent years . Secondly, they will see the quite significant increases in nursing home benefits paid to Queensland this year, and they will begin to see on the ground the effect of the home and community care program. Mr PEACOCK —My question, which is directed to the Special Minister of State, flows on from the answer he gave to the Leader of the National Party of Australia. How much time in the next six months will Mr Justice Stewart be giving to the Age tapes and the Nugan Hand Bank investigations and how much time will he give to the National Crime Authority? Mr Hodgman —Give us the bare facts, Mick. Mr YOUNG —It would be necessary for the honourable member to have just the bare facts, knowing his past interests. I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that I just cannot answer his question. I have not talked to Mr Justice Stewart about how many hours and minutes he will expend on each of the inquiries. He has not relayed to me any problem he has in dealing with the matters he now has before him. If the matter of the duties to be performed by Mr Justice Stewart and by the other two members of the National Crime Authority and the duties they will carry out between now and Christmas 1984 raises some concern with the Opposition, I will ascertain from the Chairman of the National Crime Authority his position and will let the Leader of the Opposition know. Mr MAHER —Will the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs inform the House why a decrease has occurred in the issue of tourist visas from Italy and Greece over the past two years? Mr WEST —I thank the honourable member for Lowe for his question because it gives me the opportunity to contradict the assertions made by the honourable member for Denison last weekend. I note that he is on record as saying that the number of overseas tourists had fallen sharply by a figure as high as 25 per cent for Greeks, according to January figures, and that visa problems for Italian tourists had got so bad that they had led to official complaints by the Italian Government. I table the figures for visitor visas issued against applications from visitors from Greece and Italy over the past five years. I will be brief and will take Italy first. In 1983-84, which was the first full year of our Government, there were 10,639 applications and 10,232 visas issued. That is a 96 per cent success rate. This compares with last year when 10,082 visitor visas were issued, and that was a 96 per cent success rate. Back in 1979 -80 only 9,083 visitors visa were issued and this was a 97 per cent success rate . There is virtually no difference in last year's success rate as compared with that of five years ago. Mr Hodgman —What about January this year? Mr WEST —The honourable member for Denison makes his usual mistake of trying to compare monthly figures against monthly figures, and that of course is impossible. I conclude my reply by referring to Greece. In 1983-84 there were 3, 965 applications and 3,566 visas issued. That is a 90 per cent success rate. For most of last year, that is 1982-83, most of which time was under the administration of the former Government, there were 4,732 applications, 4,032 visas issued and an 85 per cent success rate. If we go back five years, as I did in the case of Italy, there were 5,435 applications and 4,212 visas issued. That was only a 77 per cent success rate. I think the figures themselves give the lie to the type of nonsense that the honourable member for Denison has been propagating in the migrant community. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Special Minister of State whether there are over 40 outstanding matters from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union which are to be referred to the National Crime Authority. Will he ensure that all these matters are examined by the National Crime Authority? If not, why not? Mr YOUNG —I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is being over-rumourtised with all the material that is being handed to him. All the material that wanted to be handed over from the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority has been handed over by Commissioner Costigan. He does not refer to the material and he does not want other people to refer to it as specific references. Mr Howard —That is not the question. Mr YOUNG —I ask the honourable member to let me finish the answer. As the honourable member knows the references will have to be determined by the Intergovernmental Committee upon which all governments of Australia will sit. The National Crime Authority will determine what references it will seek from the material that has been handed over by Commissioner Costigan. It is very different to suggest, as the honourable member ought to understand, that a specific item of information that has been handed from Commissioner Costigan to the National Crime Authority must by some avenue of machination end up as a reference. It may not. The National Crime Authority will determine after it has examined the material, and that is exactly what it is doing now, the references it will first seek, hopefully very shortly from the Intergovernmental Committee which will be called together to give it the required powers under the Act. I reiterate: Commissioner Costigan does not categorise the material that has been handed over from his Commission to the National Crime Authority as necessarily being matters for reference. Mr WELLS —Does the Minister for Health have any information on how the over $23m in special health grants paid to the Queensland Government since the introduction of Medicare is being spent? Is there any evidence that the additional $23m paid so far has been used to improve the health services of Queenslanders? Does the lack of a public accounts committee in Queensland impede appropriate monitoring of the use of Federal funds in Queensland? Dr BLEWETT —In answer to the first part of the question from the honourable member for Petrie, the Commonwealth Government does not know how the extra $23m- that is, the additional moneys paid to Queensland-have been spent. Just let me explain to members of the House that in the first six months of Medicare we paid to the Queensland Government $49.5m. Of that, $25.7m is Medicare compensation moneys. We, of course, know how that has been spent because the Queensland Government sends in its returns and indicates how much extra money it needs to compensate for cheaper beds for extra public hospital services. We pay that $25. 7m. In addition, an extra $23.8m has been paid to Queensland to improve its public hospital systems. I am afraid that we do not know how that $23.8m has been spent . Certainly, it can be seen from talking to Queenslanders and Queensland organisations that there is a growing worry that that additional money is not being spent on improving Queensland health services. If in six months that additional money has been injected into the system to improve it, surely the Queensland people should be seeing some signs of that expenditure. Indeed,if any other health Minister in any other State could have got that additional injection of money, he could very rapidly have told the Commonwealth Government where he could spend that additional injection of money, and how it would improve the State's hospital system if any other State could have had that money . I think that the people of Queensland have a right to know where that extra money is going. If the Parliament in Queensland had a public accounts committee it might be able to find out. But we all know what would happen if there were a public accounts committee in the Queensland Parliament: The Government would collapse. It is really up to the people of Queensland. This Government will go on determined to find out where that additional money is being spent to improve the Queensland hospital system. Mr CONNOLLY —Is the Minister for Finance aware of the announcement in the Victorian Parliament today that the previous shortfall in funding for the Portland smelter project has been taken up by the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust which has signed a Heads of Agreement on unspecified terms? Is the Minister aware that the estimated return on investment of 9.9 per cent is based upon the assumption that alumina will sell on the international market at $US1, 700 a tonne and that the current rate is below $US1,000 a tonne? In view of the SFIT's current difficulties with its investments in various fields, including coal, does the Minister believe that public servants' superannuation contributions should be used for the clear political purpose of shoring up the Victorian Government? Will the Minister advise the House of the terms of the agreement between the project and the SFIT so that contributors may be made aware of the Trust's intentions? Mr DAWKINS —I am surprised that the honourable member for Bradfield should question this investment. I point out to him that the decisions that the Trust makes in relation to its investments are decisions for the Trust alone and not for me or any other member of the Government. The Trust has the independence which was given to it by the former Government when it was established in, I think, 1976. With respect to the question of whether I was aware of the announcement, the chairman had advised me that the Trust was looking at this project as it has been over a number of months and has been assessing it as an investment prospect. He has been keeping me advised of that. In relation to the details that can be provided, I will certainly make whatever inquiries I can to ensure that as much information about the investment and the basis on which it was made is made available to the House. I am sure that contributors would also be interested. It ill becomes the honourable member for Bradfield to continue his campaign of denigrating the Trust and unnecessarily arousing concern among contributors about the Trust because, as I have indicated with documents that have been tabled in this House, the Trust has never been in better shape. The fact that its earning rate to some extent has been deficient in the past was due very largely to the unfortunate inheritance enforced on it by the previous Government of a large amount of Commonwealth inscribed stock and other kinds of public bonds and investments of that kind which yielded and which continue to yield a very low rate. The report that has been provided to the House from the acting chairman of the Trust shows that in relation to post 1976 assets the earning rate of the Trust has been a commendable 15.2 per cent, which compares more than favourably with many of the private sector funds. Mr HUMPHREYS —I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. What is the migration status of Mathew Mayer? Mr WEST —Mathew Mayer is a former resident of Irian Jaya who for a long time has been a resident of Papua New Guinea under his permissive residence status visa issued by that Government. He arrived in Australia on 25 June on a three-week visitor visa and applied for refugee status on 3 July, alleging as a reason for his application his previous involvement with the Operasi Papua Merdeka movement and involvement in arranging the Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview between Alan Hogan and James Nyaro. I referred that application under due process to the Determination of Refugee Status Committee which, in due course, recommended to me a rejection. I endorsed that rejection because of the discrepancies that emerged in his statements and records of interview which to my mind cast extreme doubt on the veracity of his evidence. Further, I rejected it because I received through the DORS Committee assurances of the highest level from the Government of Papua New Guinea that he would be able to return to Papua New Guinea and that that Government would not return him to Indonesia. I said that he should depart voluntarily. At that stage I did not write a deportation order, nor have I yet done so. The applicant then applied for a change of status to permanent residence on compassionate grounds under section 6A(1)(e) of the Migration Act. I considered that in due course and rejected it on the ground that the argument for compassion was insufficient. I again ordered that he depart voluntarily, this time by 31 August. I now understand that solicitors on behalf of Mr Mayer have requested a review of my decision not to grant refugee status. That will go to the DORS Committee. The situation that I thought I had resolved with the original rejection is now more complex because this day I have received advice from Papua New Guinea that it is reviewing its position regarding Mr Mayer's re-entry. In this newer and more complex situation I have decided this morning, as this is a matter of some public controversy in Queensland, to refer the matter to the DORS Committee to seek absolute confirmation from the Papua New Guinea Government that it will, first, allow Mr Mayer's re-entry and, secondly, that it will not return him to Indonesia. Upon receipt of that reply I will convey it to the Determination of Refugee Status Committee. To allow the matter to proceed through due legal process, I have issued this morning a further temporary entry permit for four weeks only to 30 September. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to page 291 of Budget Paper No. 1 which indicates that almost $600m of the $2 billion rise in ' other' personal income tax collections forecast for this financial year is based on an assumption that provisional tax obligations will rise by 10 per cent. As the remaining $1.4 billion increase in other income tax this year-and I quote from the Budget Papers-'largely reflects the very strong growth in 1983-84 incomes of primary producers from the drought-affected levels of earlier years', which the Budget forecasts will be followed this year by a 10 per cent fall in gross farm incomes and a 30 per cent fall in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates of farm incomes, will the Treasurer advise the House, firstly, how this $600m further rise in provisional tax can be justified when its major component is forecast by his own papers to fall? Secondly, what order of rise in income from unincorporated businesses, investments and property for provisional tax purposes is expected this year that would make up for the fall in farm incomes? Mr KEATING —Obviously I do not carry that detail around in my mind. To do justice to the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I will give him an answer in writing. Mr FREE —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware of criticism made at the annual conference of the Local Government and Shires Association of New South Wales of the Federal Government's allocation to local roads? If so, could the Minister tell the House what the Government is doing to assist local government in its roads effort? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. This morning I had the pleasure of addressing the annual conference of the Local Government and Shires Association of New South Wales. It was a very well attended conference and the principal item on the agenda was the issue of roads and the roads legislation to follow. It is not correct to say that criticism was made of our Government's allocation for local roads; rather there was discussion about the level of road funding and concern about the amount of allocation in the future. The fact is that this Government has done more to assist local government in several ways but particularly in respect of roads. The highest level of assistance is being given- Opposition members interjecting- Mr PETER MORRIS —Quieten down for heaven's sake. We have four transport spokesmen; now one at a time. We are providing to local government this year $ 293m which is an increase of some 60 per cent on that made available under the last Government. It contrasts with the 23 per cent cut in real terms in road expenditure by the Fraser Government during its seven years in office. I wish to make clear, as I did to the conference of the Local Government and Shires Association this morning, that this Government very much recognises the difficulties that face local government. We are very much aware of its vital role in the construction and maintenance of the road network- Mr Sinclair —Why don't you do something about it? Mr PETER MORRIS —We are doing something. You did nothing, George; you robbed them. Mr Sinclair —You ripped off $600m. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. The Minister will resume his answer. Mr PETER MORRIS —As I was saying, we recognise the vital role that local government plays in the construction and maintenance of the road network and we particularly recognise that country roads are in so many cases the actual transport lifelines for their communities and their products. In the last Budget we introduced the jobs on local roads program which is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. That program, JOLORS, has been highly successful, particularly in New South Wales and to date it has generated some 7,000 new jobs across the country. In recognition of the contribution that road expenditure makes, and despite the very severe economic restraints upon this Government, we have continued that very high level of assistance of local government for roads. As to the future, the Roads Grants Act will expire in June next year and that accounts for about two-thirds of the Federal road expenditure. Local government will be consulted, as it was in discussions this morning. There will be negotiations through the Australian Council of Local Government Associations and there will also be discussions with the State governments, the road industry, road construction and road union organisations. Our policy is quite clear-we have a high priority for roads and assistance for local government. The Opposition's policy, as announced, will sever specific purpose funding for local roads. There would be no Federal expenditure on a specific purpose basis for local roads. That is the policy of the Opposition. I have not checked it with the honourable member for Gwydir; I have not checked it with the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Minister for no development, the honourable member for Dawson or the honourable member for Hume, but that is the policy that was announced this morning. I know that it puzzles the honourable member for Gwydir that there could be a situation where local government was receiving no direct funding from Federal government under the policy now being espoused by the Opposition. That is not the policy of this Government. As far as we are concerned local government is too important in the system of three governments to be ignored in the manner that the Opposition proposes. Mr MILLAR —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is he aware that large quantities of timber are coming into Australia from North America, supplemented from other overseas sources and that the imports initially intended to meet a now levelling out housing construction boom in New South Wales and Victoria are being diverted to the Queensland market? Is the Minister alert to the threat to the viability of Queensland timber activities as a result of the virtual dumping of such timber, some of which is below Australian required standards? Can the House be assured of early action to protect the principles embodied in the Softwood Forestry Agreements Act; that is, Australia's self-sufficiency in timber products? Mr JOHN BROWN —I have not heard specifically of that complaint. We get plenty of complaints about dumping but there has been no great rush of complaints about timber. However, I understand, and I think the House will appreciate, the great concern of the honourable member for Wide Bay for the softwoods timber industry in Queensland, and on account of his concern and the responsibility he has always exhibited, I shall take steps immediately to contact the Minister and find out the exact position. It is fair to say that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is very much aware of the problems that dumping causes for Australian industries. Having had this information from the honourable member, I will check it out immediately. Mr SNOW —I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Will the Minister clarify whether an agreement reached in 1979 between an Australian firm , Commercial Bureau of Australia, and the Soviet Union on a joint fishing venture in Australian waters is able to be implemented under the south-east trawl management plan or outside the provisions of that plan? Does the Minister envisage any pressure on Australia to permit such a joint venture and is there any prospect of Australian and Soviet firms being permitted a joint venture? Mr KERIN —With respect to any fisheries management question, the main thing that determines the Government's approach is the resource itself. If there are unused fishing resources in the Australian economic zone, the same sorts of policies apply whether the fishing proposals be domestic or foreign. If there are spare fish and the resource is not being taken this Government, as with the previous Government, has a foreign fishing policy. The fisheries that we have been developing with the States have been developed in consultation with the industry . Prior to the imposition of the previous Government's Afghanistan sanctions in 1979, the firm referred to by the honourable member had a proposal before the Government involving feasibility fishing for jack mackerel by Soviet vessels. This proposal had not been given final approval and following the lifting of sanctions last year the company, CBA, requested reactivation of it. However, following reconsideration I wrote to CBA in May of this year and advised the firm that it was not possible to approve the proposal because Australian fishing interests were now exploiting the jack mackerel resource. With respect to the south-east trawl fishery-and I should like to record the fact that the honourable member for Eden Monaro has taken a particular interest in this fishery-honourable members will be aware that I have just announced a new management plan which protects the interests of current operators through the introduction of a freeze on new licences. Given the current state of exploitation in this fishery and the arrangements contained in the management plan, foreign joint venture operators will not be allowed to participate in this fishery. The Government has also received another joint proposal involving Soviet vessels which, under the usual consultative arrangements, has been circulated to State governments for consideration. The proponent of this proposal has now been advised by my Department that he has not been successful, following discussions at the Australian Standing Committee on Fisheries. With regard to the general question of joint ventures involving Soviet firms, the Government's policy is clear. Access to the Australian fishing zone for foreign vessels, wherever they are from, is granted only in circumstances where stocks are not threatened, where the Australian industry does not have the capacity to harvest the resource and is not likely to have that capacity in the near future, and where the foreign operations do not interfere with other Australian fishing operations. Any joint venture proposal will be considered against these clear criteria. That case has been made time and again, especially to the Tasmanian Government which is particularly dense on these matters, but I must say that the issue is finally getting through. Mr Goodluck —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like the Minister to withdraw that remark because I for one get sick of hearing denigrating remarks about Tasmania from honourable members opposite. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. There is no expression to be withdrawn. Mr KERIN —I conclude by saying that I am having some success. I find that, if I repeat enough the general policy of this Government-and of the previous Government-on joint venture fishing, I get through even to the Tasmanian Government, on the principle that constant dripping wears the hardest stone. Mr HAWKER —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that a non-Australian Council of Trade Unions endorsed picket line at the Portland wharf has Victoria Police assistance to stop every truck loaded with live sheep for export that enters the wharf? Is the Minister also aware that the same trucks face an unofficial black ban at the Portland meat works? What has the Minister done to protect the jobs of the truck drivers lawfully going about their business? What will be done to ensure that the live sheep trade, with its substantial benefits to Australia, is allowed to continue unhindered? Mr WILLIS —I am aware that picketing has been taking place at Portland in relation to the live sheep trade and that it has been going on for some time. However, I believe that the picketing has been peaceful and the loading of ships has not been prevented. Ships have continued to be able to take on live sheep and the trade has continued with minimal interruption from the peaceful picketing which the honourable member's question outlined. Of course I am concerned about the whole question of the live sheep trade, not in terms of the trade itself but in terms of the industrial relations action which has been taken. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in particular has expressed great concern about the live sheep trade. It says that the trade has been a major factor in the loss of jobs in the industry. That is a contention that advice to the Government at this stage does not support. However, the Government has agreed to investigate the matter further to see whether there is anything in that contention. At this stage we do not believe there is truth in that allegation. The Government will continue to investigate the matter but at present the position is that we do not see the live sheep trade as an important factor in unemployment in the meat industry. We are greatly concerned that there has been such a growth of unemployment in the meat industry but in our view it has to do with other factors, particularly the downturn in the beef cycle which has meant a much lower kill. Therefore, in the last couple of years, I understand, some 40 abattoirs have closed around Australia. This has caused a tremendous loss of jobs amongst meat industry employees. I can understand their concern, particularly when they see a ship being filled with sheep which they think they could have been employed in killing. However, that depends on the assumption that the sheep in the live export trade would have been available to them as carcass sheep, and that is the area of great contention. The Government will continue to investigate this matter but at this stage we are not at all convinced that the allegation by the AMIEU can be substantiated. Mr GRIFFITHS —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations advise the House what policies the Government has pursued to reduce the level of industrial disputation and, as an essential corollary, to improve our reputation as a reliable trading nation? Have these policies met with success? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I can assure the honourable member for Maribyrnong that the Government is very concerned to reduce the level of industrial disputation. When we came into office that was one of our important objectives and I am very pleased to say that we have been able to achieve it. It was an important objective because, as we are all aware, time lost through industrial disputes means a reduction in the living standards of the nation, lost production, damage to our international trade and, on many occasions, disruption to the public. We have therefore pursued policies which in our view would have the effect of reducing the level of industrial disputation. That basically involves a co- operative approach with the trade union movement, in direct contrast to the confrontationist approach of the previous Government which was a patent failure and which led to high levels of industrial disputation. The heart of that co-operative policy is the prices and incomes accord, which not only is an important factor in our economic policy and in the great economic successes we achieved in 1983-84 but also enabled us to have great success in reducing the level of industrial disputation in that year. That is principally because at the heart of the prices and incomes accord is a wages policy which is accepted by the trade union movement and which involves a centralised wages approach with no extra claims, and that has been overwhelmingly adhered to and has led to a dramatic decline in industrial disputation. Recently the Australian Statistician released figures for industrial disputes for the year 1983-84, and those figures show a dramatic reduction. The number of working days lost in 1983-84 was 35 per cent less than in the previous year and 66 per cent less than in 1981-82 when the full effects of the policies of the previous Government were on display. They also show that the time lost over that 12-month period to June of 1984 was the lowest for any 12-month period since May of 1969 and the lowest for a full financial year since 1967-68-in other words, the lowest level for a financial year for 16 years. When one takes into account the fact that the work force has increased by some 40 per cent over that 16 years, one can see that there has been a very substantial decline in the time lost per person employed. The Government is extremely satisfied with that result but we do not regard it as being perfect and the fact that industrial disputes occurring caused us concern. We certainly want to improve on that effort; nevertheless, it is satisfying to have had in our first full financial year a tremendous reduction in the level of industrial disputation. It indicates that union bashing, as undertaken by the previous Government-it is the conservative's favourite sport- is counter-productive and usually conducted at the expense of the nation. Clearly our approach has been much more successful and has been achieved without damaging income claims being the price of achieving that low level of industrial disputation. Indeed, during 1983-84 we had a reduction in the real level of labour costs, and the expectation indicated in the Budget for 1984-85 is that that reduction will continue. That good industrial relations performance has been allied to a very successful outcome in terms of the economy as a whole and in terms of wages policy. Finally, the improved industrial relations record should enable us to obtain a better reputation with our overseas trading partners. In that regard I inform the House that I will be leading a tripartite mission to Japan the week after next. I will have great pleasure in informing the Japanese Government and employers of that great success in our industrial relations record and of our expectations that that will continue. I hope that that will be conducive to a better trading result with Japan. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I table documents relating to the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration. These comprise transcripts of the inquiry conferences, documents listed in appendices E and F of the inquiry and departmental papers concerning the making of the declaration and leading to the establishment of the inquiry. Given the volume of papers, a limited number of copies are available. Copies will be lodged with the Parliamentary Library, the Senate Records Office and the Bills and Papers Office. A separate copy will also be made available to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I point out to honourable members that some of them may note correspondence referring Mr Black to one of the tabled papers following completion of his inquiry. Mr Black advised that it would not have been likely to have affected his findings in any way had it been made available earlier, but I bring it to the notice of honourable members now so that there can be no suggestion that it is tucked away. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the transcript of proceedings relating to the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present documents relating to the provision of financial assistance to Queensland for the Burdekin Falls Dam in 1983-84. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority annual report for 1982-83. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented in today's issue of the Canberra Times. Yesterday, in reply to a question the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is quoted as saying that the National Party of Australia is indeed preparing a separate rural policy. However, today the Canberra Times reported: . . . Mr Kerin told Parliament that Mr McVeigh had been quoted in a recent issue of the National Farmer magazine as saying he was developing another policy separate from the coalition policy for the National Party. That is not correct. The truth of the matter is that the National Party, structured as it is on a State basis, has formed a committee consisting of State organisations and parliamentary members to co-ordinate on a Federal basis the various policy objectives of the States. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —In answer to a question in the House this afternoon, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) gravely misrepresented me by saying that I had 'propagated incorrect figures', firstly, about the number of visitors coming to Australia from Greece; secondly, about the number of visitors coming to Australia from Italy; and thirdly, about the difficulty of obtaining tourist visas in Italy. The claim by the Minister is unfortunately completely incorrect and I simply respond as follows: Firstly, I have quoted publicly the figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics issued on 23 August 1984 showing a 25 per cent drop in the number of visitors coming to Australia from Greece in January this year. Secondly, I have quoted official figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics issued on 3 September this year showing a 31 per cent drop in the number of Italian visitors coming to Australia in February of this year. Thirdly, I have quoted from an official letter of complaint by the Italo- Australian Association in Rome to the Italian Government, and through the Italian Government to Australia, about the difficulty of obtaining tourist visas for Italians to visit Australia. I seek leave to table that official letter of complaint to the Italian Government, which has now been transmitted to the Australian Government. Leave granted. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —In response-- Mr SPEAKER —The Minister has nothing to respond to unless he has been personally misrepresented. The honourable member for Denison was making a personal explanation. If the Minister is seeking to make a personal explanation he should request permission to make a pesonal explanation on the ground that he has been misrepresented. Mr WEST —Yes, I make that request. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed on the ground of personal misrepresentation . Mr WEST —The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) misrepresents my position on the tourist figures from Greece and Italy by quoting figures for one month only. Today I tabled figures for the full year compared with those of previous years. As the shadow Minister was given leave and because of what he has just said to the House, I request leave to incorporate in Hansard the table that I tabled today. Leave granted. The table read as follows- VISITOR VISA ACTIVITY FROM GREECE AND ITALY (PERSONS) Greece Italy Appli- Visas Per cent Appli- Visas Per cent Year cations issued issued cations issued issued 1979-80* 5,435 4,212 77 9,356 9,083 97 1980-81* 5,122 4,319 84 11,307 11,103 98 1981-82 5,561 4,989 90 10,647 10,321 97 1982-83 4,732 4,032 85 10,553 10, 082 96 1983-84 3,965 3,566 90 10,639 10,230 96 * 1979-80 and 1980-81 figures include Cyprus. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yesterday, in answer to a question the Minister for Transport ( Mr Peter Morris) selectively quoted from a telegram that I sent to him when he said that I sent a telegram on 8 August asking that he ' . . . urgently intervene to require ANL to continue the service'. As I said, it was a selective quotation. I would like to read part of the telegram that preceded that request. It states: Mackay harbour alone has averaged 70 containers per monthly visit over the last six months despite ANL minimum requirements of 30 and the board has had to reject further shipments at the direction of ANL. The Minister suggested that I was very late in raising this matter and mentioned that I had given notice of a motion yesterday in the House. By his own admission the telegram of 8 August to which he has not yet had the courtesy of replying, was sent to him at the beginning of the dispute. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented grievously and grossly. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation on the ground that he has been misrepresented? If so, he may proceed. Mr PETER MORRIS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I said yesterday was that, almost one month after the announcement by the Australian National Line, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) had finally risen from his seat in this place and brought the matter to the attention of the Parliament. I did not say that he had not contacted me. Mr Dobie —Ha, ha! Mr PETER MORRIS —Read the Hansard; it cannot be any simpler or clearer than that . It took him one month to rise in this place. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister not to respond to interjections but to round off his explanation. Mr PETER MORRIS —I made the point because Parliament had met for the presentation of the Budget. The statement I made was absolutely accurate and, in confirmation of what I said yesterday, I will table, when I get a clean copy of it, the statement issued by the honourable member for Dawson in which he said, ' There is no difference of opinion between Mr Lusher and me', and also a copy of the telex. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is now extending beyond-- Mr PETER MORRIS —The statement I made yesterday is accurate. Mr Sinclair —Does the honourable gentleman vouch for the authenticity of the document? Mr SPEAKER —He has not really done anything with it yet because he said that he needed a clean copy. Mr PETER MORRIS —I hope that I can vouch for the accuracy of this media release headed: 'Ray Braithwaite, MP, Shadow Minister for Northern Development and Local Government'. I propose to table a clean copy of that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister vouches for it. Is the Minister tabling that and the telex? Mr PETER MORRIS —I was going to table a clean copy. I am happy to table it because the Press release contains an attack upon Tasmania. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-Last week I attended the fifteenth South Pacific Forum in Tuvalu. I followed this up with a brief official visit to Fiji. The annual South Pacific meeting of heads of government provides a unique opportunity each year for Government leaders of the Forum's 13 member countries to discuss in an informal atmosphere their mutual concerns; to seek solutions to regional problems; and to enhance regional co-operation. The discussions, both in and outside the formal sessions over three days, allow each country to gain an important understanding of each other's position over a wide spectrum of issues. This year Forum members were presented with a special opportunity: To experience at first hand something of the pattern of life, the circumstances, the concerns and the aspirations of the residents of one of the South Pacific region's smallest member countries. Tuvalu has a permanent population of less than 9,000 and does not lie on any of the main international thoroughfares. It is a country which has little opportunity to welcome visitors, let alone the several hundred that inundated the main atoll for the period of the Forum. There have been few occasions in the past when a country of this size and remoteness has hosted an international meeting of the size of the Forum. Despite the country's slender resources, the Tuvalu Government of Prime Minister Puapua discharged its responsibilities as host magnificently. The Forum meeting in Tuvalu graphically showed the significant disparities in size and economic development between, on the one hand, Australia and New Zealand, and, on the other, the majority of the island states. Happily, it also demonstrated that all Forum members share common objectives of economic and social progress in conditions of global and regional peace and stability. This fact confers upon Australia very precious benefits, as well as great responsibilities. Through an energetic and imaginative role in the South Pacific Forum, Australia can preserve those benefits and be responsive to the challenges . For the information of honourable members I table the communique of the fifteenth South Pacific Forum. I believe it does justice to our discussions and it certainly reflects well on Australian positions. It shows how closely Australia and its partner countries in the South Pacific region are in step with each other on basic issues. Forum discussions ranged over many topics-from the global political issues of nuclear disarmament, nuclear testing and dumping of nuclear waste to decolonisation of New Caledonia and to matters of functional co -operation among member countries including trade, shipping and fisheries. Nuclear matters and the decolonisation of New Caledonia were the two political issues which dominated the Forum. The establishment of a South Pacific nuclear free zone has been a primary objective of this Government since coming to office . It has central relevance both to our global arms control and disarmament policy objectives and to our regional foreign policy preoccupations. In pursuing this initiative, our Government recognises the powerful aspirations of the Australian people and the peoples of the South Pacific for practical and realistic measures in favour of nuclear disarmament, and against nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste. The concept of a nuclear free zone was given its current momentum as a result of Australia's initiative at last year's South Pacific Forum held in Canberra. The Tuvalu Forum took a very significant further step towards it by accepting principles which embody the opposition of Forum member countries, individually and collectively, to the manufacture, use, storage and testing of nuclear weapons and the storage and dumping of nuclear waste in our region. These principles, which were presented to the Forum by Australia and accepted by it, include the following: South Pacific countries should be free to live in peace and independence and to run their own affairs in accordance with the wishes and traditions of their peoples South Pacific countries should enjoy peaceful social and economic development free from the threat of environmental pollution South Pacific countries acknowledge existing international treaties, organisations and regional arrangements, such as the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Law of the Sea Convention, which contribute to their objectives There should be no use, testing or stationing of nuclear explosive devices in the South Pacific No South Pacific country would develop or manufacture, or receive from others, or acquire or test any nuclear explosive device Nuclear activities of South Pacific countries should be in accordance with applicable international principles and treaties, notably the NPT and take into account regional arrangements. The meeting decided to establish a working group under Australian chairmanship to work towards the draft of a possible South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty for consideration at the 1985 Forum. I understand that there were noises made by the Opposition in my absence to the effect that the Government's nuclear free zone proposal is somehow going to demolish the Western security system in the South Pacific area, and that it is somehow inimical to the ANZUS Treaty. These comments provide further evidence, if further evidence is needed, of the degree to which the coalition's foreign policy is completely out of touch with the realities of our region. I interpolate in my prepared comments to remind the Opposition, because one needs to say these things two, three or four times in the remote hope that they might get through, that the Australian initiative at the South Pacific Forum on this matter was unanimously supported by all the countries of the region represented there. In addition to those principles listed above, Australia proposed and the Forum agreed that South Pacific countries retain their unqualified sovereign rights to decide for themselves their security arrangements and such questions as the access to their ports and airfields by vessels and aircraft by other countries. There is also strong concern-which Australia shares-to ensure that the South Pacific nuclear free zone respects international legal obligations in relation to transit and overflight of the high seas. Similar provisions for transit and port visits exist in the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which povides for a nuclear weapons free zone in the Latin American region. All of this means that the obligations which we have under international law, and under treaties such as ANZUS, are not affected in any way by the nuclear freee zone proposal accepted by he Forum. Further the South Pacific nuclear free zone will strengthen and supplement the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Australia has a very firm view about the importance of the Nuclear Non- proliferation Treaty. To date it is the only global instrument in existence to offer a basis for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weaponry. A South Pacific nuclear free zone will consolidate the effect of the Treaty in the region and supplement it in important ways. The NPT will be reviewed next year. Efforts by the members of the South Pacific forum to pursue a regional nuclear free zone will help to engender an understanding of the necessity of trying to make the basic contract inherent in the NPT work on the part both of signatories of the NPT and others who have not yet signed it-there are two in the Forum region. This basic contract is that nuclear weapon states will make progress towards nuclear disarmament, in return for which the non-nuclear weapon states bind themselves to aschew the development, manufacture and acquisition of nuclear weapons. Especially from the point of view of developing countries, it is also essential to the basic contract that the provisions of Article IV are observed, namely the facilitation to the fullest possible extent of the exchange of nuclear equipment and materials for peaceful purposes. In the course of preparing the draft treaty, matters such as the scope and geographic extent of a South Pacific nuclear free zone will have to be considered carefully. In the meantime the Forum supported a suggestion that governments continue to protest individually to France over its persistent nuclear testing and to Japan over its proposal that nuclear waste might be dumped in the Pacific. I am writing to President Mitterrand of France and to Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan in appropriate terms. Neither Australia nor other Forum members have any expectation that these steps, of themselves, will stop French nuclear testing or deter nuclear waste dumping. As with everything else in politics it is a long, laborious process of accumulating pressures and generating momentum for change. We will continue to commit ourselves whole- heartedly to this process. Discussion on the matter of New Caledonia, as last year, naturally occupied a position of great prominence at Tuvalu. New Caledonia represents one of the last vestiges of colonialism in the South Pacific. All members of the Forum, including Australia, are anxious to see New Caledonia join the community of independent countries in the South Pacific as soon as is realistically possible. Our commitment to the goal of independence is unequivocal. At the same time we recognise that New Caledonia poses special problems of decolonisation because of the multiracial character of its society and because the Melanesian community, the Kanaks, are a minority-albeit a large one-in the total New Caledonia society . We are concerned that the transition to independence of New Caledonia should be smooth and peaceful. The Government of France, the administering power, is expected to promulgate shortly a new autonomy statute for New Caledonia under which local elections in the Territory are to be held in the next few months; and a referendum of the Territory's population to decide the constitutional status of the country is to be held by 1989. Insofar as these proposals indicate on the part of France a desire to advance New Caledonia towards an independent status, this policy has encouraging aspects. The Forum, however, made very clear its interest in seeing this process accelerated. The French Government did not endear itself to Forum members, in failing to respond to the wish expressed by Forum members at the Canberra meeting last year that a Forum mission be received by New Caledonia to enable the Forum to inform itself directly about developments there. The position adopted by this year's Forum therefore combined a measure of impatience at the rate of progress towards New Caledonian independence with a clear recognition of the French Government's integrity in the approach it was adopting. More specifically, the Forum urged some acceleration in the timetable for the referendum-1986 was mentioned. I encouraged this course of action. There was, however, no general support for a proposal that the Forum add a collective voice to calls for New Caledonia to be reinscribed on the United Nations Decolonisation Committee's list of territories for United Nations attention. The Australian Government considers that such a move would be counterproductive; it could too easily be exploited by opponents within France of the Mitterrand Administration's program for autonomy and erode the region's capacity to influence France towards speedy change. The need for more rapid progress on New Caledonian independence is underlined by the growing political tensions in the territory. I am concerned that elements of the Independence Front have chosen to boycott the territorial elections, thus setting themselves apart from the normal processes of political negotiation. Furthermore, I was disturbed to learn of indications that support from outside quarters may be contemplated by some elements of the independence movement. Australia condemns the soliciting of any support which might entail the use, or threat of use, of violence and terrorism to achieve what otherwise would be legitimate political objectives. I conveyed Australian condemnation of any such moves in the discussion on this topic. There was also recognition at the Forum of the need to consider the infrastructure requirements of an independent state in New Caledonia, especially in education and training. It would make much sense for individual Forum members , which have the capacity, to make available opportunities for New Caledonian citizens to receive technical and professional training to assist the country to prepare for independence. Australia stands ready to assist where it is able to do so in this respect. Turning to other matters discussed at the meeting, the Forum gave some attention to the current problems which the Solomon Islands Government is facing in regard to the enforcement of its fishing zone. United States law does not accept that highly migratory species of fish such as southern blue fin tuna are the property of coastal states when found in exclusive economic zones-EEZs. Forum member countries, on the other hand, which in the case of island countries have few natural resources, do not regard highly migratory species as being in a different category from other marine resources. The situation is thus one prone to conflict of law and national practice. The Solomon Islands Government recently arrested an American purse-seiner fishing illegally in the Solomon Islands' EEZ. Subsequently, the United States Administration invoked trade embargo provisions of its legislation against the Solomon Islands. The underlying dimensions of this problem are economic in that the island countries themselves have insufficient resources to exploit their own fisheries adequately. Australia is in basic sympathy with those Forum island countries, including the Solomon Islands, which are concerned to derive equitable benefit from their marine resources. We hope that the present difficulties can be resolved satisfactorily by bilateral negotiations between the United States and Solomon Islands governments. In the longer term, efforts to conclude multilateral fisheries access arrangements with distant-water fishing countries must be redoubled as such arrangements offer the only enduring solution to this problem. Before ending my comments on the Forum, I should like to pay tribute to the captain and crew of HMAS Tobruk who, along with the Royal Australian Air Force, made a truly superb contribution in assisting the success of the conference. They carried out their duties in providing important logistic support in a consistently co-operative and sensitive manner and brought very great credit indeed to our armed services. My visit to Suva, though brief, confirmed the strength of the high mutual regard and friendship between Australia and Fiji and it enabled me to develop further my own warm personal relationship with Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, one of the most experienced and influential South Pacific leaders. Fiji has a special role to play in the South Pacific. By its geographic and economic position alone, it assumes considerable importance. Since its independence in 1970, Fiji has led the way in political dialogue on many matters affecting the future of the region. I am pleased to say that there are no substantive issues of dispute or disagreement between Australia and Fiji. In my discussions with the Prime Minister and his Government colleagues I was able to take forward some of the themes which had been on the table at the Forum meeting. We exchanged views in particular on the South Pacific security situation, the progress of disarmament negotiations and place of the nuclear free zone proposal in overall arms control negotiations. My discussions revealed a very close identity of views on these issues between the Australian and Fijian governments. Fiji agrees with Australia that the concept of a South Pacific nuclear free zone should be consistent with visits to our respective ports by United States naval vessels. The discussions in Suva also addressed the possibilities of improving the value of SPARTECA-the South Pacific Area Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement-for Forum countries, in particular Fiji, in exporting their products to Australia and New Zealand. I confirmed to Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara that Australia would be establishing working groups to examine problems in the operation of SPARTECA, and that to facilitate further South Pacific countries' access to Australia's apparel market the duty-free one-off 'seed' quota for apparel initially established in 1983 would be extended for a further year in 1985. I was also able to take the opportunity of the visit to Suva formally to open an impressive Australian regional aid project-a new Industrial Arts Centre, on the campus of the University of the South Pacific. The South Pacific region is an area of fundamental importance to Australia. Australian political and economic interests in the area were served in many important ways by my attendance at the Forum meeting and in my later visit to Fiji. I am looking forward to attending the sixteenth South Pacific Forum meeting which will be held in Rarotonga in the Cook Islands in less than 12 months time. I am able to inform the House that the Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, is planning to make an extensive official tour of a number of countries in the region starting later this month. Visits such as these to the South Pacific are a visible and continuing demonstration of Australia's close interest and involvement with the affairs of the region. This Government is committed to doing everything it can, as an equal partner which does not seek to impose its will, to contribute effectively to regional needs. We do this because it is in the mutual interests of Australia and of our South Pacific neighbours. This is a commitment we will continue to pursue with the utmost seriousness. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I listened with interest to the matters put by the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) before the House today on behalf of the Labor Government. The fact is that the current party in government has shown scant regard for the nations of the South Pacific, but I am pleased that a firm and unequivocal commitment has been given, at least at the tail end of the Prime Minister's speech, indicating that we will be seeking to associate ourselves with the nations of the Pacific on an equal basis. When I say that the Australian Labor Party has shown scant regard for the island countries of the South Pacific, I do so with the record of this nation before us. Other than a few odd revolutionary movements in a few countries, these fairly recently emergent South Pacific nations had little succour, comfort , aid or encouragement from the previous Labor Government. Indeed, when I became Foreign Minister in 1976, a cursory examination of the Labor Party's record on aid programs revealed the appalling state of our aid programs to the nations of the South Pacific. Within the first year of taking office, in our Budget of 1976 we brought forward a three-year rolling program for the countries of the South Pacific, which was a 400 per cent increase in aid programs over those of the previous three years of the Whitlam Government. There are people on this side of the House who in government genuinely sought to forge a new relationship with the emerging-they were still emerging-nations of the South Pacific, not simply because we saw that Australia was the dominant country in the region in economic terms but also because we recognised that we had a moral duty to assist those countries, to go beyond one year's budgetary allocation and to give them the capacity to plan effectively with three-year rolling programs. Amongst many of the achievements of the previous Government in the field of foreign policy, including the one of our role in the Commonwealth and another of our role in Africa, which are frequently mentioned, the one that is not mentioned is what we did on return to government at the end of 1975 to lay the framework for successive governments to see the importance of our role in the South Pacific. It continues to be a very significant role. During our period at the negotiations over the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, acceptance of the 200-mile fishing zones and the 200-mile exclusive economic zones, one element of which was touched on by the Prime Minister in his statement, was developed. If one looks at a map of the South Pacific one sees what are in geographic terms microscopic entities in that area, nevertheless all being surrounded by 200-mile exclusive economic zones. Their capacity, therefore , to generate funds for their people, to increase their standard of living, is now infinitely greater than before. It is a very significant duty, therefore, on the part of Australia, in a trade and investment co-operative scene, to continue that role. I share the Prime Minister's concern about the application of United States law so far as distant fishing nations are concerned and the non-recognition of the flow of fish to which the Prime Minister has referred. I trust that the sorts of multilateral forums for the settlement of disputes, to which he referred, which currently exist for example between the Solomon Islands and the United States, will receive Australia's assistance because it is to the benefit of all of the island entities that make up the South Pacific and the South Pacific Forum that that matter be resolved. So far as the Prime Minister's condemnation of French testing in the South Pacific is concerned, that approach has received bipartisan support for a considerable period. Of course, we watched with a fair degree of interest when the Attorney-General in the Whitlam Government appeared on behalf of Australia before the International Court of Justice. I do not want to intrude that gentleman into debates in this chamber; enough is being said in the Senate at present. But, whilst querying the way in which Australia went about that opposition in those days, our pursuit of condemnation of France for testing in our part of the world and not its own is a viewpoint that we still hold. I agree with the remarks of the Prime Minister. I know that members of the Australian Labor Party listen with some apprehension when their Leader talks, for example, about a movement to independence in New Caledonia. There are elements in the more lunatic fringe of that Party who would associate themselves with revolutionary movements and who do, in fact, share platforms with those who would call for the violent overthrow of governments. Therefore, I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk in terms of the need for a peaceful move to independence for New Caledonia and of his absolute abhorrence and condemnation of any violent moves for the overthrow of any government representing the interests of New Caledonia and not simply the metropolitan power of France. It is the view of our Party that people have the right to determine their own future uncoerced by others. We have long subscribed to the viewpoint that people should determine their destiny free from colonial ties. However, I agree with the Prime Minister's note of special concerns-he listed them in his address-so far as New Caledonia is concerned. The normal application of a speedy movement to self-government or independence of a non-self-governing territory has to be viewed with a balanced approach, namely, the concerns which he cited. I agree with what the Prime Minister has said, in the broad, about French nuclear testing; the movement towards independence for New Caledonia and the qualifications placed therein; and our continuing role in the South Pacific in assisting individual nations and playing a constructive role in the South Pacific Forum. The South Pacific Forum is a unique organisation which seeks to reach a genuine consensus-not a phoney consensus as we have in this country, whereby deals are done between some elements of a group that might be meeting. I regard it as an extraordinarily important body. Having said that, I turn my attention to the significant changes that have developed in Australia's foreign policy. I regard the pursuit of a nuclear free zone in the Pacific as total hypocrisy by this Government and an absolutely Mickey Mouse proposal which has no capacity to be policed, to be effective, and which can only impact severely on our major ally, the United States. The Prime Minister says that he will put down a nuclear free zone. In the thoughts of most island entities which belong to the South Pacific that means in due course there will be a move towards the eradication of nuclear powered and nuclear armed vessels in the South Pacific. True it is that the policy has not been adopted yet, but that is the long term aim. It has been stated again and again. Honourable members saw it reiterated by the New Zealand Prime Minister on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Four Corners on Saturday night. I do not want to denigrate leaders of other nations-it is not my intention to do so today-but I thought it was fatuous to hear the New Zealand Prime Minister say: 'We would want the United States to assist us only in conventional wars because we believe only in conventional wars. We do not want nuclear powered vessels'. I assume that even nuclear powered vessels with conventional arms would not be welcome to assist the New Zealand Prime Minister in his time of need. The Americans would have to radio back and send some of the few remaining conventionally powered vessels to assist. I say this to the Parliament and the people of Australia: I will not lend my support in any way whatsoever to some nonsense that will qualify the effectiveness of the ANZUS Treaty. This nonsense which the Government is pursuing does just that. We share concern about French nuclear testing. We do not share the Government's concern with the traversing of the Pacific of nuclear powered vessels by the United States Navy. A significant number of those vessels are nuclear powered. I will not have this nonsense of having to fly flags to identify what sort of power is being generated to motivate and move a vessel before it is allowed to come somewhere near our territory. What will we have-some sort of check gate out in the South Pacific into which the vessels have to call and be checked before they can enter in due course? The Prime Minister says that no, at the moment they are allowed to sail through this nuclear free zone. I said yesterday that it is sheer humbug and hypocrisy to stand up and say: 'We have a nuclear free zone, but vessels which are nuclear powered and nuclear armed can go around and in between that zone'. I happen to want them there, but I am not espousing this nonsense of a nuclear free zone. I ask the Government to be fair dinkum about this matter. Either it is moving towards a total nuclear free zone-I know that that is what the Left is on about; therefore, it is denigrating and substantially qualifying the effectiveness of ANZUS-or it will be fair dinkum and say: 'It will not work. We may need the assistance of the United States with nuclear powered vessels, and beyond that those nuclear powered vessels are welcome in this country'. The Government will not receive any endorsement from us on its nuclear free zone. I have heard enough of the hypocrisy of this Prime Minister. I used an analogy yesterday and I will use it again: The Prime Minister stands up in here and talks about a nuclear free zone yet he allows nuclear powered and nuclear armed vessels to float around in that zone. It does not add up. It leads me to the conclusion that the Prime Minister will go to the Daintree Forest next week, chop down a tree, mount the stump, make a speech in favour of conservation and expect people to believe him. It is a straight analogy for the nonsense that is being talked. The only difference is that we are dealing with critical matters relating to the security of this nation. Behind all the friendship that we want with the nations of the South Pacific-I remind honourable members that when I was the Minister for Foreign Affairs I increased by 400 per cent the rolling programs to the nations of the South Pacific; they need our aid, and we will give it-I ask honourable members to remember what the major aim of foreign policy is. It is not to run around the world just being friendly with people. It is the determination of what is in the best interests of our own people. I am getting a little sick of hearing people on the other side say that the major aim of their foreign policy is to be well regarded. If a government makes an assessment of a particular course of action to be followed in the field of foreign policy I trust it will then have the effect, diplomatically, of being well regarded. But a government should not make that its major aim because millions of people will suffer as a consequence. That nonsense is part of the motivation of this nuclear free zone. Within the Socialist International the Government wants to be well regarded so it has moved towards a nuclear free zone in the Pacific; it has this Mickey Mouse proposal, with its dangerous consequences, as its platform in the Indian Ocean also and it is stopping United States vessels porting in Western Australia . The Government aims for a nuclear free zone in the Indian Ocean and in the Pacific. God bless me if this ludicrous intellectual cripple who poses as a Foreign Minister does not say in Geneva: 'We ought to target the joint installations of the United States on the continent itself'. It is not enough for the Government to try to move the United States out of both oceans in this two-ocean continent of Australia. It wants to target the joint facilities on the continent itself. The Government might think that the applause which it generates in certain leftist forums is deserving of support in the pursuit of this program, but it will meet with total condemnation by all members on this side of the House. Rather than show leadership on the question of a nuclear free zone, the Prime Minister, accepting that he could do nothing to change the mind of the New Zealand Prime Minister on ANZUS, not being prepared to be firm and uncompromising, as the United States Secretary of State was-rather he has been vacillating, weak and compromising on the question of the ANZUS Treaty itself, which is now in question-and not being prepared to say: 'All right, if New Zealand is not prepared to come to the party and face up to its responsibilities we will renegotiate ANZUS so that it is an Australia-United States agreement', thinks he will have a bob each way again, in his conning consensus style, as he goes along with this nuclear free zone. If he wished to show any leadership at all he would have sought to persuade a number of the heads of the South Pacific Forum nations not to take the first step into this ludicrous trap. I know, from my own dealings with those gentlemen , that they have been particularly concerned about the long term consequences of just where this proposal will lead them. They want a continuing United States presence in the region. That leadership was not shown. Now he has made, as a consequence of doing this deal, the nuclear free zone one of the centrepieces, as he tells us, of his foreign policy. He places all of us in this nation in a difficult position. Instead of acting to help secure our region, the Government has opted for a shoddy compromise which, as I say, may appease the fervour of the likes of Mr Lange but will only add uncertainty about the future role of the United States in our region and the continuation of the ANZUS alliance. Whatever the Australian Government may say about ensuring that the nuclear free zone will not exclude the transit of nuclear powered, nuclear armed vessels, there is no doubt, as I said earlier, that this proposal is the thin edge of the wedge. It is only one small step from keeping United States ships out of the whole region. Even the New Zealand Prime Minister has admitted that the Australian Government's proposed nuclear free zone is nothing more than a first step. He has accepted this first step because he believes that over time he will be able to achieve his objective of keeping nuclear ships out of the region. The Australian Government is therefore making that possible. The previous coalition Government was all too aware of the problems of encouraging regional disarmament initiatives, whether in the Indian Ocean or in the Pacific Ocean. We rightly saw them as damaging Western and Australian security. This Labor Government has come to this issue with a confused and incoherent approach. I have said time and again that the Government comes in here pursuing these moralistic stances which are hypocritical in themselves and internally conflicting. It has no conceptual framework around its foreign policy . It has not put to this Parliament a global scenario for its foreign policy. The Government races off to a region of the world, maybe north Asia, fiddles a bit and thinks that that is fitting into the square. It races into South East Asia or the South Pacific, and it does not tell us what is its framework and how the pieces fit together. The reality is that the pieces do not fit together and its foreign policy is coming apart at the seams. It is now regarded as irrelevant by many nations in our region, because they are never quite sure what it will do in the next section of the world to which it turns its attention. God knows what will happen while Hayden, as bad as he is, is away and we have the Deputy Prime Minister-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Call him 'the Foreign Minister'. Mr PEACOCK —The Foreign Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) is Acting Foreign Minister. The time before last, or was it on both occasions, that he occupied that position he had us and the Japanese marching off to Kampuchea. I do not know whom the poor Kampucheans will be invited to receive with us next. There will be some other streaker's excuse that it seemed a good idea at the time, in answer to a television interview as to what sort of a role we ought to be playing in our region. The reason this comes about is that there is not this conceptual framework, nor is there the comprehension that the major starting point for the determination of the Government's foreign policy is what is in the best interests of its people, and that is not the motivation of this Government. I said that we were all too aware of the problems of encouraging regional disarmament initiatives, whether in the Indian Ocean or in the Pacific, and we rightly saw them as damaging both Western security and our own security with it. In 1982 the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was the shadow Foreign Minister, proposed the idea of the Southern Hemisphere nuclear free zone, the whole Southern Hemisphere. There has been no further mention of that concept. The Government then expressed I recall, in about April 1983, shortly after coming to government, after the French nuclear tests at Mururoa, its concern at those tests and its determination to promote a nuclear free zone. But it ran away from it for a time until it saw that it had to sell this deal with New Zealand. The Government claims that its proposal to the South Pacific Forum was a coherent policy initiative. On the one hand it is happy to talk about the importance of ANZUS and the United States defence relationship, while on the other it is promoting an initiative throughout the region which has the potential to place serious obstacles in the way of the United States defence effort. I say in conclusion that this Prime Minister has pushed for a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. His Government and his Party are pushing for an Indian Ocean zone of peace. They are calling into question the future of American bases in Australia and the Thomas amendment was accepted at the Australian Labor Party Conference. I am sorry to use a cliche in conclusion, but leopards do not change their spots. I take it as being the sheer hypocrisy again of this man who is the current occupant of the Prime Ministership when he says that he wants a close relationship with the United States. He says one thing and does another. Why? I remind the House that it was this man who in 1976 called for 'an independent and non-aligned Australia', as reported in the Age of 14 September 1976. That was Mr Hawke. So, when we hear about his chopping down trees and making speeches on behalf of the conservationists in the Daintree area, when we recall his comments about wanting to control uranium and then going ahead with uranium mining in one area but not allowing it elsewhere, when we hear him talking about tax cuts but giving back only $8 out of the $22 he has taken from the taxpayer, and when we hear him talking about a nuclear free zone but allowing nuclear ships to travel within it, we should remember that he says one thing and does another and there is no consistency within it. When he says that he wants a close relationship with the United States we should remember that before coming into this Parliament he declared himself as a man who wanted Australia's foreign policy to be non-aligned. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The incompetent and insensitive handling of the Government's administration of Aboriginal affairs and its policy of imposing uniform land rights on the States. 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 PORTER(Barker)(3.47) —There is deep concern in Australia about the direction in which this Government is heading in relation to the imposition of uniform land rights legislation on the States and the administration of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) presides over a delicate portfolio which requires a comprehensive yet sensitive range of policies and programs. Unfortunately, the Minister's administration has been characterised by the exercise of ad hoc and arbitrary ministerial policy and decision making, a lack of direction, a neglect of the identifiable and real Aboriginal needs and a failure to ensure effective follow-up action in the delivery of much needed services and facilities. The Minister has generated within the Australian community division, misunderstanding, uncertainty, fear and reaction. The Ayers Rock decision is just one example of the mishandling of this sensitive portfolio. Despite undertakings by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that continued access would be guaranteed, such was not the case. We had the farcical situation in which Val Doonican was refused access. I understand negotiations are still proceeding in relation to the terms and conditions of the handover of the title to the Aboriginal people. The Government's handling of this issue is a prime example of the uncertainty and fear which the Government has generated amongst the Australian public. The Minister's heavy handed approach to his portfolio has also led to division within the Aboriginal community. Last year the Minister instructed the Aboriginal Development Commission to take over the control of the commercial aspects of the Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd. If the Minister would like, I will table the document validating that claim. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member seeking leave to table it? Mr PORTER —If the Minister desires it. Leave granted. Mr PORTER —This Aboriginal organisation was in the process of internally reviewing its role and the Minister's action, to say the least, was untimely. The dispute in relation to the transfer resulted in Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd taking the matter to court. The Opposition's criticisms of the Government's handling of this issue was supported by the Chief Judge of the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Mr Holding —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable gentleman is referring to a matter which is under appeal and is clearly sub judice. I mentioned it to the honourable gentleman as he was speaking, but he may not have heard me. I think that any comments that go to the issues in that case should not be canvassed in the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Barker to take note of those remarks. Mr PORTER —I am well aware that the matter is under appeal. I refer, though, to the comments of the Chief Judge of the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Mr Justice Helsham, to be found in a published judgment reported on in a paper. Mr Holding —I take a point of order. The matter is under appeal. I do not know what sort of a lawyer the honourable member is but the laws on sub judice are perfectly clear and these issues are being canvassed in the court. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the matter is sub judice I ask the honourable member for Barker to desist from making any further comments on the matter. Mr PORTER —I will desist from making any further comments in relation to the issues involved, Madam Deputy Speaker. In respect of the comments of the judge in relation to the Ministers' handling of this matter, I think that is relevant to the debate before the House and does not go to the issue in contention. Mr Holding —It is not relevant. The whole matter is under appeal and the honourable member cannot quote from sections of the judgment. It is as simple as that. Mr PORTER —Those sections of the judgment have been reported in a newspaper and I wish to quote that report. It states: One would have thought that the Ministers (Mr Clyde Holding, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Mr Barry Cohen, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) could have got together and sorted this out. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will resume his seat while I sort out whether he can or cannot continue in this vein. I will take recourse to the Standing Orders and see where we stand in regard to the matter. House of Representatives Practice states: Matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising criminal jurisdiction shall not be referred to . . . Matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court shall not be referred to . . . The honourable member is not referring to the actual matters under adjudiction but they are matters awaiting adjudication. I suggest that he will be getting pretty close to the bone if he starts reading out statements made by judges involved in the case while we are waiting for an appeal to be heard. Mr PORTER —The comments relate to the judge's views of the way in which this matter was brought to the court. They are not to do with the issues involved. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The matter is also awaiting appeal. It is awaiting being heard once again in the court. The matter must be sub judice in that case. Mr PORTER —I can understand the Minister's concern and sensitivity to the judge' s criticism. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —And the House's concern and sensitivity to matters which are sub judice. Mr PORTER —Rather than waste any more time, I will accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was clear that in that case the judge said it was incredible that the dispute could get before the court. In that way, obviously, he was criticising the Minister's handling of the matter, and the judge's criticism confirms the criticism which the coalition has consistently raised in relation to this issue. The stinging criticism by the judge is an example of the depths to which this Government's administration of the Aboriginal portfolio has sunk. It is a matter of deep concern to the Opposition and to the Australian people that this sensitive portfolio is being handled in this way. Unfortunately, the arts and crafts company example is not an isolated case. Similar criticism could be made of the transfer of the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation to the Aboriginal Development Commission. This was atrociously handled and now there are fears that the Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has plans to transfer again the Foundation to his control within the Department. Yet another example has been the Minister's mishandling of the future and funding of the National Aboriginal Conference. Soon after his appointment the Minister said that he was going to make the NAC the ACTU of the Aboriginal people. In his first Budget, he doubled the funding to the NAC whilst at the same time initiating an inquiry into that organisation. One can hardly imagine a more irrational, incompetent, inefficient and wasteful approach to the expenditure of taxpayers' funds. Surely the Minister should have awaited the outcome of his inquiry before increasing the NAC's funds. But instead he doubled the funds, then had the inquiry and now he has cut the funds in this Budget by 15 per cent. The cut in funds substantiates the stupidity of his original decision. In order to try to cover his tracks the Minister is now keeping secret the Coombs report on the NAC, and he is not allowing detailed and informed debate on the future of the NAC. Apart from the Executive, other NAC members and indeed other interested Aboriginal people are not able to obtain a copy of the report. The Minister's period in office has also been highlighted by the lack of appropriate consultation. Earlier this year he asked the National Aborigines Observance Committee to change the date of National Aboriginal Week. I seek leave to table a letter. Leave granted. Mr PORTER —National Aboriginal Week has been held in July for some 30 years. However, the Minister was concerned that it would clash with the Australian Labor Party Conference and therefore demanded a change of date to September. The Aboriginal community reacted vehemently to the Minister's proposal both because he had not consulted the Aboriginal people and because many in the Aboriginal community had already planned the National Aboriginal Week celebrations for July . The Minister then, through his departmental head, used the lever of funding to enforce the change. Clearly the Minister, for his own political ends and without consultation or consideration of the views of those most concerned, sought to make the change of date in a way which was totally insensitive and unwarranted. It is not only the Aboriginal people whom he has failed properly to consult in the administration of this sensitive portfolio. The House will recall the Minister's headlong rush to introduce the Aboriginal heritage legislation, and that was met with a call from State governments, the Aboriginal people, farmers, miners and others in the community to abandon this ill-considered and heavy- handed legislative approach. They all sought effective consultation before the implementation of any such legislation. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act gives sweeping powers to the Minister and has generated enormous public concern. These examples evidence the degree to which this Government's administration of Aboriginal affairs is without direction and has drifted into a state of ineffective and piecemeal inadequacy. The identifiable and real needs of Aboriginal Australians fail to attract the comprehensive and consistent attention they require. The Minister talks of tackling the housing and health needs of Aborigines. He speaks of hundreds of millions of dollars being required for Aboriginal housing, yet this year's Budget sees a real reduction in funds for Aboriginal housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Housing is a priority need for Aborigines. The Minister, in March, unveiled without adequate consultation the concept of an Aboriginal housing authority. To date the details of that authority have not been spelt out. The provision of an adequate water and sewerage supply for Aboriginal communities remains a high priority to the Aboriginal people. In July the DAA Secretary pledged at a public meeting in Derby that all permanent Aboriginal communities in the Kimberleys would receive a DAA funded water supply by 30 June 1985. Before July of this year was over work was stopped on the new water supply to Kalumburu because DAA funds ran out. A lack of effective forward planning, the failure to think through policies, projects and programs, has become the hallmark of this Government's management of Aboriginal affairs. The Aboriginal people have become increasingly disillusioned with the Government's promises. The growing list of promises that have been abandoned or put to one side casts doubts on the capacity, even the willingness, of the Government to meet the needs of the Aboriginal people. Last December the Minister introduced into this House, with great bravado and not a little public expenditure, a lengthy statement on Aboriginal affairs. To date this statement has not been brought on for debate. The Government is not keen to entertain a detailed debate on Aboriginal affairs because its policies are discredited and there is an absence of any considered and applicable strategy for addressing the complex and sensitive issues that are embraced by Aboriginal affairs. In the area of land rights, the Government has clearly indicated that it intends to impose Federal land rights on the States. The Minister will not give any details of the legislation, other than that it will be consistent with his five principles. The effect of his proposal has been to generate enormous heat in the land rights debate. The uncertainties as to his proposals are highlighted when one compares the proposals being discussed by his panel of lawyers and the Minister's statements. The third question put by the panel of lawyers to the Aboriginal community reads: What types of land should be available to become Aboriginal land, e.g. should it include reserves, Crown land, privately owned land, national parks, Aboriginal owned land? Yet the Minister says that private land will not be claimable. Why then has he allowed this uncertainty and inconsistency to arise? Such action obviously contributes to the heat of the debate. He consistently fails to understand the sensitivity of the issue in the Australian community. His legislation will clearly override existing New South Wales and South Australian land rights legislation, because their land rights legislation is not consistent with the Minister's proposals for Aboriginal veto over mining. This will add unnecessary Commonwealth-State conflict to the land rights debate. Already the Western Australian Government has made clear its opposition to the Minister's proposals. All mainland States have land rights legislation or are in the process of debating that legislation. We believe they should be left to get on with the job without interference from this Government. The Opposition's policy in this area is consistent with our policy in government. Certainly, we legislated for land rights in the Northern Territory. We did so without generating the heated debate which we are now seeing. However, we did not then and we do not now seek to impose uniform land rights legislation on the States. The Minister comes before this House and with all the sincerity of a latter day Mark Antony attempts to suggest that he is concerned about an alleged departure by the Opposition from the philosophy and performance of the coalition parties in government. The House will recall the claims of both this Minister and the Prime Minister that we had forsaken the Fraser approach. The hollowness of the Minister's crocodile tears becomes manifest when one recalls what the Minister had to say in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald soon after his appointment last year. He said: What occurred during the period of the Fraser Government, although Fraser himself was not a racist and had some sympathies in this area, was that the Government was prepared to hand that responsibility to the States and erode the power of the Commonwealth in a way that meant Aboriginal interests were continually sold out. We are not handing over a power to the States; we are saying that the States have the power to legislate in relation to land for Aborigines and that they are in the best position to implement meaningful legislation in this area to meet the real needs of the Aboriginal people. The Government has failed to apply considered or comprehensive action to meet those needs. It is not good enough for Aboriginal affairs policy to be applied on the run. There is a pressing need for the Government to recognise the complex and delicate nature of Aboriginal affairs and to abandon the ad hoc and arbitrary decision making that has characterised the administration of Aboriginal affairs. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I will read to the House the following from House of Representatives Practice regarding the sub judice convention. Notwithstanding its fundamental right and duty to consider any matter if it is thought to be in the public interest, the House imposes a restriction on itself in the case of matters awaiting or under adjudication in a court of law . . . The convention is that, subject to the right of the House to legislate on any matter, matters awaiting adjudication in a court of law should not be brought forward in debate, motions or questions. . . . Application of the sub judice rule is subject always to the discretion of the Chair . . . Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.04) —One of the tragedies for Aboriginal affairs is that this Opposition and its spokesmen approach what is a sensitive and complex issue with a scissors and paste approach. The difficulty that the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), and the Opposition have is that they lack credibility on this issue as on so many other issues. Their positions are glib; they perform a grab bag, scissors and paste exercise which is fundamentally rejected by the Aboriginal people themselves. It is interesting that, on the occasion of the launch of what was described as a policy, the National Aboriginal Conference had some very forthright things to say on the approach taken by the honourable gentlemen opposite. It said first of all that it was all very well to talk about the principle of consultation but it was about time the Opposition had some consultation with Aborigines. It pointed out that the Opposition, in formulating its policy, had nothing like consultation with Aboriginals. I quote from remarks made by the Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference about the Opposition' s policy: It reflects a complete lack of understanding of the major issues . . . He said also that the Opposition had failed to come to grips with the issues of self-determination and land rights. He continued with these remarks about the policy document: . . . statements on specific community requirements reflect a lack of adequate consultation with Aboriginal people and a willingness to misrepresent their views for political ends. Aborigines want uniform land rights laws because several of the States have either no land rights legislation or legislation which is totally unsatisfactory . If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) were concerned about these issues, I would have thought he would have considered the strength of that statement. Mr Ruddock —What about New South Wales? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is not Question Time. Mr HOLDING —The Opposition, including the shadow Minister, shows a marked reluctance to ask any questions at Question Time. It prefers to come in with the kind of nonsense we have heard today. What did we find in this portfolio when we came to office? We found legislation in the Northern Territory which at the time it was passed was, in principle, good legislation, but there were many problems that had arisen in its interpretation and its enforcement. There were problems which concerned pastoralists, the mining industry, the land councils and the Aboriginal people. Those problems needed to be addressed. Not once in the period in which the honourable gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition were in government did that Government join issue or take up those issues. It was left to us to do so. One of the first things we did when we came to office was create an investigation by a very distinguished judge. We have his report and are now engaged, as we have been for some months, in discussions with the Government of the Northern Territory, pastoral interests, mining interests and the Aboriginal people about the recommendations made by Mr Justice Toohey. When we have as much consensus as we can get on that, we will legislate to deal with the recommendations. The timetable is one which will be arrived at as a result of those discussions; it will not be arrived at to meet the schoolboy complaints of the shadow Minister opposite. In respect of the allegation that we do not take notice of the views of the States, I point out that a very important inquiry is currently in the process of being completed in Western Australia-the Seaman inquiry. I have indicated our support for and our concern to have the recommendations of that inquiry so that we can get the benefit of that advice in what is a very large State with a very large Aboriginal population and build the recommendations into our thinking and our discussions, not merely with the Government of Western Australia but also with other States and Aboriginal communities and organisations where that is relevant. That is what is happening. Any kind of proper inquiry from the honourable gentleman opposite would have produced that simple fact. There has also been a backlog of claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, as was known to the honourable gentleman opposite. It was our initiative as a Government which created a second land commissioner to deal with that backlog. With respect to the NAC, it is perfectly true that we doubled its budget. It needed doubling for years. The Opposition when in government did not consult with that organisation; it treated it almost with contempt. Because of that, the leadership of that organisation did not have the standing it should have had, either within the halls of government or among the Aboriginal people. We have now asked the NAC to comment in terms of the Coombs report and to consider its own involvement in its own restructuring. Any kind of intelligent question from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who always arrives late for Question Time and leaves early-and no wonder, judging by his performance today- would have elucidated that simple fact. However the honourable member prefers to live with his own perceptions, false as they are. The honourable member says that we must leave all this to the States because they do it better. Do they do it better? His problem is that he is not prepared to state quite clearly his position or that of the Opposition. Does the Opposition support land rights and on what basis does the honourable member believe that the Commonwealth should act? He says that he believes the Commonwealth should act when the States do not act-that is in the Opposition policy statement-but the honourable member has sat as Opposition spokesman in this Parliament for more than 12 months and he has not on any single occasion addressed himself on behalf of the Opposition to the misinformation which is being peddled around Australia by his own Party spokesmen. How can this shadow Minister claim any credibility when he says that land rights should be left to the States? There is an inquiry going on in Western Australia. We are committed to the results of that inquiry as I have made clear, but the Leader of the Liberal Party in Western Australia is not so committed. He has been hawking himself all round Australia, getting on platforms with extreme racist groups and saying: 'I do not care about the report of Mr Seaman; the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party is irrevocably opposed to any form of land rights'. What we are entitled to know from honourable members opposite is how they view that. How can any citizen make up his mind about the Opposition attitude on Aboriginal affairs when the shadow Minister says 'We have a commitment to land rights, but don't ask us to do anything about it; we leave that to the States' and his own Liberal Leader in Western Australia says that there is no way he will agree to land rights, no matter what the recommendations of the Seaman inquiry are? What does the shadow Minister say? Nothing. He will leave it to Mr Hassell. When has the shadow spokesman, a man concerned about the rights of Aboriginal people, ever spoken up against the mischievous, racist nonsense of the Premier of Queensland who has said quite publicly that land rights is a communist conspiracy? Mr Ian Cameron —That is right. Mr HOLDING —Well, there you are. The honourable member for Maranoa has, with glib candour, already indicated the falsity of the Opposition's policy. The shadow Minister comes into the House and says 'We support land rights; we believe the States ought to do it' but the honourable member for Maranoa has put himself on the record as saying that he regards land rights as a communist conspiracy. I ask him to tell me how, if by some misfortune he happened to be in government and happened to be the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, he would deal with a situation in which a National Party Premier says that he regards land rights as a communist conspiracy. Mr Ian Cameron —I take a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not said that I agree with what the Minister said about-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I ask that the Minister withdraw that comment. I did not say that; I agreed with what he said about the Premier. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr HOLDING —What does the shadow Minister do when the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria says that under no circumstances will the Liberal Party in Victoria-and it is supported by the National Party-support land rights? He comes into the Parliament and says: 'That is all right. We support land rights but we will leave it to them. We will do all we can to get the Liberals in the States into power so that they will not do anything about it'. What contemptible hypocrisy. Mr Porter —Try the issues instead of the personalities. Mr HOLDING —I know that the honourable member does not like being reminded of his own track record. He does not like to be reminded of the fact that he knows that, when Mr Hassell goes into New South Wales and Victoria and makes statements about everyone's land being under threat, that is false. But as a person who holds a position of some responsibility, not merely to the Opposition but to Aboriginal people as well, has he ever stood up and said that what Mr Hassell is saying is false and that it is designed to deceive and whip up unbounded fears? Of course he has not, because he has not got the guts. The lack of courage that he has displayed ever since he has held this shadow responsibility is shown in this puerile document which he calls a policy. On the very day that he was making his announcement that the Opposition believes that sacred sites should be registered and protected, I was sitting in Darwin talking to the Chief Minister who, without any consultation with Aboriginal people, had told them that their sites were no longer to be protected, their signs were to be torn down and any Aboriginal putting up a sign could face gaol or a fine. When that was put to the shadow Minister at his Press conference he had no comment to make. When the Press were seeking his comment on that confrontation, which need never have taken place, the shadow Minister again showed his strength of purpose on behalf of Aboriginal people. The policy put forward-- Mr Porter —That is a lie, Clyde, and you know it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will withdraw that remark. Mr Porter —The Minister has criticised people all round the country and misrepresented me-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will withdraw that remark. Mr Speaker has made it very clear that he will not have that language. Mr Porter —Could I ask the Minister in the same way-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would you withdraw the remark that the Minister lied? The Chair does not wish any debate. Mr Porter —I withdraw the remark, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I ask the Minister to withdraw the statements he has made that are obviously not correct. Mr HOLDING —They are correct. Mr Porter —They are not correct, in relation to both Mr Everingham and my own Press conference. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will not debate the issue. Mr HOLDING —I just wish to make a very simple point on this issue. Where there are important issues to be the subject of debate nationally and at a State level , let them be debated. I say this to the honourable gentleman: If he ever talked to Aboriginal people instead of trying to kick them and listened to what they were saying, there might be a basis in this Parliament for rational discussion and a decent analysis of the problems that this Parliament and this nation face. As long as we have to put up with the kind of trivia that is brought into the House by Opposition members as a so-called matter of public importance, we will not get any rational discussion or analysis. This so-called matter of public importance should be treated with the contempt it deserves. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.19) —I simply want to observe first that the contribution of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has been quite emotional and if one had to characterise it in any other way one would say it was divisive. It was in contrast to the very quietly reasoned address of my colleague the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). When the Minister first spoke in this debate he referred to the Opposition's policy which has recently been released and commented that it has been the subject of considerable criticism by the National Aboriginal Conference. One could be forgiven for believing that, if he cited the Conference's criticism of our policy, the Government was without blemish. The fact is that the National Aboriginal Conference has had some remarks to make about this Minister and about the way in which he has consulted with them. Perhaps it would be useful for honourable members to hear what the NAC has had to say. It may well be tit for tat, but I think it indicates quite clearly that the Government is found wanting by the people whom it wants to use as a basis for making a judgment of the way in which the Opposition has conducted itself. I have in front of me a copy of a media release from the National Aboriginal Conference, which says: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, ostensibly on behalf of the Federal Labor Government, is developing the Department of Aboriginal Affairs at the expense of Aboriginal organisations; he is imposing increasingly strong restrictive bureaucratic controls on the operation of Aboriginal-run organisations and he is reducing funding for those organisations thus limiting their autonomy and their effectiveness. The statement goes on: When the NAC has sought rational discussion with him on these matters he has simply threatened our existence. Mr Hand —Rubbish! Mr RUDDOCK —The honourable member says 'Rubbish!'. That is the view of the National Aboriginal Conference. He may regard it as rubbish but that is the view the Conference put on this Minister and the way in which he consults with them. The statement continues: The Aboriginal people, represented by the NAC, are being held to ransom by his unreasonable and negative attitudes. It concludes in these terms: In fact, their performance in areas was worse than their Liberal predecessors. That was its judgment-'worse than their Liberal predecessors'. The media release finally states: The NAC cannot simply accept this betrayal of Aboriginal rights and aspirations . We will use every avenue open to us to get the Government back on the right path. If the Government is to use the National Aboriginal Conference as the basis for making a judgment on our policy, it also has to accept the Conference's criticism of itself. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has rather glibly endeavoured to characterise the Opposition's policy in a negative way. I recall well a speech in this House in which he tried to indicate that there has been some remarkable about-turn by the Opposition in the development of its own policy and in relation to its attitude to Aboriginal land rights. In answer to a question in the House of Representatives on 10 May this year the Minister endeavoured to characterise the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) as having a substantially different approach from that of the former Fraser Government. He said: I commend to the Leader of the Opposition, and to those who support him on his side, that he move his Party back to the position in respect of Aboriginal land rights where there was a very large measure of consensus on both sides of this Parliament. I have to say, as one who participated in the discussion in which the Opposition has been involved in developing its policy, that there is no significant or substantial variation in the policy we are putting to the people now on Aboriginal land rights from that which was in place while we were in government. I had debates with the Minister when he was on this side of the House on the question of Aboriginal land rights and some of those issues are issues that I will canvass in this debate today. I put very strongly the view that to proceed with a national land rights Bill in the form that the Government is developing was likely to be very divisive and harmful to Aboriginal people. I take the view , which I hold very strongly, that there is no virtue in trying to run over State governments in such a way as to lead Aboriginals to incur the wrath, antipathy and antagonism of other people simply because we want to press on in advance of what might be described as prevailing community attitudes. Where a position was imposed upon a State government Aboriginals would end up receiving the wrath of the community and the sorts of comments that have been made by the Minister about extremist organisations in this community. I wonder why we have this quest for national Aboriginal land rights legislation . I have not heard a reasoned statement from the Minister on the matter so I would like whoever follows him to elaborate on his comments today. He told us there were two reasons for proceeding with uniform Aboriginal land rights legislation. The first was to impose legislation upon those States that have not adopted land rights legislation to this point in time. I suppose he has identified Tasmania and Queensland, and presumably Victoria and Western Australia if they are not proceeding at a sufficient pace in putting uniform land rights in place, because they are not in place, as he sees the situation at the moment. He said that the second reason was to remedy unsatisfactory legislation in several States. The only remaining States are those with Labor governments. Does that mean that the Minister has in mind remedying what he sees to be unsatisfactory legislation on the statute books in South Australia or New South Wales? Is that what he is saying? If he is, I would like him to clarify it and tell us in what way the legislation that those States have on the statute books is defective. It would be extraordinarily helpful for us to know in what way he considers the New South Wales or South Australian legislation to be defective. If we exclude those States that have no land rights legislation, in his view, they are the only States to which he could be referring. The Minister referred to the Opposition's approach to changes in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The fact of the matter is that amendments to that legislation have been under consideration for some time. They were under consideration during discussions initiated by colleagues of mine, Senator Chaney and Senator Baume, formerly Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, with the Northern Territory Government and the various Northern Territory land councils with a view to achieving a consensus approach on a number of intractable problems. The Minister recognised that there were some intractable problems with the legislation and he said that the Government had initiated an inquiry by Mr Justice Toohey, the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, with a view to ironing out some of those matters. He said today that he was having discussions to put in place changes to the Northern Territory legislation. I wonder why anybody could then quarrel with the Opposition's approach to land rights. The Opposition is committed to a system of Aboriginal land rights. It recognises in its policy the attachment which Aboriginals have for the land. The Opposition makes it clear, and it is consistent with the policy of the Fraser Government, that it opposes the imposition on States of Federal uniform land rights legislation. That is a consistent position. Mr Holding —What do you do when the States do not want to act? I would be interested to know that. Mr RUDDOCK —In relation to what happened in Queensland, our policy statement refers to what might happen in a last resort situation. I think that is a very different situation from imposing uniform land rights legislation on the States overall. We have suggested exploring certain amendments to the Northern Territory legislation. Our position is not substantially different from that of the Government in recognising that fundamental problems with that legislation need to be resolved. We can return to a consensus position in the quest for uniform land rights legislation if the Government is prepared to acknowledge the strength of our position and to make it clear that it does not intend to impose its own laws on the States of Australia. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(4.29) —I begin by complimenting the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) for his measured and constructive contribution to this debate but it would be remiss of me not to comment on what has to be one of the most amazing performances from a member of the Opposition front bench that this House has seen, certainly in the limited time I have been in Parliament. Not too many people in this Parliament could begin the thrust of their debate on the subject of competence with a piddling and irrelevant point, which is then ruled out of order because it is sub judice. Such was the contribution of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), in this matter. This issue raises some of the most serious questions confronting Australia today. In essence the matter raises the differences in policies between the Government and the Opposition parties. The Hawke Government's policies are clearly, not only in this sphere but in relation to economic and other political matters, based on the process of consultation. Indeed the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has made it quite clear the the Government's policies in this area are first and foremost based on consultation with the States and on ensuring that the States live up to their responsibilities in the area of Aboriginal land rights. The Opposition's policies come in a number of versions. We have heard at least two versions today, but its adopted policies in many respects are to be commended. It has a policy on land rights which was supported today by the honourable member for Dundas. Indeed that policy says many things which the Government says in its policy and which do not differ substantially from that which the Government proposes. I will give honourable members some examples of that. The Liberal-National Party policy makes much of State responsibilities and the need for the States to implement legislation appropriate to their circumstances. We agree with that principle. Insofar as the States are willing to meet their obligations the Government would support State legislation and only as a last resort would it seek to impose its own legislation. The Opposition's policy points to the need for consultation with the States in relation to Federal action on land rights. The Government is firmly committed to such consultation. The Opposition says it would encourage Aboriginal participation in consultation and in the formulation of land rights legislation. So too do we embrace that principle, but there are radical differences from the adopted policy of the Liberal-National Party and the substance of the matters that are coming from the mouth of the shadow Minister. The Aboriginal affairs power of the Commonwealth was granted in 1967 by way of a referendum which was supported by 92.7 per cent of the Australian people. Despite the fact that the Bill was passed unanimously by the Australian Parliament, very different policies have been emerging in relation to the Government and the Opposition. Even in 1967 some of those differences, in terms of the care to detail and the commitment by the Australian Labor Party to Aboriginal affairs, were present. The then Opposition Leader Whitlam stated that as a result of the referendum: . . . the Commonwealth can at least bring the resources of the whole nation to bear in favour of Aboriginals where they live. On the other hand the then Minister for Social Security, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), following the passage of the referendum, said that the Government had nothing specific in mind and its policies would be worked out during the Budget session. How little have Liberal-National Party attitudes changed towards Aboriginal affairs since 1967. I regret that the adopted policies of the Liberal Party are at great variance with what is coming from the Opposition spokesman on this issue. Indeed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has also attempted to deny the existence of the adopted Liberal Party policy. I give credit to the honourable member for Dundas, both for his competence and his commitment to that policy, because right across Australia there have been a limited but very effective number of Liberal-National Party spokesmen who have sought to deny their Party's policy. In a debate which is critical of the Government's sensitivity on the issue of Aboriginal land rights, to use the wording of the motion the Government's 'insensitive handling of . . . Aboriginal affairs', let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition says when he is adopting his sensitive approach to Aboriginal affairs policies. I take honourable members back to his statements at Port Macquarie made only a month ago when he was talking about his hobby farm in Victoria and when referring to the affinity of Aboriginals with their land, he said: I have it with my farm in Victoria, it's wrong to believe that any one section of Australia has a special affinity with the land. A couple of days later he attempted to tidy up the statement, 'We did not really mean it, it was all a dreadful mistake'. But he said it and of course he received tremendous denunciation not only from editorials of leading newspapers, not only from the Aboriginal people of Australia, but from the great majority of white Australians as well. It is not only those elements which condemn the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition spokesman on this issue; former Senator Bonner has also added his condemnation of the Opposition's policies. He was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 31 July as saying that the Opposition was being dishonest and hypocritical in its attitude toward land rights. That is not some extremist group talking, that is a former member of a Liberal-National Party government. He stated: Now it seems to be popular to kick the Aboriginal land rights movement. He-- referring to the Leader of the Opposition-- seems to think it's going to be a good electoral gimmick. Perhaps I ought to say something more of the contribution to this matter by the Leader of the Opposition because I find it difficult to find anything of substance said by the shadow Minister in this matter that is worthy of reply. The Leader of the Opposition has done a great deal to whip up public support for his Party's hypocritical stand on this land rights issue. When he was asked recently on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's program PM about his unusual running mates on the land rights issue-the League of Rights was referred to-he was asked the fairly obvious question of whether he was frightened of being trained by association. His firm and serious answer, delivered with all the sincerity he could muster, was: They don't run with me, sorry. Parallel, but distinctly a different force to me . The League of Rights is, to all concerned Australians, akin to a nazi party. Fancy the Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament in 1984 saying that he was running parallel with what is equivalent to the nazi party. I might have great differences with Malcolm Fraser, but he would turn in his political grave if he saw the depths to which the Liberal Party has sunk in relation to the Aboriginal land rights issue. The Canberra Times, in its comments in relation to the policies put forward by the shadow spokesman in relation to this matter, in its editorial of 3 September, 'A blow at the blacks', stated: The Opposition's Aboriginal affairs policy gives further evidence of a retreat by the non-Labor parties to the right on this question. . . . . . . . the Opposition earns no merit for its intention to return things such as land rights and the protection of sacred sites to the States. Aboriginal matters ought to be handled on a federal basis . . . Ninety-two per cent of Australian people supported that proposition in 1967. The Minister has referred to the condemnation by the National Aboriginal Conference of Liberal Party policy, and I do not intend to dwell on that. In conclusion I want to lay to rest the myths that have been promoted by the Liberal and National parties. I assure white Australians that they have nothing to fear from any Commonwealth or any State policy with respect to Aboriginal land rights. Not one house or one private farm in this entire country is in any way threatened by Aboriginal land rights. The Commonwealth can give an ironclad guarantee that private property is not going to be the subject of the claims that the Opposition alleges. It is an absolute insult to the intelligence of the Australian people, and come the Federal election the Liberal Party and the National Party are going to get an almighty electoral kick in the pants. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will give effect to the proposals announced in the Budget Speech to exempt debits below $1 from the bank account debits tax and to increase the tax on debits of $10,000 or more from $1 to $1.50. At present, there is no minimum debit below which the tax does not apply. This means that the minimum rate of tax of 10c is charged on very small debits including on small debits for financial institutions duties levied by some States. The Bill will ensure that debits below $1 are not subject to bank account debits tax. In order to offset the cost of the exemption of debits below $1 and the two other new exemptions announced in the Budget, the Bill proposes to increase the rate of tax on debits of $10,000 or more from $1 to $1.50. This increase, like those two changes, will apply to debits made to accounts in the month following royal assent. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Fisher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill, and a further Bill I will introduce shortly, is to permit three additional exemptions from the bank account debits tax. These exemptions were decided upon by the Government following a review of the tax and were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the Budget Speech. A statement outlining the decisions taken by the Government as a result of the review was issued by the Treasurer on 22 August 1984. As indicated in that statement, the Government confined its review of the tax to the exemption provisions pending the outcome of an inquiry into the distribution of taxing powers between the Commonwealth and the States. Honourable members will be aware of the numerous organisations and individuals who have made representations seeking exemptions from the tax in recent months. Those representations were given very careful consideration by the Government and it was concluded that it would be appropriate to grant three additional exemptions. The Government believes that the new exemptions will rationalise the existing exemption provisions while at the same time retaining the original concept of a broad based tax with few exemptions. The present Bill will grant two new exemptions. First, it will extend the range of exemptions to include Parents and Citizens' Associations and other support groups for institutions that are themselves exempt from the tax. Secondly, it will exempt local councils and government bodies in respect of any minor business activities they carry on. In addition, the Bill will clarify the operation of the legislation in relation to government bodies whose enabling legislation includes a provision generally exempting the body from Commonwealth taxes. The Bill will also modify requirements relating to the lodgment with the Australian Taxation Officer of certain returns by banks. I turn now to discuss in more detail the changes proposed by this Bill. Under the present law, a public benevolent or religious institution, a public or private non-profit hospital and a government or private non-profit school, college or university is exempt from the tax. The Bill proposes that exemption also be granted to organisations whose function is to support one of those exempt institutions. The proposed exemption will thus apply to Parents and Citizens' Associations and like bodies which exist to serve the interests of particular schools. Auxiliaries set up to raise funds for a hospital or a public benevolent institution such as an aged people's home will also be eligible for exemption. Exemption will not, however, extend to 'umbrella' support groups whose purpose is to promote in a more general way the interest of schools, hospitals or other exempt institutions, nor to broadly based support groups such as community service clubs. The new exemption will apply to debits made to accounts on or after the first day of the month following the month in which the amending Act receives the royal assent. The Bill also liberalises the exemption currently provided to certain government bodies. Under the present law, government bodies are eligible for exemption from the tax, except in relation to bank account debits resulting from transactions connected with a business undertaking or if their sole or principal function is to carry on a business. This policy of taxing all business activities of government bodies ensures equality of tax treatment with any private sector competitors but has meant that local councils that carry on business activities such as operating swimming pools, child care centres and caravan parks are subject to the tax in respect of those activities even where they represent an insignificant part of a council's functions and are not commercial in a real sense. Because transactions relating to such business activities are generally conducted through the council's main operating bank account, that account is not eligible for the issue of a certificate of exemption. Instead, the council is initially required to pay tax on all debits to the account and subsequently claim a refund from the Commissioner of Taxation of the tax paid on the non-business debits. The Government believes that the administrative burden in these small particular situations is disproportionate to the very small amount of revenue involved. Accordingly, the Bill will extend the scope of the exemption provided to government bodies that do not primarily carry on business undertakings so that such a government body will be eligible for exemption not only in respect of its non-business activities but also in respect of any business activity that form a minor or insignificant part of its functions. This will mean, for example , that a local council will no longer be subject to the tax in respect of business activities such as operating a swimming pool where, viewed overall, that activity represents a minor part of the council's functions. On the other hand, a council that carries on, for example, a substantial electricity supply undertaking will not be eligible for exemption in respect of debits relating to that activity. The change to the exemption arrangements for government bodies will also operate in relation to debits made on or after the first day of the month following the month in which the amending Act receives the royal assent. This Bill is also to clarify the operation of the bank accounts debit tax law in relation to government bodies whose enabling legislation include a provision exempting them from Commonwealth taxes. The intended operation of the existing law is that government bodies are entitled to exemption from the tax only if they satisfy the specific tests for exemption of government bodies contained within the bank account debits tax legislation. As mentioned earlier, those tests are designed to ensure that government bodies are not eligible for exemption in respect of substantial business activities. Nevertheless, legal arguments have been advanced that government bodies that carry on substantial business undertakings are completely exempt from the bank account debits tax if they have a general tax exemption provision in their enabling legislation. The amendments will make it clear that a government body will be entitled to exemption from the tax only if it satisfies the specific tests for exemption of government bodies contained in the bank account debits tax legislation. This particular measure will be made effective in relation to bank account debits occurring on or after 22 August 1984 which was the date on which the Treasurer announced that the law would be amended in this way. The final measure proposed by this Bill will vary a machinery provision in the existing legislation which stipulates that banks must lodge an annual return relating to exempt accounts specifying the names and addresses of the account holders in alphabetical order. The Bill will replace the requirement to furnish a list of account holders in alphabetical order with a requirement that the bank furnish the return in an approved form containing such particulars as are required by the form. This is consistent with the existing provision relating to lodgment of returns for taxable accounts and will assist the Commissioner of Taxation in exercising appropriate control over the system of certificates of exemption. As is usual with amendments to the taxation laws, an explanatory memorandum giving technical details of the amendments contained in the Bill is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 4 April 1984 the Government introduced into this House a Bill indentical in all respects with this Bill. That Bill resubmitted measures contained in a Bill passed by this House as the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983, but was rejected in another place. The Bill introduced on 4 April 1984 was also passed by the House, but the coalition parties in the Senate and some other senators combined to effectively defeat the measures contained in the Bill. The Government is not prepared to let the matter rest there. As was clearly described in second reading speeches on the introduction of the earlier Bills, this legislation is aimed at the shabbiest of schemes. Some proprietors of business, after establishing superannuation funds purportedly to provide superannuation benefits for their employees, wind up the funds in circumstances where the accumulated assets of the funds are paid out, not to the employees, but to the proprietors themselves. This happens after advantage has been taken of the considerable tax concessions provided for superannuation contributions and the income of the funds. One technique adopted is to terminate the unsuspecting employees' employment under some pretext or another shortly before they would otherwise become entitled to substanial superannuation benefits from the funds. Even some long serving and loyal employees have been dealt with in this fashion. Another variation is to make tax deductible contributions to a fund for workers who, in the ordinary course of events, do not stay long with their employer. Typically this can occur in relation to people who engage in seasonal work-hence the notorious label 'cherry picker' schemes that has been attached to these arrangements. The benefits that are 'forfeited' are then allocated to the proprietors who, technically as the sole remaining employees, take the whole of the accumulated assets. The funds, having been wound-up in this way, are not then able to meet any tax liability which, under the existing law, might fall to be met by them once all the facts have emerged. Not only does the revenue, and therefore the Australian taxpayer, suffer by these particularly distasteful practices, but also the unsuspecting ordinary employees of companies are deprived of superannuation benefits accumulated in their name and ostensibly for their benefit. As we have said before, it is difficult to imagine a more brazen abuse of the taxation law and no sympathy should be wasted on those who have sought to take advantage of devices ingeniously planned to give the appearance of bona fide superannuation arrangements but hollow in reality. The intended losers are the taxpayers of Australia while the intended winners are those who would seek to enjoy the benefits and privileges of living in this country without meeting their rightful share of the fiscal burden. A carefully defined policy of retrospective application of anti-tax avoidance legislation was one which we put before the people of Australia on 5 March last year and on which we were elected to government. Yet, the Opposition parties continue to frustrate the Government's attempts to give effect to a clearly stated and endorsed election commitment. While the Commissioner of Taxation is vigorously seeking to challenge these schemes under the existing law, the appropriate response-the only response certain to be wholly and speedily effective-is that proposed once more in this Bill. A technical explanation of the proposed section 26AFA is contained in the memorandum that was circulated to honourable members at the time of introduction of the Bill containing the original measure. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Fisher) adjourned. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the sixteenth report of the Committee for 1984 relating to the construction of a submarine warfare systems centre, HMAS Watson, South Head, New South Wales, together with the minutes of evidence. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(4.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the status and entitlements of Mr Justice Stewart as Chairman of the National Crime Authority when he resigns from the New South Wales Supreme Court. Mr Justice Stewart was appointed on 25 June 1984 as Chairman of the National Crime Authority with the agreement of the States. The intention when he was appointed was that he would remain a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court during his term of office on the National Crime Authority and that he would return to that court when that term of office came to an end. It might be noted that, under the National Crime Authority Act, his term as Chairman is a four-year term and he is not eligible for re- appointment as Chairman. Although it was commonly understood, during the debate that led up to the enactment of the National Crime Authority Act, that the Chairman of the Authority would be a judge-and the Bill made specific provision for this-it was not until after his appointment that a public controversy erupted about the compatibility of a serving Supreme Court judge also holding office as Chairman of the National Crime Authority. That public controversy included a publicly expressed difference of opinion amongst the judges of the New South Wales Supreme Court. As a result of that controversy, Mr Justice Stewart announced his intention to resign from the New South Wales Supreme Court following his completion of the Nugan Hand Royal Commission, which was due to finish by 31 December 1984, but which may now run on a little longer. Mr Justice Stewart was offered the appointment as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, and he accepted that office, on the basis that he would remain a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court, retaining his salary and all other entitlements, including his right to pension and to long leave under the scheme applying to judges of the New South Wales Supreme Court. The Government believes that the Commonwealth now has an obligation to ensure that he is not unduly disadvantaged because the controversy after his appointment has caused him to indicate his intention to resign as a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court . The provisions in the Bill now before the House are contingent upon that resignation taking effect. The Bill provides that Mr Justice Stewart will continue to enjoy judicial status during the term of his appointment as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, although he will not in fact hold office as a judge of a court. To this extent, the Bill follows the precedent set on the appointment of Mr Justice Rae Else-Mitchell as Chairman of the Commonwealth Grants Commission following his retirement as a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court. The judicial status which would be conferred upon Mr Justice Stewart by the Bill may be continued at the discretion of the Governor-General if he continues to hold a full time office under the Commonwealth after completing his term as Chairman of the National Crime Authority. The Bill provides that he will continue, as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, to receive the salary payable from time to time to a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court. In respect of other conditions of service during that time, he will be entitled to the conditions of service, including as to leave, enjoyed by a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. His service as Chairman will be recognised for the purpose of the Judges Pensions Act and the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act. When his term of office as Chairman comes to an end, Mr Justice Stewart will have completed more than 10 years of judicial service since his first appointment as a judge of the New South Wales District Court in 1977. He will then, however, be a few months short of 60 years of age, which is the minimum retiring age under both the Commonwealth and New South Wales judges' pensions Acts. Notwithstanding that he will not quite reached that minimum retiring age, the Bill provides that he may then retire on pension as if he had reached that age if he so desires. His pension, whenever he retires, will be based on a salary payable to a New South Wales Supreme Court judge. Mr Justice Stewart has, however, said that he would hope to continue in full time employment of some kind after his term of Chairman comes to an end. The Government therefore proposes to recommend to the Executive Council that, after he leaves the New South Wales Supreme Court, Mr Justice Stewart be appointed as a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with the intention that he actively take up that role following the completion of his term as National Crime Authority Chairman. The Bill accordingly enables that appointment to be made and contains consequental provisions to avoid the payment of double salary and the accrual of double pension entitlements. The Bill also provides for him to take long leave on the same conditions as apply to Federal judges in respect of his judicial service, including his service as Chairman of the Authority and to receive payment in lieu of leave not taken when he retires. This would give him substantially the same benefits as if he had remained a New South Wales judge. The Government regrets that Mr Justice Stewart was put in the position where this legislation has become necessary. But the Government believes, nevertheless , that the Parliament, having enacted the National Crime Authority Act on the basis that the Authority might be headed by a judge, has an obligation to Mr Justice Stewart to ensure that his rights are safeguarded. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Fisher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read for a first time. MR LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(4.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a contribution by Australia of $A200m towards the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association, or IDA as it is commonly called. IDA, established in 1960, is the concessional lending affiliate of the World Bank. It assists its poorest member countries by providing long-term, interest-free credits for sound development projects, utilising in the main grant funds provided by donor countries. The poorest countries have great need for development assistance on concessional terms. They therefore depend upon loans from IDA which bear no interest and can be repaid over 50 years with a 10-year grace period. Honourable members will recognise that IDA, in its turn, depends upon developed donor countries like ourselves to provide most of the resources to carry on its work; donor funds are critical to the development needs of these countries. This, the seventh replenishment of IDA's resources, has been beset with problems including the postponing of the replenishment for one year. Australia helped tide the Association over this period by making a special contribution of $A68m. After a long series of meetings, all donors including Australia but with the exception of the United States of America were prepared to support a replenishment of $US12 billion. However this level of replenishment was not achieved. The United States announced that it would not take up a share in the replenishment above 25 per cent and that its annual contribution would be $ US750m, implying a maximum replenishment of $US9 billion. Australia and other IDA donors considered the result to be 'gravely inadequate' and expressed regret and disappointment. However, by January this year, they felt that to avoid a hiatus in IDA's lending they must accept the figure of $US9 billion. Many, including Australia, were prepared to examine together and with IDA management the possibility of mobilising additional resources. Unfortunately, due to complications in reaching agreement on the related issue of a selective capital increase in the Bank, adoption of the replenishment resolution by the Bank's Executive Board was delayed until 24 May. Our share in the replenishment based on our usual share of 1.91 per cent was $ A192.58m. In addition to this we have responded to a request by Mr Clausen, President of the World Bank, for Australia to increase its share to help fill a shortfall of 3.12 per cent in the $US9 billion target. In this regard the Government has agreed to increase our contribution by $A7.42m, to bring our total contribution to $A200m. As in previous replenishments, Australia has the option of paying its contribution either in cash or by lodging non-negotiable, non-interest-bearing promissory notes encashable on demand as and when funds are actually required by IDA for loan disbursements. In accordance with past practice, and in line with the practices of most other members of IDA, we propose to lodge promissory notes. This will spread the impact on the Budget over about 10 years starting with a small encashment in this financial year. During the discussions on the seventh replenishment, it was agreed that essentially the same voting power arrangements under the sixth replenishment should continue to apply. Accordingly, although contributions to replenishments, as opposed to the original subscriptions to IDA do not carry voting rights, a small proportion of donors' contributions is counted as a subscription. This is designed to ensure that the relative voting power of each of the developed member countries of IDA can continue to correspond broadly to the relative share of total resources contributed by these countries. The calculations undertaken by the staff of IDA indicate that, included in the total amount which Austrlalia will make available under the seventh replenishment, an amount of $A161,410 will take the form of an additional subscription with voting rights. The balance will represent an additional contribution. This distinction is provided for in clause 4 of the Bill. Honourable members will be disturbed to learn that assistance from IDA to the world's poorest countries, including India, China, Bangladesh and countries in sub-Saharan Africa, will be reduced in real terms to levels significantly lower than under the previous replenishment. The IDA-7 replenishment of $US9 billion is significantly smaller than the IDA-6 replenishment of $US12 billion in 1980. Because of the emphasis on helping the poorest countries, IDA credits are increasingly concentrated on the countries I have just mentioned. They serve to complement our own, relatively limited bilateral aid efforts to these countries. Australia was willing to support proposals by the World Bank for the provision of supplementary resources for the IDA seventh replenishment. We are disappointed that it has not been possible to achieve international donor agreement to hold negotiations. The Government has the matter under review and will consider how best it might further assist. Honourable members will know that Australia has a solid record of support for IDA since its inception. There has been general agreement on all sides of the House that IDA is a highly effective channel for disbursement of development assistance to the most impoverished countries of the world. That view was strongly expressed by the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program whose report the Hon. Bill Hayden tabled in the House of Representatives on 7 June. This Bill provides an opportunity once again to demonstrate support for IDA and our willingness to recognise, through our support for this institution, the development assistance needs of the poorest developing countries. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Fisher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 16 July the Remuneration Tribunal released its 1984 review of all offices within its jurisdiction. Apart from reports and determinations passing on increases handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the September 1983 and April 1984 national wage cases, this is the first general review by the Tribunal since 6 August 1982. Honourable members will be aware that the Tribunal on this occasion considered the question of increases to establish salary levels at a firm and equitable base for the operation of the wage fixing principles. It recommended and determined salary increases of 11.7 per cent for judges, secretaries of departments, senior full time public office holders, and part time public office holders. No salary increases were determined for Ministers, parliamentary office holders, or for senators and members. The Tribunal considered the question of an appropriate increase in accordance with the wage fixing principles. The salary it has recommended and determined consequently conforms with the principles. The Tribunal also determined and recommended that the increases be phased in, with 6 per cent effective from 1 July 1984 and 5.7 per cent from 1 January 1985. The findings of the Tribunal were in accordance with the Government's submission in respect of adherence to the wage fixing principles and the phasing in of any increases in the interests of wage restraint. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Tribunal's recommendations in respect of holders of judicial office and the President and members of the Inter -State Commission. The Constitution provides that remuneration for these offices shall be such as the Parliament may fix. Clause 3 of the Bill provides, in the Schedule, rates of salary increased by 6 per cent on and from 1 July 1984, and increased by a further 5.7 per cent on and from 1 January 1985. Each rate of salary in the Schedule is to be adjusted automatically in accordance with national wage increases after 1 July 1984. The rates of expenses of office allowance set down in the Schedule are those agreed to by the Government following the Tribunal's April reports and determinations. The remuneration of members of the Inter-State Commission is not dealt with in the schedule as their salaries are to be linked with the rate of salary payable to the holder of a Level 6 office in the Australian Public Service. This is set out in sub-clause 3 (8), together with the rate of expenses of office allowance agreed to by the Government in April. Other parts of clause 3 repeat provisions which were formerly embodied in section 13 of the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973. Sections 13, 13A, 13B, 13C and 17 of that Act are all repealed by clause 8 and replaced by similar provisions in this Bill. Clause 4 deals with rates of travelling allowance payable to justices of the High Court of Australia. The Tribunal recommended increases in travelling allowance to reflect increases in costs. Clause 5 fixes the rate of an additional allowance payable to justices of the High Court who are not resident in Canberra. The allowance has been increased by an amount equivalent to the national wage increases of October 1983 and of April 1984. Clause 6 deals with rates of travelling allowance payable to other judicial office holders. Clause 7 picks up provisions formerly embodied in section 17 of the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973, and clause 8 saves any regulations made under that section. The cost of implementing the Tribunal's recommendations in respect of judges and the Inter-State Commission will be of the order of $0.9m in 1984-85. Further information on the clauses of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(5.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the financing of redundancies in the stevedoring industry and thus to contribute to the continued stability of industrial relations on Australia's waterfront and to improve the efficiency of stevedoring operations generally. Honourable members will be aware of the importance of a stable and efficient stevedoring industry for Australia's economy and for its trading relationships with other countries. I will now explain briefly to honourable members the background to this Bill. Successive Australian governments have had a history of active and statutory involvement in the industry going back to 1942. The year 1977 saw the culmination of a series of developments which enabled government to withdraw from its regulatory role in the industry and to leave the parties to manage their own affairs. As a result of the National Stevedoring Industry Conference chaired by Sir Richard Kirby in 1976-77, detailed agreement was reached between the parties and the Federal Government to this effect. Nevertheless, there remain certain statutory levying arrangements which were retained for a variety of detailed reasons which need not be gone into now. These are controlled by a representative statutory committee, the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee. Other levies on employers are managed by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour. The arrangements that I have referred to briefly here were and are concerned with the employment of waterside workers. Other categories of labour on the waterfront have not been covered by goverment involved centralised industry employment and financing arrangements. However, the industry itself has instituted such arrangements for most categories of ancillary labour. Prior to 1978 the proceeds of a statutory levy, the stevedoring industry charge, were administered by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority which was abolished as part of the new arrangements entered into at the beginning of that year. The levy covered employers' contributions to the pension fund for waterside workers, idle time payments, long service leave payments, provision of amenities, the administration of the authority itself, provisions for long service leave liabilities and redundancy and transfer payments. There are now two types of statutory levies. One is a general levy on man hours which finances employers' retirement fund contributions, long service leave provisions, administration costs, the Port Conciliator Service and, in non-permanent ports, attendance money, guaranteed wage and retainer and annual leave; and the second is a special levy on tonnages and on man-hours employed on bulk cargoes, which has been used to pay out the so -called Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority deficit. The second levy needs to be put into historical perspective. A substantial round of redundancies occurred prior to the introduction of the 1978 reductions and this was funded by allowing a shortfall in the long service leave fund of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority amounting to some $ 25m. This is being paid off through the statutory special levies introduced in 1978 which are nearing the end of their lives. Further technological change, improvements in overall productivity, changes to trading patterns and conditions of recession led to a need for substantial work force reductions beyond those already achieved. Since the introduction of containerisation in the late 1960's, significant reductions in the industry's work force have been achieved, without industrial disruption, through the co-operation of the parties. By way of illustration, the number of 'A' register waterside workers has declined from 21, 259 in June 1966 to 6,489 in July 1984, or, by nearly 70 per cent. Estimates of the number of redundant waterside workers have been put forward by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour and are based on an extensive independent manpower needs survey commissioned in 1983. That study, by a firm of consultants, represents a welcome attempt to address the manpower needs of the industry in a considered, scientific manner. The industry has identified an overriding need to reduce further idle time costs by reducing significantly the number of waterside workers. This is beyond the capacity of the industry itself to fund on a centralised basis. It approached the Government with a proposal that the industry redundancies by financed through the statutory levy arrangements. This has already been attended to by the Government adjusting existing statutory levies. The industry also proposed that a loan of $15.5m taken out by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour to fund redundancy payments to waterside workers in 1983 be refinanced through the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee to enable the Association to borrow further funds to deal with redundancy among ancillary labour. That proposal has the general support of various user and other interest groups which have been consulted through the Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council. The Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee, which is comprised of representatives of the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited, the Australian National Line, the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and a Government-appointed Chairman, also supports the proposal. The Government has accepted the proposal and this Bill is designed to implement one aspect of the necessary measures-the refinancing of the AEWL loan through the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee. Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a new section 8A into the principal Act, the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977. That section authorises the SIFC to pay to the AEWL an amount sufficient to enable the AEWL to discharge the loan which it took out in May 1983 and contains provisions to ensure that the debt is discharged accordingly or that the payment made to the AEWL is recoverable by the SIFC. No amounts are specified in the legislation because the precise amount needed to discharge the loan will depend upon the date of repayment; that is, upon the amount of interest due at that time and upon the amount to be paid under the agreement as a consequence of the early repayment of the principal sum. As honourable members will have realised by now, this Bill forms only part of the proposals that have been accepted by the Government. I turn now to the reasons why the Government accepted these proposals. First, there is an undisputed need to reduce the excessively high level of idle time and its associated costs. Based on existing conditions it is estimated that redundancy payments to the 543 WWF members identified by AEWL as redundant will be some $ 22m. This would be paid out over seven years at an average annual cost of $6m including interest. This compares with estimated savings on idle time payments of $9.8m per annum. Other savings, $2.8m per annum, will arise in liabilities which would normally accrue to employees made redundant. There will be no cost to the Federal Government because the redundancy payments will be financed by the industry as has been the successful practice in the past. Procedures for collecting and disbursing levy payments are already in place. Refinancing the AEWL loan through the SIFC will enable the AEWL to deal with claims by other unions for redundancy payments, thus reducing the number of workers in ancillary areas to more realistic levels. The level of redundancy payments has yet to be negotiated but is expected to be in accordance with past practice in the industry. Any agreement reached will go before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and will be subject to assessment in the light of the national wage guidelines. In accepting the industry's proposals in this matter, the Government is recognising the serious joint efforts being made in the industry to improve its efficiency. I expect that the industry will continue this review process and I look forward to hearing of further progress. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill and the ones I am about to introduce is to amend charging procedures for export inspection to reflect changes to export inspection practices for dairy and egg products that are to be introduced towards the end of this year or early in 1985. Establishments and goods prescribed under export orders will be categorised on the basis of product out- turn and inspection intensity varied accordingly. The new inspection procedures will replace on-line inspection during manufacture with a monitoring system involving sampling of the final product. One effect of these new inspection practices will be that a large quantity of the relevant prescribed goods will be exported without physical examination by the Export Inspection Service being necessary. In particular, this will apply to goods produced at registered establishments with a record of good quality control performance. Another effect of the new practices will be that the inspection effort should decrease as the new system is progressively developed. It is expected that this will be reflected in reduced costs for the inspection service. In summary, it is proposed to introduce substantial changes to export inspection that are designed to make better use of resources more closely attuned to industry needs. These new procedures have been developed in close association with the industries concerned. The dairy products and eggs charge Acts and the collection Acts need to be amended in light of these proposed changes to inspection practices. The Bills will amend the respective charge Acts and the respective collection Acts, with the result that all products concerned will not have to be inspected and examined by an authorised officer for the purposes of those Acts. The products in relation to which liability for the charge will arise will instead be those in relation to which an export permit is issued. I now turn to the financial impact of the proposed legislation. The changes proposed will allow charges to be set to reflect the differential inspection input to each new class or export establishment. They are also necessary to continue the recovery of 50 per cent of the costs of export inspection for dairy products and eggs following the introduction of orders made under the export control Act that will vary the method of inspection of these products. Without these amendments, there would be an expected loss in revenue to the Commonwealth , during the remainder of 1984-85, of approximately $300,000. This arises because costs of inspection could only be recouped in respect of the small proportion of product that was physically inspected and examined prior to export using the proposed monitoring inspection system. I commend the Bills to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As honourable members would be aware, in my speech on the introduction of the former Bill, I covered this Bill and it follows directly from that. I also give notice that I will not make a formal speech with respect to the other two Bills to be presented which deal with eggs because the matters have already been covered. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I do not intend to make any additional remarks. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In keeping with my previous comments, it would be superfluous for me to make additional comments. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Egg Export Control Act 1947 and the Egg Export Charges Act 1947. The Egg Export Control Act 1947 established the Australian Egg Board, the AEB, with a membership of nine persons. Finance for the funding of the operations of the Board was initially met from a charge, imposed by the Egg Export Charges Act 1947, on all eggs, including egg products, exported. In recent years Board administration costs have been met from proceeds of export sales and lately by contributions from States. This Bill seeks to abolish the Australian Egg Board and remove the provisions for the associated charges on export of eggs. Provision is made in the Bill for the Egg Export Control Act 1947 under which the Board operates to be repealed from 31 December 1984, but enables the Board to continue for a period thereafter to complete winding-up procedures such as auditing and preparation of a final report to me, and financal statements for presentation to the Parliament. Abolition of the Board arises from my policy of reviewing, on an on-going basis , the operations of all statutory authorities in my portfolio. The AEB was established in 1947 and commenced operations on 1 January 1948. It was created to ensure continuity in orderly export marketing of eggs and egg products and to provide safeguards for contracts between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth following termination of control under wartime arrangements. The Board is empowered to purchase and sell eggs intended for export, subject to any direction of the Minister for Primary Industry. In practice, the Board set the terms and conditions of export but the State egg boards carried out the physical packaging and handling of eggs or egg products to be exported. In recent years production controls, hen quotas, administered by the States have resulted in a reduction in export quantities and in the number of States wishing to export. An internal review by the AEB in 1982 concluded that substantial cost savings could be effected if the Board and State Board activities were rationalised. From 1 July 1983 States who exported took over some administrative functions previously carried out by the AEB, for example, shipping arrangements, insurance cover, meeting of export marketing expenses, while the Board continued to act as sole selling agent for the State boards and conduct overseas sales promotion, market discovery and monitoring of export markets. In the light of the much reduced and essentially agency type role of the AEB, the Commonwealth, States and industry gave further consideration to the question of the need for the Board to continue in operation. All parties saw little need for maintaining the AEB and supported its abolition. Future export marketing is to be co-ordinated by a non-statutory exporters committee under the aegis of the Australian Egg Marketing Council which is representative of all State egg marketing boards and corporations. Funding of these arrangements will be met from proceeds of sale. I take this opportunity of thanking all Board members and staff, both past and present, for the manner in which they have carried out the functions and tasks for which the AEB was originally established. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(5.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Limited to finance the purchase of two Boeing 767-200 extended range aircraft. As part of its fleet modernisation program approved by the Government in November last year , Qantas is to acquire a total of six Boeing 767-200 extended range aircraft. The company expects to take delivery of the first two aircraft in July 1985 and to introduce them into service shortly thereafter. The remaining four aircraft are scheduled to be delivered by March 1986. Qantas's fleet modernisation program, which also includes the acquisition of three Boeing 747-300 stretched upper deck aircraft, constitutes the single largest order of aircraft in Australian aviation history. The new Boeing 767 extended range aircraft will give Qantas greater flexibility and improved operating economics for more lightly trafficked routes to and from Australia. While the Boeing B747 aircraft operated by Qantas are well suited to long haul operations and heavily trafficked regional routes, they present difficulties to Qantas in serving the more lightly trafficked regional routes and the smaller gateway airports opened to international operations in recent years. At around 210 seats, the Boeing 767's passenger capacity is about half that of the Boeing 747 aircraft. The new aircraft will enable the company better to meet consumer expectations and needs. The new Boeing 767 aircraft are to be operated initially on services to Wellington, and as the company's pilot training program develops and the remainder of the Boeing 767 aircraft are delivered, the aircraft will be progressively applied to Melbourne-Fiji, Sydney and Melbourne to Noumea, and Australia to New Zealand flights. Sydney-Christchurch and Sydney-Auckland flights however will continue to be operated with Boeing 747 aircraft. During the fleet buildup Qantas plans to introduce progressively Boeing 767 extended range flights on selected routes between Australia and South East Asian countries. Qantas intends to raise loans for the purchase of only two of its Boeing 767s, the remaining four to be financed from Qantas's internally generated funds. The three Boeing 747 stretched upper decks will be acquired through lease financing, and the $US304m financial package arranged by Qantas for the acquisition of these aircraft is the largest leverage lease deal struck by an Australian company and one of the biggest international multicurrency leases negotiated. To a considerable degree, Qantas's new aircraft will be financed through anticipated earnings and profits, and the company's recent return to profitability was a key factor in the company's program to re-equip. Internal financing will also be assisted by funds obtained from the disposal of six of the company's oldest Boeing 747-200 aircraft. The provision of a guarantee for Qantas's repayment of, and payment of interest on, amounts borrowed for two of its Boeing 767 extended range aircraft and related spare parts and equipment will be limited by the Bill to $US200m or its equivalent in other currencies. The provision of a guarantee would not involve the Government in any cash outlay but does create a contingent liability for the Commonwealth. The terms and conditions of Qantas's borrowings are to be subject to the Treasurer's approval. The Bill also provides for proper security to be given to the Commonwealth over such property items as the Treasurer deems satisfactory, and Qantas is to undertake to maintain adequate insurance of the items under the loan guarantee, and to protect the security of the Commonwealth against the sale or mortgage of the aircraft. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to introduce a bounty on the production of computer hardware, computer subassemblies and electronic microcircuits in Australia for six years until 5 July 1990. During this period the bounty will be paid at the rate of 25 per cent of the value added to the equipment by the manufacturers in Australia. The Bill, which replaces the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act 1977 , implements the Government's decision, announced on 5 July 1984, on the Industries Assistance Commission report of 7 February 1984 on computer hardware, software and related goods. Together with the other elements of the Government's decision, which includes a reduction to minimum rates of tariffs on most products covered by the IAC's report, the bounty is an important step in the formulation of the Government's policy for the computer industry. The new assistance arrangements will result in access by users to these important productivity aids at close to world prices, a stable assistance framework for the local industries, continued development and a stronger infrastructure within the domestic industries. The Government believes that the new arrangements will reinforce other measures already introduced to encourage the development of the computer hardware and software industries. These include measures designed to stimulate the development of a venture capital market, modified government purchasing arrangements, and changes to the Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme last year specifically to include software. In addition the Australian Industry Development Corporation has undertaken three investments in these industries, with further investments being evaluated. The Government is currently examining the need for additional development measures for the computer and related industries, a recent input has been the W. D. Scott-Arthur D. Little report on opportunities for Australia in information technology. In its report the IAC proposed a 25 per cent value added bounty on general purpose computer hardware, computer based office machines and parts and accessories. The proposal excluded systems software costs and limited bounty to production for domestic sale. The Commission also recommended minimum tariff rates for most hardware, duty free treatment of software on recording media, and phased reduction in duties on recording media and electronic components to 20 per cent. The Government accepted the general thrust of the IAC report. However, its approach to direct assistance to the computer industry has been based on the following objectives. Computers and key micro-electronic components should be available in Australia at world prices. These products are important productivity aids and are an integral component of a rapidly increasing range of industrial products. Domestic producers should not be disadvantaged because of protection accorded their imputs. The level of assistance provided should be sufficient to encourage local industry to be internationally competitive without creating a situation of dependency on government assistance. Inconsistencies and disparities in assistance between products that were inherent in the previous arrangements for this industry should be eliminated or reduced. The assistance provided should provide a general framework within which more specific industry development needs can be addressed if necessary. These objectives led to the assistance package announced by the Government on 5 July 1984. Australia has a large number of producers of computer hardware engaged in various levels of development and assembly concentrating on supplying small computers and terminals. Many of these companies are small and innovative. The large number of manufacturers, many producing only in small volumes, has meant that production economies are generally not being obtained. There is duplication of production capabilities and in some instances the investment in testing and quality control equipment is insufficient. The bounty arrangements under the Bill have been designed to address some of the weaknesses in the infrastructure available to computer manufacturers and to provide flexible arrangements that do not distort the manner in which manufacturers conduct their business. For this reason the bounty is to be paid on production of subassemblies and parts as well as fully assembled hardware. This should reinforce the trend that is already evident for companies to utilise specialist producers of subassemblies with increased specialisation and greater volume. The Government considers that the bounty arrangement will provide an opportunity for these specialist companies to invest in labour saving equipment as well as quality control equipment and hardware and software testing. This in turn should further improve the competitiveness and quality of Australian hardware. One of the problems faced by hardware producers everywhere is the availability of key microelectronic components. As a relatively small consumer of these components, remote from the main suppliers, Australian computer hardware manufacturers have experienced problems greater than those of larger companies with more purchasing clout. Increased use of specialist assemblers is expected to lead to greater purchasing economies and greater stock holdings of the main components. The reduction in duties on these components should also facilitate greater stock holdings. Payment of bounty on locally developed or modified operating systems, design and development costs is particularly important as these items are major costs of those companies that are undertaking substantial developmental work in Australia. These activities can also be subcontracted out to specialist research and development teams, software houses or in some circumstances research institutions such as universities and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. This will have the advantage of building up specialist teams. The overriding benefit from these flexible arrangements is that they enable companies to specialise in what they do best and should free both human and capital resources to concentrate on development and marketing innovative hardware. Another feature of the Government's decision is that bounty is to be paid to producers of special purpose as well as general purpose computers. The former ADP equipment bounty did not cover equipment that was incorporated in other equipment or that was used to control other equipment. Many of Australia's best prospects lie in these specialised areas. The Government has therefore decided to extend bounty assistance to such equipment provided that it does not involve 'double assistance'. As a consequence any goods that are being assisted by tariffs or where the Defence Department is accepting cost penalties as part of designated Defence contacts will not be eligible for bounty. Bounty is also to be paid on the production of electronic microcircuits such as integrated circuits and hybrid circuits. Duties on these components have been reduced from 35 per cent to minimum rates. This, combined with the bounty on local production , should encourage increased competitive application of microelectronics. In conclusion, the new assistance arrangements are considered by the Government to provide a meaningful level of assistance to local industry. They have been designed to provide flexible and predictable assistance to enhance the competitiveness of local producers both directly and through strengthening the infrastructure that supports the industry. Reduced import duties will, of course , mean that it will be a very competitive market. Competitive innovative local producers will now have the opportunity to succeed and contribute to our overall economic performance. Finally, clauses 24 and 25 of the Bill contain provisions giving authorised officers a right of entry at reasonable times to commercial premises without warrant and enabling them to require persons to truthfully answer questions and produce documents relevant to the operation of the Act. These provisions are not new to bounty legislation. They are consistent with the powers provided by governments of all political persuasions to ensure that taxpayers are fully protected by appropriate compliance audits. These powers have been considered on a number of occasions by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills . The Committee has previously acknowledged the view that it is not unreasonable for persons who have been paid moneys out of the public purse to expect a degree of auditing to establish that payments have been correctly made. Financial Impact Statement The bounty proposed by this Bill is expected to cost $7m in 1984-85 and $8m in 1985-86. The cost for the remainder of the bounty period cannot be estimated at this time. It will depend entirely upon the success of the Government's assistance package. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to terminate the bounty period under the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Act 1977 on 5 July 1984. The Act was extended from 6 May 1984 to 6 August 1984 pending the Government's decision on the long term assistance needs of the computer industry. The need to terminate the Act on 5 July 1984 arises from the proposed introduction of a new bounty scheme on 6 July 1984. On 5 July 1984 the Government announced its decision to implement new assistance measures for the computer industry. These measures include an extension of the range of computer goods on which bounty is proposed to be payable. The new Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984, which I introduced earlier, is proposed to commence from 6 July 1984, that is, the day after the Government announced its decision on new assistance measures for the computer industry in Australia. Financial Impact Statement Bounty paid under the Automatic Date Processing Equipment Bounty Act 1977 in the period 6 May 1984 to 5 July 1984 is expected to be $200,000. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to implement the Government's decision announced on 17 July 1984 to pay a temporary bounty from that date on the production in Australia of certain types of alternating current, three phase, squirrel cage electric motors . This temporary assistance is to apply until the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on long term assistance to the industry is announced. The IAC is expected to report by 16 April 1985. Manufacturers of motors will be eligible for the bounty if, during the bounty period, motors with a power output of at least 0.746 kilowatts but less than 38 kilowatts are completed at registered premises and the added value of each motor is not less than 33 1/3 per cent of the total Australian factory cost. The bounty will be payable on eligible motors for sale locally and for export. The rate of bounty will be $14 per motor and bounty payments to any one manufacturer are to be limited to $300 000 during the proposed period of the Act. As a complementary measure, duty will be increased by 5 percentage points on imports of electric motors of the same kind as those upon which bounty is to be paid. This increase is the subject of a separate legislative amendment. The IAC in its interim report of 16 April 1984 on electric motors recommended no variation to the current levels of assistance pending its final report on the long term assistance needs of the industry. The Government has accepted this recommendation in so far as the bulk of electric motors is concerned. However, the Government is concerned that without interim assistance, producers of the larger 'integral' electric motors might be forced out of production before consideration of the industry's long term assistance needs is completed. Such an event would cause a permanent structural change to the industry on the basis of an IAC interim report. The Government sees important advantages in sustaining a capability in Australia to manufacture electric motors. Interim assistance is therefore proposed to the producers of the larger 'integral' electric motors by way of the bounty and tariff increase. We are confident that this assistance package will ensure the continued viability of all sectors of this important industry until the decision on the long term assistance can be announced. The industry is aware that the extent to which it takes advantage of the benefits afforded by this interim assistance package will have a considerable impact on the Government's decision on the long term arrangements. It is aware also that there are no grounds to assume the continuation of the special assistance beyond the interim period. By the inclusion of a ceiling on bounty payments to any one producer, the Government has minimised the risk to the Commonwealth of open-ended liability for bounty payments beyond a level necessary for viable Australian production. The use of a balanced package of tariff and bounty assistance is expected to minimise cost increases to users of electric motors whilst ensuring the lowest possible cost to Australian taxpayers. Finally, clauses 25 and 26 of the Bill contain provisions giving authorised officers a right of entry without warrant at reasonable times to commercial premises and enabling them to require persons to truthfully answer questions and produce documents relevant to the operation of the Act. These provisions are not new to bounty legislation. They are consistent with the powers provided by governments of all political persuasions to ensure that taxpayers are fully protected by appropriate compliance audits. The powers have been considered on a number of occasions by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Committee has previously acknowledged the view that it is not unreasonable for persons who have been paid moneys out of the public purse to expect a degree of auditing to establish that payments have been correctly made. Financial Impact Statement The cost of the bounty for 1984-85 is estimated to be less than $500,000. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Uren, and read a first time. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(5.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In May of this year I put before the House a Bill to enable the people of Cocos (Keeling) Islands to exercise the full rights, privileges and obligations of other Australian citizens. I am now pleased to be able to present a similar Bill for Christmas Island, our other Indian Ocean territory. As with the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, in the early years on Christmas Island there was a great deal of exploitation and injustice inflicted on the Chinese and Malay workers. This was particularly the case under the former mining operator, the British Phosphate Commissioners, who were managing agents for the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission, an Australian and New Zealand Government Authority. The phosphate mine generates the only significant economic activity and therefore is the primary employment base of the island. Christmas Island became an Australian territory in 1958. The current mining operator, Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island, which was formed in July 1981 as a wholly-owned Australian Government company, has been responsible for most of the services to the island and for nearly all administrative costs. The Government decided earlier this year that there was a need to bring the island and its community into the mainstream of Australian life. Initial and important steps have already been taken to provide for a normalisation of Christmas Island to confer rights, responsibilities and obligations on the residents of the island commencing on 1 October 1984. The changes being proposed follow the general thrust of the 1982 report by Mr W. W. Sweetland on the long term future of the island. He recommended that the island be opened up to a wide range of economic activities in view of the declining reserves of phosphate and that the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island cease to be responsible for various non-mining functions on the island. He also pointed out that the island had special features and should not be treated as just an extension of the Australian mainland. The normalisation process would mean that social security and health benefits would be introduced. Wage rates would be determined, applying the same principles that apply generally to Australian wage earners, and local government would be introduced, together with municipal charges. Commonwealth revenue raising measures, equivalent to levels on the mainland, would be introduced. Residents would be entitled to vote in Federal elections. Since 1981 the Migration Act has extended to the island, conferring permanent resident status on island residents and allowing them to qualify for Australian citizenship. Also the Government was conscious of the fact that Christmas Island had under its care and control an area of unique natural interest, including the only known breeding ground of the endangered Abbott's booby bird. The five measures addressed in this Bill provide for the extension of mainland rights and responsibilities to the island residents in the areas of voting rights, health insurance, social security benefits, student assistance, land use and occupancy and Supreme Court registries. I outline the details of each of these measures. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 This will extend the franchise to eligible Christmas Islanders. The amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 extend both Acts to the territory of Christmas Island as a separate district of the Commonwealth electoral division of the Northern Territory. Electors will be included in the Northern Territory electorate for the purpose of House of Representatives and Senate elections and national referendums. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides the machinery for an assistant divisional returning officer to be appointed to maintain the roll and to assist with the preparation for the polls in both Federal elections and referendums. A consequential amendment to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 will provide that Christmas Island people who are entitled to vote in Federal elections will not thereby be able to vote in elections for the Northern Territory. The financial implications of extending the franchise to Christmas Islanders are minimal, and are restricted to those incurred in registering the names of eligible islanders, freighting of voting material to and from the island and the casual engagement of polling officials. Expenditure of only $3, 000 to $4,000 for each election is envisaged. Health Insurance Act 1973 and The National Health Act 1953 The extension of this legislation will remove anomalies so that Christmas Island is in a broadly similar position to the mainland in respect of medical and hospital services. In the totality of health funding grants to the States and the Northern Territory, the financial impact on the Commonwealth will be minimal . Social Security Act 1947 The legislation proposes amendments to the Social Security Act to enable pensions, benefits and allowances to be paid to residents of Christmas Island with effect from 1 October 1984. It is estimated that the cost of these payments will amount to $650,000 in a full year. It is important to realise that eligible Christmas Islanders would, in any event, become eligible for these benefits simply by moving to the mainland. In accordance with usual practice, it is proposed to allow eligible residents of Christmas Island a three-month period of grace in which to claim a pension, benefit or allowance and receive payment with effect from 1 October 1984. Payment arrangements will be the same as for mainland Australians. Student Assistance Act 1973 The amendment of the Student Assistance Act 1973 will enable courses in technical and further education offered on Christmas Island to be approved for the purposes of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme-TEAS-provided that they meet the normal criteria for the approval of courses. As a concurrent measure, the student assistance regulations are to be amended to ensure that any person ordinarily resident on Christmas Island will meet the TEAS eligibility requirements relating to permanent resident status. The costs resulting from the amendment to the Student Assistance Act 1973 are expected to be $8,000 for 1984- 85 and $16,000 in 1985-86. Christmas Island Act 1958 Amendment of this Act will enable the making of ordinances of the territory that would otherwise conflict with the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. Ordinances may then be made to regulate the use of occupancy of land. A further amendment to the Christmas Island Act will enable ordinances of the territory to be made in relation to the Supreme Court of the territory, that may have effect outside the territory. This will allow for registries of the Supreme Court to be set up outside the territory and officers of the court to exercise their powers and functions outside the territory so improving the administrative efficiency of the court. In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to the management of the mining company and the union of Christmas Island workers for the considerable contribution and assistance they have provided in development of the normalisation package for the island and establishment of conditions for fruitful discussions on the island's future. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.01) —I wish to deal with the assets test provision of the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill because it is a most painful and distressing mechanism adopted by this socialist Government in order to bash pensioners and retirees, and create all sorts of disruption and concern in our community. The life's work of many individuals is under attack. Their efforts are being manipulated by the Government, being sucked up, chewed up and spat out again by the Government so it can dictate the way in which pensioners and elderly people arrange the proceeds of their assets and the proceeds of their life's work. I wish to deal with a number of matters that are of real concern to the constituents of my electorate and I believe to pensioners right across Australia . The decision to include a car as part of a pensioner's assets will mean in some instances that the mobility and the independence of pensioners will be affected. If the test is applied to them in a certain way, they may be required to make the decision to sell their motor cars rather than lose fringe benefits. The Government has not foreseen the desperate circumstances that will apply to individuals who have carefully managed their money for many years and whose livelihood depends on the income from small amounts of money and the proper use of that money. The opportunity for pensioners to visit families or relatives will be impaired by this process. The capacity to travel, to visit and to relax will be limited by these provisions. I know that one thing all pensioners and elderly people safeguard beyond all else is their capacity to be independent, to be not reliant on others. They want to be independent enough to move and travel at will without relying on friends or neighbours in a way that puts them under an obligation to others. They resent more than anything else having an obligation that they cannot fulfill or ever repay. One thing they want to safeguard is their mobility. If they are dependent on friends and neighbours for shopping, holidays, family visits and even for the conduct of business, they feel that they have an obligation to others that they would rather not have. In that instance, elderly people do not take the steps that they would normally take-that is, they do not go on holidays, they do not visit their families and they do not do business in the way in which they would wish. The decision to include the family motor car as part of a pensioner's assets will have an unforeseen and damaging effect upon many. The decision to include furniture to the value of $10,000 is a most unfortunate one. I understand the problems with which the Government is trying to grapple, but it should look at the effects it is having. I have a number of elderly couples in my electorate who have had handed down to them family treasures. They are treasures because of sentimental value, not because of their intrinsic worth . Some of these family treasures are valuable and some are valueless. Beautiful pieces of furniture may be valueless although they have been well maintained and look good. Other small items of porcelain or jewellery may be of great value. The dollar value of these possessions is of no concern to the individual pensioner and yet the Government is pressing on to ensure that they should not have within their homes anything worth more than $10,000. I put it to the House that it is difficult for people in these circumstances, particularly if they are members of a family that has passed down from family member to family member collections of items, not to consider these belongings to be of such value that they will retain them. It is difficult in these instances not to encourage them to seek independent valuers rather than depend on officers of the Deptment of Social Security or the Australian Taxation Office to value these items. Mr Cowan —What will they do with the farmlands? Mr CADMAN —I am coming to the farmlands shortly. I am dealing with this section by section-the motor car, furniture and family possessions are first of all. A limit of $10,000 has been placed on sentimental value. What do pensioners do in those circumstances? Do they sell a painting or a piece of good furniture, or do they go without the refrigerator? The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is at the table, I think made some sort of snide remark. He knows what I am saying is right. His electorate has more pensioners in it than most electorates and he knows the concern being expressed by people because they do not want to see those slight changes to their life styles on which they have become dependent and to which they have become used. I am not talking about wealthy people. Mr Cowan —Half of them will be directly affected. Mr CADMAN —Yes, half of them will be directly affected and great consternation and concern will be caused to their families as well. I deal now with gifts because this matter is the real block in the system. It was inserted by the Government to ensure that pensioners will not be able, as they have in the past, to dispose of what is theirs by giving it to members of their families. No gifts will be permitted with a value of over $2,000 for a single pensioner or $4,000 for married pensioners. This is an implicit gift tax. The gift tax is back because from the time of the 1983 Budget the Government has effectively blocked the transfer of any possessions or assets by pensioners. Time and again the Government has moved in. We thought we had one assets test that would work but the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) got the jitters because he understood what was implied and sent the proposed legislation to a committee. That committee did some work, which the Government basically ignored. The Government went on its own sweet way and created a monster. Part of that monster is a gift tax. If a married couple gives away assets worth more than $4,000 the gifts will be considered to be part of its assets. Families are absolutely trapped. They feel lost, they feel that their lives are futile and they do not know where to go. I put this proposition to the Minister: What is the difference between 25 acres of land and a house at Vaucluse? The difference is that on one the assets test is applied. What is the difference between a person with two blocks of land and a house built on one with the boundary line clear of any obstructions, who faces an assets test, and somebody living at St Ives? What is the difference between a person seeking the opportunity to retire in comfort and seclusion and an individual who builds a mansion at Surfers Paradise? The difference is that one is assets tested and the other is not. There is no equity in this, no fairness and no proper sense of fair play between Australian people. The Government is discriminating on narrow factors that should not be used to select people from the community in order to tax them and not to tax others. What about the zoning provisions of land? I touched on that in part, but I wish to read to the House a letter from an elderly man who lives at Central Macdonald , which is a remote, beautiful and quiet area. This gentleman states: In 1980 I purchased Portion 15 at the above address. It comprises 10 acres of steep, rocky mountain side and 20 acres of river flats which are liable to flagment flooding. In all the property covers 30 acres and zoning provisions will not permit me to sub-divide . The property, with a burnt-out house, had lain derelict for ten years until I purchased it. It is manifestly unjust to suggest that the property could earn 10 per cent p.a. The land cost $28,000 and I purchased a modest Kit Home for $12,500 and erected it myself. I also had to supply my own water supply and sewerage. In all the cost was approximately $50,000. My wife and I (we are both septuagenarians) had spent months scouring Sydney and suburbs but could find no suitable property at a price which we could afford , and we were therefore compelled to look in the country for the kind of home that we wanted. Had I spent $100,000 on a house in the metropolitan area there would have been no question of losing my pension, but now that I have spent half of that amount I am threatened with the loss of this income which is vital to my everyday living. It would be a disaster if such a manifestly unjust test were imposed, and we, like thousands of others would have to sellup and move. We chose the peace and quiet of the countryside. There are others who like to be close to the big supermarket and the take-away food stores. Surely in Australia we should be allowed this freedom of choice; and it is unthinkable and unjust that because we live in the country we, and thousands like us, should be deprived of our pension. There is a heart-rending example that the Minister says will covered by the hardship provisions. I have sent copies of every piece of correspondence to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), begging him to sort the matter out and reply in a comprehensible way to these pensioners. I will read to honourable members the response I got because it is attached to the file. Senator Grimes said: The land allowed for domestic purposes cannot exceed the size of a normal building block in the area and also cannot exceed 2 hectares or 5 acres. There is the Minister's answer. He continued: Any land not used for domestic purposes and any part used for domestic purposes larger than the area allowed will be taken into account as an asset. Valuers from the Taxation Office will provide my department with valuations of the excess land in these latter cases. I should make it clear that the notional rate of return of 10 per cent of the value of any assessable asset which applied under the previous assets test proposal will not be applicable under the new test. Mr Cohen —What was it valued at? It would not be valued at much. You just said it is valueless property. Mr CADMAN —Yes, but the Minister knows that area as well as I do. The gentleman bought it for $50,000. That land is an assessable asset and the value of it has risen so much. It is in great demand for people wanting a quiet residential place in which to live. Mr Cohen —Only if it can be subdivided. Mr CADMAN —He cannot subdivide it, and the Minister knows he cannot. Many of those people cannot subdivide. Let me give the Minister another example, this time from the township of Riverstone. The gentleman states: We own a block of 3,060 square metres (approx 1 1/2 acres) made up of 10 lots of 25-foot frontages. This locality is zoned 'Green Belt' with a 2 1/2 acre minimum for new development-we were permitted to build a replacement house in September 1959 as a continuing development. From the forgoing it will be seen that if 1/4 acre is treated as a 'Homestead' area and the balance treated as income producing, the position is farcical as no prospective buyer could obtain a development permit for that portion of the property. So there we are, 10 blocks with a 25-foot frontage in downtown Riverstone. Those people can sell, but nobody can build on the remaining land that they sell. Who will buy land under those conditions? Those are the conditions that are applied by State governments. The Government has not investigated these matters. There are many anomalies linked with zoning and conditions foisted on individuals by State governments. If the very narrow definitions which the Government has put on these issues in the legislation are enforced there will be many anomalies, many cases of hardship and many claims from people that they cannot cope with the assets test. Let me deal with the pay as you die issue. In the first letter that I read from the Minister, in reply to the resident at Central Macdonald, the Minister concludes his letter by offering this alternative to these individuals: There will be a provision which allows the value of an asset, or part of it, to be disregarded if the person would otherwise suffer hardship. I have spoken about that. He continues: Additionally, there will be special provisions available to those people who have substantial assets which result in little or no pension being payable. If these assets are largely illiquid and the person does not wish to convert them into cash, the person may request to be paid an amount equivalent to the pension (or part thereof). These payments will be a loan on which interest accumulates and will be recovered from their estate. I should stress that these provisions will be entirely voluntary. Bully for the Minister. What generosity to retirees over 70 years of age living at Central Macdonald in a $12,000 home they have built themselves! That is generosity, and this Government at every turn has sought to manipulate and fool around with people's lives; not the wealthy, not the people that Senator Gietzelt keeps talking about. He raves about the wealthy few that the Government is out to get. Of course the Government has collected some of them, but it has collected so many others that they will come down on it with such decisive force that the Government will see what great power the individual who is concerned about retirement can mean to the Government. I give the Government but one other example-a family that came to Australia very early after our settlement. That family has held 120 acres of land in the Hawkesbury district for over five generations. It has held the land for over 100 years. The family grew up as a small farming family in the days when the flats of the Hawkesbury area were fertile and the small amount of produce there was of great significance to the colony. For generation after generation the family has produced for the City of Sydney. It is a small farm of about only 20 acres of fertile land. The rest of the 120 acres is sheer rock and cliff on which nothing can be produced. The sole remaining male of that family, a pensioner, lives on that land. The value of the land would be something approaching half a million dollars because-- Mr Cohen —Oh well! Mr CADMAN —Yes, because of its attractive site. This individual will be required to sell something because he has no income whatsoever. He is dependent basically on the goodwill of his family and his pension. This sole remaining Australian pioneer will have to sell this land. For many years the family eked out an existence. He has no alternative but to sell. What can he do if he is to retain his pension-sign it across to the Government, pay as you die? He is too proud to do that. He will sell the lot and then build a home worth $200,000 or $300,000 and invest the rest. He could build a home for half a million dollars. The Government is forcing him off his forebears' land, the land which they cleared, the land from which they raised their living for generations, and is forcing him into a lifestyle predetermined as appropriate and satisfactory to the Australian Government. I think the Government needs to take this Bill out of the House and reconsider it. I have said that since it was introduced. Let us look at the Government's record in relation to senior citizens, pensioners and retirees. Let us look at some of the promises made before the last election and broken: Income tested pensions for pensioners aged over 70 years; the taxation of lump sum superannuation benefits; the failure to reduce the cost of hospital beds; the failure to abolish the pharmaceutical benefit form; the failure to retain the health insurance rebate; the failure to increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings; and the undermining of indexed pensioner fringe benefits by the proposed introduction of the means test on assets. The Government time after time has broken promises to the elderly. The elderly expected the current Prime Minister to lead the way as far as their benefits and their safety, security and well-being were concerned. They trusted the Prime Minister when he came to office. They said: 'There is a man whose good manners and smiling face on the television are such that we will give him our trust'. Now the story is so different. They are bitterly resentful of this Prime Minister doing the things he has done. It is so unexpected and out of character for them. They cannot understand it. They do not know how to reassess their circumstances and re-establish themselves in the new things that have been thrust upon them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(6.22) —We have just witnessed a recital of sanctimonious humbug from the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). This is what we expect from the honourable member for Mitchell, but what saddens me in this debate is that both the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) also subscribed to the empty rhetoric and the scare tactics of the Opposition. I had thought better of both those honourable members and I am sorry that they have allowed themselves to be persuaded by their peers to protest about the assets test in the way they have. In supporting the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984 I remind the House that this Bill reflects the Government's concern for those suffering economic and social handicap caused by circumstances such as loss of earnings through age, invalidity, sickness or unemployment or loss and absence of a supporting spouse. Much of this assistance, as we all know , is by way of cash benefits, but assistance is also provided either directly or through State and local government authorities for a wide range of welfare services for people with special needs. From the Budget Papers we see that the total direct outlays on social security and welfare in 1984-85 are estimated to be $18,047m which is equivalent to 28.2 per cent of the total Budget outlays. The increase over 1983-84 is $1,608m or 9.8 per cent. It is against that background that I wish to address my remarks to the House. It is the responsibility of a government to see that outlays are spent wisely and well and in the interests of the community. For this reason the Government decided to bring in the assets test. We were faced with a situation in which the vast majority of pensioners with little or no private income or assets were receiving inadequate levels of assistance due to the miserly policies of the former Government. This Budget, like the previous one, is attempting to improve the standard of living of those pensioners without access to private income or assets. I remind the House that it was the Senate which refused to pass the tax avoidance legislation which would have helped to provide some of the money to assist those in need. I also remind the House that the Opposition, when in government, supervised, or should I say oversaw, the decline in the maximum rate of pensions from 24.4 per cent of average weekly earnings in December 1975 to 22 .6 per cent in December 1982. So much for its concern for the neediest and most insecure members of our community. This Government is pledged to increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Is the Opposition prepared to make a similar commitment? The truth is that members of the Opposition have no policy in this regard. Not only do they have no policy; they are also divided amongst themselves. Senator Chaney and Senator Messner, when in government, supported the idea of an assets test and we certainly know from recent observations of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), that he is not opposed to the idea of an assets test. One must remember that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) stated in 1981 that he supported the concept of pension assistance going to those most in need. As I have said, the Opposition has no policy in this area. Instead, we have had an hysterical campaign. We have just witnessed one part of that campaign from the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mitchell, a campaign which is attempting to spread fear and uncertainty as to the impact of the assets test on those in need, the pensioners. When we hear honourable members opposite making absurd claims about departmental officers checking the value of gold fillings in teeth and invading pensioners' homes we have really plumbed the depths of scurrility. Most social security pensioners, some 70 per cent, will not even have to fill in a form giving details of their assets. Those pensioners who do will be asked to make their own valuations of their assets. There will not be an army of inspectors going into pensioners' homes, as has been suggested by the Opposition. In a small number of cases, for example, vacant land or farms, where further valuations are required, these will be arranged by the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs at no cost to the pensioners. I repeat 'at no cost to the pensioners', because I would like to take this opportunity of warning pensioners about an advertisement in the Sydney Daily Telegraph by Skyline Real Estate offering to value pensioners' assets for $150. It is not only misleading but also mischievous to suggest that pensioners require private valuations, for pensioners who pay this amount will not be able to claim reimbursement from the Government. I wish to make it clear that the Government will not be passing on to pensioners any of the costs associated with implementing the new test, and that includes valuation costs. I commend the Government for introducing a telephone hotline service which has helped and will help to explain the details of the proposed assets test on pensions. The hotline service will assist to allay the fears of pensioners who have been aroused by the deliberate tactics of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —You introduced the rotten test. Mr BLANCHARD —The package of measures contained in this reflects the concerns of the Government towards those in need. I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) would agree that the package does reflect that. The Bill deserves the support of this House and I so commend it. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(6.30) —Over recent weeks we have seen a series of articles on the assets test which have appeared in the Melbourne Herald under the by-line of Russ Gleeson. Without exception, these articles have been highly critical of the Government's decision to introduce an assets test from next March. Written in language which can be described only as lurid, these articles have been misleading and illogical. They have contained a number of untruths, and they have been deliberately designed to frighten and confuse the elderly. I think it is about time we set the record straight. The author is, of course, entitled to his opinions. However, Mr Gleeson is no disinterested observer. In none of these articles has any reference been made to Mr Gleeson's background or connections. As Mr Gleeson's scaremongering shows no sign of abating, I believe the public should be made aware of his background, so they can judge this man's ethics and objectivity for themselves. Until quite recently, Mr Gleeson was the editor of the magazine Prime Time. This magazine is published by the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, which is, of course, the publisher of the Melbourne Herald. Mr Gleeson was, in fact, the founding editor. When it commenced publication, Prime Time was involved with, and heavily sponsored by, an organisation known as the Australian Retired Persons Association, or ARPA. ARPA was set up in 1971 by Mr Stanley Gilmour, a former head of the Victorian Employers Federation, to provide, amongst other things, investment advice for elderly people with substantial assets. Gilmour also established a friendly society-the Over Fifties Friendly Society- serving as Chairman of the Board of ARPA and this society at one time. Until this Government closed a tax loophole last year, friendly societies were a haven for people wishing to avoid tax on investment returns, and also to avoid the income test on pensions. Income on investments of up to $50,000 was not taxable and did not affect pension eligibility. Friendly societies had, by the way, been originally established to benefit low income earners but, unfortunately, had been used by some primarily for tax avoidance purposes. So popular did friendly societies become that in the year ended 30 June 1983 subscriptions to the Over Fifties Friendly Society rose to $52m. With the service company of ARPA entitled to 2.4 per cent of all subscriptions, this netted ARPA about $1m in 1982-83. With business booming, ARPA began opening offices all around Australia and, in 1983, in Geneva. In newsletters to its members, ARPA continued to promote Prime Time magazine, while the magazine, in both its editorial and advertising content , continued to promote ARPA. Throughout this period, Russ Gleeson was, of course , editor or Prime Time. ARPA's expansion came to a sudden halt last year when this Government first removed the glaring tax loophole associated with friendly societies and, later, ruled that income on investments in friendly societies should be taken into account for the purposes of determing pension eligibility. Investment in the Over Fifties Friendly Society dropped dramatically and ARPA was denied its major source of income. Despite its own internal problems, ARPA called a meeting in Melbourne in October last year to form a coalition of interest groups to fight the introduction of the assets test. A member of the board of ARPA, a Mr Bob Parry, became campaign director of the umbrella organisation formed, known as Campaign for Senior Citizens' Rights. Mr Parry, who previously achieved some fame as a campaigner against decimal currency, and later metric conversion, was quoted in the Business Review Weekly of 8 October 1983 as saying that ARPA was contributing funds to the campaign against the assets test and that they were being kept in a special account. Last month the Melbourne Herald gave prominence to a letter from this Mr Parry in which he made grossly irresponsible claims about Social Security officers entering pensioners' homes to check on the value of the clothing elderly people were wearing, the food in their pantries and the sheets on their bed. He even suggested that officers would be entitled to make pensioners undress to ensure nothing of value was concealed. In making such claims I believe that Mr Parry is beneath contempt and I am disappointed that a responsible newspaper such as the Herald could print such assertions. Yet the Melbourne Herald seems to have a blind spot when it comes to ARPA. In December last year it printed statements by a Mr Howard Fry, described as director of advisory and counselling services with ARPA, claiming: 'Anxiety over the assets test has been blamed for three suicides among our retired community'. It went on to say that Mr Fry had 'heard' about these cases but, of course, could not say who they were or where or when these alleged suicides occurred. This brings us back to Mr Russ Gleeson who recently left Prime Time and now provides articles to the Melbourne Herald on a freelance basis. At no time does either the Melbourne Herald or Mr Gleeson himself disclose his links with ARPA, except for one instance in which Mr Gleeson again quotes that respected analyst, Howard Fry. Gleeson's articles have such responsible headlines as 'SS Squads at the Ready for Assets Raids' and 'Assets Test: Spouses Face Death Slug'. While purporting to demonstrate concern for all aged pensioners, Gleeson seems particularly concerned about the financial circumstances of only a certain section of the pensioner population. For example, one of his articles frets about the situation of a retired man struggling along with only his home, his holiday house, two cars, decent furniture, a block of land and $40,000 in cash. Such poor journalism, I suggest, would be laughable if it were not for the fact that the 'hotline' staff in the Melbourne office of the Department of Social Security are now regularly receiving calls from panic-stricken, depressed and distressed people, many of them very elderly and none with assets substantial enough to affect their pensions. It needs to be remembered that organisations such as ARPA are about protecting their own financial interests. They are fighting to protect an investment market, not to protect pensioners, and Mr Gleeson is acting as their mouthpiece. The Melbourne Herald should make that clear each and every time it prints this man's irrational and extremist claims. In view of the way in which this debate has been proceeding over the last few weeks in the community and in this Parliament I think it needs to be said that the distortions, the make-ups, the untruths and the downright lies that are being propagated by the Opposition and by its mouthpieces in the community have to be stopped. The vast majority of people will not be affected in any way by the assets test which, after all, is fair and just and a way of redistributing income. Mr Lusher —It is pretty hard to take this rubbish. Mr STEEDMAN —Have you got something to say, son? Would you like to say something ? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Hume has just come into the chamber and I remind him that all interjections are out of order. Mr Lusher —It is pretty hard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hume will cease interjecting . The honourable member for Casey will continue his speech and ignore interjections. Mr STEEDMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is interesting to note that part ( 3) of the Opposition's amendment supports the introduction of the assets test. The amendment proposes that wherever possible families should be supported by private rather than by public means. That is exactly what the assets test is about-it is about people supporting themselves privately rather than relying on Government support via the pension. In conclusion, I think it would be very useful if the Department of Social Security and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) took account of the lies and distortions that are being fed throughout our community by irresponsible people such as the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), the sort of people- Mr Lusher —That is absolutely-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have already spoken to the honourable member for Hume. I remind him that he is not in his place and that all interjections are out of order. Mr STEEDMAN —I was saying that I think the Minister for Social Security should go out into the community. We should expose these people who are scaring the elderly, many of whom are not in a position to fight back. These people are going around the community telling the elderly that they will have their few meagre resources taken away from them. Mr Lusher —You will find out. Just wait until the election. Mr STEEDMAN —I think that after the election is held people such as the honourable member for Hume will hopefully no longer be with us. He can than go back to engaging in his cheap political stunts such as trying to live on the dole and vegemite sandwiches. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(6.40) —The simulated concern for pensioners reflected by the Opposition in this debate is one of the most hypocritical convulsions to befall a party in my lifetime. One needs only to compare the role of this Opposition when in government and its treatment of pensioners to establish beyond any doubt the statement I have just made. One does not even need to go that far. The Opposition is not interested in issues of social security and social welfare. Mr Carlton —Nonsense. Dr BLEWETT —I will provide some evidence of that fact for the honourable member for Mackellar. First of all, the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill moved by the Opposition is nonsense. This amendment proves that the Opposition does not even understand the Bill, and I hope it will have the grace to withdraw it once that is explained. The amendment states that the Opposition: (1) expresses its concern about the removal of the requirement that widows- being deserted or divorced wives not remarried-must take reasonable steps to pursue maintenance actions before being eligible to receive widows' pensions; There is no change whatsoever in the Bill relating to widows' pensions. Mr Lusher —Why are you changing it? Dr BLEWETT —There is no change in the Bill. Mr Lusher —Why are you amending it? Dr BLEWETT —It is the Opposition's amendment. I am just trying to explain that that amendment is in fact a nonsensical amendment. It proves that the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) and every other member of the Opposition do not understand their amendment and in fact do not understand the Bill. There is no need for this amendment because there has been no change in this Bill in the conditions for obtaining a widow's pension. So there is no need for the Opposition to express its concern about any change. There are no changes whatsoever to the existing requirement that deserted wives and divorcees take reasonable action to obtain maintenance before a widow's pension may be granted. That provision is still there. The provision remains in the Act quite unaltered, as do existing departmental guidelines for its application. It is true that there is a minor technical amendment at the end of the Bill, which has obviously confused members of the Opposition; they have trouble not only understanding things but also reading them. The minor amendment simply removes the term '(3)'. I presume Opposition members thought that the removal of '(3)' meant the removal of the whole of sub-section (3). I make it quite clear that, if Opposition members read it very carefully, that Schedule just removes the term '(3)'. It is removed simply because the section referred to, that is, section 62, now has only one sub-section and therefore we simply removed (3) because it was pointless in the legislation. But there has been no change to the substance of the Act; the rules remain exactly the same. The second part of the Opposition's amendment states that the Opposition: notes that the removal of this provision from that section of the Act-- I assure the Opposition that it has not been removed- relating to widows' pensions, and its retention in that section relating to supporting parents' benefits, makes the Act inconsistent and discriminatory. Again it is maintained and retained in relation to the supporting parent's benefit just as it is maintained and retained in relation to the widow's pension . So there is no discrimination in the Act. I hope that the Opposition will at least have the grace to admit that it has misunderstood the Bill-its concern for social welfare is so great that it cannot even read the Bill and understand it- and will remove those quite nonsensical propositions. This establishes the point I made at the very beginning, that the Opposition has never been concerned with the issues of social welfare, has never been concerned with working hard at the problems of how to deal with those in our community who are in need and how to direct our resources towards them. The evidence is perfectly clear from these nonsensical amendments. I will make some other general points before I turn to the assets test. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) made an effort, with some mendacious mathematics, to suggest that we were not honouring our promise to raise the pension rate to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Let me say that, as a result of the increase of $2.50 for single pensioners and $4.20 for married pensioners that will be paid in November, we will ensure that the pension will be 23.8 per cent of average weekly earnings. It is not as far as we would like to go. We made a promise that we would get it to 25 per cent over a three-year period. In 18 months we have it up to 23.8 per cent. As I say, we would like to go further. But, of course, what the honourable member for Mackellar did in his mathematical activities was to ignore altogether that the result of Medicare, the result of the prices and incomes accord and all our policies, has been to reduce the rate of inflation, which is of enormous benefit to pensioners. Of course, it is also a great advantage to pensioners in that, by holding down and restraining wages, the pension represents a larger proportion of average weekly earnings. Mr Carlton —What? Dr BLEWETT —I will explain again. The logic of the position of the honourable member for Mackellar is that ultimately he would welcome high rates of inflation because there would be larger consumer price index adjustments for pensioners. That is the ultimate foolishness of the kinds of mathematical calculations that the honourable member for Mackellar did-the higher the inflation rate, the larger the CPI adjustment for pensioners; and he says that that would be a good thing. I believe that pensioners will appreciate the fact that inflation is being restrained in this society. Before I turn to the assets test, one other problem worried the honourable member for Mackellar about the general nature of the Bill. He expressed some concern about the proposed increase in the rate of benefits payable to single junior beneficiaries. Mr Carlton —No, I questioned it. Dr BLEWETT —I said 'expressed some concern'. If the honourable member reads his speech, it will certainly come out that he expressed some concern and had some worries about that matter. Mr Carlton —I was seeking information. Dr BLEWETT —Let me see whether I can answer that concern. That is the very object I am trying to achieve. This Bill proposes to increase the base rate for these young people from the present $45 per week to $91.90 per week, which is the standard rate of pension, from 1 November 1984. Specifically, the honourable member seemed to be concerned that these junior single beneficiaries may engineer or rearrange their circumstances in order to obtain a dependent and then qualify for the higher rate. These concerns have been noted and the honourable member may rest assured that only those beneficiaries with genuine dependants will receive the higher rate. The initiative in the measure is directed primarily at junior beneficiaries who have children of their own but who do not qualify for a pension-that is, usually, the supporting parent benefit but occassionally a widow's pension-on residence grounds. In other words, those persons are genuinely sole parent beneficiaries and should receive the equivalent basic rate, that is, $91.90 per week rather than the $45 per week. Secondly, there are also junior beneficiaries without parental support but who have to support younger brothers and sisters. It is designed also to bring the benefit to them. These beneficiaries, who assume a genuine parental role in relation to siblings, should receive the equivalent base rate of pension at $91. 90. I now turn to what the debate has been mostly about-not about all those benefits that we have endeavoured to bring in in this measure and direct to those most in need. The major issue raised by the Opposition, of course, is the assets test. It is very interesting that the honourable member for Mackellar, in leading the debate for the Opposition, concentrated very much on the short term- I suppose, again, with the close election in mind-that is, the immediate consequences and the immediate costs. One of the reasons why the honourable member for Mackellar is sitting on that side of the House, and why he and his Party will continue to sit on that side of the House for a long time, is that when in government he and his Party were concerned only with the short term. The decisions in this Bill reflect this Government's very real concern with the long term. The whole object of this measure relates not just to this year or next year but to ensuring that the resources for those in need in our society are properly directed in the decades ahead so that, while we admit the high costs of original establishment and the fact that the net return in the first few years will not be very high, for a whole range of factors-demographic and the nature of the resources of those who are now moving into the age cohort-there will be increasingly bigger returns from the assets test so that the resources can be used for those very much in need. That is not the only object of this assets test. Perhaps not even the prime object is to release further resources for those in need. It is also to establish a system that is fair and equitable. No one can argue that the working of the present income test is fair and equitable. As even the honourable member for Mackellar knows, it is subject to widespread abuse and avoidance, partly because it fails to take any account of the asset wealth of pensioners. That is one of the fundamental flaws in the present system. As a result, many pensioners who have the resources to provide for their own retirement end up getting a pension subsidy. Therefore, savings are not the main issue. They are an important issue, but they are not the main one. We will reduce certainly the rate of cost increases and, therefore, help to direct scarce resources to the needy, not to the wealthy. But above all, this legislation will remove the defects and the incentives to avoid the income test. Therefore, it is an effort to improve and make much more fair and equitable the system of payment of pensions in this country. That equity was very much exemplified by the remarks of some of the members of the Opposition. The case was raised by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) of a farm with a subdivision value of a quarter of a million dollars. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) referred to a property on the Hawkesbury worth half a million dollars. He said that the character living there was eking out his existence on a pension. The question we must ask ourselves is: Should the community subsidise that wealth through full pension provisions when many other old people with far fewer resources receive no pension because of the income test? That is the essence of the question of fairness and equity. Should these people be subsidised in this way when many people with far fewer resources who have far less to fall back on, but because of the income test they receive no pension at all? It is only by tackling income and assets that we can introduce fairness and equity into the general scheme. That is the intention of this measure. As many of the speakers on the Government side have illustrated all too well, a deliberate scare campaign is being waged about this measure. The honourable member for Mackellar joined in it in a milder way than some of his colleagues. Let me take one of his more noisy colleagues, that is, noisy in the sense of making extraordinary statements, though very few of them. I refer to the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). He talked about 1,500 police officers invading pensioners' homes. I point out quite clearly that the Social Security Act does not provide any authority for staff to enter a pensioner's home. The whole processing of the assets test is designed to reduce, as far as possible, any intrusion. For instance, we estimate that something like 70 per cent of pensioners will not be sent a data collection form requiring them to return details of their assets to the Department. We will simply send a letter explaining what the assets test is and ask whether, in the case of a married couple, they have over $100,000 in assets, apart from the domestic home, or, in the case of a single person, $70,000 in assets. Most pensioners will be able to make that self-assessment and answer very quickly and easily that they do not have assets of that order. So the great bulk of the pensioner population will not be affected. As I have said, officers will not be entitled to enter and assess the value of the domestic assets of pensioners. It is left entirely to them. We are fairly confident that because of the figures that have been provided in nearly all cases pensioners will be able to do this themselves without any need for intrusion. In the most personal area of all, that is, that of household contents and personal effects, intrusiveness will be minimised since a figure of $10,000 is automatically deemed. It is true that if a pensioner thinks that his assets are worth less he may advise, if he so wishes, and, of course, he is obliged to notify a higher value. The Department will offer any help in those assessments, but again I think that is a relatively easy assessment for most people to make provided they remember that the assets are assessed on their net market value. That is important to be stressed given some of the tales that are being spread by the Opposition. The net market value is not the replacement cost of the goods . It is not the amount for which they are insured. It is the amount which one can sell them for. As most of us know, usually that is considerably less than what we can replace or what we insure them for. I believe it will be proven, when the assets test is administered, that intrusion has been reduced to minimal proportions for the great bulk of pensioners in this country. There are just a few other minor worries to which I will respond. I will try to settle some of those worries. The honourable member for Curtin was worried that the staff who have been recruited at the time of the original proposition for an assets test may have been engaged in unproductive activities in recent months. It is true that by the end of June 1984 there were 1,011 such persons. Let me assure him that they have been used productively. Some of them have been lent temporarily to other departments to meet quite pressing needs there. The remainder have been employed on normal pension and benefit work in the Department of Social Security. So in this interim period we have been able to use those people who were recruited quite productively. There have been worries about houses and land and whether land can be subdivided. The point should be made that where land cannot be subdivided its net market value, in most cases, will be pretty low. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), and I think the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) , raised the problem of land which cannot be subdivided. It is true that the curtilage area set down is only five acres, but the remainder of the land will have very little net market value if it cannot be sold to be built on. So, again , people will not have to concern themselves overly much in that case. It is true that cars will be valued, but again, honourable members should remember that they will be assessed only on their net market value. This will have an impact only for pensioners whose assets, in the case of a married couple, pass or get close to $100,000 or, in the case of a single person, $70,000. The honourable member for Lyne waxed eloquent about the wickedness of the loan scheme, which is an offer made by the Government to help people in particular situations. He claimed that the asset would be sold up under the person. Normally there would be no recovery prior to the death of the person and, even then, at least $100,000 is guaranteed to remain in the estate. If one reads the details of the measure one will see that quite clearly in normal circumstances if a person takes out a loan the asset will not in any way be sold up under him. Normally the loan will be recoverable at death. Even then, the amount that can be recovered is limited by the fact that $100,000 in assets must be guaranteed to remain in the estate. I conclude by referring to the only thoughtful speech which came from the Opposition. It was the speech by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). The honourable member should be exempted from most of the remarks I made about the opportunistic stance, the rather hypocritical stance, that the Opposition has taken on this issue. Over the years the honourable member has devoted an enormous amount of thought to social security issues. I also welcomed his speech in some ways because his argument for a universal pension scheme with a private decision about fringe benefits to be purchased or sought is an exact parallel to Medicare which is a universal health scheme with extras being purchased through the private system. I hope we may be at least converting one thinking member of the Opposition because the fundamental principle of his pension proposals is identical with the universal health scheme that we have introduced as Medicare. I must say that many of his remarks, which are well worth discussing at length but this is not the opportunity to do so, were, of course, very much undermined by the actions of his Party when in office. At one stage, of course, he held a ministerial position in that Government but was not able to influence its thinking in those directions. He also recognised, though he did not proclaim it too loudly, that his proposals would involve a high tax system. It would involve the payment by the community for that universal pension provision. Obviously, I think he would recognise that if it were to be fair, that tax system that he was proposing to pay for the universal pension, would have to include both a wealth tax and income tax. I think I have dealt with most of the specific issues that have been raised. I have argued that the amendment moved by the Opposition is a nonsense and arises from a misunderstanding of the Bill and a failure to read it properly. I simply ask the Opposition to remove those parts of its amendment which are nonsensical. If it leaves behind any part of its amendment, I ask the House to reject it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I understand that the honourable member for Mackellar wishes to seek leave to withdraw the amendment that he moved to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. Mr Carlton —Yes, I do. With the permission of the House, I wish to say one or two sentences as to why I seek to do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not appropriate for the honourable member for Mackellar to make another contribution to the second reading debate. As he will appreciate , he has already spoken in the debate. If leave is granted, I will allow him enough leeway to explain what he is doing. Is leave granted? Dr Blewett —Certainly, leave is granted under the conditions that you have laid down, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is granted. I call the honourable member for Mackellar. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your assistance and also the gracious acquiescence of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table. The Opposition accepts the explanation by the Minister that where the Schedule states 'section 62-omit ''(3)''' that means omitting the number 3 and its brackets and not the sub-section that follows the number in brackets. Therefore, the Opposition seeks leave to withdraw the second reading amendment. Amendment-by leave-withdrawn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(7.05) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 1, page 1, line 6, omit 'and Assets Test' from the Short Title. (2) Pages 8-39, omit Part III (comprising clauses 33 to 64). I have listened very carefully to the speeches made by all the Government members on the assets test question. Of course, the effect of the amendments that I have moved would be to remove the assets test provision from this Bill. I have not been convinced, and the Opposition is not convinced, that the Government has an argument to put to the Committee which merits the continuation of this portion of the Bill. The title of the Bill mentions Budget measures and then talks about a separate provision for the assets test. So we regard the assets test as a separate tacked-on provision of the Bill and therefore we have moved for the removal of those provisions in the Committee stage. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in answer to a question from the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), said that an important reason for having the assets test was to prevent an unnecessary further blow-out in the level of expenditure on pensions. In the Budget, age and service pensions are said to cost $7,253m in 1984-85; in other words, $7.3 billion. What are we to save as a result of this operation? We are told that after the test begins to work we will save $45m a year. So we are saving $45m a year out of a total provision for age and service pensions of $7,253m. My mathematics, which I think are somewhat better than those of the Minister, following his response to the second reading debate, tell me that that represents 0.62 per cent of the total pensions bill. That means that if that money were distributed to the people who have pensions currently, and on the standard pension of $91.90 after 1 November, each pensioner at that level would receive an additional 57c as a result of this measure that is being introduced by the Government. The Minister said in his response to the second reading debate that the amount will increase substantially over the years. That would happen only if there were a very great extension of the number of people that are trapped by the assets test. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that this will not be intrusive and will affect only a very small number of people, and at the same time say that it will get very large increases in the amounts of money over the years. Those two statements are quite inconsistent. If it does say that now, it means that it has the intention of changing the rules over the years in order to push up the take from the assets test. But as it stands, and with all the information we have before us, it is said that in the first full working year after the test gets under way and for the immediate years, subsequently, it will save $45m in a total Budget provision of $7,253m or 0.62 per cent. But before anything is available to be paid out, we must first employ an army of public servants to administer the test. Before the scheme was worked out, the Minister informs us, 1,100 employees were taken on to the Public Service payroll . When it became clear that the scheme was a dud the question had to be asked: What was to be done with all of those public servants? Already in 1983-84 $25m has been spent, and that figure is contained in the Budget Papers. Now another $ 30m is estimated to be the net cost in 1984-85 of the introduction of this scheme. So a net total of $55m will be spent before we get any payout. We have already subtracted 88c a week from the standard pension before we reach the point where we might have a chance in the future of adding 57c a week to the standard pension. I want the Committee to understand fully what are the dimensions of the Government's argument because it has accused us of hypocrisy, scaremongering and all of these things. But most fundamentally of all, we are saying that because of the changes it has made to the recommendations by the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test, there is absolutely no heart to this proposal. This whole proposal continues in order to save the face of the Prime Minister. He has gone around telling the Business Council of Australia and all the various audiences to which he loves to speak that he will bring in social security measures which will be directed only towards the genuinely needy and that the assets test is an important part of those measures. The Government set up an inquiry under Professor Gruen to look into that matter . Professor Gruen raised the awkward point that age pensions did not present a major cost blowout problem. Other social security payments were far more important in the expansion of welfare costs than those to the aged. In other words, the Government had picked the wrong target. If the Government wanted to go ahead with an assets test, it had in all logic to include the family home. It had to do this for two main reasons: Firstly, to be fair to renters and, secondly, to stop avoidance by people adding to the value of their homes. These are two quite important points which were made by Professor Gruen. It was clear to everybody that it simply was not acceptable to the Australian people to have the family home included in an assets test. That was very clear to Government members, particularly to senators from New South Wales, in the New South Wales machine, who pressed the Cabinet and the Government to exclude the family home. Under this political pressure the Government removed it. In so doing, it removed the cornerstone of the whole scheme. The sensible thing to do, having removed the family home, would have been to forget the whole scheme, cut the losses at $25m and accept some egg on the face. But no, the Prime Minister's face was more important than the additional costs and was also more important than the grave inconvenience to those affected by the test. We are told by the Government that not all that many people will be affected by the test. The figure still goes into many, many thousands. Also, from what the Minister said in reply at the second reading stage, in future years it is clear that the Government intends to extend those intrusions to a very much larger group of people. Otherwise, the figures just do not make sense. One does not go through this whole exercise to get a lousy $45m. One simply does not do it. It just does not make any sense. The fact is that the measure is an intrusion into the lives of many elderly people. They have to declare the value of their household contents and personal effects if they are over $10,000. If they are valued reasonably without cheating, there are not many households-if their owners look at all the family heirlooms that have been left to them by granny and by great-granny and at the car and whatever else they have-where the value of goods would be less than $10,000. The sum of $10,000 is a comparatively small figure for modern Australia. Gifts have to be declared if they are over $2,000 for a single person or $4,000 for a couple. In other words, there is a form of gift tax being introduced. It is a great problem for farmers that only two hectares or five acres of so-called curtilage are to be included with the family home. The Minister has made it quite clear again in his reply on the second reading debate that the Government is introducing in this case a form of death duties. If a person wishes to keep his farm and as a result loses his pension because of the application of the assets test, it is possible for that person to borrow money against the assets of the farm. But that money is recovered on death. Of course, it is just not scaremongering to say that people in the farming communities regard this measure as a reintroduction of death duties in another form. For these reasons, which are quite substantial, the Opposition will vote against this measure. We simply do not understand why, other than the reason that the Prime Minister's face must be saved, this Government would put all those people through so many paces, with the appointment of 1,500 new public servants and an additional cost of $55m to collect a lousy extra $45m in a total Budget for pensions of $7,253m. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(7.15) —In opposing the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) I will be brief. There is very little to be answered in what the honourable member for Mackellar has said because he has obviously not listened at all to the arguments developed on this side of the House. He repeated the short term argument he developed in his speech in the second reading debate and a slight history of the problems which the Labor Government has had with the measure. Let me deal with the points made and also take up again the question the honourable member refused to face, that is the need for an equitable and fair system which we cannot have if we simply have an incomes test without some means of associated asset testing. First of all, the honourble member made a formal point that somehow we had tacked this measure on to our Budget Bills. I point out, firstly, that in all the seven years of the previous Government the social security legislation, introduced immediately after the Budget, was always in omnibus form, and included all of these social security measures related to the Budget. Secondly, he developed again his short term thesis relating to the immediate cost of establishment which we accept. The honourable member mentioned the fact that in the short term the returns from the measure in resources which could be diverted elsewhere would be fairly minimal. The honourable member then went on to another of his interesting mathematical theses. I point out that the reasons why we expect that there will be a growth in savings are twofold: Firstly, if the honourable member had done any study of the demographic predictions of recent years-I do not want to exaggerate it-he would have found that it is quite clear that the aged population will be a distinctly larger proportion of the community. So obviously in relation to the increase in the aged, even if the proportion affected remains the same, we would expect the logical fact that greater numbers would be involved. Secondly, the point has been made by numerous writers that the age group now coming into retirement includes people who built up assets in the boom period of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. This was the most prosperous period in this country's history and that affect will also flow through to the returns made on this system. Again, we do not rest the whole strength of our argument simply on the fact that this measure will enable us to save resources that can be devoted to those most in need. We do not believe that we can have an equitable needs-based system -the Opposition has never denied the need for a needs-based pension system- unless in fact we have both an assets test and an income test. I developed that argument both in my opening speech and again in replying to the second reading debate. I do not want to reiterate it but the Opposition has failed to respond at all to the necessity that if we are to have a needs-based pension system, which the Opposition constantly supported, to the income test we must ally an assets test. As I pointed out, numerous examples were given by Opposition members which, if analysed, showed how unfair was the operation of the present system. They talked about pensioners getting the pension and having an estate worth $500,000 or unsubdivided property worth $250,000. Yet there are many pensioners in the community with far fewer resources than that and who get no pension because of the operation of the income test. If we are to have a needs- based system it logically follows that if it is to be equitable and fair we must have an assets test as well as an income test. Finally, I agree with the honourable member that the blowout at the moment in welfare expenditure is particularly related to the recession that this economy has been passing through. Of course, the immediate temporary blowout has occurred in the unemployment benefit and related areas but already we are beginning to get savings in that area because of our economic success. I am confident that those temporary blowout problems will be overcome but what will not be overcome is the need to address the fact that in the next 20 or 30 years the aged population will be a much more significant proportion of the population , and it is these long term problems which this Government is addressing. I finish with a remark that I made at the end of the second reading debate. The reason why the honourable member's Party is in Opposition, and will remain in Opposition, is that it lived through its seven years in government by short term expediency. This Government is in office and will stay in office because it has the courage to tackle difficult questions in ways which will have long term benefits to this society. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Carlton's) be agreed to. The House divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. Lusher, S. A.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Spender, J. M.Fisher, P. S. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Hurford, C. J.Beddall, D. P. Jacobi, R.Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Everingham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells. D. McD.Hollis, C. West. S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett)-by leave-read a third time. Mr SPEAKER —It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That this House do now adjourn. Dr Blewett-Mr Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(7.31) —The purpose of the Loan Bill 1984 is to grant authority to the Government to fund the sizable deficit. I thought it would be desirable tonight to look at some of the factors which go into the funding of the deficit and the size of the deficit we are discussing. Sometimes around here it becomes fashionable to disregard deficits as things which really do not occur and are really not to be worried about. I am quite aware that the vast majority of Australians are really not concerned with government deficits. They are more concerned with their day-to-day economics. As a consequence of that, they have not really read, considered or given the first thought to the question of the deficit, what it is all about, how it is funded and the impact on the various citizens. It is regrettable that they do not, because the impact of this deficit , if it is allowed to continue at the pace it has gathered in the last couple of years, will have a dramatic effect on living standards in Australia, on the ability of the nation to fund its operations and on the ability of the nation to compete in the international scenario. Those honourable members who have been taking notice of what has been going on in New Zealand recently will see there a very sizable impact of deficit financing and unrestrained government spending. The Commonwealth Federal deficit for 1982-83 was $4.4 billion; in 1983-84 it was $7.9 billion; and in the Budget just brought down, the figure is $6.7 billion. I will have a wager with the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), who is at the table, that the Government will top that one with some ease. As a consequence of that, total deficits in the last three years are just on $20 billion. Going back over a couple of years, I find, certainly on the figures in front of me, that that $20 billion will cover more than 12 years precedents of deficits as a total. That deficit alone does not end the Government's requirement for money. We must add to that non-Budget borrowings. Because of the responsibility under the Loan Council, the borrowings of both State and local governments must also be added. To the figure for 1982-83 of $4.4 billion of Federal Government deficit is added a non-Budget deficit of $870m, plus State and local government borrowings of $6.1 billion, making an all-up total of $11. 44 billion. That is mere chicken-feed compared with 1983-84 when the total goes up to $14.8 billion. There is no estimate in the Treasury papers produced for the Budget this year of the figure for 1983-84. I just point out those figures because of what I regard as an alarming increase in the size. That is the size of the borrowing. Let us turn now to the interest paid as an item of the Government Budget. Yesterday, in the matter of public importance, I referred to the fact that 8.8 per cent of all expenditures in the Federal Budget are attributable to paying interest on government borrowings. Let us look at the cost of public sector borrowing. In 1982-83 the total cost was $6.2 billion. In 1983-84 it went up to $7.6 billion and an estimate for 1984-85, provided to me by a very well-known dealer in Commonwealth bonds on the Sydney market, is $9.6 billion which happens to equate roughly with some official figures in these papers. In more dramatic terms, it means that in three years of Budgets-1982-83, 1983-84, and 1984-85-there has been a 50 per cent increase in the amount of money spent on paying the interest on Commonwealth and State government debt. Of course, this sort of increase, if allowed to go unchecked, will eat up a considerable amount of what has been allowed to occur. I wish to refer to a statement given to me in relation to the increase in interest. This year the public debt interest will rise by 29 per cent to $5.6 billion and this year's $6 .75 billion deficit will add a further $3 billion to $4 billion a year to the interest charge. This is only for the Commonwealth. Under this the Commonwealth has a total Government-State public debt interest bill which is rising more than the cost of the Budget to $9.7 billion this year. So 67 per cent of all new borrowings is going simply towards paying the interest bill. That is a quite staggering fact and I hope that people take note of it. Last year's deficit could have been as low as $5 billion instead of the $8 billion if the Government had not decided in last year's Budget to add a further $1.2 billion to discretionary expenditure which it had overspent by a further $0 .5 billion. This extra spending more than wiped out the highly publicised savings the Government made so much mileage about while trying to prepare the responsible managers of the business community at last year's National Economic Summit Conference. To make matters worse, this year's Budget involves further discretionary spending of the order of $1.1 billion and revenue cuts of $1.3 billion which add a further $2.5 billion to the deficit. These decisions will have an impact on a full year basis of $1.7 billion on spending and $2.3 billion on revenue-a total of $4 billion impact on next year's deficit. I think that people ought to pay special regard to that fact. In relation to next year's deficit, I am indebted to the Treasury papers-I think the information is in Paper No. 2-which attempts to extend and extrapolate what next year's deficit will be, given the current programs-no additions, no changes and no cuts excepting the level of income growth that is built into the projections in it. The answer they come up with is $8.5 billion. Those are sizable figures. There is no reason to wonder that these matters must be causing concern. Just to add to that, I refer honourable members to the June report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economic surveys on Australia. These are prepared with the full sanction of the Treasury. On page 22 of the report the OECD produces a remarkable graph of public sector borrowing requirements over a 14-year period which clearly shows the very steep rise that occurred in government borrowings in the period 1973-74. Then there is an easing off quite markedly back to the recession of 1981-82 when it starts to climb again at a very sharp rate. That fits in totally with what I was saying before. How does all this fit in with what is happening in the economy, in the market- place? All these deficits have to be funded. These funds can be raised only through operations in the money market. We have heard so much about the fact that the economy is in such great shape; it has improved enormously. I concede that there is no doubt that the growth in gross domestic product last year was a remarkable result. But there were special factors behind that that we have all heard about-the breaking of the drought, international trade, the impact of the wages pause, and the fact that we had come from such a low base. The growth in GDP last year was measured at around 7 or 8 per cent and that was quite a remarkable achievement, but from a low base. The Government projects a 4 per cent growth for the coming year. That will be hard to get. I wish the Government well but I have my doubts as to whether that figure will be attained. Mr Ronald Edwards —But interest rates have fallen. Mr MOORE —I will come to interest rates in a moment because that involves another of the fallacious arguments the Australian Labor Party has not yet answered. In a period when we have had a substantial rise in gross domestic product, a substantial rise in Government revenue-I spoke about that in the matter of public importance yesterday-no real effort has been made in this Budget to impact on the size of the deficit. How on earth can any government come to grips with a deficit if in an economic upturn it is not prepared to take the bit? Such a government most assuredly will not come to grips with it in an economic downturn. There are projections for such a downturn in 1986-87. Clearly, there has been no attempt to alter the structural deficit; in fact, the deficit has increased. From there we look to how the market will swallow the funding of this deficit. I have read in the newspapers that funding the deficit this year will be no problem at all, and interest rates are going down. That is in the papers most days. But let us be realistic. What is occurring in the money market? In the last few weeks short term interest rates have fallen dramatically . Why? They have been well and truly slushed with Government money by courtesy of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Anybody who cares to look at the yield curves on Commonwealth bonds put out to tender over the last month will see a dramatic turn. In other words, short term interest rates have fallen and the curve has risen very steeply to where, in today's market-this afternoon-the long term rate for Government bonds is higher than at the time of the last tender. So the rates for bonds which the Government will be attempting to sell are at a higher level than when the last tender took place a month or so ago. What does that mean? It means there is a concern within the Australian money market that this Budget is not all that it might be, that the opportunities to redress some of the structural problems in it have been thrown out the window to meet short term electoral expediency. We have been given short term tax cuts but taxes will be dragged up through our old mate, fiscal creep, next year. The money market has seen no attempt to reduce the size of the deficit and it has looked through the Treasury papers and come up with a projected deficit for next year of $8.5 billion. It has then added that figure to the deficits of the last three years, about which I have spoken. It recognises the problems of funding the deficit, not only in this period when there is no demand in the corporate sector for substantial funds so that the crowding out effect of government interest rates will not exist in the short term, but also in the longer term. Mr Ronald Edwards —But you did not float the dollar either; that is part of the problem. Mr MOORE —I will come to that in a moment, if the honourable member wishes to extend his argument, because I can take him into the way in which the Government has attempted to offload certain borrowing requirements on to the foreign markets. That is demonstrated in the figures available, and I am glad to see that the honourable member accepts that point. Let me go to the way in which the Government is now attempting to engineer interest rates in exactly the same way as it engineered the Budget in terms of tax cuts. By pouring money on to the short term money market, it is attempting to buckle the system so that between now and Christmas we will have a fall in housing loan interest rates by artificial manipulation through the Reserve Bank system. That is precisely what is going on today and that is reflected in the yield curve. That is what I forecast we will see more of in the September quarter, leading into the December quarter. All of those involved in corporate funding or who are paying provisional tax ought to be aware that this will have a substantial effect on interest rates in the June quarter. When the aggregates are moving in the way in which they are today there will certainly be a substantial push in that area in the June quarter, the late payment quarter. The other point I should make is that in the age of information when truth will out it is probably worth pointing out that today we are paying in real terms higher interest rates than ever. While the consumer price index has fallen to its current rate-that is a commendable performance by the Government even though part of it is manufactured, as were the tax cuts and as is the present attempt to decrease interest rates-interest rates are still substantially above the CPI figure. As a consequence, in real terms people are paying far more for money now than they were two years ago in the inflationary period. As a consequence of that, corporate investors-indeed, private investors-have to look at their real profit from their investments at these levels. That will certainly inhibit some areas of public investment in the future. As a couple of my colleagues wish to speak in this debate, I conclude my comments at this point. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(7.47) —The purpose of the Loan Bill is to enable the financing of the prospective 1984-85 Budget deficit. The Bill is the inevitable product of this year's budgeted profligacy by a government which has already broken all records for extravagance. Deficits and the necessary consequential borrowings enable Commonwealth governments to impose an ideal tax. It is ideal for a variety of reasons. Of course, the main reason is that very few people perceive the consequence of deficit budgeting as a tax. An almost universal cargo cult mentality leaves individuals with little or no understanding of government revenues and spending, and seemingly no one in politics-with the exception of my colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore)-is willing or able to explain how deficit financing over long periods can possibly be economically sound. This lack of public perception stems not just from duplicitous promises of politicians and political parties. The Loan Bill is also a product of the experience of the 1970s when inflationary expectations led economists and others to believe that levels of debt engendered by successive years of deficit spending would be manageable even when they were in fact untenable for lack of economic growth. While that may have been the case during the 1970s, it is certainly no longer so. What is obviously not apparent to this slow-witted Government is that in times of low inflationary expectations at home and abroad, both accumulated deficits and present and future deficit spending are far from manageable in any acceptable sense. Even the followers of John Maynard Keynes appear to have forgotten, or choose to ignore, his dictum that deficit spending may be warranted in times of low or negative economic growth but deficits must be offset and wiped out by surpluses when economic circumstances are favourable. It must be obvious even to this Government that the growth of deficit spending cannot continue. It effectively imposes an invisible tax. Sooner or later there has to be a realisation that deficit financed public spending is not manna from heaven; it is not a benefit for which taxpayers do not have to pay and it is most certainly not the proverbial free lunch. As an invisible tax, which is also a tax on future taxpayers, not those who necessarily get the benefits, no one can predict who in the future will have to bear the burden of past accumulated deficits. Who pays for these borrowings eventually will depend upon a variety of circumstances and measures yet to be decided, including the way total deficits are financed. Therefore, it is impossible to know ahead of time who is going to be hurt. It is impossible to know who is going to pick up the tab or the reasons why they must, as they surely must. It will be equally difficult to specify, even with the benefit of hindsight, whether the taxes to be paid to finance deficit inspired borrowing are attributable to inflation or, perhaps, the destruction of jobs by crowding out private productive investment. The end result will inevitably be that the cost of deficit financed increases in government spending will be shared by a large number of taxpayers who have no way of knowing that 7 or 8 per cent, or ultimately 15 per cent, who knows, of their taxes are being appropriated to finance the almost uninterrupted profligacy of successive Australian governments. It will be absolutely impossible for taxpayers to trace the unpleasant consequences of inflation and slow growth to the deficit and to see it as a tax. Invisible tax, of which the unlegislated deficit tax is the most conspicuous example, helps to highlight how a country such as Australia ends up sacrificing more than 43 per cent of its national income to the greed of governments and bureaucrats. In just two years of profligate socialist administration this Government will have plunged the nation into further debt by spending up to $20 billion more than it is able to raise, the interest on which must be paid by future generations of taxpayers and no chance of repaying any of that debt in the foreseeable future. Despite record growth last financial year with the ensuing once-off benefit to revenue, this Government sees a need to buy votes at an unnecessary early election, rather than do what economic sanity demands in light of last year's extraordinary but unlikely to be repeated economic growth. This blatant attempt to bribe the Australian electorate clearly illustrates one thing, and that is that the Australian Labor Party does not believe the polls which suggest its popularity is such that it will be returned at the next premature election. If it were confident it would not be necessary to put the country further into hock by some $6.7 billion this year. Remember the projected deficit for this financial year is reliant on the diciest of assumptions, as the Budget Papers reveal. Predictions are based on the imperative that there can be no improvement and that all the risk is downside, that is, the Budget deficit can only blow out and not contract. If a deficit of these dimensions is warranted after a year of record economic growth, in a year where continued growth prospects are said to be sound, there must be very grave doubts about what will happen in ensuing years under a socialist government in Canberra. This year the Government wants us to believe that a deficit equivalent to 10.5 per cent of outlays is acceptable; and remember that this is in times of good economic growth and prospects, according to the Government. Given a similar growth in Commonwealth outgoings, and a deficit equivalent to 10.5 per cent on those outlays, total outlays by the Commonwealth would reach a staggering $117 billion in 1990, with an accompanying deficit in that year of $12.3 billion. Applying criteria which are apparently acceptable to this Government this year, the growth of the Commonwealth Government's deficits and borrowings over the ensuing five years would total a further $49 billion. That is the sort of future we can expect if the unspeakable should happen and the nation has to suffer the economic consequences of another term under a socialist government. Under the Hawke socialists nothing illustrates the Government's fiscal irresponsibility more than the ballooning total indebtedness of Australia. The Reserve Bank of Australia, in its March bulletin, pointed out that gross indebtedness of the public sector to other sectors, including the overseas sector, would be $75 billion at the beginning of last July. That estimate is more or less borne out by total financing transactions also published by the Reserve Bank, implying a total indebtedness of between $75 billion and $80 billion. All indicators, including published information on public sector borrowing requirements, PSBRs, confirm total national indebtedness of up to $80 billion. All three sets of information confirm that the increase since the Hawke socialists came to power is more than the total debt accumulated during the first 73 years after Federation. The national debt is now the equivalent of something like 43 per cent of annual gross domestic product, GDP, and is destined to rise again this year. The Reserve Bank is of the opinion, and there is no reason to doubt it, that the ratio of national debt to GDP will keep rising unless the PSBR is reduced by at least one-third. The simple truth is that this country is in debt to the tune of $4,700 for every man, woman and child, or $11,500 for each employed Australian. The interest on this colossal debt came to more than $9 billion last financial year, more than $550 for every man, woman and child or nearly $1,400 for each employed person. Interest alone equals something like one-third of the total amount that Australians paid last year in personal income tax. There is no reason to believe that this Government or any future socialist government has any intention of reducing the size of either Budget outlays as a proportion of GDP or reining in the Budget deficit; quite the contrary. All the indications are that both will move the other way and commit Australia to a continuing high structural deficit and future high public sector borrowing requirements. While there will be fluctuations, the sort of financial regime inflicted on the country by this Government will inevitably lead to interest rates remaining high. Borrowers or potential borrowers face a substantial premium at the moment, given the widening gap between inflation and the going rates of interest. That is good for lenders but not so good for borrowers. Indeed this Government appears to have a vested interest in keeping interest rates high. On top of that, its foreign investment guidelines discourage the ingress of foreign equity capital into this country. The consequence of that for private sector investment is another large dose of uncertainty. Because Australian sellers of equity have a limited market in which to sell, strict application of Foreign Investment Review Board guidelines leaves little room in which to move. Moreover, application of the guidelines entrenches an escalating deficit on current accounts of the balance of payments and perpetuates the need for copious foreign borrowings by private and, increasingly, public entities. With the current debt servicing level in Australia at a record high and growing wildly under this Government, and with dismal export prospects for commodities other than those under contracts written in United States dollars, there are reasons for real concern. Over time, with a large and growing current account deficit and with Australia's trade prospects extremely doubtful, our debt servicing burden will create grave difficulties. Capital hungry Australian enterprises have to resort to borrowing after governments have made their inroads into available funds within Australia. Many of those borrowings will have to be from overseas. If Australian interest rates are not sufficiently high to meet competition from the United States alternative it is reasonable to expect that large chunks of foreign loan money will be repatriated and reinvested in the more attractive American market. The implications for that on Australia's increasing deficit on current account or the balance of payments would be frightening. Despite this Government's rhetoric, which propounds a lowering of interest rates in Australia , it is unlikely that this Government is serious. As with so much claimed by this Government, it has no intention of attaining its rhetorical goal of lower interest rates in Australia, particularly real interest rates after taking inflation into account. No better evidence of this Government's intention exists than this Bill. The need for the Hawke Government to borrow and therefore the need for this Bill quite simply stems from its deliberate act of spending more in the year to 30 June 1985 than it is prepared to raise by way of revenue. It did the same last year to the tune of nearly $9 billion. This year it will overspend by more than $6.7 billion. Next year, if it is sensible enough to not call a premature election, who knows? The sky is the limit with this mob. The borrowings to be authorised by this Bill simply put this country in hock and mortgage its future. It will be our children who will be left to pick up the bill. It is the product of profligacy, as I said when I started this speech, and of course there is no end to that profligacy in sight. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(8.03) —I would like to briefly bring to the attention of the Parliament tonight a matter concerning the Siding Springs observatory at Coonabarabran and the Australian National University which administers the project in that region. From advice received, this university is attempting to control land usage within an area of 15 hectares radius of the observatory and restricting conversion of leasehold property to freehold title. This procedure, if successful, will mean that 70,000 hectares will be involved covering 180 ratepayers, with 100 full time farmers producing wheat, oats, barley, sheep and cattle. Farmers who have been on the land for generations could find themselves with problems with land and financially. Their whole livelihoods could be at stake. The finances of the shire would be seriously affected and the service town of Coonabarabran, which is the business centre, would also receive a serious setback in trade. The members of the local branch of the Livestock and Grain Producers Association who are all farmers, are very concerned at this proposed action and are in complete opposition to such a plan. A protest meeting was held in the Coonabarabran Bowling Club by the LGPA on the evening of Thursday, 23 August, and it was attended by over 200 citizens. Dr Barry Newell from the Australian National University, Ms Katrina Proust representing the Anglo-Australian Observatory and Dr John Dawe representing the Schmidt Telescope Unit, were in attendance to answer the allegations as outlined. Dr Newell denied all aspects, stating that the major problem was caused by excess light. He also denied any knowledge of land transfer hold-ups until three letters were produced from the floor, although there are in reality at least seven properties held up. It was felt to be a direct attempt by Dr Newell to cover the real issue, as evidence produced by the Shire President, Councillor John Knight, showed that there had been negotiations over the past 12 months. It seems to me that the ANU is keen to take over land that has achieved good agricultural results and made a great contribution to the economy of Australia. No doubt these other projects are important, but so are farmers and agricultural production. I ask the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) to investigate immediately the situation and to let the Parliament and the people affected know what is proposed and what stage has been reached. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(8.05) —It occurred to me that when I retire from this House I would like a job with power and prestige but carrying none of the tedium imposed by responsibility. To this end I have considered becoming a senator, a State politician, or perhaps a journalist. I feel that in Australia today there must be a market for simple, honest and factual journalism. I am not sure where this market would be-certainly not in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or any of our major dailies, judging by the reporting of recent events. I draw the attention of the House to the recent sinking in the North Sea of the French cargo ship Mon Louise with its cargo which included 350 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride. Under my novel approach, which as I have said would require simple accuracy, honesty and competence, the headlines would have read: 'Minor collision in the North Sea: No damage'. The story would then go on to say how a cargo of uranium hexafluoride, a substance which at room temperature or the temperature of the North Sea is a solid material and only marginally radioactive, was part of a cargo on a French ship which sunk after colliding with a car ferry. The article would probably indicate to the people that the hexafluoride was on its way to Russia to be enriched under a long standing contract which Europe has with the Russians. It was going to Russia because the Americans had abused the monopoly which they once had but which they lost to the Russians on a purely competitive basis. The article would point out that the Russian trading company Techsnab Export was very highly regarded for its scrupulous respecting of schedules, quality and contractual details; that its commercial record was faultless; that it processed entirely as a toll contractor; and that there had never been any suggestion that any material had been misappropriated. Because as a journalist I would be aware that the public would be concerned about this matter, I would be at pains to point out to them that there were no risks as the uranium hexafluoride was contained in steel pressure vessels and was unlikely to come into contact with water in any case. I would point out that in the unlikely event that it did come into contact with water there would be a violent local reaction which would probably be contained within the steel vessel and would lead to the production of uranyldifluoride and an unpleasant and corrosive acid, hydrofluoric acid. This is a particularly nasty acid used extensively in the goldfields as it attacks silicone. Where I come from it is fairly common practice if one has a gold nugget to clean it by putting it into some hydrofluoric acid and boiling it. It is not good to inhale the vapour because that is corrosive. The hydrofluoride which is given off as a gas is dangerous, but it is worth pointing out that hundreds and hundreds of tonnes of this stuff are carted across Europe every day in road tankers as it is one of the main constituents of refrigerant gases. I would point out that the hydrofluoric acid formed around the container in the event of a large leak could be dangerous for anyone working in the area and that it may be safer therefore to leave it in situ where it would be diluted by the infinite mass of sea water. As a responsible journalist, I would also point out that one of the containers carried uranium hexafluoride from a reprocessing operation and that traces-traces, mind you-of a highly radioactive waste were included. However, they were only traces and did not exceed the limits set for the type 48Y container used in the transhipment and therefore posed no threat to society either. Because I felt that the public, faced with all these facts, would be capable of making a rational decision, I would point out to them that the potential danger from the cargo of this ship pales into insignificance compared with oil tankers or ships carrying cargoes of natural gas. Although I believe the public want to hear the facts, that is obviously not the view of the ABC or the newspapers of Australia, so I would obviously have to start my own newspaper if I wanted a job. On receipt of this information I could look forward to substantial injections of campaign funds from Mr Murdoch and others, as I am sure they would like to see me safely re-elected to this House, isolated from the opportunity to influence public opinion in this country. In conclusion, I thank the New Scientist of 30 August, the British Atomic Energy Commission, personal contacts in Electricity de France and the Atomic Industrial Forum of the United States of America for their readiness to discuss this issue with me, thus giving me the opportunity to cross-reference it and so ascertain and guarantee its accuracy. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 8.10 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed works be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Augmentation of taxiway system, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, New South Wales. Construction of new Commonwealth offices at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, New South Wales. 132 kV subtransmission development, Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory. Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, government business take precedence of general business on each day of sitting until the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1984-85 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1984-85 have passed all stages in the House. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1136) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What consultants have been engaged to work for the Minister or the Minister 's Department since 1 April 1983. (2) What is the name of each consultant, or if a company or partnership, the name of the corporation or partnership. (3) For how long was each consultant engaged. (4) What fee is to be or has been paid to each consultant. (5) What special background and experience does each consultant possess to enable the consultant to undertake the engagement. (6) Was the merit principle applied in each case; if so, in what manner. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: CONSULTANTS COMMENCING WORK FROM APRIL 1983 TO MARCH 1984 Question Question No. 3 No. 4 Operational Fee Special background Consultant period $ and experience Merit principal (1) Australian National University 4.5.83 to 30.6.84 39,500 Expertise in subject area and good understanding of study problem. All required skills available. Public Service Board Tenders called (2) Urban and Environmental Planning Group 31.5.83 to 21.12.83 19,345 Good understanding of study problem. Experience with similar studies and good credibility with migrant groups. Public Service Board Tenders called (3) Middle East Research and Information Association 5.11.83 to 21.5.84 28,163 Good knowledge of and understanding of cultural issues. Good community relations with target group. Good understanding of study procedures and management. Public Service Board Tenders called (4) University of Wollongong-Centre for Multicultural Studies 18.10.83 to 9.11.83 450 Expertise in subject area. Novel approach to study program. On the site of the study. Public Service Board approval unnecessary Small pilot study only (5) University of Wollongong-Centre for Multicultural Studies 13.2.84 to 30.11.84 25,000 Practical and cost efficient solutions to study problem. Good credibility with target population. Public Service Board Tenders called (6) Institute of Family Studies 29.9.83 to 13.3.84 3,514 Expertise with existing data. Public Service Board approval (7) Ecumenical Migration Centre 16.6.83 to 12.7.83 850 Well established resources to conduct the project. Expertise with resources available. Public Service Board approval unnecessary Small project only (8) Reark Research P/L 20.3.84 to 31.5.84 33,740 All necessary resources available. Expertise in surveys. Good quality controls. Public Service Board Tenders called (9) Australian Sales Research Bureau 10.2.84 to 18.5.84 26,333 Expertise in surveys. Public Service Board Tenders called (10) Dr Arthur Pascoe 29.2.84 to 29.6.84 12,568 Good credibility with target group. Excellent understanding of study problem. Public Service Board Tenders called (11) University of Queensland- Uniquest Limited 27.3.84 to 29.6.84 15,000 Special skills and experience relevant to study problem. Public Service Board Tenders called (12) Victoria College 21.4.83 to 30.6.85 89,000 Project leaders highly qualified and experienced in the relevant field. Similar projects undertaken previously-results of a high standard. Excellent technical facilities available. Public Service Board Tenders called (13) Mr Don Phillips 26.5.83 to 28.6.83 1,075 Wide experience in the field of teaching English as a second language and the training of teachers in this field. Public Service Board approval (14) Urban and Environmental Planning Group 12.3.84 to 8.6.84 30,000 Has office resources in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. Has done similar work for private sector. Has prepared a review of the Migrant Resource Centres for the Department and has a good knowledge of the settlement process. Team lead by a social and an economic researcher. Has considerable contact in industry. Public Service Board approval (15) J. J. Smolicz Financial year 1983-84 13,200 Highly qualified in the field of sociology and multicultural education. Public Service Board approval (16) MSJ Keys Young Planners Pty Ltd October 1983 to January 1984 24,845.67 Experience in social research surveys; previous successful consultancies for Government. Public Service Board approval (17) University of Melbourne- Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research-Ian Manning in association with P. J. Lloyd, J. O. N. Perkins and Philip Williams October to December 1983 6,863 Prestigious Institute with reputation for analysis of the kind sought by the Department at short notice. Public Service Board approval (18) Australian National University- Mr R. Albon and Dr G. Fane January 1984 600 Senior economists with the Australian National University, Department of Economics. Public Service Board approval (19) Tertiary Institutions Service Centre, Western Australia- Mr B. J. Cosgrove, Executive Officer October 1983 350 All necessary resources available to trace overseas students applications and enrolments. Public Service Board approval (20) Mrs Mary Hodgkin, Mosman Park, Western Australia December 1983 to February 1984 200 Author and researcher on Asian students in Australia. Public Service Board approval (21) Dr J. A. Peterson, Monash University February 1984 865.95 Author and researcher with a keen interest in the subject area. Public Service Board approval (22) Dr S. Kaldor, University of Western Australia December 1983 to January 1984 995 Author is an expert in English language teaching. Public Service Board approval (23) Dr E. Burke, Dr D. Ingram, Darwin Community College; Dr A. Chamberlain, formerly Director, Institute of Language, N.S.W. University; Dr S. Kaldor, W.A. University; Dr R. Kelly, Flinders University; Dr D. Phillips, Canberra CAE; Dr T . Quinn, Director, Horwood Language Centre, Melbourne University 31 January 1984 3,630 Academics with keen interest in the subject area. Public Service Board approval (24) SCP Pty Ltd Financial year 1983-84 95,000 (about) Specialist in IBM system software. Public Service Board approval (25) Koranya D.B.I. Pty Ltd Intermittently throughout the financial year 1983-84 125,000 (about) Specialist in Data Base Management System. Public Service Board approval (26) Computer People 20 days 7,000 A.D.P. Strategic Planning. Public Service Board approval (27) Logica Pty Ltd Intermittently throughout full year 42,000 (about) General A.D.P. investigation and design studies. Public Service Board approval (28) CSA Pty Ltd - 70,000 (about) Computer modelling. Public Service Board approval (29) D.P.S.S. Pty Ltd 2 weeks 1,250 Specialist in Benchmark Testing Public Service Board approval (30) Trevor Housley Associates Pty Ltd January 1984 to April 1984 30,000 (about) Communications, strategic Planning and Design. Public Service Board approval (31) SPL Pty Ltd Throughout full year 140,000 (about) Specialist in the development of A.D.P. systems in an ASABAS environment. Public Service Board approval (32) I.D.A.P.S. People Pty Ltd January 1984 to June 1984 32,000 (about) A.D.P. Project Management Public Service Board approval (33) Management Solutions Pty Ltd Throughout full year 85,000 (about) Specialist in the development of A.D.P. systems in an ADABAS environment (The Department's Data Base Management System). Public Service Board approval (34) Nicholas Clark and Associates, Canberra and Tele-Communications Consultants Pty Ltd, Melbourne April 1983 to July 1983 50,000 Good background in Economic and Social Planning together with an impressive record of engineering communications Public Service Board approval (35) Urban and Environmental Planning Group May 1983 to November 1983 19,500 Good understanding of study problem. Experience with similar studies. Public Service Board approval (36) Peat, Marwick Mitchell Services 3-9 November 1983 980 Wide range of experience in newspaper circulation audits. Public Service Board Tenders called (Question No. 1320) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Following its establishment in March 1983 my Department set up an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Committee with the following aims: (i) to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures in the areas of recruitment and selection, supervision, staff development and personnel and employment conditions are designed and implemented to provide optimal opportunities for disadvantaged groups, in particular women, Aboriginals, disabled people and people of ethnic origin; (ii) to ensure that the Department's commitment to equal employment opportunity principles is stressed in recruitment advertising, promotional material, and other activities which reflect on the image of the Department; (iii) to ensure that Departmental and comparative workforce data collection and analysis allows comprehensive assessment of EEO achievements within the Department; (iv) to ensure that these objectives are an automatic and integral part of all operations of the Department; (v) to create specific opportunities for individuals from disadvantaged groups to enter the Department in the first instance and to increase their career development opportunities within the Department; (vi) to promote awareness of and commitment to, EEO principles throughout the Department. (b) Assessments for appointment, promotion and staff development are made in accordance with the requirements of the Public Service Act and EEO and other guidelines issued by the Public Service Board. (c) Statistics are maintained to reveal changing staff profiles and the involvement of staff from the four disadvantaged groups in development activities. The progress of individuals who receive specific assistance under EEO schemes is monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of such assistance. The Department's Equal Employment Opportunity Committee monitors progress towards achievement of aims on a regular basis. (d) Staff associations are represented on the Department's EEO Committee. In addition, draft policy documents to be considered by the EEO Committee are distributed to staff for consideration and comment. General EEO initiatives are also discussed at the regular meetings between Departmental management and staff associations. (e) My Department maintains regular contact with the Public Service Board's Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau in developing and carrying out its programs. (f) My Department's EEO Committee is chaired by the Department Head and its activities have a very high priority in terms of their call on senior management time. (2) Due to the nature of the tasks involved it is not possible to provide expenditure estimates without substantial commitment of resources. (Question No. 1384) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in the Australian Financial Review on 4 April 1984 that there was likely to be a substantial decrease in payments of the steel bounty; if so, is he able to say whether this report is correct. (2) If so, what saving is expected in 1983-84. (3) Will part of that saving be re-directed to provide a bounty for domestic harvesters to replace the current tariff on imported harvesters. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Under the Steel Industry Plan, which commenced on 1 January 1984, the Commonwealth is providing bounty assistance on the production and domestic sale of certain steel products. The bounties operate on a sliding scale providing for maximum assistance at low production levels with assistance scaling down as production reaches higher levels. The bounty payments have an annual ceiling of $71.6 million, which will be adjusted annually in accordance with movements in steel prices under the Plan. Actual payments of bounty under the Steel Industry Plan totalled $8.94 million in 1983-84, made up of $1.52 million under the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products ) Act 1983 and $7.42 million under the Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act 1983. While no maximum payment was specified for the period 1 January to 30 June 1984, the bounty payments which were made were considerably less than half of the full year maximum bounty. (3) The Government's decision not to change the form of assistance for the local production of grain harvesters from a tariff to a bounty was not made on the basis of availability of funds to finance a bounty scheme. The decision was made following a public inquiry and report by the Industries Assistance Commission. The Commission was unable to conclude that there would be any significant improvements in resource use from a change to a bounty. Accordingly the Commission recommended no change in the form of assistance. Following consideration of the Commission's report and submissions from representatives of graingrowers and importers of grain harvesters the Government decided to accept the Commission's recommendation to retain the duty of 15 per cent on imported harvesters. (Question No. 1443) Mr Maher asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 1984: When will a decision be made in relation to the continuation or otherwise of the bank debits tax on trading accounts in relation to accounts held by (a) citizens and (b) school parent organisations. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The decisions taken by the Government as a result of a review of the bank account debits tax were announced in my Budget Speech and further details were provided in a Press statement issued on 22 August 1984. In its deliberations the Government recognised that certain aspects of the tax including the question of its continuation might more appropriately be considered following the report by the working party established by the 1983 Premiers' Conference to examine the distribution of taxing powers between the Commonwealth and the States. Pending the outcome of that inquiry, the Government confined its examination to exemptions from the tax. The Government decided to permit three additional exemptions from the tax. One of the new exemptions will apply to school parents and citizens' associations and similar organisations so as to exempt them from the tax from the first day of the month following the Royal Assent to the amending legislation. (Question No. 1627) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Nil. (2) No. (Question No. 1654) Mr Milton asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) Has the Commissioner of Taxation investigated an offshore tax minimisation plan operated by, or in any way related to, a company, or companies, directed by a Mr Basil de Jong. (2) If so, have P.I.B. Investments Pty Ltd, Basilthon Constructions, Basilthon Nominees Pty Ltd, Basilthon Finances Pty Ltd, Basilthon Unit Trust and Aquaglen Pty Ltd been involved in this tax minimisation plan. (3) Did this tax minimisation plan involve claims by any parties for deductions on the grounds of donations to a charity or charities for the intellectually handicapped; if so, what is the name of the charity or charities, and for which years were deductions claimed. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The secrecy provisions in the income tax law prohibit the Commissioner of Taxation from divulging information about the taxation affairs of particular taxpayers. I am therefore unable to answer the honourable member's questions.